Sitting of 1 November 1994

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

  HUMBER BRIDGE BILL [Lords]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That the Promoters of the Humber Bridge Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
  That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first and shall be ordered to be read a second time;
  That the Petitions against the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
  That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
  That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words 'under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)' were omitted;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be considered a Second time on Tuesday 8 November.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION

    Nursery Education
    Sir Thomas Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement about nursery education.
    The Secretary of State for Education (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): I am implementing the Prime Minister's commitment to provide, over time, good quality pre-school places for all four-year-olds whose parents wish to take them up.
    Sir Thomas Arnold: What specific steps have been taken to implement that excellent new initiative?
    Mrs. Shephard: I have appointed a task force to take the work forward and to consult widely. I shall welcome ideas and information from all sectors, and already the Council of Local Education Authorities and the Pre-School Playgroups Association have provided information. My ministerial colleagues have also met with a number of groups.
    Mr. Spearing: In view of the statement that the Secretary of State has just made, why do the Government continue to block the Nursery Education (Assessment of Needs) Bill, which I introduced in February but which has been blocked on at least 12 occasions since? It would place a duty on local education authorities to assess the need for nursery education, as introduced by an all-party Government in 1944 under R.A. Butler. Is not that needed now, and will the right hon. Lady please reconsider her decision?
    Mrs. Shephard: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are looking at a range of options for expansion, and a sound basis for that expansion will be provided by what already exists on the ground. A great deal of thought and work has gone into nursery provision, and we shall take account of the work that has been done by the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues.
    Sir Malcolm Thornton: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this initiative and draw her attention to one of the recommendations that the Education Select Committee makes in its excellent report on provision for under-fives concerning the need to ensure an appropriate curriculum for nursery education, as a mere extension downwards of the primary curriculum is far from sufficient?
    Mrs. Shephard: The objective will be to provide education for the early years, and not child minding. The Office for Standards in Education will be asked to draw up educational criteria.
    Mr. Blunkett: I congratulate the Secretary of State for Education on her appointment at the end of July, and I look forward to crossing ideological swords with her. How much will the initiative cost, and where will the money come from?
    Mrs. Shephard: May I, in turn, congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment? I can reassure him that we are looking at a range of options for expansion, but

    1333
    we have not made a decision yet. The need for additional funding will be determined as part of the development of the policy, but it is new provision and there will be new money.

    Books and Equipment
    Mr. Knapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what has been the change in spending on books and equipment for schools since 1979.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Robin Squire): Spending on books and equipment in local education authority maintained schools in England increased by 28 per cent. in real terms between 1979–80 and 1992–93, the latest year for which figures are available. On a per-pupil basis, spending has increased by 56 per cent. in real terms over the same period. Equivalent information is not available for grant-maintained or independent schools.
    Mr. Knapman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. Will he compare the spending of Gloucestershire with that of the remainder of the country? Might any special additional funding be made available for the provision of books and equipment?
    Mr. Squire: I can confirm that, broadly speaking, Gloucestershire's spending on books and equipment is in line with the average for England. On a cash basis, the figures for Gloucestershire LEA are £63 per pupil in 1991–92 and £76 per pupil in 1992–93; the all-England figures are £ per pupil in 1991–92, increasing to £75 per pupil in 1992–93.
    On my hon. Friend's second question, there is in addition a fairly substantial grant for education, support and training worth approximately £79 million in the current year.
    Ms Estelle Morris: Is the real question not what equipment schools have compared with 15 years ago but whether they are properly equipped to teach children to succeed and survive in the next century? Is the Minister aware that many schools still have to rely on parental contributions for essential items of education? Is he happy that how well a school is equipped should in part depend on the wealth of the parents whose children it serves?
    Mr. Squire: The hon. Lady overlooks the fact that under the revolution inspired by local management of schools, let alone by grant-maintained schools, governing bodies can, and do, take such decisions themselves on the basis of the priorities as they see them for their school. As for her comment about voluntary activity, long may the well-established tradition continue in Britain whereby parents and friends of a school who wish to do so can contribute further to assist its development.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: Bearing in mind that local management of schools is acknowledged in my constituency and elsewhere as a total success, can my hon. Friend recall what Opposition Members said about it when it was introduced by the Government?
    Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. As most of us will remember, most of the initiatives introduced by the Government in the past 10 years have been opposed by the Opposition, only in most cases for Opposition Members shamefacedly to admit eventually that, yes, they worked and that they will support them.

    Nursery Education
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Education which countries of the European Union have a higher percentage of under-fives in nursery education than Britain.
    The Minister of State, Department of Education (Mr. Eric Forth): The United Kingdom is one of only three countries in the European Union where universal state education starts at the age of five; elsewhere, it is at the age of six or even seven. Although data exist for participation rates in most of the countries of the European Union, they do not compare like with like because they do not, for example, clearly distinguish between education and child care, or take account of whether parents are required to contribute towards the cost.
    Mr. Banks: I was asking the Minister about under-fives, not over-fives. I congratulate him on his selective use of statistics—Disraeli would have been greatly impressed. If the French can manage to have 100 per cent. of three to four-year-olds in education and the Belgians can manage 94 per cent., should not we be able to achieve somewhat more than 50 per cent. of under-fives in education? Can the Minister bring himself to congratulate the London borough of Newham, which has the highest percentage of under-fives in nursery classes in the country? The most deprived local authority has achieved that. Will the Minister say something nice about Newham?
    Hon. Members: Ah.
    Mr. Forth: I suppose it is difficult to praise a constituency that returns the hon. Gentleman, but I might try on one of my better days. On this occasion, the hon. Gentleman is being uncharacteristically simplistic. It is surely not good enough to look at a percentage provision. We should look at the quality and effectiveness of the provision. There is no point in trading futile statistics. The fact that the hon. Gentleman claims that there is a certain provision in France says nothing about its nature, its quality or how much of it is paid for by the parents or the taxpayer.
    We shall examine such matters, which will inform the review that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has initiated. When we make our proposals, they will take fully into account best practice in other countries and, indeed, in local education authorities. That will inform the review and the policies that we shall eventually place before the House.
    Mr. Pawsey: Does my hon. Friend agree that the form of nursery education that may work in Lisbon or Athens need not necessarily be the right form of education in Newham or even Warwickshire? What role does my hon. Friend envisage that the Pre-School Playgroups Association will play in the provision of nursery education in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We want, and already encourage, all those involved in pre-five provision to come to us with their thoughts and ideas. We want to take them fully into account and ensure that, whatever regime is eventually proposed, it will take full account of diversity of provision and the maximum

    1335
    parental choice, with a guarantee of quality so that we can ensure that pre-five education is of the best throughout the country. That will be our objective.
    Mr. Steinberg: I am bewildered by the Minister's change in attitude to nursery provision. Why has he suddenly become an advocate of nursery provision when previously, time after time, he refused to acknowledge its benefits? Has he now seen the educational grounds for such provision, or has he seen that its introduction is a political necessity?
    Mr. Forth: There is no contradiction or difficulty whatever here. The Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have made it clear that we want to develop quality pre-school provision for under-fives. That is our objective and we want to ensure that what we do is carefully considered, properly based and properly delivered. Among other things, my objection has always been to some of the more half-baked and superficial ideas that have come from the Opposition, not least from the hon. Gentleman.

    Grant-maintained Schools
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many pupils are now being educated in self-governing grant-maintained schools; and what was the same figure one year ago.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many schools have opted for grant-maintained status in the last year; and what was the figure in the previous year.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: About 620,000 pupils are now being educated in grant-maintained schools, compared with about 480,000 this time last year. The present total includes almost a fifth of all secondary pupils.
    During the same period, the number of grant-maintained schools has increased by 310, compared with 420 in the previous year.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: I welcome my right hon. Friend's answer. Is she aware that the vast bulk of the parents, teachers and governors to whom I speak in Gloucestershire warmly welcome the Government's improvements, which enable them to run their schools independently under grant-maintained status? Is it not typical of the Opposition that they would seek to reverse our excellent reforms, which have so benefited the education of our children?
    Mrs. Shephard: Grant-maintained schools are both popular and successful, and millions of parents are now keenly interested in them. The Opposition will no doubt now wish to sort out their stance on the matter, as that number includes at least one Labour Front-Bench spokesman.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: Is the Secretary of State aware of the unsolicited distribution of 1,000 copies of the Department for Education video, "Our Children: Our Choice", to parents whose children attend West Monmouth school in Pontypool—parents who have already voted against grant-maintained status? In the interests of balanced and
    1336
    informed debate, will the right hon. Lady make available, in this instance and others, the equivalent case against the nationalisation of schools?
    Mrs. Shephard: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment. I am not aware of the unsolicited distribution of videos. The Government intend to ensure that parents and governors who are considering opting out will continue to have adequate and full information about the benefits.
    Mr. Wilkinson: May I remind my right hon. Friend that all the secondary schools in my constituency of Ruislip-Northwood, except a Church of England secondary school, Bishop Ramsay, have been opted-out schools for a number of years? So successful are they that pupils are sent to them by their parents from other boroughs, making it impossible for local parents in my constituency to send their children to their local opted-out secondary schools. Will she therefore change the Greenwich judgment and make borough boundaries less permeable?
    Mrs. Shephard: It is very important that sensible admission policies be achieved by close co-operation between local education authorities and the Funding Agency for Schools. I am happy to look at the detail of my hon. Friend's case.
    Mr. Don Foster: I, too, congratulate the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State on their recent appointments. I hope that we may now see some consensus in education in the next couple of years.
    Is the Secretary of State aware of the importance, in the calculation of an individual school's grant, of the number of school meals that are consumed on census day each January? Will she condemn any school—such as one in Hampshire—that last year urged parents to persuade children to eat a school meal on census day to boost its grant? Will she instigate an inquiry into the reasons why this year, on census day, 25 per cent. more meals were eaten in each grant-maintained school than in each local education authority school? Was it another attempt by GM schools to take money from LEAs?
    Mrs. Shephard: I am aware of the case, and it is being investigated by the FAS.

    Statistics
    Mr. Viggers: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the latest figures she has for the number of 16-year-olds participating in part-time or full-time education; and what were the comparable figures for five years ago.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): In the 1988–89 academic year, 473,000 16-year-olds participated in full-time or part-time education, representing a participation rate of nearly 70 per cent. For the 1993–94 academic year, the latest available figures show that the equivalent figures are 429,000 and 80 per cent.
    Mr. Viggers: Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures are very satisfactory, and that they perhaps reflect the introduction of national vocational qualifications and general national vocational qualifications courses, which are thought by pupils to be very relevant to their

    1337
    aspirations? Indeed, a report on GNVQs, published today, described students' responses as "overwhelmingly positive". Does my hon. Friend agree that schools that do not offer GNVQ courses should be encouraged to do so, perhaps taking a leaf out of the book of St. Vincent college in my constituency, which he was good enough to visit recently?
    Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I very much enjoyed my visit to the college, with which I know he is very involved. It has excellent provision, reflecting a strong interest in, and a strong take-up of, vocational qualifications, both GNVQs and NVQs. We now find that the targets that we set for GNVQ involvement for 1996 have already been hit, and we are determined that those courses should deliver high-quality vocational education.
    Mr. Hardy: I welcome the increase in the number of young people extending their education, but will the Minister recognise and acknowledge that it is not all good—that many young people who are staying on at school are doing so because there are no prospects of employment for them in many parts of the country?
    Mr. Boswell: It is interesting that the figures for participation in further education began to increase before the recent recession, and have continued to increase during it. I would say to students at school or college during this period that the best possible guarantee for their future employment is high-grade education, whether academic or vocational.
    Mr. Congdon: Given the recent reports on GNVQs, which expressed some worries, what steps does my hon. Friend intend to take to ensure that standards, which are most important, are rigorously maintained?
    Mr. Boswell: I very much agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of maintaining standards in vocational qualifications. In a sense, we anticipated those reports by setting out a six-point plan as early as this March. We are now pressing ahead, with the National Council for Vocational Qualifications, on implementing that plan, and any other points, including the incorporation of core skills, that have arisen from recent reports.

    Research Funding
    Mrs. Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps she is taking to ensure equality of research funding throughout further and higher education establishments; and if she will make a statement.
    Mr. Boswell: The Government are committed to ensuring value for money and accountability for public funds. We have asked the funding councils to allocate research funding selectively.
    Mrs. Ewing: The Minister will agree that research plays an integral and critical role at our universities and higher education establishments, but will he advise the House of the criteria that will be used in assessing the efficiency of existing research and how decisions will be reached about future central funding, as not all funding
    1338
    comes from the private sector? Will he ensure that there is an equitable geographical basis for the funding of all research?
    Mr. Boswell: I very much agree with the hon. Lady about the importance of research in higher education. I am somewhat surprised that she did not acknowledge the fact that the bulk of research funding continues to be derived from the Education Departments. Under our arrangements, there is a separate Scottish Higher Education Funding Council, which accounts for about one seventh of the English total of higher education funding. In both funding councils, my understanding is that research moneys are properly allocated selectively with regard to quality, and that quality is determined not by Ministers but by academic peer review.
    Mr. Forman: Our further and higher education centres are tremendously dynamic and diverse, thanks to Conservative policies. Will my hon. Friend cling to the principles that have always informed that policy of supporting research, which is to back quality and centres of excellence?
    Mr. Boswell: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his part in bringing about that high quality in higher education and the emphasis on diversity. I strongly emphasise the importance of quality and diversity of admission, which we are determined to secure at all times.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does the Minister agree that, if lecturers are to maintain high standards in teaching, they will need to be actively involved in research? If he cannot guarantee equality in research funding, how can he guarantee equality of standards in teaching throughout higher education?
    Mr. Boswell: It is for the funding councils to balance their funds between research and teaching. The hon. Lady will be aware that the bulk of those funds are spent on the teaching function. That is important, and we hope that as the system develops the balance of funding will reflect the quality of teaching.

    Nursery Education
    Mr. Rathbone: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what discussions she has had with private providers of nursery schooling in preparation for the introduction of the Government scheme.
    Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend has not yet had any discussions with private providers of nursery education. However, she has made arrangements to visit a private day nursery and an independent school nursery class shortly. She will also be meeting delegates from the Early Childhood Education Forum which represents, among others, private providers, during the course of the consultation exercise. We expect private nursery classes and schools to play a full part in the expansion and to add to the rich diversity of current provision.
    Mr. Rathbone: The House will be grateful to the Minister for that answer and for his commitment to quality in nursery education, which he gave in answer to an earlier question. May I have his further reassurance that there will be consultations with some well-known international organisers of nursery education, such as

    1339
    Montessori, which set such a high standard for nursery education? I hope that the new Government nursery schools will emulate that standard.
    Mr. Forth: Yes, I am able to give my hon. Friend that reassurance. I hope to visit a Montessori school in the near future. Beyond that, it is very much in our interests to get from all the providers as much input, information and advice as we can. We want to ensure that our proposals are firmly based on the best of existing practice, so that we can build on that and incorporate a quality guarantee. Only by extensive and continuing consultation over the next few months are we likely to be able to do so.
    Mr. Burden: As the Prime Minister's recent statements on nursery education are different from those of the previous Secretary of State, surely there are three possibilities: first, that there has been a change of policy; secondly, that the previous Secretary of State did not mean what he said; or, thirdly, that the Prime Minister does not mean what he says. Which is it?
    Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman overlooks the simple process of policy evolution. If he cares to consider carefully what has gone on in the past few months he will see that policy is evolving before his very eyes. In the capable hands of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, that process of evolution will speed up gradually but steadily, and in the new year we shall unveil our new policies. At that time, the hon. Gentleman will see how superficial his comments are.

    Schools, Bedfordshire
    Sir David Madel: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations she has received from Bedfordshire county council for increases in capital expenditure on maintained schools for the period after 1994–95; and if she will make a statement.
    Mr. Robin Squire: Bedfordshire LEA has recently submitted its bid for capital support for schools in 1995–96. The degree to which that bid reflects the national priority criteria for the distribution of capital will determine the authority's annual capital guideline for 1995–96, which I expect to announce in December.
    Sir David Madel: Will my hon. Friend be able to respond positively to the specific request by Bedfordshire county council that just over £4 million be spent on Cedars upper school, which is popular, successful and becoming over-subscribed and in urgent need of that money to enable it to expand?
    Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend, who is very knowledgeable on education matters, makes a persuasive case. However, I hope that he will understand if I stand by my answer to his first question. We shall assess all basic need bids, such as the one for Cedars upper school to which he referred, in line with our published criteria. We shall, of course, take into account both projected demand in the area and local surplus places.

    Drug Abuse
    Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what action she is taking to combat drug abuse in schools.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The Department is playing a full part in the Government's strategy for drug prevention.
    Mr. Whittingdale: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we are to eliminate drug abuse, it must be tackled at the earliest opportunity —through education in the classroom? Does she further agree that the worst possible message that we could send to our young people would be to legalise soft drugs, as the Liberal Democrat party would do?
    Mrs. Shephard: I agree with my hon. Friend. Education on drugs is part of the national curriculum from five to 16. Indeed, references to drugs have been maintained in the new slimmed-down curriculum. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) began his question this afternoon by asking for consensus. I assure him that there will be never be consensus from the Conservative party on legalising drugs of any kind.
    Mr. Miller: Does the Secretary of State share my concern at the advice given by a spokesperson for the Liberal and Conservative-controlled Cheshire county council, who told one of my staff this week that there is no drugs problem in our local schools? Does she agree that it is a problem which affects all schools throughout the United Kingdom and that our education representatives locally and nationally should be taking an active interest in it?
    Mrs. Shephard: Of course I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The recently announced Government initiative in the Green Paper made education a matter of key concern in the battle against drugs. Drugs are an educational issue as well as a social evil. It is important to remove the stigma from those schools that make a stand against drugs. Drugs are an issue for all schools and for all of us.
    Mr. Rowe: Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the most effective instruments for improving supervision in schools would be to welcome volunteers into schools to assist teachers in a wide variety of different functions? Apart from anything else, there would be two pairs of eyes in the classroom rather than just one.
    Mrs. Shephard: Next week, I shall be launching a draft circular as a basis for consultation on teaching about drugs and the handling of drugs-related incidents. We expect the consultation to result in many excellent ideas for good practice from across the country, some of which may include those put forward by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: I applaud the Government's attempts to control drugs in schools and urge them to do more, but why are the Government at the same time cutting by 25 per cent. the number of customs officers dealing with drug enforcement? Is it inconsistency or hypocrisy?
    Mrs. Shephard: I think that what it could be is a question for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, the total Government programme on drugs prevention amounts to £500 million. Her

    1341
    Majesty's Customs and Excise is involved in the recent initiative, as are the Education and Health Departments, the Department of Social Security and other Government Departments.
    Mr. Brazier: As a former schools inspector, does my right hon. Friend agree that much of the initiative must be taken at county level? Does she further agree that it is outrageous that, nine months after a call in February from Conservative county councillors for a tougher policy on discipline in schools in Kent, the Lib-Lab ruling coalition has still not agreed to take action?
    Mrs. Shephard: I always believe the comments of my hon. Friend and what he describes is lamentable.

    Primary School Inspections
    Mr. Byers: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of primary school inspections planned by the Office for Standards in Education for this term will not take place during this term.
    Mr. Forth: While this is mainly a matter for Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools, who heads the independent Office for Standards in Education, I am advised that contracts have been let for 76 per cent. of the primary schools inspection originally planned for this term.
    Mr. Byers: Is the Minister not concerned that 24 per cent. of those planned inspections will fail to take place this term? Does he agree with the comments made by the former chief inspector of schools that the main problem was the requirement that every contract for inspection has to go out to competitive tender? Does he agree that it is yet another example of his Government putting political dogma before the interests of the nation's children?
    Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman is being a little previous in this matter. This is the first term of primary inspections and we are planning for and approaching them systematically and methodically. Although the figures show that we have fallen somewhat short of the plans prepared by Ofsted, we are well on the way in making a good start.
    Bearing in mind the difficulties that have arisen, of which we have made no secret, Ofsted is taking a number of measures to alter the contracting arrangements and certain other matters in an attempt to ensure that the cycle of primary inspections will develop in pace over the next few terms. At this stage, like Ofsted, I am confident that that will be achieved.
    Mr. McLoughlin: Does my hon. Friend agree that he should not listen too much to the carping from Opposition Members, who opposed inspections in schools but are now complaining that they are not happening fast enough? Does he understand the concern felt by some grant-maintained schools that they will be inspected by the local authorities from whose control they have escaped? Will he consider that point carefully?
    Mr. Forth: I know that there has been widespread concern on the latter point, but I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that as the Ofsted inspections proceed and the level of expertise and impartiality becomes more and more obvious, schools will be reassured that the new independent professional inspection process is of great value both to education and to schools themselves. More
    1342
    and more schools are beginning to learn that that is to their benefit. As for the attitude of Opposition Members, this is yet another area in which they cannot quite make up their minds whether what we are doing is so much better that they want to agree with us, or whether they want to stick with their traditional opposition and become lost as a result.
    Mr. Eastham: Is the Minister aware that many local authority chief education officers are complaining that th0ere is inadequate funding for inspections? Is he further aware that that has resulted in the educational requirements of schools being denied in order to meet the costs of inspections? Will the Minister consider providing additional funding?
    Mr. Forth: Opposition Members complaining about a lack of money is something that happens all too frequently. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should establish from his Front-Bench colleagues whether they are now prepared to commit more money to education, for this or any other purpose.

    Discipline in Schools
    Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps she is taking to improve the levels of discipline in schools.
    Mr. Forth: In May, guidance on pupil behaviour and discipline was sent to all schools as part of the "Pupils with Problems" pack. The guidance aims to help schools to maintain and improve discipline. In September, the Department published an anti-bullying pack to help schools combat bullying.
    Mr. Evennett: I congratulate my hon. Friend and the Department on their work on discipline in schools. We are all aware of the few well-publicised schools which have discipline problems, but can my hon. Friend confirm that the last Ofsted report showed that most schools did not have a discipline problem and that most pupils in the state sector were well behaved?
    Mr. Forth: It is important to get this matter in context and to understand that throughout the country teachers are doing an excellent job in maintaining classroom discipline. In most classrooms, in most schools, for most of the time, there is an orderly atmosphere and pupils are learning. However, undoubtedly there is a very small number of difficult pupils. We want to work with teachers to ensure that they have available to them all reasonable means of dealing with disciplinary problems. Very often the key to that is parents. My appeal is for parents to support teachers, governors and heads of schools in maintaining proper discipline. Without parental support, the job is much more difficult.
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: Will the Minister today recognise something that every teacher in this country recognises—that there is a link between the unacceptable rise in the numbers in school classes, in both primary and secondary schools, and both the quality of education and

    1343
    the discipline maintained? Does he agree that there needs to be a limit on class sizes, especially in primary schools, to enable quality and discipline to be maintained?
    Mr. Forth: No, I know of no such link. If the hon. Lady thinks that, simply by repeating it often enough she will make it come true, she is sadly mistaken. If she can produce any evidence of a causal connection between classroom sizes and discipline problems, I shall be happy to consider it, but no such evidence has yet come to my attention.
    Mr. Hawkins: On the subject of discipline in classrooms, did my hon. Friend have the opportunity at the weekend to see the excellent article by The Sunday Telegraph education correspondent, Mr. Jonathan Petre, reporting on a visit that he and some secondary school heads had made to Japanese schools which had high numbers in the classroom but high standards of discipline? Does he not feel that it was a counsel of despair for some of the heads on that visit to say that they did not feel that it was possible to emulate the high standards of discipline in Japanese classrooms in their own schools? If my hon. Friend has not seen that article, will he consider it carefully, as there are lessons to be learned there for British schools?
    Mr. Forth: Of course we should always be conscious of experience in other countries, but quite how far Japanese experience is directly transferable to Britain is an interesting matter on which I would wish to ponder. However, I agree that it is depressing if people in the responsible position that head teachers undoubtedly have, when given the opportunity to see some sort of international comparison of this kind, are reluctant to accept the lessons that may be there to be learnt. I hope that they will think again, just as I am prepared to consider the example that my hon. Friend has given.
    Mr. Blunkett: Does the Minister agree that discipline is crucial to an acceptable learning environment, but that pastoral care in schools and special support, including with the family, are much more important than the Group 4 approach to school discipline, which has resulted in 8,000 pupils being excluded from our schools, many of them grant-maintained schools, during the past year?
    Mr. Forth: I join my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in welcoming the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities on the Opposition Front Bench. When he has had a little more time, he may like to study the figures somewhat more carefully, when he will see that they are not as they first appear. A lot of nonsense is being talked at the moment about the nature of exclusions. We must distinguish between permanent and temporary—or limited—exclusions. We must also be careful not to extrapolate a small sample to a national level. However, I share the hon. Gentleman's concern in this area. We want to consider carefully the whole matter of exclusions, who is carrying them out and why and the general background to them. I hope that we shall be able to find the right answers to support our heads and teachers in the difficult job that they are doing.

    Statistics
    Mr. Clappison: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proportion of young people are now entering higher education; and what was the comparable figure 10 years ago.
    Mr. Boswell: The Government's policies have led to record student numbers in higher education. More than 30 per cent. of young people entered higher education in 1993, compared with around one in eight 10 years ago.
    Mr. Clappison: Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the fact that Britain now has a higher graduation rate than many of our European Union competitors and that 50 per cent. more students now gain a first degree than in 1979? Does my hon. Friend agree that, instead of carping, Opposition Members and their Commission on Social Justice would have done better to study the successful Conservative policies which have enabled that to take place?
    Mr. Boswell: My hon. Friend is entirely right in pointing to our achievements in that direction and, in particular, the fact that we now have the highest graduation rate in Europe. That does not entirely transmit itself to the Opposition Benches. Every time an Opposition Member comes up with a sensible proposition, someone tends to end up being sacked.
    Mr. Bryan Davies: After that orgy of self-congratulation, and after Prime Minister's Question Time, will the Minister take his fellow ministerial team to No. 10 Downing street to discuss a petition received by the Prime Minister this morning, presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) and myself, on behalf of the higher education sector—students, staff, administrators and vice-chancellors—protesting at the under-funding of higher education by the present Government?
    Mr. Boswell: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the retention of his somewhat dangerous portfolio. He has never told the House what proposals he would make for the resourcing of higher education. I can tell the House that, in the last public expenditure survey, we were able to produce a real terms increase, to a record level, in the proportion and amount of higher education funding in this country. We have nothing to be ashamed of. We have the highest student numbers and the best resourced higher education in our history.
    Mr. Batiste: Are the Government committed to the principle of uniformity of standards across each class of degree across all universities in the country? If so, how does the Minister intend to ensure that that principle is observed in practice?
    Mr. Boswell: We are absolutely committed to the maintenance of high standards. It is, of course, primarily for the academic community, through its higher education quality council, to ensure that degrees mean what they say and are uniform throughout the various institutions, and that is a matter to which it is giving the closest attention.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Stevenson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 November.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Stevenson: Will the Prime Minister confirm the complete absence of any mention of privatisation of the Post Office in the last Tory party manifesto? Is he aware of the complete absence of any public support for that latest piece of Government dogma? Will he now take this opportunity to do the country a service and rescue the President of the Board of Trade by withdrawing that absurd proposal?
    The Prime Minister: As the whole House knows, we are considering the results of the consultation exercise that was launched in the summer. [Interruption.] I am surprised to hear Opposition Members scoffing. I thought that in the new politics the Labour party favoured consultation.
    Mr. Brooke: If Mr. Al Fayed requires a forgery from The Guardian to resolve his conscience, what, in my right hon. Friend's mind, does that tell us about Mr. Al Fayed or The Guardian, or both?
    The Prime Minister: I think that many conclusions may be drawn from that, some of which may well be drawn from the investigation that the Serjeant at Arms himself is carrying out into the affair. Certainly, whatever is uncovered, I doubt whether it will be to the credit of the principal people concerned.
    Mr. Blair: To return to the Prime Minister's response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson), on Post Office privatisation, there is more than a whiff of retreat in the air. If the Prime Minister does retreat—[Interruption.] Is he aware that, if he does retreat on that, he will be acting wisely, because if he is going to consult the British people, the vast majority of them—and, I believe, a majority in this House—want a modern Post Office with greater commercial freedom, delivering a cheap and reliable service, and that the best way of achieving that is to retain it in public ownership, run it as a public service and serve the public interest?
    The Prime Minister: I can certainly share with the right hon. Gentleman the wish to make the Post Office business strong, competitive and able to deliver the services that people need. Of course, a large number of improvements have been made over the past few years, most of them opposed at the time by Opposition Members. In 1981, we separated out Telecom and introduced the £1 monopoly limit, introducing competition and allowing a thriving courier industry to develop. In 1990, we sold Girobank. All those changes were opposed by the Opposition, who now take credit for the success of the Post Office as a result of our policies.
    Sir Archibald Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about the actions of Mr. Preston of The
    1346
    Guardian? Not only has he been using House of Commons writing paper to forge letters; he has been forging other people's signatures—and this from a man who is on the Press Complaints Commission. Should he not resign from that body at once?
    The Prime Minister: Over many years, The Guardian and its present editor have from time to time thundered against general standards in public life. It is, of course, the right of the press to do that; I simply invite its members to observe their own standards.
    Mr. Ashdown: But is the Prime Minister satisfied with the promptness, accuracy and frankness with which his Chief Secretary to the Treasury has responded to questions over past weeks and months? Are those the standards by which he would wish his Government and their Ministers to be recognised?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman, and some other hon. Members, may be wholly satisfied with their own blameless pasts in every respect. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has made the position entirely clear, and I accept his word.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: Does my right hon. Friend agree that so-called investigative journalism has sunk to a new all-time low? Does he also agree that, if a newspaper is found to have used the name of the House to give false authority to its activities, that newspaper deserves to lose the respect and confidence of the House?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that a diverse and wholly independent press is a very important protector of our system of democracy. I hope that there is no dispute about that.
    What is particularly sad is the casual abuse of what were once high and expected standards. If it is now commonly accepted in journalism that the end justifies any means, I believe that journalism will regret stooping to that standard. I hope that that is not the case; I believe that honest, factual journalism remains important to our democratic system. Systematic deception, fraud and collusion are certainly not what we expect from a free press.
    Mr. Hall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hall: This morning, my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) and I delivered a petition to No.10 Downing street on behalf of thousands of pensioners in Warrington, calling on the Government to abandon their proposal to increase VAT on fuel to 17.5 per cent. from next April. Is the Prime Minister aware that half the 36,000 claimants of income support in Halton and Warrington are entitled to claim only cold weather payments and that many other families in fuel poverty receive no help whatever? Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that he recognises that to be a true problem, that he will abandon the VAT increase, and that he will ensure that all low-income families receive fuel credits weekly when there are cold spells during the winter?
    The Prime Minister: So that no one who may be listening to these exchanges can be in any doubt, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, while he says that he

    1347
    opposes VAT on fuel, he is in favour of a carbon tax, which would have exactly the same effect on people? Will he also acknowledge that measures worth around £2.5 billion over three years have been put in place—[Interruption.]It is no good Opposition Members pointing and shouting. They cannot on the one hand oppose VAT on fuel, and on the other hand support a carbon tax which would have precisely the same effect on the people whom they claim to be defending.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my right hon. Friend agree with that great editor of The Manchester Guardian, C.P. Scott, who said:
    "Comment is free but the facts are sacred"?
    Does he agree that certain standards of journalism have sunk below the level that one would expect in a free and fair democracy?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about that. The press rightly demands the highest standards from Parliament and we have a right to expect the highest standards from the press.
    Dr. Marek: If the Prime Minister reads in Hansard what he said at Question Time last Thursday, he will realise that he answered one of the questions in a rather silly way. I hope that he will now give me a considered reply to that question. Why is he prepared to countenance devolution for the Province of Northern Ireland but not for the countries of Wales and Scotland?
    The Prime Minister: I must tell the hon. Gentleman two things. First, if he does not understand the difference in the history of Northern Ireland, he certainly should do so before sitting in the House. Secondly, there is a well established system of local democracy and government in Wales and Scotland which does not apply in Northern Ireland.
    Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Reverting to the subject of earlier exchanges, what would be my right hon. Friend's reaction if the Lord Chancellor were to include a known criminal among his appointments to the magistrates bench? Is it not equally unacceptable that the editor of
    1348
    The Guardian should sit in judgment on his fellow editors as a member of the Press Complaints Commission when, on his own evidence, he has been party to a forgery?
    The Prime Minister: That is a matter for the Press Complaints Commission and for the conscience of the editor of The Guardian.
    Mr. Hoon: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hoon: Why are the Government threatening to cut housing benefit for hundreds of thousands of pensioners simply because they have spare rooms? Why is the Chief Secretary frightening pensioners with the prospect of having to move house just because they have raised their children and want to live out their retirement in their family home? Does the Prime Minister have any confidence in the Chief Secretary, particularly on matters of accommodation?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the system of housing benefit that we have in place is more generous than he will find anywhere on the continent. It is necessary to ensure that a proper balance is kept between that and the taxpayer.
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Evans: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in stark contrast to that lot opposite, we are united behind our leader? To put the issue of The Guardian into perspective, is my right hon. Friend aware that Janice had a shock this morning, as I think did my right hon. Friend, because it said that David Evans was sponsoring Bambi. That is how ridiculous The Guardian is. If my right hon. Friend raised £79,000 to become leader of our party, would he put it in the Register of Members' Interests? This shows that that lot opposite are a bunch of fiddlers, because their leader has not done so.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has been accused of many things over the years, but I do not think that anybody would credibly accuse him of being a sponsor of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair).
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Cunningham: Will the Prime Minister list the Tories who are members of quangos since last week he listed the Labour members? Will he also give the costs?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman would prefer a much longer list of those Labour members of quangos that I did not yet mention. If he is so against quangos, will he perhaps explain why he wants to create a very long list of them, which I will happily read to the House if the hon. Gentleman presses me? Those are the

    1349
    new quangos that the Opposition thus far are committed to establishing. The hon. Gentleman would be better off looking at his own policy than trying to misrepresent ours.
    Mrs. Angela Knight: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Knight: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Home Secretary's announcement yesterday that the regime in our prisons is to be toughened up and that privileges are to be earned is widely welcomed, especially by the victims of crime? With that in mind, will he ensure that all victims are consulted before prisoners are granted any home leave?
    The Prime Minister: I very much agree with my hon. Friend and with the announcement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary yesterday. He intends to ensure that privileges are earned and are not available as a matter of right, and that home leave and
    1350
    temporary release will be granted only after rigorous assessment of risk to the public. As he has said on a number of occasions, conditions in prisons should be decent but austere. I believe that that is the view of the overwhelming majority of people in this country.

  "The Guardian"
  Madam Speaker: I have a statement to make arising from a submission that I received yesterday from the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) regarding the conduct of The Guardian newspaper. I told the House yesterday that I had commissioned a report from the Serjeant at Arms on certain aspects of this matter. I have to tell the House that, having now had the opportunity to reflect on all the aspects of the matter which have been brought to my notice, I have decided that it merits further attention. I am accordingly prepared for a motion to be given precedence at the commencement of business at 3.30 pm tomorrow. For the avoidance of doubt, the essential issue to be covered is the alleged action of The Guardian in representing that a letter sent by it to the Ritz hotel, Paris was sent in the name of an hon. Member of this House.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Sir Jim Spicer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall that during the debate yesterday the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) made it clear that, no matter what decisions were taken, either in the House or in the Privileges Committee, he would follow his own course of action. He said that he intended, as he inevitably will, to take a tape recorder into the meeting, to take notes of that meeting and to issue a press release, whether or not that was authorised by the Committee or by the House. In those circumstances, may we look for some advice from you, Madam Speaker, on what action should be taken by the Chairman of that Committee, its members and, indeed, by the House? The very least that should happen is that the Serjeant at Arms should be warned to be outside the door of that meeting room possibly in order to remove the right hon. Gentleman if he persists in that act.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Member appears to be answering his own point of order. I do not rule on hypothetical matters. We must wait and see the action taken by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn).
Sir Peter Emery: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: There can be no further point of order once I have ruled on it and I have done so.
Sir Peter Emery: It is a separate point of order. Is it not the case that it is clear from Standing Order No. 118 that the only time that the publication of Committee proceedings is not a breach of privilege is when the Committee has decided to take evidence in public?
Madam Speaker: I do not give advice on such matters. With respect to the right hon. Member, I have already answered the point of order that has been raised on this matter. Much is hypothetical at the moment. I shall rule when it may be necessary to do so.
Mr. Peter Butler: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. I am on my feet. I will take no further points of order on that matter.
Mr. Joseph Ashton: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your advice on the statement that you have just made. Would it be in order for the House to decide tomorrow to sit in private to discuss The Guardian?
Madam Speaker: I am sure that if I suggested that it were, the hon. Member would be the first to oppose me.
Mr. Roger Gale: Further to your statement, Madam Speaker, will you please confirm that
1352
our discussions tomorrow will not in any way be inhibited by sub judice rules should the editor of The Guardian face criminal charges, as he ought to?
Madam Speaker: Again, I am faced with hypothetical questions. This is a very practical House and I hope that I am a very practical Speaker. I deal with matters as they arise—I do not bring out my crystal ball in advance.
Sir Peter Emery: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I was not asking a hypothetical question. I was asking you to rule on whether Standing Order No. 118 makes it absolutely clear that the only time publication of matters being dealt with by a Committee is not a breach of privilege is if the evidence is taken in public. Is that not what Standing Order No. 118 states?
Madam Speaker: Standing Order No. 118 is there for every hon. Member to see. I should have thought that the right hon. Member, as Chairman of the Procedure Committee, would know the answer to that one.
Mr. Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Might not a threat of a breach of privilege affect other hon. Members in that they might believe that what they say may be taken down and used outside the Committee?
Madam Speaker: Order. I have heard enough of these points of order. We are going to get on with business.
Mr. Mike Hall: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I hope that it is a quite different point of order.
Mr. Hall: You will recall, Madam Speaker, that I secured Question 2 during Prime Minister's Question Time. I asked about VAT on fuel, but the Prime Minister's response was to ask me a question. What redress do I have to enable me to respond to the Prime Minister? Is it Prime Minister's Question Time or is it not?
Madam Speaker: We are about to enter a new Session. I suggest that the hon. Member tables many questions to the Prime Minister and I shall try to call him.

Points of Order
  BILL PRESENTED
    FIREWORK SAFETY
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths, supported by Mrs. Irene Adams, Mr. David Jamieson, Mr. Gordon McMaster, Mr. Dennis Turner and Mr. Jon Owen Jones, presented a Bill to restrict the sale to the general public of those fireworks which do not comply with Categories 1-3 of BS1174; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Thursday 3 November, and to be printed. [Bill 171.]

Pensions (Divorce)
3.36 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law so as to provide for the equitable division of pensions in the event of divorce.
I do not expect this to be a popular Bill here, as the House is full of powerful, rich men, and a few women, who have benefited enormously from their long-term relationships with their spouses but, if anything goes wrong, they might want the matrimonial assets, such as pension rights, to be theirs alone rather than being divided equally. In place of that selfish and potentially nasty attitude, my Bill would insert fairness, justice and common sense into the distribution of assets—especially pension assets—in the event of divorce.
At the moment, the system is unfair. After the matrimonial home, pension rights are the single most valuable asset in a marriage. Indeed, the pension rights are often more valuable than the matrimonial home. On divorce, it is usually the wife who loses all right to a claim on those assets. That is manifestly unfair. There is equal input in a marriage but, after divorce, there is inequality. One party goes on to a prosperous future, with the help of the pension assets, while the other—usually the wife—lives in hardship. There is a rising divorce rate–171,000 divorces in 1991—so a growing number of women find themselves in that position. They become reliant on the state for financial support. That is wholly unnecessary and could be avoided by a fairer division of assets, including pension rights. It is a waste of public money to have to support the woman while the man walks away with all the assets.
In Scotland, under the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985, pension assets are considered part of the matrimonial property. Their value is determined and they can be divided, but in England and Wales it is left to the discretion of the courts, which usually ignore pension rights because they say that they cannot overrule the pension fund trustees or the trust fund rules. That is not right, and the law should be changed in England and Wales.
In Germany and other countries, there are different laws. German law explicitly incorporates the idea of community of property within marriage. Assets acquired by either partner during a marriage are regarded as assets of the partnership, and are split down the middle on divorce, when the pension rights accumulated during the marriage by both partners are summed and compared. Half the difference is transferred from the account of the spouse with the greater record to the account of the other spouse. Apportionment of pensions, as that splitting is sometimes called, is also in operation in the state of California, in Canada and some other places. We should introduce it in this country.
Certain court cases, such as Brooks v. Brooks, offered hope that the situation would be changed, but that was a false hope, because they were specific cases with highly specific circumstances, and the principles could not be applied across the board. The law needs to be changed, and that must be done by Parliament.
The Government's initial attitude was to await the important reports being produced on pensions, such as that of the Pensions Management Institute, and the Goode report. But those reports have now appeared. The PMI
1354
reported in May 1993 and the Goode committee in September the same year. Now the Government's attitude has changed. They now seem to regard the matter as too difficult to legislate on, and are quietly dropping any prospect of legislative change.
The White Paper published in June said:
"There is at present no clear evidence of the extent of the problem. A detailed research programme will be undertaken to ascertain the extent of the problem before the issue is considered further".
But there have already been two major reports on the problem, and they have made it absolutely clear that the law must be changed. The inequality is manifest. Indeed, I have been told of surveys revealing that nine out of 10 women in this country die in poverty. Pension inequality must be at least a small factor behind that, and it should be altered.
My Bill would include a number of measures, and would allow all pensions to be regarded as the assets of a marriage, which should be divided equitably in the event of divorce. It works on the principle that a settlement between the two parties should take place in the first instance, but that, if that cannot be agreed, the court should have the flexibility to settle the distribution of the matrimonial assets on a equitable basis. That could still provide for a trade-off of such assets. For example, the pension rights could go to one party and the other could have the matrimonial home in exchange.
My Bill also provides for the pension assets and rights to be divided, if the court deems it appropriate. After a long period of marriage, each partner would have an automatic claim to the equivalent of half of all the pension assets and rights built up over the period of their relationship. The court would have the power to reallocate occupational and personal pension rights between divorcing parties, and it could decide to take into account all matrimonial assets, including pension fund assets and rights, and apportion them on the basis of a clean-break, once-and-for-all settlement.
The court would also have the power to require the trustees of pension schemes to reduce the value of a member's pension rights by a specified amount, and to provide the same amount as a transfer payment for the benefit of the divorced spouse. Any reasonable expenses incurred in doing so would be recoverable, and that is also provided for in the Bill.
If a pension were already in payment, the court would have the power to balance non-pension assets against pension rights, or to earmark a stated part of a member's pension for the benefit of a divorced spouse. The court could also order the pension scheme authorities to give full consideration to a divorced spouse as the possible recipient of a dependant's pension, if that would lie within their discretion.
The court could also order a scheme member to take out appropriate term or whole-life insurance in favour of a divorced spouse. If that individual did not keep up the payments, the spouse would have the right to be notified, and to bring the case back to the court.
If the court decides to divide pension rights, it should be calculated on a cash-equivalent basis unless otherwise agreed by the parties or ordered by the court. The court, under my provision, can direct the transfer of payments to another pension arrangement entered into by the spouse. In respect of a deferred lump sum due to be received in the future, the allocation of the proportion to

1355
the ex-spouse can also be ordered by the court to be paid at that future date. Under my proposals, a minimum of 20 years' marriage would have to be guaranteed before the rights were automatic. By doing that, I was looking to protect older women who find themselves divorced and in unfair hardship.
Those are the main provisions of my Bill. I do not say that it is perfect, because it is a complex subject. But I think that a lot of the imperfections in it could be ironed out by the Government if they brought forward their own legislation, or in Committee if the Bill got there.
I have received representations that 20 years is too long. Ian Aitken, the Pensions Management Institute president, said that 20 years
"is a very long time in the current climate. Under UK pension legislation, pension rights must be preserved if a member remains in a pension scheme for 2 or more years. In the circumstances, there is much to commend pension splitting after 2 years of marriage… this would be in line with the current divorce legislation that says a divorce can take place after 2 years if both parties consent. If you feel that 2 years is too short a period, then may I suggest that you insert a period of 5 years for pension splitting—this would be in line with the period of separation if the parties do not consent to the divorce."
The case for a shorter period could also be put.
The Bill is not a panacea, and neither is it an excuse for not substantially increasing the basic state pension. That needs to be done, but the Bill is a small righting of a current injustice. It is supported in principle by the organisation Fairshares, and its name is what the Bill is all about—fair shares.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Malcolm Chisholm, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Ms Jean Corston, Mr. Neil Gerrard, Ms Mildred Gordon, Mrs. Helen Jackson, Ms Joyce Quin and Mrs. Audrey Wise.

Pensions (Divorce)
  PENSIONS (DIVORCE)
  Mr. Harry Cohen accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law so as to provide for the equitable division of pensions in the event of divorce: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 3 November, and to be printed. [Bill 172.]
Opposition Day
  12TH ALLOTTED DAY

    Energy Conservation Bill
    Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.
    3.47 pm
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: I beg to move,
    That this House deplores the Government's action in blocking the Energy Conservation Bill which was introduced by the Right honourable Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed with support from all parties; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to introduce the Bill itself in the coming session.
    After the large number of debates on the private Member's Bill, some hon. Members may wonder why the Liberal Democrats feel that the Energy Conservation Bill, which was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), is important enough to warrant a further debate today.
    I shall start by addressing what the Bill calls for. It places a duty on local authorities to promote energy conservation and a requirement on them to carry out energy audits. That collection of information would show how resources could best be used to improve energy efficiency and reduce emissions.
    The Bill is simple, practical and effective, yet the Government amendment today argues—if argues is a suitable word—that the proposals are deplorable, unnecessary and an example of what is apparently
    "the muddled thinking of the Liberal Democrats".
    That is an extraordinary accusation from a Government who have certainly used deplorable tactics to block a Bill that has such widespread support across the parties—including Conservative Members.
    For example, the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) said in a letter to the director of the Association of Conservation of Energy:
    "I most certainly endorse the Bill…I will certainly encourage my colleagues to put their names to the EDM."
    That comes from the deputy chairman of the Conservative party.
    The Government amendment is all the more extraordinary, given their own muddled approach to the Bill. A majority of the House—almost 400 Members—have declared their support for it, including the Minister with responsibility for energy efficiency, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones). He chaired the Environment Select Committee when, in its fourth report, it concluded from its investigation into energy efficiency in buildings that
    "present Government assistance—on energy conservation—through the home energy efficiency scheme, the green house programme, the housing investment programme and the establishment of the energy saving trust—welcome and worth while initiatives although they are—does not constitute a sufficiently comprehensive nor an adequately funded programme of action."
    Yet apparently the Minister will speak later tonight. in support of his Government's amendment.

    1357
    Nor is support for the Bill apparent only in the House. It is backed at every level by every major environmental organisation, every major society that represents the elderly, people with disabilities and those on low incomes, and many others. More than 500 parish, town and community councils have declared support for the Bill. More than 160 local authorities have called for it. As they will be directed to act under the Bill, their support is both particularly welcome and particularly instructive. That support proves how important they feel the issue is. I might add that it would be interesting to hear from the Minister how many hundreds of letters the Department has received from parish, community and town councils across the country supporting the Bill.
    In response to the Bill, the Government have argued that it is not necessary to place a statutory requirement on local authorities regarding energy conservation. Yet without that, the Bill would not ensure that local authorities acted. If we took out the statutory requirements, the Bill would simply give councils the power to do that which they already have the power to do. That would certainly be an example of ministerial muddled thinking.
    The best local authorities may act anyway already, but action from only the best will not provide the national impact that the Bill is designed to achieve. In that context, it is certainly deplorable that, despite the huge support that the proposals for energy conservation received—almost 400 Members of Parliament supported it—the Government blocked it on Report and Third Reading. The introduction of 216 amendments and seven new clauses at that late stage meant that the time allocated to the Bill inevitably expired, and it was successfully talked out.
    The Government's amendment today says that the Bill is unaffordable and that it
    "would impose unnecessary burdens on public expenditure as well as on central and local government".
    That is ludicrous, as the Minister responsible for energy efficiency, who will sum up tonight for the Government, should know full well, given his previous unconditional support for the Bill. Ministers have said that to draw up energy conservation plans will be a costly process; that it will be money wasted on bureaucracy, not energy efficiency. That was the reason given by Ministers in the debate on Report when it was apparent that they had blocked the Bill. Yet that argument assumes that local authorities would be required to carry out a full energy audit for all dwellings. The Bill does not require that. It simply demands an audit of the best method of achieving energy savings.
    The Government's accusation that the Bill would cost too much, and that between £11 million and £23 million would be required before energy savings were made is simply incorrect. That calculation is based on a costing carried out by two local authorities of the task of a full energy audit of every property. The Bill does not require that. It requires every local authority to identify the best and most cost-effective way of saving energy.
    The Association for the Conservation of Energy asked the two local authorities to cost the full audit to show what the cost would be if that was the way in which a local authority chose to proceed. But the Bill does not say that an audit is the best way. Each local authority will
    1358
    decide the best methods to use in its area. That may differ between local authorities from Cornwall to Durham to Thanet.
    Mr. Roy Thomason: Can the hon. Gentleman explain how a local authority could introduce energy-saving measures for individual properties that have particular problems and require attention without investigating those properties?
    Mr. Taylor: Many local authorities will know of building structures, such as blocks of flats erected during the 1960s, which are particularly energy-inefficient, and they may want to identify the level of that inefficiency and programmes to deal with it. The Bill asks them to look at the most cost-effective way to cut the energy bill. It does not require them to identify every property in one year, as that may not be an efficient way to go about this business. The aim of the Bill is that the best, most cost-effective and energy-efficient method is found and acted on to deliver energy savings of up to 30 per cent. I simply do not believe that every authority would engage in the process of looking at every individual dwelling.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position within the Liberal Democrat party.
    Many of us read "Costing the Earth", the Liberal Democrats' 1991 policy document, which they now disown and say was not their policy. Some of us believed that there was a consensus in the House to introduce VAT on fuel—it was Liberal Democrat policy and the candidate who opposed me in the general election campaigned for it—so we were somewhat surprised at the Liberal Democrats' reversal in policy. Will the hon. Gentleman now give a commitment on behalf of his party that, if councils go ahead with that energy audit, even though they may not be obliged to do so under a Bill, the Liberal Democrats will then support councillors who decide to put up council house rents to pay for the energy-efficient measures being put into council houses?
    Mr. Taylor: Under the Government's current rules on the ring fencing of councils' housing budgets, that investment would probably be required to be recouped from rents. However we expect people to benefit from energy-saving measures because they would cut their bills, including those increased by VAT on fuel. At this stage, I do not want to go too far into the Liberal Democrats' previous policy. Suffice it to say that we looked at the possibility of VAT on fuel, and the manifesto on which we fought the previous general election specifically ruled it out. To have looked at something and then decide that it was not a good idea strikes me as more honourable than to fight an election saying that one would not do something and then do it afterwards.
    Ministers have defended their destruction of the Bill also on the ground that the proposals would force people to have energy conservation measures in their homes. They have obviously not read the Bill because not a word of it requires that. The Government seem intent on destroying the Bill for reasons of their own, not for the given reasons. At least their amendment today is unambiguous on the subject, in contrast to their previously stated partial support and practical opposition.

    1359
    Ministers' action in blocking the Bill on Report goes to the heart of our process of government. We have heard much recently of the sleaze that seems to have become commonplace within the Conservative party. The Government constantly tell us that the scandals within their ranks are being exaggerated by the media and Opposition and that our system of government is in safe hands. In my view, the sleaziest actions of the Government can be found not in the occasional financial scandal but in the systematic abuse of the House's procedures. Nothing is as sleazy as the Government's technique for blocking private Members' Bills. This parliamentary year, Ministers managed to block not only the Energy Conservation Bill but the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, which both had majority support on both sides of the House and throughout the country.
    So whom do the Government represent? Is it the people or the Treasury and self-interest? It left a sour taste to see the Government table more than 200 amendments after the Bill had passed through its Committee stage, in the sure knowledge that that would mean that the Bill could not proceed, despite the fact that it had the support of more than half the Members of the House. It leaves an even more sour taste to see former supporters of the Bill become loyal Government opponents of it as soon as they gain ministerial office.
    Mr. Peter Butler: As someone who has not gained ministerial office, I ask the hon. Gentleman to allow me to reply to one point. He makes a good point when he says that the Government were wrong to block the Bill on the ground that it would cost too much to insulate a lot of houses. I do not recall that from the debate at which I was present on 22 April. The hon. Gentleman was not present at that debate, but may have read the proceedings in Hansard. If that was why they blocked it, it would be a ridiculous basis on which to do so. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, despite its enormous cost, the Bill's passage would not result in a single dwelling being insulated?
    Mr. Taylor: I believe that it would result in that, but the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the Bill is about considering the problem and identifying ways to overcome it, not requiring people to insulate their houses directly. It is a process of setting out the identification of the problem and the ways to tackle it. It would be more appropriate if the hon. Gentleman asked the Ministers that question; they have repeatedly referred to the cost of the Bill as a reason for opposing it.
    The Government believe that the tactics used to defeat the Energy Conservation Bill were acceptable—but they believe that they have taken adequate action to encourage energy efficiency. In fact, in spite of the Government's Helping The Earth Begins At Home campaign, energy use by the domestic sector is increasing. In 1993, total domestic energy use increased by 3 per cent. That trend continued in the first half of 1994, when domestic energy use increased by a further 6.2 per cent. on the first half of last year.
    Furthermore, it is significant that, after several years of decline in the UK's energy ratio—the amount of primary energy needed to produce a unit of gross domestic product—it has begun to increase again. Since 1990, the actual energy intensity of the UK economy has steadily increased. Therefore, the increase in energy use cannot simply be attributed to economic growth. It is obvious
    1360
    from that that the Government's measures to improve energy efficiency are simply not delivering the goods. Not only has the energy ratio increased, but sales of energy-efficient goods continue to be below the 1989 figures.
    The Energy Conservation Bill is simple, and will place a duty on local authorities to improve energy conservation. The Environment Select Committee emphasised the importance of real action to improve energy efficiency when it said:
    "The UK is bound by international obligations concerning the global environment. It also has domestic responsibilities which require it to address both fuel poverty and ill health. We believe an integrated package of measures therefore needs to be co-ordinated between several Government Departments in order to turn convictions and commitments into action."
    Let me sum up why Liberal Democrats believe that the Bill is so important—socially, environmentally and economically. First, the social benefits of the Bill are obvious. Throughout the country, many homes are cold, damp and costly to heat. More than 7 million households cannot afford to heat their homes—homes occupied by elderly people, people with disabilities and people with low incomes. It is estimated that there are more than 40,000 deaths each winter as a result of inadequate heating. With the second-stage increase in VAT on fuel still to be introduced, action to tackle that could not be more immediately necessary.
    The Energy Conservation Bill would help alleviate that misery among low-income groups. By insulating houses and improving heating systems, energy savings of as much as 30 per cent. can be made, and the Bill would help to identify the ways of doing so. However, the Minister responsible for energy efficiency, who will reply for the Government, knows that—he backed the Bill.
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am simply trying to understand what the Liberal party policy is on energy efficiency. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House unequivocally: does it or does it not support VAT on fuel? Also, as the hon. Gentleman is going into the Bill in such detail, will he tell us whether he has done any detailed costing as to what it would cost the country to implement?
    Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is probably aware by now that we have opposed VAT on fuel, and continue to do so. I hope that he will join us in opposing the second-stage increase in VAT that will come through—contrary to the platform on which he fought the previous general election.
    I have already discussed costings. The Government have put forward figures at the highest possible end of the scale, in which every single property is identified. On the Government's figures, that would cost between £11 million and £23 million, on the basis of surveys. We have argued that that is not what the Bill requires. It will cost very little to implement the Bill. Some local authorities will be able to do it at almost no cost, using their existing personnel.
    However, the key point is that, without the Bill, we cannot be serious about the concerted action that is needed, and we agree with the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West in his previous incarnation off the Government Benches, and with the Select Committee, that it is the most sensible use of

    1361
    resources if we are to reach the Government's own targets, which patently, on the figures that I have given, we are failing to reach.
    Secondly, the environmental benefits of the Bill should be obvious. The Bill is designed to help people conserve natural resources and reduce emissions of greenhouse and other gases. The domestic sector in the UK is responsible for nearly a quarter of all carbon dioxide emissions. At a time when air pollution and its adverse effects on health are causing increasing concern, the Government should support a measure that will cut emissions.
    Recent evidence suggests that the generation of electricity and the resulting emissions have contributed to the rise in asthma attacks in recent years. The number of people suffering from asthma has doubled—it now affects one child in seven, and 2,000 people die from it each year. The Bill would help to cut the emissions that are exacerbating such illnesses.
    The Government have recognised those arguments and have pledged to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the air to 1990 levels by the year 2000. The Bill would reduce the amount of energy that people need to heat their homes and would help achieve the important goal that the Government are signally failing to achieve. The Government have identified improving energy efficiency as
    "likely to be the most cost-effective means of limiting the environmental impact of UK energy consumption".
    That quotation is from the consultation paper "UK Strategy for Sustainable Development".
    On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed summed up the Bill's social and environmental benefits when he said:
    "Energy conservation makes sense, whether one views it from the perspective of global warming or from that of pensioners struggling to keep warm."—[Official Report, 4 February 1994; Vol. 236, c. 1142.]
    The Minister with responsibility for energy efficiency who will be summing up for the Government knows that: he lobbied for the Bill.
    In the economic context, at a time when so many people are unemployed, the Bill would help to promote economic regeneration by providing jobs and work for local businesses. The technology, equipment and materials already exist to make homes easier to heat at less cost. The companies exist to carry out the work and the unemployed are waiting for that work. The Minister knows that, too, and should not need telling. He was one of the original supporters of the Bill.
    On 2 December last year, he said at the formal promotional launch of the Bill:
    "I am very glad to support the Energy Conservation Bill. It is a measure that is long overdue. I shall urge my colleagues who have been successful in the ballot to adopt it and I shall urge the Government to support it."
    However, he need not feel too embarrassed, because the Government amendment does not reflect the recent position of some Ministers. As recently as Second
    1362
    Reading earlier this year, the then Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), expressed concern about some parts of the Bill, but said:
    "The Bill of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has raised the very important issue of energy conservation. It also provides a useful opportunity for advancing energy efficiency in our housing."—[Official Report, 4 February 1994; Vol. 236, c. 1183.]
    He did not suggest that it was deplorable.
    The question should be not whether the Bill is necessary, because clearly the overwhelming majority of hon. Members believe that it is: it has all-party support. The real question is how on earth the Government can table an amendment that not only contradicts the position that Ministers took earlier this year but flies in the face of the view that was advanced so strongly by the Minister who will reply to the debate. At no stage during my speech has the Minister sought to intervene to correct me, so I assume that he agrees that everything that I have said is correct. Perhaps more relevantly, he does not want to put his current position on the record and allow other hon. Members who speak in the debate to comment on it. That is a shame, and I look forward to his explanation—if he has one—for backing such an extraordinary amendment.
    4.8 pm
    The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. Robert Atkins): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
    "commends the Government's commitment to the efficient use of energy and congratulates the Government on the action taken to encourage energy efficiency; welcomes the work being undertaken by the Department of the Environment and in particular the imaginative way in which it uses available resources in close partnership with local authorities, businesses and other organisations and individuals; deplores the proposals in the Energy Conservation Bill which would impose unnecessary burdens on public expenditure as well as on central and local government; and further considers these proposals typical of the muddled thinking of the Liberal Democrats, who supported VAT on fuel in 1990, but then changed their minds as soon as the Government introduced it."
    I am delighted that the subject of energy conservation has been raised. It provides an opportunity for a useful discussion on an important subject. Liberal Democrat Members obviously do not agree, because most of them are now leaving the Chamber. As this is the Liberal Democrat Supply day, one would have hoped that they would turn out in all the massive force that they can offer.
    The debate gives me a chance to explain to the House the importance that the Government attach to energy efficiency, and the steps that we are taking to encourage it. We attach enormous importance to the efficient use of energy to run our homes and businesses. We aim to spread the message that energy efficiency makes sense when it saves money which can be used to develop businesses, improve homes and living standards and boost the economy.
    There has already been significant progress. The United Kingdom economy has grown by about 25 per cent. since 1979, but it still uses roughly the same amount of energy. There is, however, always scope for cost-effective improvements, saving as much as 20 per cent. of current energy demand.
    Cost-effectiveness is not the only reason why we continue to beat the energy efficiency drum. Energy efficiency helps to protect the environment by reducing

    1363
    the threat of climate change, and the framework convention on climate change, which was negotiated at the Earth summit in Rio, commits us to return our emissions of carbon dioxide to 1990 levels by the year 2000. The convention was ratified in December 1993 and came into force in March.
    We are determined to meet our commitments. Energy efficiency can help us to move towards sustainable development. It is our first priority for limiting carbon dioxide emissions, as it can also bring economic and social benefits.
    Nearly half the savings we are seeking in the climate change programme are expected to come from reducing energy consumption in the home. Recent research shows that the average household may be wasting more than £100 a year on fuel bills—money which could be saved by implementing few cost-effective measures. The business and transport sectors are both expected to contribute a quarter of savings, and a tenth are expected to come from the public sector.
    We have substantially increased our expenditure on energy efficiency. In 1994–95, that expenditure will increase to more than £100 million–17 times the level of expenditure in 1979–80.
    We are also providing a framework to encourage energy efficiency. The Energy Efficiency Office in my Department carries energy efficiency policy forward by promoting cost-effective energy efficiency in the workplace and the home, and strengthening environmental protection by reducing energy use.
    There are four main planks to our efforts. We use publicity to ensure that everyone is aware of the importance of energy efficiency; we provide encouragement and technical advice to enable people to take informed decisions about whether and how to invest in energy efficiency programmes; where necessary, we provide financial incentives to encourage the installation of energy efficiency measures, and, where appropriate, we promote regulation.
    We have a wide range of programmes to encourage improved energy efficiency, each one aimed at a specific audience. For example, we provide publicity through our new campaign, "Wasting energy costs the earth", which encourages energy efficiency in the home. Television adverts —with the dinosaurs Ron, Brenda and Billy—feature the Energy Saving Trust's energy-saving light bulb initiative. Funded by the regional electricity companies of England and Wales and lighting manufacturers, the initiative is expected to win sales of 1 million.
    A nationwide tour by the Dino Dome road show, which is being sponsored by a number of leading manufacturers, will give further publicity to energy efficiency measures. It was launched in Oxford last week, and opens in Birmingham on Thursday 3 November. Manufacturers and retailers are synchronising their activities with our campaign, and I can announce today that we shall be holding another energy advice week next year as part of that campaign.
    Mr. A. J. Beith: I hope that the Minister will take on board the fact that the Energy Saving Trust, whose initiatives he has just commended and for
    1364
    which he has expressed support, has declared itself firmly in support of the Bill, and that its chairman has made a particular point of doing so.
    Mr. Atkins: We also have a comprehensive package of measures to provide encouragement, information and advice to help people take informed decisions about whether and how to invest in energy efficiency.
    We help building professionals and housing manufacturers in four main ways. Our best practice programme provides authoritative advice and information for professionals and managers on improving energy efficiency. It produces energy consumption guides to show energy users how their consumption compares with others, good practice guides and case studies describing good practice, and new practice case studies promoting novel measures.
    Secondly, the "making a corporate commitment" campaign invites the chairmen and chief executives of companies and organisations to make a declaration of commitment to responsible energy management. It asks them to formulate, adopt and publish a corporate policy on energy efficiency, to increase awareness of energy efficiency among their staff and to set targets for improving their performance.
    More than 1,750 organisations have signed up. The campaign has increased the willingness of two thirds of them to invest in energy efficiency. As that helps the bottom line of most companies in real terms, it is something that they willingly recognise and adopt.
    Thirdly, the "green house" demonstration programme made £60 million available over three years to encourage local authorities to develop and apply energy efficiency strategies to their housing. To follow up on that, the Government have advised authorities to make energy efficiency a more explicit and integral part of their annual housing investment programme submissions.
    Fourthly, a network of 11 regional energy efficiency officers promotes good environmental management and energy efficiency measures across the United Kingdom. They provide an independent source of advice that enables energy consumers to take action. They are able to signpost the Department's programmes and provide information on energy-efficient techniques and technologies.
    Not content with all that, we are providing help for individuals—for example, by promoting home energy rating—
    Mr. Llew Smith: Does the Minister accept that any fair energy tax would have to include a full tax on nuclear power to take account of the cost of decommissioning and waste disposal? Does he agree that that cost should fall on the present generation, and that future generations should not have to pick up the tab for our wastefulness?
    Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman takes me down byways that are not appropriate in this debate. Perhaps he would like to table yet more questions on this matter, which I shall endeavour to answer.
    The home energy rating provides valuable information for owners and buyers on the energy efficiency of a property. We have established a uniform standard

    1365
    assessment procedure, and we are working with the mortgage lenders to incorporate home energy rating into their survey reports.
    We are encouraging mortgage lenders to offer green loans to help people to improve the energy efficiency of their homes. We are encouraging voluntary appliance labels to give consumers a guide to the energy efficiency of the appliances they buy.
    Where necessary, we provide financial incentives to encourage the installation of energy efficiency measures. The home energy efficiency scheme provides grants for basic insulation measures and advice for low-income households. Since the scheme began in 1991, more than 800,000 homes have been treated. From 1 April, provision for the home energy efficiency scheme was almost doubled, and the scheme extended to those over 60 and disabled people.
    The additional £35 million per year for the United Kingdom will provide grants for more than 200,000 extra households per year, bringing the total number of households receiving grants to almost half a million a year. It will reduce the fuel bills of recipients, save energy and help to fight the threat of global warming. It will also create about 1,500 jobs, boost a specialist sector of the construction industry and materials producers, and improve the housing stock. That is not a bad summary of the assistance being given by the Government. Some £69 million of my Department's estate action funds were spent on energy-related works in 1992£3.
    Even in a deregulatory age, we encourage regulation where it is appropriate. For example, the regulations governing energy efficiency standards in new buildings in the United Kingdom have been tightened several times over the past 20 years. Revised regulations will come into force in July 1995. The new regulations include the provision of double glazing, improved insulation, better heating controls for the first time and the need to have a home energy rating. They should lead to an improvement in energy efficiency of 25 to 35 per cent. compared with the previous regulations.
    We also practise what we preach. The Government are committed to a 15 per cent. improvement in energy efficiency for the Government estate over the five years to March 1996. The new headquarters for my Department will be one of the most energy-efficient buildings in London. It has been designed to make the most efficient use of energy, and it will have an economical and environmentally friendly combined heat and power system.
    But we know that the task of achieving energy efficiency savings is not one which the Government can or should be expected to achieve on their own. We can set the framework, but others have the crucial part to play of encouraging energy efficiency in the home.
    That is why we have worked with the gas and electricity industries to set up the Energy Saving Trust to develop and manage new programmes to promote the efficient use of energy in the domestic and small business sectors. The trust has a major role in carrying forward the Government's climate change programme. Hon. Members
    1366
    will know from discussions within the House and elsewhere that arrangements for funding the trust are being reconsidered.
    Mr. Llew Smith: Does the Minister understand that a full tax on nuclear power, in order to take into consideration decommissioning and waste disposal, would be a remarkable act of energy conservation, because we know that nuclear energy is the most ineffective and inefficient energy form known to man today?
    Mr. Atkins: I know that the hon. Gentleman represents a party which is obsessed with putting yet more tax on everyone, but it is interesting that he is advocating such a tax at the same time as being opposed to VAT on fuel. He must make up his mind which side of the argument he is on.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's plan to educate people to insulate their own homes, if necessary by a contribution from their gas and electricity bills, is a much better way of approaching the subject than asking local authorities, which are not experts in energy efficiency, with all the bureaucracy and costs that that would involve, under the proposed Energy Conservation Bill?
    Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend speaks with great authority as a member of the Select Committee. He has taken a great deal of interest in these matters, and, as usual, as is often the case with Conservative Members, he has put his finger on the exact problems to which I shall refer later. He is of course quite right.
    The Energy Saving Trust has made an excellent start and recruited a core of high-quality staff. Its successes so far include a scheme to encourage the sale of low-energy light bulbs to domestic customers, run in conjunction with industry, which has resulted in the sale of three quarters of a million low-energy light bulbs in eight weeks—about the same number as sold in the whole of 1992.
    Mr. Cynog Dafis: The Minister referred a moment ago to the funding arrangements for the Energy Saving Trust having been worked out successfully. Will he elaborate on that, because the director of Ofgas has refused to levy the E factor on the bills, effectively undermining the trust's funding basis? Will that problem be solved?
    Mr. Atkins: I did not say that we had resolved those difficulties; I said that they were being reconsidered. It is in the knowledge of the House and probably the hon. Gentleman that the electricity industry has already continued the funding to which it is committed. The matters relating to Ofgas in those discussions are still under consideration. The ball is firmly in Ms Spottiswoode's court at the moment. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, when he replies, will doubtless tell the House more about that, and in future, when the matters are resolved.
    Another example of what the trust has achieved is an incentive scheme for gas condensing boilers, which has resulted in 3,000 rebates of £200 being claimed by owner-occupiers by the end of 1993. As a result—this is good for industry—new manufacturers and products have entered the marketplace.

    1367
    In addition, a residential combined heat and power scheme has been heavily over-subscribed in the first tranche, and a pilot of local energy advice centres for the domestic and small business sectors, partly funded by the Government, is proving successful.
    The Government are also working closely with the European Union to improve domestic energy efficiency. A directive setting energy efficiency standards for central heating boilers came into effect on 1 January 1994. A directive on appliance labelling will introduce labelling for refrigerators, freezers and fridge-freezers by the end of 1994. We are pressing the Commission for action setting minimum energy efficiency standards for other appliances.
    Local authorities also have a vital role to play. The energy bill for local authority housing comes to nearly £3 billion a year, so their efforts are crucial if we are to complete our energy efficiency programme.
    Central and local government are already working very closely together through the Central and Local Government Forum to carry forward the energy efficiency campaign in local government. The local authority associations have endorsed and encouraged their members to adopt a target of reducing energy consumption in their non-housing buildings by 15 per cent. over a five-year period.
    However, as well as energy efficiency on their own estates, local authorities can fulfil a valuable role in pulling together energy thinking in their areas. Industry, schools, further education institutions, commerce and, of course, householders, can all make contributions to energy efficiency, and can produce genuine savings towards our carbon targets.
    Local authorities are in a good position to pull together and co-ordinate thinking in their areas, possibly through establishing targets whose achievements can be monitored. We do not believe that that needs to be a resource-intensive exercise; rather, it is one aspect of the functions that authorities should already be carrying out when ensuring that people are thinking ahead and looking for a sustainable future.
    We are not complacent in any way about the programme of work, and we are continuing to adapt it to meet changing circumstances. In the future, we hope to use our efforts to emphasise the importance and the value of energy efficiency to all those with an interest. We will continue to work with the Energy Saving Trust to develop our dialogue with industry, and to work with the European Union.
    Despite that substantial record and our enthusiasm for energy conservation, we have been concerned about proposals for legislation, which have been in the House this Session, and about a proposed Energy Conservation Bill, which has been widely circulated. We do not believe, for reasons which I think the House has dealt with over a long period, that legislation is the best way forward. We do not think that it will give us the best possible value for money.
    First, we know that we must keep public expenditure under control if we are to sustain our hard-won economic recovery. The tight financial settlement for this and future years leaves no spare resources to fund new initiatives; nor is there scope to "absorb" new initiatives by doing
    1368
    other things at less cost. Any additional cost arising from new functions for local government would have to be found by offsetting savings elsewhere.
    In addition, as hon. Members know, we will not add to the burdens of local authorities unless it is unavoidable. We are concerned that the proposed new legislation on energy conservation will impose a further burden, which we believe to be unnecessary. Many local authorities are already doing a great deal to improve energy efficiency.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: Any party will understand the concern about expenditure, but given the Government's commitments to cut energy use and emissions in this country, and given the failure at present of policies to deliver that—energy use and energy inefficiency are rising rapidly at the present time — what new initiatives does the Minister believe will deliver this ground? If not the Bill, what about the very substantial list of proposals and recommendations that were made by the Select Committee?
    Mr. Atkins: I have to say that I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise. I happen to think that we are beginning to achieve success with energy efficiency, as I demonstrated with the figures with which I opened my speech, and the continuing programme, which, in many areas, has been doubled or even multiplied by a greater factor.
    It is certainly the case with industry that, if we can make it understand—it is not proving to be as difficult as the hon. Gentleman would have us believe—that it is in its own financial and commercial interest, let alone the environmental interest of its own operation, to adapt and to adopt energy efficiency programmes, I am sure that we will continue to achieve success in that area, as we have in the past.
    Mr. Oliver Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although most local authorities are making a very strong effort on environmental measures, one of the authorities that is not is Tower Hamlets, which was recently criticised in The Guardian for failing to use recycled paper?
    Mr. Atkins: Tower Hamlets, of course, is an authority which I seem to remember was controlled by the Liberals at one stage. They certainly had an active role in it. I should be interested to have more information about what Tower Hamlets has failed to achieve.
    Mr. Heald rose—
    Mr. Atkins: Perhaps my hon. Friend can help me.
    Mr. Heald: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, because The Guardian was not just criticising Tower Hamlets for not using recycled paper. Indeed, it said:
    "it even ignores obvious cost-free gestures such as the use of lead-free petrol, CFC-free aerosols and recycled paper…it does not offer pooper-scoopers in parks."
    Mr. Atkins: That strikes me as a record about which we ought to know more. Perhaps my hon. Friend could do some research and let us know the results; I am sure that we should be fascinated.
    Some 250 local authorities have agreed to sign up to my Department's "making a corporate commitment" campaign. Many authorities—with the exception of Tower Hamlets—are also taking steps to improve

    1369
    domestic energy efficiency, and my Department encourages it. Local authorities already spend around a quarter of their council house repair and improvement budgets on energy-related work such as new heating systems. Better output can be obtained through the application of the lessons of my Department's green house programme.
    The green house programme was launched in 1990 to establish a network of energy efficiency demonstration projects to show local authorities in England how the energy efficiency of council housing could be improved. Over three years, some 180 schemes in 130 local authorities have been undertaken; the results are very encouraging, with schemes achieving fuel cost reductions of up to 40 per cent. and carbon dioxide reductions of up to 50 per cent.
    Last year, drawing on experiences gained from the green house programme, we asked local authorities to include energy efficiency as an integral part of their housing strategies and investment programmes. In June, we issued a guide called "Energy Efficiency in Council Housing" to help local authorities to obtain the best value from their resources: it provides useful guidance on how best to develop sound and fully integrated energy policies and programmes.
    Similarly, we are keen to avoid unnecessary burdens on central Government, and, above all, unnecessary regulation. As we all know, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is having a bonfire of unnecessary controls; we are determined not to introduce new controls as fast as the old ones are turned to ashes.
    The Government are keen to encourage energy efficiency, and to do so efficiently. We must make the best possible use of limited resources, and we must not impose unnecessary regulation or burdens on others. In our view, the best way forward is for the Government to work in close partnership with local authorities, businesses, other organisations and individuals. That does not require new legislation, which would be time-consuming and costly to prepare and implement. We prefer to devote our efforts to getting on with the job.
    Mr. Beith: The Minister said that it would be costly to prepare new legislation. Has he estimated the cost of preparing more than 200 amendments—a task carried out, quite unnecessarily, by parliamentary counsel in respect of the existing Bill?
    Mr. Atkins: I beg to differ. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I was associated with the Bill during its Committee stage; I made it clear then that I did not approve of the essence of what the Bill was trying to do in terms of costs and burdens, and that I would have to seek further advice on whether I should consider tabling amendments—which is, indeed, what happened. I make no apology for that. During the assessment of Government
    1370
    business, one uses officials to produce amendments so that they can be tabled; that is a perfectly legitimate stance, and one from which I do not in any sense resile.
    Mr. Butler: My hon. Friend may recall that, in Committee, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said:
    "The Minister mentioned several matters that might need to be tackled on Report or in another place. I am willing for that to happen".—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 16 February 1994; c. 10.]
    Does my hon. Friend recollect that, when the matter came before the House, the only accusation made was that we had tabled amendments in an attempt to wreck the legislation? There was no acceptance that those amendments were necessary.
    Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend makes an entirely fair point. Hon. Members will not want to confuse the issue with the facts, but that is exactly what happened at the time, and exactly what resulted.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Minister said that he believed that the cost of the numerous amendments was appropriate. Can he explain—in the context of private Members' Bills, which are given limited time on the Floor of the House but can deal with detailed amendments in Committee—why he did not seek the amendments from his officials so that they could be tabled in Committee, but tabled them on the Floor of the House, where they would inevitably wreck the Bill? Will he also explain why hon. Members were seen to vote against their own amendments?
    Mr. Atkins: I cannot speak for other hon. Members; I am speaking for the Government. It was clear at the time that we wanted to examine the Bill properly. We allowed it to go into Committee—that was a perfectly legitimate stance—and discussed the matter during what I recall was a particularly amenable Committee morning. I promised the Bill's promoter, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), that I would consider the effects of what he was saying, and said that I would have to table amendments and clauses accordingly; and that is precisely what I did.
    Mr. Dafis: I find it extraordinary that the Minister should say that the Government had not had sufficient time to consider their attitude to the Bill months before it went into Committee. He knows very well that the Bill was the subject of discussion around the House; he also knows that I had a meeting with his predecessor to discuss it well before its Committee stage. The Government had plenty of time, but they failed—perhaps deliberately—to table amendments in time for the debate.
    Of course it is clear that, during the Friday Report stage, there was a deliberate wrecking process. Everybody must understand that there were far more amendments than could possibly be debated. I remind the Minister that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed offered to accept some of the amendments, but the Government would not divide on them.
    Mr. Atkins: I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I reiterate that the position is clear. The Bill was considered in Committee; I said that there were concerns, and that I would table amendments. That is what I did. It is a perfectly legitimate stance. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed has experience in these matters,

    1371
    and he knows that, if there are concerns about a Bill, there is a process for ensuring that it does not come to fruition. That is a legitimate stance that the Government have adopted and will doubtless adopt again, whichever party is in power.
    It perturbs me and many of my colleagues that the Liberal Democrats appear to be all things to all people on all issues at all times. [Interruption.] My comment comes not from a central office brief but from experience as a Minister and as a constituency Member of Parliament. Whichever doorstep they are on, they say what people want to hear. They say one thing in their documents, another in their election addresses, another thing here and another in the country. It is time that the canard was nailed.
    I am led to believe that the Liberal Democrats have always been in favour of carbon taxes and taxes on energy. I believe that, in a document published some years ago, the Liberal Democrats said that, if it proved
    "impossible to persuade our international partners to adopt energy taxes … we will nevertheless press forward … by ending the anomalous zero rate on VAT on fuel."
    I thought that I heard the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) say that they were opposed to VAT on fuel. They cannot make up their minds whether or not they are in favour of carbon taxes and energy taxes.
    It is time that we nailed this once and for all. We can no longer allow the Liberal Democrats to go around the country pretending to be against things because they discover that one or two people are against them, when they have said originally that they are in favour of them. This is a classic example, and I know that will be referred to during the debate by my hon. Friends and by my hon. Friend the Minister when he is winding up.
    Our position is clear. The Government have a superb record on energy efficiency. We are continuing to devote resources and support to it, and we shall continue to take our case around the country to ensure that industry, local government and ordinary domestic users recognise the importance of this great issue. I urge the House to support our amendment.
    4.37 pm
    Mr. Cynog Dafis: I congratulate the Liberal Democrats on taking the opportunity for a further debate on this important Bill, about which, I am sure the House will understand, I feel a little proprietorial.
    This debate needs to be seen in conjunction with last night's debate on transport. The issues spring from the imperative for radical action to protect the natural environment and, at the same time, to shift the emphasis of economic policy.
    This is a radical issue because we are talking about shifting the emphasis of economic policy so as to give priority to social welfare, employment creation and the quality of life and not to the spurious and dated addiction to undifferentiated growth, measured by gross domestic product, which it has been assumed for many years is the way to consider things.
    It is worth bearing in mind that Sir John Houghton, chairman of the royal commission whose report on road traffic appeared last week—he is a Welshman from Meirionnyddshire—is also chairman of one of the most important committees of the intergovernmental panel on
    1372
    climate change. In the next few months, the IPCC will announce that the problem of global warming is every bit as serious—and probably more so—than earlier studies led us to believe. I am told that, when the report appears in about three months, it will confirm that stabilisation of carbon dioxide emissions at 1990 levels by 2000 is an inadequate target. Whatever the Minister says, the United Kingdom is unlikely to meet even that hopelessly inadequate target. Without a significant change in policy, we shall fail, primarily because of an increase in road traffic and the inadequacy and disarray of the Government's programme on energy efficiency in homes.
    The Energy Saving Trust has been mentioned. It is astonishing that a tussle is continuing between the Government and the director of Ofgas over the trust's funding. I have some sympathy with the principle that the director of Ofgas is advancing—that the E factor, just like the K factor in relation to water, is a regressive tax and that the trust should be funded more progressively. It is astonishing that the trust cannot carry forward its programmes because of the deficient way in which the privatisation of gas was conducted and because the director of Ofgas is particularly unco-operative.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: Would not one source of funding at least help—the windfall returns that companies receive from advance payment on bills, by which their customers avoided paying VAT? Companies attempted to argue that they had not made a profit out of that, but two companies have now broken ranks and acknowledged that they did make a profit and put money towards the trust. Is it not it time that the rest were a little more honest with the public and a little less worried about a windfall profit for their shareholders?
    Mr. Dafis: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The way in which companies have been able to make use of advance warning of the imposition of VAT to make considerable savings from advance payments is almost an embarrassment. Of course, they should be ploughing a lot of those resources back into energy efficiency programmes to benefit people who need them in their homes.
    We cannot begin to tackle the environmental crisis without the development of a radical policy for transport and domestic energy conservation. I have heard nothing in the debate tonight, and I heard little in the debate last night, as much as I heard of it, to suggest that the Government are considering radical development in those two policy areas.
    For the reasons that I have already mentioned, this is a serious matter. It is serious, too, because thousands of people are suffering from fuel poverty, which will be intensified by the imposition of VAT. The compensation programme is welcome, but all hon. Members know that compensation is, inevitably, a blunt instrument.
    We may assume that in many cases compensation will cancel out the effect of the increase to 17.5 per cent., but before it was introduced many people suffered from fuel poverty—a serious deprivation. Widespread sickness results from fuel poverty. It is caused by cold and damp in homes and by emissions of pollutants from the energy-generating process.
    This is a serious matter because hundreds of thousands of unemployed people should, could and would love to be engaged in the sort of labour-intensive employment that is a part of energy efficiency schemes. We are talking of

    1373
    no less than a redirection of the productive resources of society to satisfy a crying social need. That should be fundamental to economic policy as well as to environmental and social policy.
    It is clear, therefore, that we need a major programme. Perhaps in the course of debates on this subject we have emphasised the not too radical nature of the Bill to gain the Government's acceptance of it. It is now time for us to talk seriously about the matter. We need a major, United Kingdom-wide programme and a co-ordinated and concerted effort. It is not good enough to have a lot of disjointed and separate schemes.
    The Bill's provisions are essential to make progress because, first, we must have meaningful targets. The target set for carbon dioxide emissions by 2000 is inadequate and does not deal with what will happen after 2000. We need targets for the reduction of energy use in homes.
    Secondly, the Bill is essential because such an ambitious programme cannot be implemented without the active involvement of local authorities, whose housing and environmental health departments are uniquely placed to carry out the work. Conservative Members have suggested that local authorities do not need to be involved but there is no other organisation through which this matter can be properly and expeditiously dealt with.
    Local authority housing and environmental health departments have the expertise, the knowledge, the staff and the ability to organise and to commission work. They provide the essential mechanisms without which the work will not be done. Unless they are statutorily required to carry out the programmes, many of them—more than likely, the majority of them—will not do it. The statutory requirement is essential.
    There is no conflict between that proposal and the suggestion by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) that the energy efficiency programme can be paid for by placing a levy of 2 or 3 per cent. on electricity and gas bills after a programme has been put in place. That is an acceptable method of funding. No contradiction exists between that proposal and those in the Bill, which provides the framework within which such a measure would operate.
    Thirdly, the provisions of the Bill are essential because the gathering of information and the drawing up of plans are needed to ensure cost-efficiency.
    Mr. Heald: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the cost of the scheme that he proposes would be about 3 per cent. of the annual energy bill? If so, is he saying 3 per cent. of £50 billion?
    Mr. Dafis: I am not getting into that sort of issue. A Conservative Member suggested that the imposition of a levy on electricity or gas bills after the implementation of an energy efficiency programme in a home would be a sensible way of funding the scheme. Whether the levy is 2 per cent. or more, that is a reasonable way of funding it. Savings in bills would amount to 10, 20, or 30 per cent., although some people have suggested that they would amount to even more. An additional levy, therefore, would be more than compensated for by savings in bills.
    1374
    The gathering of information and the drawing up of plans are essential to ensure the cost-efficiency of the programme. Without that basic requirement, such activity could be wasteful, inefficient and hit or miss. The Government and Conservative Members are taking their suspicion of local authorities, bureaucracy and planning to ridiculous lengths. There is nothing wrong with bureaucracy in itself. Of course, we need bureaucrats and people to plan and to ensure that schemes are carried out in an organised way with foresight and understanding. The Government's objections to the Bill are nonsense and always have been. [Interruption.] Yes, they are. This is not a side issue but one of major importance. The Bill is simply common sense.
    I shall cite Lord Moore, chairman of the Energy Saving Trust, which the Government claim is one of the main instruments necessary to deliver energy efficiency programmes. He said:
    "The Trust strongly supports the primary aim of the Bill which is to place an obligation on all district and borough councils to create an energy use profile of the dwellings within their area … This information will be invaluable for all organisations attempting to target energy efficiency programmes … The Trust also support the second objective of the Bill which is to place an obligation on the relevant local authorities to draw up an Energy Conservation Plan for their locality, setting out what works would be required in order to achieve a minimum amount of energy savings."
    They are the words of one of the people who is supposed really to understand energy conservation.
    Mr. Butler: The problem is that the hon. Gentleman wishes to set targets and draw up plans, but that costs a great deal of money, which will then not be available for insulation or other energy efficiency work. Does he recall that in Committee, in answer to a question about whether people would be required to install double glazing, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said:
    "The Bill does not contain a requirement but it calls on local authorities to set out what could be achieved by certain levels of energy conservation. No one is required to achieve those levels."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 16 February 1994; c. 25.]
    In other words, the Bill would not require anyone to do anything to aid energy saving. That is not nonsense but a fundamental objection.
    Mr. Dafis: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that individual householders should be compelled to carry out energy efficiency work. That was one of the spurious objections raised by Conservative Members in previous debates. The most recent version of the Bill makes it clear that there will be no compulsion to participate. It is clear that there would be no need for it. Of course, some eccentrics might say that they do not want their homes improved even though energy efficiency schemes would save money and provide extra warmth and comfort. There is no element of compulsion in the Bill, and neither should there be. The hon. Gentleman should understand the need for organisation and planning and for local authorities to be able to see the whole picture to make the most efficient use of resources and prioritise the types of property that need energy efficiency programmes first.
    Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman refers to the Bill in its latest form, but the motion that we are debating refers to the previous form. If we are dealing with the revised Bill, I would greatly appreciate a copy before I make a

    1375
    speech—or are we dealing with the original Bill? I apologise for asking, but the motion refers to the previous Bill.
    Mr. Dafis: The hon. Gentleman should know that the Bill has been revised several times and the part to which I was referring states:
    "for the avoidance of doubt … nothing in this Act shall be taken as … conferring any power of entry"—
    Conservatives spoke of authorities having power of entry into individual properties but we have clarified that point—
    "on any energy conservation authority to compel any other person to carry out any works or repairs on any property."
    I stress that there is no compulsion in the Bill although the hon. Gentleman seems to suggest that there should be.
    I have already quoted Lord Moore, chairman of the Energy Saving Trust. This is a common-sense Bill, which is why he supported it and why it has been supported by so many Conservative Members. It was endorsed for the same reason by the then Chairman of the Select Committee on the Environment—the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones)—which produced an excellent report. His words have already been cited so I shall not repeat them, but I was there when he uttered his historic words. He climbed on a chair in the Jubilee Room, where I was hosting a reception, and declaimed with great enthusiasm his support for the Bill and said that he would be urging the Government to proceed with it.
    An extraordinarily impressive array of organisations that work for energy efficiency, which know about fuel poverty and which understand the social and economic agendas, have studied the Bill and support it. Sir Crispin Tickell, the special adviser to the Government on sustainable development, is on record as supporting it. Some hon. Members may recall that, on Third Reading, I asked the then Minister to tell us whether he had been informed of Sir Crispin Tickell's position, and his reply was ambiguous.
    Now, however, Sir Crispin Tickell's letter to the Secretary of State for the Environment is available to us. He wrote:
    "As a veteran non-signer of manifestos or round robins, I am reluctant to bother you on a specific cause. I only do so because I believe that the nature of the Energy Conservation Bill is critical to the success of the work which you and the Government generally have been doing to bring the environment into decision making, and make energy efficiency and conservation a central element in energy policy."
    What remains to be said about the importance of the group that he chairs and which offers advice to the Government on how to create a sustainable development strategy? If energy efficiency in the domestic sector is not one of the first steps in moving towards sustainable development, I do not know what is. Sir Crispin Tickell understands the significance of that.
    I should be surprised if Sir Crispin Tickell did not understand that he was, in fact, writing to the wrong Minister. He assumed that he needed to persuade the Department of the Environment, but we all know that the objections to the Bill come from elsewhere. The crux of the matter is that the objections come not from the Department of the Environment but from the Treasury, which has probably not even heard of sustainable development. The Treasury's interest is in deregulation and, especially these days, in the selling off of PowerGen
    1376
    and National Power. That is what lies behind the present agenda. Is it not shameful that we allow such considerations to drive policy?
    On Second Reading, I read out a list of Tory Members who were on record as supporting the Bill. Their names are listed in Hansard. The disgraceful blocking tactics—the Minister has now admitted that they were blocking tactics—adopted on Second Reading, led by the people whom I called the abominable seven, meant that those Tory Members did not have to vote or take sides. What are they going to do tonight? Will they support the Government? Will they support the amendment to the motion that deplores a Bill that they endorsed and that they promised their constituents they would support? Will they vote against the motion? If so, what of their undertakings to their constituents and their political integrity? If they betray the trust that their constituents have placed in them, they will have to pay a heavy price, and we know how it will be paid.
    The Government must support the Bill in some shape or form or—we would be satisfied with this—they must make their own equally effective proposals. Perhaps that is what the Government have in mind, and perhaps the Minister will tell us about them when he replies. If the Government have their own proposals, they must encompass the provisions of this Bill to be effective. However, if the Government are not prepared to accept the Bill or offer their own equally effective proposals, they will be seen not only as perfidious—I believe that "perfidy" is a better word than "sleaze"—but as irresponsible, as having only short-term considerations, and as rapidly going crackers.
    4.58 pm
    Mr. Barry Field: I do not often disagree with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, and I hesitate to do so in my first contribution to such a debate as the newly elected Chairman of the Environment Select Committee. However, I distinctly heard my hon. Friend say in his closing remarks that the Liberal Democrats had to make up their minds on the issue. He indulges them by crediting them with an intellectual eminence that an objective observer would find quite unjustified. Clearly, to make up one's mind one has to have a mind in the first place.
    In 1991, domestic, public and commercial buildings accounted for 43 per cent. of final energy demand in the United Kingdom, contributing half the nation's emissions of carbon dioxide. Noting that fact led the Select Committee to produce, in 1993, a focused report on energy efficiency in buildings. That report has already been mentioned. When it was published, the then Chairman of the Select Committee—now the Under-Secretary of State responsible for energy efficiency—expressed concern that so little progress had been made in implementing energy efficiency since the Energy Select Committee's report on the same subject in 1991.
    The Committee's inquiry was undertaken between May and July 1993; 20 groups of witnesses appeared before it, and more than 100 pieces of written evidence were received. In the course of the inquiry, the Committee visited Newcastle and Glasgow to see the work of the agencies involved in improving energy efficiency in

    1377
    housing occupied by low-income groups. We also visited the United States, to learn about the American experience of least-cost planning and demand-side management.
    Our report was well received, and the Government's response was positive in tone, even if not all the Committee's recommendations were accepted in full. Since the inquiry proper, the Committee has continued to pursue the subject of the attitude of the Director General of Gas Supply to the funding of energy-saving measures. I shall say more about that later.
    I especially commend the Department for its advertising campaign based on the slogan, "Wasting Energy Costs the Earth". More than 25 per cent. of carbon dioxide emissions come from energy used in the home.
    Energy conservation and energy efficiency are not the same thing. It is possible to conserve energy and yet continue to use it inefficiently. It is also possible to improve the efficiency with which energy is used, but also to use more of it. The Committee saw a classic example of the latter phenomenon in the United States, where consumers were encouraged by Government-sponsored money-off offers to buy super energy-efficient refrigerators. The problem was that the Americans bought the fridges but kept their old fridges, too, to store their beer. The net result was an increase in energy consumption.
    We discovered that even when there was an attempt to collect up the old fridges as part of the bonus scheme that went with the purchase of more energy-efficient fridges, the old fridges were sold on to low-income groups, usually Hispanic, who could least afford their high energy consumption and running costs. We were told of another similar system—an attempt to take gas-guzzling cars off the road—and those, too, were sold on to low-income groups.
    In taking evidence in America—in California, in fact—the Minister himself, when he was Chairman of the Select Committee, observed that there was not a clothesline to be found. Apparently every American housewife uses a tumbledrier—although it is true that much work has been done on producing more energy-efficient tumbledriers. When my hon. Friend inquired why there were no clotheslines in that beautiful sunny climate—incidentally, the peak energy demand there is in summer, because of air conditioning, not in winter as in our climate—he was told that any alteration would interfere with the American way of life, and people's right to decide how to live their own lives. Tumbledriers were apparently part of the American experience; clearly, clotheslines were out. After my hon. Friend made that point, we all carefully looked out of the bus windows wherever we went, but I do not believe that we spotted a clothesline the whole time that we were there.
    Having sounded that note of caution, I must add that the Committee found that most measures to encourage energy efficiency lead to reductions in energy consumption, and its recommendations were formulated accordingly.
    Some of the least energy-efficient buildings are the houses lived in by those least able to pay high fuel and power bills. In Glasgow the Committee saw how improvements to 1960s tenement blocks could achieve dramatic savings in fuel bills. We therefore called for the
    1378
    Government's excellent home energy efficiency scheme—or HEES—to be extended, and for investment in such measures to be increased. The Government duly obliged, doubling the provision for HEES in the Budget.
    We noted that the imposition of VAT on fuel was welcomed by Friends of the Earth. I cannot lay my hands on the precise part of the evidence, but I recollect that the witness from Friends of the Earth said that he thought that the VAT would be a kick in the pants for energy efficiency.
    As for new housing, the Committee supported the greater use of home energy labels, and suggested that mortgage lenders could take the energy efficiency rating of a house into account in their calculations, because lower fuel bills should enable buyers to make higher mortgage repayments, and would also enhance resale value. In their response, the Government said that officials were in discussion with mortgage lenders on that and related subjects; so perhaps when the Minister winds up the debate he will tell the House about the outcome of those discussions.
    On keeping the Government's own house in order, the news is not at all good. Although some Departments have succeeded in reducing energy consumption and bills, others have had less success. The Department's response said that the Energy Efficiency Office was
    "pressing strongly for greater energy efficiency on the Government estate".
    The Minister has told us that the new Department of the Environment building will be energy-efficient, and will incorporate a combined heat and power unit. The Select Committee welcomes that news. However, what the Government say about the EEO makes it sound as though it may be meeting some resistance. Wasting energy makes no sense from an environmental point of view, and in terms of public expenditure too, it is nonsense.
    The Department of the Environment needs to get tough with other Departments, especially the Ministry of Defence, which did not even know how much energy it was using, let alone how much it was wasting. The new Minister responsible for energy efficiency is just the man to get tough, and to tell Sir Humphrey to switch that light out. Indeed, we read in the papers this week that Sir Robin Butler's replacement may come from the Ministry of Defence. Perhaps my hon. Friend will suggest to the Cabinet a beauty contest for that post, on the basis of energy efficiency, so that the senior civil servant who has reduced the Government's energy costs most will be appointed as the new Cabinet Secretary. Who knows?
    The Government must look ahead and develop a strategy for reducing carbon dioxide emissions beyond the year 2000. The Committee was somewhat astonished that, despite all the commitments that they had rightly entered into, the Government had failed to map out how they intended to achieve the necessary further reductions in carbon dioxide emissions in the next century. The Committee found the Government's attitude somewhat complacent. I am sure that the new Minister has brought some fresh ideas with him to the Dispatch Box, and that he will share them with us later.
    Setting up the Energy Saving Trust was supposed to be a key part of the Government's strategy for energy efficiency, and for meeting the national target for reducing carbon dioxide emissions. However, as the Select Committee has said before, that work has been stymied by the actions of the gas and electricity regulators.

    1379
    Unfortunately, the trust has been unable to raise the £1.5 billion that it is generally agreed that it needs to achieve the targets that the Government have set for it.
    That is not completely a problem of the trust's own making. It was always envisaged that the money would come from the producers, suppliers and consumers of the energy that needed to be saved. Unfortunately, the electricity regulator has agreed to raise less than one tenth of the sum required, and the new Director General of Gas Supply has so far adopted an unhelpful and even hostile approach towards the trust.
    The Committee, under the chairmanship of the Minister, twice summoned Ms Spottiswoode to justify her failure to allow the trust's schemes to go ahead, and twice she failed to convince the Committee that she was right. She came with a remarkable set of preconceived ideas and I likened her to Boadicea in the way in which she gave evidence and, at times, contradicted herself. Has she convinced the Government? How do Ministers intend to resolve the question of the funding of the Energy Saving Trust, and whether the gas regulator will henceforth be playing a full and positive role in that process?
    It is estimated that it will cost at least £1. 5 billion to meet the target of reducing carbon dioxide production by 2.5 million tonnes by the year 2000. In July 1993 the Office of Electricity Regulation agreed to £100 million over four years under the supply price control, but Professor Littlechild rejected doing anything similar under the distribution price control which he announced in August.
    The EST submitted proposals to Ofgas in July for a £25 million a year package. Ms Spottiswoode has not yet responded, but she looks unlikely to agree to most of the package. Ofgas promised to publish a paper setting out its approach to energy efficiency and the E factor. This was originally scheduled for July, but it has yet to be published, although I understand that the Departments have seen a draft.
    Since April, John Hobson—director general of the Energy Efficiency Office—has been chairing an interdepartmental group of officials which is supposed to be working on alternative funding options for the EST. So far, the group has met infrequently and seems to have made little progress. With a gas Bill now looking increasingly likely in the Queen's Speech, there would be an opportunity to introduce some form of levy on gas suppliers to fund energy efficiency, although that would not address electricity. However, another suggestion has been that the Government could change the non-fossil fuel obligation—a 10 per cent. levy on all electricity customers, which goes mainly to support nuclear power, with some money for renewables—to enable some of the money raised to fund energy efficiency. Which—if any—of those options are the Government seriously exploring to secure the trust's future?
    As for the environmental duties of the regulators, the Select Committee recommended that the Government place stronger duties on Ofgas and Offer to protect the environment and ensure that the energy sector makes the fullest possible contribution to meeting the UK's commitment to reduced greenhouse gas emissions. The Government told the Committee that they could review the duties and powers of Ofgas and Offer if necessary, and the Government should be giving further consideration to that for several reasons.
    1380
    First, the EST looks unlikely to make a contribution to the year 2000 target. Secondly, opening up the gas and electricity markets to full competition will have far-reaching effects on energy supply and use, which could have an environmental implication. Thirdly, the Government will soon have to consider targets beyond the year 2000.
    The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) commenced the debate by praying in aid the support of parish and town councils. I wonder where the hon. Gentleman has been. He has certainly not been visiting the grass roots of the parish and town councils in his own constituency, because they are among the worst offenders with regard to energy conservation. The councils either meet in a village hall which has all of the warm welcome of a deep freeze and more draughts than a log cabin, or they sit in their shirtsleeves in a sort of civic sauna.
    We heard strictures from the hon. Gentleman about emissions and pollution in the atmosphere. The Liberal Democrat party accepted from the British School of Motoring one of the largest contributions to a political party ever made. That organisation has probably put more people on to the roads of Britain than any other, which shows up that party's hypocrisy in the debate.
    5.13 pm
    Ms Joan Ruddock: In following the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), I must say that I rarely find myself having any sympathy with anything said by Conservative Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] Yes, it is a shame. However, I think that the hon. Gentleman made some useful points today, and the Minister will have to rise to the challenge when he tries to respond to the pertinent points made by his hon. Friend.
    I come to this debate in support of the motion standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and his colleagues, and to deplore the amendment tabled by the Government. The latter is yet another attempt by cynical Ministers to claim exaggerated green credentials for minimalist programmes.
    The efficient use of energy requires a degree of strategic thinking and planning that is entirely at odds with the Government's philosophy. While today's debate is quite properly concerned with the domestic sector, we must remind ourselves that considerations of energy conservation and efficiency begin a lot earlier than the electric switch or the gas tap in the home.
    The Government have no strategic view beyond market forces. They have squandered the resource of North sea oil, abandoned our coal reserves and failed to set targets for individual energy sectors. They have no strategy for heat conservation at the source of generation, and they have signally failed to demonstrate any real commitment to renewable energy sources.
    Combined heat and power is a case in point. Most power stations are only around 34 per cent. efficient, while combined heat and power systems are at least 80 per cent. efficient. The Government have—on environmental grounds, they tell us—set a target to more than double the use of CHP, but they have not spelled out how that will be achieved. The Combined Heat and Power Association states in a briefing produced for today's debate:
    "CHP can work either in a regulated market—or a free market—but not one in which the energy regulators and the DTI are all pulling in different directions."

    1381
    Privatisation of the utilities has made energy efficiency much more difficult. The maximisation of profits by maximising sales clearly undermines any energy efficiency objective. The framework of regulation militates against strategic planning and, as we have seen recently, the regulators on their own account may decide not to accept responsibility for energy efficiency.
    In the Labour party, we believe that energy efficiency is one of the most important goals of public policy. We propose a national programme of energy efficiency works, with the linked objectives of reducing carbon dioxide emissions and generating substantial amounts of long-term employment. In line with that policy, my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) and for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), and a great many Opposition Back Benchers, supported the private Member's Bill of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) at all stages in this House. We join the hon. Members for Truro (Mr. Taylor) and for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) in thoroughly deploring the way in which Ministers destroyed that Bill. It was a modest, but important, measure providing a mechanism for producing an audit of energy needs area by area around the country, and developing a schedule of work which could be carried out to meet those needs. The Government's tawdry tactics in defeating that Bill fly in the face of common sense.
    Let me say why the Labour party supports energy efficiency measures. First, there is the scale of the problem. Some £10 billion-worth of energy is wasted every year. There is also the impact on the environment, to which a number of hon. Members have referred. Power stations are major contributors to the production of greenhouse gases, and without a much more comprehensive energy efficiency programme Britain is unlikely to make her proper contribution to the Rio objectives.
    In that context, it is salutary to note that the United Kingdom accounts for 3 per cent. of the world's carbon dioxide emissions, but only 1 per cent. of the world's population. Furthermore, our production of carbon dioxide actually increased in 1991 and 1992 and, although I acknowledge that it did decrease in 1993, we are not fully confident that the Government will meet their targets. Energy efficiency offers one of the best options, not just for stabilising but for reducing carbon dioxide production. Yet I am told—my figures are entirely at odds with the Minister's, so I hope that the Minister who replies to the debate will give me some further advice on the subject—that investment in energy efficiency declined in the United Kingdom by 28 per cent. between 1989 and 1992.
    As significant as the environmental case for energy efficiency are the compelling social reasons for it. Simply, people ought to be able to afford to keep their homes warm, dry and comfortable. As others have said in previous debates, an estimated 7 million British households live in circumstances in which they cannot heat even one room to the minimum standard recommended by the World Health Organisation.
    It is well known and accepted that those who spend the longest periods at home, particularly when sedentary, require the most heat. Yet pensioners, people with
    1382
    disabilities and mothers with young children, who are all more at home than most, include most of the poorest households. Fuel poverty is a national disgrace. Yet rather than seek a thorough programme of assistance to poorer households, the Government impose the burden of value added tax on fuel. Then they have the audacity to call it a necessary measure to meet the target reductions agreed at Rio. Allowing elderly people to freeze to death is hardly a strategy that commends itself to environmentalists.
    The provisions of the Energy Conservation Bill provide the basis of a proper audit of needs, a proper system of planning and proper assessment of priorities. Few Members of Parliament can have undertaken winter surgeries without having constituents, particularly the elderly, complain that they cannot heat their homes. Cost is always a major concern, but so, too, are structural deficiencies, gaps in windows and doors, the leaking roof, the cold corner flat in the concrete block and the frustration of using inadequate heating that then leads to condensation and mould growth. It is estimated that 3 million homes suffer from the latter.
    It is surely obvious how many worthwhile jobs could be created by attending to the vital need to improve people's ability to keep warm. In an earlier debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) referred to several studies of the job creation potential of energy efficiency work in Britain. A broad average showed that, for each £20 million of expenditure per year, about 1,000 new jobs could be created. Then the Government tell us that it is too expensive.
    In brief, we could help to conserve our environment, keep people warm, reduce heating costs and create worthwhile jobs. The Government claim to share the same objectives, but their schemes are piecemeal—soon started and soon ended. Schemes come and go. The Minister has already mentioned some of them, including the green house programme. Funding was £45 million last year, £5 million this year and is then to end. There has been an increase in funding for the home energy efficiency scheme, to which the Minister also referred. Of course it is welcome, but there are limitations on the types of insulation that can be undertaken under the scheme. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether the funding is to be maintained, or even increased. Even with the current level of funding, it will take two decades to insulate only the low-income households in Britain.
    Then there is the Energy Saving Trust. I am surprised that the Minister was able to bring this to mention, given the chaos that exists. The trust was trumpeted as the Government's energy conservation flagship, central to their strategy to achieve their international climate change commitments, but already the trust has said that it doubts its ability to meet the targets set for it.
    Clearly, as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight said, the trust does not have anything like the resources required to do the job for which it was set up. I believe that it needs £300 million to £400 million a year. It has only £25 million. We are not impressed by the actuality of Government programmes. They give plenty of advice but far too little investment.
    Local authorities, by contrast, have done very significant things on very limited resources. In earlier debates my hon. Friends have paid tribute—and I do so again today—to the excellent work of Leicester city council, which has filled cavity walls in almost 13,000

    1383
    council homes and achieved cost savings of 50 per cent. That council is conducting an energy survey of all its council housing stock.
    Newcastle has carried out a project, with the European Commission, British Gas, Northern Electric and British Coal, aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions and energy consumption in the city by the year 2000. Nottinghamshire county council has had a programme of energy conservation work in its buildings for 14 years.
    I want to add to those examples my borough of Lewisham. It is a poor borough that has often had great needs to meet in many areas of its work. Yet it has shown considerable imagination in trying to bring better services to its residents. Lewisham has carried out energy surveys of most of its local authority buildings to identify the scope for investment in energy saving techniques. Before the introduction of local management of schools, all schools were surveyed.
    Lewisham has recently installed new boilers in schools and other buildings, creating new savings. Energy management systems and boiler controls have led to further reductions. Improvement of the insulation within council housing stock is also an aim, and Lewisham has used money allocated through the housing investment programme to undertake insulation measures on council stock. In addition, the council has undertaken an energy audit of all its housing stock to set a benchmark for improving the energy efficiency of the stock in the future.
    Mr. Butler: Does not the fact that those councils have undertaken energy efficiency work demonstrate—more effectively than any Conservative Member could do by merely declaiming it—the fact that the Bill proposed by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is unnecessary? Councils can do it now if, as we are told, they want to do it.
    Ms Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that councils can do it now, and some of them do, but they do so with great difficulty. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, most councils in Britain have programmes that are desirable and wished for by their residents, but which they cannot undertake for lack of resources due to Government cuts and restraints on local authority spending.
    Mr. Butler: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Ms Ruddock: Let me continue.
    We fear that only a minority of local authorities have undertaken energy audits. Most of the councils whose records the Government have applauded and mentioned in debates are Labour local authorities. We applaud those which do the work voluntarily, but if we are to have a nationwide scheme, which is what we need, a nationwide audit and a basis on which to bring homes up to standard nationwide, every local authority must undertake that work—and that will require legislation.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert B. Jones): I must correct the hon. Lady. It is not a minority of local authorities that act in this way. It is a huge majority. Even those which are not quite that far down the road have plans to take action in the near future. It is not simply a question of Labour, Conservative, Liberal or hung authorities. It is authorities
    1384
    of all political persuasions. I am sure that the hon. Lady will join me in paying tribute to the efforts that they have made.
    Ms Ruddock: The Minister is aware that I have just paid fulsome tribute to the efforts that have been made. We may have a debate about this, though probably not in this House. But we should be interested to see the list of those who have been carrying out audits that are in line with the proposals in the Bill that the Government defeated. It seems odd that the Government should have defeated a Bill when it is so easy and desirable to carry out the Bill's proposals and when the Government support those proposals. Why, then, did they choose to defeat the Bill? What the Minister said simply does not add up, and this debate will be pursued.
    Mr. Butler: If something can be done and is increasingly being done, why set up an enormously expensive bureaucracy, with further public moneys going towards it, to achieve nothing extra?
    Ms Ruddock: There is no evidence whatever that it will be an enormous and costly bureaucracy. I repeat that, if those measures are so desirable and efficacious, it makes sense that all authorities should have a duty placed on them to undertake that work. We all know that, when the work is undertaken, the savings are considerable. In this year alone, the small programme that my local authority of Lewisham has been able to institute against all the odds is reckoned to save £600,000 in that area alone.
    We are certain that much more could be done and that, if the Government were really committed to energy efficiency, they would have supported the Energy Conservation Bill. Labour has a comprehensive programme of energy conservation and efficiency, but today I simply emphasise our support for a proper national programme of energy conservation work in people's homes. The work could be carried out free at the point of installation, but funded over a period by a small premium on the unit price of gas and electricity. People would still be better off, because they would save substantially on their energy bills. In short, people would be warmer, the housing stock would be improved, and jobs would be created—not a bad package, as the Minister would say.
    I shall support the motion today and I have no doubt that, if the Government do not change their attitude and should the opportunity arise through success in private Members' ballots, someone on the Opposition side of the House will be back to press the Government again and again on this vital issue of energy conservation in people's homes.
    5.31 pm
    Mr. Peter Butler: The closing remarks of the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) remind me of the comments of the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) on an earlier occasion, when he said that this debate would not go away, and that, if the Government were still in power in November—he seemed to doubt it—the Bill would be put back before the House. Although the hon. Gentleman is not in the Chamber now, I hope that he will accept that we will still be in power in November and that, if the Bill returns, it will again fail to meet approval.

    1385
    I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I have been practising the pronunciation of "Ceredigion" since the last occasion, when I took advantage of the Official Reporters' skill and referred to him as "the Member for Wales" throughout the debate, which they then corrected in the Official Report. Even in his absence, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do the same again today.
    May I start with agreement, especially as we are unlikely to end the debate with it? We all agree that action is needed to secure better use of less energy, not just in homes or offices, be they Government or private, but throughout all the sectors in our society where energy is consumed. I agree with the need for action but not with the need for the Bill, which forms the motion put forward by the Liberal Democrats.
    Subsequent to the last debate on this matter, I met the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North to try to seek common ground. We found quite a lot of common ground, but not enough. When this Bill was last debated, I also took the opportunity to come out in public as having for some time been a member of an organisation known as Friends of the Earth, and to compliment it on some of the excellent publications that it has produced over the years, and the stalwart, ground-breaking work that it has done in looking at problems, including energy conservation. I said that I regretted, however, that, when it strays into party politics, for some inexplicable reason it seems to come down on the wrong side.
    Having agreed the need for energy efficiency, we must be clear what we mean by it. We do not mean being able to turn up thermostats and heat houses at an unnecessarily higher level for the same cost. It is certainly not meant in the sense in which one often hears it: "My heating system is efficient," implying that it heats the house to a high temperature. We mean using less energy to achieve the necessary levels of heat. We should be clear about that. In my experience—for instance, in the Palace of Westminster—many rooms are heated to a ridiculous temperature. That is not energy efficiency but simply waste.
    Wasting less energy is the other part of energy efficiency. We must use less and waste less. Many of us live in houses where the best we can hope to do is heat the wind as it passes through. Clearly, in such homes, draught-proofing or, in the more extreme cases that we often find in north Buckinghamshire, wind-proofing is the most effective form of energy saving, and is far better than merely adding more heat.
    We should therefore be clear that often in this debate we are discussing relatively low technology. We are talking about draft excluders, bits of plastic and rubber nailed to doors, and straightforward secondary double glazing, not exclusively about high technology boilers or the replacement of complete systems.
    As you well know, Mr. Deputy Speaker—as you are, I hope, familiar with it—my constituency is in Milton Keynes, which, proudly and incontrovertibly, can boast that it is Britain's greenest city. After the last debate on this Bill, the Minister for the Environment and Countryside opened a materials recycling facility that has so far cost some £6 million. He opened it extremely
    1386
    effectively, and I invite those who have not yet visited the facility to do so, especially the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North.
    The waste stream comes into that facility, directly collected from individual houses. I am involved in the audit with some companies to see whether we can involve them as well. The waste is collected from houses in the borough and is then sorted, partly by hand, partly by magnetism and partly by some astonishing system that rejects certain types of plastic and separates them from others.
    Next week, the Minister will address a conference in London about what comes out at the end of the waste stream. Opposition Members in particular may feel that it is entirely appropriate that a Minister of the Crown should address a conference about what happens at the end of the waste stream. At that conference, a paper will be delivered by an officer of Milton Keynes borough council. I hope that the Minister will be able to stay to hear that. He will talk about the excellent recovery of energy carried out at that materials recycling facility.
    What happens at the end of that waste stream is that chits of molten plastic of a uniform size and type are selected and separated by means of some extremely high-technology equipment, which is basically a large tank of water. The stuff to be collected floats, and the stuff to be rejected sinks. That which floats is collected and returned to a company called Plysu, whose international base is in my constituency, and it recycles it. The cost of so doing is less than the cost of using new materials.
    That is an example not of hot air and theory but of practical application, good energy efficiency and recycling practice. Because it takes place in Milton Keynes, I invite any hon. Members with a genuine interest in the subject to visit the facility. I should be happy to arrange such a visit. I formally congratulate the Government on enabling the borough council to raise the necessary funds to do that.
    I have in recent months welcomed the challenge issued to the packaging industry last July to deal with waste packaging, to try to allocate by means of the producer responsibility group the responsibility for the cost of that packaging between those who produce it, those who fill it, those who sell it and, to an extent, those who subsequently recover it.
    There are difficulties with the present proposals, because they seem to impose an inordinate proportion of the cost on those who produce. The allocation of the cost seems to be in inverse proportion to the representation of that part of the industry on the producer responsibility group. Obviously, someone must correct that. None the less, the initiative is more than welcome, and, in due course, it will put into effect the proper dictum that the polluter pays.
    All that will lead to another packaging revolution, accelerating the progress that we have made towards minimal packaging, and therefore minimal waste and minimal use of energy.
    In debating the motion, we are debating the Energy Conservation Bill introduced by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), which contained fundamental defects. The first, to which I referred in an intervention, is that the right hon. Gentleman said in Committee that no one is required to achieve those levels.

    1387
    To translate that, he means that no one is required to do anything to any single dwelling. It would achieve no insulation—not a single door draught-proofed, not a single window double-glazed, not a single draught diverted or stopped. It follows that it would achieve no energy saving or increase in energy efficiency.
    The Bill would merely enable one to look at a map and say that there was a house there that, if it did not already have insulation, would need insulation. I put it in those terms because—I think that I follow the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed correctly—there would not be, as he interprets his Bill, individual audits of houses. It would simply be said that a specific type of house should have a certain amount of insulation of a general description, but one would have no idea whether it already had it. I repeat, as the right hon. Gentleman conceded in Committee: not a single piece of insulation would take place, and no energy saving would be achieved by the Bill.
    The second, and almost alternative, pleading is that the Bill is unnecessary. I know that the right hon. Member for Deptford disagrees with that, but to say that local authorities have already done what the Bill requires must undermine the argument that it is necessary to force them to do it. If they have the power to do it, and if, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North and others have assured us, they all want to do it and there is a groundswell of enthusiasm for it, the Bill must be unnecessary.
    The Bill would create bureaucracy. It contains a clause to allow the Secretary of State to make orders and regulations. There is a clause allowing money to be handed out for that purpose—not for the purpose of insulating or saving energy, but for the purpose of drawing up the audit. Drawing up the audit is relatively simple, to the extent that one can look at a house and say that it should have insulation. If we are going to go further than that, either it can already be done or it is unnecessary to do it. What is necessary is to put money into insulation in specific houses.
    The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North referred to two local authorities on a previous occasion; the right hon. Lady for Deptford—the hon. Lady: forgive me, I was premature—has now referred to many other local authorities. I would argue that, if two have done it, more, or all, could do it.
    I believe that any local authority could undertake such an audit today. It could start first thing in the morning, at 9.30 or whatever time it starts work. The Bill is concerned with mandating and forcing that that should be done. That is the crux of the matter, and it was the matter, I believe, on which hon. Members supporting it and the Government opposing it fell out last time—that the Bill mandates rather than permits.
    Surely the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North and I have learnt, if nothing else, in the past couple of years, that, if one is going to mandate the ends, one must also mandate the means.
    That brings us back to the central issue of the proposed Bill, to which the motion refers—does it mandate the means? In other words, does the clause—clause 3(4), according to the version of the Bill that I have—which relates to the Secretary of State making regulations to secure the putting into effect of a plan, mean anything or not? If it means nothing, no funds will flow. Authorities
    1388
    will be in no better financial position than they are now, and could be left to get on with it voluntarily—as many, we are told, are now doing.
    If the clause means something, we return to the problem that we would then spend money on the bureaucracy to which I referred. I accept that "bureaucracy" is a terribly generalised and devalued word, much like "community" or "endogenous zone" or any of those clichés, but none the less I think that the House understands what I mean by it. The money will be spent on that rather than on insulation.
    Therefore, either we mandate the means—in which case my submission is that it is a waste of money to use it in that way—or we are simply mandating the end without mandating the means, which is a useless and spurious exercise. I therefore reject—
    Mr. Heald: I understood that the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) was arguing that we should impose a levy of approximately 2p in the £1 on energy bills, and that the effect would be that approximately £1 billion extra would be available for energy efficiency measures. In other words, she was making a spending pledge and she was providing the means, because she was saying that there would be a 2 per cent. levy on the total energy bill of £50 billion, and that that money would be available. What is my hon. Friend's opinion about that?
    Mr. Butler: I think I am right in saying that it was not the hon. Member for Deptford who suggested that, but the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North.
    Mr. Taylor: I am sure he said that.
    Mr. Heald: She meant it.
    Mr. Butler: I note the apology that is being offered across the Floor by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) to the hon. Member for Deptford, and I note that she accepts it. Perhaps, therefore, I may pass on.
    I wish emphatically to reject what I believe is a simplistic, and indeed insulting, contention—that it is necessary not only to support the idea of energy conservation in principle, but to support the wording of the Bill, in order to prove that Members care about the environment and energy efficiency. I reject that. It is nonsense.
    I welcome enormously enthusiastically the title of the Bill. I congratulate the people who drafted the title of the Bill: Energy Conservation Bill, very effective. I regret that thereafter they handed over to others the responsibility for drafting the wording of the Bill, and it was not done nearly as effectively.
    I think it is sufficient to mention one more defect in the Bill. If it means anything, it places a statutory duty on a local authority to do audits. It follows that, if I wish to find out how to save myself from heating the wind as it goes through my house and to stop those draughts, I would be entitled to go to the court and seek judicial review to force the local authority to do an individual audit on my house, at public expense, to discover how I might save on my fuel bills.

    1389
    I cannot believe, in spite of his known generosity with public money, that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed seriously intended that to be the case, for my house or for his.
    Mr. Beith: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is hoping to obtain legal aid to obtain that injunction, because his lawyers will have great difficulty in basing such an injunction on the content of the Bill.
    Mr. Butler: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. It would not be an injunction—it would be certiorari mandamus, but that is perhaps a legalistic point. I can also assure him that, if he examines the Register of Members' Interests, he will see that I am probably eligible for legal aid in any event.
    I return to the main defect of the Bill—it does not insulate a single house. I repeat my welcome for the idea behind the Bill. The title is good; the contents are not. After the debate, let us continue the discussion that I and the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North and many other hon. Members on both sides of the House have had in seeking a solution to one of the most serious problems that confront us—the apparently rampant and uncontrolled use of finite energy resources.
    The problem must be tackled. My hope, which I believe will be shared by all Conservative Members—and, I suspect, Opposition Members—is that we may be able to find a common way forward on that, and before too long, because I think that we can also agree that we do not have very long.
    5.48 pm
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Thank you for allowing me to catch your eye at this time of the night, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    This has been an energy-efficient debate, because we have had a little heat from the Opposition Benches but very little light on what the Opposition's policies are. We have learnt that the Liberal Democrats' policy is not now to impose VAT on fuel, although they were in favour of it until the Government introduced it.
    Mr. Beith: No, we were not.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: In the paper that they produced in 1993—
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: I will certainly give way.
    Mr. Taylor: I have not denied that we canvassed the idea in a policy document in the early 1990s. But we rejected it for good reasons, and our manifesto specifically opposed the idea. The Conservative manifesto was rather more energy-efficient than ours, because it did not mention the idea at al—but the Government then introduced the tax.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: The Liberal paper entitled "Taxing Pollution, Not People", which was produced in September 1993, showed that the party supported a tax on energy sources, and claimed that the measure would raise
    1390
    more than £5 billion by the year 2000. The hon. Gentleman still denies that there would be a tax on energy, even if it is not specifically VAT.
    Mr. Taylor: I have no intention of misleading anyone on this issue. We have supported a carbon tax, but that is not the same as VAT on fuel, which falls directly on the consumer and does nothing to discourage inefficiency among generators. We argued for a carbon tax on that principle, and for those who were worried about its effect on the competitiveness of British industry, we said that the tax should be Europewide. That idea is still being canvassed.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: We have not learnt from that exchange whether the Liberal Democrats are still in favour of a carbon tax. I gather from Liberal Democrat nods that the party is in favour of a carbon tax on top of the VAT on fuel that we have introduced.
    Mr. Taylor: I am happy to make the matter clear. I think that I have made it clear that we are against VAT on fuel. We have argued for a common European carbon tax and have said that VAT should be cut to the European minimum. I appreciate that we cannot get rid of it altogether, but we should cut it to 5 per cent. We do not suggest a carbon tax on top of existing and planned VAT.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: My understanding is that the 1976 sixth directive on VAT would not allow us to reduce VAT to the level that the hon. Gentleman suggests. We would have to maintain it at 8 per cent. I am still not clear whether the hon. Gentleman would seek dispensation from Brussels to that effect, or whether he would wish to introduce carbon tax on top of the proposed rise in VAT to 17.5 per cent. The hon. Gentleman nods, but I am still not sure of his position.
    Mr. Taylor: I was not nodding, I was shaking my head. I think that it would be possible for Britain to reduce the rate to 5 per cent., and that is what we plan to do.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful for that clarification.
    We got a little more light from the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis)—or as my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler) called him, the hon. Member for Wales—who said that he favoured a 2 per cent. levy on our total energy bill of £50 billion. That would realise £1 billion a year.
    Mr. Butler: Perhaps I can assist my hon. Friend on Liberal Democrat policy.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: I doubt it.
    Mr. Butler: I accept that no one could do that satisfactorily, but I shall try.
    It is a red herring to speak about 5, 8 or 15 per cent. VAT plus a carbon tax. As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said at the Liberal Democrat conference, we must not deviate from paying the real cost for our energy, although at times it might be comfortable to do so. The hon. Gentleman said more than that: I am not seeking to give selective quotes.
    It matters not to the consumer whether he pays VAT or a carbon tax. What is important to him is the cost. The Liberal Democrats were in favour of upping the cost, but

    1391
    we have done that, so they are no longer in favour of it. I hope that, in those few seconds, I have elucidated the Liberal Democrats' "jelly-may-stick-to-the wall" policy.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: There we have it. The Liberal Democrats should retain my hon. Friend and use his legal skills to write their next election manifesto. Perhaps they would then have a clearer policy, which we would be able to understand.
    Mr. Heald: If my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North-East (Mr. Butler) wrote the Liberal party manifesto, people would know what it stood for, and Liberal Democrat Members would not be able to jink and jive from one election to the next. Far from the Liberals being committed to a carbon tax, if they can persuade their European partners to have it, they have made it clear that, if Europe will not do it, they will
    "nevertheless press forward, for example, by ending the anomalous zero rate of VAT on fuel."
    That shows that, if they cannot do what they want with the consent of Europe, they will do what we did.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful for that clarification.
    A little light was thrown on Labour's policy, because we heard that the Opposition will impose a consumer tax on electricity and gas bills. However, it was not clear from what the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) said whether they were in favour of VAT on fuel and a carbon tax as well.
    Ms Ruddock: That can only be because the hon. Gentleman was not listening to the debate. Our total condemnation of VAT on fuel has been made clear time and again in the House. There can be no doubt about that and the hon. Gentleman knows it.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that clarification. We await an explanation from the Opposition's Treasury spokesman about where they will find the £3 billion shortfall when they abolish VAT on fuel—if the European Union allows them to do it.
    I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to the Front Bench. He is the former Chairman of the Select Committee on the Environment. I look forward to his contribution, because he is extremely knowledgeable on these matters and made an important contribution to the Select Committee of which I had the privilege to be a member. I am privileged to speak following the thoughtful speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), whom I congratulate on becoming Chairman of the Select Committee on the Environment.
    As I have said, we spend £50 billion a year on energy, a figure that was quoted in evidence to the Select Committee during its inquiry into energy efficiency in buildings by officials from the Department of the Environment. They estimated that we could save 20 per cent. of that amount, which is about £10 billion. That is a massive sum, and, in economic, environmental and social terms, we should make every effort to achieve maximum energy efficiency. The Government have an excellent record on encouraging industry, governmental and non-governmental agencies and individuals to achieve efficiency targets.
    As the Minister has made clear, in December 1993 the Government ratified the climate change convention that emerged from the Rio conference. That convention
    1392
    committed this country to stabilising CO2 output to 1990 levels by the year 2000, thus helping to reduce global warming and the greenhouse effect.
    There are also the social consequences of energy efficiency. Most of our housing stock is occupied by the poorest in society. During the Select Committee visit to Glasgow housing department, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight, we saw examples of houses that had been excellently refurbished at £4,000 each. The energy bills of those tenants were cut dramatically.
    During that same visit, we saw tower blocks of flats where, during the worst winter days, the temperature inside was lower than that outside, even though the tenants spent £20 a week on energy. That is why I welcome the Chancellor's announcement in his November Budget that the Government would double the resources available to the home energy efficiency scheme, from £35 million to £70 million, thus enabling help to he provided to about 500,000 homes this year. A further 4 million homes are eligible for the scheme. That is a worthwhile scheme to help the poorest in society.
    The Government have a positive programme to encourage energy efficiency, especially via the Energy Efficiency Office. As we have heard, much of its work has been delegated to the energy savings trust. In answer to a parliamentary question, the Minister said that the
    "Energy Efficiency Office budget has been increased to more than £100 million for 1994–95".—[Official Report, 9 February 1994; Vol. 237, c. 302.]
    That is a large figure; it is 17 times the level of expenditure when the Opposition were last in power in 1979, so no one should lecture us that the Government are anything but highly committed to energy efficiency measures.
    Mr. David Rendel: Is not the argument that much stronger, therefore: that, if such a huge amount of money is to be spent, we should know where it should best be spent? That is exactly the point of the original Energy Conservation Bill.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Although I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, I do not agree with the way in which his party would achieve it; I shall come to that later. I totally agree that we need to know how that huge sum of money should be spent, and that it should be spent effectively.
    The Select Committee inquiry into energy efficiency in buildings received evidence from the Energy Saving Trust, for which the Government have set a target of 2.5 million tonnes of carbon saving by the year 2000. It stated that, to achieve that target, which is a vital part of the climate change convention to which Government committed us, it required a budget of some £1.5 billion over the next six years or so.
    The evidence continued:
    "if this investment is spread across all consumers, the maximum average impact on bills is at most only 1.5 per cent. decreasing rapidly thereafter as the savings take effect."
    It also stated that other benefits include
    "the creation of about 40,000 more jobs in the energy efficiency field and an improvement in the balance of trade of about £300 million a year by the year 2000.".
    It is of great importance that we get the funding correct for the Energy Saving Trust. As has been mentioned this evening, funding is to come largely from the electricity and gas industries. Funding will be raised from the

    1393
    electricity industry via the K factor recently revised by the director general of Offer and from the gas industry via the E factor.
    We took evidence from Clare Spottiswoode, the director general of Ofgas, who took a fairly narrow legal interpretation of the Gas Act 1986 and reached different conclusion from her predecessor, Sir James McKinnon, that she was not allowed to spend via the E factor anything more than a minimum amount on energy efficiency measures. So the Government have a problem as to how the shortfall to the Energy Saving Trust is to be achieved.
    I am sure that the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) will have something to say about that, and I look forward to his speech. However, if the director general of Ofgas is not prepared to alter her stance—it seems that there is an overwhelming case for her doing so, because it is in the interest of all gas consumers and everyone else that she should—my hon. Friend should have discussions with the gas industry to encourage it to raise a sum similar to the one being raised by the electricity industry, so that there is complete fairness in competition between the two energy industries.
    The Government have a positive energy efficiency programme in their own estate. As we have heard this evening, they have set themselves a target of a 15 per cent. reduction in energy use over the next five years, so that consumption should be 80 per cent. of the 1990 levels by the year 2000.
    Some Government Departments have made great strides in that direction. I welcome my hon. Friend's announcement that the new Department of the Environment office has been designed primarily with energy efficiency in mind, but other Departments, such as the Ministry of Defence, have not made such progress. I hope that my hon. Friend will have something to say about that this evening, and will use his influence to ensure that the Government set the highest possible example to industry and private consumers.
    In the corporate sector, great efforts are being made to encourage reductions in energy consumption. The Government's corporate commitment campaign involved 1,500 major firms making a corporate commitment to improve energy efficiency. When it gets going, that campaign will have a massive effect.
    The energy management assistance scheme gives small firms free advice on how to promote energy efficiency schemes and grants towards implementing them are available. In the corporate sector—one of the largest sectors of energy consumption—real progress is about to be made, and we look forward to seeing demonstrable results.
    On the domestic side, the Government are putting even more effort into energy efficiency. I have already mentioned the home energy efficiency scheme—a worthwhile scheme for the worst-insulated houses in Britain.
    I was invited by the Neighbourhood Energy Action Trust to witness the implementation of such a scheme by a unemployed person in my constituency. The difference produced for a very small expenditure was phenomenal. Just a little draught-proofing around the windows and doors, proper insulation in the roof and a proper timer
    1394
    switch and thermostat on the hot water cylinder, reduced fuel bills by about a quarter. That is very worth while for anyone on a low income, and I thoroughly recommend the scheme.
    The Energy Saving Trust is tasked with producing other energy-saving measures promoted by the utilities, which have suggested some excellent schemes already, although their progress is being hampered by lack of funding. One issue that they are pushing is contract energy saving management—a worthwhile and cost-efficient way for the utilities to promote energy efficiency, as they can employ specialists to carry out their entire energy efficiency promotional programme.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight said, great progress is being made in the United States. By offering the carrot of reduced electricity bills, electricity utilities were able to send out detailed questionnaires to each consumer in their area. They had a response of well over 70 per cent. They were then able to feed those responses into a computer, which produced a programme of the best energy efficiency measures that each consumer could take. That is just one shining example of the progress that we learned in the United States of the steps being taken to promote energy efficiency. The United States is a long way ahead of Britain in energy efficiency.
    I said that there were possible savings of up to £10 billion on energy-saving measures. We saw measures in the United States that have already saved millions of dollars, so there are lessons to be learned from the United States. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to point to further positive steps that we are about to take.
    We believe that energy efficiency is best carried out by individual education promoted by self-interest—the very point that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East was making. We believe that it should be achieved through voluntary effort rather than by costly and bureaucratic methods prescribed to local authorities. That is not the way forward; it would be very costly and intrusive into people's private affairs. I much prefer the idea that people should produce energy efficiency measures for themselves.
    As I have already demonstrated with evidence from the Energy Saving Trust, the payback can be extremely short—sometimes as little as a year. Most energy-saving methods have a payback of only three years, so it is in everybody's self-interest that they should devote resources to producing energy-saving measures.
    For that reason, I oppose the Energy Conservation Bill promoted by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. I am sorry that I have to do so, because I approve of the aims of energy conservation. I have shown that I applaud any aim to improve energy conservation, but not by prescription.
    This is an important subject. We still have a long way to go, and I am sure that, under the Government's stewardship, we will be able to meet our Rio target. I look forward to positive steps being taken in that direction.
    6.10 pm
    Mr. A. J. Beith: I am grateful to my right hon. and hon. Friends for setting aside one of the relatively few half-days at our disposal to discuss this subject, which has clearly aroused interest among a number of knowledgeable hon. Members who have taken

    1395
    part in the debate. I am glad to have the opportunity to return to a subject to which we have devoted a number of Fridays, but without the success in getting it on the statute book that the Bill deserved. Give or take a phrase here and there, we have had a good and constructive debate, in which a great deal of knowledge about, and interest in, energy conservation matters has been shown.
    The Minister has been involved in the Bill's progress—he has not assisted it very much but I could not say that he has blocked it very much either. He described the Government's policies at some length but failed to explain how they could deliver the reduction in carbon emissions to which we are committed. He made a fair statement of what the Government have done so far and quoted a number of commendable efforts, but the gap remains.
    I thank the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) for his strong support for my Bill. Indeed, it is based on one that he introduced in a previous Session, although it is not the same in all respects.
    The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) decided to attack the intellectual high ground. That amused us at first, but then he did himself more than justice because he made a good speech and gave a useful review of the Environment Select Committee. Indeed, he underlined a point that I have just made, because the Committee was not satisfied with the Government's proposals for achieving the target. The whole burden of the report shows that there is not enough in place to achieve it.
    Energy use has continued to rise—by 6.2 per cent. in the first half of 1993—and the energy ratio is rising. The cause is not just the recovery from recession, but the underlying problem. Even the worthy measures in the Government's programme are not sufficient to deal with that.
    I welcome the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) to her post on the Labour Front Bench. As I am sure she does, I wish it were a shadow Cabinet post—both for her own sake and for the sake of the importance that should be attached to energy conservation. She followed the example set by her predecessor, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), who was also a committed supporter of my Bill. He encouraged Labour Members to turn up and support it on the days that it was before the House.
    I would have welcomed a Labour Back-Bench endorsement as well. However, I do not think that the Labour party is yet facing up to the energy pricing carbon tax issue, which eventually it will have to do. I hope that, during the hon. Lady's tenure of office, she will bring her party face-to-face with some of the difficult issues.
    The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler) reminded us that he had come out—he told us that he was a member of Friends of the Earth. He made a constructive speech about energy conservation matters, although I disagreed with his conclusion about my Bill.
    The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) was confused initially about VAT and carbon energy tax. However, through a series of interventions, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) was able to help him. Indeed, it became a seminar on policy. There is nothing to be said for inaccurately representing the policies of other parties. I have to deal with enough things that are wrong with Government policy without inventing things that they
    1396
    have not yet got wrong. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman could find measures that we are in favour of with which to disagree rather than those that we do not favour.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Despite the previous exchanges, I am still not entirely clear what the Liberal Democrat policy is. Does the right hon. Gentleman want to stick to the present level of 8 per cent. VAT plus a carbon energy tax or does he want a dispensation from Europe to get rid of VAT on fuel?
    Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman goes straight to the special needs class. I will have to repeat the lesson given by my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall. The system in Europe to which the nation is committed does not allow us to reduce the VAT on fuel below 5 per cent., but we are committed to reducing it to that figure. The carbon energy tax would be on top of that. However, if the Government agree to a European carbon energy tax, it would be on top of 17.5 per cent. VAT. That would be unacceptable, but we think that they will be landed with something like that.
    Mr. Butler: I want to clarify this issue. The Liberal Democrats would maintain—because they would have to, not because they wished to–5 per cent. VAT with carbon energy tax on top of that. How much would that additional tax be?
    Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman is a member of the party that has the power to negotiate that. There is no known rate for carbon energy tax. That has still to be negotiated between the member countries of the European Union, but it would have to be at a rate that would achieve the effect that we have been discussing. A 17.5 per cent. VAT rate with the carbon energy tax on top of that would be unacceptable. We have made it clear that that would not be a sensible way to approach the matter.
    Even the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, despite his partisan opening remarks, made a number of constructive points and described practical measures that would help people on low incomes. The assessment of appropriate energy saving measures called for in the Bill would identify where they would be most effective. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that in many types of housing much could be achieved through measures that are less expensive than, for example, elaborate double glazing—such as simple draught-proofing, alterations in the pattern of energy use that would not leave people cold but would be a more efficient use of energy, and simple—not hi-tech—changes in the equipment used.
    The Bill's purpose was to put an end to the amazing lack of information on energy efficiency in the housing stock by requiring local authorities to evaluate the energy efficiency of housing in their areas, both in the public and the private sectors. That information would enable the drawing up of local energy conservation plans in consultation with local interests. It is a feature of Government policy that all sorts of local groups—environmental, consumer, trade organisations and residents—should be involved in developing energy conservation. On the basis of the information provided, they could make real progress in developing energy conservation plans.
    Mr. Barry Field: How will the right hon. Gentleman achieve that? Will there be a phalanx of thermal thought

    1397
    police from the local authority knocking on doors? Most of my constituents already think that the local authority is a bit of a busybody—a big brother—without having a great army of thermal thought police banging on their doors.
    Mr. Beith: Only the hon. Gentleman could even envisage, let alone appoint, thermal thought police. There will be no such thing. Local authorities already have to carry out housing condition surveys, and therefore have the mechanisms to do that. We want to incorporate into that process a specific commitment to evaluating the energy efficiency improvements that could be achieved. That requires nothing like the draconian measure envisaged by the hon. Gentleman.
    Such an evaluation would fit well with the existing duties of local authorities, which the Department of the Environment requires them to fulfil. In the private sector, section 605 of the Housing Act 1985 specifies that at least once in each year local authorities should consider the housing conditions in their districts. Those surveys are usually carried out by environmental health officers and they could easily embrace the energy efficient element. That view is shared by the Institute of Environmental Health Officers, which has campaigned in support of my Bill. It would not require a physical survey of each home because much of the information is already known and the gaps could be filled using, in some cases, a sample of the properties. No household would be forced to take part against its wishes.
    That was such a reasonable set of proposals that it achieved all-party backing. Only five amendments were tabled in Committee. At the end of the day, we had the same tactics as were employed in the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, except that the Secretary of State did at least in this case table 50 of the amendments in his own name. Only the remaining 150 had to be fanned out to hon. Members who began the day a little unsure of the purpose and significance of the amendments. Every single amendment drafted to the Bill was tabled by parliamentary draftsmen instructed by the Government—every single one.
    How strangely the Government's attitude to the Bill has changed during its passage through the House. On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), who has gone off to foreign pastures, said:
    "It is a constructive Bill, on which there is clearly considerable consensus, demonstrated by the fact that the supporters are drawn from both sides of the House. That consensus has been echoed in the excellent speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) and for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason)."—[Official Report, 4 February 1994; Vol. 236, c. 1183.]
    He went on to explain the Government's specific concerns about the Bill, but the burden of what he said was that those concerns could and should be met in Committee.
    Mr. Rendel: Is my right hon. Friend also aware that the Bill met with considerable support not only from both sides of the House but from a number of local authorities—including, I am proud to say, my own in Newbury, which, with my full support, passed a motion in favour of the Bill and asked me to promote it in the House? Of course, it is not only Liberal Democrat-controlled authorities that supported the Bill; a number of
    1398
    Conservative and Labour-controlled authorities and some with no overall control also did so. That should be mentioned.
    Mr. Beith: My hon. Friend is right. A large number of local authorities supported the Bill and were totally unimpressed by the Government's new role as the saviour of local authorities from unnecessary burdens and requirements. Any claim to such a role is totally unconvincing. Local authorities were strong in their support for the Bill.
    Mr. Butler: I return to a point made earlier in the debate and not yet answered. If local authorities are so much in support of doing this and they can do it already, why do they not simply do it?
    Mr. Beith: I am making my speech slightly out of order, but the hon. Gentleman must know that, within the constraints under which local authorities now operate, permissive responsibilities take second place to statutory requirements. They are influenced by the way in which the standard spending assessment system works and by a number of other aspects of central control.
    In addition, local authorities are increasingly compared unfavourably with each other by the Government if they go beyond what the Government consider to be the minimum range of duties. They are open to criticism from Ministers if they do so. Therefore, to invite local authorities to go out on a limb is to do almost the opposite of what Ministers are doing. I shall return to that point, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will contain himself. It will feature again later in my speech.
    I simply wanted to develop the history of the Government's attitude to the Bill. It was around the time of Second Reading that I had a discussion with the Secretary of State for the Environment, who made it pretty clear that the Government merely wanted the Bill to be a permissive one. It could go on the statute book as long as it did not impose a requirement on local authorities.
    My view was, and remains, that there would be little point in that, because local authorities have the power to carry out those functions at the moment. The problem is that it is merely a permissive power, but not one which a lot of local authorities are reluctant to carry out, although some are. Many cannot put it as high on their list of priorities as their compulsory statutory duties. That is why I regarded that as important.
    Nevertheless, one could envisage the Government tabling an amendment to achieve that particular change and perhaps carrying it so that the Bill became acceptable. Therefore, we were talking about a Bill with which the Government were in broad sympathy but with which they had a specific disagreement. The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor), now the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Technology, said that the Bill would have had his support if it had been permissive. A number of hon. Members who are now Ministers made similar or more fulsome statements at the time.
    In Committee we had the privilege of the assistance of the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins). He said:
    "We have considerable sympathy for what the right hon. Gentleman proposes. However, we have reservations about the practicalities and the right hon. Gentleman knows that the Government inevitably have the problem of persuading the Treasury about what does or does not need to be done in certain areas. That is why the amendments were put down late and why you, Mr. Hughes"—

    1399
    the Chairman—
    "were unable to accept them, which is correct according to procedure."
    Obviously, the Minister had been fighting valiantly for the Bill in the corridors of power and had been done down by Treasury Ministers, but his sympathy was clearly there.
    A little later, the Minister said:
    "My response, in part, is that because local authorities are already doing many of these things, and the Government propose that there should be permissive legislation to encourage them—we are at one in recognising that something needs to be done—we do not believe that it should be incumbent on local authorities to spend money in that way if they, as elected authorities, choose not to do so."
    The only argument between us was whether local authorities should be put under the obligation. Therefore, this can hardly be a Bill that the Government deplore.
    On Report, the hon. Member for Banbury had become a little more warlike in his approach to these matters, and his interventions, although rarely addressed to the principle of the Bill but rather to some of his 200 amendments, did not show the same sympathy. For us then to find, as we did on the Order Paper today, a motion deploring the Bill in terms so strident that the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) felt it necessary to go hotfoot into the Table Office and table an amendment to remove the word "deplores" and replace it with the word "notes", showed a significant change in the Government's position.
    The Government have got themselves worked up. Because the Bill keeps coming back and the issue keeps being forced back on to the agenda, they have become more and more strident in their denunciation of it, even though, from the beginning they recognised that the work should be done. That is the common ground. The work of carrying out an assessment of the way in which energy efficiency can be improved in housing should be done, the Government say, by local authorities, but they should not be obliged to do it. That is a narrow division indeed.
    Some Conservative Members who assisted me in support of the Bill were fulsome in what they felt could be achieved by the Bill's approach. The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) said:
    "We should not simply dismiss the Bill by saying that we must not burden councils with the measure."
    The hon. Member for Eltham said that he was not sure that the Minister's proposal for modification of the Bill in future was convincing. He went on to say:
    "The results of the Bill … will go way beyond people's expectations. The Bill will promote well-being. There will be an increase in welfare and in disposable income which can be spent on other goods such as fuel.
    The Bill could have the plain English title, the Money Saving and Comfort Increasing Bill."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 16 February 1994; c. 7-28.]
    That is the Bill that is deplored.
    The Minister responsible for energy efficiency has long been a supporter of the Bill's principles. The hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) declared support for the Bill. The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People introduced a Bill on those lines himself some time ago. The Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) who has been scurrying
    1400
    about the Chamber today handing out sheets of paper to assist Conservative Members in their speeches is, I suspect, himself a supporter of the Bill.
    Mr. Butler: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Beith: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Harlow, but not to anyone else.
    The views of the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) were quoted earlier, and she was a persuasive advocate. She made it clear that the Bill deserves support. Other hon. Members who have become Ministers were among those who supported the Bill which is now deplored.
    Mr. Butler: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Beith: This is the hon. Gentleman's last chance.
    Mr. Butler: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me yet another last chance. I just want to put on the record the fact that none of the notes passed out by the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary was the slightest bit useful.
    Mr. Beith: I am a charitable man, so I prefer to attribute that to the known sympathy of the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the objects of the Bill rather than to any incompetence on his part.
    Much has been said this afternoon about the cost of the Bill's proposals. We have often referred to the Government's own estimates, which we regard as very much on the high side because they use the fullest technique of assessment, which was tested in two authorities. That has produced figures from £11 million to £23 million. I remind the Government that those are relatively small figures compared with the amounts of waste that can easily be found. For example, it was no less a person than the hon. Member for Banbury who told my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) that office accommodation left vacant by the Government is costing us £51.9 million a year, plus a further £4.9 million in SW1 alone. Those sums fall well within the Government's known waste margin in other sectors.
    Perhaps the most important point about cost, which I want to remind hon. Members about before we vote on the matter, is that money can easily be wasted or misdirected in energy efficiency. Gullibility in relation to advertising, the promotion of the wrong products, or just getting the wrong idea about how to save energy, can do a considerable amount of harm. Our resources as a nation are not infinite. We want to use them as wisely as we can, to enable people to keep warm and to reduce the pollution associated with energy misuse. We can best do that if we have information about how the resources can be well directed. We can enable people to keep warm at less cost with less pollution if we know where the funds can best be used.
    One of the weaknesses of the Government's position is that they concentrate their efforts entirely on the local authority sector. That does not mean all of the measures that they referred to earlier, but the largest amount of effort that they can quote in their defence is made within the local authority sector. It is their policy that that sector should be reduced as a total of the whole, and it has been throughout my time in the House of Commons, through people purchasing their own council houses and through building in other sectors.

    1401
    Some 57 per cent. of householders over pension age are owner-occupiers. Many of them, although they possess a house, perhaps still mortgaged, do not possess substantial resources with which to make it more energy-efficient. The house may be their only asset, and their income may be very low indeed. Within the private sector are important areas for energy efficiency work, which we need to identify. It is no use simply using the local authority sector, as the Government can, using existing local authority procedures. They must recognise the value of the Bill in looking at the whole of our housing stock.
    I am bound to ask where the real objections to the Bill lie. I cannot take seriously the Government's pretended role as the saviour of local authority independence, because it sits so ill with almost anything else that they have done throughout their term of office. I find it difficult to take seriously their arguments about the cost of the measure itself—the cost of carrying out the assessments—because, as I have argued, it is so relatively small.
    I can think of only two other explanations. One is that they are frightened of the need for energy efficiency work, which the assessments will demonstrate; the other is that they are panicked by the possibility of discovering that considerable capital expenditure might be desirable and might yield marvellous results. The mere fact that it could demonstrate a need for that expenditure might well be what is frightening the Treasury to death.
    The only other explanation that I can think of was the one adduced by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North—that the Government are frightened by the possibility that pressure for energy efficiency will damage the prospects for the flotation of PowerGen and National Power. I believe that the Government once denied that, but it would be quite nice to hear them do so firmly and categorically once more. Indeed, the most effective way to do that would be to make it much clearer that energy efficiency and energy conservation should be an objective of electricity generating and distribution companies. That has never been clear enough in statute. It should be a great deal clearer.
    I think that the Government never resorted to out-and-out opposition to the Bill because their objections were so misdirected and inadequate. One of the only hon. Members whom I have ever heard produce the words, "I oppose the Bill" was the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, who did so earlier. He is a very lonely figure, because most hon. Members, on both sides of the House, either support it or say that they support it in general terms but think that it should not be mandatory. The Government as such have never deployed outright opposition to the Bill. They chose instead to use the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill tactics, and to deluge the amendment paper with amendments that were not tabled in Committee.
    The ultimate absurdity of the Government's tactics was demonstrated when the Bill returned before the House for a second bite, on Report. I said that I had been so persuaded by the long speech of the Minister some months previously that I was disposed to accept the amendment that he had moved at that time. So what happened then? The Government opposed the amendment
    1402
    that they themselves had moved, putting Tellers both for and against the motion to agree the amendment. The absurdity of their tactics was plain for all to see.
    Mr. Barry Field: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Beith: No, I am concluding my remarks.
    The Bill is clearly widely supported both inside and outside the House. It was clearly a modest and sensible way of pointing the way to the efficient use of resources to help people to keep warm and to cut pollution. The objections to it were so flimsy that the Government had to resort to those tactics. I welcome the Minister to his new responsibilities and sincerely hope that his record of support for the measure in the past will lead him, even if he does not concede to us tonight, to set about his Department and move it in the direction of the proposals contained in the Bill.
    6.35 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert B. Jones): Listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) in opening the debate for the Liberal Democrats, and to the numerous references to what I might say in response, I must say that mine must be the most trailed winding-up speech ever heard in the House. I may not be the Lion King, but at least my speech was trailed as much it was.
    There is no doubt that we have had a very useful debate. I want to pick up on the last remarks that were made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). Even if there was disagreement about the Bill, there was a need to drive forward some of the principles in it. It seemed to me that there was a lot of common ground between hon. Members on both sides of the House about what was desirable, even if there was some controversy about the provisions of the Bill.
    As someone who has tried to introduce a private Member's Bill, the Hedgerows Bill, which was blocked on that occasion by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), I understand how possessive one gets about one's own private Member's Bill. My sense of possessiveness about the Bill of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, slightly diminished by the fact that I was not its chief sponsor, has not in any way undermined my commitment to energy conservation, because it is extremely important.
    If we are agreed on the ends, we must debate properly in the House—not just across the Floor of the Chamber, but in the important arena of the Select Committees and so on—how we are to will the means to those ends. It seems self-evident that energy efficiency is desirable: for the environment, because of global warming, and none of us wants to see people waste money on energy when they could be spending it on other things; and for the competitiveness of industry, because if we are using less energy, we can compete more ably in world markets. It is highly desirable from the point of view of the fuel poor, which was rightly referred to by many of my hon. Friends and by Opposition Members.

    1403
    So if this is not a dispute about the desirability of the Bill, for some hon. Members, it certainly is a dispute about methodology. I shall return to the aims of the Bill in a moment. Oscar Wilde was right when he said:
    "The truth is rarely pure, and never simple."
    That applies to the contents of the Bill and its aims.
    There can, of course, be considerable debate about the level of resources devoted to energy conservation. I have no doubt that Opposition Members will have different views on that from Conservative Members. That is perfectly proper, but it does not seem to be at all relevant to whether one considers the Bill desirable.
    I shall remind the House of what the Bill said, and of the key point in it, which was to provide for a duty on a local authority to carry out an investigation of residential accommodation
    "with a view to deciding what measures are, in its opinion, desirable and practicable, to achieve greater energy conservation".
    It would also have a duty to prepare and update plans setting out arrangements to achieve that. That recognises the importance of energy conservation in buildings and the effect of the use of energy on the environment, because 50 per cent. of global warming gases come from the use of buildings, directly or indirectly. The efficiency with which energy is used in those buildings—or used to provide the fuels that operate equipment in them—is therefore critical.
    Let me deal next with housing. Energy conservation is extremely important to council housing, for instance. Hon. Members have referred to the level of income of those living in council houses, which form a large percentage of our stock, although not the majority. The Government have taken steps to ensure that we deliver, because delivery is what this is about: it is about not intent but achievement—achieving improvements in council housing stock. Our principal tool is the housing improvement policy strategy. Let me explain what we expect local authorities to do.
    We are looking for evidence of a properly formulated energy efficiency policy. Key ingredients are clear objectives for aspects such as affordable warmth, management and maintenance costs and carbon dioxide reductions. We should also consider longer-term targets to measure achievements and energy rating for council stock as the basis for establishing the policy. Guidance on energy efficiency in council housing provides practical advice on how to develop a sound and fully integrated energy efficiency policy.
    We have found that the vast majority of local authorities are responding. I do not say that they are all doing so, but far more are responding than the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) suggested when she rightly praised her local authority in Lewisham, or other hon. Members suggested when praising their own authorities. We know from their housing investment programme submissions, and from the national home energy rating—NHER—that huge numbers of authorities are currently surveying their stock or have completed their surveys.
    Let me cite some of those authorities. I do not suppose that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed will be surprised if I start with my own authority, as I have the privilege of representing part of Dacorum. Its plans include ensuring
    1404
    that all housing stock has an average NHER rating greater than 6 by 1998, reducing average carbon dioxide emissions for its stock by at least 1 tonne per year per dwelling by 1998, reducing condensation complaints by 25 per cent. per year and training all front-line housing staff to offer advice on the efficient use of heating systems by mid-1995. That is very commendable.
    Naturally, I asked for the targets of authorities in the Northumberland area, because I knew that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed would be interested. Alnwick has conducted an energy survey of all its rented stock; Berwick-upon-Tweed planned to rate all its housing stock by August 1994—perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can tell me whether it completed the process on time. Energy conservation, including the use of renewables, is one of the main aims of Blyth Valley's urban plan. Tynedale has undertaken a stock profile for each home in council ownership, and aims to bring all housing stock up to an NHER of 7 in six years. Wansbeck has, to date, rated 35 per cent. of its stock, using the Government's standard assessment programme; and even the least active authority, Castle Morpeth, has commissioned an energy audit of its stock.
    Mr. Beith: The point that the Minister is making demonstrates that local authorities are carrying out the work that he commends without being bureaucratic or wasting money. It also underlines the fact that the proportion of total housing stock that their stock represents is smaller than it used to be: I am sure that that is true in Dacorum, and in many other authorities.
    Mr. Jones: I think my point demonstrates that all this is happening without legislation. I shall, however, deal with the private sector, because it is important.
    The housing association sector also contains a high concentration of people with limited means. The Housing Corporation has laid down a minimum standard assessment procedure rating for all new developments, which will mean that housing association developments will be extremely energy-efficient. I know of few housing associations with old properties—for instance, the big charities such as Peabody, Sutton and Guinness—that are not taking a good look at their older stock with a view to taking appropriate steps.
    Some local authorities are using their involvement with housing associations through the HIP process to ensure that they secure the maximum energy efficiency out of new developments by running competitions. I praise, for example, the London borough of Richmond—controlled by the party of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed—which has sponsored a competition to achieve the maximum energy efficiency in developing a new site. The authority kindly invited me to launch the competition, and I happily said that I would, because I feel that all local authorities should emulate that approach.
    In case the right hon. Gentleman thinks that I am being too generous to the Liberal party, let me also single out Stafford borough council, which is controlled by my party—thanks to two councillors who left the Liberal party because they were so disgusted with its policies. It has done exactly the same with a large new site. I am pleased to say that a very energy-efficient development will be carried out on that site by the William Sutton trust—as it now is—whose headquarters are in my constituency. A great deal is happening on

    1405
    the housing association front; that, I think, is due to the initiative of not just individual associations but the Housing Corporation—at, I might add, the Government's suggestion.
    I believe that the private sector is the most difficult. As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) pointed out, we cannot simply send in the thermal thought police; but there are some things that can be done. For instance, the home energy efficiency scheme has been very valuable to those on low incomes; increasing the number of building regulations has been useful to new building of private houses. Educating residents, whether they are council tenants or private owners, is also useful—hence the rationale for the Wasting Energy Costs the Earth campaign, which has received a substantial amount of taxpayers' money. There is also the renewal strategy pursued by local authorities for individual areas. It seems to make sense to combine energy-efficiency measures with other measures where stock is being improved.
    The real point at which all that bites, however, is the point of sale. That is what the Select Committee said, and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight referred to it earlier. If lenders adopted a different attitude, encouraging purchasers to think more about the energy efficiency of the properties that they were choosing between, a great deal would be achieved. I am pleased to tell the House that the Nationwide building society already incorporates SAP ratings in its surveys, and the Halifax is doing so on a pilot basis. We are holding discussions with lenders in an attempt to build on that: it is critically important for them to take a positive view.
    That also makes sense from the lenders' point of view. It is crazy to be prepared to lend two and a half times someone's income on the basis of valuation of a house without taking into account the purchaser's ability to afford repayments on the mortgage. If the purchaser's energy costs are low, however, his ability to meet those repayments will be greater.
    Ms Ruddock: The Minister has just given us an impressive list of housing sectors and the programmes by which they might be brought up to a proper standard of energy efficiency. Will he give us the global view? What percentage of Britain's housing stock meets appropriate standards now, and what is his prediction for the next five or 10 years? When will our housing meet appropriate modern energy-efficiency standards?
    Mr. Jones: The answer to the first question is that I do not know. The answer to the second is "more"—but the rate will depend on what happens in terms of individual decisions. That is why the role of education campaigns is so important.
    Mr. Dafisrose—
    Mr. Jones: I shall return to the hon. Member for Truro first: if I give way to the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) at this point, I shall not be able to deal with his points later, which I think he would want me to do.
    The hon. Member for Truro, said that the best authorities would do what they were doing in any event—but only the best. I must tell him that such is
    1406
    the mechanism of the HIP allocations that local authorities have a powerful incentive to present proper strategies, in order to be rewarded with additional resources to develop housing in their areas. That is different from the position in 1993, when I sponsored the Bill of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. It is one of the key ingredients that has led me to the conclusion that we can do better than the Bill. That is the argument that we support.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: I am glad that the Minister is addressing a change of mind and that he acknowledges that. I do not want to prevent him from saying more about that. However, surely his point about the HIP allocation process shows that it is a form of compulsion, which he said is his reason for objecting to the statutory requirement.
    Mr. Jones: I did not say that. If the hon. Gentleman was not listening, let me remind him that I said that it was unnecessary because local authorities were well down the road suggested by the Bill and I want to get them further down that road. I regard it not as compulsion but as a powerful incentive, and incentivising is what Conservatives are all about.
    I am grateful to the hon. Member for Truro for quoting the Select Committee at such length. I am not so far away from my membership of that Committee that I do not appreciate the work that it did and all the reports that it has produced on this and other subjects. It is close to my mind and I am constantly cross-referring to what was said. There is a great deal of sense in its recommendations, and the report on energy conservation pulled together a great deal of information and made many recommendations for which we are grateful. That is why the Government used a positive tone in responding to the report.
    The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North and my hon. Friends the Members for Isle of Wight and for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) referred to the key issue of the financing of the Energy Saving Trust. That issue is more key to the debate than is the Bill. We are awaiting a response from the Director General of Gas Supply to the various proposals from the Energy Saving Trust.
    You may feel, Madam Deputy Speaker, that Ofgas should be quick about it. There is a need for a fairly early response so that the trust knows where it stands. I have had conversations with the Gas Consumers Council and Clare Spottiswoode, and I have stressed the importance of dealing with that so that we can think about the medium and long term in the light of justified knowledge about her position. As we understand it, she is currently considering the schemes on their merits and we do not know what answers she will come up with.
    To paraphrase my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, he said that British Gas should come up with the money irrespective of what is said by the Director General of Gas Supply. I am afraid that that is not possible. The guidance and what is allowed is much more fundamental than whether the response is positive or negative.
    The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North referred to targets and the need to have targets beyond the year 2000. The climate change convention provides for the commitments to be reviewed in spring

    1407
    next year and before 1998. That will be built in automatically, and I agree that it is important to think about that in the medium and long term.
    I was interested in what the hon. Gentleman had to say about a levy of 2 to 3 per cent. on electricity bills. I should welcome it if he were to put that to the Director General of Offer to see what his reaction is. The hon. Gentleman said also that it is up to the Government to introduce their own proposals or to accept the Bill. I hope that what I have said so far demonstrates that, in addition to what has already been announced or what was referred to by my hon. Friend the Minister in his opening speech, there is clear evidence that our strategy through the HIP process is working.
    Mr. Paul Tylerrose—
    Mr. Jones: I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman has not been present for much of the debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) deserves a response to his thoughtful and interesting speech.
    I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight on his appointment. I have a high opinion of him and I wish him well. He referred to the labelling of domestic appliances. From January 1995, fridges and freezers will bear energy labels. The Commission is developing directives to cover washing machines, tumble driers, washer-driers and dishwashers. That is important because they use 60 per cent. of the electricity used in homes and produce 6 per cent. of carbon dioxide emissions. All new models are about 15 to 25 per cent. more efficient than the old models.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight said, it is important that the Government demonstrate their commitment through their own estate. He was kind enough to refer to my Department's plans for our new headquarters. He mentioned the combined heat and power ingredient and so on. The Government have set a demanding target of a 15 per cent. reduction in the years leading to March 1996. My hon. Friend said that I should be tough with other Departments. We apply as much pressure as we can to other Departments, but it is also up to the Chairmen and Chairwomen of Select Committees to scrutinise their own Departments. We would welcome some assistance.
    The hon. Member for Deptford made a number of points, one of which was about combined heat and power. In 1990, the target was set of 4,000 MW capacity by the year 2000 and it was revised in 1993 up to 5,000 MW. The Labour party never set a target for CHP. We are extremely pro-CHP and there are now over 1,000 sites in operation with 2,900 MW of capacity, which is 5 per cent. of all United Kingdom generation.
    The hon. Lady referred also to the VAT issue and she could not understand that environmentalists might have a different view from her. In its Budget briefing on that subject, Friends of the Earth said:
    "Increasing the price of domestic fuel is an important signal to householders that energy use should be cut. Cutting energy use is vital to reduce Britain's production of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide and other energy related pollutants. Friends of the Earth therefore welcomes the Chancellor's commitment to increasing domestic fuel and power prices over the next two years through the gradual imposition of VAT."
    1408
    The hon. Lady said that energy efficiency investment has fallen by 28 per cent. I was baffled. I do not know where she found that statistic. I am not aware of any reliable measures of such investment, partly because that is difficult to collect and partly because it is difficult to define. It is estimated that, thanks to the new building regulations, homes will be over 25 per cent. more efficient, but the extra cost is negligible. Is that ineffective simply because there is a lack of investment? I think not.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler) made an excellent speech in which he referred to the need to use less and waste less. That is an important message for the general public and it needs to be shouted from the rooftops. As my hon. Friend said, the Palace of Westminster is notoriously hot on occasions, but I can reassure him that it is on target for its 15 per cent. reduction by 1996.
    We should not be deluded into thinking that energy efficiency is entirely the preserve of housing and buildings. We need greater energy efficiency in industry and that will come about as a result of all the schemes that the Government have promoted such as EMAS, ecoaudit, BS7750, best practice programmes or whatever. All that is important, as are alternative vehicle fuels. I have tried the gas-powered vehicle and was extremely impressed with its quietness and energy efficiency.
    Let me reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury that, like him, we think that the HEES scheme is extremely important. It has received double the amount of the previous year and very soon we shall have the millionth beneficiary.
    My conclusion from all those arguments is that, if one judges the Government by their achievements in housing and in everything else, they have an excellent record, so I commend the Government's amendment to the House.
    Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:
    The House divided: Ayes 225, Noes 292.

    Division No. 317]

    [18.59 pm

    AYES

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Ainger, Nick

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

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Alton, David

    Burden, Richard

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Byers, Stephen

    Anderson, Ms Janet

    Callaghan, Jim

    (Ros'dale)

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Ashton, Joe

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Austin-Walker, John

    Cann, Jamie

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Chidgey, David

    Barnes, Harry

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Barron, Kevin

    Church, Judith

    Battle, John

    Clapham, Michael

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Bennett, Andrew F.

    Clelland, David

    Benton, Joe

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Blunkett, David

    Coffey, Ann

    Boateng, Paul

    Connarty, Michael

    Bradley, Keith

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Corbett, Robin

    1409

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Corston, Jean

    Keen, Alan

    Cousins, Jim

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

    Cox, Tom

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Cummings, John

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Dafis, Cynog

    Lewis, Terry

    Dalyell, Tam

    Liddell, Mrs Helen

    Darling, Alistair

    Litherland, Robert

    Davidson, Ian

    Loyden, Eddie

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Macdonald, Calum

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

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Denham, John

    Maclennan, Robert

    Dewar, Donald

    MacShane, Denis

    Dixon, Don

    Madden, Max

    Dobson, Frank

    Maddock, Diana

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Mahon, Alice

    Dowd, Jim

    Mandelson, Peter

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Marek, Dr John

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Eastham, Ken

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Enright, Derek

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Etherington, Bill

    Martin, Michael J, (Springburn)

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Maxton, John

    Fatchett, Derek

    McAllion, John

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Flynn, Paul

    McCartney, Ian

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    McFall, John

    Fyfe, Maria

    McKelvey, William

    Galbraith, Sam

    McLeish, Henry

    Galloway, George

    McMaster, Gordon

    Garrett, John

    Meale, Alan

    George, Bruce

    Michael, Alun

    Gerrard, Neil

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Godsiff, Roger

    Milburn, Alan

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Miller, Andrew

    Gordon, Mildred

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Graham, Thomas

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Morley, Elliot

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

    Gunnell, John

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Hall, Mike

    Mudie, George

    Hanson, David

    Mullin, Chris

    Hardy, Peter

    Murphy, Paul

    Harvey, Nick

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Henderson, Doug

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Heppell, John

    O'Neill, Martin

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Olner, William

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Home Robertson, John

    Patchett, Terry

    Hood, Jimmy

    Pendry, Tom

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Pike, Peter L.

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Hoyle, Doug

    Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Prescott, John

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Hutton, John

    Purchase, Ken

    Illsley, Eric

    Randall, Stuart

    Ingram, Adam

    Reid, Dr John

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Rendel, David

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Jamieson, David

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Janner, Greville

    Roche, Mrs. Barbara

    Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mofin)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Salmond, Alex

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Short, Clare

    Jowell, Tessa

    Simpson, Alan

    1410

    Skinner, Dennis

    Walley, Joan

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Watson, Mike

    Spearing, Nigel

    Welsh, Andrew

    Spellar, John

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Wilson, Brian

    Stevenson, George

    Winnick, David

    Stott, Roger

    Wise, Audrey

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Wray, Jimmy

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Taylor, Mrs, Ann (Dewsbury)

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Tipping, Paddy

    Turner, Dennis

    Tellere for the Ayes:

    Tyler, Paul

    Mr. Simon Hughes and

    Wallace, James

    Mr. Don Foster.

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

    Couchman, James

    Alexander, Richard

    Carn, James

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

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

    Amess, David

    curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Arbuthnot, James

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Day, Stephen

    Ashby, David

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Atkins, Robert

    Devlin, Tim

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Dicks, Terry

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Dover, Den

    Baldry, Tony

    Duncan, Alan

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Dunn, Bob

    Bates, Michael

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Batiste, Spencer

    Dykes, Hugh

    Bellingham, Henry

    Eggar, Tim

    Bendall, Vivian

    Elletson, Harold

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Body, sir Richard

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Booth, Hartley

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Boswell, Tim

    Evennett, David

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Faber, David

    Bowden, Sir Andrew

    Fabricant, Michael

    Bowis, John

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Forman, Nigel

    Brazier, Julian

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Bright, Sir Graham

    Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Forth, Eric

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Burns, Simon

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Burt, Alistair

    French, Douglas

    Butler, Peter

    Fry, Sir Peter

    Butterfill, John

    Gallie, Phil

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Carrington, Matthew

    Garnier, Edward

    Carttiss, Michael

    Gill, Christopher

    Cash, William

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Churchill, Mr

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Clappison, James

    Gorst, Sir John

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Coe, Sebastian

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Colvin, Michael

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Congdon, David

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Conway, Derek

    Hague, William

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    1411

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

    Needham, Rt Hon Richard

    Hannam, Sir John

    Nelson, Anthony

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Hawkins, Nick

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Hawksley, Warren

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Hayes, Jerry

    Norris, Steve

    Heald, Oliver

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Ottaway, Richard

    Hendry, Charles

    Page, Richard

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Patnick, Sir Irvine

    Hicks, Robert

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Pawsey, James

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Horam, John

    Pickles, Eric

    Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Porter, David (Waveney)

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

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Hunter, Andrew

    Richards, Rod

    Jack, Michael

    Riddick, Graham

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Robathan, Andrew

    Jessel, Toby

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Key, Robert

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Knapman, Roger

    Shaw, David (Dover)

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

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Knox, Sir David

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Shersby, Michael

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Sims, Roger

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Legg, Barry

    Soames, Nicholas

    Leigh, Edward

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Lidington, David

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Lightbown, David

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Spring, Richard

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

    Sproat, Iain

    Lord, Michael

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Luff, Peter

    Steen, Anthony

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Stephen, Michael

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Stern, Michael

    MacKay, Andrew

    Stewart, Allan

    Maclean, David

    Streeter, Gary

    Madel, Sir David

    Sumberg, David

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Sweeney, Walter

    Malone, Gerald

    Sykes, John

    Mans, Keith

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Marland, Paul

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Marlow, Tony

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Thomason, Roy

    Mates, Michael

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Thurnham, Peter

    Merchant, Piers

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Mills, Iain

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

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Tracey, Richard

    1412

    Tredinnick, David

    Whitney, Ray

    Trotter, Neville

    Whittingdale, John

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Wilkinson, John

    Viggers, Peter

    Willetts, David

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Wilshire, David

    Walden, George

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Waller, Gary

    Yeo, Tim

    Ward, John

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Watts, John

    Mr. Sidney Chapman and

    Wells, Bowen

    Mr. Tim Wood.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments):—
    The House divided: Ayes 287, Noes 174.

    Division No. 318]

    [19.14 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Clappison, James

    Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Alexander, Richard

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Amess, David

    Coe, Sebastian

    Arbuthnot, James

    Colvin, Michael

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Congdon, David

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Conway, Derek

    Ashby, David

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Atkins, Robert

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Couchman, James

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Cran, James

    Baldry, Tony

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

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Bates, Michael

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Batiste, Spencer

    Day, Stephen

    Bellingham, Henry

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Bendall, Vivian

    Devlin, Tim

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Dicks, Terry

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Dover, Den

    Booth, Hartley

    Duncan, Alan

    Boswell, Tim

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Dunn, Bob

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Bowden, Sir Andrew

    Dykes, Hugh

    Bovis, John

    Eggar, Tim

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Elletson, Harold

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Brazier, Julian

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Bright, Sir Graham

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Evennett, David

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Faber, David

    Burns, Simon

    Fabricant, Michael

    Burt, Alistair

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Butler, Peter

    Forman, Nigel

    Butterfill, John

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Forth, Eric

    Carttiss, Michael

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Cash, William

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Chapman, Sydney

    French, Douglas

    Churchill, Mr

    Fry, Sir Peter

    1413

    Gallie, Phil

    Maclean, David

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Madel, Sir David

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Garnier, Edward

    Malone, Gerald

    Gill, Christopher

    Mans, Keith

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Marland, Paul

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Marlow, Tony

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Gorst, Sir John

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Mates, Michael

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Merchant, Piers

    Hague, William

    Mills, Iain

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Hannam, Sir John

    Monoro, Sir Hector

    Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

    Needham, Rt Hon Richard

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Nelson, Anthony

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Hawkins, Nick

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Hawksley, Warren

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Hayes, Jerry

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Heald, Oliver

    Norris, Steve

    Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Hendry, Charles

    Ottaway, Richard

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Page, Richard

    Hicks, Robert

    Patnick, Sir Irvine

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Pawsey, James

    Horam, John

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Pickles, Eric

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Porter, David (Waveney)

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

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Richards, Rod

    Hunter, Andrew

    Riddick, Graham

    Jack, Michael

    Robathan, Andrew

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sri Wyn

    Jessel, Toby

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Key, Robert

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Knapman, Roger

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

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

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Knox, Sir David

    Shersby, Michael

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Sims, Roger

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Legg, Barry

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Leigh, Edward

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Lidington, David

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Lightbown, David

    Spring, Richard

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Sproat, Iain

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

    Squire, Robin(Hornchurch)

    Lord, Michael

    Steen, Anthony

    Luff, Peter

    Stephen, Michael

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Stern, Michael

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Stewart, Allan

    MacKay, Andrew

    Streeter, Gary

    1414

    Sumberg, David

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Sweeney, Walter

    Walden, George

    Sykes, John

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Waller, Gary

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Ward, John

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Watts, John

    Thomason, Roy

    Whitney, Ray

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Whittingdale, John

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Willetts, David

    Thurnham, Peter

    Wilshire, David

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

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

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Tracey, Richard

    Wolfsol, Mark

    Tredinnick, David

    Yeo, Tim

    Trotter, Neville

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Mr. Timothy Wood and

    Viggers, Peter

    Mr. Bowen Wells.

    NOES

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Alton, David

    Eastham, Ken

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Etherington, Bill

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Ashton, Joe

    Fisher, Mark

    Austin-Walker, John

    Fisher, Mark

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Galbraith, Sam

    Barnes, Harry

    Galloway, George

    Barron, Kevin

    Gerrard, Neil

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Godsiff, Roger

    Bennett, Andrew F.

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Benton, Joe

    Gordon, Mildred

    Berry, Roger

    Graham, Thomas

    Boateng, Paul

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Bradley, Keith

    Grocott, Bruce

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Gunnell, John

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

    Hall, Mike

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Hanson, David

    Burden, Richard

    Hardy, Peter

    Byers, Stephen

    Harvey, Nick

    Callaghan, Jim

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Home Robertson, John

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Hood, Jimmy

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Cann, Jamie

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Chidgey, David

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Clapham, Michael

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Hutton, John

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Illsley, Eric

    Connarty, Michael

    Ingram, Adam

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Jamieson, David

    Corston, Jean

    Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mofln)

    Cousins, Jim

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Cox, Tom

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Cummings, John

    Jowell, Tessa

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Dafis, Cynog

    Keen, Alan

    Dalyell, Tam

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

    Davidson, Ian

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Khabra Piara S.

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

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

    Lewis, Terry

    Dewar, Donald

    Liddell, Mrs Helen

    Dixon, Don

    Litherland, Robert

    1415

    Loyden, Eddie

    Reid, Dr John

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Rendel, David

    Maclennan, Robert

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    MacShane, Denis

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Madden, Max

    Roche, Mrs. Barbara

    Maddock, Diana

    Rooker, Jeff

    Marek, Dr John

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Salmond, Alex

    McAllion, John

    Simpson, Alan

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Skinner, Dennis

    McFall, John

    Spearing, Nigel

    McKelvey, William

    Speller, John

    McLeish, Henry

    Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

    McMaster, Gordon

    Steinberg, Gerry

    McNamara, Kevin

    Stott, Roger

    McWilliam, John

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Michael, Alun

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Milburn, Alan

    Tipping, Paddy

    Miller, Andrew

    Tyler, Paul

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Wallace, James

    Morley, Elliot

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Watson, Mike

    Mullin, Chris

    Welsh, Andrew

    Murphy, Paul

    Wicks, Malcolm

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Wilson, Brian

    O'Hara, Edward

    Winnick, David

    Olner, William

    Wise, Audrey

    Pendry, Tom

    Wray, Jimmy

    Pike, Peter L.

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Prescott, John

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Mr. Archy Kirkwood and

    Purchase, Ken

    Mr. Don Foster.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House commends the Government's commitment to the efficient use of energy and congratulates the Government on the action taken to encourage energy efficiency; welcomes the work being undertaken by the Department of the Environment and in particular the imaginative way in which it uses available resources in close partnership with local authorities, businesses and other organisations and individuals; deplores the proposals in ihe Energy Conservation Bill which would impose unnecessary burdens on public expenditure as well as on central and local government; and further considers these proposals typical of the muddled thinking of the Liberal Democrats, who supported VAT on fuel in 1990, but then changed their minds as soon as the Government introduced it.

Orders of the Day
  Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill
    CLAUSE 4

      CONVENER AND DEPUTE CONVENER
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 3, line 26, at end insert—
      ("Provided that no such other council may, without the consent of the Secretary of State, decide that their convener shall be known by the title of "Lord Provost".")
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Stewart.]
      7.26 pm
      Mr. James Wallace: You will have noticed, Madam Deputy Speaker, that in the amendment their Lordships provided that no council other those of Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee and Aberdeen may call its convener "lord provost", without the consent of the Secretary of State.
      We certainly acknowledge the historic titles used in each of those important Scottish cities, but what sticks in the craw is the fact that, despite the Bill starting out with more than 150 provisions giving power to the Secretary of State, the Lords amendment would give him even more power to determine the affairs of local communities.
      It is undisputed that the four cities that I mentioned have the traditional right of calling their senior civic person the lord provost—I am not sure whether there has ever been a lady provost. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Yes, there has. [Interruption.] Apparently Glasgow and Edinburgh have been sufficiently enlightened to have had a lady provost. [Interruption.] There seems to be a debate on the subject. Whether there were a lord provost or a lady provost, that would not detract from the dignity of the office.
      Some historical analysis is necessary. I believe that Perth has had a lord provost, who in the order of precedence in Scotland ranked after the lord provost of Edinburgh. Perth may no longer exist as a single unitary local authority, but Perth and Kinross may wish to revive that tradition. If that were to be the view of the citizens in the area of the new council, why should they not be allowed so to decide?
      If the citizens decide that, but it is thought that they should not be able to make the change at their own will, it should not be a politician such as the Secretary of State for Scotland who determines whether they should be allowed to do so.
      Mr. Alex Salmond: I am no expert on precedence, but I seem to remember that the lord provost ranked higher than the Secretary of State. Might that not be the reason why the Secretary of State is trying to limit the number of lord provosts in Scotland?
      Mr. Wallace: I do not want to get into a debate when I am not entirely sure of the facts. I should have thought that, within his or her own domain, the lord provost

      1417
      ranked higher than the Secretary of State—and higher than most other people, too. The Secretary of State is perhaps worried that there could be more places in Scotland where he is not the highest-ranked person.
      Mr. Phil Gallie: The hon. Gentleman suggests that the Secretary of State should not make the decision because it should not be made by a politician. Politi ians emerge into such positions through the democratic process. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the democratic process should not determine whether an area should have a lord provost?
      Mr. Wallace: The democratic process that Liberal Democrats would like to see is one that involves people within local communities, not one that is handed up to someone who has the most doubtful democratic legitimacy within Scotland.
      If it is not to be the Secretary of State, perhaps Her Majesty might be a better person to make the decision. I understand—the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) can tell me whether I am right—that Elgin laid claim to a lord provost because, on a royal visit some time during the 19th century, Queen Victoria referred to the first citizen of Elgin as lord provost. Since then, the people of Elgin have rightly thought that the title had been conferred upon them.
      The Bill emasculates and virtually abolishes local government in Scotland. Many people will ask who is keeping alive the strong traditions of local government and local democracy in Scotland. The amendment shows what the rest of the Bill does. The only person who will have any real power is the Secretary of State for Scotland.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that, a few hours ago in the House, the Prime Minister, no less, said that the difference between having a referendum in Northern Ireland and having one in either Wales or Scotland was that the latter had a
      "well-established system of local democracy and local government"?
      That being so, why are the Government destroying it in this Bill?
      Mr. Wallace: I understand that the Prime Minister said something similar to my local newspaper, the Press and Journal, last week, although that was a useless and inappropriate comparison in the first place.
      Our local government is being emasculated. In many respects, this Lords amendment encapsulates the worst features of the Bill—the centralising, overweening power of the Secretary of State, who wants his claws on everything that would smack of local democracy—and because of that we shall divide the House.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): I am a little taken aback that the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) wishes to divide the House on this topic.
      As this is my first speech this evening, it is appropriate for me to congratulate the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) on his appointment to the Opposition Front Bench. I read in the newspapers that the Opposition Whips are appointing yuppies to their office; that term does not immediately come to mind in relation to the hon.
      1418
      Gentleman. [Laughter.] It is fair to say, however, that he is respected on both sides of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
      The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland made a somewhat unexpected assault on Lords amendment No. 1, which was debated at some length in the other place. Hon. Members who served on the Committee will recall the debate on a Government amendment on the use of "chairman" or "convenor" [Interruption.] I am sorry. That was on an Opposition amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), which the Government accepted. Hon. Members may recall that the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) said during that debate that the term "chair" was not so much feminism as "furniturism".
      The debate in the House of Lords was conducted on a serious topic, and we considered the topic for a considerable time over the summer recess. I reject the argument of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that somehow the amendment is an attack on local government: it is not. We believe that the Bill should not provide a complete veto for councils that might wish to use the title of lord provost.
      The amendment was tabled on an all-party basis, and it would be useful to the House if I spelt out in some detail precisely what it means. In effect, it places a requirement on any council—apart from the councils of the four cities to which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland referred—to obtain the Secretary of State's consent before calling its convenor "lord provost".
      On reflection, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland may think that that is a reasonable compromise. Concerns were expressed in another place, and it was argued that other places in Scotland—the hon. Gentleman rightly referred to Perth, which is a good example, and Paisley perhaps is another—might wish their first citizen to have the title of lord provost. It is clear, however, that it is unreasonable to expect that the title of lord provost should be held by communities at will throughout the whole of Scotland. [Interruption.] I do not believe that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe), who apparently dissents from what I am saying, believes that every borough in Cunninghame, South should be entitled to have their first citizen made a lord provost. I do not think that that is a reasonable proposition. We propose a reasonable compromise.
      Mr. Thomas McAvoy: Does the Minister recall that, in 1974, the so-called four cities expanded their areas and became district councils? If those areas are to retain the right to have a lord provost, surely it would be better to have a certain size requirement for councils to have a lord provost. If the four cities expand into areas that, more traditionally, are cities and a nearby council is a reasonable size, why should not the latter have the opportunity to call its convenor "lord provost"?
      Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly reasonable point. It is generally agreed that the four historic cities should be able to call their first citizen lord provost. He asks about outlying areas, and whether there should be a requirement for a population size of 100,000, 90,000 or whatever. I have no doubt that he had Rutherglen in mind when he made that point, but the point of Lords amendment No. 1 is that it would not rule that out. Under it, any request on behalf of a community to

      1419
      have its first citizen named lord provost would be considered by my right hon. Friend on its merits. That is a perfectly reasonable proposition; it is not a particularly partisan matter.
      Mr. Andrew Welsh: Why should the Secretary of State have that power? He has gathered every other power to himself under the Bill. Why should he say that one city shall have a lord provost but another shall not? Again, the Government are taking power away from the people. Why in all logic, history or justice should the Secretary of State take to himself, and himself alone, the right to choose who should have a lord provost?
      Mr. Stewart: I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not propose that every community in Scotland should have the right to have its first citizen entitled "lord provost". That does not make any sense and it would not be supported by the residents of the four cities that are already entitled to give that title to their first citizen.
      The title of lord provost applies irrespective of sex. If a woman becomes lord provost, she will be so entitled. I hope that the House will accept that the amendment is a perfectly reasonable compromise. [Interruption.]
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. There is too much chatter on the Benches.
      Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 273, Noes 24.

      Division No.319

      [19.41 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Burt, Alistair

      Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

      Butler, Peter

      Alexander, Richard

      Butterfill, John

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Carrington, Matthew

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Cash, William

      Ashby, David

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Atkins, Robert

      Chapman, Sydney

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Churchill, Mr

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Clappison, James

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Baldry, Tony

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Batiste, Spencer

      Coe, Sebastian

      Bellingham, Henry

      Colvin, Michael

      Bendall, Vivian

      Congdon, David

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Conway, Derek

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Body, Sir Richard

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Couchman, James

      Booth, Hartley

      Cran, James

      Boswell, Tim

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

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Bowis, John

      Day, Stephen

      Boyes, Roland

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Devlin, Tim

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Dixon, Don

      Brazier, Julian

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Dover, Den

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Duncan, Alan

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Dunn, Bob

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Burns, Simon

      Dykes, Hugh

      1420

      Eggar, Tim

      Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

      Elletson, Harold

      Lidington, David

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Lightbown, David

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Lord, Michael

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Luff, Peter

      Evennett, David

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Faber, David

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Fabricant, Michael

      Mackay, Andrew

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Maclean, David

      Forman, Nigel

      Madel, Sir David

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Forth, Eric

      Malone, Gerald

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Mans, Keith

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Marland, Paul

      French, Douglas

      Marlow, Tony

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Gallie, Phil

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Mates, Michael

      Garnier, Edward

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Gill, Christopher

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Gillan, Cheryl

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Merchant, Piers

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Mills, Iain

      Gorst, Sir John

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Grant, Sir A. (Combs SW)

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Needham, Rt Hon Richard

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hague, William

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hannam, Sir John

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Norris, Steve

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Hawkins, Nick

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hawksley, Warren

      Ottaway, Richard

      Hayes, Jerry

      Patnick, Sir Irvine

      Heald, Oliver

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Hendry, Charles

      Pawsey, James

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hicks, Robert

      Pickles, Eric

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Horam, John

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Richards, Rod

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

      Riddick, Graham

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S))

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Jack, Michael

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Key, Robert

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Knapman, Roger

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

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

      Sims, Roger

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Knox, Sir David

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Legg, Barry

      Spring, Richard

      Leigh, Edward

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      1421

      Steen, Anthony

      Viggers, Peter

      Stephen, Michael

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Stern, Michael

      Walden, George

      Stewart, Allan

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Streeter, Gary

      Waller, Gary

      Sumberg, David

      Ward, John

      Sweeney, Walter

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Sykes, John

      Waterson, Nigel

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Watts, John

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Wells, Bowen

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Whitney, Ray

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Whittingdale, John

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Thomason, Roy

      Willetts, David

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Wilshire, David

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Wolfson, Mark

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Wood, Timothy

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

      Yeo, Tim

      Tracey, Richard

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Tredinnick, David

      Trotter, Neville

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Mr. Michael Bates and

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Dr. Liam Fox.

      NOES

      Alton, David

      Loyden, Eddie

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Barnes, Harry

      Maclennan, Robert

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Rendel, David

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Salmond, Alex

      Davidson, Ian

      Skinner, Dennis

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Wallace, James

      Harvey, Nick

      Welsh, Andrew

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Mrs. Ray Michie and

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Mrs. Margaret Ewing.

      Question accordingly agreed to.

    Clause 8

      TRANSFER OF EMPLOYEES
      Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 4, line 39, after ("authorities") insert
      (", or of the new water and sewerage authority or authorities (within the meaning of Part II of this Act),")
      Mr. Stewart: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 3 to 5.
      Mr. Stewart: The amendments all relate to clauses which deal with transitional staffing and property issues, and are all purely technical.
      As Liberal Democrat Members will know, amendment No. 3 was put forward by their colleagues in the House of Lords to implement a recommendation of the delegated powers Scrutiny Committee.
      Amendments Nos. 4, 4(a) and 5 are technical drafting amendments designed to clarify the powers of the Secretary of State in relation to the appointment and removal from office of the chairman and members of the staff commission and property commission. This is a
      1422
      straightforward legal drafting matter. I am advised that, as they stand, clauses 12(3) and 19(2) and the scope of any order made under them may not be entirely clear.
      I reassure the House that there is no question of those powers being taken as a precursor to dismissing either the chairman or any of the members of the staff commission. Indeed, may I place on record our support for the members of the shadow staff commission, whom we intend, under the terms of clause 12 as amended, to appoint as members of the statutory staff commission.
      I commend these amendments in the knowledge that they are purely technical and result from advice from our lawyers.
      Mr. George Robertson: As one of my colleagues just said, this is the "sack the board" amendment. All the Minister's platitudes suggesting that it is purely a straightforward, technical, drafting amendment are unlikely to fall on fertile ground on this side of the House. The reality behind the whole Bill is that the Government, and especially the Secretary of State for Scotland, are taking more and more powers unto themselves.
      The amendment is one of the most sinister that we have seen, with implications which go way beyond anything suggested by the Minister. It will empower the Secretary of State to dismiss the chairman and members of the staff commission without reason, notice or justification. Yet the staff commission was to be independent, with the power to look objectively at the problems facing local government after a major and unnecessary reorganisation. It was to smooth the transition effortlessly from one system to another.
      The question that anybody would want to pose at this time is why it was necessary for the matter to be raised in the House of Lords. We have debated this Bill on and off for some 200 hours in this parliamentary Session. The Official Report amounts to the equivalent of three volumes of "War and Peace". We sat through those debates painfully and we learned so much, but we were able to impart so little to Tory Members. During the whole debate, nothing was said about the powers that it was necessary to take in relation to the staff commission.
      In July, the Lord Advocate told the House of Lords:
      "There is no intention on the part of the Secretary of State to interfere with the independence of the staff commission."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 July 1994; Vol. 556, c. 1908.]
      An amendment has now been tabled to give the Secretary of State powers to clarify and make explicit his power to dismiss without reason the whole or part of the staff commission. The Lord Advocate is an honourable individual in the Government, which may distinguish him from many other Government members. He gave his word to the House of Lords in July; yet the Government felt obliged to table an amendment to clarify and reinforce the power to get rid of people who have been asked to take on a substantial job of work—allegedly independently and without pressure—on behalf of the people of Scotland.
      Why have the Government chosen to squeeze through this amendment after the House of Lords stage, right under the wire at the end of the whole process? This enormously serious issue goes to the heart of the Government's handling of the reorganisation. Some 300,000 people employed in local government in Scotland, delivering valuable and crucial services to the Scottish people, are worried about their future. What are

      1423
      they expected to read into the fact that the Government have taken upon themselves, at the very end of the process, the right to dismiss without reason the members of the staff commission in whose hands their future is placed?
      One does not have to be Bill Fyfe, ex-chairman of the Greater Glasgow health board, to know that, when the Government take powers unto themselves, they use them. He was asked to resign when the Secretary of State, did not have the power to demand or command his resignation. Yet here the Government are taking that power upon themselves. There is no hon. Member on either side of this House who does not believe that, if it suited the Government to use those powers, they would use them quickly and without question.
      By no stretch of the imagination, therefore, is this simply a technical drafting amendment, and we are unlikely to accept it in that light. If it were a technical drafting amendment, why is the power to dismiss so sweeping? Why is it not qualified in the Lords amendment? Why are Scottish Office Ministers taking greater powers in Scotland in that connection than they have in Wales, where commissioners on the staff commission can be removed for predetermined reasons only? That is a substantial question for the Minister for responsible for industry and local government at the Scottish Office. Why is there that big difference between Wales and Scotland in relation to the staff commission? And why is that power being taken in relation to the current reorganisation of local government when there was no similar power in the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, which reorganised local government on the previous occasion in Scotland? The Minister is obliged to answer those two questions if he is to be taken seriously as someone who is not here to intimidate people in the staff commission.
      Opposition Members try not to be suspicious of the Government, but if we were suspicious, we would consider the remarks that Mr. Robert Peggie made on 21 September 1994 at the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities conference. Do we perhaps find there an explanation of why the Government are so keen at this stage to introduce powers to dismiss all or part of the staff commission without reason?
      Mr. Peggie's appointment was welcomed on both sides of the House and my hon. Friends were explicit in recognising him as a man of impeccable qualifications and impeccable background, who took on an unpopular job for the Government but has done it assiduously. On 20 September, reported in the newspapers on 21 September, Mr. Peggie made his view known on the subject of the staff transfer from the old system of local authorities to the one that the Government propose. I quote from The Scotsman:
      "Robert Peggie told a conference at Dunblane yesterday that councils were ill-prepared for local government reorganisation and the timetable was dangerously tight."
      "Dangerously tight"—those were Mr. Peggie's words.
      Mr. Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman also concede that Mr. Peggie is on record in public and in the press as agreeing that the amendments are purely technical?
      8 pm
      Mr. Robertson: Mr. Peggie may feel that Mr. Peggie is safe. We may perhaps have more grounds for doubting
      1424
      Mr. Peggie's security of tenure than Mr. Peggie has at this stage. I am simply saying, as one of those who have some experience of the Government's legislative intentions, that perhaps Mr. Peggie is being unduly sanguine at this time, in his condition, and that he should perhaps be more wary of the Government. He only has to stand up at a conference and announce that the Government's timetable is dangerously tight, and suddenly an amendment is produced in the House of Lords to give the Secretary of State the power to dismiss him and other members of the staff commission in circumstances which do not apply to the staff commission in Wales. Perhaps Mr. Peggie should look carefully at the number of spoons in his cabinet before he leaves the room.
      The Dundee Courier and Advertiser reported the same speech by Mr. Peggie. Mr. Andrew Nicol, Scottish political editor of the Courier and Advertiser, said, quoting Mr. Peggie:
      "There is grave concern about the short time-scale for the implementation of the reorganisation scheme and local government generally is ill-prepared for this reorganisation, in comparison to 1974."
      Mr. Peggie is absolutely right to give that warning. It is a serious warning, which should be listened to by anyone in Scotland who depends on local government services—and precious few people do not.
      Vulnerable people employed by local government are worried sick about their prospects and the future of their jobs. Countless thousands of vulnerable people in Scottish society depend on local government services delivered by the 300,000 local government officers, and have reason to be worried about the time scale and the timetable that the Government are embarking on for the reorganisation.
      It might be unduly suspicious of us to say that the Government are firing a shot across the bows of the staff commission with the amendment, but we know what the Government can do, and have done. Few people in Scotland would dismiss our suspicion, and few will not be worried by the fact that the amendment has appeared—and appeared so late in the day.
      With the amendment, the Government are sending a clear message to the staff commission that it had better not be as independent as its members thought, when they were appointed, that it would be. That is a clear move to intimidate the staff commission from making the type of frank, honest and reasonable statements that Mr. Peggie and his colleagues have felt obliged to make public since they were appointed.
      Apart from the timetable and quality of services in local government, Mr. Peggie and his colleagues are worried about the impact that it will have on the people who are currently employed in local government as a whole. That is why they have started to tackle the issue that Her Majesty's Government should have been tackling—where the reorganisation fits into European law.
      It has become increasingly obvious that statements made by Ministers in Standing Committee—that the acquired rights directive and the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 may have no implication for the local government reorganisation—are wrong. Counsel's opinion, which has been commissioned by UNISON—the largest union in local government—makes it clear beyond doubt that both TUPE and the acquired rights directive will apply to all people employed by local authorities at the present time, and in relation to the transfer that will occur if the unitary

      1425
      authorities are up and running. That has implications for the people concerned, for the Government and for the staff commission, and it has serious implications for the financial projections that the Government have tried to sell during the entire period.
      Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the trade unions and the importance of protecting their rights. Would he be prepared to declare whether he is supported in any way by trade unions?
      Mr. Robertson: I tell the hon. Gentleman, who should be very cautious when he starts talking about who is sponsored by whom—I wonder how he drove to the debate this evening, for instance—that I am sponsored by the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union. I am an officer of the GMB union on leave of absence. I have been for the past 16 years, and I do not expect that it is a right that I will have to take up to become re-employed by the union.
      However, my anxiety now is not for the unions. I am quoting counsel's opinion supplied to UNISON, one of the unions in local government, but my concern, and their concern, is for the human beings, the employees of local government—300,000 of them at present—who are important in themselves, and who deliver services that are crucial to the people of Scotland and to the hon. Gentleman's constituents, insofar as they are constituents of his until the next election.
      Counsel's opinion is explicit and important. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity of announcing frankly, on behalf of the Government, that he agrees with that adjudication, in order that the work of the staff commission may go ahead, and that Mr. Peggie and his colleagues may declare to the employees of local government where they stand.
      I quote the final conclusion of Mr. Aiden O'Neill's—counsel's—opinion of 18 September 1994:
      "Dismissal of local authority employees, whether before or after the transfer, will only be found to be justifiable if shown to be for economic, technical or organisational reasons unconnected with the fact of the transfer itself."
      That has dramatic implications for the costings of the Government, and also for the individuals involved.
      The only people who have not pronounced on TUPE and the acquired rights directive and their implications for local government are the Government. Today's debate is a real opportunity for the Minister to make it clear that the Government accept, without legal challenge and without any doubt, that TUPE and the acquired rights directive apply to all employees of local government at present, and that employees in local government can therefore look forward at least to having the protection offered by European law.
      Ministers already have considerable powers over the staff commission. There is no need for the House, or Parliament, to give Ministers any more powers. If the Secretary of State wishes to reserve the power to dismiss members of the commission for specific contingencies, let him spell them out, and spell them out now, in advance, so that they, we and everyone else at least know what the situation should be.
      1426
      The Government should not have this power. It is one more arm-twisting weapon for a Government who already have an armoury of bully-boy powers, and the Bill will confer more. The people of Scotland are sick of the Government and of legislation such as this. They reject the concept of the amendment, and I hope that the House will reject it.
      Mr. Norman Hogg: I should first declare an interest, not least because it is fashionable and also because I am a parliamentary consultant to UNISON, which is the largest trade union in local government.
      I have some past involvement with the staff commission. I am old enough to have been involved in the last reorganisation of local government. At that time, I was a NALGO district officer and had to appear before the staff commission, which was chaired by a distinguished Privy Councillor. The value of the staff commission to local government officers cannot be overstated. They place great stock in its existence and in the fact that it will still be there after this reorganisation.
      I like to think that I helped to persuade the Government to introduce the commission, as they showed some initial reluctance to do so. But it was the right course, and the amendment is wrong. I hope that the Government will change their mind.
      Local government officers value the staff commission's independence and the dispassionate advice that it gives to local authorities on behalf of employees, while taking account of the employers' point of view. The amendment endangers that independence and will result in a loss of authority because the staff commission will be undermined. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) said, the amendment will mean that, if the staff commission does not toe the line, its members will be fired. The chairman of the commission will be told that, if he gives advice that is not liked by the Government, who are apparently all-knowing as to what is good for people, he will be fired.
      Why commission members who are appointed by the Government in the usual way should be threatened with dismissal is not immediately apparent to me. The Minister made an awful speech about lord provosts; one hopes that his speech on the amendment will be an improvement on that. I hope that in his winding-up speech he will explain what it is all about.
      The amendment is a mean-minded approach to an important matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton made a longish speech, but that is not a criticism, merely a statement. He told me before he started to speak that he would lead by example and that I should not make a long speech. He said that he would show me how to do it. I am trying to pad out the debate—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to resume his speech.
      Mr. Hogg: I shall return to my main theme. The Government are in danger of being small-minded to the point at which they will destroy an important aspect of local government. As I have said, they were right to set up the staff commission, but they are spoiling the ship for a ha'porth of tar. It would be simpler to leave the matter as it is, and local government employees throughout

      1427
      Scotland would appreciate that. I hope that the Government will take account of the views of someone who has at least some experience of staff commission operations. It was well worth while in the 1970s, and we want to see it function in the way that it did then. That aim is not helped by the Government's proposals.
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Welsh: The hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) has drawn on his experience to outline what happened in the 1970s during the previous local government reform. I was there, and I share his views.
      I hope that the Government are listening to the voice of experience, because they are taking us into territory that we have been through before. I hope that the mistakes that were made then will not be repeated, but I fear they will, because of the way that the Government are hassling the measure through. The people who will suffer as a result will be not only local government staff but the people of Scotland who rely on the services that they provide.
      The Minister tried to dismiss the amendment as a purely drafting or technical measure. That may be so, but the problem arises because of the political powers that the amendment gives the Secretary of State. The commissions are important mechanisms to ensure fairness, justice and efficiency in the transfer of powers to the new authorities. They will play a crucial role during the transitional phase, but the amendments would place them totally in the Secretary of State's hands.
      We are told that the amendments simply clarify the Secretary of State's powers. But because of draconian powers taken arbitrarily by the Secretary of State to suit himself and his political purposes, local government is now simply the creature of central Government. Now he is even dominating the transitional arrangements and apparently allowing no freedom of action to anyone but himself. He can appoint and dismiss at will the commissions that he will set up. If he does not like the actions of the commissions, he will have the power to get rid of them. That is hardly freedom or independence of action. Local government staff and people in Scotland have to rely on the commissions to find a fair solution to problems.
      The amendments give the Government yet another power. The Secretary of State appoints the staff in property commissions, and now seeks powers to get rid of them. Seeking complete power over his own creatures seems a wee bit paranoid—or does the Secretary of State envisage that these temporary bodies will in some way be independent in their pronouncements and have to be brought to heel for political reasons?
      I hope that the commissions will defend the public's interest, and will seek fair solutions to complex and over-hasty procedures. It is not the fault of the commissions that the Government are hustling the Bill through as fast as they can, but the commissions will have to cope with the practical problems that the Government have created.
      The Government have given the staff commission and the property commission little time to complete their work, and the amendments betray a hint of panic in conferring powers of instant dismissal. Presumably, if
      1428
      either commission shows any independence of thought or points to any shortcomings in the Government's botched local government schemes, it can be dismissed. That is too much power, and it is being taken arbitrarily by the Government.
      The Minister must explain the import of the amendments, and not just say that they are technical. Why are they necessary? Are they simply an insurance policy that gives legal powers to the Secretary of State? Can he tell us in clear terms so that Parliament and commission staff know under what circumstances the power can be invoked? Clearly, the Government must have some situation or situations in mind; otherwise, the power would not be sought. The Minister should take the time to state clearly why the provision is required and how it will be used. We have no reason to trust the Government.
      Mr. McAvoy: Like my hon. Friends, I was astonished by the Minister's statement that the amendments are technical. I should like to speak to amendments Nos. 4 and 5, which are plainly not technical. They are authoritarian, striking a dagger straight to the heart of the independent operation of the staff commission.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) described how the problems of transition from one system to another were tackled just over 20 years ago. It was more than 20 years ago, and contrasts with what is happening now.
      All the problems that involve the staff commission, such as deciding where employees go and how they are treated, should be dealt with by a completely independent body. At the end of the day, if the amendment is accepted, if the staff commission has an idea or takes a course of action which the Secretary of State for Scotland does not like purely on political grounds, never mind anything else, the Secretary of State can remove either the chairman or the members of that commission.
      How can the members of the staff commission reasonably be expected to work in an independent atmosphere and without the threat of intimidation? If they say yea or nay in any way that differs from their master's intentions, they can be removed from the commission. It amounts to a sword of Damocles hanging over the commission, so that it can never have freedom of action or independence.
      It is disgraceful that the future of 300,000 local government employees in Scotland should be treated in such a cavalier fashion. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) mentioned the Welsh comparison. Surely what is good enough for Wales is good enough for any part of the United Kingdom. I remind the Government that they are a Conservative and Unionist Government. How can they justify treating one part of the United Kingdom differently from another specifically on the issue over the staff commission?
      The TUPE regulations have been mentioned. Many of us are concerned that, as soon as the commission recommends or endorses them, in will step the Government and remove people from that commission. The staff commission should be totally free to reach any recommendation on the TUPE recommendations.

      1429
      Turning to the wider remit of that staff commission, with which the amendment deals directly, and its independence, if the staff commission knows—I am sure that a message can be got through one way or another—that any of its recommendations on appropriate arrangements for staff deciding to accept redundancy or early retirement approach what the Secretary of State would like to see, it will know full well that employers would meet those recommendations, which therefore would not affect its deliberations. It is disgraceful that there should be such an amendment.
      Amendment No. 5 makes the same so-called technical amendment to the property commission. All the reasons for opposing amendment No. 4 apply to amendment No. 5.
      The work of the property commission is of immense importance, although the Minister did not spend too much time on it. I shall use an example from my constituency. The main part of my constituency is being detached from a larger authority. Like the staff commission, the property commission needs to be totally independent, and needs to take certain attitudes in dealing with property disputes, particularly in my constituency.
      I give one example of an issue that could face the property commission. In the royal burgh of Rutherglen, a statue of St. Eloi was found in the ruins of old St. Mary's church, which was destroyed after the reformation; a parish church was built on that site. The statue was found in the late 19th century. It dates from the middle ages, and always took pride of place in the Rutherglen burgh museum, until—lo and behold—Glasgow district council transferred it from its museum, and put it into an exhibition in the Glasgow cathedral.
      People in Rutherglen were proud that part of their heritage was being displayed, but the magazine advertising that exhibition had the statue of St. Eloi on its cover, with a statement along the lines that, although the statue was found in the ruins of the old parish church in Rutherglen, there was no doubt that it belonged in Glasgow, because it came from the ruins of Glasgow cathedral during the reformation.
      It may seem a small matter to some colleagues, but I remind hon. Members on both sides of the House that, if they are not here to represent people and their fears and understandings, they should not be here at all.
      Mr. Gallie: I sympathise totally with the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. He makes a very good point indeed. Perhaps the Government should give the Secretary of State powers to oversee such situations and make sure that great boroughs like Glasgow do not rob the smaller ones.
      Mr. McAvoy: I do not accept that at all. My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) described the atmosphere of what happened 20 years ago. I am prepared to trust a staff commission and property commission to deal fairly with problems. We should bear in mind the fact that a big council such as Glasgow or Edinburgh may be able persuade the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), to take a certain line in property disputes.
      1430
      The property commission should be as independent as the staff commission. There are bound to be numerous property disputes. It is essential that members of the property commission are able to tackle their work in a calm and rational manner without fearing that, if they step out of line, the Secretary of State or one of his Ministers will sack them. I am totally opposed to both amendments.
      Mr. Michael Connarty: I am pleased that we have at last reached an important debate, after being trapped in the debate we had earlier. Using the same metaphor as my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg), the ship of state does not just need some tar; it is so seriously structurally flawed in everything in the Bill that the sea is lapping at the captain's door at this very minute.
      The debate in Committee was rather fraught. There were expressions of concern about an unknown commission which might or might not damage the reorganisation of local government by making the wrong staffing decisions. The Secretary of State pulled out Mr. Robert Peggie's name, like a rabbit out of the hat, saying not that he was cuddly but that he would be honest and fair, and that he would have some support for his professionalism and competence.
      Now, however, we are debating a Lords amendment which means that, at the whim of the Secretary of State, that person held up by the Secretary of State as a example in staffing matters can be removed from office, and the commission with him. We must express concern about amendments Nos. 4 and 5.
      I am reminded of a planning inquiry I once sat on, where the planning consultant applied for an architect-designed bungalows. He put a very good case to the planning authority, but as soon as the permission was granted—I am told that it happens often in Scotland—the developer had gone and a sign was up saying, "Vacant plot available with planning permission for development". That is rather like the staff commission, but the sign says, "Vacant committee with permission not for development but for demolition of local government. Only known Tory supporters need apply". That could be the scenario we face.
      The Minister is pulling a face, but it is rather strange that health boards are another group of quangos to which the Government can appoint and from which they can remove people at any time. For example, the well respected chairman of Forth Valley health board was removed, and Mrs. Iris Isbister, a former Tory councillor and the wife of a consultant, was appointed. The havoc wreaked by that health board since that person was appointed shows that we have real cause for concern when the Secretary of State has powers to remove or appoint members or chairs of commissions.
      I am particularly concerned about the present Secretary of State—and with reason. Never has a Secretary of State for Scotland been so out of touch; he is a Secretary of State whose party has the support of only 14 per cent. of the people in Scotland, and he was deaf to the response to the water referendum in Strathclyde.
      As the clause mentions the Secretary of State, we have to examine his credentials. More recently, he was deaf to the demand for a children Act in Scotland,

      1431
      which is now the only country in Europe which does not have the United Nations declaration on the rights of the child in law to protect its children.
      The Secretary of State is a barrier to progress, and in no way an arbiter of competence or someone in whom we can have confidence.
      I am also worried about the local impact of flawed or prejudiced political decisions being taken because of the pressures that could be applied to both staff and property commissions.
      8.30 pm
      Much has been said about the importance of decentralisation. The Opposition made the point in Committee that no staff resources have been allocated to that. Theoretically, the staff commission would ensure that people of the appropriate quality, with decent pay and conditions of service, could deliver decentralisation. I am now seriously concerned that if they tried to do so and it cost more than Government liked, they would be removed from their positions.
      Property needs have been debated at great length. At last, Falkirk is to become a unitary authority, but it will have a massive property deficit. It needs property, but members of a property commission that allocated resources to such councils could be removed by the Secretary of State if that allocation did not fit in with his other spending plans and with the shadow budgets that had been set.
      The break-up of education would be disastrous for many children. It is important to get the right calibre of officer with proper pay and conditions. The staff commission is one of the safeguards that would achieve that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) has said, we are concerned not only about human beings but about the effect that bad staff commission decisions would have on services. We must consider both those who deliver the services and those who receive them.
      To use American terminology, it is time for the Secretary of State to butt out. He has done enough damage already with this ill-considered Bill and he should leave the staff and property commissions with an independent role.
      Mr. Wallace: I, too, oppose Lords amendments Nos. 4 and 5. However, before dealing with them I want to register the fact that Lords amendment No. 3 was one of the very few amendments tabled by an Opposition Member—my noble Friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth—that was accepted. Indeed, so shattering was that event that Lord Ewing of Kirkford said that it felt as though Cowdenbeath were in the European Cup. Only Lord Ewing would know how that would feel.
      I endorse the concern expressed about the wording of Lords amendments Nos. 4 and 5, which provide for the removal from office of those who have been appointed to the staff commission. As the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) said, the staff commission has among its functions the keeping under review of certain issues, including the transfer of staff under the Bill. That is important, given the operation of the TUPE regulations.
      The hon. Gentleman asked the Minister to confirm that all staff transfers between local authorities, old and new, under the Bill would be covered by TUPE. The
      1432
      Minister should be aware that, in the other place, the Lord Advocate suggested that some transfers would riot be covered. I am not allowed to quote him directly, but he said that the TUPE regulations were open to various opinions. There have certainly been enough legal cases to confirm that view. He accepted that they would undoubtedly apply in some circumstances, but said that they would not necessarily apply in others.
      We are talking about people's livelihoods. What the Bill has done more than anything else is to reduce morale among those who work for local authorities. Uncertainty will still hang over them while the senior Law Officer in Scotland says that the TUPE regulations will apply in some cases, but not in others. The Minister owes us an explanation tonight of the precise application of the regulations.
      We have also been told that the words "and removal from office" are essential, but that the provision is purely technical and that there is no intention to use it. If so, why was it included in the first place? If there was concern whether the original Bill gave the Secretary of State the power to make the appointments, the Government could have simply stuck to words such as "the appointment by the Secretary of State of the chairman and members of the commission."
      The Lord Advocate also said that the additional words "and removal from office" were necessary because there might be circumstances in which someone would have to be removed. What are those circumstances? There is a great contrast between appointments to the staff commission—where the Secretary of State wants absolute power to remove people from office—and appointments that he can make under schedule 7 to the new water and sewage authorities.
      Paragraph 7 states that the Secretary of State can remove a member of the authority, but only in specified circumstances such as sequestration of an estate, incapacity by physical or mental illness, absence from meetings or being unable or unfit to discharge his functions or unsuitable to continue as a member.
      It is not unreasonable to point to the proposed provision covering removal from office, bearing in mind that the Lord Advocate said that there might be circumstances in which that will be necessary. What are those circumstances? They are not spelt out in the Bill. The Minister must give an explanation this evening.
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: Hon. Members spent 177 hours in Committee on the Bill, but during all that time there was no suggestion that an amendment along these lines would be tabled. Governments do riot introduce amendments just for the hell of it or for fun. There is always a reason, but we have not been told what it is.
      Forgive our curiosity, but neither have we been told who initiated the amendment. Was it Ministers or was it Government lawyers? I have a high respect for Government lawyers and parliamentary draftsmen. I find it difficult to believe that the draftsmen were so incompetent or the lawyers so ill informed that they did not think of such a meaningful amendment during all those hours that the Committee sat, or at least when they were preparing the Bill.

      1433
      I want to put a direct question to the Minister: was it political Ministers who initiated the amendment, or was it Government lawyers or parliamentary draftsmen? Which?
      Mr. Thomas Graham: I can answer the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)— the amendment is the result of the Government's political decision. There is do doubt in my mind that they decided that a mere "Peggie" would not go into a round hole. When the Minister speaks about a technical amendment, he means getting the power to allow the Secretary of State to press a button to wipe out the likes of Mr. Peggie, who may not carry out his duties in the way that the Tories want.
      I warn the House that the Government have proved what they are prepared to do. They wiped out the Greater London council because it did not agree with the Government's aspirations. They pressed the button and wiped out unionism at GCHQ in Cheltenham. The amendment would give them further powers to take more decisions like that, so we must be extremely careful.
      The amendment should be opposed by all those who are concerned about democracy. The commissions should be left with a neutral hand, just like any sheriff or judge. I want to know why the Government want another button to press. They have already pressed every damaging button in their power. Tonight we are debating an aspect of local government reorganisation in Scotland that none of the people of Scotland want.
      Mr. Stewart: I congratulate the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) on having the best line of the debate so far— [Interruption.] I said "so far".
      The hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) raised property issues that I shall consider carefully. I point out to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) that, in my opening speech, I said that Lords amendment No. 3 was tabled by the Liberal Democrats in the other place. I am glad that it has his support.
      Two essential points have been made about the substance of the debate. First, a comparison has been made with Wales. I confirm that, in the Welsh legislation, all the provisions relating to the staff commission, including powers of dismissal, are in a schedule. Therefore, there is no difference of substance between the two Bills.
      The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) asked whether this was not all the most terrible conspiracy. That was encapsulated in the remarks of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who fairly asked whether the amendments had been initiated by Ministers or by draftsmen. I can tell him without equivocation that they were initiated by draftsmen. There was no ministerial instruction.
      Clause 12(3) already empowers the Secretary of State to provide for the constitution and membership of the staff commission. As hon. Members will know, Bills are constantly scrutinised throughout their parliamentary passage. There is nothing new in that.
      1434
      There was doubt as to whether that general power in clause 12(3) was sufficient to enable my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to appoint the chairman and members of the commission. When it was put to him, that doubt was shared by my noble Friend the Lord Advocate, to whom the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) referred, and that doubt is resolved by the amendment.
      These are technical amendments.
      Mr. Wallace: The Minister has explained half the story, which is that the Secretary of State needed the power to appoint, but he has not explained why he needed the power to remove.
      Mr. Stewart: The two go together, do they not? Clearly the Secretary of State must have the power to appoint and to remove members. That is exactly the position in Wales. That is exactly the position in relation to all our public appointments.
      Mr. Wallace: I note with interest that the Minister says: that that is exactly the position in relation to all public appointments. The power given to the Secretary of State in the BIll with regard to the new water and sewerage authorities specifies the circumstances in which he can remove. There is no such specification of circumstances with regard to the staff commission. Moreover, I can see no provision in the Bill for removing members of the customers council for the new water and sewerage authorities.
      Mr. Stewart: Let me spell it out, in the hope that I will satisfy the hon. Gentleman, who is a lawyer.
      The legal advice we received was that clauses 12 and 19, as originally drafted, gave rise to some doubt about whether regulations appointing or removing members would have been ultra vires. Clearly that had to be sorted out. The amendments were not initiated by Ministers, and were not a matter of policy. [Interruption.] Of course Ministers take responsibility for them. They were initiated by the lawyers and the draftsmen. There is nothing unusual in that, and on those grounds I reject the conspiracy theory of the hon. Member for Hamilton.
      Mr. George Robertson: We have had a good and useful debate, with my hon. Friends making brief, pertinent and relevant points. Far from being reassured by what the Minister has said in a brief intervention at the end, our suspicions might have been seen even to grow.
      We have gained no reassurance that members of this important commission would not be removed without due cause. We have been given no assurance by the Minister that some system would be established to assure local government employees or Members of the House that, in circumstances where individuals had to be removed, the grounds would be made known.
      We have simply been told that, in the case here of what the draftsmen deem to be an illegal defect, the Secretary of State will take upon himself not only the power to appoint but the power to remove, and to remove without any reasons being given to the members of the staff commmission.

      1435
      8.45 pm
      It is a function of Ministers of the Crown to take the advice of draftsmen and to say to those draftsmen that Members of Parliament will rightly ask why Ministers are now taking what appear to be new powers in relation to an independent staff commission, and that Ministers will not be able to give any reassurance.
      Why is the Minister coming along and hiding behind technical and legal advice, when he has created a political dilemma for the staff commission and its chairman? Surely it is up to Ministers to reassure Members of the House and 300,000 people in local government that the powers he is taking upon himself and the Secretary of State will not be used arbitrarily, willy-nilly or without any justification being offered.
      Mr. Salmond: I am sure that the Minister will have the leave of the House to speak again if he wishes to do so. But there is a suspicion, which I think is generally shared, that he curtails his speeches when he does not know the answer to the question he is being asked.
      I specifically heard the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), not once but several times, ask the simple question: why were not the grounds for dismissal specified in the Bill? That is an entirely reasonable question. If the Minister has the lease of the House to speak again, I am sure that he will address that point, as opposed to brushing it aside with some bluster.
      For example, we would like to know whether the Minister telephoned the Prime Minister's office for expert guidance on the grounds for dismissing people from office. It is reasonable to ask why the grounds are not specified on the face of the Bill. If the Minister has the leave of the House to speak again, will he answer that simple question?
      Mr. Stewart rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I take it that the hon. Gentleman has the leave of the House to speak again.
      Mr. Stewart: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      I am genuinely trying to reassure Opposition Members. I may not have succeeded, but I hope that what I am saying is clear. Of course Ministers accept responsibility for the amendments. I was asked whether they were the result of some policy initiative by Ministers, or whether they were simply put to Ministers by the draftsmen. Of course we accept responsibility. Or course I accept that they are legally necessary.
      If it is any reassurance to Opposition Members, we entirely accept the independence of the staff commission and of any property commission. There is no threat to that. Secondly, if there should be a need on occasion to change the membership of the staff commission, we shall not do so without consultation beforehand with the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and representatives of the other two Scottish political parties.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 12

      STAFF COMMISSION
      Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 8, line 33, leave out ("and may include provision as to") and insert
      (", the appointment and removal from office by the Secretary of State of the chairman and members of the commission,)"
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Stewart.]
      Question put:—
      The House divided: Ayes 278, Noes 247.

      Division No. 320]

      [20.51 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Conway, Derek

      Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Alexander, Richard

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Couchman, James

      Amess, David

      Cran, James

      Arbuthnot, James

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

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Ashby, David

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Atkins, Robert

      Day, Stephen

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Devlin, Tim

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Dicks, Terry

      Baldry, Tony

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Dover, Den

      Bates, Michael

      Duncan, Alan

      Batiste, Spencer

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Bellingham, Henry

      Dunn, Bob

      Bendall, Vivian

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Eggar, Tim

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Elletson, Harold

      Body, Sir Richard

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Booth, Hartley

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Boswell, Tim

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Evennett, David

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      Faber, David

      Bowis, John

      Fabricant, Michael

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Brazier, Julian

      Forman, Nigel

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Forth, Eric

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Burns, Simon

      French, Douglas

      Burt, Alistair

      Gallie, Phil

      Butler, Peter

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Butterfill, John

      Garnier, Edward

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Gill, Christopher

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Carrington, Matthew

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Carttiss, Michael

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Cash, William

      Gorst, Sir John

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

      Clappison, James

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Coe, Sebastian

      Hague, William

      Colvin, Michael

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Congdon, David

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      1437

      Hannam, Sir John

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Norris, Steve

      Hayes, Jerry

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Heald, Oliver

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Ottaway, Richard

      Hendry, Charles

      Patnick, Sir Irvine

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Hicks, Robert

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

      Pawsey, James

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Pickles, Eric

      Horam, John

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Powell, William (Corby)

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

      Rathbone, Tim

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Redwoood, Rt Hon John

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrrow W)

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Richards, Rod

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Riddick, Graham

      Hunter, Andrew

      Robathan, Andrew

      Jack, Michael

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Jessel, Toby

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Key, Robert

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Knapman, Roger

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

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

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Sims, Roger

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Knox, Sir David

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Soames, Nicholas

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Legg, Barry

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Leigh, Edward

      Spring, Richard

      Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Lidington, David

      Steen, Anthony

      Lightbown, David

      Stephen, Michael

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Stern, Michael

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

      Stewart, Allan

      Lord, Michael

      Streeter, Gary

      Luff, Peter

      Sumberg, David

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Sweeney, Walter

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Sykes, John

      MacKay, Andrew

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Maclean, David

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Madel, Sir David

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Malone, Gerald

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Mans, Keith

      Thomason, Roy

      Marland, Paul

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Marlow, Tony

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Mates, Michael

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

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Tracey, Richard

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Tredinnick, David

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Trotter, Neville

      Merchant, Piers

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Mills, Iain

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Viggers, Peter

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Walden, George

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Waller, Gary

      Nelson, Anthony

      Ward, John

      1438

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Wolfson, Mark

      Watts, John

      Wood, Timothy

      Wells, Bowen

      Yeo, Tim

      Whitney, Ray

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Whittingdale, John

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Wilshire, David

      Mr. David Willetts and

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Mr. Sydney Chapman

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Ainger, Nick

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

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Denham, John

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Dewar, Donald

      Anderson, Ms Janet

      Dixon, Don

      (Ros'dale)

      Dobson, Frank

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Ashton, Joe

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Austin-Walker, John

      Eastham, Ken

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Enright, Derek

      Barnes, Harry

      Etherington, Bill

      Barron, Kevin

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Battle, John

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Fatchett, Derek

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Bell, Stuart

      Fisher, Mark

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Flynn, Paul

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Benton, Joe

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Foulkes, George

      Berry, Roger

      Fraser, John

      Betts, Clive

      Fyfe, Maria

      Blunkett, David

      Galbraith, Sam

      Boateng, Paul

      Galloway, George

      Bradley, Keith

      Garrett, John

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      George, Bruce

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Gerrard, Neil

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

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Burden, Richard

      Godsiff, Roger

      Byers, Stephen

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Caborn, Richard

      Gordon, Mildred

      Callaghan, Jim

      Graham, Thomas

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Grocott, Bruce

      Cann, Jamie

      Gunnell, John

      Chidgey, David

      Hall, Mike

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Hanson, David

      Church, Judith

      Hardy, peter

      Clapham, Michael

      Harvey, Nick

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Henderson, Doug

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Heppell, John

      Clelland, David

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Hodge, Margaret

      Coffey, Ann

      Hoey, Kate

      Connarty, Michael

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld))

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Home Robertson, John

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Corbett, Robin

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Corston, Jean

      Hoyle, Doug

      Cousins, Jim

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cox, Tom

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen

      Cummings, John

      North)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Hutton, John

      Dalyell, Tam

      Illsley, Eric

      Darling, Alistair

      Ingram, Adam

      Davidson, Ian

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Jamieson, David

      1439

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Parry, Robert

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Patchett, Terry

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Pope, Greg

      Jowell, Tessa

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Keen, Alan

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Prescott, John

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Purchase, Ken

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Randall, Stuart

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Lewis, Terry

      Reid, Dr John

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Rendel, David

      Litherland, Robert

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Livingstone, Ken

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Loyden, Eddie

      Rooker, Jeff

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Rooney, Terry

      Macdonald, Calum

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Ruddock, Joan

      Maclennan, Robert

      Salmond, Alex

      MacShane, Denis

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Madden, Max

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Maddock, Diana

      Short, Clare

      Mahon, Alice

      Simpson, Alan

      Mandelson, Peter

      Skinner, Dennis

      Marek, Dr John

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

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

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Soley, Clive

      Maxton, John

      Spearing, Nigel

      McAllion, John

      Spellar, John

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      McCartney, Ian

      Steinberg, Gerry

      McFall, John

      Stevenson, George

      McKelvey, William

      Stott, Roger

      McLeish, Henry

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      McMaster, Gordon

      Straw, Jack

      McNamara, Kevin

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      McWilliam, John

      Timms, Stephen

      Meale, Alan

      Tipping, Paddy

      Michael, Alun

      Turner, Dennis

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Wallace, James

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Walley, Joan

      Milburn, Alan

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Miller, Andrew

      Watson, Mike

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Welsh, Andrew

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Morley, Elliot

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Wilson, Brian

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

      Winnick, David

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Wise, Andrey

      Mullin, Chris

      Worthington, Tony

      Murphy, Paul

      Wray, Jimmy

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Wright, Dr Tony

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Tellers for the Noes:

      O'Neill, Martin

      Mr. Jon Owen Jones and

      Olner, William

      Mr. Jim Dowd

      Question accordingly agreed to.

    Clause 19

      PROPERTY COMMISSION
      Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 16, line 8, leave out ("and may include provision as to") and insert
      (", the appointment and removal from office by the Secretary of State of the chairman and members of the commission,")
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Stewart.]
      Question put:—
      The House divided: Ayes 273, Noes 192.

      Division No. 321]

      [21.05 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Conway, Derek

      Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Alexander, Richard

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Couchman, James

      Amess, David

      Cran, James

      Arbuthnot, James

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

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Ashby, David

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Atkins, Robert

      Day, Stephen

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Devlin, Tim

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      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

      Eggar, Tim

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Elletson, Harold

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Emery, Rt Hor Sir Peter

      Body, Sir Richard

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Booth, Hartley

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Boswell, Tim

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Evennett, David

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Faber, David

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      Fabricant, Michael

      Bowis, John

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Forman, Nigel

      Brazier, Julian

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Forth, Eric

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Fox, sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Budgen, Nicholas

      French, Douglas

      Burt, Alistair

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Butler, Peter

      Fyfe, Maria

      Butterfill, John

      Gallie, Phil

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Garnier, Edward

      Carrington, Matthew

      Gill, Christopher

      Carttiss, Michael

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Cash, William

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Chapman, Sydney

      Gorst, Sir John

      Clappison, James

      Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Coe, Sebastian

      Hague, William

      Colvin, Michael

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Congdon, David

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      1441

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hawkins, Nick

      Ottaway, Richard

      Hawksley, Warren

      Patnick, Sir Irvine

      Hayes, Jerry

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Heald, Oliver

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Pawsey, James

      Hendry, Charles

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Pickles, Eric

      Hicks, Robert

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

      porter, David (Waveney)

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Horam, John

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Richards, Rod

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

      Riddick, Graham

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Roberts, Rt Hon sir Wyn

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Jack, Michael

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Jessel, Toby

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Key, Robert

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Sims, Roger

      Knapman, Roger

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

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

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Soames, Nicholas

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Knox, Sir David

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Spring, Richard

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Legg, Barry

      Steen, Anthony

      Leigh, Edward

      Stephen, Michael

      Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

      Stern, Michael

      Lidington, David

      Stewart, Allan

      Lightbown, David

      Streeter, Gary

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

      Sumberg, David

      Lord, Michael

      Sweeney, Walter

      Luff, Peter

      Sykes, John

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Tapsell, sir Peter

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      MacKay, Andrew

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Maclean, David

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, D)

      Madel, Sir David

      Temple-Morris, peter

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Thomason, Roy

      Malone, Gerald

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Mans, Keith

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Marland, Paul

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Marlow, Tony

      Thurnham, Peter

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

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

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Tracey, Richard

      Mates, Michael

      Tredinnick, David

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Trotter, Neville

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Merchant, Piers

      Viggers, Peter

      Mills, Iain

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Walden, George

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Waller, Gary

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Ward, John

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Waterson, Nigel

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Watts, John

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Wells, Bowen

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Whitney, Ray

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Whittingdale, John

      Norris, Steve

      Widdecombe, Ann

      1442

      Wilkinson, John

      Yeo, Tim

      Wilshire, David

      Young, Rt Hon sir George

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Wolfson, Mark

      Mr. David Willetts and

      Wood, Timothy

      Mr. Simon Burns

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      George, Bruce

      Ainger, Nick

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Allen, Graham

      Godsiff, Roger

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Anderson, Ms Janet

      Gordon, Mildred

      (Ros'dale)

      Graham, Thomas

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Ashton, Joe

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Austin-Walker, John

      Grocott, Bruce

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Barnes, Harry

      Hall, Mike

      Barron, Kevin

      Hanson, David

      Battle, John

      Hardy, Peter

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Harvey, Nick

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Heppell, John

      Bell, Stuart

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Hodge, Margaret

      Benton, Joe

      Hoey, Kate

      Berry, Roger

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Betts, Clive

      Home Robertson, John

      Boateng, Paul

      Hood, Jimmy

      Bradley, Keith

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Howells, Dr.Kim (Pontypridd)

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

      Hoyle, Doug

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Hughes Robert (Aberdeen

      Burden, Richard

      North)

      Caborn, Richard

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Hutton, John

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Illsley, Eric

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Ingram, Adam

      Cann, Jamie

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Chidgey, David

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff c)

      Church, Judith

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Clapham, Michael

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Jowell, Tessa

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Coffey, Ann

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Connarty, Michael

      Kilfoyle, peter

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Lewis, Terry

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Corston, Jean

      Litherland, Robert

      Cummings, John

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Dalyell, Tam

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Darling, Alistair

      Macdonald, Calum

      Davidson, Ian

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Madden, Max

      Dewar, Donald

      Maddock, Diana

      Dixon, Don

      Mahon, Alice

      Dobson, Frank

      Marek, Dr John

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Dowd, Jim

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, s)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Maxton, John

      Eastham, Ken

      McAllion, John

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Fatchett, Derek

      McFall, John

      Fisher, Mark

      McKelvey, William

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      McLeish, Henry

      Foulkes, George

      McMaster, Gordon

      Fraser, John

      McNamara, Kevin

      Fyfe, Maria

      Meale, Alan

      Galloway, George

      Michael, Alun

      1443

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Simpson, Alan

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Miller, Andrew

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

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

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Morley, Elliot

      Soley, Clive

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Spellar, John

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Olner, William

      Stevenson, George

      Parry, Robert

      Stott, Roger

      Patchett, Terry

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Pike, Peter L.

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Timms, Stephen

      Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Wallace, James

      Prescott, John

      Walley, Joan

      Purchase, Ken

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Randall, Stuart

      Watson, Mike

      Raynsford, Nick

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Reid, Dr John

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Rendel, David

      Winnick, David

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Wise, Audrey

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Worthington, Tony

      Rooney, Terry

      Wray, Jimmy

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Salmond, Alex

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Mr. Don Foster and

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Mr. Andrew Welsh

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

    Clause 36

      FIRE SERVICES
      Lords amendment: No. 11, in page 32, leave out lines 34 to 41.
      9.15 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendment No. 50.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: This is a technical amendment but I shall be happy to explain it to anyone who so wishes.
      Question put and agreed to.

    New clause
    Lords amendment: No. 12, after clause 44, to insert the following new clause—Chief social work officer—
    ". For section 3 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (director of social work), there shall be substituted the following section—
    "Chief social work officer.
    3.—(1) For the purposes of their functions under this Act and the enactments mentioned in section 5(1B) of this Act, a local authority shall appoint an officer to be known as the chief social work officer.
    (2) The qualifications of the chief social work officer shall be such as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State."."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments to the Lords amendment: (a), in line 4, leave out
    "'Chief social work officer.'
    and insert
    "'Director of social work.'
    (b) in line 7, leave out 'chief social work officer' and insert 'director of social work'.
    (c) in line 8, leave out 'chief social work officer' and insert 'director of social work'.
    (d) in line 10, at end add—
    '(3) The director of social work shall hold his office during the pleasure 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.
    (4) 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.
    (5) A local authority shall secure the provision of adequate staff for assisting the director of social work in the performance of his functions.'.
    It will also be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 13, 30 to 32, 58 to 64, 70 to 72, 87 to 89, 105 to 107, 110, 112, 118 and 122 to 124.
    Mr. John McAllion: We welcome the amendments passed in another place, which require each of the new unitary authorities to appoint a chief social work officer. The amendments were carried in response to Opposition concern and we welcome the fact that the Government now recognise the importance of having in each of the new unitary authority areas a professionally qualified officer who will be responsible for the management of social work and accountable to elected members for the delivery of social work services.
    We especially welcome the fact that the Government have undergone a conversion on this issue because, as my hon. Friends—who, like me, debated the Bill for many long hours in Standing Committee—will testify, the Government at that time steadfastly refused to place any such requirement on the new authorities, despite our proposals. Indeed, Conservatives argued against the type of amendments that they have since supported in another place and voted against the amendment that they are now supporting. We can only applaud their conversion, albeit a late one, to a sensible position.
    Some people—people less charitable than myself, perhaps—may wonder why the Government have changed their mind on the issue. It may have happened because the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) is no longer the Minister responsible for local government, and has been replaced by his fellow Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart). That change of personnel can hardly be described as signalling a Government move towards a more conciliatory moderate position.

    1445
    The real reason for the Government's change of mind is that in this Administration, the Minister responsible for local government is not the Minister responsible for social work. Indeed, the Minister responsible for social work is not to be found anywhere on the Government Benches here tonight, because he sits in another place. He is, of course, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, a Tory of a different hue from that of any of the Tories now occupying the Front Bench in the House of Commons. Anyone who incurs the wrath of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) as Lord Fraser does cannot be all bad.
    If we read what Lord Fraser said in Committee in another place, we can begin to get some inkling of why the Government changed their position. He said that he had no criticism of
    "social work committees … or of past or present directors of social work in Scotland."
    Indeed, he recognised the contribution that they had all made, and said that they had been central in introducing care in the community and central, too, to the Government's policies on child care and criminal justice.
    Lord Fraser singled out in particular directors of social work, who he said had
    "provided very sound professional oversight and should take credit for some very innovative thinking".
    He said that he had no doubt that many, if not all, the unitary authorities would not only establish social work committees and appoint directors of social work, but would do so
    "along the lines of … the present statutory requirement."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 July 1994; Vol. 556, c. 2014.]
    Indeed, the noble Lord gave as clear an indication as can be expected from a Tory Minister that, if he had had a free vote and could have cast it for what he in all conscience thought was the best course of action, he would have voted for the Opposition amendments. Of course, he is not allowed to do that in the adversarial atmosphere of the mother of Parliaments, so he did the next best thing and introduced in the House of Lords an amendment that went as far towards the Opposition position as he was allowed to go. That is why the Government amendments use the phrase "chief social work officer" rather than "director of social work" as our amendments suggest.
    We welcome the move in our direction, but it does not go far enough. We are still worried that the change of title may mean a weakening or undermining of the existing role of directors of social work. "What's in a name?" some might ask. If there is to be a statutory requirement that local authorities appoint chief social work officers, why can they not be required to appoint directors of social work?
    Is there any significance behind the difference between the forms of words? Does the change of name reflect any loss of status or power? Is a chief social work officer guaranteed to continue to be the reporting accountable manager to the elected council for the management and delivery of social work services, as a director of social work is now? We want to hear from the Minister whether that is guaranteed to continue. The House deserves an answer to that specific question.
    1446
    Will the Minister give a categorical assurance that he will issue directions to the new authorities that chief social work officers are to continue as the reporting accountable managers to elected councils? Will he put on the record, in Hansard, the fact that the Government expect the new chief social work officers to be afforded the same rights, protection and support enjoyed by the current directors of social work, and will he say whether the chief social work officers will continue as direct advisers to the elected councils? Or will the Government allow them to be submerged in more generalist corporate management structures? Finally, will chief social work officers have responsibility for the management of all of the resources allocated to the social work services, including management responsibility for staffing and financial resources within, of course, the policy framework set by elected councillors?
    We need positive answers to all those questions and, if answers are not forthcoming, I ask the House to support the amendments tabled in the names of my hon. Friends. Ministers will try to tell us that the maximum freedom and flexibility will be available if the new authorities are left to manage their own affairs. They will tell us that the status, power and place of the chief social work officers within authorities' management structures are matters for those authorities, and that Parliament or statute should not require authorities to meet certain criteria.
    Many of us would find that line of argument easier to take from the Government if they were not, at the same time, taking control of water and sewerage services away from elected local authorities in Scotland, if they were not abolishing every elected regional and district council in Scotland, and if they were not imposing upon Scottish local government a new structure which virtually no one in the country wants or desires. In short, if the Government were not murdering democratic local government in Scotland, we might believe that they were serious about granting to Scottish local government the maximum freedom and flexibility.
    This is no small matter. It is not just a disagreement over the wording, because there are differences which divide the House tonight. For example, in my own area of Tayside, the social work department has developed a comprehensive and integrated structure of social work services. Like everywhere else in Scotland, that department has developed services under the umbrella and leadership of the regional councils. Now the Government propose that the regional councils, and with them the existing social work departments, are to be swept away, and replaced with a network of new and much smaller unitary authorities.
    In Tayside's case the successor authorities are likely to be controlled by different political parties. I do not think that anyone would disagree with me if I suggested that the new Dundee unitary authority is likely to be controlled by the Labour party, or that the new Angus authority is likely to be under the control of the Scottish National party. At one time, we could have said that the Perth and Kinross authority would be an obvious one for Tory control, but these days, that kind of remark cannot be made of anywhere in Scotland.
    Nevertheless, Ministers say that those different councils—which may be controlled by three political groups—will be able to come together to ensure the continuity of policy and provision in the field of social work. They say that the chief social work officers from

    1447
    each authority will simply have to liaise with each other to avoid any disruption of the services which were previously available under Tayside. That depends on the status, power and place given to each of those social work officers by the respective authorities.
    One council may well give to the social work officer a role equivalent to the director of social work today. Another council might not, and the social work officer might be seen as a relatively minor official within a more corporate management structure. Under those circumstances, how can effective liaison take place between different chief social work officers? For liaison to be effective, social work officers in every authority must have the same status, power and place.
    There is also the question whether the chief social work officers will be sufficiently senior to withstand politically inspired pressure from councillors. I shall again take a recent example from my area. A proposal was made by Dundee health care trust to place a small number of patients in a community home in Carnoustie. The proposal caused something of a furore, and led to a public meeting in Carnoustie attended by more than 200 people who were alarmed at the prospect of patients suffering from mental illness being placed in their midst.
    I do not know whether the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) was there, but certainly the local SNP councillor, a Mr. Lamont—I do not know if he is a relation to the former Chancellor—was there. Following the meeting, he wrote to the local newspaper in the Dundee and Tayside area criticising the trust for proposing to put mentally ill patients into the community.
    He warned everyone at the meeting about the murders that have been committed by psychiatric patients who have been released into the community. He also pointed out that, because of the continuing depopulation of Dundee, there were about 6,000 vacant council housing units available, 60 of which are detached. For the £105,000 which was to be paid for the Carnoustie project, Councillor Lamont said that the trust could have bought three council houses in Dundee for each of the four patients, providing much-needed revenue for the local authority in Dundee. The attitude of the SNP councillor in that area is best summed up by the term NIMBY—not in my back yard.
    Mr. Welsh: The hon. Gentleman has a problem when he intervenes in Angus affairs. He betrays a total ignorance of the position. The events also illustrate the trust's lack of consultation of the local population. If the trust had made known its plans locally, it would have been a different story. The meeting was set up simply because the people felt that the proposals were being thrust upon them without consultation. There should be consultation to ensure that such projects fit in with the wishes of the local population and are not forced on them without their consent.
    9.30 pm
    Mr. McAllion: I know that the local Member of Parliament backs the SNP councillor against the trust and opposes the proposal to put the patients into the community. The case sums up the problems that chief social work officers will face. The argument made by the SNP councillor was repeated in the columns of The Evening Telegraph. Anyone can vouch for that. I am not making it up, but am using what he said. His argument
    1448
    was that people did not want the patients in their area. They wanted to dump them in the area of another local authority.
    Dundee has 6,000 empty houses, but it also has a council house waiting list because the houses are empty because no one wants them. They are in what are euphemistically called areas of low demand. Such areas are characterised by problems of crime and vandalism. I suggest that that is the last place that a home for people suffering from mental illness should be located.
    Mr. Gallie: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that he is making a great case for building into the local government structure a director of social work and housing? Is that not the current position, given the choice that councils will have? I believe that social work and housing go together.
    Mr. McAllion: The hon. Gentleman got it half right. I am making a great case for creating a director of social work. If the hon. Gentleman reads our amendments, he will see that that is what they say.
    The case in Angus sums up the problems that will face professional officers in the new unitary authorities. Political pressure from politicians who are in turn subjected to pressure from people in their wards and constituencies sometimes has to be resisted in the interests of good social work care. That is why the chief social work officers in the new authorities must have sufficient seniority and clout within the authority and their department to resist the pressures put on them by councillors. That is why it is essential for the Minister to clarify the role and the standing of the new chief social work officers that he proposes. It is also why, if he is unable to do that satisfactorily, the House should support the Labour amendments, which will ensure the standing and status of the professional officers responsible for social work in the new authority areas.
    We are not making a party political point. The point has wide support across the political spectrum. Indeed, when the matter was debated in the other place, Baroness Faithfull, who takes the Conservative Whip—[Interruption.] Not Marianne Faithfull, Baroness Faithfull.
    Mr. George Galloway: She also takes the whip.
    Mr. McAllion: I cannot speak for Marianne Faithfull, but Baroness Faithfull has wide experience of social work services in England. Among other things, she was a council member of the National Institute for Social Work, she was vice-president of Barnardo's and an honourary member of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. She said in a debate in the other place:
    "If we do not have social work committees or directors of social services, I suggest that the service will deteriorate."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 July 1994; Vol.556, c. 2011.]
    She warned of vague accountability, lack of direction, neglect of standards and fragmentation of the service. She spoke from a lifetime of experience and from the position of taking the Tory Whip in the House of Lords.
    Such a voice of experience should be listened to. It is certainly listened to by Opposition Members and it should be listened to by Conservative Members. I look forward to the Government explaining their position.
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: This tawdry Bill, which has all the elegance and appeal of a piece of jewellery bought from one of Mr. Ratner's shops, will harm many disadvantaged people throughout Scotland, particularly with regard to floated plans for social work. So I have a number of questions to ask the Minister.
    Traditionally, prescribed social work qualifications meant QSWs, or qualifications in social work—that is the basic qualification—and we then talked about CQSWs, or certificates in social work. There are also diplomas and degrees in social work. When he responds, will the Minister spell out what is meant by prescribed social work qualifications? Do they include those to which I have just referred? I know of one local authority chief executive who expressed the view that an administrative officer could carry out the work of a social work manager. That was before the amendment was tabled in the other place, but such a response shows how some local authorities may respond to the Bill.
    I have a little experience of social work, and believe that the new authorities will need to establish social work departments and committees, and directors of social work. The nondescript outfit opposite may wish to talk about chief social work officers with prescribed social work qualifications, but I genuinely believe that many of the new authorities will recruit, select and appoint directors of social work. It is important for the many disadvantaged people whose interests and needs are cared for by social workers, area teams and hospital social work departments that we have social work directors.
    One element of a social work director's role is that of advocacy in relation to the needs and interests of many disadvantaged people. Those may include disabled people, people with learning disabilities and elderly people placed in residential homes, some of which are not fit to be used as Army barracks for young soldiers. I would close down some residential homes tomorrow, including one in my constituency. But that is another matter. Most sensible councillors will opt for the appointment of directors of social work.
    May I ask the Minister some questions about social work? First, will he assure the House that the chief social work officer will perform the same role and duties as are performed at present by social work directors? I refer specifically to section 6 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. My questions have been prompted by a deeply disturbing statement made by the Minister in another place, where he said:
    "Perhaps I may say to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, that in moving the amendment I said that the chief social work officer will be responsible for the oversight of all the social work services provided or purchased by the local authority."
    We are in dangerous waters when we talk about the "purchase" of social work facilities and resources. He went on to say:
    "Undoubtedly there will be a staff for which he is responsible but I do not wish to suggest that every single service would necessarily be provided by that staff. Services may be purchased in, as is frequently done at present."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 October 1994; Vol. 558, c. 259.]
    I am not so sure that purchasing social work resources is good practice.
    I remind hon. Members that the theme of the 1968 Act was, and is, the promotion of social welfare and health. I am worried about the attitude of the Government. For
    1450
    example, I ask the Minister, in relation to the role and functions of a chief social work officer, how stands the principle contained in the statement in section 3(7) of the 1968 Act, that
    "A local authority shall secure the provision of adequate staff for assisting the director of social work in the performance of his functions"?
    Is he satisfied that his legislation is equal, or superior, to that stated in section 3(7) of the 1968 Act?
    With regard to section 3(3) of the 1968 Act, what role will the Secretary of State play in the approval of the appointment of chief social work officers? I seem to have lost the attention of the Minister, so I shall repeat the question. In terms of section 3(3) of the 1968 Act, where stands the Secretary of State for Scotland in terms of the appointment of a chief social work officer? Will the Secretary of State continue to have the power of sanction that is contained in section 3(3)?
    Section 3(5) states:
    "The director of social work shall hold his office during the pleasure 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."
    Will the Minister confirm that that will hold in regard to the so-called chief social work officer?
    In relation to subsection (4), about the functions of a local authority, will the Minister confirm that what he proposes in the legislation is equal, or superior, to what is contained in that subsection? I ask him to give the House an assurance that a chief social work officer will have the same role, the same duties and the same autonomy, in relation to that important role of advocacy of the needs and interests of disadvantaged people.
    Let me give a couple of examples. I say to the Minister that I am worried about the role of the welfare rights officers. They play an important role in the lives of many hundreds, even thousands, of people in Strathclyde region. I cannot speak for other regions, but I know that the three welfare rights officers employed in the Inverclyde division of Strathclyde regional council's social work department play an important role in the lives of ordinary people—people whose lives are heavily scarred by poverty.
    One example of the work of welfare rights officers is that of advocacy, representing people at social security appeals tribunals, at medical appeals tribunals, and similar functions. Many constituents have told me that they would not have the nerve—the confidence—to appear before an appeals tribunal without the comforting, highly professional presence of a welfare rights officer.
    Ms Rachel Squire: I very much want to endorse the arguments that my hon. Friend is making, and to provide the House with the information that, in Fife, the rights office in Dunfermline—the equivalent of the welfare rights officers in Strathclyde—has experienced a 42 per cent. increase in its work load in just the past 12 months. Therefore, I very much endorse what my hon. Friend has said.
    9.45 pm
    Dr. Godman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention because, quite apart from its value, it gave me a breather.

    1451
    About 50 welfare rights officers are employed in Strathclyde and they have brought a measure of comfort to many poor people. At a recent surgery, a man told me that, with the help of a welfare rights officer, he had won £9,000 from the Department of Social Security. "Won" is the right word because it was a hell of a struggle. For that man, it was like a small win on the pools because it gave him some comfort in a sparse existence.
    A woman constituent told me that, with the help of welfare rights officers, she was paid money that she should have received over a period of 11 years. Conservative administrations are a vanishing phenomenon, but some of those that remain may see welfare rights officers and members of area social work teams as agitators or troublemakers, but those people fulfil an important role.
    Too many Conservative Members see social workers as the lady almoners of yesteryear. The legislation is taking Scotland down the poll tax road because we are to be used as an experimental laboratory. If we must have the new authorities, the social work departments must be adequately staffed and resourced. We shall need social work committees, and to protect the interests of the many poor and disadvantaged people, there must be a director of social work with prescribed social work qualifications. The Government have made a concession, but it does not go far enough for many of our constituents.
    Mr. Dalyell: What response has the Minister given to the Scottish Council of Voluntary Organisations in relation to its concerns about special needs groups?
    Mr. Welsh: The Government appear to have bowed to pressure to reinstate social work to its statutory and deserved place in local government services, but it is still to be downgraded in status because statutory directors of social work are to become chief social work officers and the previous statutory social work committees are to be consigned to history.
    The Government's attitude to education and social work is wrong because their proposals sweep aside historical reality and the contribution of the statutory directors and their committees, and they also ignore the social and educational reality that led to their creation.
    Social work departments have to deal with the daily reality of poverty and unemployment and all the other inbuilt problems of Scottish society. The Lords amendment chooses to ignore the long-standing status and priority given to education and social work in our society. I support the amendments to the amendment because they at least try to restore some of that recognition, but the Government will again summon their absent battalions to force through their views in the face of opposition and advice from Scotland, because that is how the system here works.
    In another place, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie said:
    "We have always recognised the vital contribution which social work services make in our community. Vulnerable groups depend on community care, and child care services can be reassured about the continuity of the service."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 October 1994; Vol. 558, c. 254.]
    That is what the noble Lord said, but people in those services cannot be assured about the status of that service and the statutory provision for it. In many ways, we are up against double standards. I agree with what Lord Fraser says, but not with what the Government have done about it. There was no reason why they should not have ensured
    1452
    the continuing high standing and status within the new system of social work and education by ensuring statutory directors and the continuation of statutory committees.
    I should like to ask the Minister a few specific questions to which I hope he will respond. In the amendment, the Government have gone some way towards meeting concerns about chief social work officers, so why have they not taken it to its logical conclusion and retained in the legislation the term "director of social work"? Why did they not take that extra step, which would have ensured the standing, status and continuity of the post of director of social work?
    What assurances can the Minister give to many voluntary organisations which lobbied so extensively throughout the Committee stage of the Bill, to meet the real concern that the change of title may signal a reduction or diminution in the status and authority of the chief social work officer? Will the Minister give a straightforward guarantee that that will not be the case and that the new title will bring with it all that the old title had? We are entitled to ask why there was a change in title. Can the Minister give an absolute guarantee that there will be no diminution in status with the Government proposal?
    If it is not the Government's intention to retain the title of director of social work, will the Minister make it absolutely clear that the Government expect the new unitary authorities to bestow upon the new chief social work officers the same rights and responsibilities as the existing directors of social work? I suspect not, and that is at the heart of the concerns expressed about the Government's proposal.
    Will the Minister clarify that the chief social work officer will continue to be the person who acts as the direct adviser to the council in the context of the council's wider strategic role and responsibilities, along similar lines to existing directors of social work?
    Given that there cannot be responsibility for standards without an equal control of resources, will the Minister make it clear that the chief social work officer will have responsibility for the management of all resources that are directly delivered or purchased? Does he accept that that management responsibility must cover all staffing resources if councils are to discharge the social work duties and responsibilities envisaged for them?
    Scotland's social work system does not need a watered-down version of the present provision; it needs a very much strengthened, well resourced and supported continuation of the present system if it is to work properly and meet the needs of local populations. That is what we need, but it does not seem to be what the Government are delivering. Will the Minister address the specific questions that I have asked regarding the standard, status and powers that he envisages for the new term and the new officer?
    Mr. Wallace: The fact that the Government felt obliged to introduce the clause in the House of Lords showed that they had got it wrong when they first published the Bill and argued it through the House. I regret that they have not gone further and made provision for a director of education as chief education officer, but I might be out of order if I proceeded too far down that line; suffice it to keep to social work.
    As the Minister of State, Lord Fraser, said in another place, the Government had set out compelling reasons why a director of social work or a chief social work

    1453
    officer was necessary. It is recognised by hon. Members on both sides of the House that we are dealing not simply with administrative arrangements for the delivery of social work services but with issues ranging from children to frail elderly people. Social workers deal with human beings and issues affecting civil liberties. I know only too well from my constituency work load how directly social workers can interfere in the lives of citizens. It is important, therefore, that those who discharge the functions, and the person in charge of them, are properly professionally qualified.
    I cannot understand why the Government do not go the whole way and call them directors of social work—the only possible reason for their not doing so is loss of face—and Lord Fraser said that many authorities would choose to do just that. He also said that other authorities may have a different structure, but would still be required to appoint a professionally qualified chief social work officer who would have overall responsibility for the services provided or purchased by the local authority.
    It would be interesting to hear from the Minister whether he sees any difference between what a director of social work and what a chief social work officer would deliver. If there is no real difference, the Government should be prepared to swallow their pride, accept the Opposition amendment and call them directors of social work. In many people's eyes, that is precisely what they are.
    Mr. McAvoy: I shall be extremely brief. As one of several hon. Members who are former members of Strathclyde regional council's social work committee, I could not let the amendment pass without referring to the effect of the Bill and the amendment on the council's operations.
    Strathclyde's social work department has a record that is second to none, both in the existing statutory services that it provides and in the innovations that it introduces. Reference has been made to welfare rights officers. Strathclyde, under a director of social work, pursued that policy within the region and helped many people. There have also been initiatives for disabled people, such as the disabled olympics—a great innovative gesture by Strathclyde under the direction of a director of social work working in league with councillors. The range of policies, initiatives and services implemented by a director of social work shows that the system works and that the Government are making a mess of the changes.
    Mention was made earlier of the pressures on directors of social work. Who knows what the pressures would be on someone called a chief social worker. I remember the pressure on Dr. Fred Edwards, the director of social work at Strathclyde when the region courageously made payments to striking miners who were suffering great hardship. The director did so in conjunction with councillors. It was a perfect example of a caring council looking after its own people.
    If the Government's new system is to work, it is essential that there is someone with the seniority, status and experience to ensure that it runs properly. The people
    1454
    of Strathclyde will regret the passing of the Strathclyde regional council and the Government will pay the price in future for their efforts to destroy it.
    Mr. John Home Robertson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) on his maiden speech from the Front Bench. He moved an extremely important amendment. It is not simply a question of the words used to describe the new official but of the status of an official who will be responsible for providing for the needs of the most vulnerable people in our society in different localities in Scotland.
    Are we to have, as it states in the Lords amendment, a chief social work officer, which I understand to mean an executive officer who will have to do as he is told under all circumstances, or are we to have, as it states in our amendment, a director of social work—an official who will have a duty to initiate action to protect those who require social work care? That is a crucial point.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) gave examples of important areas of social work responsibility. Ministers have heard me repeatedly refer to the need to promote mobility for elderly and disabled people in Scotland and the great value of the present integrated concessionary travel schemes, which enable elderly and disabled people to move around within the regions of Scotland. With all the new boundaries that will be established under the Bill, it will be extremely difficult to maintain the schemes for the benefit of elderly and disabled people.
    I fear that if we are simply to have what the Lords amendment calls a chief social work officer, he will have to live within the physical and management structure boundaries laid down under the scheme. That means that there is no future for cross-boundary concessionary travel schemes for elderly and disabled people. At Question Time last week, the Minister confirmed to me that under this and new legislation the new local authorities will be able to provide concessionary travel schemes only for people living within their boundaries—their own electors. There will be no scope for cross-subsidisation across boundaries.
    We are talking about social work, which will obviously be crucial for people in the districts around cities. If they cannot take advantage of concessionary travel across boundaries into Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen or Dundee, the existing scheme will be greatly and seriously undermined.
    It being Ten o'clock, consideration of the Lords amendments stood adjourned.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
    That, at this day's sitting, the Lords Amendments to the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill and the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Willetts.]
    Question agreed to.

  Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill
  Lords amendments again considered.
  Question again proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Home Robertson: We have crossed the 10 o'clock boundary, but it will be a lot more difficult for elderly and disabled people to cross the boundaries in future. It is important that there should be social work directors, who will have the power to initiate policy and to make firm recommendations to their councils, and to Government where necessary, that those important areas of responsibility should be co-ordinated.
  I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that we have a serious problem here, that there is a need for the co-ordination of policy in this vital area, particularly on the point of mobility for elderly and disabled people, and that we need directors of social work who will have the authority to cross those boundaries in every sense of the word. There must be serious concern that, under the Bill, even with the Lords amendments, that will not happen. I hope that the Minister will seriously address that point.
  Mr. Ian Davidson: Many excellent contributions have already been made on the merits of existing social work departments, and I do not want to go over that ground again. I want to seek clarification from the Minister on the distinction between social work and education. I do not want to argue the case for education, because that would be out of order; rather, I want clarification on why the Government appear to treat education and social work differently, when debates in the House and in Committee have always taken place on the basis that the Opposition argued overwhelmingly for chief officers for education and social work, while the Government argued consistently against both.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): Statutory duties are not specifically assigned to the directors of education but to the education authority; however, duties are directly imposed on social workers by statute.
  Mr. Davidson: Notwithstanding that, when we argued earlier in the House and in Committee for chief officers, the Government used exactly the same arguments against chief officers for education and social work. They argued that the matter should be left entirely to the discretion of individual local authorities. Now they have changed their argument completely on only one.
  That presumably means a downgrading of education vis-a-vis social work, because it is not felt sufficiently important to command a chief officer in the way that the social work departments do. Will the Minister clarify exactly why he believes that an education department does not deserve a chief officer, whereas a social work department does?
  Mr. George Foulkes: I have been sitting here this evening in the growing disbelief that Parliament today, and no doubt the Queen tomorrow, will pass the Bill with or without this amendment in relation to the chief social work officer, and reorganise at great expense and great trouble local government in Scotland, when I understand that all the recommendations of the Banham committee in England
  1456
  are being thrown out completely. There will be no local government reorganisation in England. I understand that Ministers are saying that they do not want it in areas such as Suffolk—
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Utter rubbish.
  Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman always talks rubbish. He spoke rubbish when he represented a Scottish constituency, and he speaks rubbish now that he represents a Southend seat.
  But I have read in the paper that, in Suffolk, the Secretary of State for the Environment is opposed to the scheme that is going through. The Dorset schemes are opposed. No doubt, in the West Bromwich area, local government will not be organised—Madam Speaker acknowledges that.
  I must say that I find it unbelievable, disgraceful and astonishing that the Government are pressing ahead with this expensive, unwanted reorganisation in Scotland, while things south of the border will continue as they are.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I am sorry to intervene in a Scottish debate, but I really must say that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) is talking absolute rubbish, and I think that the House should know that.
  In England, the situation, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, is that, in some areas, the Government take the view that there is a case for change. In other areas, there is no case for change. The Government, very sensibly, are taking local circumstances into account. I am sorry—as my hon. Friends will know, although I was a Member for a Scottish seat for a long time, and I tried hard not to interfere—but when I find that things are going in the wrong direction, I feel it right just to put forward one point of view.
  I say to the Government that it is rather sad that their Lordships were forced to table the amendment. I am sure that the great majority of Scottish new local authorities will want to have a director of social work, because they will feel that that is appropriate. But if local councillors are talented, able and wish to serve the public, surely Ministers should accept that some local authorities might decide, with good reason, for example, that there is a case for saying that responsibility for social work and housing should be brought together, or, perhaps, that social work and education be brought together.
  Some Members might say, "We would not want that, " but, quite honestly, if we are to run our local councillors by telling them all they should do and how much they should spend—taking away all their freedom—we are making a great mistake. I must say to the Ministers who are promoting the Bill that it is unfortunate—probably because of the pressure from some of the Lords who should know better—that the amendments propose restrictions.
  Mr. Wallace: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I know that he follows Scottish matters assiduously, albeit from Southend, but does he accept that the Bill does contain more than 150 provisions that give the Secretary of State power to tell local authorities what to do? Does he approve of that?
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I have tried very hard, because of the shortage of time, not to interfere and take up time in a Scottish debate. Of course Governments interfere far too

  1457
  much with local councils. I would like to see far more freedom. That, sadly—whether under a Conservative Government or a Labour Government—is something that never happens, although, in fairness, our splendid Secretary of State for Scotland has been trying very hard indeed.
  Politics apart—the Minister knows that I have said' this on several occasions—he is one of the most courageous, talented and independent Secretaries of State for Scotland that we have ever had. But, sadly, he is constantly under pressure from colleagues in the Government, and, more importantly, from reactionaries in the House of Lords. It is very sad that the reactionaries in the House of Lords, who want to run everything through law, are forcing him to do what he does not want to do.
  If the councillors and the voters wish it, what on earth is wrong with having one or two councils who take the view that the responsibilities for social work and housing be brought together? In England, where there are many Conservative councils, and where the House of Lords does not seem to have the same influence, we do have some flexibility—for example, in local government. They do not want changes in some areas, but Essex will allow change, and Southend, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, will shortly become an independent borough running its own affairs—unfortunately, not outside the EEC, but at least it will be independent.
  It is very sad that the Government have been forced by the House of Lords to table their limited amendment. How much better it would be if we left it to local authorities to decide what is right for their areas, and not force them all to go on one particular track.
  Mr. Galloway: The speech of the right hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) was breathtaking in its audacity. He asked us to compare the situation in England, where, in some instances, a case had been made for change, or in some instances for no change. He asked us to give credit to the Government for taking cognisance of the local views in those circumstances. The point being made by the massed ranks of the Opposition in Scotland is that there is no case for local government reorganisation in Scotland, by any test of opinion—local government elections, by-elections, parliamentary elections or opinion polls.
  According to all those tests, the people of Scotland have spoken in overwhelming numbers against the change that the Government are ramming down their throats. The Government are saying that Northern Ireland can have devolution and an assembly, but that Scotland cannot have those things. The implication is that those who bomb and shoot their way towards devolution can have it, but that those who pursue democratic means and gather the support of 74 per cent. of the electorate are simply and cynically denied.
  The amendment seeks to rescue something for the Government from this mess, and to do justice at least to the most vital area of local government work—social work, which takes place among the weakest and most
  1458
  vulnerable people, who depend most on us and the country's political structures. I ask the House to accept the amendment, for decency's sake.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) made some perceptive points. As I intend to show, we are doing much that he has asked of us.
  I repudiate the suggestion of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) that the chief social work officer will be a minor official. He or she will be nothing of the sort: the person concerned will have to make decisions affecting life and liberty, such as the decision to remove children to places of safety. He or she may have to make recommendations for the assumption of parental rights in respect of children in care, recommendations for adoption and fostering and supervision arrangements for people who are a danger to others. He or she may be involved in services in the criminal justice system and recommendations for sentencing.
  I can confirm to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) that the new clause inserted by Lords amendment No. 12 will require every authority to appoint a chief social work officer who is professionally qualified. The qualifications of directors were updated by statutory instrument in March 1993: they include a diploma in social work, a certificate of qualification in social work, the certificate of social services and other qualifications. Those will be the qualifications prescribed for chief social work officers. The statutory duties of such officers will be the same as those for directors of social work.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about welfare rights officers. Local authorities can continue to employ them, but not all are employed by social work departments. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Scottish Office would be involved in appointments of chief social work officers; the answer is no.
  The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked about the Scottish Council of Voluntary Organisations. We have made clear the contribution of the voluntary sector to social work, and we recognise its concerns about the transitional period. We therefore intend to require existing councils to pass on to the new councils information about the funds they provide for the voluntary sector, and we are continuing discussions with the SCVO about continued support.
  Dr. Godman: Will the Minister give an assurance that the Secretary of State will not in any way involve himself, or herself, in the appointment of a chief social work officer? That would directly contravene section 3(3) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, which gives the Secretary of State the power to refuse to accept the appointment of a social work director. Will the Minister assure us that the Scottish Office will not interfere in the selection and appointment of officers?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I understand that the local authority will make the appointment. If it is discovered that, for instance, someone has committed the offence of child abuse and been to prison, of course that person will not be suitable. I shall examine the detailed point mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, but my understanding is that the discretion will be that of the local

  1459
  authority concerned, and that the Scottish Office will not interfere unless a substantial issue of public interest is involved.
  Mr. Dalyell: Does the passing on of information from one council to another in any way guarantee that the level of funding for special needs groups about which the voluntary organisations are concerned will be sustained?
  10.15 pm
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The duties all remain intact under statute as they have in the past. I believe that councils will be responsible. There may be changing priorities and that is the position now. However, it is vital that the necessary information is passed on and that will happen.
  The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Mc:Allion) asked about guidance. Chief social work officers will have oversight over all social work services provided or purchased by the local authority. We will consult the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Association of Directors of Social Work in considering what further guidance is required.
  The effect of the Opposition amendments to Lords amendment No.12 and the associated group of amendments would be to remove from local authorities the flexibility which they seek and which we wish them to have. We reached the decision on social workers for the simple reason that I gave earlier, which is that social work decisions can affect personal lives and liberties to an extent that other local authority services generally do not.
  Mr. Wallace rose—
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Let me develop this line of argument.
  The main amendment is a new clause that will require every authority to appoint a professionally qualified chief social work officer. We do not wish to confine the managerial arrangements of local authorities by saying that that person must necessarily be a director.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East pointed out, a chief social work officer need not necessarily be the director of a department. If, for example, an authority had a single department for housing and social work or for education and social work, the director of that department would not necessarily be the chief social work officer.
  No doubt most authorities will have social work departments led by professionally qualified directors. Other authorities may decide on a different structure. They will be required to appoint the professionally qualified social work officer at an appropriate level in their organisation, and he or she will be responsible, as I have said, for oversight of all services concerned.
  A series of consequential amendments makes clear the specific decisions and tasks for which the chief social work officer will be responsible. I believe that this amendment meets the concerns that have been expressed,
  1460
  while giving the new authorities as much flexibility as possible in determining their own internal structures and management arrangements.
  Mr. Welsh: The Minister said that this would give local authorities the flexibility that they seek. Can he name the local authorities that wish to abolish the statutory director of social work?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes, I can. There are a considerable number of authorities. A total of 15 were in favour of a statutory director and 37 authorities were against—three of them were regions, two were islands and 32 were districts. Many other bodies were also against a statutory director. The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that the president of the Association of Directors of Social Work welcomes this amendment, and that the British Association of Social Workers welcomes it as a sensible compromise. I strongly commend the amendment to the House.
  Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment: (a), in line 4, leave out
  "'Chief social work officer.'
  and insert
  "'Director of social work.'
  —[McAllion.]
  Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 248, Noes 286.

  Division No. 322]

  [22.19 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cann, Jamie

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Chidgey, David

  Ainger, Nick

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Church, Judith

  Allen, Graham

  Clapham, Michael

  Alton, David

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Anderson, Ms Janet

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  (Ros'dale)

  Clelland, David

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Ashton, Joe

  Coffey, Ann

  Austin-Walker, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Connarty, Michael

  Barnes, Harry

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Barron, Kevin

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Battle, John

  Corbett, Robin

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Corston, Jean

  Bell, Stuart

  Cousins, Jim

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cox, Tom

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Benton, Joe

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dalyell, Tam

  Berry, Roger

  Darling, Alistair

  Betts, Clive

  Davidson, Ian

  Blunkett, David

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Boateng, Paul

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Bradley, Keith

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

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Denham, John

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Dewar, Donald

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

  Dixon, Don

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Dobson, Frank

  Burden, Richard

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Byers, Stephen

  Dowd, Jim

  Caborn, Richard

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Callaghan, Jim

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Eastham, Ken

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Enright, Derek

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Etherington, Bill

  1461

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Madden, Max

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Maddock, Diana

  Fatchett, Derek

  Mahon, Alice

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Fisher, Mark

  Marek, Dr John

  Flynn, Paul

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Foulkes, George

  Maxton, John

  Fraser, John

  McAllion, John

  Fyfe, Maria

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Galbraith, Sam

  McCartney, Ian

  Galloway, George

  McFall, John

  George, Bruce

  McKelvey, William

  Gerrard, Neil

  McLeish, Henry

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  McMaster, Gordon

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  McNamara, Kevin

  Godsiff, Roger

  McWilliam, John

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Meale, Alan

  Gordon, Mildred

  Michael, Alun

  Graham, Thomas

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Milburn, Alan

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Miller, Andrew

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Gunnell, John

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hall, Mike

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Hanson, David

  Morley, Elliot

  Hardy, Peter

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Mullin, Chris

  Henderson, Doug

  Murphy, Paul

  Heppell, John

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hodge, Margaret

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hoey, Kate

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Home Robertson, John

  Olner, William

  Hood, Jimmy

  Parry, Robert

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Patchett, Terry

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hoyle, Doug

  Pope, Greg

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hutton, John

  Purchase, Ken

  Illsley, Eric

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Ingram, Adam

  Randall, Stuart

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Reid, Dr John

  Jamieson, David

  Rendel, David

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Jowell, Tessa

  Rooney, Terry

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Keen, Alan

  Ruddock, Joan

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Salmond, Alex

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Short, Clare

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Simpson, Alan

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lewis, Terry

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

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

  Litherland, Robert

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Snape, Peter

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Soley, Clive

  Loyden, Eddie

  Spearing, Nigel

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Spellar, John

  Macdonald, Calum

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Maclennan, Robert

  Stevenson, George

  MacShane, Denis

  Stott, Roger

  1462

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Straw, Jack

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Winnick, David

  Timms, Stephen

  Wise, Audrey

  Tipping, Paddy

  Worthington, Tony

  Wallace, James

  Wray, Jimmy

  Walley, Joan

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Watson, Mike

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Welsh, Andrew

  Mr. John Cummings and

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Mr. Dennis Turner

  NOES

  Ainger, Nick

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Couchman, James

  Alexander, Richard

  Cran, James

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

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

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Amess, David

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Day, Stephen

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Ashby, David

  Devlin, Tim

  Atkins, Robert

  Dicks, Terry

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Dover, Den

  Baldry, Tony

  Duncan, Alan

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Dunn, Bob

  Bates, Michael

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Batiste, Spencer

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bellingham, Henry

  Eggar, Tim

  Bendall, Vivian

  Elletson, Harold

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Booth, Hartley

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Boswell, Tim

  Evennett, David

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Faber, David

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bowis, John

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Forman, Nigel

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Brazier, Julian

  Forth, Eric

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  French, Douglas

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Gallie, Phil

  Burns, Simon

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Burt, Alistair

  Garnier, Edward

  Butler, Peter

  Gill, Christopher

  Butterfill, John

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Carrington, Matthew

  Gorst, Sir John

  Carttiss, Michael

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Cash, William

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Churchill, Mr

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Clappison, James

  Hague, William

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hannam, Sir John

  Colvin, Michael

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Congdon, David

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Conway, Derek

  Hawkins, Nick

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hayes, Jerry

  1463

  Heald, Oliver

  Page, Richard

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Hendry, Charles

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hicks, Robert

  Pawsey, James

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Pickles, Eric

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Horam, John

  Porter, David (Wavenney)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Rathbone, Tim

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

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Richards, Rod

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Riddick, Graham

  Hunter, Andrew

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jack, Michael

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Jessel, Toby

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Key, Robert

  Shaw, Davie (Dover)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Knapman, Roger

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

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

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Sims, Roger

  Knox, Sir David

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Legg, Barry

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Leigh, Edward

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lidington, David

  Spring, Richard

  Lightbown, David

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Steen, Anthony

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  stephen, Michael

  Lord, Michael

  Stern, Michael

  Luff, Peter

  Stewart, Allan

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Streeter, Gary

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Sumberg, David

  MacKay, Andrew

  Sweeney, Walter

  Maclean, David

  Sykes, John

  Madel, Sir David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Malone, Gerald

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mans, Keith

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Marland, Paul

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Marlow, Tony

  Temple-Morris Peter

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Thomason, Roy

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwick N)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Mates, Michael

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Thurnham, Peter

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

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

  Merchant, Piers

  Tracey, Richard

  Mills, Iain

  Tredinnick, David

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Trotter, Neville

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Viggers, Peter

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Nelson, Anthony

  Walden, George

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Waller, Gary

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Ward, John

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Norris, Steve

  Watts, John

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Wells, Bowen

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Whitney, Ray

  Ottaway, Richard

  Whittingdale, John

  1464

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Wolfson, Mark

  Wilkinson, John

  Yeo, Tim

  Willetts, David

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Wilshire, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Mr. Timothy Wood and

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  De. Liam Fox

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Lords amendment No. 12 agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

  Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill
    Clause 64

      GENERAL DUTIES OF SECRETARY OF STATE AND OF NEW AUTHORITIES
      Lords amendment: No. 16, in page 56, line 33, leave out ("sewerage services") and insert
      ("facilities for the disposal of sewage")
      Mr. Stewart: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 17 to 24, 29, 56, 57, 92 to 104 and 121.
      Mr. McAllion: I shall speak to Lords amendment No. 29, which seeks to introduce after clause 179 a new clause which would let the present regional and island councils use the new provisions in the Bill to facilitate the use in respect of their water and sewerage functions of what is called the Government's private finance initiative. [Interruption.]
      The private finance initiative involves what are known as BOO schemes. BOO stands for " build, own, operate". That means that private companies are introduced to—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is quite enough chatting in the House. I am finding great difficulty in hearing what the hon. Gentleman is saying. The House will now settle down.
      Mr. McAllion: Some people have no respect for the Standing Orders of the House.
      BOO schemes are where private companies are allowed to build, own and operate facilities which are essentially public facilities, and they are of course a matter of some controversy. There is the specific dispute over whether BOO schemes will lead to higher or lower prices for water consumers in Scotland. Last Wednesday, the Minister responsible for local government attacked Strathclyde regional council for making "alarmist claims" about the impact of BOO schemes on the price of water in Scotland.
      The Minister argued that BOO schemes would be better for the consumer and denied the claims by the regional council that they would result in higher charges for Scottish consumers. At the weekend, on the television programme "Scottish Lobby", the Minister said that his Department had undertaken research into the impact of BOO schemes which invalidated the claims made by Strathclyde regional council in its original press release about the BOO schemes.

      1465
      Strathclyde regional councillors, as might have been expected, have reacted to the Minister's attacks, and they have provided me and other hon. Members—and, I suspect, Ministers as well—with an information note which responds to the Minister's attacks. The councillors have given a detailed breakdown of their assessment of what the impact of the schemes will be on the price of water in Scotland. Their assessment is that the impact will be wholly damaging to the consumers of Scottish water, and they suggest that BOO schemes will be twice as expensive as schemes where ownership remains in the control of regional councils, as they are at present, or public water authorities, as could happen in the future.
      Strathclyde's case is open to scrutiny by all hon. Members, who can look at the detailed costings provided and make up their minds. Hon. Members cannot make up their minds about the claims made by the Government, because the Government have not made available to anyone outside the Scottish Office the detailed research which they claim to have carried out into the impact of the schemes on the price of water in Scotland.
      It is time for the Minister to put up or shut up. He should respond to Strathclyde's case, which has been presented to him in detail, with an equivalent case of his own which goes into detail and challenges the figures given by Strathclyde. If he cannot provide that kind of detailed response, he should stop attacking the council and accept that its case is valid.
      This is not just an argument about detailed financial costings and figures, because central to the Government's case is their belief that BOO schemes will, by involving the private sector, introduce competition which, in turn, will drive down the operating costs of providing water to consumers in Scotland. That case does not stand up to any scrutiny, because in England and Wales—where the Government have already introduced private ownership and competition into the supply of water and sewerage—costs have been driven up to the extent that water costs in England and Wales are now twice as much, and in some cases more than that, as in Scotland, where water remains in the public sector.
      More worrying than the costs are the implications for safety and for safe standards in the supply of water and sewerage services in Scotland. How are the savings supposed to be achieved by the new private companies which come in to operate the schemes? I suggest to the Minister that the new private companies will be able to achieve those savings only by cutting corners and reducing safety standards in the delivery of vital services to Scottish consumers. That must be of concern to all hon. Members on both sides of the House, and the Minister should respond to that.
      1466
      Another concern that the Opposition have is about what might happen if the private operators who come in to operate schemes then go bust. Who will be left to pick up the tab—
      Mr. Gallie: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We seem to be going back over the old arguments that we had in Committee, when in fact we should be addressing new clause 29—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman can safely leave that in the hands of the Chair.
      Mr. McAllion: We are dealing with new clause 29, which deals with the private finance initiative introduced by the hon. Gentleman's own Government. If he does not understand that, we have to ask why he is sitting on the Back Benches in support of the Conservative Government.
      Mr. George Robertson: He should be on the Front Bench.
      Mr. McAllion: I notice that the Secretary of State for Scotland pales at the very thought.
      The problem with the BOO schemes is that they link together in private control three vital strands of water and sewerage services in Scotland—building, ownership and operation of the schemes. They will tie the hands of the new public authorities. The authorities will be tied into privately run schemes over which they will have little or no control. If things go badly wrong with the privately run schemes, there will be nothing much that the new public water authorities will be able to do about them, other than to intervene to bail them out and find extra public money with which to supply the services.
      The debate gives us the opportunity to clarify several issues. Strathclyde regional council has made the case that the introduction of the Government's private finance initiative into the supply of water and sewerage services in Scotland is likely to lead to higher costs for the consumers of those services. The council's case remains convincing and open to examination by anyone who cares to look at it. It is certainly detailed enough to persuade me and many other hon. Members with open minds that what the council says is correct.
      The Government's case remains shrouded in bluster and obfuscation, in both of which the Minister with responsibility for local government is expert. I suggest that even the lackeys on the Benches behind the Minister remain unconvinced by his bluster and obfuscation in this respect. There is now a clear opportunity for the Minister to come to the Dispatch Box to set the record straight and tell us the detailed research findings of his Department which justify his case. If he cannot do that, he should shut up and stop attacking Strathclyde regional council.
      Mr. Salmond: As one of the more open-minded Members of the House, I want to make some observations about this group which, with respect to the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), involves not just new clause 29 but a wide range of amendments on the subject of water.
      I am particularly worried about amendments Nos. 17 to 23, all of which are similar in composition and all of which insert the word "former" into phrase which otherwise say:
      "customers or potential customers of the new water and sewerage authorities."

      1467
      I want to know why the Government want to insert the word "former".
      There may be an entirely innocent explanation for that insertion, but I shall make a few suggestions of the real reasons behind the amendments. If, for example, people were priced out of water services in Scotland by the sharp rises in prices that will inevitably take place following the creation of the water quangos, they would become former customers of the water quangos in Scotland.
      I, too, saw what I can only describe as an unsatisfactory, indeed shifty, interview given by the Minister on that excellent programme, "Scottish Lobby", the other day. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] The producers and interviewers on "Scottish Lobby" will note the general assent to that description of the programme—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) wish to intervene? Of course, he is a Whip, so he is not allowed to say anything.
      Even on the Opposition Front Bench there is general assent for the description of "Scottish Lobby" as an excellent programme. Only this weekend it exposed the charade behind the Minister's bluster that there will not be sharp rises in water prices. The Minister looks somewhat surprised. He often looks surprised during debates. I cannot quote exactly from the programme, but as I remember it, the interview ran roughly as follows. The interviewer asked the Minister whether he had made any forecasts of the rises in water charges in Scotland. The Minister said yes, he had. The interviewer asked what they were. The Minister then said, "You surely don't expect me to tell you that."
      Mr. Stewart indicated dissent.
      Mr. Salmond: The Minister shakes his head. Will he now say what those sharp rises in cost will be? He expressed confidence that his departmental officials had researched the matter carefully, until he was asked what the rises would be. He then refused to forecast them, looked accusingly at his interviewer and said, "You surely don't expect me to tell you that." The Scottish people do expect to be told what the forecasts are.
      There can be little confidence in the Government's position on this. We need think back only a couple of years to the poll tax fiasco, when the Government confidently forecast the expected price rises, and their forecasts were wrong in almost every case that came to light. On this further lunatic measure, the Government are not even prepared to make forecasts in the first place. No one who watched that interview can feel confident that the Minister has any idea of the price rises that he is letting the Scottish people in for. We are therefore entitled to be extremely suspicious about the insertion of the word "former" into the relevant clauses and I have a mind to divide the House on amendment No. 17.
      10.45 pm
      Another sinister reason why the word "former" might be introduced is that someone could become a former customer of the water quangos if those quangos cease to exist. The Minister again looks surprised, but he must
      1468
      know that many Opposition Members see something familiar in the progression of water out of local government control into quangos and then, as happened south of the border, into the private sector. The Scottish people suspect that water quangos are merely a staging post for the Government's eventual aim of taking water into the private sector in Scotland, just as he did south of the border. If that were the Government's aim, the Bill would provide for it by describing people as "former" customers of quangos, which would then no longer exist.
      I am also naturally suspicious of allowing amendments to go uncommented on when I doubt whether any hon. Member, least of all the Minister, understands them. I am interested in amendment No. 16. There seems to be a significant difference between "sewerage services", the phrase currently in the Bill, and
      "facilities for the disposal of sewage",
      which the Government intend to put in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will explain exactly what the difference is.
      I am also concerned about amendment No. 24, which I have now read several times with the relevant clause and find absolutely and utterly incomprehensible. The amendment and clause say:
      "in a case where the proposed sewer will connect with their sewers or sewage treatment works, determine (and by written notice advise the person) that all, or a part which they shall specify in the notice, of the sewer constructed shall not vest in them through the operation of section 16(1)(c) of this Act;"—
      he amendment then inserts:
      "and shall instead vest in him"—
      and the clause goes on:
      "but notwithstanding the determination the sewerage authority may, on such terms and conditions as they think fit, then or at some later time enter into an agreement under which the sewer, or as the case may be the part, shall vest in them."
      Even in terms of complex legislation, that amendment makes an already incomprehensible clause even more incomprehensible. It might be seen as a case of them and him, but I expect the Minister to offer the House some explanation of what amendment No. 24 means.
      This is a critical part of the legislative process in this House. We are a couple of days away from the end of the Session. I know that Lords amendments are not subject to a guillotine and that the Government want to progress other important legislation before the evening has ended. They also have a privilege resolution tomorrow in which some Members have expressed an interest. Nevertheless, that is no reason for allowing the ambiguous, inconsistent, and perhaps even sinister, amendments before us to be passed without opposition.
      This would be the perfect opportunity for the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) to show the drive and enthusiasm that he showed as recently as last December in forecasting that the Bill would be bogged down, defeated and sent into oblivion. If we had more of that guts and gumption in discussing the Lords amendments today, the Government might have an impression of the strength of feeling that undoubtedly exists in Scotland about the course of the legislation. If the Government are vulnerable at any point in the legislative process, it is now. I suggest that Opposition Members take advantage of that opportunity.

  Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill
  Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall discuss Lords amendment No. 16, especially as it affects the House.
  I have been asking the Minister about the appointment of the chairmen and chief executives of the new water boards. About three weeks ago, I received a telephone call from a person who asked me to lobby on his behalf, because he had been selected for the short list for one of the posts of chief executive. He told me that a company known as Andrew Rait Ltd., which is engineering the appointments of chairmen and the chief executives, had suggested that the posts would not be advertised.
  I have checked that fact since then with some of the regions. They tell me that they are of the opinion that those posts should be advertised, but I am reliably informed by that person that they have now reached the stage at which the appointments will be made this week. How is it possible for a Government at this stage in any procedure to go down that road, and as far down that road as is, fairly obviously, the case in that instance?
  I also understand that that occasion merited the presence of a person from the Scottish Office, which demonstrates how far the Scottish Office is going as far as the appointment of those chief executives is concerned. It is a major anxiety to myself and, I should imagine, to all Opposition Members, that the Tories are now doing as they are doing in terms of the appointments to those quangos.
  Mr. Welsh: The Minister owes the House an explanation, and I hope that we shall hear one from him, because it is obvious that the Government's policy will force greater price increases in Scotland than would otherwise take place, purely because of the unwanted policy that he is forcing on the Scottish people.
  The Minister knows the figures. In the "Scottish Lobby" programme, he said:
  "Yes, of course we've done research. We have a very committed team which is researching all the figures. But you can't expect me to give a specific forecast".
  I think that we can expect the Minister to give a specific forecast, and we can expect him to do so tonight in the House of Commons, because we deserve an explanation of the basis of his assertion that the private finance initiative will not be more expensive. I have seen figures that show clearly that it will be, and that those costs will be borne by water consumers in Scotland.
  The Government are entirely wrong in their water and sewerage proposals, and on the issue of disposal of assets and costs. Those are simply not wanted by the Scottish people. They are bad economics, and will produce a complete lack of accountability to the general public, for whom those services are meant to exist.
  Those transitional arrangements, to my mind, are only nails in the coffin of an unwanted and unwarranted Tory proposal—and there is no doubt that it is a Tory proposal in its conception, its implementation and its philosophy. It is purely a Tory party political manoeuvre, and is opposed by every other political party in Scotland, and by the majority of the Scottish people. Yet it is being imposed on us.
  1470
  For that reason, the proposals will not last. If the Government are intent on forcing them through against the wishes of the people, and against common sense, we have a right to expect an explanation from them about the costings—now, before those price increases hit the Scottish people.
  The Minister should have nothing to hide. If he has researched those figures, he has nothing to lose by making them clear and plain to everyone, so that we can all know the truth.
  On the issue of disposal of assets and costs, will the Minister make clear the basis of his assertion that private investment in public water will be cheaper than the traditional method of financing water service projects? It will not be, but the Minister must have figures to back his assertion. Why not make them public, so that we can test the truth of his statement?
  The Minister tried to rubbish the Strathclyde report, but he cannot ignore the fact that other local authorities have commissioned independent reports on financing. Their figures will be available to compare with information that the Government have produced and will act on. The independent studies that I have seen clearly show that the existing finance methods are a far better bargain for Scottish water consumers.
  Leaving aside the obvious point that private finance expects to make a profit from its investment, independent figures show that traditional funding is cheaper, and that the Government's proposals will mean higher prices for consumers for an essential and unavoidable daily service. Those higher prices will be imposed on the Scottish people purely because of the Government's party political dogma, and that imposition will be against the wishes of all the other political parties and the people of Scotland.
  I am told that a comparison between private and traditional local government financing methods shows that local government is simply better value for money. Independent figures show that price rises over 15 years under the public sector amounted to 83 per cent. But the price rises under private financing ranged from 112 to 153 per cent. That shows substantially higher borrowing costs, and that means higher price increases for consumers.
  Over a 15-year period, the public sector options that I have seen produced lower water and sewerage price increases than the private sector, even assuming efficiency savings and debt write-off. The Government are keen to write off debt when it suits private pockets, but not at all keen to write off debt if that would be in the public interest—at least not in Scotland. They are happy to write off debt in London and for English purposes.
  Over a 30-year period, the public sector becomes more favourable on every comparison. The Government should make their figures public, so that we can get to the truth of the matter. The studies that I have mentioned are independent, although the Strathclyde one is not. I agree with the Strathclyde report, but we cannot ignore independent surveys that have been produced by other Scottish councils.
  The Minister says that he has done his homework and knows the costs involved. Will he produce his figures for public consumption so that we can get to the truth of the matter? We are supposed to live in a democracy, and the Minister is supposed to believe in open government. He can prove that. Instead of hiding behind a veil of secrecy, let him be open and honest with the public, and print the

  1471
  assumptions on which he made his claim that his proposal will produce lower bills for the consumer. If he believes that, he should put it to the test. Will he publish the Government's figures for public scrutiny? The Minister can answer that now. All he has to do is say yes.
  Higher price increases are the result of Government policy, but the Minister is not prepared to admit that. If he can prove otherwise, he should do so. Consumers have a right to know, because their water service assets are being stolen from them and they will be forced to pay higher prices for the privilege, simply because of the Government's totally mistaken policy. It is not good enough. The Minister has the answer, and I hope that he will produce the figures for which I have asked.
  Mr. Stewart: I shall start by speaking to the amendments that hon. Members have questioned. I have placed a memorandum on the Strathclyde study in the Library. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) asked about amendment No. 16. The term "sewerage services" was replaced by a fuller and more precise term in a number of places in the Bill on Report. One occurrence of the term was overlooked, and that omission has been rectified.
  The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan raised various conspiracy theories about the purpose of amendments Nos. 17 to 23. I hope that I can reassure him—hope springs eternal. He asked about the purpose of the provision. It could be of use, for example, where someone has moved house to a new water and sewerage area, but wishes to pursue an outstanding difference with the authority for his old area. That is the only purpose of the amendments.
  Mr. Salmond: As I noted in my remarks, there might be an entirely innocent explanation for the amendment, but the two alternative sinister explanations which I gave are equally an interpretation of that amendment.
  11 pm
  Mr. Stewart: I can absolutely assure the hon. Gentleman that both his conspiracy theories are precisely that: they are both completely wrong. I give him that assurance.
  Mr. Salmond: Is the Minister giving the House an assurance that the Government will never privatise Scottish water?
  Mr. Stewart: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear on innumerable occasions that the Government have no intention of privatising water and sewerage in this or any other Parliament.
  Mr. Salmond rose—
  Mr. Stewart: That could not be clearer.
  The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) raised a number of general points about water. He did not say how his party in government would finance what is widely agreed to be the extra investment necessary in water and sewerage in Scotland, but we look forward to hearing from him on a future occasion.
  1472
  I should like to make it clear, however, that hon. Members have perhaps misinterpreted amendment No. 29. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) has been misinformed on the appointment of chief executives, as will become clear in due course.
  Amendment No. 29 has a simple purpose—to allow existing councils to pursue the private finance initiative.
  Mr. Donohoe: Will the Minister confirm whether the posts of chief executive of the three boards in Scotland will be advertised?
  Mr. Stewart: Yes.
  Mr. Donohoe: When?
  Mr. Stewart: Of course they will not be advertised until the Bill has received Royal Assent.
  As I was saying, the purpose of amendment No. 29 is simply to allow existing regional councils to pursue the private sector initiatives under the private finance initiative BOO schemes. A number of regional councils are known to be pursuing discussions with the private sector. I have no reason to believe that that facilitating mechanism is in any way controversial, and I therefore commend the amendments to the House.
  Mr. Salmond: What about amendment No. 24?
  Mr. Stewart: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.
  Amendment No. 24 and the related amendments are technical amendments, to ensure that the ownership of the sewers laid across land will be with the owner of the sewer, not the owner of the land.
  Mr. Welsh: Will the Minister address the specific questions that I raised? Is he saying that BOO schemes will be cheaper than traditional financing methods? If so, I do not believe him. Will he make the figures public to show on what he bases the view that BOO schemes and private finance schemes will be cheaper than traditional methods? I should like to see the figures and get to the truth of the matter. He has not addressed the fundamental question about value for money for water consumers. Under the Government's scheme, they will be paying more.
  Mr. Stewart: No, that is not correct. As I have told the House, I have placed a memorandum in the Library. 'The hon. Gentleman referred to the Strathclyde document that is available to hon. Members today. We shall, of course, be studying that and, if appropriate, we will respond to it.
  Question put and agreed to.

  Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill
    Clause 65

      CODES OF PRACTICE FOR NEW WATER AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITIES
      Lords amendment: No. 17, in page 57, line 38, after ("potential") insert ("or former")
      Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—Mr. Stewart.]
      The House divided: Ayes 220, Noes 85.

      Division No. 323]

      [23.05 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Alexander, Richard

      Freeman, Rt Hon Ronger

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      French, Douglas

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Gallie, Phil

      Amess, David

      Garnier, Edward

      Arbuthnot, James

      Gill, Christopher

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Goodson-wickes, Dr Charles

      Ashby, David

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Gorst, Sir John

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Baldry, Tony

      Griffiths, Peter(portsmouth N)

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Bates, Michael

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Batiste, Spencer

      Hague, William

      Bellingham, Henry

      Hamilton, Neil(Tatton)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Hannam, Sir John

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Booth, Hartley

      Hawkins, Nick

      Boswell, Tim

      Hawksley, Warren

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Heald, Oliver

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      Hendry, Charles

      Bowis, John

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Hicks, Robert

      Brazier, Julian

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas(G'tham)

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Horam, John

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

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

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Hughes, Robert G.(Harrow W)

      Burns, Simon

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Burt, Alistair

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Butler, Peter

      Jack, Michael

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Carrington, Matthew

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Jones, Robert B.(W Hertfdshr)

      Cash, William

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Chapman, Sydney

      Knapman, Roger

      Clappison, James

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

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Coe, Sebastian

      Knox, Sir David

      Colvin, Michael

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Congdon, David

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Legg, Barry

      Couchman, James

      Leigh, Edward

      Cran, James

      Lidington, David

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Lightbown, David

      Day, Stephen

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Deva, Nil Joseph

      Lord, Michael

      Devlin, Tim

      Luff, Peter

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Dover, Den

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Duncan, Alan

      MacKay, Andrew

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Maclean, David

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Dykes, Hugh

      Malone, Gerald

      Elletson, Harold

      Mans, Keith

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Marland, Paul

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Marlow, Tony

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Mates, Michael

      Faber, David

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Fabricant, Michael

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Merchant, Piers

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Forman, Nigel

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Forth, Eric

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      1474

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Sykes, John

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Norris, Steve

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Taylor, John M.(Solihull)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Ottaway, Richard

      Thomason, Roy

      Page, Richard

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Patnick, Sir Irvine

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Pawsey, James

      Thurnham, Peter

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

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

      Pickles, Eric

      Tracey, Richard

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Tredinnick, David

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Trotter, Neville

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Richards, Rod

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Riddick, Graham

      Viggers, Peter

      Robathan, Andrew

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Waller, Gary

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Waterson, Nigel

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Watts, John

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Wells, Bowen

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Whitney, Ray

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Whittingdale, John

      Sims, Roger

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Wilkinson, John

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Willetts, David

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Wilshire, David

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (congleton)

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Spring, Richard

      Wolfson, Mark

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Wood, Timothy

      Steen, Anthony

      Yeo, Tim

      Stephen, Michael

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Stewart, Allan

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Streeter, Gary

      Mr, Timothy Kirkhope and

      Sweeney, Walter

      Mr.Derek Conway

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Hanson, David

      Alton, David

      Hardy, Peter

      Barnes, Harry

      Harvey, Nick

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Home Robertson, John

      Blunkett, David

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Bradley, Keith

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Illsley, Eric

      Chidgey, David

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Jamieson, David

      Clapham, Michael

      Jowell, Tessa

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S

      Coffey, Ann

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Connarty, Michael

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Corston, Jean

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Cox, Tom

      Livingstone, Ken

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Loyden, Eddie

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Dalyell, Tam

      Macdonald, Calum

      Darling, Alistair

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Davidson, Ian

      Maddock, Diana

      Dixon, Don

      Mahon, Alice

      Dobson, Frank

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Martin, Michael J.(Springburn)

      Dowd, Jim

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Etherington, Bill

      McCartney, Ian

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      McFall, John

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      McMaster, Gordon

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Meale, Alan

      Fyfe, Maria

      Michael, Alun

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Milburn, Alan

      Graham, Thomas

      Miller, Andrew

      1475

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Spearing, Nigel

      Olner, William

      Spellar, John

      Patchett, Terry

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Pike, Peter L.

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Wallace, James

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Rendel, David

      Wise, Audrey

      Salmond, Alex

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mr.Andrew Welsh and

      Snape, Peter

      Mr.Nigel Jones.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Mr. Foulkes:On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that the Minister may have inadvertenly misled the House in his speech, and may want to take the opportunity to put it right. He said that he had placed a memorandum in the Library. In fact, since then, Strathclyde has produced a detailed refutation of the memorandum, Has another memorandum been placed in the Library since the original? I am not clear.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. I am sure that the Minister will have taken note.

    Clause 66

      SCOTTISH WATER AND SEWERAGE CUSTOMERS COUNCIL
      Lords amendment: No. 18, in page 57, line 44, after ("Potential") insert ("or former")
      Motion made, and Question put,That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment, —
      [Mr.Stewart]
      The House divided:Ayes 214, Noes 70.

      Division No.324]

      [23.17 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

      Carrington, Matthew

      Alexander, Richard

      Carttiss, Michael

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Cash, William

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Amess, David

      Chapman, Sydney

      Arbuthnot, James

      Clappison, James

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'Clif)

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Ashby, David

      Coe, Sebastian

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Colvin, Michael

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Congdon, David

      Baldry, Tony

      Conway, Derek

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Bellingham, Henry

      Couchman, James

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Cran, James

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Day, Stephen

      Booth, Hartley

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Boswell, Tim

      Devlin, Tim

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Dover, Den

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      Duncan, Alan

      Bowis, John

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Brazier, Julian

      Dykes, Hugh

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Elletson, Harold

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Burns, Simon

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Burt, Alistair

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Butler, Peter

      Faber, David

      1476

      Fabricant, Michael

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Forman, Nigel

      Norris, Steve

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Forth, Eric

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Ottaway, Richard

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Page, Richard

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      French, Douglas

      Pawsey, James

      Gallie, Phil

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Garnier, Edward

      Pickles, Eric

      Gill, Christopher

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Richards, Rod

      Gorst, Sir John

      Riddick, Graham

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Griffiths, Peter (Porstmouth, N)

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Hague, William

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Hannam, Sir John

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Sims, Roger

      Hawksley, Warren

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Speed, Sir Kieth

      Heald, Oliver

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Hendry, Charles

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Hicks, Robert

      Spring, Richard

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Horam, John

      Steen, Anthony

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

      Stephen, Michael

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Stewart, Allan

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Streeter, Gary

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Sweeney, Walter

      Jack, Michael

      Sykes, John

      Jenkin, Bernar

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Taylor, John M.(Solihull)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Thomason, Roy

      Knapman, Roger

      Thomas, Patrick (Norwich N)

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

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Knox, Sir David

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

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Tracey, Richard

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Trotter, Neville

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Legg, Barry

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Lidington, David

      Viggers, Peter

      Lightbown, David

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Waller, Gary

      Lord, Michael

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Luff, Peter

      Waterson, Nigel

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Watts, John

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Wells, Bowen

      MacKay, Andrew

      Whitney, Ray

      Maclean, David

      Whittingdale, John

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Malone, Gerald

      Willetts, David

      Mans, Keith

      Wilshire, David

      Marland, Paul

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Marlow, Tony

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Mates, Michael

      Wolfson, Mark

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Wood, Timothy

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Yeo, Tim

      Merchant, Piers

      Mills, Iain

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      1477

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and

      Mr. Michael Bates.

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Alton, David

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Barnes, Harry

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Loyden, Eddie

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Macdonald, Calum

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Maddock, Diana

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Mahon, Alice

      Clelland, David

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Coffey, Ann

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Connarty, Michael

      McMaster, Gordon

      Corston, Jean

      Meale, Alan

      Cox, Tom

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Milburn, Alan

      Dalyell, Tam

      Miller, Andrew

      Darling, Alistair

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Davidson, Ian

      Olner, William

      Dixon, Don

      Patchett, Terry

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Pike, Peter L.

      Dowd, Jim

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Purchase, Ken

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Rendel, David

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Salmond, Alex

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Skinner, Dennis

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Spearing, Nigel

      Graham, Thomas

      Speller, John

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Turner, Dennis

      Harvey, Nick

      Wallace, James

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Home Robertson, John

      Wise, Audrey

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Worthington, Tony

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Wray, Jimmy

      Hutton, John

      Illsley, Eric

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Ingram, Adam

      Mr. Andrew Welsh and

      Jamieson, David

      Mr. David Chidgey.

      Question accordingly agreed to.

    Clause 67

      FUNCTIONS OF THE CUSTOMERS COUNCIL
      Lords amendment: No. 19, in page 58, line 7, after ("potential") insert ("or former")
      Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.— [Mr. Stewart.]
      The House divided: Ayes 208, Noes 65.

      Division No. 325]

      [23.27 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

      Baldry, Tony

      Alexander, Richard

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Amess, David

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Arbuthnot, James

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Booth, Hartley

      Ashby, David

      Boswell, Tim

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      1478

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Bowis, John

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Jack, Michael

      Brazier, Julian

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Jessel, Toby

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Burns, Simon

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Burt, Alistair

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Butler, Peter

      Knapman, Roger

      Carrington, Matthew

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

      Carttiss, Michael

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Cash, William

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Knox, Sir David

      Chapman, Sydney

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Clappison, James

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Legg, Barry

      Coe, Sebastian

      Lidington, David

      Colvin, Michael

      Lightbown, David

      Congdon, David

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Lord, Michael

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Luff, Peter

      Couchman, James

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Cran, James

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      MacKay, Andrew

      Day, Stephen

      Maclean, David

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Devlin, Tim

      Malone, Gerald

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Mans, Keith

      Dover, Den

      Marland, Paul

      Duncan, Alan

      Mates, Michael

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Dykes, Hugh

      Merchant, Piers

      Elletson, Harold

      Mills, Iain

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Faber, David

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Norris, Steve

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Forman, Nigel

      Ottaway, Richard

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Page, Richard

      Forth, Eric

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Pawsey, James

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Pickles, Eric

      French, Douglas

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Gallie, Phil

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Garnier, Edward

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Gill, Christopher

      Richards, Rod

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Robathan, Andrew

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Gorst, Sir John

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Hague, William

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Hannam, Sir John

      Sims, Roger

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Hawksley, Warren

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Hayes, Jerry

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Heald, Oliver

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Hendry, Charles

      Spring, Richard

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Hicks, Robert

      Steen, Anthony

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Stephen, Michael

      Horam, John

      Stewart, Allan

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

      Streeter, Gary

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Sweeney, Walter

      1479

      Sykes, John

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Waterson, Nigel

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Watts, John

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Wells, Bowen

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Whittingdale, John

      Thomason, Roy

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Wilkinson, John

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Willetts, David

      Thomtom, Sir Malcolm

      Wilshire, David

      Thurnham, Peter

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

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

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Tracey, Richard

      Wolfson, Mark

      Trotter, Neville

      Wood, Timothy

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Yeo, Tim

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Viggers, Peter

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Mr. Derek Conway and

      Waller, Gary

      Mr. Michael Bates

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Ingram, Adam

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Jamieson, David

      Alton, David

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Barnes, Harry

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Loyden, Eddie

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Macdonald, Calum

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Maddock, Diana

      Clapham, Michael

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Connarty, Michael

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Corston, Jean

      McMaster, Gordon

      Cox, Tom

      Meale, Alan

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Milburn, Alan

      Davidson, Ian

      Miller, Andrew

      Dixon, Don

      Olner, William

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Patchett, Terry

      Dowd, Jim

      Pike, Peter L.

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Rendel, David

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Salmond, Alex

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Skinner, Dennis

      Graham, Thomas

      Spearing, Nigel

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Spellar, John

      Hanson, David

      Wallace, James

      Hardy, Peter

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Harvey, Nick

      Wise, Audrey

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Worthington, Tony

      Home Robertson, John

      Wray, Jimmy

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Hutton, John

      Mr. Andrew Welsh and

      Illsley, Eric

      Mr. David Chidgey

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 20, in page 58, line 10, after ("potential") insert ("or former")
      Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Stewart.]
      The House divided: Ayes 205, Noes 67.

      Division No. 326]

      [23.40 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Alexander, Richard

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Ashby, David

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Amess, David

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      1480

      Baldry, Tony

      Hayes, Jerry

      Batiste, Spencer

      Heald, Oliver

      Bellingham, Henry

      Hendry, Charles

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Hicks, Robert

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Booth, Hartley

      Horam, John

      Boswell, Tim

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

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Bowis, John

      Jack, Michael

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Brazier, Julian

      Jessel, Toby

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Burns, Simon

      Knapman, Roger

      Burt, Alistair

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Butler, Peter

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Knox, Sir David

      Carttiss, Michael

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Cash, William

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Chapman, Sydney

      Legg, Barry

      Clappison, James

      Lidington, David

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

      Lightbown, David

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Coe, Sebastian

      Lord, Michael

      Colvin, Michael

      Luff, Peter

      Congdon, David

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      MacKay, Andrew

      Couchman, James

      Maclean, David

      Cran, James

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Malone, Gerald

      Day, Stephen

      Mans, Keith

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Marland, Paul

      Devlin, Tim

      Mates, Michael

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Dover, Den

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Duncan, Alan

      Merchant, Piers

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Mills, Iain

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Elletson, Harold

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Norris, Steve

      Faber, David

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Fabricant, Michael

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Ottaway, Richard

      Forman, Nigel

      Page, Richard

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Forth, Eric

      Pawsey, James

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Pickles, Eric

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      French, Douglas

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Gallie, Phil

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Garnier, Edward

      Richards, Rod

      Gill, Christopher

      Robathan, Andrew

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Gorst, Sir John

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Hague, William

      Sims, Roger

      Hannam, Sir John

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Hawkins, Nick

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Hawksley, Warren

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      1481

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Spring, Richard

      Viggers, Peter

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Steen, Anthony

      Waller, Gary

      Stephen, Michael

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Stewart, Allan

      Waterson, Nigel

      Streeter, Gary

      Watts, John

      Sweeney, Walter

      Wells, Bowen

      Sykes, John

      Whittingdale, John

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Wilkinson, John

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Willetts, David

      Temple Morris, Peter

      Wilshire, David

      Thomason Roy

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Wood, Timothy

      Thurnham, Peter

      Yeo, Tim

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

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Tracey, Richard

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Trotter, Neville

      Mr. Derek Conway and

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Mr. Michael Bates

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Illsley, Eric

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Ingram, Adam

      Alton, David

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Barnes, Harry

      Jamieson, David

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Chidgey, David

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Loyden, Eddie

      Clapham, Michael

      Macdonald, Calum

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Maddock, Diana

      Connarty, Michael

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Cox, Tom

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Dalyell, Tam

      McMaster, Gordon

      Darling, Alistair

      Meale, Alan

      Davidson, Ian

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Dixon, Don

      Milburn, Alan

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Miller, Andrew

      Dowd, Jim

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Olner, William

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Pike, Peter L.

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Salmond, Alex

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Skinner, Dennis

      Graham, Thomas

      Spearing, Nigel

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Spellar, John

      Hanson, David

      Wallace, James

      Hardy, Peter

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Harvey, Nick

      Wise, Audrey

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Worthington, Tony

      Home Robertson, John

      Wray, Jimmy

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Mr. Andrew Welsh and

      Hutton, John

      Mr. David Rendel

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 21, in page 58, line 16, after ("potential") insert ("or former")
      Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment—[Mr. Stewart.]
      The House divided: Ayes 203, Noes 65.

      Division No. 327]

      [23.52 Pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      French, Douglas

      Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

      Gallie, Phil

      Alexander, Richard

      Garnier, Edward

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Gill, Christopher

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Amess, David

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Arbuthnot, James

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Gorst, Sir John

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Ashby, David

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Baldry, Tony

      Hague, William

      Bates, Michael

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Hannam, Sir John

      Bellingham, Henry

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Hawkins, Nick

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Hawksley, Warren

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Hayes, Jerry

      Booth, Hartley

      Heald, Oliver

      Boswell, Tim

      Hendry, Charles

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Hicks, Robert

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Bowis, John

      Horam, John

      Brandreth, Gyles

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

      Brazier, Julian

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Jack, Michael

      Burns, Simon

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Burt, Alistair

      Jessel, Toby

      Butler, Peter

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Carrington, Matthew

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Carttiss, Michael

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Cash, William

      Knapman, Roger

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Clappison, James

      Knox, Sir David

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Coe, Sebastian

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Colvin, Michael

      Legg, Barry

      Congdon, David

      Lidington, David

      Conway, Derek

      Lightbown, David

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lord, Michael

      Couchman, James

      Luff, Peter

      Cran, James

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Day, Stephen

      MacKay, Andrew

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Maclean, David

      Devlin, Tim

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Malone, Gerald

      Dover, Den

      Mans, Keith

      Duncan, Alan

      Mates, Michael

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Merchant, Piers

      Dykes, Hugh

      Mills, Iain

      Elletson, Harold

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Faber, David

      Norris, Steve

      Fabricant, Michael

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Forman, Nigel

      Ottaway, Richard

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Page, Richard

      Forth, Eric

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Pawsey, James

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Freeman Rt Hon Roger

      Pickles, Eric

      1483

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Thomason, Roy

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Richards, Rod

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Thurnham, Peter

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

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

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Tracey, Richard

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Trotter, Neville

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Viggers, Peter

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Sims, Roger

      Waller, Gary

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Waterson, Nigel

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Watts, John

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Whittingdale, John

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Spring, Richard

      Wilkinson, John

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Willetts, David

      Steen, Anthony

      Wilshire, David

      Stephen, Michael

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Stewart, Allan

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Streeter, Gary

      Wolfson, Mark

      Sweeney, Walter

      Wood, Timothy

      Sykes, John

      Yeo, Tim

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Mr. Andrew Mitchell and

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Mr. Bowen Wells

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Ingram, Adam

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Alton, David

      Jamieson, David

      Barnes, Harry

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Chidgey, David

      Loyden, Eddie

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Macdonald, Calum

      Clapham, Michael

      Maddock, Diana

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Connarty, Michael

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Corston, Jean

      McMaster, Gordon

      Cox, Tom

      Meale, Alan

      Cunningham Jim (Covy SE)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Milburn, Alan

      Davidson, Ian

      Miller, Andrew

      Dixon, Don

      Olner, William

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Pike, Peter L.

      Dowd, Jim

      Purchase, Ken

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Rendel, David

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Salmond, Alex

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Skinner, Dennis

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Spearing, Nigel

      Graham, Thomas

      Speller, John

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Wallace, James

      Hanson, David

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Hardy, Peter

      Wise, Audrey

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Worthington, Tony

      Home Robertson, John

      Wray, Jimmy

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Hutton, John

      Mr. Nick Harvey and

      Illsley, Eric

      Mr. Andrew Welsh

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 22, in page 58, line 33, after ("potential") insert ("or former")
      Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Stewart.]
      The House divided: Ayes 199, Noes 65.

      Division No. 328]

      [00.03 am

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Forth, Eric

      Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Alexander, Richard

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      French, Douglas

      Amess, David

      Gallie, Phil

      Arbuthnot, James

      Garnier, Edward

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Gill, Christopher

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Ashby, David

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Gorst, Sir John

      Baldry, Tony

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Bates, Michael

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Batiste, Spencer

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Bellingham, Henry

      Hague, William

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Hannam, Sir John

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Booth, Hartley

      Hawkins, Nick

      Boswell, Tim

      Hawksley, Warren

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Heald, Oliver

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      Hendry, Charles

      Bowis, John

      Hicks, Robert

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Brazier, Julian

      Horam, John

      Bright, Sir Graham

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

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Burns, Simon

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Burt, Alistair

      Jack, Michael

      Butler, Peter

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Carrington, Matthew

      Jessel, Toby

      Cash, William

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Chapman, Sydney

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Clappison, James

      Knapman, Roger

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Coe, Sebastian

      Knox, Sir David

      Colvin, Michael

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Congdon, David

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Conway, Derek

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Legg, Barry

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lidington, David

      Couchman, James

      Lightbown, David

      Cran, James

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Lord, Michael

      Day, Stephen

      Luff, Peter

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Devlin, Tim

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      MacKay, Andrew

      Dover, Den

      Maclean, David

      Duncan, Alan

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Malone, Gerald

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Mans, Keith

      Dykes, Hugh

      Mates, Michael

      Elletson, Harold

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Merchant, Piers

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Mills, Iain

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Faber, David

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Fabricant, Michael

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Forman, Nigel

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      1485

      Norris, Steve

      Sykes, John

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Page, Richard

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Thomason, Roy

      Pawsey, James

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Pickles, Eric

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

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

      Richards, Rod

      Tracey, Richard

      Robathan, Andrew

      Trotter, Neville

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Viggers, Peter

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Waller, Gary

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Watts, John

      Sims, Roger

      Whittingdale, John

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Wilkinson, John

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Willetts, David

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Wilshire, David

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Spring, Richard

      Wolfson, Mark

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Wood, Timothy

      Steen, Anthony

      Yeo, Tim

      Stephen, Michael

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Stewart, Allan

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Streeter, Gary

      Mr. Bowen Wells and

      Sweeney, Walter

      Dr. Liam Fox

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Ingram, Adam

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Alton, David

      Jamieson, David

      Barnes, Harry

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Chidgey, David

      Macdonald, Calum

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Maddock, Diana

      Clapham, Michael

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      McMaster, Gordon

      Clelland, David

      Meale, Alan

      Connarty, Michael

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Cox, Tom

      Milburn, Alan

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Miller, Andrew

      Dalyell, Tam

      Olner, William

      Davidson, Ian

      Pike, Peter L.

      Dixon, Don

      Purchase, Ken

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Rendel, David

      Dowd, Jim

      Salmond, Alex

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Spearing, Nigel

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Spellar, John

      Graham, Thomas

      Turner, Dennis

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Wallace, James

      Hanson, David

      Welsh, Andrew

      Hardy, Peter

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Harvey, Nick

      Wilson, Brian

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Wise, Audrey

      Home Robertson, John

      Worthington, Tony

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Hutton, John

      Mrs. Margaret Ewing and

      Illsley, Eric

      Mr. Archy Kirkwood

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 23, in page 58, line 38, after ("potential") insert ("or former")
      Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Stewart.]
      The House divided: Ayes 193, Noes 61.

      Division No. 329]

      [00.14 am

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Forman, Nigel

      Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Alexander, Richard

      Forth, Eric

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Amess, David

      French, Douglas

      Arbuthnot, James

      Gallie, Phil

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Garnier, Edward

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Gill, Christopher

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Gillen, Cheryl

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Baldry, Tony

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Bates, Michael

      Gorst, Sir John

      Batiste, Spencer

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Hague, William

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Booth, Hartley

      Hannam, Sir John

      Boswell, Tim

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Hawksley, Warren

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      Hayes, Jerry

      Bowis, John

      Heald, Oliver

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Hendry, Charles

      Brazier, Julian

      Hicks, Robert

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Horam, John

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

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

      Burns, Simon

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Burt, Alistair

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Butler, Peter

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Jack, Michael

      Cash, William

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Jessel, Toby

      Chapman, Sydney

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Clappison, James

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Knapman, Roger

      Coe, Sebastian

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Colvin, Michael

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Congdon, David

      Knox, Sir David

      Conway, Derek

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Couchman, James

      Legg, Barry

      Cran, James

      Lidington, David

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Lightbown, David

      Day, Stephen

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Lord, Michael

      Devlin, Tim

      Luff, Peter

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Dover, Den

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Duncan, Alan

      MacKay, Andrew

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Maclean, David

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Elletson, Harold

      Malone, Gerald

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Mans, Keith

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Mates, Michael

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Merchant, Piers

      Faber, David

      Mills, Iain

      Fabricant, Michael

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      1487

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Sweeney, Walter

      Neubert, Sri Micheal

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Ottaway, Richard

      Thomason, Roy

      Page, Richard

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Pawsey, James

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Pickles, Eric

      Thurnham, Peter

      Porter, David (Waveney)

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

      Renton, Ry Hon Tim

      Tracey, Richard

      Richards, Rod

      Trotter, Neville

      Robathan, Andrew

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Viggers, Peter

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Waller, Gary

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Shaw, Sir, Giles (Pudsey)

      Watts, John

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Wells, Bowen

      Sims, Roger

      Whittingdale, John

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Wilkinson, John

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Wilshire, David

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Spring, Richard

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Steen, Anthony

      Wood, Timothy

      Spring, Richard

      Yeo, Tim

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Stephen, Michael

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Stewart, Allan

      Dr. Liam Fox and

      Streeter, Gary

      Mr. David Willetts

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Ingram, Adam

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Alton, David

      Jamieson, David

      Barnes, Harry

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Beith, Rt Hon A.J.

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Macdonald, Calum

      Chidgey, David

      Maddock, Diana

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Clapham, Michael

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      McMaster, Gordon

      Connarty, Michael

      Meale, Alan

      Cox, Tom

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Milburn, Alan

      Dalyell, Tam

      Miller, Andrew

      Davidson, Ian

      Olner, William

      Dixon, Don

      Pike, Peter L.

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Rendel, David

      Dowd, Jim

      Salmond, Alex

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Spearing, Nigel

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Spellar, John

      Graham, Thomas

      Wallace, James

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Welsh, Andrew

      Hanson, David

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Harvey, Nick

      Wilson, Brian

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Wise, Audrey

      Home Robertson, John

      Worthington, Tony

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Hutton, John

      Mrs. Margaret Ewing and

      Illsley, Eric

      Mr. Archy Kirkwood

      Question accordingly agreed to.

    Clause 100

      AUTHORISATION OF CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN PRIVATE SEWERS ETC.
      Lords amendment: No. 24, in page 80, line 10, after ("Act") insert
      ("and shall instead vest in him")
      Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Stewart.]
      The House divided: Ayes 193, Noes 68.

      Division No.330]

      [00.26 am

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

      Faber, David

      Alexander, Richard

      Fabricant, Michael

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (selby)

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Forman, Nigel

      Amess, David

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Forth, Eric

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      French, Douglas

      Baldry, Tony

      Gallie, Phil

      Bates, Michael

      Garnier, Edward

      Batiste, Spencer

      Gill, Christopher

      Bellingham, Henry

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Gorst, Sir John

      Booth, Hartley

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Boswell, Tim

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Hague, William

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Bowis, John

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Hannam, Sir John

      Brazier, Julian

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Hawkins, Nick

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Hawksley, Warren

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Hayes, Jerry

      Burns, Simon

      Heald, Oliver

      Burt, Alistair

      Hendry, Charles

      Butler, Peter

      Hicks, Robert

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Cash, William

      Horam, John

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

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

      Chappman, Sydney

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Chappison, James

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

      Jack, Michael

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Coe, Sebastian

      Jessel, Toby

      Colvin, Michael

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Congdon, David

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Knapman, Roger

      Couchman, James

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Cran, James

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Knox, Sir David

      Day, Stephen

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Devlin, Tim

      Legg, Barry

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Lidington, David

      Dover, Den

      Lightbown, David

      Duncan, Alan

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Dykes, Hugh

      Elletson, Harold

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      1489

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Lord, Michael

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Luff, Peter

      Spring, Richard

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Steen, Anthony

      MacKay, Andrew

      Stephen, Michael

      Maclean, David

      Stewart, Allan

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Streeter, Gary

      Malone, Gerald

      Sweeney, Walter

      Mans, Keith

      Sykes, John

      Mates, Michael

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Merchant, Piers

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Mills, Iain

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Thomason, Roy

      Mitchell, Sir David (NW

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Hampshire)

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Thurnham, Peter

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

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

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Tracey, Richard

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Trotter, Neville

      Ottaway, Richard

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Page, Richard

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Viggers, Peter

      Pawsey, James

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Waller, Gary

      Pickles, Eric

      Waterson, Nigel

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Watts, John

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Wells, Bowen

      Richards, Rod

      Whittingdale, John

      Robathan, Andrew

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Wilkinson, John

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Wilshire, David

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Wood, Timothy

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Yeo, Tim

      Sims, Roger

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Mr. David Willetts and

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Mr. Derek Conway

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Home, Robertson, John

      Alton, David

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Barnes, Harry

      Hutton, John

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Illsley, Eric

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Ingram, Adam

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Chidgey, David

      Jamieson, David

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Clapham, Michael

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Clelland, David

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Connarty, Michael

      Loyden, Eddie

      Cox, Tom

      Macdonald, Calum

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Maddock, Diana

      Dalyell, Tam

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Davidson, Ian

      McAllion, John

      Dixon, Don

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      McFall, John

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      McMaster, Gordon

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Meale, Alan

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Milburn, Alan

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Miller, Andrew

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Olner, William

      Graham, Thomas

      Pike, Peter L.

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Purchase, Ken

      Hanson, David

      Rendel, David

      Harvey, Nick

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      1490

      Salmond, Alex

      Wilson, Brian

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wise, Audrey

      Spearing, Nigel

      Worthington, Tony

      Turner, Dennis

      Wallace, James

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Welsh, Andrew

      Mr. Jim Dowd and

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Mr. John Spellar

      Question accordingly agreed to.

    New clause
    Lords amendment: No. 25, after clause 147, to insert the following new clause—Road works register—
    "In section 112 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (road works register)—

    (a) in subsection (4), for the words from "of road" to "section" there shall be substituted the words "under this section of such road works authorities as he may specify";

    (b) after subsection (4) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

    "(4A) Before making any arrangements under subsection (4) the Secretary of State shall consult—

    (a) any road works authority having duties under this section which he intends not to specify for the purposes of the arrangements; and

    (b) any undertaker (other than a person having permission under section 109 to execute road works) having apparatus in a road for which such road works authority is responsible."; and

    (c) in subsection (5), after the word—

    (i) "require" there shall be inserted the word "the"; and

    (ii) "authorities" there shall be inserted the words "so specified"."

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 55.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The islands councils do not wish to use a central register and regard a local register for the purposes of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 as better suited to their needs. Amendment No. 25 meets that point.
    Amendment No. 55 corrects a technical inconsistency.
    Mr. Wallace: The Minister has told us the purpose of amendment No. 25. It arises out of correspondence that I had with him previously and an amendment moved in another place by my noble Friend Lord Mackie. The islands areas felt that there would be less bureaucracy and that it would be cheaper if they arranged their own register rather than join the central register. It is a victory for common sense and I thank the Government for responding to the representations that have been made.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 167

      STATEMENTS OF SUPPORT SERVICES COSTS
      Lords amendment: No. 26, in page 111, line 27, leave out from ("to") to first ("a") in line 29 and insert ("publish").
      Mr. Stewart: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 27.
      Mr. Stewart: This amendment is acceptable to both sides of the House and to the local authorities.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 27 agreed to.

    Clause 169

      FUNCTIONS TO INCLUDE PROMOTION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
      Lords amendment: No. 28, in page 114, line 20, leave out from ("enactment") to end of line.
      Mr. Stewart: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 45 to 49, 51 to 54, 65 to 69, 73 to 86, 90, 91, 108, 109, 111, 113 to 117, 119 and 120.
      Mr. Stewart: These are technical amendments.
      Question put and agreed to.

    New clause
    Lords amendment: No. 29, after clause 179, insert the following new clause—Further Transitional Provisions—
    (".—(1) Until 1st April 1996—
    (a) section 70 of the 1973 Act (acquisition of land by agreement) shall have effect as if, in subsection (1), after paragraph (b) there were inserted ", or
    (c) there being provided by some person other than themselves a system, to which the public shall have access, of drains, sewers or sewage treatment works,";
    (b) section 71 of the 1973 Act (acquisition of land compulsorily) shall have effect as if, in subsection (1), after "enactment" there were inserted "or of there being provided, by some person other than themselves, a system, to which the public shall have access, of drains, sewers or sewage treatment works"; and
    (c) section 15 of the Water (Scotland) Act 1980 (power to acquire land) shall have effect as if, at the end of each of subsections (1) and (3), there were added "or for the purpose of there being provided, by some person other than themselves, a supply of water to the public".
    (2) If the Secretary of State provides, by order under section 181(2) of this Act, that any provision of Part II of (or of Schedule 13 to) this Act which—
    (a) amends section 1, 16, 21(1), 22, 23 or 48 of the Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968 or section 32 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974; or
    1492
    (b) adds to the said Act of 1968 a new section 3A or 16A or to section 20 of that Act a new subsection (5),
    shall come into force before 1st April 1996, he may provide in the order that the section amended, or as the case may be the section or subsection added, shall until that date apply as if modified in such manner as he shall specify in the order; the modifications being such as appear to him to be requisite having regard to the fact that some other provision of that Part (or that Schedule) is not for the time being in effect.")—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
    Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
    The House divided: Ayes 194, Noes 62.

    Division No. 331]

    [00.39 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

    Faber, David

    Alexander, Richard

    Fabricant, Michael

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Forman, Nigel

    Amess, David

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Arbuthnot, James

    Forth, Eric

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    French, Douglas

    Baldry, Tony

    Gallie, Phil

    Bates, Michael

    Garnier, Edward

    Batiste, Spencer

    Gill, Christopher

    Bellingham, Henry

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Gorst, Sir John

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Booth, Hartley

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Boswell, Tim

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Hague, William

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Bowden, Sir Andrew

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Bowis, John

    Hannam, Sir John

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Hargreves, Andrew

    Brazier, Julian

    Hawkins, Nick

    Bright, Sir Graham

    Hawksley, Warren

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Hayes, Jerry

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Heald, Oliver

    Burt, Alistair

    Hendry, Charles

    Butler, Peter

    Hicks, Robert

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Cash, William

    Horam, John

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

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

    Chapman, Sydney

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Clappison, James

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Jack, Michael

    Coe, Sebastian

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Colvin, Michael

    Jessel, Toby

    Congdon, David

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Conway, Derek

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Knapman, Roger

    Couchman, James

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Cran, James

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Knox, Sir David

    Day, Stephen

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Devlin, Tim

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Legg, Barry

    Dover, Den

    Lidington, David

    Duncan, Alan

    Lightbown, David

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Lord, Michael

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Luff, Peter

    Dykes, Hugh

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Elletson, Harold

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    MacKay, Andrew

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Maclean, David

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    1493

    Malone, Gerald

    Steen, Anthony

    Mans, Keith

    Stephen, Michael

    Mates, Michael

    Stewart, Allan

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Streeter, Gary

    Merchant, Piers

    Sweeney, Walter

    Mills, Iain

    Sykes, John

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Thomason, Roy

    Norris, Steve

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Ottaway, Richard

    Thurnham, Peter

    Page, Richard

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

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Tracey, Richard

    Pawsey, James

    Trotter, Neville

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Pickles, Eric

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Viggers, Peter

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Richards, Rod

    Waller, Gary

    Robathan, Andrew

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Waterson, Nigel

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Watts, John

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Whittingale, John

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Wilkinson, John

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Willetts, David

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Sims, Roger

    Wolfson, Mark

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Wood, Timothy

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Yeo, Tim

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Spring, Richard

    Mr. Bowen Wells and

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Mr. Simon Burns

    NOES

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

    Alton, David

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Barnes, Harry

    Liddell, Mrs Helen

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Loyden, Eddie

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Macdonald, Calum

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Maddock, Diana

    Chidgey, David

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    McAllion, John

    Clapham, Michael

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Clelland, David

    McFall, John

    Connarty, Michael

    McMaster, Gordon

    Cox, Tom

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Miller, Andrew

    Dalyell, Tam

    Olner, William

    Davidson, Ian

    Pike, Peter L.

    Dixon, Don

    Purchase, Ken

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Rendel, David

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Salmond, Alex

    Fyfe, Maria

    Skinner, Dennis

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Spearing, Nigel

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Spellar, John

    Graham, Thomas

    Turner, Dennis

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Wallace, James

    Harvey, Nick

    Welsh, Andrew

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Home Robertson, John

    Wise, Audrey

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Worthington, Tony

    Illsley, Eric

    Ingram, Adam

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Mr. Eric Clarke and

    Jamieson, David

    Mr. Jim Dowd

    Question accordingly agreed to.

    Clause 180

      INTERPRETATION AND AMENDMENT OF STATUTORY REFERENCES
      Lords amendment No. 30 agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 31, in page 125, line 34, leave out
      ("or the director of social work")
      Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Stewart.]
      The House divided: Ayes 193, Noes 63.

      Division No. 332]

      [00.50 am

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Elleston, Harold

      Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Alexander, Richard

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Amess, David

      Faber, David

      Arbuthnot, James

      Fabricant, Michael

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Forman, Nigel

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Baldry, Tony

      Forth, Eric

      Bates, Michael

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Batiste, Spencer

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      French, Douglas

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Gallie, Phil

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Garnier, Edward

      Booth, Hartley

      Gill, Christopher

      Boswell, Tim

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Gorst, Sir John

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Bowis, John

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Brazier, Julian

      Hague, William

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Hannam, Sir John

      Burt, Alistair

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Butler, Peter

      Hawkins, Nick

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hawksley, Warren

      Cash, William

      Hayes, Jerry

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Heald, Oliver

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hendry, Charles

      Clappison, James

      Hicks, Robert

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Horam, John

      Coe, Sebastian

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

      Colvin, Michael

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Congdon, David

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Conway, Derek

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Jack, Michael

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Couchman, James

      Jessel, Toby

      Cran, James

      Jones, Robert B.(W Hertfdshr)

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Day, Stephen

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Knapman, Roger

      Devlin, Tim

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Dover, Den

      Duncan, Alan

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Dykes, Hugh

      1495

      Knox, Sir David

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Legg, Barry

      Spring, Richard

      Lidington, David

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Lightbown, David

      Steen, Anthony

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Stephen, Michael

      Lord, Michael

      Stewart, Allan

      Luff, Peter

      Streeter, Gary

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Sweeney, Walter

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Sykes, John

      MacKay, Andrew

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Maclean, David

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Malone, Gerald

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Mans, Keith

      Thomason, Roy

      Mates, Michael

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Merchant, Piers

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Mills, Iain

      Thurnham, Peter

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

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

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Tracey, Richard

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Trotter, Neville

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Norris, Steve

      Viggers, Peter

      Oppenheim, Philip

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Waller, Gary

      Page, Richard

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Waterson, Nigel

      Pawsey, James

      Watts, John

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Wells, Bowen

      Pickles, Eric

      Whittingdale, John

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Wilkinson, John

      Richards, Rod

      Willetts, David

      Robathan, Andrew

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Yeo, Tim

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Mr. Don Foster and

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Mr. Andrew Welsh

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Alton, David

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Barnes, Harry

      Illsley, Eric

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Jamieson, David

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Chidgey, David

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Clapham, Michael

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Clelland, David

      Macdonald, Calum

      Connarty, Michael

      Maddock, Diana

      Cox, Tom

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      McAllion, John

      Dalyell, Tam

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Davidson, Ian

      McMaster, Gordon

      Dixon, Don

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Miller, Andrew

      Dowd, Jim

      Olner, William

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Pike, Peter L.

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Prescott, John

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Purchase, Ken

      Graham, Thomas

      Rendel, David

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Harvey, Nick

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Home Robertson, John

      1496

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Salmond, Alex

      Wise, Audrey

      Skinner, Dennis

      Worthington, Tony

      Spearing, Nigel

      Spellar, John

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Turner, Dennis

      Mr. Timothy Wood and

      Wallace, James

      Mr. Simon Burns

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

  Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill
    Clause 1

      POWER TO REMOVE OR REDUCE CERTAIN STATUTORY BURDENS ON BUSINESSES, INDIVIDUALS ETC.
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 21, leave out ("Chapter") and insert
      ("section and sections 2 to 4 below")
      1.3 am
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Jonathan Evans): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 2, 4, 9 and 10, and Lords amendment No. 79 and amendments (a) and (b) thereto.
      Mr. Evans: My hon. Friends the Members for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) and for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith), in whose names amendments (a) and (b) to Lords amendment No. 79 stand, were prime movers in prompting our consideration of this whole issue. Hon. Members may recall that, during debates of the Bill in Committee and at subsequent stages, a number of my hon. Friends pressed for the Bill to include measures on the enforcement of legislation. My hon. Friends the Members for Scarborough and for Chingford argued persuasively that, while the Bill provided an important new means to remove or reduce burdens imposed by legislation, it lacked a means to ensure that regulations were not over-zealously or unfairly enforced. Hon. Members from both sides of the House echoed the anxiety about over-zealous enforcement.
      I should make it clear that it is not the Government's intention in any way to undermine the proper enforcement of rules and regulations, and I emphasise that the provisions could not be used to do so. The powers cannot be used in situations in which that would jeopardise any necessary protection afforded by the legislation in question. The powers also cannot be exercised in a way that would prevent the taking of immediate action where that is justified, or that would require the disclosure of information contrary to the public interest; nor do we intend those provisions to apply to aspects of legislation that involve deliberate wrongdoing.
      The new powers would apply to legislation affecting businesses or charities, but not to legislation the sole or main effect of which is on individuals in a personal capacity. The exercise of those powers by a Minister may be in respect of any primary legislation passed before the end of the 1993-94 Session, and any order or regulation made under such legislation.
      The sheer diversity of the existing appeals can be, in itself, a problem for business. The second new clause therefore provides that the Secretary of State may prescribe by order a model standard appeal mechanism. The new clause sets out several key elements that the model provisions would include. It makes it clear that the Secretary of State is to draw up the provisions in such a way as will secure that appeals can be determined without unnecessary delay, and that costs and expenses that will be incurred by the parties are kept to a minimum. The
      1498
      model appeal mechanism would be available to be incorporated into future legislation as appropriate, either with or without variations.
      I leave it to my hon. Friends to speak to the amendments that appear in their names before responding to the issues that they raise but, in concluding my remarks, I emphasise that it is important for businesses to be able to clarify the status of, to understand the reasons for, and to be able to challenge, decisions at as early a stage as possible. The provisions provide that important means of ensuring that they can.
      Mr. Nigel Griffiths: In moving the group of amendments, the Minister and the Government showed how ill-prepared they were. In some ways, I feel sorry for the new Minister. Let me be the first to congratulate him on his elevation—and to commiserate with his predecessor, who put in a great many hours of hard work on the Bill, on the Floor of the House and in Committee. We look forward to hearing from the Minister's predecessor as soon as possible, and we wish him every success in the direction in which he is going now.
      As for the group of amendments before us, it is ridiculous that the House, at 1.12 in the morning, is being asked to consider a major amendment to the existing enforcement procedures.
      Nothing better typifies how ridiculous and shambolic the Government's treatment of deregulation is than the fact that in the amendments are recommendations of the local government enforcement scrutiny team, which were published as recently as September this year, in a report that was sent out for consultation. The consultation period covered by the amendments on which we are being asked to vote does not expire until 20 January 1995. This is a panic measure, if ever there was one.
      The Government have asked the people who will be responsible for a key measure of enforcement—the trading standards officers—to give their opinions on it. Unfortunately, trading standards officers, like many other enforcement groups such as environmental health officers and even the police, have not had the chance to respond in the consultation period that the Minister's predecessor and the President of the Board of Trade set. Therefore, the Institute of Trading Standards Administration, representing more than 1,500 trading standards officers in the country, has not had a chance to respond to the document.
      Trading standards officers are saying individually to the Minister that any procedure of the suggested type would place yet a further burden on them—on local authority enforcement that is already overstretched by the additional legislation that the Government have introduced, governing food safety and other matters. That has been done without a concomitant increase in the number of trading standards officers.
      1.15 am
      Amendments (a) and (b) to Lords amendment No. 79 have been tabled by the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes). The hon. Gentleman was courteous enough to advise me outside the House that he intended to table such amendments, but I do not think that he made it clear to me that his proposal, especially as it is contained in amendment (b), was designed specifically to allow people against whom trading standards officers were acting to

      1499
      intimate that they intended to appeal to a magistrate or justice of the peace. The amendment would allow such people to ignore enforcement while they were waiting for the appeal to reach the court.
      The problem with that part of the amendment can be shown by the example of a builder who illegally starts to demolish a listed building and is ordered by planning enforcement officers to halt the demolition. By lodging an appeal he would be able to continue the demolition until magistrates had heard the case. That shows why we cannot accept the amendments.
      In another place the noble Lord Ferrers voiced concern about how an appeals procedure might be conducted. The appeals procedure being considered by their lordships was informal and outside the judicial system. Just a few weeks ago that Minister in the other place was proposing such a new system, but a Conservative Back Bencher, with the support of the Minister, this morning tabled an amendment that would circumvent the current judicial system.
      Why did the Minister feel the need to encourage this last-minute amendment when in the other place Lord Ferrers was proposing an appeals procedure that would be outside the judicial system? I note that, in moving the amendment, the Minister did not deal with that but said that his Back-Bench colleague might touch on it. The amendment would ensure that some people had a pre-eminent right of appeal.
      Mr. Jonathan Evans: In the interests of saving time, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the Government do not intend to agree to amendments (a) and (b). His presumption in that regard is misplaced. That may enable him to finish his speech somewhat earlier.
      Mr. Griffiths: I could have reduced my speech by five minutes and saved the time of the House if the Minister had made that clear when moving the amendment. He nods his agreement. [Interruption.]
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am finding it difficult to hear the hon. Member, and I wish to do so.
      Mr. Griffiths: I assume from the Minister's failure to say earlier that he was unwilling to accept his hon. Friend's amendments that he is now persuaded that they are unnecessary. I hope that the Minister will not waste more of the House's time by failing to say what is acceptable in the other 11 key issues that we intend to pursue and vote on.
      Concern has been voiced to me—I hope that the Minister had a similar briefing—by the Local Authorities Committee on Trading Standards, LACOTS, which the Department of Trade and Industry helps to fund. It co-ordinates the views of local authorities on trading standards, and it is disappointed that it has not been specifically consulted on amendments Nos. 9 and 10. It wants to ensure the transparency in decision making that some of the amendments would also ensure. I have no objection whatsoever to people receiving in writing the full details of any enforcement order and the terms with which they have to comply. Although it will take up the time of local authorities, I recognise the justice in that as it ensures that there is no confusion. LACOTS, however, would have liked to have been consulted. It is concerned that if the Bill is not enacted in a practical way, it will prejudice proper enforcement and standards.
      1500
      The tightening up of the matter was, of course, the subject of the Opposition Front-Bench initiative in the House of Lords where the amendments were generally welcomed.
      Mr. John Sykes: I note the warm welcome that my colleagues have given me this morning. First, may I offer my hon. Friend the Minister a warm Yorkshire welcome to the Front Bench? Secondly, the English language has a famous phrase, the "Scarborough warning". Historically, the Scarborough warning means no warning at all—the blow first and the warning after.
      In Scarborough, robbers were dealt with in a summary manner—by a Halifax gibbet law or lynch law. As we had no warning that the Scottish Nationalists and the Labour party in Scotland were to have such a big fall-out tonight, it is not right for me to detain my hon. Friends any later than necessary and besides, I have no wish to become the first Member of Parliament to be hanged in public since the 18th century by former colleagues in New Palace yard.
      I shall, therefore, say simply that the amendments that I propose would have the effect of obliging an enforcement officer first, to state in writing the reasons for any decision that he has come to in relation to the person or business against whom he is regulating, and, secondly, to inform that person or business of any appeals procedure that may exist in relation to his decision.
      No such rights exist at the moment. It should be the duty of the regulatory authority to provide such information and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider my amendment seriously.
      Mr. Nigel Spearing: The understandable atmosphere in the House is due to the succession of Divisions that we have had on a matter which is highly serious for those north of the border—the scrapping of what some of us regard as democracy. I wish to refer to the new clause after clause 4 or amendment No. 9, which represents an extension proposed by the other place—no doubt at the behest of the Minister—of what I consider to be a principle that is objectionable and ultimately undemocratic. On Second Reading I used the term "semi-fascist" and, for reasons that I shall explain, I do not withdraw it in respect of the new clause now before us because it follows the same pattern.
      The key phrase in the new clause is:
      "any provision made by an enactment a Minister of the Crown is of the opinion".
      The new clause under amendment No. 9, which we might call 4A or 5—as it will probably be if it is passed—removes from the House that opinion. It removes from the House the ability to change by enactment—the changing of an Act in the same way as that enactment was made—a requirement which in this case is the means of enforcement of the Act itself. That enforcement may be put in place by some statutory instrument, but it may be by the Act.
      The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but it appears that the amendment seeks to make it possible for a Minister of the Crown, irrespective of any existing Act, by placing an order under the proposed Act, on his opinion, and subject to anything else in the Act, to change the methods of enforcement.
      The amendment says something more particular than that. In subsection (b) it states:

      1501
      "by exercising any one or more of the powers conferred by Schedule (Powers to improve enforcement procedures)"—
      that is, the one and a half pages of schedule being written into the Bill by amendment No. 79—
      "to this Act, it would be possible, without jeopardising any necessary protection, to improve (so far as fairness, transparency and consistency are concerned) the procedures for enforcing the restriction, requirement or condition."
      That provision means that there will be a whole series of subjective judgments. Who is to say whether it is possible? Even if it is, is it practical? If it is, do we do it without jeopardising any necessary protection? What is a necessary protection? What is meant by "to improve"? What is fairness? What is transparency? What is consistency? Those are all matters of subjective judgment. By passing the new clause, the House passes over its powers of enactment—lock, stock and barrel—to a Minister in Whitehall.
      Those of us who believe in parliamentary democracy believe that that is a reversal of what the Government sometimes say—that is, "Bring it nearer to the people; let the people decide; let it be discussed in public." [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Conservative Members here tonight do not understand what they will be doing when they vote: they will be handing over our powers of enactment to Ministers in Whitehall, struggling home at night through the traffic, reading their briefs by the light of lamps and probably signing something that they scarcely understand.
      Clause 4, which precedes the new clause, is bad enough, but the new clause is even worse because it strips away the protection that some people might derive from the judgment of this House by statute and puts it in the hands of a Minister.
      The next new clause is introduced under amendment No. 10 and relates to provisions with respect to appeals. Of course, the Minister will not judge appeals. The amendment sets out a large number of fairly complex provisions. It provides for the Secretary of State to appoint persons to hear appeals. What sort of person will be appointed? To what supervision by a Committee of this House will he be subject? A procedure for that is included for other clauses. Will it be entirely up to the Secretary of State whom he appoints and under what rules he works?
      While we might approve the extension of appeals as being superficially satisfactory, it is again a centralising, authoritarian measure that removes from elected Members powers which reside in this place and which adjudicate between the people who make the rules and the people who are protected by them. It removes the balance which should reside in Parliament, not in Whitehall. If it goes to Whitehall, it will increase the power of patronage and, therefore, the possible extension of what I have rightly called neo-fascism.
      Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) to his new post on the Front Bench. It is no reflection on him, but I want to say how much I regret the fact that our hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) is no longer in that post and replying to the debate, as he would have been were it not for the nonsense of the past few weeks.
      I accept that the Government have moved a long way on our recommendations on the matter—and quite rightly, too. Any hon. Member who doubts that need only
      1502
      consider the response of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) to what we are doing. The Opposition do not like it, which tells us that we have moved a long way in the right direction.
      1.30 am
      Many small business men throughout the country have been beset by problems of over-officialdom, by constant over-imposition of regulations, by people acting beyond their brief and by the extra charges levied against them, forcing them out of business because they can no longer afford to be in business. I accept that the Government, particularly with Lords amendment No. 10, have gone some way towards rectifying that.
      However, I do not believe that as yet we have found a good alternative, impartial way in which to allow business men the right of appeal against what they consider to be the result of someone acting beyond his brief. The Bill provides for the appointment of persons to hear and determine appeals, and I hope that during the next few weeks and months my hon. Friend will try hard to find a strong mechanism by which that can be done. I still recommend the judicial process—the magistrates courts. The only way in which people throughout Britain will be able to have the basic principle of the right of redress is to go down that road. I therefore urge my hon. Friend to consider the matter carefully in the future to find a way of winding it in.
      Mr. Christopher Gill: In view of the late hour, I shall speak briefly.
      First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister, my constituency neighbour, on his new appointment, and wish him well at the Dispatch Box. Naturally I am disappointed when I hear him say that he is unable to accept amendments (a) and (b) to Lords amendment No. 79 standing in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) and for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith). I congratulate them on the initiative that they have taken in bringing forward those two measures, which would have been widely welcomed by British traders and business men. They will be disappointed to know that the Government do not see fit to accept them.
      In a perfect world, the enforcement of the law would be an even-handed matter and would always be within the bounds of the law as enacted in this place, but there is far too much evidence of enforcement officers acting in an intimidatory and over-officious way, exploiting the ignorance of traders and business people in order to deprive them of their rights under the law.
      Too often, the enforcement officers move into a business and browbeat the traders and business people into doing things that they are statutorily under no obligation to do. Amendments (a) and (b) seek to oblige enforcement officers to state exactly the terms and conditions under which they have the right to do what it is that they propose to do. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough on tabling the amendments.
      Mr. Nigel Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman said that enforcement officers are making business people do things that they are not statutorily obliged to do. Will he give us some examples?
      Mr. Gill: Yes, I should be pleased to give the House an example. It is well known—I speak with some little experience—that, for several years, the meat industry has

      1503
      been intimidated into removing wooden butchers' blocks. We now discover that all that was done in a purely intimidatory way, without the force of law and at a huge expense to the industry. Those who have removed their wooden blocks—the majority of those in the meat industry, because they were persuaded that the law was on the side of the enforcement officers—have now discovered that the law was not on the side of the enforcement officers.
      When an enforcement officer goes into a business, generally, the person running that business accepts—or has accepted in the past—that that officer knows his stuff and knows what he is entitled to do within the law. I repeat that there has been far too much evidence of such officers going into businesses and acting beyond their rights under the law; that has been a great annoyance to businesses, and has severely disadvantaged the businesses in many instances.
      I hope that my hon. Friend and his Department will look at the matter again, and try to ensure that the rights of the traders and business men are made as substantial as the rights of those who set out to enforce the law. I am sure that my hon. Friend will look at the problem. We must see that there is equity between those who enforce the law and those who are obliged to comply with it.
      Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I believe that the amendment very much reflects the discussion that we had in Committee, about a general recognition that small businesses and small traders, which, of course, must comply with regulations that are necessary and agreed, should not be harried in the difficulties of their business without adequate recourse.
      I believe that the Opposition's amendment has found a formula that provides for local, simple redress, or something close to it. At the moment, the Government's formula, although we do not know the details of it, effectively means that Government Departments could be clogged up with many complaints from businesses—we do not know how they will be handled—whereas it would be much better for businesses to know that they could get local recourse within the magistrates court or, as suggested in the other place, possibly in the small claims court.
      It should be some simple mechanism that would enable traders to say, "We think that this is unreasonable and oppressive. We want you to justify it, and if you cannot, we should not be put in a situation where we are faced with regulations that are not justified, and which could threaten our business."
      I am slightly surprised that Labour Members have not had the representations, which we and Conservative Members have obviously had, from small traders who, in the main, are prepared to accept reasonable regulations, which are required for health, hygiene and safety, and who become extremely angry at the occasional over-officiousness of officials who do not have an understanding of how businesses are run, but who can nevertheless harry small businesses, which have enormous difficulty just making ends meet.
      It is important—it would be preferable if we had all-party agreement on this—that we find some simple procedure to enable businesses to ask, "Is this justified?
      1504
      Is this within the law? If not, we should not be expected to comply with it. If it is, we will of course comply with it, and accept that enforcement procedures will follow."
      It must be cheap, simple and effective. Unless the Minister can give us some assurances, we are left in a slightly difficult position as to how to handle the amendment. I would like to press it if those who tabled it are not prepared to do so. I am not sure that I can support what the Government are saying, because I do not think that they have explained how one can provide a simple system such as that being sought.
      The Minister should acknowledge that there is real concern about the need to ensure simple redress that enables business men to run their businesses, know what the regulations are, and find a clear way of ensuring that officials are acting within their powers.
      Mr. Jonathan Evans: I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) and many of my hon. Friends for the warm welcome that they gave me for my new responsibilities. I am pleased that many of my hon. Friends referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) and paid credit to him for all his work in the Department in relation to the deregulation initiative.
      I was surprised—astonished, in fact—to hear the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South approach the amendments in such a negative way. In the other place, his noble Friend Lord Peston said:
      "The over-zealous, unfeeling and unreasonable enforcement of statutes and orders is a matter about which one feels more than irritation … I am anxious to be supportive and to give matters a fair wind."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 October 1994; Vol. 557, c. 841-42.]
      In the circumstances, it is difficult to reconcile those remarks with the remarks that we have heard from the Opposition Front Bench this evening.
      Mr. Nigel Griffiths: The Minister should concede that, when Earl Ferrers moved his amendments in the House of Lords and my noble Friend responded, he responded to a completely different set of amendments. Earl Ferrers said that people should not have the sword of Damocles of an appeal hanging over them for months on end, and that if the appeal procedures turned out to be too costly, they simply would not be used.
      The Government have now had some time to come up with an alternative programme, and such a programme has been called for by the Minister's hon. Friends, but he has not been able to offer it tonight.
      Mr. Evans: I have said that the amendments that I am supporting result from the pressure imposed by many of my hon. Friends. I think that the hon. Gentleman's remarks are somewhat misplaced.
      The hon. Gentleman also referred to the concern expressed by the Local Authorities Committee of Trading Standards, and suggested that that body had not been specifically consulted. Let me me make it clear that we certainly intend to consult, as appropriate, when we consider the areas of legislation to which the new power should be applied. We would certainly take into account the impact on effective enforcement at that time.
      But let us not forget what the new powers do. There are five powers, the first of which is to require that when, without taking formal action, an enforcement official tells a business to take some remedial action, the business

      1505
      should be entitled on request to a written statement making it clear what action is necessary and why. I should have thought that that was a fairly unobjectionable change in the law, and I am surprised that it should be resisted.
      Second is a power to require enforcers, where they take immediate action against a business, to provide a statement as soon as practicable, explaining the reasons for the immediate action. That would apply where observance or compliance with the burden imposed would be likely to involve expenditure of a single amount. Again, given the mode of expression, I am surprised that it would be regarded as in any way objectionable.
      The third power is a power to require enforcers to issue a business with a notice that they are minded to take enforcement action. The business would then be entitled to have its point of view heard and taken into account within a specified period before any formal action was taken.
      Fourthly, a power is provided to require that, when formal action is taken, the business should be told exactly what rights, as contained in the relevant enactment, it has to appeal. In those circumstances, it is very important that businesses should be made aware of the grounds on which an appeal can be made, to whom it should be addressed, within what time scale, and whether the enforcement decision can be stayed upon appeal. Finally, a power should be provided to apply relevant provisions to third parties which had had a direct economic interest in an enforcement decision.
      Expressed in that way, the powers to which I refer do not square with some of the remarks that we have heard from Opposition Members. The hon. Gentleman referred to the possible cost of increase in regulation; the impact on costs—both for enforcement authorities and for business—will be considered in a particular case in deciding whether to exercise the powers, but, as our proposals build on what is already included in enforcement practice, we see no reason to believe that they will impose undue costs on enforcement authorities where they are applied. The problems were sorted out earlier, and should benefit everyone.
      The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) suggested, in rather extreme language, that the proposals were objectionable, undemocratic and semi-fascist. I do not know whether it is the first time that those remarks have been uttered in the Chamber by the hon. Gentleman, but I doubt it. He suggested that a Minister must express an opinion. In fact, the provision to which he referred is extremely common; it is not as rare as he seemed to suggest. He will be aware that there is precedent for the fact that the courts have the power to intervene if the opinion expressed by a Minister is unreasonable.
      Let me also reassure the hon. Gentleman that the powers do not allow Acts to be changed, as he seemed to indicate, except in one very minor respect, in respect to time limits.
      The hon. Gentleman also described further complaints. General issues have emerged from the Government's analysis, which are relevant to enforcement of a wide range of legislation, and we want to tackle those issues. Given the diversity and complexity of existing mechanisms, it is not appropriate to superimpose new arrangements across the board. There is a need for flexibility to apply to any or all of the elements in a
      1506
      particular case, depending on the existing arrangements in that case and where the business is experiencing difficulty.
      It has been said that the new powers are too significant to be enacted by secondary legislation.
      Mr. Spearing rose—
      1.45 am
      Mr. Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to address this matter first?
      As I said earlier, the order-making powers can be used only to amend existing legislation in the limited respect of time limits within which proceedings must be brought. The powers will enable existing procedures to be supplemented where appropriate in ways clearly specified in the provisions, and we believe that the negative resolution procedure provides an appropriate degree of scrutiny of such provisions.
      Mr. Spearing: I am sure that hon. Members will say that I am not given to extreme language. Do the words
      "any provision made by an enactment"
      mean what they appear to mean? I presume that the new clause 5—that is what it will be—is of the same nature as the humorous, yet not so humorous, clause 4, which does just what the Minister says. I shall enlighten him about the rather extreme remarks in a more private way afterwards if that is necessary. I hope that I am wrong about the new clause 5. I will withdraw my remarks if I am, but not in relation to the existing clause 4.
      Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman heard what I had to say about that matter.
      I am aware of the concern outlined by my hon. Friends the Members for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes), for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith and for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) about the effect of over-zealous regulation upon businesses. They have pressed that cause with my predecessor and myself, and I pay tribute to them for that. However, in recognising that, it is important to outline why the proposals cannot be accepted by the Government.
      Amendment (a) relates to the first new power, that a written explanation of suggested remedial action should be given. That power could apply when, without taking formal action, an enforcement official tells a business that it should take some remedial action. Amendment (a) would mean that, if the power were to be applied in every case, irrespective of the circumstances, where any suggestion or observation was made by an official, it would have to be accompanied by a written statement. We do not believe that that is necessary or desirable.
      In many cases, it will be clear to businesses whether they are being given advice or being told of a new legal requirement, and why the action is being suggested. In those cases, it would lead to unnecessary bureaucratic paperwork to provide that they were always provided with a written explanation. Advice is given and suggestions are frequently made by enforcement officials, and it is important that businesses should be able to obtain a written explanation when they want it. That is what the Lords amendment will provide.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough has discussed this matter with me at length. He has argued strongly—the Government accept this—that it is important that, where the right applies, businesses should

      1507
      know that they are entitled to written clarification. I can assure the House and my hon. Friend that we intend to ensure this, through appropriate publicity and guidance material.
      Amendment (b) was supported by my hon Friend the Member for Ludlow and by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). I have every sympathy with the hon. Members' desire to ensure that action taken against businesses should not be disproportionate. In another place, my noble Friend Lord Vinson raised the issue of proportionality in the context of these provisions. My noble Friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs and Small Firms gave a detailed response in the other place.
      The main point is that disproportionate action against business may arise for one of two reasons: either the requirements of the law may be unduly burdensome, or they may be interpreted or applied in an over-zealous or unreasonable way. Amendment (b) would cover both cases, and would provide a sweeping new power to magistrates courts. In effect, it would allow magistrates to make a clear legal requirement unenforceable because they took the view that it was
      "a disproportionate means of maintaining any necessary protection".
      We do not believe that that change is desirable or necessary. In clause 1, we have already provided a means of changing or removing unduly burdensome legal provisions, subject to important and stringent safeguards as to consultation and detailed parliamentary scrutiny.
      As my noble Friend Earl Ferrers explained, that power could also be used in appropriate cases to amend legislation so as to provide a dispensing power for particular cases. Clause 1 therefore already provides the means to deal with legislation that is disproportionate or that cannot be applied in a proportionate way, subject to appropriate parliamentary control, which the Government consider to be important.
      The other case that amendment (b) would cover relates to a case in which a reasonable law has been interpreted or applied in an unreasonable way. It is not clear how the new appeal procedure would mesh with existing appeal mechanisms against enforcement action. Nor am I persuaded that magistrates courts would necessarily be the most appropriate forum for deciding such matters, as I told my hon. Friends the Members for Chingford and for Scarborough. The term "disproportionate" can also give rise to a variety of meanings in legal terms, as I have already explained.
      Mr. Gill: Will my hon. Friend look into the files in his offices, which I am sure will reveal a letter that I wrote to his predecessor concerning a constituent of mine who was eventually driven out of business? That all stemmed from the fact that my constituent sold three T-shirts, the total value of which amounted to £6. The trading standards officer considered that they infringed the Walt Disney copyright. Other people, however, were responsible for producing the garments that were sold by my constituent, and they were not affected by the enforcement.
      1508
      My hon. Friend would agree, I think, that it is unreasonable that the eventual seller of the articles should have been the one to bear the full brunt of enforcement, rather than the wholesaler or the manufacturer, who was more culpable than my constituent.
      Mr. Evans: Both the House and my hon. Friend will understand that I do not intend at this hour to be drawn into a debate about that specific case, although one of the objections to putting the matter before magistrates, as proposed in amendment (b), is that it would give rise to the very inconsistency that many businesses have complained about in dealing with the way in which the rules are enforced. That is one of my objections to amendment (b).
      The provisions in the Lords amendments are important. To make the rules proportionate and reasonable, which the deregulation order-making power would help us to do, is only half the battle. We must ensure that they are also fairly and properly interpreted and applied, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow is asking. The provisions would help us to do that.
      In the light of what I have said, I hope that my hon. Friends will feel able to withdraw their amendments. As I have said, we are most grateful to them for prompting us to consider these matters in the first place.
      Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 142, Noes 43.

      Division No. 333]

      [1.54 am

      AYES

      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

      Elletson, Harold

      Arbuthnot, James

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Baldry, Tony

      Fabricant, Michael

      Bates, Michael

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Booth, Hartley

      Forth, Eric

      Boswell, Tim

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      French, Douglas

      Bowis, John

      Gallie, Phil

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Garnier, Edward

      Brazier, Julian

      Gill, Christopher

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Gorst, Sir John

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Burns, Simon

      Hague, William

      Burt, Alistair

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Cash, William

      Hawkins, Nick

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hawksley, Warren

      Clappison, James

      Heald, Oliver

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hendry, Charles

      Coe, Sebastian

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Colvin, Michael

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

      Congdon, David

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Conway, Derek

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Jack, Michael

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Couchman, James

      Jessel, Toby

      Day, Stephen

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Devlin, Tim

      Knapman, Roger

      1509

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Spring, Richard

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Steen, Anthony

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Stephen, Michael

      Legg, Barry

      Stewart, Allan

      Lidington, David

      Streeter, Gary

      Lightbown, David

      Sweeney, Walter

      Luff, Peter

      Sykes, John

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      MacKay, Andrew

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Maclean, David

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Malone, Gerald

      Thomason, Roy

      Merchant, Piers

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Tracey, Richard

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Norris, Steve

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Ottaway, Richard

      Viggers, Peter

      Page, Richard

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Waller, Gary

      Pickles, Eric

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Richards, Rod

      Watts, John

      Robathan, Andrew

      Whittingdale, John

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Wilkinson, John

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Willetts, David

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Wolfson, Mark

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Mr. Timothy Wood and

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Mr. Bowen Wells

      NOES

      Barnes, Harry

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      McMaster, Gordon

      Chidgey, David

      Meale, Alan

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Miller, Andrew

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Olner, William

      Clelland, David

      Pike, Peter L.

      Cox, Tom

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Purchase, Ken

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Rendel, David

      Dixon, Don

      Salmond, Alex

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Spearing, Nigel

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Speller, John

      Graham, Thomas

      Wallace, James

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Welsh, Andrew

      Harvey, Nick

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Wilson, Brian

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Wise, Audrey

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Jamieson, David

      Mr. Jim Dowd and

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Mr. Dennis Turner

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

    Clause 17

      BETTING ON SUNDAYS
      Lords amendment: No. 12, in page 20, line 7, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
      ("(3) After section 31 there shall be inserted—
      "Betting workers: Sunday working

      Rights of betting workers as respects Sunday working.
      31A. Schedule 5A to this Act shall have effect for the purpose of making provision about the rights of betting workers as respects Sunday working."")
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Norris.]
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 13, 28, 37, 38 and 81 to 148.
      Mr. Nigel Griffiths: This late group of amendments seek to rob workers in the betting industry of essential protection. The Minister seeks to imply that the only workers in the betting industry who should be covered by the provisions of the abolition of the Sunday trading legislation are those who are directly involved in the taking of bets.
      Many people are employed in greyhound racing who do not directly take bets, and they will have to work on Sundays. The Minister is seeking to deprive those people of the protection that hon. Members on both sides of the House thought they had secured for them earlier in the summer. Those people include those who take the coats, work in car parks or perform other tasks on courses on Sundays.
      It is quite wrong that this group of amendments should seek to limit the protection only to those people who are directly involved in the taking of bets. The amendments will rob all the other workers—the majority of workers in the industry—of protection, and will leave only a small minority of people protected. I hope that the Minister will accept that, in pressing this group, he will force us to divide the House.
      Sir Peter Emery: I have just one question for the Minister. Now that we are past clause 4, can he give an undertaking that the deregulation recommendations made by the Procedure Committee, both here and in the House of Lords, will be adopted by the Government? I am fairly certain that the answer will be yes, but it would be nice to have it confirmed.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not germane to what we are discussing.
      The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) has made his case for being determined to divide the House when most sensible people understand precisely the nature of the amendment. As he says, it conveys rights in certain circumstances, as agreed during the contentious passage of the Bill. I see no need to detain the House by rehearsing all the arguments again. If the hon. Gentleman is content to divide the House, so be it.
      Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 138, Noes 41.

      Division No. 334]

      [02.29 am

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Alexander, Richard

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Amess, David

      Baldry, Tony

      1511

      Bates, Michael

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Booth, Hartley

      Legg, Barry

      Boswell, Tim

      Lidington, David

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Lightbown, David

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      Luff, Peter

      Bowis, John

      MacKay, Andrew

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Maclean, David

      Brazier, Julian

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Malone, Gerald

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Merchant, Piers

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Burns, Simon

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Burt, Alistair

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Carrington, Matthew

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Cash, William

      Norris, Steve

      Chapman, Sydney

      Ottaway, Richard

      Clappison, James

      Page, Richard

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Coe, Sebastian

      Pickles, Eric

      Colvin, Michael

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Congdon, David

      Richards, Rod

      Conway, Derek

      Robathan, Andrew

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Couchman, James

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Day, Stephen

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Devlin, Tim

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Dover, Den

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Duncan, Alan

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Elletson, Harold

      Spring, Richard

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Steen, Anthony

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Stephen, Michael

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Stewart, Allan

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Streeter, Gary

      Fabricant, Michael

      Sweeney, Walter

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Sykes, John

      Forth, Eric

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      French, Douglas

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Gallie, Phil

      Thomason, Roy

      Garnier, Edward

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Gill, Christopher

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Thurnham, Peter

      Gorst, Sir John

      Tracey, Richard

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Hague, William

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Viggers, Peter

      Hawkins, Nick

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Waller, Gary

      Heald, Oliver

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Hendry, Charles

      Waterson, Nigel

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Watts, John

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

      Whittingdale, John

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Wilkinson, John

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Wolfson, Mark

      Jessel, Toby

      Wood, Timothy

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Knapman, Roger

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Mr. Bowen Wells and

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Mr. David Willetts

      NOES

      Barnes, Harry

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Dixon, Don

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Graham, Thomas

      Clelland, David

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Harvey, Nick

      1512

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Purchase, Ken

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Rendel, David

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Salmond, Alex

      Jamieson, David

      Skinner, Dennis

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Speller, John

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Wallace, James

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Welsh, Andrew

      McAllion, John

      Wicks, Malcolm

      McMaster, Gordon

      Wilson, Brian

      Meale, Alan

      Wise, Audrey

      Miller, Andrew

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Olner, William

      Mr. Jim Dowd and

      Pike, Peter L.

      Mr. Dennis Turner

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 13 agreed to.

    New clause
    Lords amendment: No. 14, after clause 17, to insert the following new clause—Sporting events and activities on Sundays—
    ". The entertainments and amusements to which the Sunday Observance Act 1780 applies shall not include any sporting event or activity."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Norris.]
    Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 29.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I do not want to repeat at length the arguments that were made in the other place but, although there are welcome aspects of the clause and the amendments, anxiety has been expressed that people doing the jobs not in the betting firing line will still not have the workers' protection that was promised when the Government repealed the Shops Act 1950. People doing administrative jobs—clerks who work with bookies, catering workers, cloakroom attendants and car park attendants—can all now be required to work on Sundays, but without the protection afforded by the Sunday Trading Act 1994.
    If the Sunday Trading Act had not made concessions in relation to workers who did not wish to work on Sundays, it would not have been passed by the House or the other place. Ministers promised safeguards to workers who, for conscientious family or other reasons, did not wish to be compelled to work on Sundays. There has been a breach of faith as those workers are being compelled to work on Sundays, and anxiety about that is reflected on the Opposition Benches.
    Question put and agreed to.

    New clause
    Lords amendment: No. 15, after clause 19, to insert the following new clause—Repeal of remainder of the Shops Act 1950—
    ". In the Shops Act 1950—

    (a) Part II (conditions of employment), and

    (b) section 67 (business of hairdresser or barber not to be carried on in Scotland on Sunday),

    shall cease to have effect."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Norris.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 40, 168 to 174 and 178.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: This is another important group of amendments and it causes us a great deal of anxiety. The Sunday Trading Act, which the House passed recently, extended trading hours greatly in the retail sector. I think that the Act received Parliament's support because it responded to the requirements and needs of consumers in the 1990s and, critically, it provided a great deal of protection for retail workers, who can in law decline to work on Sunday, or, if they undertake such work, they can undertake it on grounds of their own choosing.
    Within months of that legislation passing through the House, and being accepted on both sides of the House on that basis, it is wrong for the Government now to bring before the House proposals to remove the remaining controls and provisions of the Shops Act, which should not be swept away without any thought or concern for the hundreds of thousands of shop workers directly affected by them.
    I should like to place on record the fact that I am sponsored by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. We oppose the amendments and will divide the House on them.
    It is hard to see any demand or justification for the controls that the Minister proposes on weekly trading hours. Even those who have pressed for liberal Sunday retail trading are not pressing to be allowed to trade any later in the evening than is currently permitted. There is no substantial evidence of a consumer lobby seeking extended weekday trading. The Government's move towards that extension shows their blinkered and narrow ideology and not the wishes of the public or even of many people in business.
    The real cost of accepting the amendments will be borne by shop workers. Many Conservative Members are worried about the impact on family life of extending Sunday trading. Such concerns apply to weekday trading too. The impact could even be greater during the week because there is only one Sunday but several weekdays when shop workers—usually women—are drawn into evening work. If the amendments are accepted, many women will be forced to work in the evening and will see less of their families—often at critical times in the development of their families.
    Staff face other dangers. Violence towards retail staff is rising, and it ranges from verbal abuse to physical assault. Staff are in the firing line and often have no security. People who work late at night are often the victims of violent incidents. A survey carried out by USDAW found that more than 30 per cent. of the violent incidents that shop workers reported to it occurred after 5 o'clock in the evening—the period that the amendment seeks to force shop workers to work. It is clear that the Minister's proposal to abandon controls on late-night working would place workers under even more pressure.
    Not only workers but the police would be affected. I understand that the Association of Chief Police Officers has voiced concern about the total deregulation of
    1514
    shopping hours. The Government propose to abolish some provisions of part II of the Shops Act 1950, to the detriment of shop workers and the public. The legal requirement of a half-day holiday per week for shop workers is to be abolished.
    Until 1986, millions of working people who were covered by wages councils orders were entitled by law to annual holidays and holiday pay. The Wages Act 1986 abolished that for workers covered by wages councils, and now Britain's workers have no statutory entitlement to holidays or holiday pay. That is a return to pre-Victorian values, because at least in the latter years of the Victorian era people recognised the need for workers to have paid holidays. Our lack of statutory entitlement puts us out of step with our European counterparts. For all those reasons, it is important to oppose the amendments.
    Likewise, we are concerned about the Government's sanction, which gives employers the ability to abolish the statutory right to rest and meal breaks. That is one of the terrible problems with such a catch-all Bill as this.
    Interestingly, the very concerns that have been expressed to us by shop workers, by USDAW and by others are reflected in recent evidence published by the Department of Employment. The Employment Gazette, published last November, made it clear that management grades were increasingly having to work on Sundays on an unpaid basis.
    2.30 am
    The problems that have been highlighted by the police, by shop workers and by those representing them are echoed by council members of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. They are concerned that the interests of public order and safety and the prevention of crime would be harmed by the removal of the requirement on shops to close. That is why a number of councils have made representations to the Minister and to the Government seeking powers to enable them at least to step in where there are problem areas, not just to grant a licence for shops to open for 24 hours, irrespective of the harm that might do the community or the costs of policing it.
    In Sheffield, for instance, Ministers were told that areas where night cafes were opening were already proving a magnet for louts. Under this tranche of amendments, a council could not impose restrictions on shops that were causing a problem.
    In its submission to the AMA, Newham council said that the knock-on effects of the amendments could well mean an increase in night-time crime, robbery and so on. The problem was again voiced to the AMA by the Association of Chief Police Officers; the majority of its members were concerned that unrestricted opening might place an extra demand on their stretched resources—for instance, traffic movements and other nuisances such as I have already outlined.
    We are asking the Minister to justify the total deregulation of shop hours and to explain why Ministers were able to say in the spring and early summer that they would maintain safeguards and protection for shop workers who did not wish to work long hours, especially on Sunday. How can Ministers justify now seeking to remove all the protections that they were so keen to reassure their Back-Bench colleagues would be in place? Why are they now so keen to remove them?

    1515
    Ministers must come clean to the House tonight and reassure hon. Members that the problems that I have mentioned will not occur. The sad truth is that they cannot assure us of that because they are interested not in the small corner shop but in the big multiple stores that have been pressing for the change in legislation and that sponsored the change in legislation earlier in the summer, spending tens of thousands of pounds on lobbyists and campaigners.
    It is wrong that the Government should have deceived the House—as did those companies—into accepting changes intended to bring us into the 1990s, only now to propose that shop workers and others should be robbed of all the entitlements that have been established in the past century, taking us back to previous centuries when there were no rights and people were ruthlessly exploited.
    Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
    The House divided: Ayes 138, Noes 29.

    Division No. 335]

    [02.34 am

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Alexander, Richard

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    French, Douglas

    Amess, David

    Gallie, Phil

    Arbuthnot, James

    Garnier, Edward

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Gill, Christopher

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Gillen, Cheryl

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Gorst, Sir John

    Baldry, Tony

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Bates, Michael

    Hague, William

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Booth, Hartley

    Harvey, Nick

    Boswell, Tim

    Hawkins, Nick

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Hawksley, Warren

    Bowden, Sir Andrew

    Heald, Oliver

    Bowis, John

    Hendry, Charles

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Brazier, Julian

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

    Bright, Sir Graham

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Jessel, Toby

    Burt, Alistair

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Cash, William

    Knapman, Roger

    Chapman, Sydney

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Clappison, James

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Coe, Sebastian

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Colvin, Michael

    Legg, Barry

    Congdon, David

    Lidington, David

    Conway, Derek

    Lightbown, David

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Luff, Peter

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    MacKay, Andrew

    Couchman, James

    Maclean, David

    Day, Stephen

    Malone, Gerald

    Devlin, Tim

    Merchant, Piers

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Dover, Den

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Duncan, Alan

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Elletson, Harold

    Norris, Steve

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Ottaway, Richard

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Page, Richard

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Pickles, Eric

    Fabricant, Michael

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Rendel, David

    Forth, Eric

    Richards, Rod

    1516

    Robathan, Andrew

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Thurnham, Peter

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Tracey, Richard

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Viggers, Peter

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Waller, Gary

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Waterson, Nigel

    Spring, Richard

    Watts, John

    Stephen, Michael

    Wells, Bowen

    Stewart, Allan

    Whittingdale, John

    Streeter, Gary

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Sweeney, Walter

    Wilkinson, John

    Sykes, John

    Willetts, David

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Wood, Timothy

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Thomason, Roy

    Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Mr. Simon Burns

    NOES

    Barnes, Harry

    McAllion, John

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    McMaster, Gordon

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Miller, Andrew

    Clelland, David

    Olner, William

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Pike, Peter L.

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Purchase, Ken

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Salmond, Alex

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Skinner, Dennis

    Graham, Thomas

    Spearing, Nigel

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Turner, Dennis

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Welsh, Andrew

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Wise, Audrey

    Jamieson, David

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Mr. John Speller and

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Mr. Jim Dowd

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

    Clause 24

      CONTROLS ON LONDON LORRIES: REPLACEMENT OF DISCRETIONARY EXCEPTIONS
      Lords amendment: No. 21, in page 22, line 14, leave out from ("that") to ("the") in line 15 and insert ("doing so—
      (a) will have the effect that less of a burden is imposed on")
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Jonathan Evans.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 22 to 24.
      Ms Glenda Jackson: This issue is of particular concern to all Londoners, because it deals with the Government's proposals to remove the necessity for a permit to be issued to enable lorries to travel on prescribed routes at certain hours—the London lorry ban. I should be grateful if the Minister replied to a specific question.

      1517
      2.45 am
      In perusing the Lords amendment, the noble Lord who responded on behalf of the Government stated that the implementation of the ban—if the necessity for a permit is indeed to be lifted by the Government—would be imposed by the police. That is in direct contradiction to what the police have said—that the imposition of such a ban would be a particularly low priority.
      How will the London lorry ban, which has been of enormous benefit to all Londoners during the past 10 years, be imposed if the requirement for a permit is to be lifted from members of the Freight Transport Association? In the light of the recent royal commission report, which highlighted the pollution, both airborne and noise, caused by vehicular traffic, particularly in urban areas—and there can be few urban areas more congested than London—I find it extraordinary that the Government should be considering for a moment the relaxation of the stringent rules which currently apply, and which, for the past 10 years, have prevented lorries driving through the residential streets of London. I should be most grateful if the Minister would respond.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: Can my hon. Friend the Minister confirm that, when the lorry ban was brought in by the Greater London council, there was an exemption system and that 20,000 firms filled in 10 pages—that is, 200,000 sheets of paper—that 2,500 signs were put up, at a capital cost of £250,000, that the recurrent costs until the scheme is dropped are probably up to £1 million a year for the residents of London boroughs, and that when it was brought in, the number of lorries denied exemption permits amounted to four?
      Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend has it in a nutshell. Every Conservative Member would certainly want to see London protected from the unnecessary intrusion of lorries. The idea that that is somehow a prerogative of Opposition Members is bizarre, but the scheme as it exists is a particularly ludicrous piece of Stalinist nonsense inherited from the GLC. Apart from protecting the environment and preserving quite a few trees, which would, as my hon. Friend suggested, otherwise be chopped up in administering the lunatic system of paper chasing, we have made it quite clear that we intend to replace the scheme with one that has a greater accent on effective enforcement.
      My answer to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) is that that means that no scheme will be introduced to replace the existing scheme unless it is clear that enforcement—dealt with by police, officials dealing with the vehicle inspectorate or officials dealing with the lorry ban scheme—will be in place and available to operate on behalf of Londoners.
      Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I am sorry to hear a distinguished former Transport Minister make such a comment, as if the number of people against whom enforcement measures were taken was a necessary sign of the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the legislation. I think it important to clarify that it may well be a measure of the effectiveness of the deterrent that further action need not follow: many Londoners would agree with that.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: I thought that I had spoken clearly and accurately. All the information that I gave was given by the Greater London council in its dying days.
      1518
      The GLC itself said that the number of lorries not covered by the exemption totalled four. I was not talking about enforcement; I was talking about what the GLC actually did.
      Mr. Griffiths: I thought that the gist of the hon. Gentleman's comments was that that was an indictment of the system. Many Londoners did not want exemptions: the fact that four were actually exempt is a tribute to the system in the eyes of—I am sure—the vast majority of Londoners.
      Let me tell the House why we shall not vote against the amendment. It is clear that, when the Government drafted the measure originally, it was going to open the floodgates; however, it is clear from the arguments advanced in the House of Lords that their Lordships were persuaded that there had to be the possibility of tougher sanctions, and we do not wish to oppose that view. However, let me tell everyone who lives in London, and Labour Members who have diligently pursued the matter, that we shall continue to monitor it, and will not fail to bring to the attention of Londoners and the public any failures that the Bill brings about in the regulation of heavy traffic in London, to the great benefit of the public.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

    Clause 27

      POWER TO REPEAL CERTAIN HEALTH AND SAFETY PROVISIONS
      Lords amendment: No. 25, in page 24, line 19, at end insert—
      ("(2A) Instead of consulting such other persons as the appropriate authority considers it appropriate to consult under subsection (2) above, the authority may require the Health and Safety Commission or, as the case may be, the Health and Safety Agency for Northern Ireland to consult such persons as it considers appropriate for the purpose of deciding how it should respond to consultation under that subsection.
      (2B) Instead of consulting a person whom the appropriate authority considers it appropriate to consult under subsection (2) above, the authority may require the Health and Safety Commission or, as the case may be, the Health and Safety Agency for Northern Ireland to consult the person for the purpose of deciding how it should respond to consultation under that subsection.
      (2C) The appropriate authority may require consultation under subsection (2A) or (2B) above to be carried out in accordance with the authority's directions.")
      Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The amendment deals with the health and safety matters in the Bill. It was a matter of great debate and concern—on the Floor of the House, in Committee and in the House of Lords—that drastic powers were being given to the Secretary of State to sweep away health and safety protection. It was almost at the Secretary of State's discretion, with minimal safeguards for workers who have suffered from the failure of health and safety legislation, especially the lack of inspection in recent years.
      We do not think it right that health and safety matters should be deregulated in the way that the Government propose. Although, again, arguments in the other place have persuaded the Government that they were going too far, we certainly do not think that the current proposals command widespread support.
      Mr. Jonathan Evans: Without this amendment, the Secretary of State could not authorise the Health and

      1519
      Safety Commission to carry out consultation on his behalf, and consultations already undertaken would have to be duplicated. The amendment makes consultation more flexible, and allows the Secretary of State to authorise the HSC to consult on his behalf. I commend it to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.

    New clause
    Lords amendment: No. 26, after clause 27, to insert the following new clause—Inspection of independent schools—
    ". After section 87 of the Children Act 1989 there shall be inserted—

    New clause

      Suspension of duty under section 87(3).
      87A.—(1) The Secretary of State may appoint a person to be an inspector for the purposes of this section if—

      (a) that person already acts as an inspector for other purposes in relation to independent schools to which section 87(1) applies, and

      (b) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person is an appropriate person to determine whether the welfare of children provided with accommodation by such schools is adequately safeguarded and promoted while they are accommodated by them.

      (2) Where—

      (a) the proprietor of an independent school to which section 87(1) applies enters into an agreement in writing with a person appointed under subsection (1),

      (b) the agreement provides for the person so appointed to have in relation to the school the function of determining whether section 87(1) is being complied with, and

      (c) the local authority in whose area the school is situated receive from the person with whom the proprietor of the school has entered into the agreement notice in writing that the agreement has come into effect,

      the authority's duty under section 87(3) in relation to the school
      shall be suspended.
      (3) Where a local authority's duty under section 87(3) in relation to any school is suspended under this section, it shall cease to be so suspended if the authority receive—

      (a) a notice under subsection (4) relating to the person with whom the proprietor of the school entered into the relevant agreement, or

      (b) a notice under subsection (5) relating to that agreement.

      (4) The Secretary of State shall terminate a person's appointment under subsection (1) if—

      (a) that person so requests, or

      (b) the Secretary of State ceases, in relation to that person, to be satisfied that he is such a person as is mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection,

      and shall give notice of the termination of that person's appointment to every local authority.
      (5) Where—

      (a) a local authority's duty under section 87(3) in relation to any school is suspended under this section, and

      (b) the relevant agreement ceases to have effect,

      the person with whom the proprietor of the school entered into that agreement shall give to the authority notice in writing of the fact that it has ceased to have effect.
      (6) In this section"—
      1520

      (a) "proprietor" has the same meaning as in the Education Act 1944, and

      (b) references to the relevant agreement, in relation to the suspension of a local authority's duty under section 87(3) as regards any school, are to the agreement by virtue of which the authority's duty under that provision as regards that school is suspended.

      Duties of inspectors under section 87A.
      87B.—(1) The Secretary of State may impose on a person appointed under section 87A(1) ("an authorised inspector") such requirements relating to, or in connection with, the carrying out under substitution agreements of the function mentioned in section 87A(2)(b) as the Secretary of State thinks fit.
      (2) Where, in the course of carrying out under a substitution agreement the function mentioned in section 87A(2)(b), it appears to an authorised inspector that there has been a failure to comply with section 87(1) in the case of a child provided with accommodation by the school to which the agreement relates, the inspector shall give notice of that fact to the Secretary of State.
      (3) Where, in the course of carrying out under a substitution agreement the function mentioned in section 87A(2)(b), it appears to an authorised inspector that a child provided with accommodation by the school to which the agreement relates is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm, the inspector shall—

      (a) give notice of that fact to the local authority in whose area the school is situated, and

      (b) where the inspector is required to make inspection reports to the Secretary of State, supply that local authority with a copy of the latest inspection report to have been made by the inspector to the Secretary of State in relation to the school.

      (4) In this section—

      (a) "proprietor" has the same meaning as in the Education Act 1944, and

      (b) references to substitution agreement are to an agreement between an authorised inspector and the proprietor of an independent school by virtue of which the local authority's duty in relation to the school under section 87(3) is suspended."

      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Jonathan Evans.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 35 and 36.
      Mr. Nigel Griffiths: This is another group of amendments to which we take the gravest exception, and we shall divide the House.
      It is wrong that the Minister should seek to remove from the public domain and to privatise the inspection of independent schools. Under the legislation, the schools will be entitled to choose their inspectors and to pay for them. We all know that he who pays the piper calls the tune. That is the basic flaw in the legislation.
      The party that has done so much to support the private inspectorate service is making sure that tenders are given and that private schools will be able to have their own inspection system. That commands almost no support from independent bodies and there is no support from any body that is not directly concerned with the profit-making private school sector. We shall oppose the amendments.
      Mr. David Jamieson: I oppose Lords amendment No. 26 which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) said, allows

      1521
      independent and private boarding schools to opt out of the local authority social services inspection system that was set up under section 87 of the Children Act 1989.
      I shall outline my reasons for total opposition to the new clause. It is worth reminding ourselves why section 87 was put in the Children Act. Hon. Members will recall that in the late 1980s there was concern about abuse of children in a small number of private boarding schools. At that time Crookham Court school was highlighted by the "That's Life" programme. I believe that the proprietor and one of the teachers are still serving prison sentences for offences against children in that school. I am glad to say that Crookham Court school was not typical and that most of the boarding schools work to high standards. However, that case highlights one extreme of what can happen if there is no proper system of regulation.
      Under section 87 of the Children Act, the local authority social services inspectors inspect for various purposes. First, they respond to complaints or suspicions that there may be abuse of children. Secondly, they inspect to ensure that there is good practice in the schools and that the systems of care are in place. Thirdly, they take action if it is needed and if there are complaints that can be justified.
      We were told that the purpose of the Bill is to remove oppressive regulation that creates undue burdens relative to its benefits. I have heard or seen nothing to convince me that the new clause to be added to the Children Act will help in that respect. The Department of Health did a survey of 250 heads of private and independent schools. A total of 77 per cent. of the head teachers said that the social services inspections were useful or very useful. I submit that the schools that were not satisfied with those inspections should attract our greatest concern.
      There has been no outcry from the schools about oppressive regulation. In fact, there is clear evidence that there has been widespread satisfaction with the inspections that have taken place. The House has an interest in the matter and we need to legislate both for the general welfare of children and because many of the schools are being supported by the taxpayer to a substantial extent. Each year, private and independent schools receive up to a third of a billion pounds in taxpayers' money through the service boarding scheme, the assisted places scheme and other schemes that Ministries run so that children may receive private education.
      In my constituency, a large number of families benefit under the service boarding scheme—my particular interest in this matter. Children, particularly those of service families, are often detached not just in terms of being away from home, but because their parents are in another country. They are, therefore, denied ready and easy access to their parents.
      3 am
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South said, the main objection to the new clause involves the fact that, to be effective, inspection should be impartial and take a detached view. Most of all, however, it should be independent. The amendment allows private schools to choose their own inspectors—albeit ones approved by the Secretary of State—to carry out that vital inspection under the Children Act, although the school will pay for the
      1522
      inspection. That creates a client relationship—the school becomes a client of the inspector. How can that possibly be an independent system of inspection?
      The big danger is that the relationship between the school and the inspector could become too cosy. The inspection system through local authorities must be proactive. It must be put into action not when it has been stimulated to do so by the school, but when it has been stimulated by other sources or by the need to carry out the inspection at a certain time. I liken the proposed system to a café choosing its own food hygiene inspectors.
      I feel that the amendment was spawned in the other place from misleading information. The first amendment was moved by Baroness Young on 4 July this year in the other place. Her statements were made in good faith but they were misleading and inaccurate. I shall cite two. She said:
      "There is hardly an independent school now without a telephone line where children can make private telephone calls home."
      I have read some of the few Ofsted reports on private schools. One of the criticisms that they consistently make is that those schools do not have private telephone lines so that children can call home in privacy. Often, the telephone is located in a teacher's office with children having to make the call in front of the teacher.
      The most misleading information that led the Government to propose the amendment related to Childline, which was set up at that time for six months. Baroness Young stated that
      "not a single case of sexual abuse came to light."—[Official Report, House of Lords,4 July 1994; Vol. 556, c. 1122-23.]
      The Minister now knows that that information was inaccurate and totally false. In fact, 155 children rang Childline from private or independent schools and made allegations of sexual abuse, mainly by teachers. Another 37 children made complaints of another nature. That must justify having an independent system of inspection and take away any suggestion that inspections can be carried out by bodies appointed by schools. They must be carried out by independent people, working independently.
      The Government are pandering to producer interests. I remind the Minister that many of the schools, such as the one that I mentioned earlier, are run by one proprietor, sometimes for private profit. I fear that if the amendment is passed, we shall in the very near future have to return to this issue because of serious concern about the abuse of children.
      Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: I oppose the amendment. I first became interested in the subject when two parents came to see me a few months ago to complain about something that had happened to their children at Fettes college in Edinburgh. I shall not go into details of the various incidents but I wrote to the director of social work about one of them, which makes it relevant to our debate.
      Briefly, the incident involved the child of one of the parents being locked up for nine hours without food until a confession of drug-taking had been extracted. The boy denies the charge but, in a sense, that is not relevant to the story. I wrote to the director of social work who wrote back, saying that he could not get involved, although if he were in England he could have got involved. That is one more reason why we must have a children Bill for Scotland and why it must provide for social work departments, as we call them in Scotland—social services

      1523
      departments in England—to have the power to inspect private schools. From that point, knowing that a children Bill was coming for Scotland, I took it on myself to ensure that I lobbied for that provision.
      I was told, not only by the director of social work for Lothian region but by others involved in social work in Scotland, that they were all looking forward to the provision because they had heard from their colleagues in England how helpful it had been in improving the lot of children in public schools. I was, therefore, utterly amazed when I heard fairly recently that it was being sabotaged in another place. I read the report of the debate on 4 July and noted the Government's intention to table their own amendment, which is that which we are debating now.
      There is nothing in the amendment to improve the lot of children in boarding schools—quite the opposite, in fact. The bodies set up to protect children can testify to that. We have already heard about Childline and the figures that were possibly not deliberately misquoted in another place. The National Children's Bureau is worried, as is the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. I stress that fact to the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs as I am told that he was a parliamentary consultant to that body. I therefore suggest that he listens to what the NSPCC is saying.
      To accept the amendment would be a retrograde step. One point that I do not think has been mentioned is that there will be far less frequent inspections. I believe that they will occur once every four years but perhaps the Minister will confirm that. In any event, they will be far too infrequent.
      Most important, schools will be able to choose their own inspectors on the "choose and pay" principle. That is the fundamental flaw in the amendment because it means that the school can choose someone much more sympathetic and far less critical than an independent social services or social work department. That was confirmed when I read the debates in another place. I especially remember the speech made by Earl Ferrers, who moved the amendment. I could hardly believe what I was reading. He said that people from social services departments had talked to pupils when teachers—or masters, as he called them—were not present. He thought that that was quite inappropriate, which let the cat out of the bag. The amendment is about protecting the schools, and especially the head teachers, and ensuring that there is no interference in the way they run the schools.
      An especially obnoxious feature of the scheme is the kind of people moving the amendment: Earl Ferrers admitted that he was a fellow of Winchester college and Baroness Young, who first suggested it, is chairman of the Governing Bodies of Girls Schools Association, although she did not declare an interest. The public school lobby in the Conservative party is trying to protect what my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) called the producer interest while the best interests of the children are not being considered.
      What we really have here is a heads charter. Yet what is wrong with public schools at the moment is the fact that heads have far too much power. I have learnt that from my examination of what has been happening at Fettes. When parents—not only those who came to me—complained to the board of governors, the matter was simply referred to the head. Indeed, in the case of Fettes,
      1524
      writs were sometimes issued if parents made statements in public. All the power is concentrated in the head. 'We need supervision of those schools, but if the amendment were passed we would lose that.
      We need not a heads charter but a children's charter. I remind the Government of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, which they have signed. If they read both the small print and the large print of that convention they would realise that they must act to protect children in schools, and must ensure that there is an independent inspectorate.
      As for the end of the incident that I described, I wrote to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) about it, and under the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, inspectors have been able to go into Fettes. Although the hon. Gentleman is in the Chamber, he probably cannot speak in the debate. None the less, I hope to receive a guarantee that the report will be published.
      Even that, however, would take place two years after the incident, and some of the other incidents, happened. It would be far better if there were on-going annual inspections of such schools. That would benefit some, of their present pupils—and if such inspections had taken place in the past, how many more children would have benefited? If we are to believe the book recently written by Jonathan Dimbleby, one of the people who would have benefited would have been the heir to the throne.
      Mr. Malcolm Wicks: I, too, shall speak against Lords amendment No. 26. I apologise for keeping the House up at this hour, but in terms of social policy and children's welfare we are dealing with a substantial matter, which the House should consider carefully even at this late hour.
      There is something terribly wrong about tagging such an important debate about social policy on to a Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill. If there was a case for an amendment, one should have been introduced by the Department of Health. Ministers from that Department, advised by the social services inspectorate, should have presented an argument to the House at a sensible time. We are talking about a major amendment to the Children Act 1989—an Act for which I commend the Government because it is a major piece of social policy. I hope that the amendment will not be passed; if it is, it will constitute a betrayal of that Act and it stands every chance of harming children.
      If the amendment is carried we shall hear in future about cases of abuse within such institutions, and people outside will shake their heads in bewilderment that the amendment was carried at this hour, in such a Bill, and that so little attention was paid to it by most Members of the House. Such a change should not have been presented to the House of Commons in that way, so late, tagged on through a Lords amendment.
      There are two important questions. First, does abuse occur in private schools? Secondly, if it does occur, can it be safely and responsibly left to the schools and the schools' own inspectors to cope with the problem?
      As I have argued, the background to the measure is nothing to do with deregulation, but involves the growing concern about children's welfare in Britain and in societies such as ours over the past 10 to 15 years—and, sadly, the growing evidence of physical and sexual abuse,

      1525
      often against very young children. No one can quantify that, or say with any confidence how much abuse occurs in different institutions, but it is clear that abuse occurs.
      We know that the child abuser can strike within the child's family, in foster care and in institutional care of different kinds. Our private schools, especially boarding schools, are not immune. That is obvious, and I hope that that much is agreed. The evidence has already been cited that when, for six months in 1991, Childline had a special telephone line, 155 children telephoned with allegations of sexual abuse, mainly by teachers. There were only allegations, and I recognise that we can never find out the truth about them, but to ignore cries of help from young children would be a fatal mistake by the House.
      Can regulation be safely left to the schools? I understand that the Secretary of State will keep an eye on who the inspectors are, and that Ofsted has a role. But how often will schools be inspected? From the point of view of a child—perhaps a tiny child—who is being abused and is afraid, how often will the inspectors come around? That is a genuine question which I hope that Ministers can clarify. There is a suggestion that Ofsted might inspect only every 10 years. Is that the case? Will the Independent Schools Joint Council—the school authority itself—inspect only every 10 years?
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis)indicated dissent.
      3.15 am
      Mr. Wicks: The Minister shakes his head, and I hope that he is right. I have no interest at this hour in making a debating point, but the Minister owes it to the House to tell us how often the schools will be inspected, not least from the perspective of a small child who may be being abused on a day by day, week by week basis.
      We are told that the inspectorate teams appointed by schools will contain people with welfare expertise. That was stated in another place. What will be the nature of that welfare expertise? What will be the training and the experience of the people appointed? Are there criteria laid down? The Minister must reassure the House on that point.
      There is a question, too, as to how independent the inspectors can be. I do not wish to rehearse the arguments again, and I know that there is a difference of opinion in the House as to how independent an inspectorate appointed by and paid for by schools—albeit with some criteria from the Department—can be. I side with those who are concerned that if inspectors are paid by schools which are companies trying to maximise profits, an inspection team which gains a reputation for being tough on child abuse—we should all be tough on child abuse—may not get business in the future.
      Will a school that knows that it has a problem say, "We will appoint that team because it was tough in another school"? It defies imagination that that will be the case. Throughout our history, stretching back to the origins of Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools—a more noble organisation than Ofsted—we have learnt that inspections must be independent and rigorous if they are to create confidence and make an impact.
      Interestingly enough, we have heard that head teachers were cross-examined about that by, I believe, the social services inspectorate. I do not know if that report has been published. If not, it would be useful if the Minister could
      1526
      tell us when it will be published. We understand that the majority of head teachers found that social services inspections were useful. That seemed to be their evidence—if I am wrong, the Minister will no doubt tell the House.
      If the head teachers find the visits useful, why has the amendment appeared? I think that it is because the private school industry—with a lack of imagination about its own role which will lose it the confidence of many parents and much public opinion—decided that it was too much of a bother to have inspections from social services agencies. Clearly, and sadly, the industry used the Government and its contacts in another place, and said, "Look, this is all a great mistake. We are finding this to be a hassle and a nuisance. Some social workers are starting to ask difficult questions. Can you amend the Children Act?"
      It is an abuse of the parliamentary system that this matter should be brought forward through a deregulation Bill by Ministers who do not have authority to make judgments about children's welfare. It has come forward as though it were a bit of commercial deregulation, and it will produce major arguments which will adversely effect the welfare of some children. It is a serious matter and I believe that there are serious people on the Conservative Benches who will understand the force of the argument. I hope that they will have the courage, for the sake of our children, to vote accordingly.
      In another place, Earl Ferrers said—I am never sure whether one is allowed to quote from the House of Lords—that the amendment had been drafted after discussion with the Independent Schools Joint Council. That is an honest statement and it shows where the impetus comes from: it comes from the industry.
      I wish to ask the Minister a number of questions on which he may wish to consult Ministers from the relevant Department before answering. Has he sought the views of major children's organisations about the amendment? If so, what organisations did he consult and what are their views? The House needs to know them. Many of us might regard the views of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the National Children's Bureau and others as more important in this context than those of the Independent Schools Joint Council.
      Secondly, what is the view of Childline? What discussions has the Minister or the relevant Ministry had with Childline about its experience of the nature and incidence of child abuse, either sexual or physical, within children's institutions, which is what independent schools are? The Minister must spend some time telling the House the answer to that question because it is important.
      What is the evidence from the Minister's own social services inspectorate? I say the Minister's own, but obviously I mean that of the Department of Health. You will have to excuse me for talking about the relevant Department in this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The social services inspectorate has investigated many of the schools and the inspectors are the experts. We have a chief inspector with a status rather like that of the chief medical officer. Was he consulted? What was his advice? The House needs to know the answer to that question if we are to make a wise judgment even at this late hour when wisdom is not always in large quantity.
      We know from experience that the child abuser can be found in many institutions. As we have found out more about the problem, we have found that the child abuser is

      1527
      often ruthless about finding his way into institutions where the most vulnerable are to be found. The paedophile network and paedophiles are remarkably and tragically able to find the weakest points of the system. If we accept the amendment, another weak point will emerge. To suggest that there are not paedophiles in the public school system would be extraordinarily naive. We need to remember that. Paedophiles and child abusers will be in some of the most humble children's welfare institutions. They may also, equally tragically, find their way into some of our most famous public boarding and day schools.
      Some child abusers will be fellow pupils. Some will be teachers. Some, I suspect, will be head teachers. After a decade of mounting evidence and concern, the amendment is not only an affront to well-informed opinion in this area but a tragic betrayal of some of our weakest children. We cannot, should not and must not sacrifice the frightened and sometimes abused child on the ideological altar of deregulation.
      Mr. Jonathan Evans: We have heard some misinformed comment from Opposition Members, possibly as a result of hostility rooted in their objection to the private education system. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) correctly pointed to the fact that, prior to my appointment to this office, I was the honorary consultant in the House to the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. May I make it clear that the Government do not intend to undermine or reduce in any way welfare protection for children, and the new clause will do nothing of the kind.
      The Children Act 1989 currently requires local authority social services departments to take action to satisfy themselves that independent boarding schools are adequately safeguarding the welfare of boarders. I should remind the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) that, when the Children Act was passed, a commitment was given to keep that provision under close review. I have just reassuringly informed my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London that I have a speech on the Children Act which takes an hour and a half. I am sure that my hon. Friends will not want to hear it on this occasion. Thus, the matter has been flagged up as an issue to be kept under review in that way.
      The new clause will enable the Secretary of State for Health to appoint to undertake the function of inspection an organisation that already inspects the education service of the school, provided that it has the necessary expertise. It is important to stress what we regard as the necessary expertise. An approved body would be required to follow the same guidance as social services authorities are required to follow in their inspections and would be subject to statutory requirements to notify the Department for Education and local social services authorities as appropriate if it discovers serious concerns.
      Inspection teams will be expected to include at least one member with the necessary expertise or experience of running or inspecting residential child care services. It is envisaged that the organisations that wish to carry out the functions must undertake to include at least one such person with that experience.
      As the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West asked about frequency, may I inform him that it is expected that inspections should take place no less frequently than every four years, in view of what has been said about the
      1528
      10-year figure during this debate. The organisations will have a statutory duty to report schools' failure to safeguard welfare to the Secretary of State and report child abuse allegations to local authorities, as I have described.
      The new clause will give schools a choice of who should undertake the monitoring arrangements at independent boarding schools, but subject to the same provisions as I have already outlined.
      Mr. Wicks: If, under the new system, inspections will be as rigorous and expert as those undertaken by social services departments, why make the change?
      Mr. Evans: As the NSPCC has been quoted so much in this debate, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that it is not only local authorities that may undertake inspections in relation to allegations of child abuse. This House has given statutory authority to the NSPCC along exactly the same lines as local authorities. Nobody dismisses the NSPCC's role or expertise in conducting inspections in exactly the same way. So the presumption that only local authorities can undertake that function is misplaced.
      Mr. Andrew Miller: In pursuing that point, may I put it a little more succinctly to the Minister? I refer him to the words at the beginning of the Bill. Clause 1(1)(a) says:
      "the effect of the provision is such as to impose, or authorise or require the imposition of a burden".
      What is the burden to which the Minister specifically refers? He has yet to explain that.
      Mr. Evans: I have made it clear that, when the Children Act was passed, a commitment was given that the provision would be kept under review. The proposal does not alter the protection given to children, but if schools so wish, at the time of an education inspection they will be given the alternative of having an inspection undertaken by an organisation that has the necessary expertise, as I have outlined. I make it clear that that is a situation that does not in any way undermine the protection of children, as has been claimed by some Opposition Members.
      I consider that protection of children is a matter of special importance. I believe that the measure is sensible.
      Mr. Nigel Griffiths: The Bill is about removing burdens. Which burden is being removed by the measure?
      3.30 am
      Mr. Evans: I have already told the hon. Gentleman that the Government are thereby responding to the commitment given at the time of the passage of the Children Act 1989, and a commitment given in the House.
      The measure is sensible. I hope that the House will approve it.
      Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes 29.

      Division No. 336]

      [03.30 am

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Amess, David

      Alexander, Richard

      Arbuthnot, James

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      1529

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Baldry, Tony

      Legg, Barry

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Lidington, David

      Booth, Hartley

      Lightbown, David

      Boswell, Tim

      Luff, Peter

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      MacKay, Andrew

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      Maclean, David

      Bowis, John

      Malone, Gerald

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Merchant, Piers

      Brazier, Julian

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Burns, Simon

      Norris, Steve

      Carrington, Matthew

      Ottaway, Richard

      Cash, William

      Page, Richard

      Chapman, Sydney

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Clappison, James

      Pickles, Eric

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Colvin, Michael

      Richards, Rod

      Congdon, David

      Robathan, Andrew

      Conway, Derek

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Couchman, James

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Day, Stephen

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Devlin, Tim

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Dover, Den

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Duncan, Alan

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Spring, Richard

      Elletson, Harold

      Stephen, Michael

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Stewart, Allan

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Streeter, Gary

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Sweeney, Walter

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Sykes, John

      Fabricant, Michael

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Forth, Eric

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      French, Douglas

      Thomason, Roy

      Gallie, Phil

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Garnier, Edward

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Gill, Christopher

      Thurnham, Peter

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Gorst, Sir John

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Viggers, Peter

      Hague, William

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Waller, Gary

      Hawkins, Nick

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Waterson, Nigel

      Heald, Oliver

      Watts, John

      Hendry, Charles

      Wells, Bowen

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

      Whittingdale, John

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Wilkinson, John

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Willetts, David

      Jessel, Toby

      Wolfson, Mark

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Wood, Timothy

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Knapman, Roger

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Mr. Michael Bates and

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Dr. Liam Fox

      NOES

      Barnes, Harry

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Jamieson, David

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Clelland, David

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      McMaster, Gordon

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Miller, Andrew

      Harvey, Nick

      Olner, William

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Pike, Peter L.

      1530

      Purchase, Ken

      Welsh, Andrew

      Rendel, David

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Salmond, Alex

      Wise, Audrey

      Skinner, Dennis

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Spearing, Nigel

      Mr. John Spellar and

      Turner, Dennis

      Mr. Jim Dowd

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

    Clause 48

      UNDERTAKINGS GIVEN ON APPLICATIONS
      Lords amendment: No. 47, in page 47, line 10, at beginning insert—
      ("(1A) After subsection 14(3)(b) there shall be inserted—
      "(c) that there will not be any adverse effects on local environmental conditions as a result of the activities of the licence-holder."")
      Mr. Norris: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The amendment is well meaning, but it has not been thought through, and I regret to have to advise the House to disagree with it.
      The Government are sensitive to the need to ensure that passenger transport operations do not have adverse environmental effects, but the question is whether the controls envisaged in the amendment are necessary, and how far they would be feasible or effective as currently drafted.
      In any situation where a transport service is being provided for the public, a balance necessarily has to be struck between the needs of local people for an efficient transport system and the needs of residents for a pleasant environment in which to reside. There are already quite sufficient powers available to local authorities to ensure that balance. We believe that there is no need to introduce a further raft of controls on environmental grounds into the PSV operator licensing system.
      Public service vehicle operating centres are, for the most part, well established and accepted in their localities. Before a new operating centre can be used, the operator must have planning permission, and that provides an opportunity to deal with any potential environmental problem.
      Powers are available to traffic authorities under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to impose traffic regulation orders on various grounds, which include preserving or improving the amenities of an area. Such an order may be used to prohibit or restrict the use of a road by a particular class of vehicle. Thus, if a local authority is of the view that buses are spoiling the local environment, it can ban buses completely or take the lesser step of imposing parking and waiting restrictions.
      Suitable safeguards already exist to ensure that smoky vehicles are kept under control. All PSVs are subject to metered checks of emissions when they receive their annual roadworthiness tests and, in addition, spot checks are undertaken by the vehicle inspectorate throughout the year.

      1531
      The amendment is expressed in general terms, which could be interpreted very widely. For example, it might be taken to mean that there should be no adverse effects in the immediate vicinity of the operator's operating centre. On the other hand, the phrase
      "activities of the licence holder"
      could refer to the operator running local services along new bus routes where there were objections from residents, or it might refer to the adverse effects of smoky diesel engines which are poorly maintained. In short, it is imprecise in meaning.
      I remind the House that the purpose of the Bill is to deregulate and reduce the level of unnecessary controls on industry. The amendment would introduce new constraints on PSV operators that are both unnecessary and unacceptable. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but I did not catch what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) said. [Interruption.] Frankly, it probably was not worth listening to. The amendment would not help to improve the environment, and would add needlessly to the hurdles facing those wishing to start a new business in the bus industry.
      3.45 am
      Mr. Nigel Griffiths: The Minister was uncharacteristically tetchy. For a moment, I thought that, due to the lateness of the hour, he had turned the page and come to that fatal civil servant's note, "It's quarter to four in the morning, you sod; you're on your own."
      Mr. Norris: I want to make it perfectly clear that none of the excellent personages now assembled to advise me would do any such thing.
      Mr. Griffiths: I certainly would not want to fall out with them, as they will shortly be working for me.
      The serious matter before us, which the Minister skirted around, is that, under the Transport Act 1985, there has been an explosion in the number of private bus operators. It is important that the environmental safeguards that currently apply to testing centres for lorries under the Transport Act 1968 should be extended to PSV operating centres, given the large rise in the number of PSV vehicles operating under the 1985 Act. The existing ability to object on environmental grounds to an application to run a lorry operating centre should also apply to bus operating centres.
      That argument was put forcefully in the other place, and it carried the day. I believe that the same should be true here, so we shall put the matter to the vote.
      Mr. Nick Harvey: I endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths). The amendment does no more than bring into line the requirements for PSV operating centres to be the same as those for lorry operating centres. If, as the Minister suggests, the amendment is unsuitable, perhaps he could explain why there is that disparity between the two regimes.
      Although the hon. Gentleman referred to the regulations that might cover the highways and the pollution that buses might make, he did not explain how, in a broader sense, any environmental check might be brought to bear.
      Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment —
      The House divided: Ayes 127, Noes 24.

      Division No. 337]

      [03.48 am

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Alexander, Richard

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Knapman, Roger

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Amess, David

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Legg, Barry

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Lidington, David

      Baldry, Tony

      Lightbown, David

      Bates, Michael

      Luff, Peter

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      MacKay, Andrew

      Booth, Hartley

      Maclean, David

      Boswell, Tim

      Malone Gerald

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Merchant, Piers

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Bowis, John

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Brazier, Julian

      Norris, Steve

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Ottaway, Richard

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Page, Richard

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Burns, Simon

      Pickles, Eric

      Burt, Alistair

      Richards, Rod

      Carrington, Matthew

      Robathan, Andrew

      Cash, William

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Chapman, Sydney

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Clappison, James

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Colvin, Michael

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Congdon, David

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Couchman, James

      Spring, Richard

      Day, Stephen

      Stephen, Michael

      Devlin, Tim

      Stewart, Allan

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Streeter, Gary

      Dover, Den

      Sweeney, Walter

      Duncan, Alan

      Sykes, John

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Elletson, Harold

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Thomason, Roy

      Fabricant, Michael

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Forth, Eric

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      French, Douglas

      Viggers, Peter

      Gallie, Phil

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Garnier, Edward

      Waller, Gary

      Gill, Christopher

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Waterson, Nigel

      Gorst, Sir John

      Watts, John

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Wells, Bowen

      Hague, William

      Whittingdale, John

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Hawkins, Nick

      Willetts, David

      Hawksley, Warren

      Wolfson, Mark

      Heald, Oliver

      Wood, Timothy

      Hendry, Charles

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

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

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Mr. Derek Conway and

      Jessel, Toby

      Dr. Liam Fox

      1533

      NOES

      Barnes, Harry

      Olner, William

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Pike, Peter L.

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Rendel, David

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Salmond, Alex

      Harvey, Nick

      Skinner, Dennis

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Spellar, John

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Welsh, Andrew

      Jamieson, David

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Wise, Audrey

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Martin, Michael J.(Springburn)

      Mr. Jim Dowd and

      Miller, Andrew

      Mr. Gordon McMaster

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 48, in page 47, line 42, at end insert—
      ("() In section 17(1) after the words "as to professional competence" there shall be inserted "and the Traffic Commissioners shall also revoke the licence if the holder has shown consistent disregard for drivers' hours regulations."")
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Norris.]
      Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I am pleased that the Minister, having recognised the weakness of his argument on the previous amendment, has not sought to elaborate on this one.
      The amendment was made by the other place to protect the public from PSV operators who have a bad record. It gave the powers to ensure that the licence holder was someone who—at least in terms of treating his or her own drivers, if he or she had drivers—had not breached the regulations. There was particular concern about the disregard for regulations on drivers' hours.
      4 am
      Their Lordships were considering the matter in the wake of a crash that killed nine American tourists on the M2; driver fatigue was a contributory factor. Their Lordships believe—and we agree—that people who put lives at risk should not be responsible for holding operators' licences. They may advance a case for mitigating circumstances, and such a case would be listened to, but that should certainly be one of the key criteria to be taken into account when granting or refusing a licence to such operators. We shall back up the other place, and put this to the vote.
      Question put, That this House doth disagree with the House in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 125, Noes 23.

      Division No. 338]

      [04.00 am

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Baldry, Tony

      Alexander, Richard

      Bates, Michael

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Booth, Hartley

      Amess, David

      Boswell, Tim

      Arbuthnot, James

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Bowis, John

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Brandreth, Gyles

      1534

      Brazier, Julian

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Legg, Barry

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Lidington, David

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Lightbown, David

      Burns, Simon

      Luff, Peter

      Burt, Alistair

      MacKay, Andrew

      Carrington, Matthew

      Maclean, David

      Cash, William

      Malone, Gerald

      Chapman, Sydney

      Merchant, Piers

      Clappison, James

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Colvin, Michael

      Norris, Steve

      Congdon, David

      Ottaway, Richard

      Conway, Derek

      Page, Richard

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Pickles, Eric

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Richards, Rod

      Couchman, James

      Robathan, Andrew

      Day, Stephen

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Devlin, Tim

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Dover, Den

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Duncan, Alan

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Elletson, Harold

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Spring, Richard

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Stephen, Michael

      Fabricant, Michael

      Stewart, Allan

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Streeter, Gary

      Forth, Eric

      Sweeney, Walter

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Sykes, John

      French, Douglas

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Gallie, Phil

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Garnier, Edward

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Gill, Christopher

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Thomason, Roy

      Gorst, Sir John

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Hague, William

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Hawkins, Nick

      Viggers, Peter

      Hawksley, Warren

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Heald, Oliver

      Waller, Gary

      Hendry, Charles

      Waterson, Nigel

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

      Watts, John

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Wells, Bowen

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Whittingdale, John

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Jessel, Toby

      Willetts, David

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Wood, Timothy

      Knapman, Roger

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Mr. Andrew Mitchell and

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Dr. Liam Fox

      NOES

      Barnes, Harry

      Olner, William

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Pike, Peter L.

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Rendel, David

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Salmond, Alex

      Harvey, Nick

      Skinner, Dennis

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Spellar, John

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Welsh, Andrew

      Jamieson, David

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Wise, Audrey

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Mr. Gordon McMaster and

      Miller, Andrew

      Mr. Jim Dowd

      Question accordingly agreed to.

    Clause 58

      FUNCTIONS OF MINISTERS AND OFFICE-HOLDERS
      Lords amendment: No. 49, in page 53, line 11, leave out ("subsection (2) or")
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Jonathan Evans.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 50, 51, 60 and 158.
      Mr. Nigel Griffiths: There is a strong feeling among Labour Members that where people are involved—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It could be good news.
      Mr. Griffiths: It is nice to see that so many people have been able to return to our proceedings from the bar. [Interruption.] I think that a lot of Conservative Members are lawyers.
      We are dealing with a legal matter and the contracting out of legal services, and it is important that the Opposition put on record their objection to the contracting out of certain aspects of legal services that we think should firmly be in the public service.
      The Government's practice of privatising elements of the legal and prison services has not met with stunning success or with much public support. The Minister will claim that the roles of a number of employees are merely administrative, are ripe for privatisation and should be handed over to the private sector. However, as the peers in the other place pointed out, many of those people deal with aspects of life that are important and private to members of the public, to businesses involved in insolvencies and bankruptcies and to politicians involved in challenges to local election results. They also deal with highly confidential matters that relate to children in family cases and that are in the public interest.
      Some matters with which administrators deal are far too important to be contracted out. That is the reason why we oppose the proposals.
      Mr. Jonathan Evans: The amendments respond to particular concerns that were expressed about the status of courts and tribunals under part II of the Bill. The Government take the view that courts and statutory tribunals should not be or be seen to be susceptible to any outside pressure or influence.
      In recognition of concerns about the adequacy of court lists and the absence of any exclusion for tribunals, the Government introduced the amendments, which make it clear that any exercise by an office holder of the jurisdiction of any court or tribunal that exercises the judicial powers of the state could not be the subject of an order under clause 58 and could not by that means become susceptible to contracting out.
      I hope that that reassures hon. Members and I commend the amendments to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.
      Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Mr. Simon Burns, Mr. Richard
      1536
      Ottaway, Mr. Brian Wilson, Mr. Nigel Griffiths and Mr. Jonathan Evans; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Jonathan Evans.]
      To withdraw immediately.
      Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With permission, I shall put together motions Nos. 4 to 9 relating to statutory instruments.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

      INCOME TAX
      That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Estonia) Order 1994 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 20th July.
      That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Vietnam) Order 1994 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 20th July.
      That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Guernsey) Order 1994 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 20th July.
      That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Isle of Man) Order 1994 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 20th July.
      That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Jersey) Order 1994 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 20th July.
      That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Switzerland) Order 1994 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 20th July.—[Mr. Bates.]
      Question agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

      INHERITANCE TAX
      That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Estates of Deceased Persons and Inheritances) (Switzerland) Order 1994 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 20th July.[Mr. Bates.]
      Question agreed to.

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

      FOODSTUFFS
      That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 5934/94 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 22nd June 1994, relating to foodstuffs intended for particular nutritional purposes; and agrees with the Government's intention to support this proposal.[Mr. Bates.]
      Question agreed to.

  Tourism (Scotland)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]
  4.15 am
  Mr. Bill Walker: It may come as a surprise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to know that, at 4.15 am, I am delighted to have secured a debate on a vital aspect of the Scottish economy—the tourist industry.
  Few will deny that Scottish tourism is a major business, which contributes some 5 per cent. of the gross domestic product and employs more than 180,000 people, many of whom are my constituents. Tourism is the largest employer in North Tayside. Indeed, tourism and the whisky industry are major contributors of overseas earnings to Scotland and, in many instances, their activities are linked. For example, the visitors' centres and distillery tours are enjoyed by thousands of people every year.
  The good news is that the value of tourism—especially tourism from overseas—was last year estimated to be £670 million. That was an increase of 8 per cent. over the previous year, making last year the third successive year of growth. However, the bad news is that Scotland's tourist industry is now operating below the levels of the 1980s. There has been a massive decline this year in the number of visitors to Scotland's many stately homes. In some cases, the fall has been between 10 per cent. and 20 per cent.
  What is the problem? The problem is that, in 1993, United Kingdom tourism expenditure was still some 17 per cent. below that of 1989. Domestic tourism accounts for 68 per cent. of all tourism expenditure in Scotland. Eighty-three per cent. of the United Kingdom's population live in England, so they form the major segment of Scotland's tourist market.
  Although the United States, France and Germany are vital for overseas earnings, they and visitors from the rest of western Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and elsewhere account for about 1.8 million overnight trips. English visitors account for about 3.7 million overnight trips; Scottish internal visitors account for 4.9 million; and visitors from other parts of the United Kingdom make 400,000 such trips. That makes a United Kingdom total of 9 million overnight trips to Scotland. Therefore, the internal United Kingdom market, and especially the English market, is vital to the continuing prosperity of Scotland's tourist industry.
  The Scottish tourist board estimates that 1994 has not been a good year for Scottish tourism. That is associated with the decline in the United Kingdom market. Although the overseas market has probably grown, a decline in tourism of about 6 percent. in real terms is expected in the market as a whole.
  Several factors have probably contributed to that decline. The recession has made people cautious; they are unwilling to spend money. The hard firm pound that is good for the United Kingdom economy also helps our people to buy more abroad and less, relatively, within the United Kingdom. Poor summer weather in 1991 and 1992 did not help, and we may not have competitive prices in hotels and restaurants. Worse still, we may have given offence to customers and potential customers from

  1539
  England. Everyone who has worked in the service sector knows that a cardinal rule of the business is not to give offence to the customers. I shall return to that subject.
  Moreover, we may not be marketing Scotland adequately—I shall say more of that later, too. Certainly the decline of salmon stocks in Scotland's rivers—due, many of us believe, to the number of fish drift-netted off the north-east coast of England—has encouraged many of our former regular visitors to Scottish rivers to seek better fishing overseas. I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) in the Chamber, because the River Dee has suffered in that way.
  The failure of Scottish football teams in European countries may also have influenced those who used to travel from England to see games in Scotland. Furthermore, an Automobile Association survey has highlighted the absence of non-commercial rest areas on the main tourist arterial routes, a lack of round-the-clock fuel facilities, and an absence of public toilets.
  I hate to think what the proposal of the Royal Commission on the environment to double petrol prices would do to the highlands. Perhaps there would be a second highland clearance; I do not know—but certainly, if implemented, that proposal would kill the tourist trade from England.
  Thus far, I have highlighted some of the problems. What can and should be done today to bring the visitors back from England and encourage them to resume their delightful visits to Scotland? First, I wish to commend and not to condemn—as some hon. Members did—Scottish Hydro-Electric for what it said about price rises:
  "The company, which serves northern Scotland, said the price rises proposed by the Office of Electricity Regulation would not be enough for proper maintenance of its network …
  Chairman Lord Wilson said, 'It is not right that the massive investment of our predecessors to provide electricity throughout the Highlands and Islands should now be jeopardised. We would be failing in our duty to our community if we allowed our service to deteriorate by accepting these proposals."'
  The board of Scottish Hydro-Electric is to be commended, not condemned. It is right to be concerned about continuing supplies for the elderly, the tourist industry and other vulnerable groups.
  In a letter that I have sent to my hon. Friend the Minister, the chairman of the Perthshire tourist board, Councillor Tom Campbell, tells me that Eire has enjoyed an annual increase in tourism of 6 per cent. over the past decade. People are going from England to Eire in ever-increasing numbers, and Councillor Campbell attributes that fact to vigorous and well-funded marketing. He further claims:
  "It is my Board's belief that the Scottish Tourist Board undoubtedly has the expertise to carry out its functions, but that it is unable to make the Scottish tourism message heard in a competitive international market-place because of insufficient funding from central Government.
  The Scottish Tourist Board has stated that, if it were to receive additional Governmental investment of just £7 million annually, (all of which would be devoted to marketing), by the year 2000 there would be an additional 39,000 jobs created in Scottish tourism and an increase in annual spending (in real terms) of £430 million by the year 2000. There can be few, if any, other areas of investment which would provide such high levels of return."
  1540
  That is one suggestion from the chairman of the Perthshire tourist board and, in this instance, I must tell my hon. Friend that Mr. Campbell has my support.
  I also suggest that a commitment to electrifying the main railway line between Edinburgh and Aberdeen would send some positive signals to people living in England and in Europe, and would help the oil and gas industries. I hope that we will see something positive on that soon.
  More roadside facilities, as highlighted by the AA, are a must, and the removal of drift netting from the north-east coast of England within two years would help Scotland's salmon rivers and bring back England's fishermen. Scotland's hotels and restaurants would benefit from a reduction in non-domestic rates, and I hope that the new local authorities will hear that. The hotels in turn would be able to act, because they should examine closely their pricing structure to give value for money.
  Scottish welcomes should be the order of the day. Everyone in Scotland should be made aware of the damage which can be done by giving offence.
  Mr. George Kynoch: On the subject of giving offence, is my hon. Friend aware that extreme elements of the Scottish National party waged a campaign in my constituency in which they put up posters entitled "Settler Watch"—a campaign against those people who come in from outwith Scotland to settle in my constituency and enhance the economy of the area? Does he think that that enhances the tourism prospects of Scotland?
  Mr. Walker: No, I do not, and I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. I believe that narrow nationalists—and, I am sorry to say, some socialists—should be made aware that they are giving offence when they prattle on about land ownership and the way in which Scotland's moors and mountains are visited by individuals for grouse shooting and deer stalking. Those visitors and the anglers on our salmon rivers spend substantial sums of money locally and provide employment for native Scots in the more isolated and remote areas, where no other employment is available.
  Narrow nationalists must also be told in no uncertain terms to stop making anti-English statements of the kind mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside, both inside and outside Scotland. Some hon. Members might bear that in mind. Narrow nationalists must also be told to stop painting anti-English slogans on bridges and at other prominent positions throughout the tourist areas of Scotland. Those give offence and drive people away.
  I repeat what I said earlier—if one is in the service sector, one must never give offence to customers or to potential customers. The activities of narrow nationalists must be blamed for much of the decline in the numbers of tourists coming to Scotland from England. The House will note that I did not say "English tourists", because there are a lot of people living in England who are not English born and bred. However, they used to come to Scotland in substantial numbers, and they are important to Scotland.
  I trust that my hon. Friend will take on board some of my thoughts, and I hope that he will be able to act where he can on some of my proposals.
  4.28 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I pay tribute to my hon. Friends who are present at 4.30 in the morning to hear this important debate on Scottish tourism. They include my hon. Friends the Members for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch), for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates) and for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), who have attended the debate in part or in whole.
  I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North on raising the subject. I am, of course, aware of the recent publication by the Campaign For Rail Electrification Aberdeen to Edinburgh of the feasibility study of electrification north of Edinburgh. I understand that British Rail and Railtrack co-operated with the CREATE campaign group in looking at the case for electrification. It is, of course, for Railtrack to come forward with investment proposals that it considers worth while and for it to determine priorities within the resources available to it.
  However, the Government are prepared to consider assisting railway investment schemes which, while they do not earn an adequate financial return, provide a satisfactory cost-benefit return when the wider benefits are taken into account. Any proposals would be given careful consideration within the resources available. I assure my hon. Friend that the Aberdeen to Edinburgh line remains an integral part of the east coast main line franchise.
  I agree with my hon. Friend that slogans such as "English go home" should be strongly discouraged. All graffiti should be discouraged and removed. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster), who has just joined us, in the Chamber. It is highly irresponsible of a few individuals to paint on buildings hostile signs against the English. The only effect of that is to reduce employment in Scotland. Indeed, such graffiti have given rise to complaints to the Scottish tourist board. I should ask the relevant communities and local authorities to take every action to remove the graffiti.
  I remember some time ago making complaints to a council. It said that it removed only politically offensive graffiti. I regard graffiti such as my hon. Friend described as politically offensive, but I also regard all graffiti as giving rise to offence. They should be removed.
  People come to Scotland because of the environment, the people and the heritage. They like the wide open spaces, the friendliness of the people and the magnificence of the heritage. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North, or not so far away, there are Discovery point, the Perth art gallery, Dunkeld cathedral, Blair castle and the Pitlochry festival theatre as well as the excellent distillery. All those places—
  Mr. Bill Walker: Do not forget Glamis.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My hon. Friend is right.
  The visitor spend in Scotland has fluctuated, but it has increased from £1.8 billion in 1990 to £2.1 billion in 1993. Of course, tourism is the biggest single employer in the whole of Scotland. It is of vital importance to the economy and to the area that my hon. Friend represents. It is therefore particularly appropriate that we should debate it tonight.
  1542
  We recognise tourism world wide as a growth industry of particular potential. It is a major creator of employment and wealth. Around the globe, countries and destinations want to win an ever-increasing share of those benefits. Such success cannot be achieved overnight. It is a continuous, constantly evolving process. Strengths have to be recognised and built on, weaknesses identified and remedied, trends and the aspirations of potential customers monitored and responded to. Of course, the competition is increasing all the time. New destinations appear every year to fight for their place in the world tourism market.
  I fully recognise the challenges which face the Scottish tourist industry. We are pledged to do what we can to assist a very important sector of the Scottish economy—not, I may say, by displacing the industry's own actions. In the final analysis, the industry must prosper through its own efforts. Our role is to facilitate and encourage the industry's endeavours. That role is not simply about providing funding support—we provide substantial support—although that is important. There are other, equally significant, ways in which our resolve to help the industry must find expression.
  In 1992, we conducted a major review of the way in which public sector support for tourism was directed. The outcome was announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in June last year. The review signals the Government's determination to assist the Scottish tourist industry to maximise its potential. It was undertaken because, self-evidently, it was needed. Support arrangements for tourism had evolved in a piecemeal fashion over a considerable number of years. In our judgment the time had come for a major reconsideration of the fundamentals of public support. That was clear from the consultation.
  The review identified the important role played by the public sector at both local and national level. It noted widespread concern that current arrangements were fragmented and no longer effective. From that, we concluded that Scottish tourism needed a support structure that was administratively straightforward, was based on partnership, incorporated effective liaison arrangements and operated within the context of a national strategy. Above all, it had to be accepted and understood by the industry that it served.
  While achieving a revised support structure inevitably meant change, we also accepted the widespread view that such change should be achieved through evolution—in other words, through existing Government agencies at a national level and the existing partnership between local authorities and the tourism trade at a local level.
  All the detailed decisions flowing from the review have been funded on those general principles. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that we have made rapid progress in implementing the review's conclusions. Arrangements at the national level have been clarified. The Scottish tourist board is responsible throughout Scotland for marketing and for area tourist board sponsorship. In addition, business development activities are now consolidated in the Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise networks.
  Links between the boards of the Scottish tourist board, of Scottish Enterprise and of Highlands and Islands Enterprise have been strengthened through cross-membership. In recognition of the importance of tourism in the highlands, the Scottish tourist board will

  1543
  establish a substantial presence in Inverness by 1 April 1995. A minimum of 40 full-time jobs will be located there, together with the board's quality assurance inspectorate.
  The Scottish tourist board also remains my right hon. Friend's statutory advisor on tourism matters. The board has been given responsibility for drawing up a strategic plan in consultation with a wide range of partners, including representatives drawn from Scotland's tourism industry. I shall say more about that later.
  At local level, my right hon. Friend announced in March our intention to establish a network of 14 area tourist boards by 1 April 1996. I am sure that my hon. Friend is delighted that we decided that Perthshire should retain its own tourist board—an outcome for which he campaigned vigorously and consistently. I had the pleasure earlier this year of officially opening the Perthshire board's new headquarters. The work which the board undertakes is impressive. It is the only ATB in Scotland that operates a visitor attraction—a working corn mill—in the same premises as its headquarters' office. I am certain that Perthshire will continue to prosper in the years ahead under the new ATB structure.
  We attach great importance to the work of area tourist boards. They market their local area and provide services to visitors, such as accommodation booking. They operate over 170 tourist information centres throughout Scotland. They also have an important role to play in training and development issues. Arguably most important of all, they represent the interests and provide the voice of the tourist industry itself—over 16,000 tourism businesses are members of an area tourist board.
  The Scottish tourist board has been charged with the task of assisting the area tourist board network in managing the changes that are taking place. That is an important element of the review. The new structure must meet local needs while at the same time retaining local loyalties.
  We do not intend to impose detailed working arrangements on the new boards. Although the boards will be established under statute, it will be for local interests to determine membership and operational matters. The only exceptions are in respect of a very limited range of circumstances specified in the legislation currently before Parliament. Those have been debated at length and need not be gone over again tonight.
  Over-arching those changes are our proposals to improve co-ordination within and between the public and private sectors. Excellent progress has been made here. The membership of the Scottish tourism co-ordinating group, which I chair, has been expanded. That group will continue its work of putting together the views of public sector bodies with an interest in tourism. It will continue to act as a forum for consideration of tourism-related issues of national significance. Most importantly, the group will be responsible for the preparation, dissemination and on-going review of the national strategic plan.
  The plan is now in its final draft form, and is on course for launch and publication early next week. Suffice it to say that the plan's purpose is to identify where we are now, where we would like to be and, in general terms,
  1544
  how to get there. It offers a clear framework for joint progress by the public and the private sectors towards mutually agreed goals.
  We have also established the Scottish Tourism Forum, which held its first meeting on 23 September. The establishment of the forum recognises the widespread desire, expressed in the responses to the tourism review, that the industry itself should have a voice in the determination of tourism policy. It brings together a wide range of private sector organisations with a significant interest in tourism matters. It will, I believe, stimulate an informed debate on issues of common concern.
  More formally, we look to the forum to provide the Scottish tourism co-ordinating group with advice on the strategic plan. To ensure that that takes place, we have decided that the forum's chairman will be a member of the STCG. That will, I hope, strengthen the close ties that we want to be developed between the public and private sectors.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the statistics for tourism for the current year. I am aware that the preliminary statistics prepared by the STB in respect of the early part of the year as regards visitors to Scotland from within the United Kingdom are not encouraging. However, as my hon. Friend knows, the available information is in respect of the period January to June only. We must be careful in extrapolating the data to the full year, especially as the main holiday period is not included in the statistics that my hon. Friend quoted. I hope that the position will improve in relation to the year as a whole.
  I am encouraged, however, to learn that the number of overseas visitors to Scotland has apparently continued to increase. That upward trend has occurred for several years, on the back of strong overseas marketing campaigns by the STB, which, I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend, will certainly continue.
  Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the number of tourists coming from England has declined, not only this year, but in earlier years, according to the evidence? Does he agree that the behaviour of the Scottish nationalists earlier, when they delayed the business of the House, is a typical example of the way that offence is given, and that such practices have stopped people coming to Scotland?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: That is possible. We have to obtain the complete figures and study them, but I also think that it is possible that, with the ending of recession, more people in England are taking holidays in the sun, rather than their normal holiday north of the border. Obviously that is a cause of concern. We are examining it closely, and we shall study those matters with regard to the public expenditure survey and Scottish Office funding.
  I shall also mention the comparison with Ireland. International comparisons are fraught with difficulty, because of the differences in the structure and financing of the industry. The STB's budget is only one of several components of public sector support for tourism here, and a much more detailed analysis would be required if true comparisons were to be drawn.
  In the few minutes remaining, I shall respond about resources. First, the primary responsibility for investment, training and marketing lies with the industry itself, and the purpose of public expenditure should be to supplement

  1545
  private expenditure where that is necessary. Secondly, the public sector—which includes both enterprise networks, local authorities and organisations such as Scottish Natural Heritage, the Scottish Sports Council and the Scottish Arts Council as well as the tourist board—already makes a significant contribution to supporting the tourism industry.
  Several of the public sector bodies that provide assistance have the flexibility to adjust their priorities according to new needs. They will need to consider resource allocations against the priorities set out in the tourism strategic plan, as indeed the Scottish Office will consider resources against those priorities.
  The Scottish tourism industry also benefits enormously from European funding, and will do so to a substantially greater extent in future, under the objective 1 programme for the highlands and islands.
  1546
  I must say also to my hon. Friend that the public purse should not necessarily be the automatic first call when new resources are deemed necessary. The STB exists, as I have said, to support the tourism industry's own efforts—to correct market failure.
  The Government are doing a great deal to ensure the well-being of Scotland's tourism industry. The package of measures that I have described will help to achieve a significant improvement in Scotland's position as a visitor destination. It is now up to the industry itself to play a positive and forward-looking role in helping turn our proposals into a success story.
  I say briefly to my hon. Friend that, in 1993, more than 10 million tourists took overnight trips, and those resulted in generating spend of more than £2 billion. The census of 1991 put the number of tourism jobs at 171,000–8 per cent. of all employment.
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Five o'clock

TREASURY

  Back-to-work Bonus
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will explain the tax treatment of a back-to-work bonus of up to £1,000 claimed by a part-time worker who has entered into full-time employment under the scheme announced by the Secretary of State for Social Security on 24 October.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the back-to-work lump sum cash bonus of the new job seeker's allowance will be treated for tax purposes; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 28 October 1994]: The tax treatment of the back-to-work bonus will be announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget.

  Tax Exemptions (MEPs)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent United Kingdom Members of the European Parliament are exempt from United Kingdom taxation.

  Sir George Young
  United Kingdom members of the European Parliament are exempt from United Kingdom taxation in only one respect. A ruling of the European Court of Justice in 1981 said that expense allowances intended to defray costs, paid by the European Parliament to its Members, are not liable to United Kingdom tax.

  Royal British Legion
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will review the proposed imposition of value added tax on membership subscription to the Royal British Legion; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  There is no VAT on membership subscriptions to the Royal British Legion where the subscription confers no facility or advantage for the subscriber other than the right to participate in its management or receive reports of its activities.

  Customs and Excise officials are discussing with the legion its existing arrangements for accounting for VAT on the elements of subscriptions which provide entitlement to use of the social facilities of its clubs.

  Tiger Products
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 27 October,Official Report, column 754 what happened to the tiger products seized by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in the period 1989 to 1994.
  1000
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  There are no disposal records for 1989, but the 1990 seizure was loaned to a zoological establishment to feature in an endangered species exhibition. The remaining items, from 1991 up to the present time, have either been destroyed or retained by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise for display or training purposes and to form the nucleus of a reference collection of tiger derivatives.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 27 October, if he will give details of the country of origin of tiger products seized between 1989 and 1994.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Customs records for 1989 and 1990 seizures do not contain details of the country of either export or origin.

  Further to my answer of 27 October, Official Report, column 754, four musk and tiger-bone plasters were mistakenly described as tiger bones, and according to recently received scientific advice the 13 claws derived from lion only. For convenience, therefore, the following list reproduces the corrected information on seizures from 1991 to date, together with available details of countries of origin where known—COO—or, when not, the countries whence consigned—CWC:

  Year

  Seizure

  COO

  CWC

  1991

  Handbag

  Australia

  1992

  —

  1993

  Skin, 1 whole & 1 piece

  India

  1 pair of shoes

  Saudi Arabia

  Tincture of tigerbone–2 bottles

  China

  Tiger bone plaster:

  –20 packets

  USA

  –12 packets

  Hong Kong

  –11 packets

  China

  Tiger bone pills:

  –50 boxes

  Hong Kong

  –1 box

  China

  –420 tablets

  China

  Tiger bone medicine:

  –1 packet & 3 sachets

  China

  Tiger claws

  India

  1994

  Tiger bone plasters:

  –20

  Tanzania

  –4

  China

  –2

  N/k

  N/k

  Tincture of tiger bone—

  20 x 70 cl bottles

  China

  USA

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 27 October, how many prosecutions followed the seizures of tiger products in the period since 1989.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  None.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 27 October,Official Report, column 754, what information he has of the

  1001
  intended destination of the tiger products seized between 1989 and 1994.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  With one exception, customs' action was confined to seizure of the goods and there is no information on the intended destinations apart from the importers' addresses.

  In the one case which was investigated for deliberate evasion, customs was satisfied that a medicinal product had been imported to treat a genuine medical complaint and that there were no grounds to support legal proceedings.

  Vehicle Licensing System
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what representations he has received about the proposed changes to the vehicle licensing system;

  (2) what plans he has for concessions for the classic car sector from the proposed changes to the vehicle licensing system;

  (3) what assessment he has made of the extent to which the proposed changes to the vehicle licensing system will encourage registration among those who formerly avoided road tax;

  (4) what assessment he has made of the effect of (a) use-based charges and (b) flat-rate registration fees on car use;

  (5) what assessment he has made of the effect of the changes to the vehicle licensing system on small businesses concerned with classic car restoration.

  Sir George Young
  My right hon. learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has received a number of representations about the proposed changes to the vehicle licensing system which will introduce a system of continuous licensing based on possession rather than use for all cars and motorcycles. The aim of the change, together with the measure to improve the quality of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency's vehicle register, is to counter vehicle excise duty evasion, which costs the taxpayer £145 million or more in lost revenue each year, and assist police efforts against car-related crime. Details of how the new system will operate have yet to be decided. A consultation document, to be issued later this year, will seek views from interested parties.

  Cash and Running Costs Limits
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes are proposed to the Treasury's cash and running costs limits in 1994–95.

  Mr. Nelson
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class XVII, vote 1 will be increased by a token £1,000 from £77,363,000 to £77,364,000. The net increase is mainly to meet the cost of the grant in aid to the private finance panel executive as announced on 21 July,Official Report, column 426 and will be fully offset by savings from within the vote.

  The running costs limit will be reduced by £885,000 from £80,969,000 to £80,084,000 mainly reflecting the transfer of the cost of security guards—£830,000—to the Cabinet Office, class XIX, vote 1.

  Central Statistical Office
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes are proposed to the Central Statistical Office's cash and running costs limits in 1994–95.

  Mr. Nelson
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class XVII, vote 13 will be increased by £3,221,000 from £44,781,000 to £48,002,000 and the running costs limit by £3,261,000 to £48,463,000. These increases reflect:

  (a) A transfer from the Department of National Heritage (Class XI, Vote 7) (£3,080,000), in respect of funding for the International Passenger Survey.

  (b) A transfer from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Class III, vote 5) (£36,000), in respect of the collection of producer prices information.

  (c) The take up of entitlement under the end year flexibility scheme for running costs (£105,000).

  (d) Additional running costs in respect of increased sales of publications, offset by a corresponding increase in Appropriations in aid (£40,000).

  (e) Expenditure required to fund a capital project, offset by a corresponding increase in Appropriations in aid (£100,000).

  The increase are offset by inter-departmental transfers and additional receipts or are charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parliamentary Running Costs
  Mr. Grocott
  ]: To ask the Lord President of the Council what is the current annual cost of maintaining and running the House of Lords.

  Mr. Newton
  The information requested can be obtained from the House of Lords "Annual Report and Accounts", HL 86, a copy of which is held in the Library.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Disabled People
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if the resultant additional expenses, in particular the services of a carer, can be reimbursed by the appropriate administrative department when the hearing of a case at a Crown, county or magistrates court involving a disabled person has to be re-sited because of difficulties of access for that disabled person.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  In criminal cases, additional travelling and associated costs properly incurred by a disabled witness or successful defendant may be allowed from public funds. The costs incurred by a carer who necessarily attends may also be allowed. In civil proceedings, the parties' costs are a matter to be determined by the court.

  Northern Ireland Court Service
  Mr. Coe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary Lord Chancellor's Department, what changes have been made
  1003
  to the class IX vote 3 cash limit and running costs limit for the Northern Ireland court service.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class IX, vote 3 has been increased by £758,000 from £26,151,000 to £29,909,000 and the running costs limit by £758,000 from £17,254,000 to £18,012,000. The vote is eligible for a cash limit increase of £94,000 in respect of the end-year flexibility arrangements for running costs. This supplementary estimate gives effect to that increase. The further increase arises out of the transfer from the Crown property unit of the cost of the payment of contributions in lieu of rates.

ENVIRONMENT

  Privatisation
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the privatisations which his Department has promoted since 1979 indicating, in each case, the date of the sale, the proceeds of the sale, and the estimated current value of the company.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Since 1979, my Department has promoted the following privatisations:

  Sale

  Date of Sale

  Net Proceeds from Sale £ millions

  Shares in 10 water holding companies

  December 1989

  15,093·7

  Property Services Agency (PSA) Projects

  1 December 1992

  –49·9

  PSA Services Building Management (BM) Scotland

  1 September 1993

  3·5

  PSA Services BM Manchester

  1 October 1993

  –11·5

  PSA Services North East BM

  1 October 1993

  8.0

  PSA Services BM South East and BM South West

  1 October 1993

  10·4

  My Department promoted the sale of the Crown Suppliers in 1990. The sale was not concluded and the organisation closed on 31 March 1991.

  In addition, the Hydraulics Research Station became private research association on 1 April 1982.

  Details of the current value of each holding are not a matter for my Department.

  1Includes the sale of Welsh Water by the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Water and Sewerage Services
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the powers which rest with the Director General of Water Services to determine the method of charging for water and sewerage services in England and Wales.

  Mr. Atkins
  The method of charging water and sewerage services in England and Wales is a matter for the water and sewerage companies. The Director General 1004
  of Water Services has no powers to determine the method of charging, but he does have powers, in section 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991, to ensure—subject to his obligation to secure that the companies can properly finance the carrying out of their functions—that the interests of customers and potential customers are protected as regards the fixing and recovery of charges by the companies.

  Commission for New Towns
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment who is to be the new chairman of the Commission for New Towns; and who are its board members.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  An announcement about the new chairman of CNT will be made in due course. The current board members are as follows:

  Sir Neil Shields MC (Chairman)

  Lord Finsberg MBE (Deputy Chairman)

  Lord Bellwin JP

  Mr. R. B. Caws OBE

  Mr. F. C. Graves OBE, DL

  Sir Brian Jenkins GBE

  Ms W. Luscombe

  Mr. M. H. Mallinson

  Lady Marsh

  Mr. J. R. Trustam Eve

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average cost to his Department of answering(a) a written and (b) an oral parliamentary question.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The latest estimate of the costs of preparing answers to both written and oral questions was given in the reply by the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell) to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) on 30 November 1993,Official Report, column 387.

  Teesside Development Corporation
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what current developments Teesside development corporation has in hand; and if he will make a statement on progress to date.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Teesside development corporation has the following schemes currently under way: At Hartlepool, the corporation has just opened a major new tourist attraction, the Hartlepool historic quay, which is well on its way to achieving its target of 250,000 visitors per annum. The opening of the centre has already led to the attraction of substantial private sector investment in complementary developments such as a factory shopping complex, superstore, food courts, public house and restaurant and negotiations are also under way for further commercial and residential schemes.

  At Teesside the corporation is continuing in its drive to transform 100 hectares of formerly derelict land into a high-quality development incorporating commercial, office, residential, retail, educational and leisure facilities. To that end, the Tees barrage, which was commissioned in September 1994, will be fully operational in 1995. This

  1005
  will dramatically improve the environment and water quality of the Tees providing a prestigious and dramatic setting for water sports and recreation. It will also lead to the attraction of further private investment on high-quality sites with attractive water frontage.

  Preston farm, the corporation's main industrial and business site continue to attract new private sector investment. The latest success is the announcement of the creation of 1,000 new jobs within a three-year period by the international cable company COMCAST.

  Overall, the Teesside development corporation in its first six years to 31 March 1994 has achieved the following:
  - 7,000 new jobs in new floorspace
  - 274,000 sq m of new floorspace
  - 700 houses completed with a further 350 underway.
  - £715 million of private sector investment attracted to the area.
  - 330 hectares of land reclaimed.
  - Over 6,000 jobs provided in the construction industry.
  - Over 300 companies assisted to expand and/or to relocate to Teesside
  - £53 million of receipts.
  - £10 million of European assistance secured.
  - Integrated the community into its developments by promoting schemes such as social and sheltered housing, training initiatives, a new University College, two nursing homes, a Community Farm, an Enterprise and Training Centre and wide-spread environmental improvements.

  Belgrave Residents Association, Leicester
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will invite the district auditor to investigate the use of public money by the Belgrave residents association in the city of Leicester and the means by which it came by and disposed of public funds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  No. If my hon. Friend has concerns about the use of local authority funds he should refer the matter to the district auditor for investigation.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is his policy on limiting increases in SSAs over the next two years for local authority expenditure levels;

  Properties with rate bills affected by transitional arrangements in 1994–95, England

  Size of property

  Reduction in bill due to transition

  (1) Number (000's)

  (2) Actual rates bill with transition £ million

  (3) Rates bill without transition £ million

  (4) Amount £ million

  (5) Amount per cent.

  Small

  275

  335

  450

  115

  74

  Large

  55

  1,050

  1,435

  385

  73

  All

  330

  1,385

  1,885

  500

  73

  Source:

  Inland Revenue

  Notes:

  1. Figures (except percentages) are rounded to nearest 5 units.

  2. Small properties have a 1 April 1990 rateable value less than £10,000 (£15,000 in London).

  3. Column 4 is column 3 less column 2.

  4. Column 5 is column 2 as a percentage of column 3.

  1006
  (2) what discussions he has had with his colleagues regarding levels of SSAs; and what effects these will have on local government expenditure over the next two years.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  My right hon. Friend regularly discusses the future spending needs of local government with colleagues. Conclusions from these discussions will be announced in due course.

  Leicester City Council
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will invite the district auditor to investigate the sale by Leicester city council of land to a temple, a mosque and a gurdwara in Hamilton in Leicester; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  No. This is not a matter for the Government. If my hon. Friend has concerns about any financial transactions by the local authority he should refer the matter to the district auditor.

  Non-domestic Rates
  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will estimate the number of hereditaments where the transition for the 1990 change is likely to be incomplete at 31 March 1995 but is likely to be (i) complete and (ii) more nearly complete at 1 April 1995 by virtue of a reduction in the rateable value from the date;

  (2) how many hereditaments in England which currently fall (a) below and (b) above the threshold of rateable value, for determining whether the lower limit on year-on-year increases in non-domestic rates bills applies, there are estimated to be for which the transition to the rateable value and national non-domestic rate introduced in April 1990 will not have been completed at 31 March 1995; and if he will estimate (i) the average percentage and (ii) the aggregate amount by which the 1994–95 rates bills for those hereditaments falls below the amount which would have been payable without transitional relief.

  Mr. Curry
  The information about properties in England which are currently in transition is contained in the table. Assuming for illustrative purposes that the rate poundage is unchanged in real terms between 1994–95 and 1995–96, preliminary results from the 1995 revaluation suggest that 35,000 of an estimated 330,000 properties in transition at 31 March 1995 would find themselves with no further increase next year and 50,000 would be closer to reaching their full liability than they are now.

  Source: Inland Revenue: estimates rounded to nearest 5,000.
  1007
  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what studies he has commissioned, internally and from external consultants, of the likely impact of the April 1995 revaluation of non-domestic property in England on rateable values and non-domestic rate bills in different regions and different sectors of the economy; if he will publish those studies, or summary thereof; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will list the regions, sectors and types of hereditament most affected by large increases or decreases in non-domestic rates.

  Provisional estimates of impact of 1995 revaluation on rateable value. Average percentage increase (+)/decrease (-) in 1995 list RV compared with 1990 list RV

  Region

  Property type

  Shops

  Offices

  Warehouses

  Factories

  Other

  All

  South west

  +7

  +13

  +12

  +2

  +17

  +11

  Rest of South east

  +2

  –12

  +7

  +2

  +12

  +2

  East Anglia

  +12

  +14

  +9

  +3

  +15

  +11

  North west

  +31

  +51

  +46

  +31

  +21

  +32

  Northern

  +30

  +50

  +43

  +20

  +16

  +24

  East Midlands

  +22

  +35

  +21

  +15

  +17

  +20

  West Midlands

  +31

  +54

  +49

  +40

  +9

  +34

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  +27

  +56

  +32

  +23

  +14

  +26

  Inner London

  –16

  –59

  –14

  –14

  –3

  –40

  Outer London

  +12

  –5

  +5

  –8

  +13

  +5

  All

  +10

  –29

  +17

  +13

  +13

  +1

  Source:

  Inland Revenue

  Note:

  All number are still subject to change, possibly significant, as the revaluation work progresses.

  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many hereditaments in England which fall(a) below and (b) above the threshold rateable value, for determining whether the lower limit on year-on-year increases in non-domestic rates bills applies, there are estimated to be whose rates bills for 1995–96 in the absence of transitional relief and assuming the rate poundage as adjusted for the revaluation is indexed for inflation would be (i) under 50 per cent., (ii) between 50 and 80 per cent., (iii) between 80 and 120 per cent., (iv)

  Estimated increase or decrease in rate bills in England between 1994–95 and 1995–96 as a result of the 1995 revaluation, in the absence of transitional relief

  1995–96 bills as a percentage of 1994–95 bills

  Small properties

  Large properties

  Total

  Number (000s)

  Change in bills £ million

  Number (000s)

  Change in bills £ million

  Number (000s)

  Change in bills £ million

  <50

  10

  —320

  15

  –730

  25

  –1050

  50–80

  35

  –80

  25

  —315

  60

  –400

  80–120

  335

  45

  145

  105

  500

  150

  120–200

  695

  670

  165

  1130

  865

  1805

  200–500

  145

  220

  20

  345

  165

  565

  >500

  10

  40

  —

  90

  10

  130

  Total

  1255

  575

  370

  625

  1630

  1200

  Source:

  Inland Revenue

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to nearest 5 units. ('—' means less than 3 units).

  2. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

  3. Small properties have a 1 April 1990 rateable value less than £10,000 (£15,000 in London).

  1008
  Mr. Curry
  The Inland Revenue is analysing the results of the revaluation as they come in. Although numbers are subject to change, our current estimate of the effect of the revaluation on rateable values is given in the table. The effect on rates bills will depend on the multiplier which is determined for 1995–96, and on the final form of our proposed transitional arrangements for the 1995 revaluation, details of which are contained in a consultation paper that we issued on 3 October. Copies of the consultation paper are in the Library and we expect to announce our decisions by the end of November.

  between 120 and 200 per cent., (v) between 200 and 500 per cent. and (vi) over 500 per cent. of their bills for 1994–95; and if he will estimate for each of those categories the aggregate increase or decrease in the rates bills between the two years.

  Mr. Curry
  Estimates for England based on preliminary results of the 1995 revaluation are given in the table. It has been assumed for illustrative purposes that the rate poundage is unchanged in real terms between 1994–95 and 1995–96.
  1009
  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the regions, sectors and types of hereditament where there is the greatest incidence of incomplete transition to the rateable value and national non-domestic rate introduced in April 1990.

  Mr. Curry
  The greatest incidence of property in England currently remaining in transition under the 1990

  Percentage of properties estimated to be in transition in inner London area as at 31 March 1995

  Properties in transition as a proportion of total number of properties in each class per cent.

  Size

  Shops

  Offices

  Warehouses

  Factories

  Other

  Small

  50

  35

  40

  30

  50

  Large

  60

  30

  20

  20

  60

  Source:

  Inland Revenue

  Note:

  Small properties have a 1 April 1990 rateable value less than £10,000 (£15,000 in London).

  Repair Costs
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what evidence he has on the number of local authorities which have incurred significant losses as a result of a failure to bill leaseholders for repair costs.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  None. The Department does not collect information in this form.

  Westminster City Council
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what investigation his Department is making into Westminster city council's failure to recover repair costs from leaseholders.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  It is not the role of the Department to carry out such investigations. This is a matter for the authority's auditors.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the reasons for the qualification of Westminster city council's accounts for 1993–94.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  No. This is a matter for the local authority and its appointed auditor.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the additional cost to tenants in Westminster of the failure of the council to recover repair costs from leaseholders.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The Department has no details of the alleged undercharging by Westminster city council, and has made no estimate of the cost to tenants.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the date by which the last council tax banding appeals are expected to be heard(a) by county and (b) by district in Berkshire.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  We expect four out of five initial appeal period appeals to be settled before the end of this year. The remainder will be settled as soon as possible in 1995. I cannot estimate a date by which all such appeals will have been settled since a few may be affected by special factors—such as an appeal on a point of law to the High Court.

  In limited circumstances—for example, on a change of occupier or in the case of a material change affecting the
  1010
  scheme is the inner London, with 45 per cent. of its properties in transition. The incidence is greater than elsewhere for each main sector of the economy, regardless of whether the 1 April 1990 rateable value of property is more or less than the £15,000 threshold used for determining entitlement to transitional relief. The figures for each class of property are given in the table.

  property—appeals can still be made after the end of the initial period.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the percentage of new properties awaiting banding, which has been waiting more than one year(a) by county and (b) by district in Berkshire;

  (2) what is the expected date by which the last of the new properties that have been waiting more than a year for their banding will have been banded (a) by county and (b) by district in Berkshire.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The local office structure of the Valuation Office Agency is not based on county boundaries and the information for each county is not held centrally. Of the dwellings to be added to valuation lists in the county and district areas of Berkshire, as at 28 October, the following percentage had been outstanding for more than a year:-

  per cent.

  Berkshire

  12·4

  Bracknell Forest

  3·4

  Newbury

  21·1

  Reading

  6·5

  Slough

  2·5

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  4·0

  Wokingham

  18·9

  The Valuation Office Agency at Reading expects to have these dwellings entered in valuation lists before the end of November this year.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total number of council tax banding appeals made(a) by county and (b) by district in Berkshire.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The local office structure of the Valuation Office Agency is not based on county boundaries and the information requested at(a) is not held centrally.

  The number of council tax banding appeals made, as at 28 October, in each district of Berkshire are as follows:

  Appeals

  Berkshire

  17,821

  Bracknell Forest

  1,756

  Newbury

  3,663

  Reading

  4,669

  1011

  Appeals

  Slough

  1,276

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  3,359

  Wokingham

  3,098

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council tax banding appeals were heard by 30 September(a) by county and (b) by district in Berkshire.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The local office structure of the Valuation Office Agency is not based on counties. The only centrally held statistics that provide figures for counties are those relating to appeals made during the initial period. The number of initial period council tax banding appeals settled by the end of September were as follows:

  Appeals

  (a) County

  Avon

  12,157

  Bedfordshire

  5,649

  Berkshire

  9,616

  Buckinghamshire

  9,156

  Cambridgeshire

  5,616

  Cheshire

  10,991

  Cleveland

  3,535

  Cornwall

  8,749

  Cumbria

  7,721

  Derbyshire

  10,602

  Devon

  19,339

  Dorset

  11,563

  Durham

  5,432

  East Sussex

  11,089

  Essex

  19,867

  Gloucestershire

  11,086

  Hampshire

  18,297

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  10,740

  Hertfordshire

  9,078

  Humberside

  7,693

  Isle of Wight

  2,330

  Kent

  19,312

  Lancashire

  15,432

  Leicestershire

  8,588

  Lincolnshire

  8,068

  Norfolk

  8,511

  Northamptonshire

  6,358

  Northumberland

  4,432

  North Yorkshire

  14,140

  Nottinghamshire

  9,745

  Oxford

  10,091

  Shropshire

  6,670

  Somerset

  8,709

  Staffordshire

  9,463

  Suffolk

  7,200

  Surrey

  14,919

  Warwickshire

  6,444

  West Sussex

  10,971

  Wiltshire

  9,801

  Isles of Scilly

  165

  Inner London

  36,284

  Outer London

  44,834

  Greater Manchester

  16,016

  Merseyside

  8,870

  South Yorkshire

  6,900

  Tyne and Wear

  6,564

  West Midlands

  14,966

  West Yorkshire

  18,663

  (b) Billing authority in Berkshire

  Bracknell Forest

  845

  Newbury

  1,791

  1012

  Appeals

  Reading

  2,413

  Slough

  781

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  1,935

  Wokingham

  1,851

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new properties are awaiting banding(a) by county and (b) by district in Berkshire.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The local office structure of the Valuation Office Agency is not based on county boundaries and the information for each county is not held centrally.

  Of the dwellings notified to the VOA office at Reading, as at 28 October, the following number had yet to be entered in valuation lists:

  Number

  Berkshire

  1,577

  Bracknell Forest

  116

  Newbury

  452

  Reading

  367

  Slough

  119

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  222

  Wokingham

  301

  Scrap Yards
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends that the new controls envisaged in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 should be enforced in relation to scrap yards.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer the hon. Lady to the reply given to the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) on 21 October 1994,Official Report, column 352.

  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to take action to prevent scrap yards from being a source of pollution.

  Mr. Atkins
  The recovery of scrap metal is subject to licensing under part I of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. Waste regulation authorities have a duty under section 9 of the 1974 Act to ensure that licensed activities do not cause pollution of water, danger to public health or serious detriment to local amenities; and to ensure that licence conditions are complied with.

  Home Improvement Agency
  Mr. Hawksley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what conclusion he has reached in his review of the Home Improvement Agency grant programme.

  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what conclusions he has reached following his review of the Home Improvement Agency grant programme.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The review has confirmed that home improvement agencies provide an important service helping a large and increasing number of vulnerable people improve their homes. Their work is highly valued by both clients and practitioners, especially local authorities, and makes a significant contribution to the effective delivery of housing and community care policies.
  1013
  We have therefore concluded that the grant programme should continue for a further five years from 1 April 1995. We are now considering the detailed arrangements under which the programme will operate in the light of suggestions made by consultees.

  I am placing in the Library a report of the studies which informed the review, together with a list of the responses received to the consultation letter issued by my Department in June. Copies of individual responses may be obtained through the Library.

  Rural Development Commission
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish a management statement on relations between his Department and the Rural Development Commission.

  Mr. Atkins
  I am issuing the management statement today. Copies are available in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Cash and Running Costs Limits
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to change his Department's cash limits and running costs limits for 1994–95.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Department of the Environment/regeneration initiative non-voted cash limit will be increased by £25,081,000 from £1,267,772,000 to £1,292,853,000. Capital end-year flexibility take-up of £28,288,000 will fund payments on capital projects which slipped from previous years for the Victoria arena, Urban Regeneration Agency, housing action trusts, Plymouth development corporation, Central Manchester development corporation, city challenge and the coalfield areas fund. A transfer of £3,000,000 to class VII, vote 1—housing, England,—is necessary to meet an equivalent increase in city challenge Housing Corporation expenditure and a transfer of £207,000 to the Department of Health is necessary for urban programme payments. There will be associated increases to external financing limits as follows: by £3,000,000 from £5,800,000 to £8,800,000 for Central Manchester development corporation; by £1,000,000 from £30,500,000 to £31,500,000 for Tyne and Wear development corporation; by £1,639,000 from £6,500,000 to £8,139,000 for Plymouth development corporation; by £2,500,000 from £88,215,000 to £90,715,000 for the housing action trusts; and by £21,470,000 from £95,336,000 to £116,806,000 for the Urban Regeneration Agency—English Partnerships.

  The cash limit for class VII, vote 5—central environmental services, etc—will be reduced by £1,309,000 from £440,954,000 to £439,645,000 to reflect savings in grant in aid paid to the Rural Development Commission and expenditure forecast under various subheads.

  The cash limit for class VII, vote 8—revenue support grant, payments of non-domestic rates, Valuation Office services, etc., England—will be increased by £2,166,000 from £29,632,166,000 to £29,634,332,000. This comprises an increase of £3,452,000 in provision for Valuation Office rating services repayment, an increase of
  1014
  £214,000 in provision for Valuation Office banding and valuation services, and an offsetting reduction of £1,500,000 in provision for valuation tribunals.

  The Department of the Environment/local government reorganisation etc. cash limit will be reduced by £3,800,000 from £58,000,000 to £54,200,000. This comprises a reduction of £1,000,000 in provision for supplementary credit approvals to local authorities in respect of commutation of loan charge grants, and a reduction of £2,800,000 in borrowing provision for the local government residuary body.

  All increases will be offset by savings or charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, what amendments he proposes to make to the Town and Country Planning General Development Order following coal privatisation; and what guidance he proposes to issue.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Town and Country Planning General Development Order (Amendment No. 2) Order 1994 which comes into operation on 31 October provides for permitted development rights for licensees of the Coal Authority to continue underground mining at GDO mines subject to conditions requiring the restoration and aftercare of the pithead surface area. These require the operator to submit a scheme for the restoration and aftercare of the site for the Mineral Planning Authority's approval.

  There are also a number of minor technical amendments needed to the GDO, broadly to change references to British Coal to the Coal Authority and to update definitions in line with the Coal Industry Act, 1994.

  The guidance note that we have published today explains the effect of the changes introduced by the amendment order and gives advice on the preparation and content of restoration schemes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has made equivalent arrangements.

  Recycling
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the Government intend to respond to the second report from the Environment Select Committee on recycling, HC (1993–94) 63.

  Mr. Atkins
  I am pleased to announce that our response to the Environment Select Committee's report on recycling is being published today; copies have been laid in the Journal Office.

  The Government welcome the Environment Committee's wide-ranging and thoughtful report. The report comes at an opportune moment. A range of United Kingdom and international initiatives on waste management are currently being developed. These have the broad aim of securing a more sustainable approach to waste management and increased beneficial use of unavoidable wastes. The report will provide a focal point

  1015
  for informed debate of the many complex issues that need to be addressed.

  The Government are particularly pleased to see the Environment Committee's recognition that recycling should not be pursued for its own sake. It must be seen as part of an integrated approach to waste management. We are also pleased to endorse the Committee's view of the waste management hierarchy as a decision-making tool which balances the environmental and economic considerations in each case. We announced in July that we intend to build upon these principles in the development of a waste strategy for England and Wales.

  Recycling will have an important place in that strategy. In part, this is because recycling is the best option for many wastes—but also, as the Environment Committee point out in its report, because the expansion of recycling and increased opportunities for individual participation can he a springboard for wider environmental awareness and action.

  Grant-in-Aid

  Permanent Jobs1

  £ millions

  (i) Manufacturing

  (ii) Commercial

  (iii) Retail

  (iv) Office

  (v) Other

  Total

  London

  Docklands

  21610·9

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n\a

  n\a

  56,200

  Merseyside

  313·4

  32,400

  32,500

  32,350

  33,125

  3230

  10,605

  Black Country

  253·4

  8,390

  338

  1,040

  1,190

  439

  11,397

  Teeside

  237·3

  4,064

  243

  852

  1,672

  208

  7,039

  Trafford Park

  153·8

  4,359

  4,165

  1,139

  4,312

  819

  14,794

  Tyne and Wear

  227·6

  1,898

  45,713

  —

  —

  8,631

  16,242

  Bristol

  71·0

  —

  1,166

  79

  1,000

  5

  2,250

  Central Manchester

  67·2

  —

  —

  190

  3,341

  1,146

  4,677

  Leeds

  51·5

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  8,218

  Sheffield

  74·9

  1,299

  207

  7,512

  759

  305

  10,082

  Birmingham Heartlands

  15·7

  137

  405

  20

  136

  —

  698

  Plymouth

  7·9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  3,084·6

  142,202

  Notes

  All figures are up to 31 March 1994.

  n/a—Breakdown not available.

  1Permanent jobs = gross jobs provided by first-time occupiers of newly completed development (new build and conversion) in the Designated Area who took up occupation over the reporting period.

  2 Excludes docklands light railway.

  3 Provisional figures based on a preliminary analysis.

  4 Includes office.

  Commentary

  In five cases—Birmingham Heartlands, London Docklands, Sheffield, Teesside and Trafford Park—the employment figures vary from those previously published (Hansard 14 July 1994, Col. 771). The substantial downward revisions of the London Docklands and Teesside totals reflect the fact that the earlier numbers had been built up by combining total employment in the area in 1991 with gross jobs subsequently created.

  Grant-in-Aid

  Private sector investment

  £ millions

  £ millions

  (i) Manufacturing

  (ii) Commercial

  (iii) Retail

  (iv) Office

  (v) Other

  Total

  London

  Docklands

  11610·9

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  5,993·0

  Merseyside

  313·4

  236·2

  237·7

  223·9

  275·4

  2127·8

  301·0

  Black Country

  253·4

  385·7

  13·8

  24·3

  9·9

  146·3

  580·0

  Teeside

  237·3

  500·4

  64·3

  50·1

  64·3

  35·7

  714·8

  Trafford Park

  153·8

  474·0

  50·0

  10·0

  165·0

  20·1

  719·1

  Tyne and Wear

  227·6

  78·5

  3252·7

  1·7

  —

  270·1

  603·0

  Bristol

  71·0

  —

  73·1

  41·5

  44·0

  16·4

  175·0

  Central Manchester

  67·2

  —

  —

  4·0

  92·0

  181·3

  277·3

  Development Corporations
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each development corporation since it inception(a) its total budget, (b) the number of jobs created and (c) the role of private sector investment made in its area, with the jobs and investment broken down into (i) manufacturing, (ii) commercial, (iii) retailing, (iv) office and (v) other.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  [holding answer 26 October 1994]: The urban development corporations' programmes are supported by grant in aid, receipts from their activities and funds from the European Community. The table shows the total grant in aid paid to each corporation since its inception; the gross number of new permanent jobs; and the private sector investment in developments in the designated area. Where information is available, the figures for jobs and private sector investment have been broken down into; (i) manufacturing; (ii) commercial; (iii) retailing; (iv) office; and (v) other.
  1017

  Grant-in-Aid

  Private sector investment

  £ millions

  £ millions

  (i) Manufacturing

  (ii) Commercial

  (iii) Retail

  (iv) Office

  (v) Other

  Total

  Leeds

  51·5

  104·0

  3117·0

  35·0

  —

  61·0

  317·0

  Sheffield

  74·9

  35·9

  39·8

  412·4

  27·0

  17·5

  532·6

  Birmingham Heartlands

  15·7

  7·4

  31·8

  2·0

  5·0

  0·1

  46·3

  Plymouth

  7·9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  3,084·6

  10,259·1

  Notes:

  All figures are up to 31 March 1994.

  n/a—Breakdown not available.

  1 Excludes Docklands Light Railway.

  2 Provisional figures based on a preliminary analysis.

  3Includes office.

  Commentary:

  In five cases—Birmingham Heartlands, London Docklands, Sheffield, Teeside and Trafford Park—the employment figures vary from those previously published in Hansard, 14 July 1994, column 771. The substantial downward revisions of the London Docklands and Teeside totals reflect the fact that the earlier numbers had been built up by combining total employment in the area in 1991 with gross jobs subsequently created.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what additional safety precautions would be required to permit the burying of low-level nuclear waste on landfill tips;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the implications of water pollution at Beighton tip, Sheffield for the suitability of the tip for the burying of low-level nuclear waste.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 31 October 1994]A small number of landfill sites, including Beighton tip, already receive some low-level radioactive waste for controlled burial. Authorisations for all such disposals are issued by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution under the terms of the Radioactive Substances Act 1993. These are designed to ensure the safe disposal of this waste. Conditions in the authorisations are determined on a case by case basis depending on the nature of the sites and the activity and amount of the wastes.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what plans he has to consult local communities in the vicinities of landfill tips which are being considered for the burying of low-level nuclear waste;

  (2) if he will make it his policy that local communities are consulted before any nuclear waste is deposited in landfill tips.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 31 October 1994]In addition to the specific requirements of the Radioactive Substances Act 1993, it is already the practice of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to consult the relevant waste regulatory authority, local councils, and water undertaker, before issuing authorisations for controlled burial of low-level radioactive waste at landfill sites. The Government are currently consulting on proposals to encourage greater use of controlled burial. However, there are no plans in relation to specific sites.

  Ofwat
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the cost to Ofwat of its contract with Ludgate Laud for parliamentary lobbying in the present year.
  1018
  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer, 31 October 1994]This is a matter for the Director General of Water Services.

  Economic Development Expenditure
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the total spending on economic development measures by(a) the five west Yorkshire district councils, (b) the four south Yorkshire district councils, (c) North Yorkshire county council and (d) Humberside county council under the Housing and Local Government Act 1989 in each financial year since 1989–90.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  [holding answer 31 October 1994]Section 33 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 allows local authorities to take "such steps as they may from time to time consider appropriate for promoting the economic development of their area". The Department of the Environment does not collect information about expenditure specifically related to section 33, although it does record a number of items of local authority expenditure which can be totalled to produce a figure for economic development generally. For each of the local authorities identified, this gives the following figures for net current and capital expenditure respectively:

  1990–91 £000s

  1991–92 £000s

  1992–93 £000s

  1993–94 £000s

  Net current expenditure

  County Councils

  Humberside

  1,368

  1,899

  1,870

  1,921

  North Yorkshire

  577

  685

  271

  736

  District Councils

  Barnsley

  349

  302

  247

  2,691

  Doncaster

  202

  48

  252

  647

  Rotherham

  -428

  -352

  -138

  -460

  Sheffield

  461

  —

  2,967

  2,749

  Bradford

  1,425

  1,606

  1,750

  1,486

  Calderdale

  570

  581

  280

  193

  Kirklees

  1,468

  1,778

  2,091

  1,950

  Leeds

  1,879

  2,148

  2,004

  48

  Wakefiels

  —

  —

  2,258

  2,110

  1019

  1990–91 £000s

  1991–92 £000s

  1992–93 £000s

  1993–94 £000s

  Capital Expenditure

  County Councils

  Humberside

  226

  293

  271

  269

  North Yorkshire

  183

  213

  —

  —

  District Councils

  Barnsley

  992

  1,246

  1,754

  4,533

  Doncaster

  3,985

  1,287

  6,025

  2,851

  Rotherham

  303

  199

  732

  —

  Sheffield

  9,461

  1,415

  1,238

  n/a

  Bradford

  5,427

  2,637

  1,881

  6,712

  Calderdale

  1,242

  449

  152

  1,019

  Kirklees

  875

  2,151

  2,231

  3,622

  Leeds

  3,304

  5,940

  4,455

  8,613

  Wakefiels

  5,597

  3,239

  2,326

  1,672

  Rents
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the average weekly rent paid by people earning less than £10,000 in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Curry
  [pursuant to his reply, 25 October 1994, c. 531]Estimates of the average rent paid by households in England headed by people with annual incomes less than £10,000 are as follows:

  Average weekly rents, before and after deduction of Housing Benefit

  £ per week

  Before deduction of housing benefit

  After deduction of housing benefit

  1990

  28·10

  15·60

  1991

  30·10

  14·80

  1992

  35·10

  16·00

  1993

  39·60

  16·90

  These figures are from the family expenditure survey and are subject to sampling error.

  The estimates do not take into account the income of householders other than the head of household.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list for 1992–93 and 1993–94 the amount spent in each London borough, with totals for each training and enterprise council area, under each of the programmes now incorporated into the single regeneration budget, and the amount allocated to be spent in 1994–95 on the same basis.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment on 27 October 1994,Official Report, column 813.

  Anti-personnel Mines
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the President of the I3oard of Trade (1) what is his policy regarding possible future 1020
  exports of casings or components for anti-personnel mines with self-destruct or self-neutralising mechanisms;

  (2) what is his policy regarding possible future exports of anti-personnel mines with self-destruct or self-neutralising mechanisms.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  We have not produced or exported any anti-personnel mines for some years. Nevertheless, any applications to export these forms of mines or their components would be subject to rigorous scrutiny on a case by case basis, with due regard to proposed end users and their adherence to protocol II of the 1981 United Nations weaponry convention.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what failure rate is allowed in the definition of a self-destruct or self-neutralising mechanism on an anti-personnel mine employed by Her Majesty's Government for export purposes.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Applications for licences for the export of anti-personnel mines have not been received for some years and the United Kingdom does not currently produce or export such mines. Failure rate would not, however, be a factor taken into account in considering applications for licences to export such mines. We are working positively towards incorporating achievable criteria into the revised 1981 United Nations weaponry convention which governs the use of such weapons.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the definition of anti-personal mine employed by Her Majesty's Government for export purposes.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Exports of anti-personnel mines are controlled under munitions list 4 of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 and our own recently announced export moratorium. Although currently no formal definition on anti-personnel mine is used, companies making applications for licences to export any weapons are required to state the purpose for which those weapons are to be used.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what research he has carried out into the impact of production and export of anti-personnel mines with self-destruct or self-neutralising mechanisms by the United Kingdom on the production and export of anti-personnel mines of all types by developing countries; and what were his conclusions.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  No such research has been undertaken by my Department.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade to which countries the United Kingdom has exported casings or components for anti-personnel mines since 1982.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Details of any export licences approved for this equipment could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement o the value of savings identified by Stoy Hayward as obtainable if the work of the Insolvency Service is contracted out; and when details of the cost and savings will be published.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Stoy Hayward offer no quantified estimates of potential savings. Detailed information on the costs and the interest of private sector organisations
  1021
  provided to Stoy Hayward Consulting remains confidential.

  Steel
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the President of the board of Trade what assessment he has made of the effect the recent decision of the European Commission in respect of steel will have on British Steel; and if he will make a statement about the United Kingdom steel industry.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I expect that the reported demise of the restructuring plan for the European steel industry will have little effect on British Steel, as it is simply an acknowledgement of what has been apparent for some time. The demise only reinforces the view of both the Government and the United Kingdom steel industry that the only way to achieve successful restructuring of the industry is by strict control of subsidies. The Commission should now be free to devote more effort to achieving this.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the European Commission steel industry restructuring plans.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I was not surprised when the Commission recently announced that the restructuring plan for the European steel industry was dead. The demise of the plan reinforces the Government's view that the only way to achieve successful restructuring of the industry is by strict control of subsidies, so that the inefficient producers come under commercial pressure to make closures where necessary. The Commission should now be free to devote more effort to achieving this.

  Parliamentary Consultancies
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it a requirement for companies to disclose publicly the nature of any parliamentary consultancy they may enter into with an hon. Member and the remuneration.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Such consultancies are already subject to disclosure in the Register of Members' Interests. I have no plans to introduce new Companies Act requirements.

  Public Appointments
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of public appointments made by his Department were held by women at the most recent date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The 1994 figures are not yet available. "Public Bodies 1993" shows that, at 1 September 1993, 19 per cent. of the Department's appointments were held by women. The Department is fully committed to equal opportunities for women in public appointments, and has set itself a goal of increasing the number of women in DTI public appointments to 30 per cent. by 1996.

  Nuclear Review
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the total number of submissions received in response to his public consultation on the nuclear review; how many of the submissions have now been placed in the Library; and what is the reason for not placing in the 1022
  Library the submission of the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent.

  Mr. Eggar
  There have been 505 formal submissions to the nuclear review: 200 of these, from the nuclear industry and other representative bodies and organisations, have been treated as substantive and placed in the Libraries of both Houses in accordance with my announcement of 19 May,Official Report columns 545–46. This includes the submission from the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith), and I understand that the Library will be writing to confirm this.

  Optical Fibre Networks
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when Her Majesty's Government will respond to the third report from the Trade and Industry Committee of Session 1993–94 on optical fibre networks, HC 285.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The Government will publish shortly a Command Paper setting out the opportunities for the United Kingdom arising from the further development of broadband communications networks and services. This Command Paper will incorporate the Government's response to the Trade and Industry Select Committee's report on optical fibre.

  Information Super-highway
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what efforts his Department is making to ensure that the largest possible number of individuals and organisations are connected to the information super-highway.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The Government will publish shortly a Command Paper setting out the opportunities for the United Kingdom arising from the further development of broad-band communications networks and services.

  Entertainment Services (BT and Mercury)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to vary the ban on BT and Mercury providing entertainment services via their national networks; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) on 22 June 1994,Official Report, column 227.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what liability will pass to British Coal's successor in regard to the provision of superannuation cover in respect of those employees who accepted the British Coal contract of employment in 1994; and what provision has been made by British Coal to meet this obligation.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Successor companies will be liable only for employers' contribution to the new industry-wide schemes that are to be established and—except where a transferring employee also elects to transfer his past service entitlements—only in respect of transferred employees' future service with the successors. There is full provision for transferred employees' entitlements in respect of past service with British Coal within the funds of the existing pension schemes, now subject to guarantee by Government.
  1023
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what changes have been made to British Coal's external financing limit for 1994–95.

  Mr. Eggar
  The external financing limit of the British Coal Corporation has been increased from £700 million to £736 million. This is attributable to a variety of factors including the effect on cash flow of privatising British Coal's mining business.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what financial assistance is being provided towards the contracts recently entered into between Trafalgar house, PowerGen and British Gas with companies in Indonesia, the subject matter of the contracts, their total value and the identity of the Indonesian company in those contracts which involve a joint enterprise.

  Mr. Needham
  The DTI has awarded to Trafalgar house and a subsidiary company two grants under the overseas projects fund. These were to assist with a feasibility study and precontractual activities in Indonesia. Details of these grants are commercially confidential. Where appropriate, in accordance with the scheme rules, grants are repaid.

  In addition, in 1988, Her Majesty's Government offered aid funds under the aid and trade provision of £16·856 million in support of a bid by Trafalgar house to build a toll road between Cikampek and Padalarang at an estimated cost of £56 million. The final value of the contract is subject to ongoing negotiations. The Indonesian partner company is PT Jasa Marga (Persero).

  No financial assistance has been made available to PowerGen or British Gas.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which business people representing which companies were involved in the recent trade mission to Indonesia.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 31 October 1994]I visited Indonesia from 18 to 24 October 1994 and was accompanied by the following business people:

  Company

  Brian McCann Director Corporate Development

  AMEC Plc

  Adam Strachan-Stevens Regional Manager

  Avro International

  Ian Thomas Director, International Business Development

  Balfour Beatty

  David Moleshead Export Finance Director

  Banque Paribas, London

  Richard Beresford Manager, Indonesia Global Gas Division

  British Gas Plc

  David Payne Country Representative

  British Telecom

  Peter Burleigh Managing Director, Asia

  Cable and Wireless

  Ray Grimwood Managing Director

  Focas Limited

  Dr. Clive Palmer Director, Exports Division

  GEC Alstom

  1024

  Company

  Andrew Walker Director, PT Indurenco International

  High Point Rendell Group

  Barrie Gannon Chief Executive

  International Power Systems

  Mr. B Dewe Matthews Senior Director

  J. Henry Schroder Wagg

  Raymond McCabe Managing Director

  John Brown Engineering

  Clive Kerner Manager Project and Export Finance

  Kleinwort Benson

  Dr. Nicholas Crosby Office Manager (Indonesia)

  Kvaerner Boving Ltd.

  Roger Walker Chairman and Managing Director

  Long Products Ltd.

  Pat Dougan Chief Executive

  Mackie International

  Alan McCready Director Asia Pacific

  Mivan Group

  Carl Nuttall Managing Director (Australia)

  MMD Group

  Clare Phelan General Manager, Business Development

  National Grid Co Plc

  David Byers International Business Development Manger

  National Grid Co Plc

  Peter Windsor Director International Business

  National Power Plc

  David Smith Executive Project Manager

  Philips Telecom

  Peter Hughes Managing Director, PowerGen International

  PowerGen Plc

  James Carmichael Director, Business Development SE Asia

  PowerGen Plc

  Dr. B Sweeney Marketing Director

  Rolls Royce Industrial Power Group

  Rod Williams Regional Executive (Indonesia)

  Rolls Royce Industrial Power Group

  Roger Harman Business Unit Leader

  Sir Alexander Gibb

  Roger Liew Manager, International Desk

  Swindon Chamber of Commerce

  Douglas Watkinson Managing Director

  Termac Construction International

  John Swann Manager, Business Development (Asia)

  Taylor Woodrow International

  John Cotton Managing Director

  Westinghouse Brakes Ltd.

  Mr C W Lynch Projects Director

  Westinghouse Systems

  1025

  Company

  James Young Director, Project and Export Finance

  West Merchant Bank

  Dr D Keith Far East Director (Singapore)

  Wimpey Construction

  Non-fossil Fuel Obligation
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what date he expects to announce details of schemes that have been successful under the third non-fossil fuel obligation order.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My Department is currently assessing the cost and quality of the bids received, and carrying out the statutory and other consultations. I hope to be able to announce the order in early December.

  Cash and Running Costs Limits
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what changes will be made to his Department's cash limits and running costs limit for 1994–95.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, the cash limit for class IV, vote 1—support for business, consumer and investor protection, energy programmes and administration—will be increased by £12,525,000 from £1,173,077,000 to £1,185,602,000.

  The gross running costs limit for the Department of Trade and Industry is being increased by £14,217,000 from £328,000,000 to £342,217,000. This change comprises the take-up of £14,549,000 in running costs end-year flexibility as approved by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 14 July, Official Report, columns 729-34, and the transfer from Her Majesty's Treasury, class XVII, vote 1, of £3,000, offset by machinery of government transfers to the Department of Transport, class VI, vote 2, of £110,000, Office of the Rail Regulator, class VI, vote 8, of £197,000 and Oftel, class IV, vote 10, of £28,000.

  There are some other changes in the allocation of provision. These include a reduction in provision of £1,500,000 on support for business reflecting a forecast underspend and a new provision of £1,795,000 on privatisation and contractorisation of DTI laboratories, the balance being made up by a transfer of £295,000 from other services. They also include the transfer of £740,000 to the Scottish Office and £1,194,000 to the Welsh Office in respect of industrial programmes.

  In addition, subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class IV, vote 4, privatisation of the coal industry, will be increased by £3,402,000 from £12,495,000 to £15,897,000. The increase covers additional costs of privatisation advisers' fees.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what changes will be made to the cash limits and running costs limits for the Office of Electricity Regulation, Office of Gas Supply and Office of Telecommunications.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate the cash limit for class IV, vote 10, Office of Telecommunications will be 1026
  increased by £299,000 from £9,059,000 to £9,358,000 and the gross running costs limit by £299,000 from £8,627,000 to £8,926,000. The increase includes the take-up of running costs end-year flexibility of £171,000 as announced by the Chief Secretary on 14 July 1994, Official Report, columns 729£34, and increased provision for personnel services. The increase will be offset by transfers from the Department of Trade and Industry, class IV, vote 1, £28,000, and Office of Electricity Regulation, class IV, vote 12, £100,000.

  The cash limit for class IV, vote 11, Office and Gas supply, will be increased by £100,000 from £4,424,000 to £4,524,000. The increase is required for refitting and equipping new offices. The increase will be offset by a transfer from the Office of Electricity Regulation, class IV, vote 12, £100,000.

  As a consequence of the above, the cash limit for class IV, vote 12, Office of Electricity Regulation, class IV, vote 12, will be reduced by £200,000 from £10,871,000 to £10,671,000. The gross running costs limit will be reduced by £200,000 from £11,603,000 to £11,403,000.

  These changes are offsetting or charged to the reserve and will not, therefore, add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Iraq
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the effect in percentage terms in the amount of trade with Iraq following from business visits of Iraqi business men since February 1993.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 31 October 1994]None. Exports of foodstuffs, medicines and humanitarian goods to Iraq in 1993 totalled £12 million. For the first nine months of this year they were about £7·5 million. There have been no imports from Iraq in either year.

  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish the guidelines companies receive when applying for export licences for trade with Iraq.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 31 October 1994]No written guidelines are issued to companies about exports to Iraq from the United Kingdom, but each proposed export to Iraq is dealt with individually by the Department's sanctions unit.

  All exports to Iraq from the United Kingdom require authorisation from the United Nations Sanctions Committee and an export licence from the DTI. Companies must therefore complete a form provided by the United Nations Sanctions Committee giving details for their proposed exports. The form is sent out to any company who intends to export goods and any query that it may have can be discussed with the sanctions unit.

  Turkey
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the president of the Board of Trade if he will list the dates of each ministerial visit or trade mission to Turkey since April 1992.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 31 October 1994]The information requested is as follows:

  Ministerial Visits:

  16–20 July 1993 Richard Needham Minister for Trade

  1027

  Trade Mission

  Sponsored by

  1992

  1–5 June

  London Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  21–25 September

  Northants Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  1993

  1–5 March

  Cardiff Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  26–30 April

  Wolverhampton Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  14–18 June

  London Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  20–24 September

  Northants Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  1994

  17–21 January

  Wales (formerly Cardiff) Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  7–11 March

  Northern Development Company Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  9–13 May

  Wales Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  19–23 September

  Northants Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  10–14 October

  Manchester Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  Nuclear Reprocessing
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans his Department has to import radioactively contaminated nitric acid from the former nuclear reprocessing plant at Hanford, USA; and what representations his Department has received from staff at the British embassy in Washington on the subject.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 31 october 1994]None. The import of nitric acid is a commercial matter for British Nuclear Fuels plc, subject to meeting appropriate import licensing and regulatory requirements. The British embassy, as part of its policy to support British companies pursuing commercial opportunities, and with the agreement of my Department, wrote to the United States Department of Energy in August 1994 in support of BNFL's commercial activities, including this proposal.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Liberia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent action has been taken by Britain and the European Union to address the humanitarian needs of the people in Liberia and refugees therefrom.

  Mr. Baldry
  Since 1 January, Britain has provided £1·25 million and the European Union approximately –5 million in support of the United Nations and non-governmental organisations emergency relief programmes to those displaced inside Liberia and to refugees in neighbouring states, the United Kingdom share of the EU aid is £0·6 million.

  The Gambia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a1028
  statement about British and European policy towards The Gambia following the recent coup.

  Mr. Baldry
  We and our European partners have condemned the overthrow of the democratically elected government of The Gambia. We have made it clear that the four-year election timetable announced by the armed forces provisional ruling council is wholly unsatisfactory. Together with our EU partners, Britain announced on 12 October that it was suspending all military co-operation and balance of payments support and would review new aid projects on a case-by-case basis.

  Copies of United Kingdom and European Union statements on The Gambia have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Somaliland
  Mr. Worthington
  to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in improving relationships between UNOSOM and Somaliland in adding to the infrastructure of Somaliland.

  Mr. Baldry
  UNOSOM closed its office in Hargeisa on 21 August. We understand that the United Nations Development Office will visit north-west Somalia in the near future to take forward the process of planning rehabilitation and reconstruction assistance.

  Kenya
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the humanitarian needs of Kenya; and what is being done by Britain and the European Union in this connection.

  Mr. Baldry
  Harvest prospects are good in most areas. The world food programme will continue to deliver food aid until the end of the year to meet localised needs especially in northern and eastern regions.

  The United Kingdom has contributed over £6 million in bilateral humanitarian aid since January 1994. European Union emergency aid commitments for 1994 amount to £7·35 million, of which the United Kingdom share is £0·92 million.

  Overseas Aid
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the figures, the sources of the figures and the definition of "poorest" which formed the basis of his statement of 24 October,Official Report, column 680, in respect of the focus of bilateral aid.

  Mr. Baldry
  In 1992–93, £619 million was spent on aid to the poorest countries. This represents 80 per cent. of United Kingdom bilateral aid to developing countries which is allocable by income group.

  This information is published in table A2 of "British Aid Statistics 1988–89 to 1992–93", a copy of which is available in the Libraries of the House.

  "The poorest countries" are defined as low income group countries with a GNP per capita in 1991 of below %765.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to make a direct comparative assessment of how
  1029
  well British overseas aid expenditure is spent through (a) the United Kingdom bilateral programme and (b) multilateral agencies.

  Mr. Baldry
  We attach equal importance to the effectiveness of all projects whether in bilateral or multilateral programmes. A sample of projects financed under the bilateral programme are assessed to determine their effectiveness and the lessons are fed back into the design of future projects. Our approach towards improving the effectiveness of multilateral aid is set out in the speech which my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development gave to the Overseas Development Institute on 14 June 1994, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on how many occasions in the past year the spouse of a Minister in his Department has travelled abroad at public expense to accompany a Minister on public duties, and what has been the total cost to public funds; and on how many occasions such travel has been undertaken at own cost.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  On three such occasions since 1 January 1994, a Minister has been accompanied by his spouse travelling at public expense. The total cost to public funds was £4,197.68. On no occasion has such travel been undertaken at own cost.

  University Students
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many students from Northern Ireland who gained university entrance, enrolled in universities in Great Britain during the last academic year; and how many went to each university in Great Britain.

  Mr. Ancram
  Information is not available in the form requested. However, a total of 4,207 students from Northern Ireland entered higher education courses in Great Britain in the 1993–94 academic year.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Asthma
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) how much money the Medical Research Council spent in 1993–94 on(a) research into asthma and (b) research which may be relevant to the condition;

  (2) how much money the Medical Research Council plans to spend in the current year and in 1995–96 on (a) research into asthma and (b) research which may be relevant to the condition.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  In the financial year 1993–94, the Medical Research Council's expenditure on research projects directly related to asthma was £0·9 million. Further spending on research which may be relevant to the condition totalled almost £1·1 million. The decision on funding for asthma research in the current year and in 1995–96 rests with the MRC. It will depend, as with all 1030
  other research areas, on the quality of the research proposals that the Council receives. The MRC is, of course, willing to consider soundly based proposals in competition with other applications for council support, and funding decisions are dependent upon a peer review process.

  On 3 October, MRC and the Departments of Health and of the Environment issued a combined call for research proposals on the links between air pollution and respiratory disease, with a special emphasis on asthma. Up to £5 million has been allocated to support this programme over the next four to five years.

TRANSPORT

  Road Repairs
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps his Department is taking to co-ordinate road repairs and the digging up of highways by public utilities, to minimise disruption to local communities.

  Mr. Norris
  Under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, co-ordination on publicly maintained local roads, the vast majority, is the responsibility of the local highway authority. For trunk roads and motorways the responsibility rests with the Highways Agency which, through its agents, works to the requirements of the Act. A code of practice has been issued under the Act, giving practical guidance on the co-ordination of street works and works for road purposes and related matters.

  Seat Belts
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) of 19 July,Official Report, columns 81–82, what progress he has made in establishing a timetable for the compulsory fitting of seat belts on all new minibuses and coaches.

  Mr. Norris
  We have pressed the Commission on this issue. Work is under way on revised technical proposals on the basis of which we expect the Commission to make a formal proposal for a directive early next year.

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the relative merits of lap and three-point seat belts in minibuses and coaches.

  Mr. Norris
  An assessment of the relative merits of lap and three-point belts is contained in the review of the technical and cost implications of the fitment of seat belts in minibuses and coaches, which was published on 19 July. A copy of that report was placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further steps he is taking to encourage manufacturers of minibuses and coaches, and owners of currently operational minibuses and coaches to fit seat belts to vehicles.
  1031
  Mr. Norris
  The major minibus manufacturers are already fitting seat belts to all seats in their new vehicles as standard equipment.

  We take every available opportunity to encourage coach and minibus manufacturers and operators to fit belts in both new and, where practicable, existing vehicles.

  Executive Agencies
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list, for each executive agency in his Department, the number of sick days taken in the past 12 months broken down by grade and gender;

  Agency

  Grade

  Gender

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Vehicle Certification Agency

  Higher Professional and Technical Officer

  Male

  —

  —

  1

  Coastguard Agency

  Coastguard Officer (probationer)

  Male

  1

  —

  —

  Coastguard Officer (Watch Officer)

  Male

  —

  1

  —

  District Officer

  Male

  1

  —

  —

  Station Officer (District Management Team)

  Male

  —

  1

  1

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  Administrative Assistant

  Female

  1

  1

  1

  Male

  1

  1

  1

  Administrative Officer

  Female

  1

  —

  —

  Male

  1

  —

  —

  Executive Officer

  Female

  1

  1

  —

  Stores Officer Grade C

  Male

  —

  1

  —

  Support Grade Band 2

  Male

  2

  1

  —

  Typist

  Female

  2

  1

  —

  Driving Standards Agency

  Driving Examiner

  Female

  —

  —

  1

  Male

  6

  4

  —

  Senior Driving Examiner

  Male

  1

  —

  —

  Senior Driving Examiner Managerial

  Male

  —

  —

  1

  Supervising Driving Examiner

  Male

  1

  —

  —

  Highways Agency

  Executive Officer

  Female

  —

  —

  1

  Grade 4

  Male

  1

  —

  —

  Typist

  Female

  —

  —

  1

  Transport Research Laboratory

  Grade 6

  Male

  —

  —

  1

  Professional and Technical Officer

  Male

  1

  —

  —

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  Administrative Officer

  Female

  —

  —

  1

  Male

  —

  1

  —

  Casual Administrative Assistant

  Male

  —

  —

  1

  Executive Officer

  Male

  1

  —

  —

  Higher and Professional and Technical Officer

  Male

  —

  —

  1

  Professional and Technical Officer

  Male

  2

  2

  2

  Senior Traffic Examiner

  Male

  —

  1

  —

  Traffic Examiner

  Male

  2

  1

  —

  Marine Safety Agency

  Executive Officer

  Male

  1

  —

  —

  DVOIT1

  Senior Executive Officer

  Female

  —

  —

  1

  Male

  —

  —

  1

  1DVOIT was privatised in December 1993.

  London Buses
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the application of the expected receipts from the privatisation of London Buses subsidiary companies.

  Mr. Norris
  Under arrangements agreed at the time of the unified budget, provision was made for London Transport to retain all proceeds up to £100 million and 25 per cent. of receipts above this level.
  1032
  (2) if he will list the number of sick days taken during the last 12 months by staff of the Driving Standards Agency, broken down by grade and gender.

  Mr. Norris
  I am placing copies of tables containing the figures in the Libraries.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list, for each executive agency within his Department, the number of staff who have died while in employment in each of the last three financial years broken down by a grade and gender.

  Mr. Norris
  The figures requested are given in the following table:

  Vehicle Inspectorate
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many(a) vehicle examiners and (b) traffic examiners were employed by his Department in each of the last six years;

  (2) to what extent Vehicle Inspectorate and traffic and vehicle examiners undertake random roadside checks of vehicles;
  1033
  (3) how many (a) vehicle examiners and (b) traffic examiners are employed by the Vehicle Inspectorate; and what are his projections for the numbers in the financial years 1995–96 and 1996–97.

  Mr. Norris
  This is an operational matter for the Vehicle Inspectorate. The chief executive has written to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ron Oliver to Mrs Gwyneth Dundwoody, dated 31 October 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions about vehicle and traffic examiner staffing, and roadside enforcement checks.
  i. Vehicle and Traffic Examiner staffing
  Annex 1 updates the tables 1 sent to you on 18 July. These show the current staff in post figures. The information does not distinguish between operational and non operational staff so cannot be used to determine average man years spent on testing, and on roadworthness and traffic enforcement.
  Annex 2 is an analysis of average staffing by grade spent on vehicle testing and roadside enforcement activities. This information has been extracted from the Inspectorate's management accounts for the years 1988/89–1993/94.
  The Inspectorate is planning efficiency savings of 20 per cent. by April 1996. Total staffing across the Inspectorate will fall by 470 from an average staffing figure of 1,758 in 1994/95. Most of these losses will come from natural wastage and voluntary redundancy. Unfortunately it is too early to determine staffing levels in the operational divisions, but we intend to make up for staff reductions by improved efficiency, greater use of information technology, more

  Average Vehicle and Traffic Examiner Staffing–1988/89 to 1993/4

  Average Staffing in Man-Years

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Vehicle Testing

  PTO/AVE1

  237

  240

  253

  263

  252

  237

  Road Transport Enforcement

  Vehicle Examiners

  228

  233

  244

  268

  278

  244

  Traffic Examiners

  2—

  2—

  2—

  170

  172

  166

  Notes:

  1 Vehicle Testing is conducted by PTOs(VEs), Tester and Assistant Vehicle Examiners. Unfortunately it is not possible to separate VE and AVE staffing.

  2 The Traffic Examiners organisation did not become part of VE until April 1991.

  Vehicle Emissions
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the answer of 24 October,Official Report, column 398, what plans he has for a press campaign to promote the smoky vehicle hotline.

  Mr. Norris
  The number of hotline calls received has significantly increased since the leaflet explaining the reporting procedure has been included in vehicle excise licence renewal notices.

  I am confident that the recent announcements by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about targeted emissions enforcement checks will help further increase public awareness.

  We will review the need for further press announcements in due course.
  1034
  automation in vehicle testing work and better targeting of roadside enforcement.

  ii. Roadside Enforcement

  The Inspectorate targets the majority of its work. Whilst we try to examine at least some vehicles from all operators, we also try to concentrate activities on those most likely to be operating illegally.

  In 1993–94, the last full year for which the information is available, vehicle examiners spent a total of 60·89 man years on roadside vehicle checks. VI testing staff carried out an additional 3·93 man years in clearing prohibitions issued by our vehicle examiners.

  VI staff spent 64·88 man years on traffic enforcement checks at the roadside plus an additional 5·7 man years at ports.

  I hope the above information is adequate, but if you would like to discuss the issues in more detail please contact Mrs. Jean Frary on 0117 9543211 who will arrange a convenient appointment.

  Vehicle examiners

  Grade

  27 October 1994

  SPTO

  36

  HPTO

  83

  PTO

  390

  AVE

  83

  Total

  592

  Traffic Examiners

  Grade

  27 October 1994

  Enforcement Co-ordinator

  5

  Supervising Traffic Examiner

  —

  Senior Traffic Examiner

  25

  Traffic Examiner

  161

  Total

  191

  M25
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the timetable for his review of proposed M25 link roads and for an announcement on whether he plans to abandon or push ahead with the scheme.

  Mr. Watts
  It was announced earlier this year that the next stage for the scheme for link roads between junctions 12 and 15 of the M25 would be a public inquiry. A date for the inquiry was not fixed. That remains the position. A further announcement will be made in due course.

  Airport Facilities
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to be able to announce a
  1035
  decision on the location of a new runway in south-east England.

  Mr. Norris
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) on 18 July 1994,Official Report, column 69.

  Rail Safety
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to ensure that the safety and convenience of the travelling public take precedence over the Government's timetable for the successive stages of railway privatisation.

  Mr. Watts
  Safety is paramount.

  Red Routes
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to implement all existing decisions to designate red routes in London; at what cost; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  Implementation of red route measures will begin later this year. The total cost of implementation is estimated to be £100 million at 1991–92 prices.

  Cash and Running Costs Limits
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to change his Department's cash limits and running costs limits; and what proposals there are to change the cash limit and running costs limit of the Office of the Rail Regulator for 1994–95.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates, the following changes will be made:(i) the cash limit for class VI, vote 1 (highways agency) will be increased by £44,131,000 from £2,098,528,000 to £2,142,659,000. The increase in the cash limit includes the take up of end year flexibility entitlement as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 14 July 1994 (Offical Report, columns 729–734) and subsequently adjusted; and, adjustments in funding relating to the formation of the Highways Agency between this vote and class VI, vote 2 and class VI, vote 5.
  (ii) the cash limit for class VI, vote 2 (administration and transport services) will be increased by £15,620,000 from £235,425,000 to £251,045,000. The additional provision includes the take up of end year flexibility entitlement as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 14 July 1994 (Official Report, columns 729–734); the transfer of funds from the Department of Trade and Industry (class IV, vote 1) in respect of the London Regional Passengers Committee; the transfer of funds for research and development from class VI, vote 1 and class VI, vote 5; the transfer to class VI, vote 1 of various items of running costs and administrative capital; and, the transfer of provision to class VI, vote 7 to cover professional advisers' fees.
  (iii) the cash limit for class VI, vote 5 (local roads and transport) will be increased by £59,669,000 from £532,904,000 to £592,573,000. The increase includes the take up of end year flexibility entitlement as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 14 July 1994 (Official Report, columns 729–734); various transfers of funds between this vote and class VI, vote I, class VI, vote 2 and from non-voted expenditure; and, the increase of provision for special grants to passenger transport authorities.
  (iv) the cash limit for class VI, vote 7 (passenger rail services) will he increased by £63,000,000 by transfers from class VI, vote 2, class VI, vote 3 and from non-voted expenditure from £1,684,500,000 to £1,747,500,000. The additional provision is required for sums due to British Railways Board in respect
  1036
  of public service obligations and for the costs of professional advisers' fees in connection with the Franchising Director's duties to designate railway passenger services as eligible for provision under franchise agreements.
  (v) the cash limit for class VI, vote 8 (office of the rail regulator) will be increased by £1,255,000 from £6,457,000 to £7,712,000. The increased cash limit includes the take up of end year flexibility entitlement of £1,058,000 as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 14 July 1994 (Official Report, columns 729–734) and a transfer of £197,000 from the Department of Trade and Industry (Class IV, vote 1) for accommodation costs of the rail users committees.
  (vi) The Department of Transport Local Authority Capital cash limit has been increased by £6,000,000 from £291,358,000 to £297,358,000. This reflects the take up of end year flexibility as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 14 1 July 1994 (Official Report, columns 729–734).
  (vii) The Department of Transport running costs limits has been reduced by £382,000 from £418,375,000 to £417,993,000 and the Office of the Rail Regulator running costs limit has been increased by £197,000 from £5,973,000 to £6,170,000.

  The overall increases will be offset by transfers or charged to the reserve and will not, therefore, acid to the planned total of public expenditure. In particular, there are a number of adjustments between the voted and non-voted elements of railway expenditure which do not affect the control total.

  Hilton Hotel (Dinner-dance)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether any Minister from his Department attended a dinner-dance at the Hilton hotel, Park lane on 14 July 1993.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 31 October 1994]My hon. Friend the member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) attended the function in a private capacity.

  Security Guards
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what new proposals he has to ensure that those convicted of acts of violence are not employed by his Department or their contractors as security guards.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 31 October 1994]Contract documents require contractors to obtain tenders for site security services from a list of named, reputable, security firms.

  They require the security company to demonstrate its ability to select guards in terms of aptitude and temperament for the job, and that security guards be restrained, self disciplined and trained for dealing with peaceful protestors as well as those intent on causing damage.

  As for security guards employed by the Department, any checks for criminal records are made in accordance with our stated vetting policy and decisions on whether to employ are taken with due regard to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

  British Rail (Land)
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much land, in hectares, was owned by British Rail in Scotland before the present restructuring.

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 28 October 1994]British Rail owned some 6,475 hectares of land in Scotland as at 31 March 1994. This figure excludes closed branch lines totalling about 134 miles in length.

  Quangos
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which former hon. Members of this House have been appointed since 1988 by his Department to quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations; and if he will list, in each case, the title of the post, the salary, the duration of the appointment, and the party which each represented as an hon. Member.

  Mr. Norris
  Detailed information on past and present appointees to non-departmental public bodies—NDPBs formerly known as quasi autonomous non-governmental organisations—is not held in the Department and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, from such limited information as is available on present members of NDPBs, there is no evidence that any of them is a former hon. Member, apart from one member of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones, who was a Labour Member of Parliament. He was reappointed as a member of the committee in December 1992 for a three-year period. Committee members are not paid a salary but the Department meets their travel and subsistence costs.

  Public Appointments
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of public appointments made by his Department were held by women at the most recent date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Norris
  I refer the hon. Lady to "Public Bodies 1993".

  Pollution
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many calls the telephone line for reporting vehicles which are polluting excessively has received; how the line is promoted; at what annual cost; and if he will publish a list of action taken as a result of calls made.

  Mr. Norris
  The Vehicle Inspectorate received almost 3,000 calls between April 1993 and March 1994. The cost of dealing with those calls was in the region of £5,500.

  The procedure for reporting vehicles was publicised in a leaflet published in August 1993. This was sent to local authorities, motoring organisations, environmental groups, libraries, citizens' advice bureaux and other interested bodies. I have recently placed copies in the Library in response to a question from the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey). Since February 1994, the reporting procedure has also been explained in one of the small leaflets included with all vehicle excise licence renewal notices.

  Operators who have been reported are asked to have their vehicle checked and are warned that continued use of an excessively smoky vehicle could be in contravention of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986.

  Ferry Safety
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive the report from the chief coastguard south-west on the ferry safety exercise that took place on 4 November 1993 on the Quiberon; and if he will make a statement.
  1038
  Mr. Norris
  This is a matter for the Coastguard Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from C. J. Harris to Mr. David Jamieson, dated 1 November 1994:
  The Secretary of the State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question as the Question deals with an operational matter, for which I have responsibility as Chief Executive.
  An extensive post exercise discussion was held for all the participants shortly after the exercise and a draft report for the Exercise "EDDYSTONE 93" was circulated in September 1994. A final report will be distributed early in November. Exercise reports deal with operational matters and are not usually submitted to Ministers.

  Air Training College
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the decision of the Civil Aviation Authority to withdraw approvals to train air traffic controllers from the South East Kent college of air training.

  Mr. Norris
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave on Monday 31 October.

  Rail Safety
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which organisation has responsibility under the new structure of the railway industry for ensuring that passengers are kept fully informed about the causes of the delays resulting from serious operating incidents; what arrangements exist to ensure that train operating companies have access to the necessary information; and what steps his Department has taken to monitor the policy followed by Railtrack and train operating companies concerning the accuracy and completeness of information supplied to passengers in such circumstances.

  Mr. Watts
  Railtrack is required to inform the relevant train operating companies of any incidents. Train operating companies are responsible for informing passengers about delays resulting from serious operating incidents. They work to citizens charter guidelines as laid down in British Rail's passengers charter.

  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the near collision on the evening of Thursday 20 October involving two passenger trains outside Tunbridge Wells station; what features this incident had in common with the fatal accident at Cowden, Kent on 15 October; how both trains came to be on the same section of track travelling in opposite directions; how close the trains came to colliding and how a collision was averted; what information was given at the time to passengers about the reasons for the resulting delay to services; what telecommunications equipment was available to the relevant signalman and drivers of the two trains; what steps have been taken to ascertain responsibility for the incident; and whether action has been taken against any individual.

  Mr. Watts
  I understand from the Health and Safety Executive that because of a points failure the signalman had appointed hand signalmen at each end of the short single line through Strawberry Hill tunnel, to hand-wind the points according to instructions from the signalman. An error then occurred which led to the 18.45 Charing Cross to Hastings train running on to the northbound line
  1039
  which was occupied by the 17.40 Hastings to Charing Cross train, and which was standing at a red signal.

  The driver of the southbound train was proceeding with caution as instructed, and was thus able to see the points were wrongly set and bring his train to a standstill, 50 yards from the other train.

  There were no injuries to passengers or staff, but both drivers were treated for shock.

  The circumstances of this incident have nothing in common with the Cowden accident.

  I understand that on this line there are telephones on signals which link to signal boxes and these were used as the means of communication between the signalman and the hand-signalmen on site.

  I understand that information about services was made available through radio, ceefax and announcements at stations.

  Railtrack is carrying out an investigation into the cause of the incident and will then decide what further action is necessary.

  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the demands on the time of railway managers imposed by the current reorganisation of the railway industry; and what steps he has taken to satisfy himself that these are consistent with the unimpaired discharge of their responsibility for operating the network and for maintaining safety and that the conditions of employment of employees of British Rail and Railtrack provide facilities for the making public of fears about safety matters.

  Mr. Watts
  Safety is paramount in all railway operations.

  I am satisfied that the arrangements in place will ensure that the appropriate levels of safety are maintained. The new safety regulations are being monitored and enforced by the Health and Safety Executive.

  Conditions of employment are matters for British Rail and Railtrack.

  Cyclists
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve adherence to the highway code on the part of cyclists; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  Cyclists are required by law to comply with traffic directions and signals. This requirement is in the interests of cyclists' own safety and that of other road users. The Road Traffic Act 1991 created the offence of dangerous cycling. The maximum fine is now £2,500 for dangerous cycling and £1,000 for careless cycling. Enforcement of the law is a matter for the police.

  Blue Circle and Decision Makers Ltd.
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what dates representatives of Blue Circle and Decision Makers Ltd. met the right hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) in his capacity as Secretary of State for Transport to discuss a proposed international passenger station at Ebbsfleet

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 31 October 1994]My right hon. Friend had no official meetings organised by the Department with Blue Circle or Decision Makers Ltd.

  Austrian Tunnelling Method
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which(a) current and (b) planned transport schemes, and at which locations, the new Austrian tunnelling method may be used (i) currently and (ii) in the future.

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 28 October 1994]The information is as follows:

  (a) Current transport schemes

  Two sections of the Jubilee Line Extension, at Jubilee gardens and London Bridge Station, are currently being constructed using the new austrian tunnelling method, although this work is currently suspended pending further information on the Heathrow collapse.

  (b) Planned transport schemes

  Plans for the crossrail project include the use of NATM techniques for station tunnels at platform levels at Bond Street, Tottenham Court Road, Farringdon and Liverpool Street stations and at part of Paddington station. One additional section of the JLE using NATM is planned between London Bridge and Waterloo.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Livestock Transportation
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what meetings he has held with hauliers regarding the movement of small livestock; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Browning
  Officials have held one meeting with representatives of the pet industry and organisations with an interest in the transport of small livestock together with a representative of the parcel-carrying firm which recently announced its intention to stop carrying small consignments of poultry or rabbits.

  The trade interests agreed to hold further discussions with the carrier with a view to developing suitable containers for the carriage of these types of animal. These would need to make food and water available during journeys of more than 12 hours duration as required by the Welfare of Animals during Transport Order 1992.

  Sheep Exports
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when it is expected that the vessels recently applying for licence to export sheep will be licensed by the Ministry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Browning
  The Department's responsibility is to ensure that the arrangements for transporting farm animals are in accordance with the legal requirements laid down to protect their welfare.

  We have considered a number of proposals that have been made to transport sheep and calves to the continent by ro-ro ferry from various south and east coast ports. No firm plans have yet been advanced for regular services, but a proposal to ship a single consignment of sheep in a fitted livestock vessel from Grimsby to Calais is likely to proceed, subject to inspection of the vessel and loading of the sheep under official supervision.

  Bovine Somatotropin
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to secure a continuation of the EU moratorium on the use of BST beyond the end of 1994.

  Mrs. Browning
  The Government have made clear their view that any final decision on the licensing of BST should be based firmly on scientific principles, taking into account the need to avoid international trading problems, to encourage Community-based research industries and to maintain the competitiveness of the Community's agriculture and food industries. It should be for the marketplace to determine whether BST has a role to play and it is inappropriate to introduce new criteria to the licensing process. Other member states are fully aware of our views.

  We await the report from the Commission on the experience of BST use in the United States where it has been on sale since 4 February 1994. It will also cover the implications for GATT and other trading relationships of a long-term prohibition. Its conclusions will be taken into account, along with the results of the formal consultation on BST carried out earlier this year, together with the representations which we continue to receive on this subject when we come to decide on the approach that the United Kingdom should take on the proposed extension of the EC moratorium later this year.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the privatisation which his Department has promoted since 1979, showing in each case, the date of the sale, the proceeds of the sale, and the estimated current value of the company.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The status of the former agricultural training board was changed on 29 March 1994 from that of a statutory, controlled non-departmental public body to a non-statutory private sector organisation with charitable status. The new organisation is known as ATB-Landbase Ltd. No proceeds accrued to the Government on privatisation. The company is now managed by a board of trustees. No information is available as to the estimated current value of the company.

  The commercial artificial insemination service, formerly carried out by the Cattle Breeding Centre was transferred to the private sector in two parts in 1990. Financial details of those sales were not made public; because of subsequent reorganisation and deregulation in those sectors it is not possible to estimate the current value of those businesses.

  Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research has been carried out by his Department, and what evidence he has on what paralytic shellfish poisoning is caused by naturally occurring algal blooms.

  Mr. Jack
  Paralytic shellfish poisoning in humans is caused by the consumption of shellfish contaminated by naturally occurring biotoxins. At present, we know that shellfish can become toxic by ingesting potentially toxic algae species. However, the correlation between algal blooms and PSP contamination of shellfish is not yet clear. A bloom in the water may be symptomatic of PSP 1042
  toxin; but some blooms are not toxic, and toxin may be present where there are no blooms or other recognisable symptoms. We cannot therefore rely upon the presence of blooms as an indicator and carry out a surveillance programme of sampling and testing of PSP toxin.

  The Government are funding an extensive research programme into the nature and causes of PSP and also into improved methods of detection. The results are published in the scientific literature and elsewhere. In addition, the results of the surveillance programme are published.

  Infant Formulae
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what reasons the European Community directive on the marketing of infant formulae was not implemented by the Government in June; and when the statutory-instrument will be made.

  Mrs. Browning
  Consideration of the many points made during the consultation has delayed the implementation of European Community directives 91/321 and 92/52. It is hoped to make and lay the regulations shortly.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the average cost to his Department of answering(a) a written and (b) an oral parliamentary question.

  Mr. Jack
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorell) to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) on 30 November 1993,Official Report, column 387.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what changes are proposed in his Department's cash limits for 1994–95

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Intervention Board executive agency is eligible for an increase of £1,012,000 in respect of the end year flexibility arrangements for running costs expenditure, as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 14 July 1994,Official Report, columns 729£34. At this stage, it is proposed to take up £600,000 of this entitlement to increase the agency's running costs cash limit for class III vote 2 from £32,852,000 to £33,452,000. The increase will be wholly offset by a £600,000 reduction in payments for agents' services, subhead A3, to £16,848,000 and the increase will not therefore result in a change in the cash limit for the vote.

  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class III, vote 5—Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: Departmental Research, Advisory Services and Administration—will be increased by £6,392,000 from £311,890,000 to £318,282,000 and the cash limit for class III, vote 4—Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: agricultural, food and fishing services—will be increased by £1,212,000 from £371,418,000 to £372,630,000. The vote 5 supplementary estimate will give effect to the £7,329,000 running costs and £358,000 capital end year entitlement announced by the Chief Secretary to the

  1043
  Treasury on 14 July 1994, Official Report, columns 729–34.

  The gross running costs limit of the Department will be increased by £6,305,000 from £238,060,000 to £289,365,000. The £7,329,000 end year flexibility take-up has been offset by running costs reductions of £1,024,000. Those reductions comprise transfers of £842,000 vote 4 and £25,000 to the Welsh Office for commissioning work with the Central Science Laboratory on the bee health programme; a £36,000 transfer to the Central Statistical Office conferring responsibility for the compilation of the food and feed component of the producer price index; a £44,000 transfer to the Welsh Office to meet redundancy costs of agricultural advisory staff at the Welsh Office and a £77,000 transfer to vote 4 for commissioning work with the Veterinary Medicines Directorate in respect of food science.

  The cost of the increase on vote 4 is fully matched by receipts in class III, vote 5 and a transfer from class XII, Vote 3. Within the revised limit, expenditure on support for the fishing industry will be increased by £1,500,000, grants for alternative land uses will be increased by £30,000 and expenditure on agricultural and food services will be increased by £1,212,000. The overall increase will be offset by additional receipts from sales of stocks of £1,530,000.

  All increases will be offset by increased receipts, transfers or charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Fox Fur Farms
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what plans he has to require fox fur farms to be licensed;

  (2) what proposals he has received from the Farm Animal Welfare Council for the licensing of fox fur farms;

  (3) when he last met Respect for Animals; and what proposals it recommends for the licensing of fox fur farms.

  Mrs. Browning
  Respect for Animals met my predecessor in February this year and provided him with a report prepared by Mr. Robert Golding which reviewed the legislation relating to the keeping of mink and Arctic fox. The Farm Animal Welfare Council last week gave me, as requested, its views on Mr. Golding's report. I am asking officials to distribute the advice to interested organisations so that they can make comments which can be taken into account before we form a view.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Hong Kong
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will make a statement on the terms "treason", "secession", "sedition" and "subversion" against the Central People's Government of China contained in article 23 of the Basic Law covering the administration of Hong Kong after 1997;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the implications of the word "turmoil" as used in article 18 of the Chinese Government's Basic Law on Hong Kong, which permits
  1044
  Beijing to extend Chinese national laws to Hong Kong in certain circumstances;

  (3) what assessment he has made of the impact of article 158 of the Basic Law of the People's Republic of China on the administration of Hong Kong after 1997 on the relationship of Hong Kong courts to the National People's Congress.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Freedom and the rule of law in Hong Kong after 30 June 1997 are enshrined in the Sino-British Joint Declaration, an international treaty registered at the United Nations. The United Kingdom and China are obliged to implement the Joint Declaration in good faith. The Basic Law is a law adopted by the National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China. Generally, under article 158 of the Law after 30 June 1997 it will be for the courts of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to interpret the Basic Law, save in certain limited circumstances where interpretation would be for the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from Hong Kong regarding an Access to Information Bill; and what response he has made.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The hon. Christine Loh, an appointed member of the Hong Kong Legislative Council, has prepared a draft Access to Information Bill. The Hong Kong Government have decided that an administrative code of practice is the best way to improve public access to information in Hong Kong. A pilot scheme will test the code early in 1995. The Hong Kong Government expect to implement the code in full by the end of 1996.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which provision of the Hong Kong police force ordinance permits the seizure of news footage of demonstrators from television stations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Section 50(7) of the police force ordinance provides for the seizure of news footage of demonstrations from television stations where there is reasonable cause to suspect that the footage may provide information about a person liable to arrest. A magistrate may empower any police officer by warrant to seize such news footage if he has satisfied himself that the request for the warrant is reasonable.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will grant Radio Television Hong Kong a formal charter setting out basic editorial safeguards.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Radio Television Hong Kong—RTHK—has always enjoyed full editorial independence. The Hong Kong Government are considering plans to enact legislation to corporatise RTHK. This would formalise the role of RTHK and set out basic editorial safeguards. The Sino-British Joint Declaration guarantees the freedom of press in Hong Kong after 30 June 1997.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to amend Hong Kong Broadcasting Authority Ordinance before 1997.

  Mr. Goodlad
  There are no plans at present to amend Hong Kong's Broadcasting Authority Ordinance. But the Hong Kong Government plans to amend the Television Ordinance as part of a rationalisation of Hong Kong's broadcasting legislation.
  1045
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he is making to the Government of China about article 23 of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong special administrative region of the People's Republic of China which prohibits after 1997 political organisations in Hong Kong from establishing ties with foreign political organisations or bodies.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Annex I, section XIII of the Sino-British Joint Declaration states that the Hong Kong special administrative region Government shall maintain the rights and freedoms as provided for by the laws previously in force in Hong Kong, including freedom of assembly, of association, of correspondence, of movement and of belief. The Joint Declaration is a solid foundation for Hong Kong's future freedoms in these areas.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will amend the Hong Kong film Censorship Ordinance to bring it in line with United Kingdom legislation.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The Hong Kong Government keep the Hong Kong Film Censorship Ordinance under review to ensure that it continues to reflect local needs and values. The ordinance was most recently amended in July 1993. The Hong Kong Government will propose further amendments in January 1995. It is not necessary or desirable to align film censorship legislation in Hong Kong precisely with that of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth affairs which provisions of the Hong Kong Summary Offences Ordinance permit prosecutions of people using a loudhailer without permission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Section 4(29) of the Summary Offences Ordinance prohibits the use of loudhailers in public places without prior permission from the Commissioner of Police. There have been no prosecutions under this section for several years. Since the provisions under the Noise Control Ordinance are adequate for the prevention of nuisance, the Hong Kong Government plan to repeal section 4(29) of the Summary Offences Ordinance in the present session of the Legislative Council.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received on setting up an independent human rights commission in Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We have received a number of representations, including a recommendation in the Foreign Affairs Committee's first report, "Relations between the United Kingdom and China in the period up to and beyond 1997" published on 23 March 1994. Our policy on this question remains as set out in the observations on the report laid before the House on 1 July.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many individuals in Hong Kong have been granted right of abode in the United Kingdom after 1997.

  Mr. Goodlad
  As at 22 October, 100,760 people in Hong Kong have obtained British citizenship, which confers the automatic right of abode in the United Kingdom, under the provisions of the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1990.

  Public Appointments
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of public appointments made by his Department were held by women at the most recent date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The latest published figures, ie those given in "Public Bodies 1993", show that as at 1 April 1993, 25 per cent. of public appointments made by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, including the Overseas Development Administration, were held by women. Figures for 1994 are being collected and will be announced in due course.

  Quangos
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which former hon. Members of this House have been appointed since 1988 by his Department to quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations; and if he will list, in each case, the title of the post, the salary, the duration of the appointment, and the party which each represented as an hon. Member.

  Mr. Goodlad
  There are currently no former Members of Parliament who have been appointed by the FCO to quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations.

  As there are no centrally kept records, to answer the question in full would incur disproportionate cost.

  Embassy Staff
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the number and grade of staff at each embassy and high commission whose responsibilities lie primarily in promoting trade with the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The numbers and grades of United Kingdom based and locally engaged staff at Foreign and Commonwealth Office missions overseas whose responsibilities lie primarily in promoting trade with the United Kingdom are listed in the table.

  There are, in addition, a large number of staff who contribute a lower proportion of their time to export promotion.

  Numbers of staff at FCO missions overseas whose responsibilities lie primarily in promoting trade with the United Kingdom

  Location of mission

  Grade

  Number in Grade

  Abidjan

  DS 5

  1·00

  Abidjan

  DS 9

  1·00

  LE

  2·00

  Abu Dhabi

  DS 6

  1·00

  Abu Dhabi

  DS 7M

  1·00

  LE

  6·00

  Abuja

  DS 7M

  1·00

  Accra

  DS 6

  1·00

  Accra

  DS 9

  1·00

  LE

  3·00

  Addis Ababa

  LE

  2·00

  Aden

  LE

  1·00

  Al Khobar

  DS 6

  1·00

  Al Khobar

  DS 7M

  1·00

  LE

  2·00

  Alexandria

  LE

  2·00

  Algiers

  LE

  3·00

  Almaty

  DS 7M

  1·00

  1047

  Numbers of staff at FCO missions overseas whose responsibilities lie primarily in promoting trade with the United Kingdom

  Location of mission

  Grade

  Number in Grade

  LE

  2·00

  Amman

  DS 7M

  1·00

  LE

  5·00

  Ankara

  DS 5

  1·00

  Ankara

  DS 7M

  1·00

  LE

  5·00

  Antananarivo

  LE

  2·00

  Antigua

  LE

  1·00

  Asuncion

  LE

  2·00

  Athens

  DS 6

  1·00

  LE

  8·00

  Atlanta

  DS 6

  1·00

  LE

  5·00

  Auckland

  DS 4

  1·00

  Auckland

  DS 6

  1·00

  LE

  6·00

  Bahrain

  DS 7M

  1·00

  LE

  5·00

  Baku

  DS 4

  1·00

  Ban Seri Beg

  DS 6

  1·00

  LE

  1·00

  Bangalore

  LE

  2·00

  Bangkok

  DS 4

  1·00

  Bangkok

  DS 6

  1·00

  Bangkok

  DS 7M

  2·00

  Bangkok

  DS 9

  1·00

  LE

  14·00

  Barcelona

  DS 6

  1·00

  LE

  6·00

  Beirut

  DS 7M

  1·00

  LE

  2·00

  Belgrade

  LE

  6·00

  Belmopan

  LE

  1·00

  Belo Horizonte

  LE

  1·00

  Berlin

  DS 9

  1·00

  LE

  8·00

  Berne

  LE

  2·00

  Bilbao

  DS 6

  1·00

  LE

  3·00

  Bogota

  DS 9

  1·00

  LE

  6·00

  Bombay

  DS 4

  1·00

  Bombay

  DS 6

  1·00

  Bombay

  DS 7M

  1·00

  LE

  9·00

  Bordeaux

  LE

  3·00

  Boston

  LE

  5·00

  Bratislava

  LE

  2·00

  Brasilia

  DS 5

  1·00

  LE

  3·00

  Bridgetown

  LE

  3·00

  Brisbane

  DS 5

  1·00

  Brisbane

  DS 7M

  1·00

  LE

  3·00

  Brussels

  DS 4

  1·00

  Brussels

  DS 6

  1·00

  LE

  11·00

  Brussels Ukrep

  DS 6

  1·00

  LE

  1·00

  Bucharest

  DS 6

  1·00

  LE

  4·00

  Budapest

  DS 5

  1·00

  Budapest

  DS 7M

  1·00

  Budapest

  DS 9

  1·00

  LE

  8·00

  Buenos Aires

  DS 6

  1·00

  Buenos Aires

  DS 9

  1·00

  LE

  7·00

  Cairo

  DS 5

  1·00

  Cairo

  DS 7M

  1·00

  LE

  8·00

  1048

  Numbers of staff at FCO missions overseas whose responsibilities lie primarily in promoting trade with the United Kingdom

  Location of mission

  Grade

  Number in Grade

  Calcutta

  DS 7M

  1·00

  LE

  7·00

  Canberra

  LE

  2·00

  Cape Town

  DS 7M

  1·00

  LE

  3·00

  Caracas

  DS 5

  1·00

  Caracas

  DS 7M

  1·00

  LE

  6·00

  Casablanca

  DS 4

  1·00

  Casablanca

  DS 7M

  1·00

  LE

  3·00

  Castries

  LE

  1·00

  Chicago

  DS 3

  1·00

  Chicago

  DS 5

  1·00

  LE

  10·00

  Christchurch

  LE

  2·00

  Cleveland

  DS 5

  1·00

  LE

  4·00

  Colombo

  DS 6

  1·00

  LE

  4·00

  Copenhagen

  DS 6

  1·00

  LE

  15·00

  Dakar

  LE

  1·00

  Dallas

  DS 6

  1·00

  LE

  3·00

  Damascus

  DS 7M

  1·00

  LE

  5·00

  Dar Es Salaam

  DS 7M

  1·00

  LE

  4·00

  Dhaka

  LE

  4·00

  Doha

  DS 6

  1·00

  Doha

  DS 7M

  1·00

  LE

  4·00

  Douala

  LE

  1·00

  Dubai

  DS 5

  1·00

  Dubai

  DS 7M

  1·00

  Dubai

  DS 9

  2·00

  Dubai

  LE

  8·00

  Dublin

  DS 6

  1·00

  Dublin

  DS 7M

  1·00

  LE

  5·00

  Durban

  LE

  2·00

  Dusseldorf

  DS 3

  1·00

  Dusseldorf

  DS 5

  1·00

  Dusseldorf

  DS 6

  1·00

  Dusseldorf

  DS 7M

  1·00

  LE

  17·00

  Florence

  LE

  2·00

  Frankfurt

  DS 4

  1·00

  Frankfurt

  DS 6

  1·00

  LE

  7·00

  Freetown

  LE

  1·00

  Gaborone

  DS 7M

  1·00

  Gaborone

  LE

  1·00

  Geneva CG

  DS 4

  1·00

  LE

  2·00

  Gothenburg

  LE

  2·00

  Guatemala City

  LE

  1·00

  Georgetown

  LE

  2·00

  Hamburg

  DS 6

  1·00

  LE

  7·00

  Hanoi

  DS 3

  1·00

  Hanoi

  DS 5

  1·00

  Hanoi

  DS 7M

  1·00

  LE

  5·00

  Harare

  DS 6

  1·00

  LE

  3·00

  Havana

  LE

  2·00

  Helsinki

  DS 5

  1·00

  Helsinki

  DS 7M

  1·00

  LE

  9·00

  Ho Chi Minh

  DS 5

  1·00

  1049

  Numbers of staff at FCO missions overseas whose responsibilities lie primarily in promoting trade with the United Kingdom

  Location of mission

  Grade

  Number in Grade

  Ho Chi Minh

  DS 9

  1·00

  LE

  3·00

  Hong Kong BTC

  DS 3

  1·00

  Hong Kong BTC

  DS 4

  0·90

  Hong Kong BTC

  DS 5

  1·00

  Hong Kong BTC

  DS 6

  1·00

  LE

  7·00

  Hong Kong CTU

  DS 6

  1·00

  Hong Kong CTU

  DS 9

  1·00

  LE

  2·00

  Houston

  DS 6

  1·00

  LE

  3·00

  Islamabad

  DS 4

  1·00

  Islamabad

  DS 6

  1·00

  Islamabad

  DS 9

  1·00

  LE

  3·00

  Istanbul

  DS 6

  1·00

  Istanbul

  DS 9

  1·00

  LE

  8·00

  Jakarta

  DS 4

  1·00

  Jakarta

  DS 5

  1·00

  Jakarta

  DS 7M

  2·00

  Jakarta

  DS 9

  1·00

  LE

  10·00

  Jedda

  DS 4

  1·00

  Jedda

  DS 6

  1·00

  Jedda

  DS 7M

  1·00

  LE

  6·00

  Jerusalem

  LE

  2·00

  Johannesburg

  DS 5

  1·00

  Johannesburg

  DS 7M

  1·00

  Johannesburg

  DS 9

  1·00

  LE

  11·00

  Kabul

  LE

  1·00

  Kaduna

  LE

  2·00

  Kampala

  DS 7M

  1·00

  LE

  1·00

  Kano

  LE

  1·00

  Karachi

  DS 6

  1·00

  LE

  5·00

  Kathmandu

  LE

  2·00

  Khartoum

  LE

  4·00

  Kiev

  LE

  2·00

  Kingston

  LE

  3·00

  Kinshasa

  LE

  1·00

  Kuala Lumpar

  DS 4

  2·00

  Kuala Lumpar

  DS 6

  1·00

  Kuala Lumpar

  DS 7M

  2·00

  Kuala Lumpar

  DS 9

  1·00

  LE

  11·00

  Kuwait

  DS 6

  1·00

  Kuwait

  DS 9

  1·00

  LE

  7·00

  Le Paz

  LE

  2·00

  Lagos

  DS 9

  1·00

  LE

  7·00

  Las Palmas

  LE

  1·00

  Lille

  LE

  5·00

  Lilongwe

  LE

  2·00

  Lima

  LE

  2·00

  Lisbon

  DS 6

  1·00

  Lisbon

  DS 7M

  1·00

  LE

  10·00

  Ljubljana

  DS 5

  1·00

  Ljubljana

  LE

  2·00

  Lome

  LE

  00

  Los Angeles

  DS 6

  1·00

  LE

  6·00

  Luanda

  DS 7M

  1·00

  LE

  2·00

  Lusaka

  DS 6

  1·00

  LE

  3·00

  1050

  Numbers of staff at FCO missions overseas whose responsibilities lie primarily in promoting trade with the United Kingdom

  Location of mission

  Grade

  Number in Grade

  Luxembourg

  DS 9

  1·00

  LE

  1·00

  Lyons

  DS 4

  1·00

  LE

  6·00

  Madras

  DS 5

  1·00

  Madras

  DS 7M

  1·00

  LE

  7·00

  Madrid

  DS 4

  1·00

  Madrid

  DS 6

  1·00

  Madrid

  DS 7M

  2·00

  LE

  15·00

  Managua

  LE

  1·00

  Manila

  DS 4

  1·00

  Manila

  DS 6

  1·00

  LE

  8·00

  Maputo

  LE

  1·00

  Marseilles

  DS 4

  1·00

  LE

  3·00

  Marseru

  LE

  1·00

  Mbabane

  LE

  1·00

  Melbourne

  DS 4

  1·00

  Melbourne

  DS 6

  1·00

  LE

  8·00

  Mexico City

  DS 6

  1·00

  Mexico City

  DS 7M

  1·00

  LE

  9·00

  Miaimi

  DS 6

  1·00

  LE

  5·00

  Milan

  DS 3

  1·00

  Milan

  DS 5

  1·00

  LE

  19·00

  Minsk

  LE

  1·00

  Montevideo

  LE

  3·00

  Montreal

  DS 6

  1·00

  Montreal

  DS 7M

  1·00

  LE

  3·00

  Moscow

  DS 4

  1·00

  Moscow

  DS 6

  1·00

  Moscow

  DS 7M

  2·00

  Moscow

  DS 10

  1·00

  LE

  8·00

  Munich

  DS 6

  1·00

  LE

  6·00

  Muscat

  DS 6

  1·00

  Muscat

  DS 7M

  1·00

  Muscat

  DS 9

  1·00

  LE

  4·00

  Nagoya

  LE

  3·00

  Nairobi

  DS 5

  1·00

  Nairobi

  DS 7M

  1·00

  LE

  6·00

  Naples

  LE

  2·00

  Nassau

  LE

  1·00

  New Delhi

  DS 4

  1·00

  New Delhi

  DS 5

  1·00

  New Delhi

  DS 7M

  1·00

  New Delhi

  DS 9

  1·00

  LE

  16·00

  New York CG

  DS 4

  1·00

  New York CG

  DS 6

  1·00

  LE

  18·00

  Nicosia

  DS 5

  1·00

  LE

  1·00

  Oporto

  DS 6

  1·00

  LE

  2·00

  Osaka

  DS 4

  1·00

  Osaka

  DS 6

  1·00

  LE

  9·00

  Oslo

  DS 5

  1·00

  Oslo

  DS 7M

  1·00

  Oslo

  DS 9

  1·00

  LE

  8·00

  1051

  Numbers of staff at FCO missions overseas whose responsibilities lie primarily in promoting trade with the United Kingdom

  Location of mission

  Grade

  Number in Grade

  Ottawa

  LE

  3·00

  Panama City

  LE

  2·00

  Paris

  DS 4

  1·00

  Paris

  DS 5

  1·00

  Paris

  DS 7M

  1·00

  Paris

  DS 9

  1·00

  LE

  23·00

  Peking

  DS 4

  1·00

  Peking

  DS 5

  2·00

  Peking

  DS 7D

  3·00

  Peking

  DS 9

  1·00

  Peking

  S2

  1·00

  LE

  4·00

  Perth

  DS 5

  1·00

  Perth

  DS 7M

  1·00

  LE

  4·00

  Phnom Penh

  LE

  1·00

  Port Harcourt

  LE

  2·00

  Port Louis

  DS 6

  1·00

  LE

  2·00

  Port Moresby

  LE

  1·00

  Port of Spain

  DS 7M

  1·00

  LE

  3·00

  Prague

  DS 5

  1·00

  Prague

  DS 7M

  1·00

  LE

  3·00

  Pusan

  LE

  2·00

  Quito

  DS 7M

  1·00

  LE

  3·00

  Rabat

  DS 9

  1·00

  Rangoon

  Ds 3

  1·00

  LE

  3·00

  Recife

  LE

  3·00

  Reykjavik

  LE

  2·00

  Riga

  LE

  2·00

  Rio de Janeiro

  DS 6

  1·00

  LE

  8·00

  Riyadh

  DS 4

  1·00

  Riyadh

  DS 5

  1·00

  Riyadh

  DS 7M

  2·00

  Riyadh

  DS 9

  1·00

  LE

  6·00

  Rome

  DS 4

  1·00

  Rome

  DS 6

  1·00

  LE

  6·00

  San Francisco

  DS 4

  1·00

  San Francisco

  DS 6

  1·00

  LE

  3·00

  San Jose

  DS 5

  1·00

  LE

  3·00

  San Juan

  LE

  1·00

  San Salvador

  LE

  1·00

  Sana'a

  LE

  1·00

  Santiago

  DS 5

  1·00

  Santiago

  DS 7M

  1·00

  LE

  5·00

  Santo Domigo

  LE

  5·00

  Sao Paulo

  Ds 5

  1·00

  Sao Paulo

  DS 7M

  1·00

  LE

  7·00

  Seattle

  DS 6

  1·00

  LE

  3·00

  Seattle

  DS 6

  1·00

  LE

  3·00

  Seoul

  DS 4

  2·00

  Seoul

  Ds 6

  1·00

  Seoul

  DS 7M

  2·00

  LE

  21·00

  Seville

  LE

  2.00

  Shanghai

  DS 4

  1·00

  Shanghai

  DS 6

  1·00

  LE

  1·00

  Singapore

  DS 3

  1·00

  Singapore

  DS 4

  1·00

  1052

  Numbers of staff at FCO missions overseas whose responsibilities lie primarily in promoting trade with the United Kingdom

  Location of mission

  Grade

  Number in Grade

  Singapore

  DS 6

  1·00

  Singapore

  DS 7M

  2·00

  LE

  11·00

  Sofia

  DS 6

  1·00

  LE

  4·00

  St. Petersburg

  LE

  3·00

  Stockholm

  DS 4

  1·00

  Stockholm

  DS 5

  1·00

  Stockholm

  DS 9

  1·00

  LE

  12·00

  Stuttgart

  DS 5

  1·00

  LE

  4·00

  Suva

  LE

  2·00

  Sydney

  DS 4

  1·00

  Sydney

  DS 5

  1·00

  Sydney

  DS 6

  1·00

  Sydney

  DS 7M

  1·00

  LE

  9·00

  Tallinn

  LE

  1·00

  Tashkent

  LE

  1·00

  Tegucigalpa

  LE

  1·00

  Tehran

  DS 5

  1·00

  Tehran

  Ds 7M

  1·00

  LE

  4·00

  Tel Aviv

  DS 6

  1·00

  LE

  6·00

  The Hague

  Ds 4

  1·00

  The Hague

  DS 6

  1·00

  LE

  10·00

  Tokyo

  DS 4

  1·00

  Tokyo

  DS 5

  3·00

  Tokyo

  DS 7D

  1·00

  Tokyo

  Ds 9

  2·00

  Tokyo

  S2

  1·00

  LE

  29·00

  Toronto

  DS 3

  1·00

  Toronto

  DS 5

  1·00

  Toronto

  DS 7M

  1·00

  LE

  6·00

  Tunis

  DS 7M

  1·00

  LE

  3·00

  Turin

  LE

  1·00

  Ulaanbaatar

  LE

  1·00

  Valletta

  LE

  3·00

  Vancouver

  DS 4

  1·00

  Vancouver

  DS 7M

  1·00

  LE

  4·00

  Victoria

  LE

  1·00

  Vienna

  DS 5

  1·00

  LE

  6·00

  Vilnius

  LE

  2·00

  Warsaw

  DS 5

  1·00

  Warsaw

  DS 7M

  1·00

  LE

  10·00

  Washington

  DS 6

  1·00

  LE

  4·00

  Wellington

  LE

  3·00

  Windhoek

  LE

  1·00

  Yaounde

  LE

  1·00

  Zagreb

  DS 7M

  1·00

  LE

  2·00

  Zurich

  DS 4

  1·00

  Zurich

  DS 5

  1·00

  LE

  10·00

  Grade Key

  Ds = 1st secretary

  DS 7 = 2nd secretary

  DS 9 = 3rd secretary

  LE = locally engaged

  Liberia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the present numbers, by nationality, of Economic Community of West African States Monitoring Group forces in Liberia.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that he received from my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd) on 22 March,Official Report, column 142. Since then, Nigeria has reportedly reduced its presence. We have no further information

  South Africa
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to South Africa on its arms sales to Sudan.

  Mr. Baldry
  No representations have been made.

  Diplomatic Wing (Costs)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes he proposes to make in his Department's diplomatic wing cash limits and running costs for 1994·95.

  Mr. Baldry
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate the following changes will be made.

  The cash limit for class II, vote 2—other external relations—will be increased by £41,333,000 from £415,509,000 to £456,842,000, mainly to take account of United Nations peacekeeping operations and the repatriation of Vietnamese boat people. The increase is partly offset by appropriations in aid. The balance will be charged to the reserve.

  The cash limit for class II, vote 3—external broadcasting and monitoring—will be increased by £2,749,000 from £171,509,000 to £174,258,000, in respect of the take-up of end-year flexibility entitlement announced by my right hon. Friend the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate, (Mr. Portillo) on 14 July 1994, Official Report, columns 729–34.

  The increases will be offset by increased receipts or charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure. There are no changes to running costs.

  European Union
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a statement on the forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union.

  Mr. David Davis

  The following meetings are planned.

  7 November: ECOFIN

  8 November: Industry

  10 November: Cultural Affairs

  14 November: Agriculture

  15 November: Agriculture

  16 November: Budget

  17 November: Telecom

  21 November: Transport

  1054

  22 November: Transport

  23 November: Fisheries

  25 November: Development

  28 November: FAC

  29 November: FAC, Energy

  30 November: Justice, Youth Council

  1 December: Justice

  The following subjects are likely to be discussed.

  A: 7 November, ECOFIN

  White paper on competitiveness and employment

  Vat definitive regime

  CO2/energy tax (possible)

  Taxation of savings (possible)

  Financial assistance to Slovakia (possible)

  Dinner with CEE Finance Ministers

  B: 8 November, Industry

  Agenda likely to include:

  (i) Resolution on industrial competitiveness

  (ii) Steel (Ekostahl)

  C: 10 November, Cultural Affairs

  Agenda not available

  D: 14/15 November, Agriculture

  Wine (possible)

  Duram wheat (possible)

  Set-aside (possible)

  CAP simplification (possible)

  Fruit and vegetables (possible)

  Yellow fats (possible)

  Definition of butter (possible)

  Sugar (possible)

  Animal welfare (possible)

  Plant breeder rights

  E: 16 November, Budget

  Council second reading of 1995 budget

  Revision to financial perspectives

  F: 17 November, Telecom

  Possible agenda:

  Infrastructure liberalisation

  Digital broadcasting standards

  Interchange of Data between Administrations

  Mutual recognition of Telecoms/Satellite licenses

  Access to Space segment

  TENs ISON

  G: 21 November, Transport

  Maritime

  Port State Control Directive, common position

  Reporting zones Directive, common position

  Ferry safety Directive, possible resolution

  Competition Directive, discussion

  Land

  High Speed Train interoperability—orientation debate

  Tachographs—orientation debate

  Dangerous goods advisers—orientation debate

  Trans European Networks—orientation debate

  Other

  Switzerland discussion

  Satellite Navigation resolution

  H: 23 November, Fisheries

  Spain and Portugal

  Marketing

  Guide prices

  I: 25 November, Development

  Agenda not available

  J: 28 November, FAC

  Agenda not available

  1055
  K: 29 November, Energy

  Internal market in electricity

  Review of Community energy law (Council conclusions)

  Energy networks (possible)

  Energy policy

  Thermie II

  Energy Charter (probably over lunch)

  L: 30 November, Youth Council

  Agenda not available

  M: 30 November/ 1 December, Justice

  A items

  (i) External frontiers convention—Conclusion on Art.8.(3)

  (ii) Form of Council agreements on Asylum

  B items

  (iii) Europol convention

  (iv) Nuclear crime

  (v) Data protection—interim report

  (vi) Extradition—simplified procedure

  (vii) CEES. Follow up to the Berlin declaration

  (viii) Fraud against the Community Budget

  (ix) Asylum: burden-sharing

  (x) Racism and xenophobia—interim report from Consultative Commission

  (xi) Third Pillar priority objectives for 1995

WALES

  Forest Enterprise
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many disposals of land have been completed by Forest Enterprise in the past 18 months.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  One hundred and forty-two.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many access agreements have been completed relating to disposals of forestry land by Forest Enterprise in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Twenty-two.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many parcels of forestry are currently being offered for sale by Forest Enterprise in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Thirty.

  Parents Charter
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether copies of the parents charter have been distributed to schools in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Richards
  The latest edition of "Education: A Charter for Parents in Wales" has been distributed to every home in Wales. Advance copies were sent to local education authorities, county chief executives, diocesan authorities, teacher organisations and other education organisations, and arrangements are in hand for schools to receive reference copies.

  NHS Trust
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish an up-to-date list of all the chairs and non-executive directors of each national health service 1056
  trust board indicating the gender and occupation of each individual.

  Mr. Richards
  This information is contained in "Appointments by the Secretary of State for Wales", which is updated quarterly and placed in the Library of the House.

  Public Appointments
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of public appointments made by his Department were held by women at the most recent date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Redwood
  The most recent information about all appointments that I make is set out in "Appointments by the Secretary of State for Wales, 1 September 1994", which is available in the Library of the House: 26·8 per cent. of these appointments are held by women.

  Those figures include a number of appointments to bodies that are not shown in the Cabinet Office publication, "Public Bodies". The current edition, published in 1993, shows that, of the appointments made by Welsh Office Ministers and included in "Public Bodies", 17 per cent. were held by women in September 1993. Comparable figures for 1994 are being collected and will be published in due course.

  Health Authorities (Pay Award)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the reasons for the relative level of pay award concluded by the health authorities in Wales.

  Mr. Richards
  Health authorities in Wales are not responsible for deciding the level of pay awards.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what changes he proposes to make to the cash limits for(a) his Department and (b) the office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales for the current financial year.

  Mr. Redwood
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, the cash limit on class XV, vote 2 will be reduced by £14,867,000 from £175,198,000 to £160,331,000; the cash limit on class XV, vote 4 will be increased by £4,734,000, from £565,419,000 to £570,153,000; the cash limit on class XV, vote 5 will be increased by £10,133,000, from £492,775,000 to £502,908,000; the cash limit on class XV, vote 8 will be increased by £10,409,000 from £1,501,032,000 to £1,511,441,000; the cash limit on class XV, vote 9 will be increased by £819,000 from £65,977,000 to £66,796,000; and the cash limit on class XV, vote 12 will be increased by £203,000 from £7,034,000 to £7,237,000.

  Running costs provision for the Welsh Office and the office of Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools in Wales, which was not spent in 1993£94 has been carried forward, under the normal end-year flexibility arrangements, into 1994£95, increasing the running costs limits by £915,000 from £77,094,000 to £78,009,000 and £172,000 from £3,273,000 to £3,445,000 respectively. This is required to cover additional costs in administering agricultural grants following the reform of the common

  1057
  agricultural policy. The local authority capital limit—WO/LACAP—will be increased by £10,996,000 from £465,469,000 to £476,465,000.

  The decrease in the cash limit for vote 2 is the result mainly of a lower than expected demand—£14,400,000—for regional selective assistance, a transfer of £1 million of the Welsh Development Agency's grant in aid to their public expenditure provision for advances from the national loan fund following the introduction of a simplified loan fund scheme, a transfer of £687,000 to WO/LACAP to reflect the transfer of responsibility for rural development grants from the WDA and DBRW to local authorities, a transfer of £1,194,000 from class IV, vote 1 for the SMART and SPUR programmes and a transfer of £25,000 from class III, vote 4 for payments to the Central Science Laboratory.

  The increase in the cash limit for vote 4 provides mainly for an additional £2,000,000 for equipment in respect of the "modern apprenticeship" scheme, £2,000,000 extra for the Further Education Funding Council for equipment and building maintenance, £465,000 to fund the transfer of responsibility to the Higher Education Funding Council from the Department for Education and the Home Office for the diplomas in social work and courses in social work and an additional £300,000 for grant-maintained schools for essential maintenance work.

  The increase in the cash limit for vote 5 allows mainly for an additional £2,400,000 grant in aid for Cardiff Bay development corporation, £6,532,000 or central Government roads, including the take-up of £3,532,000 end-year flexibility entitlement and the take-up of £1,200,000 end-year flexibility entitlement for the urban investment grant scheme.

  The increase in the cash limit for vote 8 results from an additional £4,000,000 for health authorities to help to reduce waiting list times, the take-up of the £10,735,000 of end-year flexibility entitlement for NHS trusts and capital, the transfer of £904,000 from class XII, vote 1 in respect of the purchasing of special health authorities' patient care services from the London postgraduate teaching hospitals and a reduction of £5,230,000 in NHS trusts' investments.

  The increase in the cash limit for vote 9 is mainly in respect of the take-up of end-year flexibility entitlement of £948,000 as a result of underspending in 1993–94, a

  Estimated increase or decrease in rate bills in Wales between 1994–95 and 1995–96 as a result of the 1995 revaluation, in the absence of transitional relief

  Small Properties

  Large Properties

  Total

  1995–96 bills as a percentage of 1994–95 bills

  No. (1000s)

  Change in bills (£m)

  No. (000s)

  Change in bills (£m)

  No. (000s)

  Change in bills bills (£m)

  Less than 50

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  50–80

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  80–120

  20

  —

  5

  5

  25

  —

  120–200

  55

  45

  10

  60

  65

  110

  200–500

  10

  15

  —

  20

  10

  35

  Greater than 500

  —

  —

  —

  5

  —

  5

  Total

  85

  65

  15

  80

  100

  145

  Source: Inland Revenue.

  1. Figures are rounded to nearest 5 units (— means less than 3 units).

  2. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

  3. Small properties have a 1 April 1990 rateable value less than £10,000.

  1058
  transfer of £77,000 to class XV, vote 12 and increased appropriations in aid. Welsh Office running costs expenditure will be lower in 1995–96 in cash and real terms than in 1993–94 or 1994–95.

  The increase in the cash limit for vote 12 results mainly from the take-up of £95,000 end-year flexibility entitlement and a transfer of £77,000 from class XV, vote 9 for the repayment costs for services provided to the office of Her Majesty's inspector of schools in Wales by the Welsh Office.

  There is also a increase to a non-voted cash limit, WO/LACAP, resulting from the take-up of £10,309,000 end-year flexibility entitlement and the switch of £687,000 from class XV, vote 2 in respect of the transfer of responsibility to local authorities for the rural development grant scheme.

  None of the proposed changes will add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Non-domestic Rates
  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many hereditaments in Wales which fall(a) below and (b) above the threshold of £10,000 rateable value, for determining whether the lower limit on year-on-year increases in non-domestic rates bills applies, there are estimated to be, whose rates bills for 1995–96 in the absence of any transitional relief and assuming the rate poundage, as adjusted for the revaluation, is indexed for inflation, would be (i) under 50 per cent., (ii) between 50 and 80 per cent., (iii) between 80 and 120 per cent., (iv) between 120 and 200 per cent., (v) between 200 and 500 per cent., and (vi) over 500 per cent. of their bills for 1994–95; and if he will estimate for each of those categories the aggregate increase or decrease in rates bills between the two years.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Estimates for Wales based on preliminary results of the 1995 revaluation and assuming for illustrative purposes that the rate poundage is unchanged in real terms between 1994–95 and 1995–96 are given in the following table. In deciding on the actual poundage for 1995–96 my right hon. Friend will have regard to schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 1988, which requires him to take account of both the rise in inflation and the rateable value of all appropriate hereditaments on the last day of the 1990 list and the first day of the 1995 list so that the rate yield from the two lists will be broadly the same.
  1059
  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate the number of hereditaments where the transition for the 1990 changes is likely to be incomplete by 31 March 1995 but is likely to be(a) complete and (b) more nearly complete at 1 April 1995 by virtue of a reduction in the rateable value from that date.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  An estimated 19,000 hereditaments in Wales will be in transition on 31 March 1995 when the existing transitional arrangements expire. On the basis of preliminary results from the 1995 revaluation, and assuming the rate poundage rises in line with inflation, less than 1,000 would find themselves with no further increase next year and 1,000 would be closer to reaching their full liability than they are now.

  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list the regions, sectors and types of hereditament most affected by large increases or decreases in bills for non-domestic rates;

  (2) what studies he has commissioned internally and from external consultants, of the likely impact of the April 1995 revaluation of non-domestic property in Wales on rateable values and non-domestic rate bills in different regions and different sectors of the economy; if he will publish those studies or summaries thereof; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Inland Revenue is analysing the results of the revaluation as they come in. Although numbers are subject to change, the current estimate of the effect of the revaluation on rateable values is given in the following table. The effect on rate bills will depend on the rate poundage which is determined for 1995–96 and the final form of the proposed transitional arrangements for the 1995 revaluation, details of which are contained in a Welsh Office consultation paper issued on 4 October. Copies of the consultation paper will be placed in the Library of the House. My right hon. Friend expects to announce his decisions by the end of November.

  Provisional estimates of impact of 1995 revaluation on rateable values. Average percentage increase in 1995 list RV compared with 1990 list RV

  Number

  Shops

  23

  Offices

  43

  Warehouses

  42

  Factories

  29

  Other

  16

  All

  25

  Source: Inland Revenue.

  1 All numbers are still subject to change, possibly significant, as the revaluation work progresses.

  2 The information is not available on a regional basis for Wales.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisons (Television)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many prisons prisoners can receive television via satellite dishes; and how many prisons are planning to install such dishes.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison 1060
  Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. John Marshall, dated 1 November 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about satellite television in Prison Service establishments.
  106 establishments in England and Wales have the capacity for prisoners to watch television via satellite dishes, during association periods. Prisoners ability to watch television is restricted and tightly controlled by staff. Satellite television is used as an alternative to the previous practice of watching videos. Satellite television is not financed from public funds. It is funded from the establishment general purposes fund, which is derived from the profits of the prison shop and gifts, or from voluntary contributions by prisoners or well wishers.
  Four further prisons are planning to install this facility.

  Prisons (Education)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what surveys his Department has carried out as to the effect on education courses in prisons in England and Wales when an inmate is moved to another prison where such courses are not being followed; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 1 November 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the effect on prison education courses when a prisoner is moved to a prison that does not offer the same course of study.
  Education courses pursued by a prisoner cannot take precedence when a move between prison establishments is dictated by overriding operational needs. Prison education departments are aware that such moves may occur and courses are planned to be as flexible as possible. This has not been the subject of a national survey.
  On transfer, the receiving education department will make every effort to accommodate the prisoner's needs. The receiving department will accept any continuing costs associated with a course of study which a prisoner is pursuing, including distance learning, course costs and examination fees. We are developing a national curriculum framework, the benefits of which will be to help ensure the continuity of study for prisoners between establishments.

  Prisoners (Possessions)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the amount of personal possessions a prison inmate is officially allowed to have in a prison.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 1 November 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about prisoners' personal possessions.
  Prison standing orders specify a number of personal items which prisoners may have in possession, and set out the basis on which decisions are to be made about other items. The fundamental principle determining the amount of property allowed in possession, as well as the acceptability of individual items, is that effective searching should not be prevented, nor should any items constitute a security, safety or health risk.

  Prisons (Drugs)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison inmates(a) men and (b) women have been charged and found guilty of being in possession of drugs in prisons in England and Wales since 1 January.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 1 November 1994:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how many inmates in prisons in England and Wales were charged and found guilty of being in possession of drugs since 1 January. The provisional figures for January—september 1994 show 1,722 proved adjudication findings for male inmates and 13 for female inmates charged with being in possession of controlled drugs. The figures include any proved charges of inciting or assisting other prisoners to possess controlled drugs.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many visitors to each of the prisons in England and Wales have been charged with attempting to take drugs into a prison since 1 January.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 1 November 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of visitors to prisons in England and Wales who have been charged with attempting to take drugs into prison since 1 January.
  The Prison Service does not keep a central record of decisions by the police to bring charges.

  Prison Officers
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to support prison officers in their day-to-day duties, with particular reference to the searching of prison inmates and prisoners' cells; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 1 November 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the action taken to support prison officers with their day-to-day duties, particularly with the searching of prison inmates and prisoners' cells.
  Prison Officers duties are varied and include maintenance of security and control; provision of regime activities such as offending behaviour programmes; and other work with prisoners. The Prison Service has made significant progress in all of these areas during
  1062
  the last 18 months, due to the energy and commitment of prison officers and other staff.
  Particular measures to support prison officers in their security role include:
  the use of x-ray machines and metal detector portals and metal detectors to help search people, property and vehicles entering or leaving prisons
  specially trained dog handlers and dogs are available to search and detect items such as drugs or explosives in prisons
  CCTV has been installed in some visits areas
  prison officers receive training in searching procedures and techniques as part of their initial training
  the security manual, issued to all establishments giving advice on searching procedures, is being revised and simplified
  Governors have to draw up local searching strategies based on the nature of the prison and the type of prisoners held
  major refurbishment schemes include significant security improvements, in particular to prisoners' cells
  monthly security bulletins are issued to draw attention to lessons from recent incidents and to provide information to Governors on special security topics
  drug testing is due to be introduced under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill
  perimeter security is being improved in many establishments
  court escorts have been made more security by the use of double cuffing for category B prisoners and the increased use of secure vehicles
  Control measures include:
  the strengthening of Governors' disciplinary powers
  about half of establishments have introduced differential regimes and local incentive schemes to improve behaviour
  more cellular accommodation is being provided for category C prisoners
  new allocation procedures have been introduced for category C prisoners, designed to ensure that the mix of prisoners in establishments is monitored and controlled to minimise the risk of disturbances
  a project is researching violence in prisons with a view to developing guidance on best practice
  Improvements concerned with regimes include:
  prisoners are expected to engage actively in work, training, education and other purposeful activities. The target for increasing levels of purposeful activity is being exceeded
  offending behaviour programmes are being expanded, with more training for officers involved in these programmes
  more than 700 NVQ schemes for prisoners are being implemented through prison workshops and other facilities
  Prison officers will have more time to concentrate on these activities as the disruptive court escort work is contracted out and work not requiring a prison officer's expertise is transferred to other grades.

  Domestic Service
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions his Department has had as to the feasibility of allowing overseas domestic workers in the United Kingdom to change their employer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  We have received a number of representations in support of allowing overseas domestic workers to change employers but we consider that this would be contrary to our immigration controls and against the interest of the resident labour force. Each case involving a domestic worker who wishes to remain in the United Kingdom after having left his or her employer is carefully considered and account is taken of any compassionate circumstances.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the privatisations which

  Name of Body

  Purchaser

  Date sold

  Proceeds of sale £ million

  National Transcommunications Limited (NTL)

  Mercury Asset management

  24 October 1991

  70·00

  DTELS

  NTL

  1 March 1994

  6·60

  United Racecourses (Holdings) Limited

  Racecourse Holdings Trust Limited

  29 April 1994

  30·25

  No information is held on the current value of the companies concerned.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for asylum have been determined since the passage of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993; in how many cases the applicant has been allowed to stay in the United Kingdom, how many principal applicants were successful; and how many dependants they had.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Information on decisions made since the implementation of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993–1 August 1993 to 30 September 1994—and the estimated number of dependants accompanying these decided cases is given in the table.

  Decisions1 on applications received for asylum in the United Kingdom, and dependants, August 1993 to September 1994

  Decisions made in August 1993-September 1994

  Total decision made on Principal applications for asylum2

  24,665

  -dependants accompanying cases decided3

  7,565

  Cases recognised as a refugee and granted asylum2

  845

  -dependants accompanying cases granted asylum3

  600

  Cases not recognised as a refugee but granted exceptional leave to remain2

  3,330

  -dependants accompanying cases granted exceptional leave to remain3

  1,620

  Cases refused asylum and exceptional leave after full consideration2

  19,890

  -dependants accompanying cases refused asylum and exceptional leave3

  5,345

  1 Figures are rounded to the nearest 5.

  2 Exclude dependants.

  3 Information on dependants is of those applying with the Principal applicant or arriving subsequently, before the principal application was decided. Information excludes dependants who arrive after the principal decision.

  4Including refusals on the grounds that the applicant had arrived from a safe third country anf refusals under para 180F of the Immigration Rules for failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for asylum are still outstanding after(a) four years, (b) five years and (c) six years; and if he will make a statement.
  1064
  his Department has promoted since 1979, indicating, in each case, the date of the sale, the proceeds of the sale, and the estimated current value of the company.

  Mr. Howard
  The available information is as follows:

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  At 30 September 1994—the latest date for which the information is available—by the estimated number of asylum applications outstanding was 52,760. Information on the number of these cases waiting longer than four, five, or six years is not available.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the processing period of asylum applications at the present time.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The estimated average length of time between the receipt of an asylum application and the decision, for cases decided on application for asylum received since the introduction of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993–26 July 1993 to 30 September 1994—was 4.7 months.

  Cannabis
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the therapeutic uses of cannabis; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Representations have been received from Members of Parliament, doctors and patients claiming that cannabis relieves the symptoms of a number of medical conditions and asking if it can be made available to treat them.

  The Department of Health is considering these claims in conjunction with the Medicines Control Agency and the Home Office.

  Sri Lankan Tamils
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Sri Lankan Tamils(a) have applied for and (b) have been granted political asylum in the United Kingdom since 1 January.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Information on Sri Lankan Tamils are not separately identifiable in the statistics. The table gives information for the period 1 January 1994 to 30 September 1994 on the number of applications for asylum from nationals of Sri Lanka and decisions made.

  Decisions1 on applications1 received for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, from Sri Lankan nationals, 1 January 1994–30 September 1994

  Number of principal applicants

  Asylum applications2

  1,835

  Decisions2 3

  815

  Recognised as a refugee and granted asylum

  10

  1065

  Decisions1 on applications1 received for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, from Sri Lankan nationals, 1 January 1994–30 September 1994

  Number of principal applicants

  Not recognised as a refugee but granted exceptional leave to remain4

  65

  Refused asylum and ELR—after full consideration

  615

  Refused under para 180F5

  65

  Refused on safe third country grounds6

  60

  1Provisional figures rounded to the nearest 5.

  2Figures exclude information on applications made overseas.

  3Decisions do not necessarily relate to applications made in 1994.

  4Usually granted for a year in the first instance, subject then to further review.

  5For failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period, including failure to respond to invitation to interview to establish identity.

  6Refused on the grounds that the applicant had arrived from a safe third country.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Sri Lankan Tamils have been deported from the United Kingdom since 1 January.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Two Sri Lankan citizens were removed from the United Kingdom under the deportation process in the period January to September 1994. No distinction is made in statistical records between Tamils and other Sri Lankans.

  West Midlands Police
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the conclusions of the inquiry being carried out by Leicestershire police into alleged bribery in the West Midlands police service will be published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The investigation, which is being conducted under the supervision of the Police Complaints Authority, is still in progress.

  Any announcement of criminal or disciplinary proceedings is a matter for the chief constable of West Midlands police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Police Complaints Authority.

  British Dependent Territories
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to extend the right of abode in the United Kingdom to all British dependent territory passport holders;

  (2) what plans he has to regularise the position of British dependent territories passport holders after June 1997, in respect of the position of Gibraltarians and Falkland Islanders.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  None. There is no reason to change the status of British dependent territories citizens either now or after June 1997.

  Public Appointments
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of public appointments made by his Department were held by women at the most recent date for which figures are available.
  1066
  Mr. Howard
  As at 1 September 1993, 40 per cent. of public appointments made by the Home Office were held by women. The 1994 figures will be announced in due course.

  Nuclear Materials (Transport)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what responsibilities his Department has for liaison with the French Government regarding civil defence emergencies resulting from transport of nuclear material near the channel islands; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  I have been asked to reply. All movements of radioactive materials in the French and English territorial waters of the English channel are subject to the maritime nuclear emergency plan for the English channel. The plan is administered by the prefet maritime, Cherbourg, controlled through the cross-channel maritime communications centre, and involves all the relevant United Kingdom and French authorities.

  General Oleg Kalugin
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what decision has been taken on the application by General Oleg Kalugin for a visa to visit the United Kingdom; and what were the reasons for the decision.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Mr. Kalugin's application for a visa is at present under consideration. I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as a decision has been taken.

  Airports (Immigration Officers)
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many United Kingdom airports receiving scheduled flights form abroad do not have permanent, full-time immigration service staff stationed at the airport.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Immigration Service staff are stationed permanently at all airports where their full-time attendance is justified. There are seven small regional airports operating scheduled passenger flights where Immigration Service staff are not stationed on a permanent basis.

  Misuse
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to extend the number of local drugs prevention teams in(a) Wales, (b) Scotland, (c) Northern Ireland and (d) England; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Funding for the drugs prevention initiative in England is being renewed for a further four years from April 1995. From that date there will be 12 teams, covering some 16 million people rather than the 6 million covered by the current teams.

  Arrangements for building from the work of the two teams in Scotland is being considered in the light of the report of the drugs task force. In Wales, a new strategy for the prevention of drug and alcohol misuse is being developed. There are no current plans to establish a drugs prevention team in Northern Ireland.

  Police Authorities (Allowances)
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the differences in financial allowances between the independent appointees to the new police authorities and the allowances permitted for the local authority and magistrates' representatives.

  Mr. Maclean
  Councillor and independent members of new police authorities will be able to claim £15 per hour for time spent on police authority business, up to a limit of £120 per day and £3,000 per year—£6,000 per year if they are the chairman of the authority.

  Magistrate members of new police authorities will, as at present, be able to claim financial loss allowance at the rates payable to them as magistrates.

  Al Fayed Brothers (Citizenship Application)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what(a) formal or (b) informal representations he has received from (i) hon. Members and (ii) others asking for reconsideration of the refusal to grant British citizenship to Mr. Mohammed Al Fayed and Mr. Ali Al Fayed.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  As their applications have not yet been determined, the question of representations asking for reconsideration of refusal does not arise.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will name the referees who have supported the applications for British citizenship of Mr. Ali al Fayed and Mr. Mohamed Al Fayed.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  No. It is not our practice to disclose such details.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what formal or informal representations he has received from persons other than hon. Members on the applications by Mr. Mohammed Al Fayed or Mr. Ali Al Fayed for British citizenship.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  We have received representations from three people other than hon. Members concerning these applications. It is not our practice to disclose the details of private communications.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the consultations held with ministerial colleagues concerning the applications for British citizenship by Mr. Mohammed Al Fayed and Mr. Ali Al Fayed; and what special principles apply when considering such applications.

  Mr. Howard
  I made a public statement on this matter on 24 October 1994, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Private Security Industries
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with his European counterparts regarding regulating standards in the private security industries across the European Union.

  Mr. Maclean
  No such discussions have taken place.

  Criminal Justice Act 1991
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has plans to extend to other categories of offenders the powers contained in section 44 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 to require sex 1068
  offenders to be supervised for the whole of the remainder of their sentence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  We have no plans at present to extend the powers contained in section 44 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 to cover other offences.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of whether judges are sufficiently aware of the powers contained in section 44 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 to require offenders to be supervised for the whole of the remainder of their sentence following automatic conditional release.

  Mr. Maclean
  A circular was sent to all judges on 5 March 1992 describing the provisions contained in the Criminal Justice Act 1991 which were to be implemented in 1992, including section 44. The statistics suggest an increased use of the power in the years since its introduction.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions section 44 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 has been used by judges to require contrived supervision of an offender for the remainder of his or her sentence.

  Mr. Maclean
  The number of cases in which a court has ordered that an offender should be supervised for the whole of his sentence under section 44 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 are as follows:

  1992 — 1

  1993 — 11

  1994 (January-June) —34

  It is likely that the recorded figures for 1992 and 1993 are understated because of initial difficulties in probation areas in the recording of such cases.

  Local Government Review
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about future police and fire service arrangements in Humberside, Lincolnshire and North Yorkshire, and Avon and Somerset.

  Mr. Howard
  In the light of the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on 25 October,Official Report, columns 534-37 about the future arrangements for local government in Humberside. I announced my intention to consider and consult upon whether a separate Humberside police force, based on the four unitary authorities, should be retained. I propose to make a statement on future policing arrangements in Lincolnshire and North Yorkshire when the Humberside police review has been completed and I have reached a decision on that matter.

  In the case of the Avon and Somerset constabulary, its present boundaries are unaffected by the decision to replace the county of Avon by four unitary authorities. The new unitary authorities will, from the appointed day of reorganisation, replace Avon county council as relevant councils for the appointment of councillor members of the police authority.

  For fire services, in the light of advice which I have received from the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council and from Her Majesty's chief inspector of fire services, I propose to establish combined fire authorities when local government in Avon, Humberside and North Yorkshire is

  1069
  reorganised. These combined authorities will take over the functions under the Fire Services Act 1947 which are currently exercised by separate county councils. The provision of fire services in Lincolnshire and Somerset will remain unchanged.

  Cash Limits
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what proposals he has for changes to the 1994–95 cash limits within his responsibilities.

  Mr. Howard
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class VIII, vote 3—Home Office administration, immigration, probation and police support services, England and Wales—will be increased by £39,000 from £1,212,682,000 to £1,212,721,000. This is to enable a special capital grant at the rate of 100 per cent. to be made in order to fund the preliminary stages of the national probation service information systems strategy, for which the inner London probation service will act as the interim contractual authority. The total grant of £755,000 has been financed by a transfer of £604,000 from other probation capital grants, together with a reduction of £151,000 in the local authority capital non-voted HO/LACAP cash limit from £122,291,000 to £122,140,000. The new grant will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure. The cash limit for class VIII, vote 3 is increased by only £39,000 because at the same time a transfer of £112,000 is being made to the Welsh Office, class XV, vote 4, to meet the costs of providing additional places for Home Office-sponsored students at universities.

  Drug Deaths
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his calculation of numbers who have died as a result of the use of(a) solvents, (b) LSD, (c) amyl nitrate, (d) butyl nitrate, (e) khat, (1) temazepam, (g) ecstasy, (h) amphetamine and (i) GBH in each of the past five years.

  Mr Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 31 October 1994]: The information requested is contained in Tables 17, 19 and 20 of the Home Office statistical bulletin "Statistics of drug addicts notified to the Home Office, United Kingdom" and is summarised in the table:

  Deaths from solvents and certain controlled drugs, United Kingdom, 1988–921

  Number of persons

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Volatile substances

  89

  84

  112

  87

  68

  LSD

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Benzodiazepines2

  —

  308

  311

  316

  370

  "Ecstasy"3

  1

  2

  —

  5

  —

  Amphetamines

  4

  3

  4

  15

  10

  1No information is available on deaths from the use of alkylnitrites (which includes amyl and butyl nitrite), khat, and GHB (gamma-hydroxy- butyrate), none of which are controlled drugs.

  2No data are available before 1989. This group of drugs includes Temazepam, for which separate figures are not available.

  3MDMA and other drugs related to MDA (methylenedioxy-amphetamine).

  IRA Prisoners
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if IRA prisoners in Whitemoor prison have been permitted to make telephone calls of up to one hour's duration per month on telephones not limited to inland calls;

  (2) what steps were (a) required by his Department and (b) taken by the Prison Service, at Whitemoor prison prior to 9 September, in response to (i) Prison Governors Association comments concerning Whitemoor prison (ii) representations from Whitemoor's board of visitors, (iii) HM chief inspector of prisons' report on Whitemoor and (iv)representations from the Prison Officers Association regarding Whitemoor;

  (3) what (a) discussions there with the present governor of Whitemoor prison and (b) instructions were given to him regarding any change in regime from that pertaining immediately prior to his appointment;

  (4) what arrangements existed for monitoring phone calls made on official telephones by IRA prisoners at Whitemoor prison prior to 9 September;

  (5) how the prison regime at Whitemoor differs from any other comparable prison;

  (6) if high-risk prisoners in special secure units (a) are and (b) have been permitted to make telephone calls of up to one hour's duration per month on telephones not limited to inland calls.

  (7) what special instructions he gave to the director-general of the Prison Service regarding the security arrangements for IRA prisoners, following the announcement that IRA prisoners, following the announcement that IRA prisoners would be moved from the mainland back to Northern Ireland;

  (8) what arrangements exist for monitoring phone calls made on official telephones by high-risk and exceptional risk category A prisoners.

  (9) in what ways the Whitemoor regime for IRA prisoners is different in terms of control and privileges from that of other category A prisoners;

  (10) what measures have been taken to review and improve the security of prisons, following the recent security breaches at Whitemoor and Durham prisons.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 24 October 1994]: These issues are a matter for the Director General of the Prison Service. He wrote to the hon. Member on 25 October and a copy of that reply has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he required the Director General of the Prison Service to review the circumstances and the security arrangements of IRA prisoners under Prison Service control following the recent movement of IRA prisoners from the mainland to Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 24 October 1994]: There was no requirement to review the security of IRA prisoners remaining in prisons in England and Wales following the transfer of IRA prisoners to Northern Ireland. Security arrangements are to be examined in the light of the results of the inquiry by Sir John Woodcock.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Back-to-work Bonus
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the maximum amount of the proposed back-to-work bonus for each partner where a couple are both claiming benefit on a means-tested basis; and whether the total accumulated credit from part-time earnings of both partners would be payable when one of them moves into full-time work.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The maximum amount of the proposed back-to-work bonus is £1,000 per benefit unit. The earnings of both partners may contribute towards building up this amount, which would be payable in full when the couple left benefit as a result either of the claimant moving into work of 16 hours or more per week, or the claimant's partner moving into work of 24 hours or more per week.

  State Retirement Pension
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) men and (b) women aged 100 years and over are in receipt of a state retirement pension.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  At 31 March 1994, the latest date for which figures are available, a total of 830 men and 6,640 women, aged 100 and over (figures include persons residing overseas) were in receipt of state retirement pension ("State Retirement Pension" means a contributory retirement pension, a non-contributory retirement pension or a graduated retirement benefit).

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what he estimates will be the cost in a full year of raising the level of pension that may be received without affecting benefit from £35 to £50 a week combined with the removal of the age threshold; and how many people will benefit from this.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Raising the level of occupational or personal pension that can be received without affecting a contribution-based job seeker's allowance from £35 to £50 per week, combined with removing the age threshold, would save around an estimated £10 million in a full year at current prices. It is estimated that around 15,000 claimants would gain through the raising of the abatement limit to £50.

  Notes:
  1. Estimates rounded to nearest £10 million and 5,000 cases.
  2. Estimates assume:

  a. 2.55 million unemployed claimants (GB);

  b. 600,000 Unemployment Benefit claimants.

  3. Losers are estimated using the Policy Simulation Model with 1990/91/92. Family Expenditure Survey data and 1994 Unemployment Benefit Statistics.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will give the latest cost of fully restoring the value of retirement pensions paid to United Kingdom citizens living abroad on the basis that the normal uprating had been paid as if the recipient had continued to live in this country;

  (2) what would have been the cost of uprating the retirement pensions of United Kingdom citizens living abroad on the same basis as those pensions paid to those living in the United Kingdom in this financial year.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The estimated cost of paying fully indexed benefits to all people receiving state retirement and widows pensions living abroad whose benefits are not 1072
  uprated is £230 million a year. The cost in the 1994–95 financial year of paying just the April 1994 uprating to these pensioners is estimated to be £16 million. Separate figures are not available on the cost of uprating benefits only for retirement pensioners or those who are citizens of the United Kingdom.

  Income Support
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have received a reduced rate of income support in the form of a hardship payment in the latest year for which figures are available and in each of the preceding three years.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is set out in the table:

  Awards of income support to prevent hardship

  period

  Number of hardship payments

  April 1990—march 1991

  2,415

  April 1991—march 1992

  2,992

  April 1992—march 1993

  3,477

  April 1993—march 19941

  3,701

  April 1994—August 1994 (4 months)1

  1,677

  Note:

  1Figures are provisional and subject to amendment.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of people who gave up employment to protect the benefit entitlement of a spouse or partner in the latest period for which an estimate can be made; and what change he estimates there would have been in that figure if the 16-hour limit had been raised to 24 hours.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available in the form requested. We estimate that approximately 20,000 households will benefit from the change in the hours rule for working partners, when the changes from 16 to 24 hours as proposed with the introduction of job seeker's allowance are introduced.

  Family Credit
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many employees of his Department and of each of its agencies are in receipt of family credit payments.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information requested is not available.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how long it took to process a family credit application in each region for England during 1992 and 1993.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available in the form requested as family credit claims are administered centrally. The clearance times for Great Britain as a whole were as follows:

  1991–92

  64.4 per cent. in 18 working days

  89.2 per cent. in 35 working days

  1073
  1992–93

  60.7 per cent. in 13 working days

  96.8 per cent. in 45 working days

  Source: Social Security Departmental Report.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what category of claimant would continue to draw income support if the job seeker's allowance were in operation.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Claimants in specified groups who are not required to be available for work could continue to claim income support. The main groups will be lone parents, men aged 60–64, those with significant caring responsibilities and people with disabilities.

  However, claimants in these groups who want to claim job seeker's allowance could do so provided that they meet the entitlement conditions, including being available for and actively seeking work.

  Job Seeker's Allowance
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether someone refused a hardship payment in circumstances described in paragraph 4.39 of "Jobseeker's Allowance" is eligible for a crisis loan from the social fund.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Claimants who would not have access to hardship payments in the circumstances described in paragraph 4.39 of the job seekers's allowance White Paper would not have access to the social fund for a crisis loan to cover living expenses. Provision of such a loan would negate the effect of the sanction. Crisis loans would, however, be available in those circumstances to help make good damage caused by unforeseen disaster, such as fire or flood.

  Cash and Running Costs Limits
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes are proposed in the cash limits or running costs limits of his Department.

  Mr. Hague
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class XIII vote 4 will be increased by £45,825,000 from £2,724,356,000 to £2,770,181,000. The revision takes account of increased requirements resulting from policy changes—£43,526,000, of which £29,948,000 is running costs—an increase of £77,454,000—of which £66,474,000 is running costs—in respect of the end-year flexibility arrangements, an increase of £350,000— running costs—offset by a corresponding reduction on Crown Prosecution Services; Crown Prosecutions and legal services, class IX vote 7, an increase of £3,000—running costs—offset by a corresponding reduction on Her Majesty's Treasury, class XVII vote 1, an increase of £56,000—running costs—offset by a corresponding reduction on Department of Health, administration, miscellaneous health services and personal social services, England, class XII vote 3, a reduction of £5,152,000 in running cost cover for services provided by Department of Health and Social Services (Northern Ireland) on repayment and an increase of £75,564,000 in appropriations in aid.

  Further running cost changes arise from a reduction of £3,018,000 as a result of a reallocation to capital and other
  1074
  current expenditure, a reduction of £2,169,000 resulting from a transfer to a net running cost section of the vote and an increase of £5,029,000 in value added tax refunds.

  As a result of these changes, the running cost limit of the Department of Social Security will be increased by £81,463,000 from £2,928,784,000 to £3,010,247,000.

  The additional requirements will be changed to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Disability
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what consideration she has given to the report on the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation's investigation of complaints from disabled people about delays in assessment for and the provision of services under section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970; what action she is taking; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) what consideration the Minister for Disabled People has given to the report of the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation's investigation of complaints from disabled people about delays in assessment for and the provision of services under section two of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970; what action he is taking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  We have seen a copy of the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation's end of project report, "Disabled People Have Rights".

  Local authorities' duties under the 1970 Act remain unchanged, however, and they were reminded of their legal obligations in December 1992. We have also set out procedures for the investigation of complaints, and the Department follows up cases where it is alleged that a local authority is in breach of its statutory duties.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was(a) the number and (b) the percentage of (i) successful and (ii) unsuccessful claims for disability living allowance and attendance allowance for (1) disability living allowance (care), (2) disability living allowance (mobility) and (3) attendance allowance in each year since 1992–93 and the first quarter of 1994–95.

  Mr. Hague
  The available information is in the table.

  Total decisions

  Number of awards

  Success rate (per cent.)

  Disability Living Allowance

  1992–93

  685,154

  432,382

  63

  1993–94

  441,470

  223,347

  51

  April—june 1994

  112,315

  55,253

  49

  Attendance Allowance

  1992–93

  516,357

  379,298

  73

  1993–94

  480,578

  347,793

  72

  April—june 1994

  118,171

  86,398

  73

  Notes

  1The information is not available in the form requested.

  2Figures for DLA relate only to decisions given on new claims; the figures for AA include first awards on review and appeal.

  3DLA figures for 1992–93 include single component claims made under transitional arrangements.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was(a) the number and (b) the percentage

  1075
  of (i) disability living allowance claims and (ii) attendance allowance claims where an examining medical practitioner's report was commissioned by his Department in respect of (1) disability living allowance (care), (2)

  Total decisions

  EMP report obtained

  Percentage with EMP report

  Adjudication Officer's decisions on DLA

  1992–93

  633,684

  120,506

  19

  1993–94

  429,415

  88,552

  21

  April 1994—june 1994

  109,544

  19,670

  18

  Adjudication Officer's decisions on AA

  1992–93

  415,503

  92,465

  22

  1993–94

  428,974

  74,741

  17

  April 1994—june 1994

  109,435

  15,903

  15

  Notes:

  1. The information is not available in the precise form requested. EMP reports may also be obtained at the request of the claimant.

  2. Figures for DLA relate to new claims; the figures for AA include first awards on review and appeal.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many disability living allowance decisions in which(a) review requests and (b) appeals were made in respect of (i) disability living allowance (care), (ii) disability living allowance, mobility and (iii) attendance

  Total decisions

  Number of reviews requested

  Percentage of decisions

  Number of appeals requested

  Percentage of decisions

  DLA decisions

  1992–93

  685,154

  96,799

  14

  6,918

  1

  1993–94

  441,470

  271,165

  61

  29,617

  7

  April 1994—june 1994

  112,315

  77,573

  69

  5,276

  5

  AA decisions

  1992–1993

  516,357

  132,169

  26

  2,130

  —

  1993–94

  480,578

  139,251

  29

  5,025

  1

  April 1994—june 1994

  118,171

  32,670

  28

  743

  1

  Notes:

  1. The information is not available in the precise form requested.

  2. Requests for review and appeal do not necessarily relate to decisions made in the year shown but reflect activity undertaken during the period.

  Children in Hospital
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to introduce a visiting costs scheme for families with a sick child in hospital.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him today by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many certificates he issued in 1992 and 1993 under section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 for the purposes of awarding war pension to former service personnel.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Such statistics are not routinely kept; however, it is estimated that, in total, about a dozen section 10 certificates were issued in 1992 and 1993.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the total amount spent on official
  1076
  disability living allowance, mobility and (3) attendance allowance in each year since 1992–93 and the first quarter of 1994–95.

  Mr. Hague
  The available information is in the table:

  allowance were made in each year since 1992–93 and the first quarter of 1994–95; and what percentage of all decisions each formed.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is in the tables.

  hospitality by (a) her Department and (b) her agencies for each year since 1990.

  Mr. Sackville
  Expenditure on hospitality, including basic refreshments for meetings of expert advisory groups and working groups and for meetings with representatives of other Government departments, voluntary organisations and public bodies is shown in the table. Separate figures are only available for the agencies from 1991–92. All ministers hospitality budgets are underspent.

  1990–91£millions

  1991–92£millions

  1992–93£millions

  1993–94£millions

  Department

  158,000

  168,151

  246,374

  218,995

  Agencies

  —

  10,318

  15,612

  28,864

  Note:

  Figures have not been adjusted for inflation.

  General Practitioner Fundholding
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research she has done into the cost-effectiveness of consultant clinics in fundholding practices.

  Mr. Malone
  The proposed programme of work for the National Centre for Primary Care Research includes a
  1077
  study of the cost-effectiveness of specialist clinics in general practice.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the effect of general practitioner fundholding on the doctor/patient relationship.

  Mr. Malone
  General practitioner fundholders are free to use resources directly to improve services and secure the care they judge best for their patients. This can only strengthen the doctor/patient relationship.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the status of fees that consultants receive from general practitioner fundholders.

  Mr. Malone
  National health service consultants are free to make personal arrangements with any health care purchaser, subject to their contractual arrangements with their NHS employer.

  Hormone Replacement Therapy
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on(a) the production and (b) the availability of the hormone replacement drug premarin in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Sackville
  Premarin is produced by the pharmaceutical industry using pregnant mares' urine, which is collected on farms in Canada and the United States of America, not in the United Kingdom. During that part of the pregnancy when oestrogen levels are high, the mares are' fitted with a lightweight harness. The collection device is attached to this and the urine drains into it. Both the Canadian and United States authorities have said that no mares are catheterised to collect urine, and have confirmed that all the farms satisfy their animal welfare concerns.

  In the United Kingdom, medicinal products need to be licensed under the Medicines Act 1971. Before a product licence is granted, a company needs to satisfy the Licensing Authority of the product's safety, quality and efficacy. Premarin is licensed for use in the United Kingdom, and there are no grounds under the Medicines Act for withdrawing it from use.

  Asthma
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the expenditure on general practitioner-prescribed anti-asthma medication and preparations in each family health services authority area in 1993–94 expressed in terms of(a) net ingredient cost and (b) net ingredient cost per capita.

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

  Asthma Prescribing Figures-England 1984 to 1993

  Prescriptions ('000) BNF Section

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  3.1.1.1 Selective beta-adrenoceptor stimulants

  9,075·3

  10,125·3

  10,736·1

  11,264·3

  12,231·3

  12,526·8

  13,450·0

  15,460·9

  16160·9

  17125·6

  3.1.1.2 Other adrenoceptor stimulants

  374·5

  504·0

  633·8

  573·3

  640·5

  591·2

  607·0

  673·2

  615·7

  638·9

  1078
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total expenditure on general practitioner-prescribed anti-asthma medication and preparations in 1993–94, broken down by drugs prescribed.

  Mr. Malone
  Information on individual drugs prescribed is commercially confidential. Information broken down by British National Formulary classification to sub section level is shown in the table.

  Asthma Prescribing Figures - England 1993

  BNF Section

  Prescriptions (000s)

  Net Ingredient Cost(£000s)

  3.1.1.1 Selective bete-andrenoceptor stimulants

  17,125·6

  119,208·8

  3.1.1.2 Other andrenoceptor stimulants

  638·9

  1,358·6

  3.1.2 Anti muscarinic bronchodilators

  1,341·8

  19,491·5

  3.1.3 Theophyline

  2,194·2

  11,008·9

  3.1.4 Compound bronchodilator preparations

  482·4

  4,573·7

  3.2.0 Corticosteroids

  8,526·1

  172,887·3

  3.3.0 Cromoglycate and related therapy

  936·1

  17,979·9

  21.12 Peak flow meters and inhaler devices

  329·0

  2,079·5

  Total

  31,576·1

  348,588·2

  Notes:

  1. The data are based on items and cover all prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors, dispensing doctors and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered.

  2. Drugs used in the treatment of asthma are contained in the British National Formulary sections 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3. The therapeutic classifications are based on the September 1992 issue. The drugs for Broncholidators may be used for other conditions.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was(a) the total number of prescriptions for treatment of asthma and (b) the number of prescriptions of inhalations, broken down by drugs prescribed, to (i) the whole population and (ii) those aged under 16 years for each of the last 10 years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Malone
  Information on individual prescribed drugs is commercially confidential. The number of prescribed items for asthma preparations down to British National Formulary sub-section level for the whole population is shown in table 1. The number of prescription items for asthma preparations for patients exempt on grounds of youth down to BNF section level is shown in table 2.
  1079

  Asthma Prescribing Figures - England 1984 to 1993

  Prescriptions ('000) BNF Section

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  3.1.2 Antimuscarinic bronchodilators

  373·6

  431·8

  496·3

  552·1

  658·1

  706·0

  856·6

  1,005·1

  1,193·5

  1,341·8

  3.1.3 Theophylline

  2,845·0

  3,125·6

  3,187·4

  3,216·2

  3,196·8

  2,955·8

  2,802·0

  2,634·9

  2,409·5

  2,194·2

  3.1.4 Compound bronchodilator preparations

  883·2

  698·2

  645·9

  662·7

  672·1

  701·2

  706·2

  619·0

  545·3

  482·4

  3.2.0 Corticosteroids

  2,129·4

  2,486·1

  2,919·2

  3.426·4

  4,031·3

  4,391·5,

  5,040·0

  6,265·6

  7,414·0

  8,526·1

  3.3.0 Cromoglycate and related therapy

  1,528·4

  1,480·9

  1,427·1

  1,299·8

  1,206·9

  1,083·1

  998·0

  983·8

  924·9

  938·1

  21.12 Peak flow meters and inhaler devices

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  61·8

  258·1

  297·0

  329·0

  Total Asthma Preparations

  17,209·2

  18,851·9

  20,045·8

  20,994·8

  22,637·1

  22,955·6

  24,521·6

  27,900·6

  29,560·8

  31,576·1

  Net Ingredient Cost (£'000) BNF Section

  3.1.1.1 Selective beta-adrenoceptor stimulants

  35,244·7

  39,389·0

  43,591·2

  47,785·6

  59,442·5

  66,488·7

  76,783·0

  98,538·7

  109,908·4

  119,208·8

  3.1.1.2 Other adrenoceptor stimulants

  1,019·4

  1,232·3

  1,426·2

  1,304·6

  1,424·8

  1,345·4

  1,280·3

  1,354·0

  1,301·1

  1,358·6

  3.1.2 Antimuscarinic bronchodilators

  1,971·8

  2,398·4

  2,857·0

  3,410·3

  5,949·5

  7,658·2

  9,784·0

  12,664·0

  16,354·1

  19,491·5

  3.1.3 Theophylline

  12,274·5

  13,350·5

  14,173·7

  14,435·8

  14,993·7

  14,081·5

  13,458·1

  12,708·3

  11,860·2

  11,008·9

  3.1.4 Compound bronchodilator preparations

  3,674·7

  3,448·3

  3,787·1

  4,453·5

  5,137·4

  5,498·5

  5,773·0

  5,221·4

  4,914·2

  4,573·7

  3.2.0 Cortcosteroids

  18,343·8

  23,726·4

  31,709·1

  41,876·6

  61,021·2

  71,368·7

  86,988·4

  112,412·9

  142,521·8

  172,887·3

  3.3.0 Cromoglycate and related therapy

  16,591·2

  17,005·2

  17,779·5

  17,578·0

  17,737·8

  16,954·5

  16,364·5

  15,956·9

  16,448·7

  17,979·9

  21.12 Peak flow meters and inhaler devices

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  378·2

  1,604·4

  1,858·3

  2,079·5

  Total Asthma Preparations

  89,120·1

  100,550·1

  115,324·4

  130,844·4

  165,706·9

  183,395·5

  210,809·5

  260,460·8

  305,166·8

  348,588·2

  Notes:

  1 Data up to 1990 are based on fees and cover prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors only.

  2 Data from 1991 are based on items and cover prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors, dispensing doctors, and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered.

  Table 2—England

  1992

  Prescription items(1000s)

  3.1. Bronchodilators

  3,438·8

  3.2. Corticosteroids

  1,188·1

  3.3. Cromoglycate and related therapy

  445·5

  Total

  5,072·4

  1993

  3.1. Bronchodilators

  3,731·7

  3.2. Corticosteroids

  1,461·3

  3.3. Cromoglycate and related therapy

  481·4

  Total

  5,674·4

  Notes:

  1. The data includes items dispensed for people under the age of 16 and aged between 16 and 19 and in full-time education.

  2. The date are based on items and cover all prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors only. Items dispensed by dispensing doctors and personal administration are excluded. Dispensing doctor prescriptions are not analysed into
  1080
  exempt, non-exempt or other categories and are therefore excluded; personally administered items are free of charge.

  3. Drugs used in the treatment of asthma are contained in the British National Formulary sections 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3. The therapeutic classifications are based on the September 1992 issue. The drugs for Bronchodilators may be used for other conditions.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS dental check-ups took place in each year since 1988 by(a) regional health authority, (b) district health authority, on 1 April 1992 boundaries, (c) family health service authority and (d) nationally.

  Mr. Malone
  The available information will be placed in the Library.

  Blood Transfusion Centres
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the blood transfusion centres which have been issued(a) a wholesale dealers' licence and (b)

  1081
  a manufacturer's special licence under the Medicines Act 1968, and those which have not been issued with those licences.

  Mr. Sackville
  Since April 1994, the National Blood Authority has held a wholesale dealers licence and a manufacturers licence for the national blood service as a whole.

  The wholesale dealers licence currently includes the following centres: Northern, West Yorkshire, East Anglia, Trent, Oxford and Mersey. Wessex, West Midlands and Blood Services South-West (Bristol) have been approved and are yet to be shown on the licence. The remaining transfusion centres do not currently undertake wholesale dealing activities and do not therefore require to be licenced.

  In relation to the manufacturers licence; the Medicines Control Agency has identified specific work to be undertaken at the Wessex and West Midlands centres. The NBA has given assurances to the MCA on this and the MCA is content for the processing and testing functions, for which all centres are required to be licenced, to continue at these centres.

  Health Authority Funding
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she intends to implement changes in the weighted capitation formula for London to take account of deprivation.

  Mr. Sackville
  The modified weighted capitation formula takes account of deprivation by including a wide range of health and socio-economic factors.

  In 1995–96, it will be used to inform allocations to regional health authorities. It will be for Thames regions to decide which formula to use for London district health authorities.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes for each authority's revenue budget were brought about as a result of the replacement of the resource allocation working party system of determining funding allocation.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 3 December 1993,Official Report, column 808.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will set out the figures for revenue funding for each purchasing health authority or equivalent in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in 1992–93, 1993–94, 1994–95 and the estimated figures for 1995–96 and 1996–97.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information for England will be placed in the Library for 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95. No information is available for future years.

  Information relating to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Performance-related Pay
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received in response to her proposal to introduce local performance-related pay into the NHS; and if she will make a statement.
  1082
  Mr. Malone
  Since announcing our plans for reforming national health services in "Working for Patients" in 1989 and proposals for strengthening the links between reward and performance in the national health service in the citizens charter in 1991, we have received representations from a wide range of organisations and individuals including hon. Members, the Trust Federation, the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts, chairmen, chief executives and human resource directors of trusts and authorities, professional bodies and trade unions.

  Cows' Milk Allergy
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy that new-born babies should be tested for allergy to cows' milk; and what investigation she has conducted into such a proposal.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have no plans to develop a policy to test new babies for allergy to cows' milk. Their risk of allergy may be assessed from their family history of allergic disorder. Breast feeding is recommended for all babies and this is of particular importance for babies at risk of allergic disorder.

  Psychiatric Beds
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will ensure that the capital and revenue costs of funding 45 extra NHS medium-secure psychiatric beds for south-east Thames will be made available in the next financial year.

  Mr. Bowis
  South Thames regional health authority, in conjunction with the Department of Health, the national health service executive and North Thames regional health authority, is currently reviewing the supply of medium-secure psychiatric beds in the Thames regions.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people had eye tests in each year since 1988; what proportion of these was NHS provided; what proportion was assisted by the voucher scheme, listed by(a) regional health authority, (b) district health authority, on 1 April 1992 boundaries, (c) family health service authority and (d) nationally.

  Mr. Malone
  The total number of sight tests performed has not been collected centrally since April 1989 when universal entitlement to national health service sight tests was ended.

  The number of sight tests paid for by family health services authorities in England since 1988–89 will be placed in the Library. Such information is not available by district health authority.

  From a survey carried out in 1993 on behalf of a technical sub-committee representing the Department and the optometric profession, it was estimated that the total number of sight tests performed in Great Britain in 1993–94 would be 13·184 million, 50 per cent. of which would be NHS.
  1083
  The number of vouchers paid for will be placed in the Library. Such information is not available by district health authority.

  Acute Units (Closure)
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether guidance has been issued to health authorities on how funds released by the closure or reductions of acute units are to be transferred to the primary health care sector.

  Mr. Malone
  It is for local health authorities, taking account of clinical priority, the views of local people and the available resources, to assess the level of services needed to meet the requirements in their area and to negotiate appropriate provision. We will be examining the changing pattern of service provision to ensure that patients continue to receive effective and high quality care.

  London Implementation Group
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the budget of the London implementation group for each year since it was established.

  Mr. Malone
  The London implementation group was established in February 1993. The LIG's budget for 1993–94 and 1994–95 has been £2 million. For both years, those figures include the clearing house for displaced staff and for 1994–95 the budget figure includes the primary care support force.

  Junior Doctors
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what actions her Department is taking to ensure that reductions in junior doctors' hours do not create or increase shortages of junior doctors in(a) paediatrics and (b) other specialties.

  Mr. Malone
  Since the new deal was launched in 1991 we have funded an extra 750 career grade posts specifically to reduce juniors' hours.

  The number of paediatric consultants increased by 9·1 per cent. in 1992–93.

  In accident and emergency the increase was 11 per cent. and in both anaesthetics and obstetrics and gynaecology, the increase was nearly 4 per cent.

  Public Appointments
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of public appointments made by her Department were held by women at the most recent date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Sackville
  The latest published figures show that 35 per cent. of the public appointments made by the Department were held by women. Figures for 1994 will be announced in due course.

  Visiting Costs Scheme
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has, following the publication of Department of Health advice in "Welfare of Children and Young People in Hospital", to implement a visiting costs scheme to ensure that the parents of hospitalised children 1084
  are not prevented from visiting their children regularly because of a lack of money.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to introduce a visiting costs scheme for families with a sick child in hospital.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will establish a fund for hospital visiting costs; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) if she will list the concessions available to families visiting sick children, in respect of travelling, parking and other necessities.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Hospital travel costs scheme provides financial assistance to parents on low income to enable them to accompany their children to and from hospital where this is medically necessary. The majority of national health service hospitals provide accommodation for parents to enable them to stay overnight at the hospital while their children receive treatment. Financial help is available from the social fund to enable parents in receipt of income support to visit their children in hospital. There are no plans to extend these arrangements.

  Community Health Sheffield NHS Trust
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the transfers of land and property that have taken place over the past six months to Community Health Sheffield NHS trust and their value at the time of transfer.

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for the Community Health Sheffield national health service trust. The hon. Member may want to contact the chairman, Sir Michael Carlisle, for details.

  Kidney Treatment
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements for availability for kidney dialysis treatments exist in Great Britain for patients requiring regular dialysis treatments whilst on holiday or visiting relatives.

  Mr. Sackville
  Renal units in the United Kingdom will provide dialysis for patients on holiday or visiting relatives provided there is spare dialysis facility available. Usually the patient's regular unit will make the arrangements for them.

  Wheelchairs
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the Department's estimate of the cost of providing indoor and outdoor powered wheelchairs remains as set out in the letter date-stamped 23 March, ref. POH(4) 4295/111 from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), to the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait); when and by whom the estimate was made; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  Calculation of the likely cost of supplying powered indoor/outdoor chairs to all those who qualify and require one is complex. The defining factors are assumed need, purchase cost through bulk purchasing, the
  1085
  cost of maintenance and repair and the effect on costs of refurbishment and re-issue of chairs.

  The estimate referred to was based on a simple extrapolation derived from a broad estimate of need contained in the 1986 McColl report.

  On 1 July I announced a review of wheelchair services in the context of the feasibility and affordability of a voucher scheme. As part of this review we have commissioned firm and practically based costings including for supply of indoor/outdoor powered chairs. We will be announcing our conclusions on this exercise in due course.

  General Practitioner Lists
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in each family health services/authority area have been removed from their GP's list and how many have been(a) under 18 years, (b) women over 60 years, (c) men over 65 years of age, (d) registered disabled people, (e) are in receipt of repeat prescriptions and (f) recorded as having been previously removed from a GP's list in each of the past four years.

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State gave the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) on 25 October,Official Report, column 743–44.

  Nicotine
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will bring forward proposals to require manufacturers to reduce nicotine levels by 10 per cent. each year.

  Mr. Sackville
  No. The Cigarettes (Maximum Tar Yield) (Safety) Regulations 1992 set the current maximum tar yield in cigarettes at 15 mg and require a further reduction to 12 mg from 1 January 1998. There is a relationship between tar and nicotine yields and we have no plans for specific legislation on nicotine yields.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes will be made to the cash limits of her Department in 1994–95.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The cash limit for class XII, vote 1—Hospital, community health, family health services (part) and related services, England—will be reduced by £44,104,000, from £21,778,220,000 to £21,734,116,000. That reduction allows for transfers of £44,500,000 to class XII, vote 4—Family health services (part), England—for pharmaceutical services, following a reappraisal of general practitioner fundholders' drugs budget requirements; £120,000 to class XII, vole 3—Department of Health, administration, miscellaneous health services and personal social services, England—for Special Hospitals Services Authority audit services; £241,000 to class XIV, vote 14—Hospital, community health, family health (part) and other services, Scotland—and £165,000 to the Department of Health and Social Services, Northern Ireland for de-designated supra regional services; £904,000 to class XV, vote 8—Hospital, community health, family health services (part) and related services, Wales—£289,000 to class XIV, vote 14—Hospital, community health, family health (part) and other health services, Scotland—and £24,000 to the 1086
  Department of Health and Social Services, Northern Ireland for London post-graduate teaching hospitals special health authorities services and £48,000 to class XIV, vote 17—Education, arts and libraries, Scotland—for clinical placements in England of Glasgow Caledonian university students. The overall reduction is partially offset by £1,647,000 from class XII, vote 3—Department of Health, administration, miscellaneous health services and personal social services, England—for work of the NHS Estates Management and Health Building Agency£1,447,000—and for the regional health authorities print budget for NHS forms—£200,000; £333,000 from class XII, vote 6—Office of Population Censuses and Surveys—for the NHS central register superannuation costs and £207,000 from class VII, vote 3—Regeneration initiatives, England—for the urban programme.

  The cash limit for class XII, vote 3—Department of Health, administration, miscellaneous health services and personal social services, England—will be reduced by £2,946,000—from £1,594,202,000 to £1,591,256,000. This reduction allows for transfers of £1,647,000£200,000 running costs—to class XII, vote 1—Hospital, community health, family health services (part) and related services, England—as mentioned above; £1,158,000 to class XIV, vote 14—Hospital, community health, family health (part) and other services, Scotland—for work of the NHS Estate Management and the Health Building Agency–1318,000—and the Prescription Pricing Authority—£840,000; £195,000—£183,000 running costs—to class XIX, vote 3—Privy Council Office—for the drugs co-ordination unit; £56,000—running costs—to class X111 vote 4—Department of Social Security, administration and miscellaneous services—for the departmental records office; and £10,000—running costs—to class III, vote 4—Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: agriculture, food and fishing services—for the Committee on Novel Foods and Processes. The overall decrease is partially offset by a transfer of £120,000 from class XII, vote 1 as mentioned above.

  The non-voted cash limit for supplementary credit approvals for personal social services —DoH/LACAP—in England is to be increased by £1,185,000—from £26,100,000 to £27,285,000—in respect of the take-up of entitlement to carry forward of underspends from the 1993-94 financial year under the end year flexibility arrangements as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 14 July 1994, at Official Report, columns 729–34.

  The Department's gross running cost limit will be reduced by £449,000 from £258,302,000 to £257,853,000. This reflects the transfers mentioned above.

  All increases will either be offset by savings, increased receipts or transfers to or from other votes or charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Burnley Heath Care Trust
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations she has received regarding Burnley Health Care Trust; and if she will make a statement.

  (2) If she now proposes to call for an independent inquiry into the problems at Burnley Health Care Trust; and if she will make a statement.
  1087
  Mr. Sackville
  We have received a number of representations about Burnley health care national health service trust, some of which call for an independent inquiry. The trust has commissioned an independent expert investigation into the management of the women's unit at the trust and the circumstances of the dismissal of consultant gynaecologist Mr. Ian Mahady, and will make public the findings.

  National Health Service Trusts
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether national health service trusts are required to produce the names and addresses of trust board members; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Malone
  National health service trusts publish the names of board members in their annual reports. There is no requirement on NHS trusts to make public the private addresses of board members.

  Sister Pat Cooksley
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the statement of the Minister of State of 25 October,Official Report, column 854, what is, or has been, the nature and type of retraining undertaken by Sister Pat Cooksley.

  Mr. Malone
  That is a confidential matter between Sister Cooksley and the Plymouth Hospitals national health service trust.

  Private Children's Homes
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her oral answer of 25 October,Official Report, column 749, how many (a) qualified field social workers, (b) unqualified field social workers, (c) qualified residential social workers and (d) unqualified residential social workers there were in 1974; and what are the latest available figures.

  Mr. Bowis
  There have been changes of definition and coverage in the information on qualifications of social work staff since 1974, and although the Department collected data on qualifications of social work staff in 1974, it no longer does so. It is for that reason that I quoted percentage figures rather than numbers.

  In the 1974 Department of Health staffing return on local authority social services staff, 5,150 field social work staff out of a total of 13,154 or 38 per cent. were reported as having the Certificate of Qualification in Social Work. In 1992, the latest date for which the information is available, the local government management board social services work force analysis showed that, out of a total of 32,826 staff, 26,906, or 82 per cent., had CQSW and a further 3,415, or 10 per cent., had another relevant qualification such as certificate in social service or diploma in social work.

  Corresponding comparative figures for staff in residential establishments are not available.

  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her oral answer to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchcliffe), of 25 October,Official Report, column 749, what information is being requested from local authorities about the placement of children in small unregistered children's homes; and from which date this information is to be requested.
  1088
  Mr. Bowis
  In the current year, figures are being collected about those small unregistered children's homes in which children looked after by a local authority were accommodated in the period 1 April to 30 September 1994. The information collected includes the home's facilities and the age, gender and maximum number of children who can be accommodated. As my reply to the hon. Member for Wakefield said, from now on—that is, from the next annual collection—the number of children placed will also be separately identifiable.

  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her oral answer to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) of 25 October, Official Report, column 749, whether statutory inspections in future will apply to small unregistered children's homes.

  Mr. Bowis
  Section 80 of the Children Act 1989 allows the social services inspectorate to inspect facilities for children in a wide variety of settings, including small children's homes, if circumstances show that it is necessary.

  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her oral answer of 25 October, Official Report, column 748, what are the welfare responsibilities of those authorities in whose areas small unregistered children's homes are located with regard to those homes; and under which section of the Children Act 1989 those welfare regulations are laid down.

  Mr. Bowis
  The local authority which places the child carries full responsibility to satisfy itself that the proposed placement promotes and safeguards the child's welfare— Arrangements for Placements of Children (General) Regulations 1991.

  If a particular placing authority finds a small children's home unsatisfactory, its recourse would be to terminate that placement and not use the home again.

  Authorities placing children in homes in a different area must inform the area authority about the placement—Arrangements for Placements of Children (General) Regulations 1992. Where a local authority has reasonable cause to suspect that a child who lives in its area is suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm, it shall make inquiries to determine whether to take action to safeguard or promote the child's welfare—section 47, Children Act 1989.

  Where an arrangement has been made with the placing authority, the area authority can carry out the functions in relation to a placement on behalf of the placing authority— Arrangements for Placements of Children (General) Regulations 1991.

  NHS Hospitals (Car Parking)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will establish a maximum charge for car parking in NHS hospitals.

  Mr. Sackville
  No.

  Health Service Workers (Pay and Conditions)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received from the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing on the subject of the local determination of pay and conditions of service; what has been the nature of such representations; and if she will make a statement.
  1089
  Mr. Malone
  Discussions have taken place with both the nursing and medical professions and are continuing.

  Private Nursing Homes
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will set out the Government guidelines for the setting up and staffing of private nursing homes; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  Statutory control of nursing homes is provided by the Registered Homes Act 1984. Registration and inspection is wholly delegated to health authorities, and the Department of Health endorsed guidance published by the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts in 1985. Homes have a statutory duty to provide adequate nursing and other staff bearing in mind the number, age, and condition of the people being cared for.

  Cash and Running Costs Limits
  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes she proposes to the cash limits and running costs limits for the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys for 1994–95.

  Mr. Sackville
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class XII, vote 6—Office of Population Censuses and Surveys—will be increased by £1,833,000 from £33,592,000 to £35,425,000 and the running costs limit by £1,515,000 from £48,991,000 to £50,506,000. This reflects the take up of £1,512,000 for running costs and £318,000 for capital under the end-year flexibility entitlements announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 14 July 1994,Official Report, columns 729-34. It also reflects a transfer of running costs provision of £3,000 from the Valuation Office for additional housing costs allowance and increased capital costs provision of £931,000 in the national health service central register for work on the Department of Health's existing number replacement project. The increase in capital costs will be met from within the existing resources of the Department of Health—class XII, vote 3—and will not add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Social Work
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what decision she has reached on the selection of consultants to undertake work on the definition of standards of conduct and practice in social work.

  Mr. Bowis
  I am pleased to announce that two short separate projects have been commissioned. One is from Price Waterhouse Management Consultants, the other is a joint project by the National Institute for Social Work, North Down and Ards community trust and Eastern health and social services board, Northern Ireland. These two projects will examine the issues from different perspectives.

  The result of both projects will be reported to the Department of Health in the early months of next year.

  Passive Smoking
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have contracted an illness caused by 1090
  passive smoking in the workplace in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I have been asked to reply.

  There is no information available on the number of people who have contracted an illness caused by passive smoking in the workplace.

EMPLOYMENT

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list for 1922– 93 and 1993–94, the amount spent in each London borough, with totals for each training and enterprise council area, under each of the programmes now incorporated into the single regeneration budget, regardless of whether the sums were paid to the borough council, and the amount allocated to be spent in 1994–95 on the same basis.

  Mr. Paice
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment on 27 October 1994,Official Report, column 813.

  Clock Adjustment
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many hours were taken up by adjusting the clocks throughout his Department.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The answer to this question is not readily obtainable and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the privatisations which his Department has promoted since 1979, indicating, in each case, the date of the sale, the proceeds of the sale, and the estimated current value of the company.

  Miss Widdecombe
  There have been two privatisations in the Department of Employment since 1979: the Professional and Executive Register in 1988 and the Skills Training Agency in 1990. Information relating to the proceeds from both sales is set out in the Department's appropriation accounts for 1989–90—pER——and 1990–91 to 1992-93-STA. The Department does not hold information relating to the current value of the companies involved.

  Performance Agreements
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the target figure in the Employment Service performance agreements for the numbers of claimants to be referred for adjudication for the current year, in each of the last three years and the coming year; and how many in each case he estimates lost, or will lose, entitlement to benefit as a consequence.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  1091
  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Donald Dewar, dated 1 November 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about target figures in the Employment Service Annual Performance Agreement (APA) for the number of claimants referred to adjudication, and the number of claimants who lost, or will lose benefit as a result of referral.
  We do not currently have, and never have had, a target in our APA for the overall number of submissions to adjudication. Our APA for 1994–95 contains a target of "135,000 submissions to adjudication where there is an arguable case with supporting information to show that the claimant is not available for, actively seeking or willing to accept work." This is the first APA to contain a target relating to the number of submissions to adjudication.
  I am currently negotiating our APA for 1995–96 with officials in the Employment Department acting on behalf of the Secretary of State. It is too early in these negotiations to confirm whether it will include a target relating to the level of adjudication referrals, or what that level might be.
  The information you have requested on the number of decisions and disallowances is not fully available. However, the attached tables give details of the number of decisions and disallowances for the four questions covered by our APA target; availability for employment, restricted availability, actively seeking employment and refusal of employment. The data relates to the past three years and for the quarter ending 30 June. More recent information is not currently available.

  Table 1: Number of decisions made

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Q/E 30 June 1994

  Availability

  86,336

  87,328

  80,248

  19,190

  Restricted Availability

  44,672

  39,642

  33,869

  8,166

  Actively Seeking Employment

  8,539

  6,070

  8,912

  3,666

  Refusal of Employment

  2,789

  1,824

  3,257

  1,858

  Total

  142,336

  134,864

  126,286

  32,880

  Table 2: Number of disallowances

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Q/E 30 June 1994

  Availability

  49,736

  49,463

  51,729

  14,911

  Restricted Availability

  14,467

  13,332

  16,562

  5,323

  Actively Seeking Employment

  2,598

  2,555

  6,274

  3,045

  Refusal of Employment

  979

  685

  1,643

  1,118

  Total

  67,780

  66,035

  76,208

  24,397

  Employment and Training Programmes
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will break down into convenient categories the 1·5 million opportunities on employmnet and training programmes whcih will be available tto unemployed people in the current financial year, giving the number of places available in each category.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delgated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  1092
  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Donald Dewar, dated 1 November 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the opportunities on employment and training programmes which will be available to unemployed people in the current financial year. These are as follows:

  Number

  Access to Work

  10,000

  Career Development Loans

  35,000

  Community Action

  50,000

  Employment Rehabilitation

  10,400

  Jobclub

  265,000

  Jobfinders' Grants

  4,400

  Job Interview Guarantee

  300,000

  Jobplan

  250,000

  Job Review Workshop

  40,000

  Job search seminar

  75,000

  One to One

  10,000

  Restart Course

  120,000

  Training for Work

  272,000

  Travel to Interview

  34,000

  Workstart

  1,200

  Work Trials

  20,000

  Workwise/link

  10,000

  1,507,000

  Job Finder's Grant
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he intends to publish a report on the trial testing of the job finder's grant.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Yes.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the area or areas in which the job finder's grant scheme is, or has been, tested, the numbers who have been given a grant and his best estimate of the take-up expressed as a percentage of those eligible to apply.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The job finder's grant pilots are operating in the east midlands and west midlands. Some 3,626 grants have been issued. Information regarding the take-up as a percentage of those eligible to apply is not available.

  Job Seeker's Allowance
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if there is any power proposed in the White Paper, "Jobseeker's Allowance," to compel a benefit claimant to undertake community or public work in return for the standard benefit to which he or she would be otherwise entitled; and in what circumstances it could he used.

  Miss Widdecombe
  As the White Paper explains, people receiving job seeker's allowance may be required to undertake activities designed to increase their employability and their chances of finding a job. Where it is appropriate, this may include a period of work experience on a community project. Participants in community action currently receive an allowance equivalent to their benefit entitlement plus £10.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will set out the difference between, and define, the official recommendation and the job seeker's
  1093
  direction as referred to in the White Paper, "Jobseeker's Allowance".

  Miss Widdecombe
  Current legislation provides that a claimant can be disqualified from receiving benefit if he fails to carry out an official recommendation given to him by an Employment Service adviser with a view to assisting him to find a particular type of employment. That power would be carried forward into job seeker's allowance but widened to enable advisers additionally to direct job seekers to improve their employability through, for example, attending a course to improve job-seeking skills or motivation, or taking steps to present themselves acceptably to employers.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the sanctions that will be available to his Department when the proposals in the White Paper, "Jobseeker's Allowance", are implemented which are presently not available; and if he will define the circumstances in which these can be used.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The White Paper explains that the main system of sanctions in the jobseeker's allowance would generally take forward provisions from unemployment benefit and income support. The benefit sanctions for leaving a job voluntarily without just cause, losing a job through misconduct, neglecting to avail oneself of a reasonable opportunity of a job and refusing a job without good cause would continue to last for up to 26 weeks. The sanction for refusing to attend or complete mandatory courses such as jobplan workshops and prescribed training courses, and for failing to act upon a job seeker's direction, would be for a fixed period of two weeks, rising to four weeks if refusal or failure to act is repeated.

  North Norfolk Action Scheme
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he intends to publish a report on the north Norfolk action scheme, including an assessment of the effectiveness of the approach and the costs of the scheme.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Yes.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average cost to his Department of answering(a) a written and (b) an oral parliamentary question.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) on 30 November 1993,Official Report, column 391.

  Quangos
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which former hon. Members of this House have been appointed since 1988 by his Department to quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations; and if he will list, in each case, the title of the post, the salary, the duration of the appointment, and the party which each represented as an hon. Member.

  Miss Widdecombe
  No further appointments have been made since the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) on 12 January 1994,Official Report, column 216.

  Public Appointments
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of public appointments made by his Department were held by women at the most recent date for which figures are available.

  Miss Widdecombe
  This information is given in "Public Bodies 1993" which is available in the Library. 1994 figures are still being collected and will be announced in due course.

  Benzene
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has to study the health risk of benzene in garages and workplaces.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 31 October 1994]: The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988 require benzene exposure to be reduced so far as is reasonably practicable and in any case below the maximum exposure limit. The Health and Safety Executive plans to reassess the control of exposure to benzene in the workplace and aims to report by the end of 1995.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment why the services provided by the regional laboratories of the Health and Safety Executive are being contracted out; and what consideration he gave to allowing those laboratories, individually or collectively, to be market tested.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 31 October 1994]: The Health and Safety Executive decided to include the regional laboratories in its "Competing for Quality" programme for 1994–95 to seek improvements in value for money from these services. Careful consideration was given to how the laboratories should be treated under the programme. HSE concluded that a bid from the staff in the laboratories, acting on their own account, would not be viable.

  Jobcentres
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his policy on the advertising of jobs at jobcentres where firms wish to place age restrictions upon applicants.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 31 October 1994]: Where this occurs, the Employment Service tries to persuade employers to consider job seekers on their merits. The ES has produced a leaflet, "What's Age got to do with it?", designed to persuade employers not to impose upper age limits. If an employer insists on setting a limit, the vacancy will still be advertised. However, this would not prevent ES staff from approaching an employer on behalf of an otherwise suitable job seeker who falls outside the limit stated.

  Job Interview Guarantee Scheme
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what levels of part-time earnings make job seekers ineligible for consideration under the job interview guarantee scheme; and what plans he has to change the current arrangements.
  1095
  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 31 October 1994]: The basic eligibility condition for the job interview guarantee scheme is that a job seeker must be unemployed for at least 26 weeks, and be in receipt of benefit. The level of part-time earnings in respect of unemployment benefit, and the number of hours worked in respect of income support, can affect a job seeker's entitlement to benefit. This would also affect his eligibility for JIG in the following circumstances:

  a client loses entitlement to UB for a day he works and earns more than £2.00, or for a week where he earns more than £57 in that week.

  a client loses entitlement to IS for a week in which he works for more than 16 hours.

  There are no plans to change the programme eligibility for JIG or, in the short term, benefit entitlement conditions. There are, however, proposals to change benefit rules from April 1996. Information about the jobseeker's allowance was announced to Parliament on 24 October.

  Self-Employed Workers
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what criteria he uses for categorising self-employed workers as being part-time; when this criteria was last changed; and when he plans to alter it in the future.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 31 October 1994]: Information on the number of self-employed workers is collected from the quarterly labour force survey. As with all LFS questions, the categorisation of full or part-time is based on the self-classification of the respondent.

  Although the methodology used to estimate the numbers of self-employed was refined in April 1994, this did not effect the criteria for categorising part-time workers which has, since its inception in 1979, been based on self-classification from the LFS. There are no plans to alter this method in the future.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment at how many deep coal mines in the United Kingdom the refuge holes required under section 40 of the Mines and Quarries Act 1954 and regulation 59 of the Shafts Outlets and Roads Regulations have not been excavated; and if he will list the mines.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 28 October 1994]: The legal requirement relating to the provision of refuge holes is absolute and no mine has been granted an exemption from providing refuge holes.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) on what grounds managers of certain deep coal mines have been given a derogation from their liabilities to cause refuge holes to be excavated; and who gave authority for the derogation;

  (2) what is the total number of refuge holes that must now be excavated following the derogation given to managers at certain deep coal mines; and if this work will be completed prior to privatisation.

  Mr. Oppeneheim
  [holding answer 28 October 1994]: No manager of a deep coal mine has been given derogation from the provision of refuge holes in roadways.

PRIME MINISTER

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Prime Minister how many people there were in employment(a) in the United Kingdom, (b) in Scotland and (c) in the Clydebank and Milngavie constituency in September in each year since 1979; how many of these jobs were (i) full-time or (ii) part-time; and how many were filled by (1) men and (2) women.

  The Prime Minister
  The information requested at(a) and (b) is available for all years since 1979 and can be obtained from the Library of the House. Constituency information is available only for September of 1984, 1987, 1989 and 1991.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the latest information available to him about health and malnutrition conditions at the present time in the valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates.

  The Prime Minister
  In addition to information frorn non-governmental organisations we receive reports frorn United Nations agencies. Copies of the most recent report from the office of the United Nations co-ordinator in Baghdad have been placed in both Libraries of the House.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 November.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 November.

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

  Wheelchairs
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Prime Minister what response he is making to the petition he received from Lord Attenborough and others on 19 October urging the provision of powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs for severely disabled people who cannot be independently mobile without them; what action he is taking; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  A reply has been sent to the Muscular Dystrophy Group to acknowledge the petition and explain our policy on the provision of wheelchairs for disabled people. I have passed the petition itself to the Department of Health. Health Ministers are, of course, aware of the "batteries not included" campaign.

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), is currently studying the feasibility and affordability of a wheelchair voucher scheme and will announce his conclusions in due course.

  Documents for Signature
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 26 October,Official Report, column 619,

  1097
  if he will list the official documents, letters or accords that he has allowed photographic reproduction of his signature to appear on; and if he will list the official documents, letters or accords that he has signed which are written in a language that he does not understand.

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing further to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 26 October,Official Report, column 619.

  Mohamed Al Fayed
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister when Mr. Mohamed Al Fayed requested a meeting with him; for what reasons he declined the request; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing further to add to the statement I made to the House on standards of conduct in public life, on 25 October,Official Report, columns 775–70.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions since 1 January 1985 Mr. Mohamed Al Fayed has visited 10 Downing street; and on what dates.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 28 October 1994]: Mr. Al Fayed visited No. 10 Downing street on the following occasions:

  25 January 1985

  (for the then Prime Minister's meeting with the Sulton of Brunei)

  14 March 1985

  (for the then Prime Minister's lunch for President Mubarak)

  3 April 1985

  (for a meeting with officials)

  7 January 1986

  (for a meeting with officials)

  Correspondence
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 14 June,Official Report, column 370, if his Office will now seek to obtain the full text of the letter from the Ritz hotel referred to in the correspondence between the Prime Minister and Mr. Peter Preston, editor of The Guardian.

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing further to add to my previous answers on this subject.

  Council of Europe
  Sir Anthony Durant
  To ask the Prime Minister, if he will place in the Library a copy of the information bulletin on the activities of the Council of Europe.

  The Prime Minister
  I have done so today.

  Open Government and Accountability
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Prime Minister what initiatives the Government has taken since November 1990 on open government and accountability.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government launched the citizens charter in July 1991. Information and openness are among its central principles.
  1098
  The membership and terms of reference of ministerial Cabinet committees were published in May 1992, along with "Questions of Procedure for Ministers".

  In May 1992, I avowed for the first time the continuing existence of the secret intelligence service and named its chief. The Intelligence Services Act, which received royal assent in May 1994, puts both Government communications headquarters and the secret intelligence service on a statutory footing. A statutory oversight committee of parliamentarians for the security and intelligence services was also provided for.

  The White paper on open government, published in July 1993, proposed the following measures:

  A code of practice on access to government information.

  Statutory access rights to personal records and health and safety information.

  Greater openness in access to public records.

  The code of practice came into force in April 1994, providing for:

  Information to be volunteered by Government, such as facts and analysis with the policy decisions, and internal guidelines on dealing with the public.

  Government information to be released in response to specific requests.

  Reasons to be provided for administrative decisions.

  Enforcement by the Parliamentary Ombudsman, at no cost to the applicant.

  A similar code of practice, covering the national health service, is currently the subject of consultation.

  Over 24,000 records have been released since the open government initiatives began. These include almost 4,000 pieces of the intelligence material shown to Winston Churchill during the war—the so-called "Dir C Archive"; 840 pieces from the Special Operations Executive archive relating to SOE activities in the far east, Scandinavia, the middle east and Africa; previously withheld wartime Cabinet minutes; Admiralty intelligence papers; and War Office papers relating to the interrogation of prisoners-of-war.

  A code of conduct has been issued to national health service boards, emphasising that high standards of corporate conduct and probity are at the heart of the NHS. Public registers of interests have been established.

  A similar Treasury code of best practice for board members of other public bodies has also been promulgated. It recommends that all boards should establish a register of board members' interests.

  As I announced to the House on 20 October, Official Report, column 421, a review of the system of appointments to public bodies is currently being carried out. The conclusions of the review will be made public, and will also be made available to the Nolan committee.

  Cash and Running Costs Limits
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals there are to change the 1994–95 cash limit or running costs limit in respect of security and intelligence services.

  The Prime Minister
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary token supplementary estimate, the cash limit for security and intelligence services, class XIX, vote 2 will be increased by £1,000 from
  1099
  £881,486,000 to £881,487,000 and the gross running cost limit will be reduced by £2,361,000 from £449,850,000 to £447,489,000. This takes account of increased capital spending arising from the slippage of a building project and unforeseen capital and other purchases. These increases are being offset by increased receipts and reductions in both running costs and other current expenditure.

  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals there are to change the 1994–95 cash limit or running costs limit for the Cabinet Office: other services vote.

  The Prime Minister
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for the Cabinet Office: other services, class XIX, vote 1, will be increased by £1,452,000 from £43,381,000 to £44,833,000. At the same time, the running costs limit will be increased by £1,452,000 from £41,762,000 to £43,214,000.
  1100
  The increase reflects the transfer of certain administrative functions and the move to repayment for some common service support as follows:

  (a)transfer of running costs provision for certain Ministry of Defence property charges (Class 1 Vote 1) (£494,000);

  (b) transfer of running costs provision for support to former Prime Ministers (Class VIII, Vote 3) (£163,000);

  (c) transfer of running costs provision for central services (Class XVII, Vote 1) (£80,000); and

  (d) transfer of provision for the calculation of the average property price list (£3,000).

  In addition, as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 14 July 1994, Official Report, columns 729–734, this vote is eligible for a cash limit increase of £721,000 in respect of end year flexibility arrangements for running costs expenditure. This supplementary estimate gives effect to the increase. All the increases are either offset by inter-departmental transfers or have been charged to the reverse and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

EDUCATION

  National Targets Initiative
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the key objectives being sought under the national education and training targets initiative.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The national targets for education and training aim to help improve Britain's competitiveness by raising expectations of what young people and adults can achieve at school, college and at work.

  Schools (Cornwall)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement on the level of capital expenditure approved for schools in Cornwall.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Cornwalls' allocation for capital for 1994–95 is £1.744 million. With regard to bids for 1995–96, I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Sir D. Madel).

  Student Grants
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment she has made of the effect on the welfare of student of the reduction in the worth in real terms of student grant.

  Mr. Boswell
  Since 1990, the total resources available to students through grant and student loan have been uprated annually by the rate of inflation estimated at the time, thus maintaining their value in real terms. Additionally, access funds are available for students who are in particular financial difficulties.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what discussions she has had with teachers' unions concerning pay levels in the profession.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Teachers' pay is a matter for the school teachers pay review body which is in the process of taking evidence from interested parties including the teacher unions and the Government.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to her answer of 24 October,Official Report, columns 416–17, if she will provide a table showing (a) the cost of teacher salaries by local education authority and (b) the cost of implementing the school teachers pay and conditions document 1993.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Teachers' pay costs by LEA in 1992–93 are shown in the table. Figures for 1993–94, which will include the effect of the 1993 teachers' pay award, are not yet available.

  Teachers' Pay Costs 1992–93

  LEA

  £000

  Corporation of London

  428

  Camden

  36,778

  Greenwich

  57,441

  Hackney

  42,157

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  25,144

  Islington

  40,339

  Kensington and Chelsea

  15,969

  1102

  Teacher's Pay Costs 1992–93

  LEA

  £000

  Lambeth

  45,081

  Lewisham

  43,850

  Southwark

  43,037

  Tower Hamlets

  57,235

  Wandsworth

  41,485

  City of Westminster

  29,064

  Barking

  34,134

  Barnet

  61,723

  Bexley

  43,229

  Brent

  48,628

  Bromley

  37,052

  Croydon

  56,379

  Ealing

  48,569

  Enfield

  57,216

  Haringey

  46,196

  Harrow

  38,397

  Havering

  49,716

  Hillingdon

  32,850

  Hounslow

  48,723

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  26,672

  Merton

  34,380

  Newham

  55,156

  Redbridge

  48,178

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  25,951

  Sutton

  26,067

  Waltham Forest

  49,215

  Birmingham

  226,986

  Coventry

  68,241

  Dudley

  61,409

  Sandwell

  67,116

  Solihull

  44,663

  Walsall

  57,957

  Wolverhamton

  52,823

  Knowsley

  34,957

  Liverpool

  106,122

  St. Helens

  40,656

  Sefton

  58,695

  Wirral

  71,520

  Bolton

  58,731

  Bury

  33,786

  Manchester

  98,210

  Oldham

  57,609

  Rochdale

  44,279

  Salford

  51,731

  Stockport

  58,114

  Tameside

  46,054

  Trafford

  39,523

  Wigan

  72,263

  Barnsley

  40,094

  Doncaster

  61,082

  Rotherham

  59,486

  Sheffield

  95,070

  Bradford

  113,897

  Calderdale

  40,476

  Kirklees

  83,022

  Leeds

  144,719

  Wakefield

  65,138

  Gateshead

  41,420

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  54,297

  North Tyneside

  43,475

  South Tyneside

  31,785

  Sunderland

  64,315

  Isles of Scilly

  599

  Avon

  179,711

  Bedfordshire

  116,753

  Berkshire

  133,913

  Buckinghamshire

  116,645

  Cambridgeshire

  121,295

  Cheshire

  193,359

  Cleveland

  136,127

  Cornwall

  86,734

  Cumbria

  94,791

  Derbyshire

  187,005

  1103

  Teachers' Pay Costs 1992–93

  LEA

  £000

  Devon

  179,197

  Dorset

  99,774

  Durham

  122,305

  East Sussex

  115,326

  Essex

  279,683

  Gloucestershire

  87,598

  Hampshire

  281,689

  Hereford and Worcester

  133,454

  Hertfordshire

  195,847

  Humberside

  184,702

  Isle of Wight

  24,255

  Kent

  257m412

  Lancashire

  290,367

  Leicestershire

  192,009

  Lincolnshire

  94,889

  Norfolk

  129,927

  North Yorkshire

  137,936

  Northamptonshire

  117,669

  Northumberland

  62,703

  Nottinghamshire

  204,216

  Oxfordshire

  102,211

  Shropshire

  87,570

  Somerset

  83,851

  Staffordshire

  201,758

  Suffolk

  126,106

  Surrey

  151,970

  Warwickshire

  90,879

  West Sussex

  128,140

  Wiltshire

  105,215

  Total

  9,371,750

  Note:

  Figures are derived from LEAs' returns of their spending to the Department of Environment.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to her answer of 24 October,Official Report, columns 416-17, what additional funds her Department has made available to meet the cost of teacher salary re-assessment.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Education's share of the 1993–94 local authority grant settlement was £16·8 billion, 2·6 per cent. higher than the comparable figure for the previous year. It was for local authorities to decide how to meet the cost of the 1993 teachers' pay award from within this total.

  School Inspectors
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps she is taking to recruit lay inspectors of schools.

  Mr. Forth
  This is a matter for Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools, who heads the independent Office for Standards in Education. I have asked Mr. Woodhead to write to my right hon. Friend.

  Higher Education Institutions (Accountability)
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what measures she is taking to ensure proper accountability of the use of public money by higher education institutions.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Higher Education Funding Council for England is responsible for allocating public funds to individual higher education institutions in England. Institutions are required to ensure that the funds they receive are used in accordance with the Further and 1104
  Higher Education Act 1992, a financial memorandum with the council and any other conditions that the council prescribe. They provide audited financial statements to the council annually and their books and records are open to inspection by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

  University Degrees
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps she is taking to ensure uniformity in the standards of degrees between universities.

  Mr. Boswell
  The central responsibility for the quality of education and the standard of degrees rests with the universities themselves, acting individually and also collectively through the higher education quality council. My right hon. Friend has made clear the importance that she places on this responsibility, and has welcomed evidence that it is being taken ever more seriously.

  Specialisms (Schools)
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what support she proposes to give to those schools that wish to develop a specialism in music, art, languages or other areas of the curriculum.

  Mr. Forth
  As part of our commitment to increasing choice and diversity in education, we want to encourage schools to specialise in particular subjects. We have already introduced the successful technology colleges programme to support schools which wish to specialise in technology, science and mathematics. We hope to extend this principle in due course to other areas of the curriculum.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans she has to improve the funding available for nursery education.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend is now consulting widely a range of interests in pre-school education with a view to drawing up detailed proposals on how to achieve the target for expansion of pre-school provision set by the Prime Minister. The need for additional funding will be determined as part of the development of these proposals.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement on the percentage of three and four-year-old children receiving full-time nursery provision.

  Mr. Forth
  At January 1994, 3 per cent. of three and four-year-olds attended nursery classes full-time and 24 per cent. attended such classes part-time. A further 25 per cent. of this age group were in attendance at other infant classes, 23 per cent. full-time and 2 per cent. part-time.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when she expects to announce details for further provision of nursery education; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Prime Minister recently reaffirmed the Government's firm commitment to pre-school education. He set a target to provide, over time, a pre-school place for all four-year-olds whose parents wish them to take it up. My right hon. Friend is now consulting widely with a view to drawing up detailed proposals on the expansion. She will make an announcement as soon as practicable.

  Surplus School Places
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the latest estimate she has of the amount of money being tied up in maintaining surplus school places; and what steps she is taking to reduce the number of surplus places.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  We estimate the direct costs of maintaining current surplus places— not all of which is in practice removable—as being some £240 million. We announced in June our intention to set targets for those authorities with particularly high levels of removable capacity.

  Student Loans Company
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations she has received regarding the Student Loans Company Ltd.

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend receives a variety of representations about the Student Loans Company from time to time.

  Sport
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps she intends to take to ensure that all children aged between five and 16 years play competitive sports in schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Competitive sports are an important part of a balanced physical education curriculum. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education has announced that she will be accepting in full Sir Ron Dearing's recommendations on the new national curriculum. The new curriculum for physical education, which will be published shortly, will require all children aged five to 16 to pursue competitive games—starting with learning the skills of competitive games, right through to playing the full recognised version of a competitive game.

  Parental Choice
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the most accurate assessment she can make of(a) the number of parents who secure for their children their first choice of nursery, primary and secondary schools and (b) the satisfaction of parents about the current systems for choosing nursery, primary and secondary schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This information is not collected centrally. The most recent evidence —from surveys commissioned by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities in 1992 and The Times newspaper in 1993—shows that some 90 per cent. of parents gain a place for their child at their first choice of school. Circular 6/93 stressed that schools' admission arrangements should be clear and objective, and gave parents a clear indication of their chances of gaining a place for their child at a particular school.

  Student Finance
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment she has made of the number of potential students in further or higher education who have been or are deterred from undertaking or completing a course for financial reasons.
  1106
  Mr. Boswell
  There are record numbers of students in further and higher education. This does not suggest that potential students are being deterred. Some students will inevitably fail to complete their courses for a variety of reasons but wastage rates in higher education have remained broadly steady for a number of years.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations she has received on the financial hardship experienced by students in receipt of student loans; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations about the adequacy of the student support system. It is not possible to say how many of them were about the position of students who have taken out student loans.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will retain the assisted places scheme.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Yes.

  School Buildings
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is her latest assessment of the fabric of school buildings.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The fabric of school buildings in England is the responsibility of governors and local education authorities. The £600 million of Government support for school capital and repairs that has been made available in 1994–95, together with the additional input which local education authorities are able to make from their own resources, should enable them to make significant progress in improving the state of the school stock.

  English in Schools
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what additional proposals she has for the study of English language in schools.

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps she is taking to improve the standard of spoken and written English in schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend has announced that she intends to accept in full Sir Ron Dearing's recommendations for the revised national curriculum. In English, there will be clear and more rigorous requirements for pupils to be taught written and spoken standard English, with a greater emphasis on grammar, spelling, and punctuation. For the first time, there will also be a requirement to pay proper attention to correct English across the curriculum. A full announcement will be made shortly and the revised curriculum will be implemented in September 1995 for five to 14-year-olds and from September 1996 for 14 to 16-year-olds.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) how many grant-maintained schools have applied to the Treasury for a loan;

  (2) how many loans to grant-maintained schools have been approved by the Treasury;
  1107
  (3) if she will list each grant-maintained school that has been granted Treasury loans and show how much each has been loaned;

  (4) if she will list the grant-maintained schools, which have repaid Treasury loans; and how much each school has repaid.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  These matters are now the responsibility of the Funding Agency for Schools. I have asked the chairman of the agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the average cost to her Department of answering(a) a written and (b) an oral parliamentary question.

  Mr. Boswell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury on 30 November 1993,Official Report, column 387.

  Beechwood Day Nursery, Coventry
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education on what dates her Department asked Coventry social services to conduct an inspection of day care facilities at Beechwood day nursery in Coventry.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My officials invited Coventry social services department on 15 July this year to visit Beechwood pre-prep independent school and report further on the provision made for children aged under five.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education on what date Coventry social services first raised concerns with her regarding Beechwood day nursery in Coventry.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department first became aware on 10 July 1992 of Coventry social services department's concerns about aspects of the nursery provision at this establishment. These were taken into account when the establishment was subsequently notified of the improvements required in order for final registration as an independent school to be granted.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education on what dates she received complaints from parents of children attending Beechwood day nursery.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Only one such complaint has been received, on 12 May this year.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education on what date she registered Beechwood day nursery in Coventry.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The establishment in question was provisionally registered on 6 August 1992 as an independent school as required by teh Education Act 1944, under the name of the Abacus pre-prep school. It changed its name to Beechwood pre-prep independent school on 26 September 1992. The Department has notified the school of the improvements required in order for final registration to be granted. We still await confirmation that these have been carried out.

  School Buildings (Basildon)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what action she is taking to restore the quality of school buildings in Basildon constructed in the 1960s.
  1108
  Mr. Robin Squire
  It is for Essex LEAs to put forward for the schools they maintain the bids they judge necessary for consideration within the annual capital guidelines, or to use their own resources. It is for grant-maintained schools as they judge necessary, to put forward bids independently for consideration by the Funding Agency for Schools.

SCOTLAND

  Non-domestic Rates
  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many hereditaments in Scotland whose rateable values will fall(a) below and (b) above the proposed £10,000 threshold for determining whether the lower limit on year-on-year increases in non-domestic rates bills applies, there are estimated to be whose rates bills for 1995–96 in the absence of any transitional relief would be (i) under 50 per cent., (ii) between 50 and 80 per cent., iii between 80 and 120 per cent., (iv) between 120 and 200 per cent., (v) between 200 and 500 per cent. and (vi) over 500 per cent. of their bills for 1994–95; and if he will estimate for each of those categories the aggregate increase or decrease in rates bills between he two years.

  Mr. Stewart
  The requested estimates depend on an assumption as to rate poundages and cannot therefore be provided until rate poundages have been set for Scotland for 1995–96. It is planned to announce 1995–96 rate poundages in December.

  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the regions, sectors and types of hereditament most affected by large increases or decreases in bills for non-domestic rates.

  Mr. Stewart
  The requested information depends on assumptions as to the progress made in introducing a unified business rate. It cannot therefore be provided until rate poundages have been set for Scotland for 1995–96. It is planned to announce 1995–96 rate poundages in December.

  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what studies he has commissioned, internally and from external consultants, of the likely impact of the April 1995 revaluation of non-domestic property on rateable values and non-domestic rate bills in different regions and different sectors of the economy; if he will publish those studies, or summary thereof; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  Between February and July of this year, the Scottish Office employed the research organisation SIAS Ltd. to gather information from Scottish assessors giving the estimated effect of the 1995 revaluation on the rateable value and net annual value of a sample of about one in 10 non-domestic properties in Scotland. The sample was chosen to be representative of all regions of Scotland and of the main sectors, and was weighted to give greater coverage for larger subjects. Overall, subjects in the sample comprise some 42 per cent. of the 1994–95 rateable value of all subjects in the classes surveyed. In the last few weeks, assessors have supplied updated estimates for a number of these properties. The data obtained are still being analysed.
  1109
  The information from the surveys will be used to inform decisions on rate poundages for Scotland for 1995–96, and transitional arrangements. No decision has been taken regarding eventual publication of the results of this survey.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to announce the results of his consultations about the numbers of councillors in the proposed single-tier local authorities.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend will be announcing his decisions on the electoral wards to be used for the elections to the new single-tier councils shortly.

  Cash and Running Costs Limits
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what changes he intends to make to the cash limits and running costs provision for 1994–95 within his responsibility.

  Mr. Lang
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, I intend to make changes to eight voted cash limits, two non-voted cash blacks and five running costs limits:a. The cash limit for class XIV, vote 3, training programmes, roads and transport services and industrial support, Scotland, will be increased by £4,248,000 from £872,404,000 to £876,652,000. The increase includes a transfer of £740,000 from the Department of Trade and Industry in respect of certain innovation and technology support schemes in Scotland and the take-up of end-year flexibility entitlement for Motorways and Trunk Roads, announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 14 July (official Report Columns 729-734).
  b. The cash limit for class XIV, vote 7, housing and environmental services, Scotland will be increased by £1,747,000 from £432,051,000 to £433,798,000. The increase takes account of a £1,979,000 increase in gross running cost provision for Historic Scotland from £12,725,000 to £14,704,000, reflecting the uptake of end-year flexibility entitlements and various inter-vote transfers representing transference of responsibility. It also takes account of an increase in provision for the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland.
  c. The cash limit for class XIV, vote 12, law, order, miscellaneous health and social work services, Scotland, will be increased by a net total of £5,822,000 from £296,863,000 to £302,685,000. Provision for running costs on this vote has been increased by £2,676,000. The changes include the take-up of the end-year flexibility entitlement for the Scottish Prison Service, increasing Departmental running costs and capital provision by £2,656,000 and £359,000 respectively. Other changes include an increase in the capital provision of The Scottish Office Pensions Agency, for information technology investment; and an increase in provision for health education in Scotland, for publicity on measles and rubella vaccination. These changes will be offset by transfers from other votes.
  d. The cash limit for class XIV, vote 14, hospitals, community health, family health (part) and other health services, Scotland, will be increased by a net total of £23,893,000 from £2,988,180,000 to £3,012,073,000. This increase takes account of this vote's end-year flexibility entitlements and various inter-vote and inter-departmental transfers including the Scottish contribution to the Prescription Pricing Authority's administration costs in connection with the assessment of claims under the Scottish Low Income Scheme and for NHS estate management consultancy; a transfer to cover the cost of services previously funded directly by the Department of Health; and a transfer to reflect a change in responsibility for the unlinked anonymous HIV testing programme. It also includes transfers to fund the Scottish Hospital Advisory Service and publicity in connection with the measles and rubella immunisation campaign; and for the capitalisation costs of pension arrangements entered into
  1110
  by the Scottish Ambulance Service. In addition there is a revision of NHS trusts' external financing limit and some adjustments between subheads to reflect revised requirements and changes to anticipated appropriations in aid.
  e. The cash limit for class XIV, vote 17, education, arts and libraries, Scotland will be increased by £434,000 from £918,012,000 to £918,446,000. The increase reflects the full take-up of end-year flexibility for further education capital; an increase in provision for the Scottish mining Museum: and a transfer for the Student Awards Agency for Scotland, in respect of additional costs. This increase is partially offset by a transfers to OST as part of a national contribution towards a "Supercomputing: Class Three Time" project; and one in respect of prosthetic student fees.
  f. The cash limit for class XIV, vote 21, Scottish Office Administration, will be increased by £470,000 from £168,264,000 to £168,734,000. Within this total, running cost provision increases by £459,000 arising from take-up of end-year flexibility predominantly to fund staff early departure costs, less inter-vote transfers. The capital provision reduction arises from a take-up of end-year flexibility less inter-vote transfers. Current provision increases to reflect a transfer from the Department of National Heritage, class XI, vote 6.
  g. The cash limit for class XIV, vote 22, Scottish Record Office, will be increased by £1,513,000 from £7,514,000 to £9,027,000. Within this total, running cost provision increases by £438,000, £231,000 of which results from a take-up of end-year flexibility which will reduce the backlog of building maintenance and an infra-vote transfer of £207,000. The capital increase results from a take-up of end-year flexibility and a transfer from Scottish Office Administration which will offset new repository building costs arising in 1994–95 from earlier slippage.
  h. The cash limit for class XIV, vote 23, will be increased by £544,000 from £5,450,000 to £5,994,000. The running cost provision increases by £307,000 due to take-up of end-year flexibility, necessary to continue to meet operational requirements. Capital end-year flexibility will enhance the continued development of the management information systems.
  i. The non-voted cash limit SO/LA1, which covers non-housing capital expenditure by local authorities, is to be increased by £12,004,000 from £610,212,000 to £622,216,000. This reflects full take-up of end-year flexibility together with a transfer from residential accommodation to secure accommodation within class XVI, vote 12.
  j. The non-voted cash limit SO/LA2 which covers housing capital expenditure by local authorities and capital expenditure by New Towns will be increased by £13,215,000 from £262,992,000 to £276,207,000. The increase reflects the full take-up of end-year flexibility entitlement.
  k. The overall running cost limit for the Scottish Office together with its Agencies will be increased by £5,212,000 from £330,676,000 to £335,890,000. This results from take-up of end-year flexibility, increased cost provision arising from increased income by Historic Scotland less a reduction for Common Police Services within vote 12. In addition this running cost limit of the Student Awards Agency for Scotland in its first year is £2,699,000.

  The increases will be offset by savings on other votes within my responsibility, transfers from other departments

  1111
  or charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Abstraction Controls
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will announce his response to the comments received on the consultation paper, "Abstraction Controls: A System for Scotland".

  Mr. Lang
  There were 53 responses to the consultation paper, from a wide variety of bodies. Over half supported the introduction of enhanced controls, but a significant minority preferred the status quo. As with other consultation exercises, the comments are available to the public at the Scottish Office.

  In the light of these comments, I have concluded that selective abstraction controls should be introduced in Scotland as envisaged in the consultation paper. Our proposals need however to be seen in the context of current EC developments on groundwater protection. Discussions with the Commission on groundwater protection measures are under way and the Council resolution agreed on 4 October urged the Commission to bring forward by mid-1995 proposals for the implementation of the action programme on groundwater agreed at The Hague in 1991. In the course of these discussions, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I will of course seek to ensure that the principles of subsidiarity are fully respected.

  In these circumstances I have decided not to seek new powers over abstraction at this time. My intention none the less remains to introduce selective abstraction controls

  Persons Called to Peterhead Sheriff Court by Main Crime and Offence Category, 1976–1992

  Main Crime and Offence Category1

  Year2

  Group 1

  Group 2

  Group 3

  Group 4

  Group 5

  Group 6

  Group 7

  Total

  1976

  14

  5

  116

  15

  18

  275

  534

  977

  1977

  22

  7

  152

  23

  17

  338

  531

  1,090

  1978

  20

  13

  149

  20

  29

  384

  590

  1,205

  1979

  17

  5

  193

  24

  16

  281

  674

  1,210

  1980

  31

  7

  174

  27

  29

  302

  555

  1,125

  1981

  43

  2

  161

  15

  17

  185

  574

  997

  1982

  39

  6

  144

  17

  26

  130

  483

  845

  1983

  32

  6

  124

  21

  30

  102

  491

  806

  1984

  26

  4

  138

  7

  46

  105

  382

  708

  1985

  35

  6

  212

  11

  41

  139

  443

  887

  1986

  20

  10

  124

  18

  22

  171

  330

  695

  1987

  21

  14

  159

  12

  37

  120

  336

  699

  1988

  28

  15

  230

  19

  29

  146

  318

  785

  1989

  18

  13

  151

  29

  42

  183

  413

  849

  1990

  15

  7

  183

  27

  42

  190

  460

  924

  1991

  20

  8

  164

  27

  44

  187

  408

  858

  1992

  15

  5

  146

  10

  39

  132

  386

  733

  Notes:

  1 The classification of crimes and offences used by The Scottish Office Home and Health Department for criminal statistics contains about 320 codes. These are grouped in the table as follows:

  Group 1—Non-sexual crimes of violence

  Group 2—Crimes of indecency

  Group 3—Crimes of dishonesty

  Group 4—Fire-raising, vandalism etc

  Group 5—Other crimes

  Group 6—Miscellaneous offences

  Group 7—Motor vehicle offences

  2 The year recorded is the year in which the person's case is disposed of.

  Kidney Patients
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for State For Scotland what the were the average waiting times for hospital
  1112
  in Scotland. I will bring forward the necessary legislation in the light of progress on the action programme. In the meantime my officials will take forward with the interested parties various points arising from the responses to the consultation paper.

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many public appointments(a) he is responsible for making and (b) require his approval including those not listed in "Public Bodies"; and if he will give this figure in terms of (i) appointments to executive bodies, (ii) appointments to advisory bodies and (iii) other appointments.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 27 October 1994]: Information on non-departmental public bodies and national health service bodies is published in the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies 1993", copies of which are available in the Library. Information about any other appointments made by me, or which I approve, is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Law and Order (Peterhead)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the crime figures for cases processed through Peterhead sheriff court, by type, for each year since 1976.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 28 October 1994]: The available information is set out in the table:

  treatment for Patients who suffer From kidney stones, listed by year for the last five years by health board area.

  Lord Douglas James Hamilton
  [holding answer 27 October 1994]: The mean waiting times—days—for

  1113
  in-patient and day case admissions from the waiting list where the principal diagnosis was calculus of kidney and ureter are shown in the table for each health board of treatment for calendar years 1989–1993.

  Mean waiting time—days—for in-patient and day case admissions from the waiting list where the principal diagnosis was calculus of kidney and ureter, by health board of treatment, calendar years 1989–1993

  HB Treatment

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Argyll and Clyde

  13·9

  39·74

  15·2

  22·3

  54·9

  Ayrshire and Arran

  32·4

  31·1

  37·1

  32·5

  35·0

  Borders

  24·7

  32·2

  13·3

  36·7

  25·7

  Dumfries and Galloway

  68·0

  146·2

  79·4

  69·5

  61·8

  Fife

  29·4

  33·9

  43·9

  17·7

  24·2

  Forth Valley

  32·6

  33·1

  21·3

  29·6

  26·2

  Grampian

  72·4

  41·8

  42·0

  30·8

  26·4

  Greater Glasgow

  40·4

  46·2

  50·7

  49·5

  38·2

  Highland

  46·8

  18·8

  17·8

  30·2

  15·9

  Lanarkshire

  51·9

  49·1

  59·8

  55·3

  56·4

  Lothian

  27·7

  24·9

  49·3

  31·7

  22·5

  Orkney

  15·7

  3·0

  —

  —

  2·0

  Shetland

  1·0

  35·5

  —

  —

  55·0

  Tayside

  35·9

  30·2

  42·6

  50·6

  39·6

  Western Isles

  —

  10·5

  —

  24·3

  23·1

  Scotland

  38·5

  36·8

  46·3

  36·6

  29·6

  Notes:

  1. Diagnostic codes are based on the World Health Organisation's International Classification of Diseases 9th revision (ICD9). The code used in the analysis is ICD9 592, calculus of kidney and ureter.

  2. The table is for elective admissions from the waiting list (SMR1 TADM=1 and WAIT>0).

  3. The table excludes out-patient attendances for teratment of renal calculi for which information is not centrally available.

  Land Ownership and Use
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much land, in hectares, was owned by(a) the North of Scotland hydro-electricity board and (b) the South of Scotland electricity board just prior to privatisation.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 28 October 1994]: Information about the area of land owned by the former NSHEB and SSEB, just prior to privatisation, is not held by my Department.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures the Scottish Office takes to ensure land is used productively in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 28 October 1994]: The use to which land is put in Scotland is generally for the

  Number of NHS sight tests1 in Scotland by Health Board area

  Health Board

  1987–88

  1988–89

  21989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Argyll and Clyde

  95,153

  98,926

  36,636

  39,703

  46,243

  50,139

  55,284

  Ayrshire and Arran

  80,202

  85,746

  34,754

  34,606

  38,236

  41,530

  45,739

  Borders

  16,123

  17,981

  7,176

  5,240

  6,316

  7,673

  7,945

  Dumfries and Galloway

  29,324

  31,000

  11,761

  11,336

  13,637

  15,192

  16,003

  Fife

  72,534

  76,854

  24,821

  28,556

  34,049

  36,482

  38,082

  Forth Valley

  54,525

  58,847

  26,276

  18,426

  21,637

  23,141

  25,317

  Grampian

  96,777

  108,592

  30,582

  33,367

  36,977

  39,738

  41,492

  Greater Glasgow

  237,924

  252,843

  131,605

  110,697

  122,878

  135,240

  144,399

  Highland

  36,185

  36,599

  15,841

  13,091

  15,476

  17,234

  18,748

  Lanarkshire

  119,371

  119,307

  47,680

  47,983

  56,269

  59,510

  64,234

  Lothian

  162,353

  176,902

  74,531

  56,682

  66,297

  71,554

  77,065

  Orkney

  2,674

  2,972

  862

  873

  1,034

  1,091

  1,103

  Shetland

  7,000

  7,069

  2,808

  2,420

  2,834

  2,460

  2,560

  Tayside

  83,680

  90,498

  28,103

  28,132

  32,642

  35,414

  39,391

  1114
  landowner to determine, within any constraints that may be imposed by wide-ranging legislation. The United Kingdom strategy on sustainable development sets out the Government's agenda for using such land in productive but environmentally responsible ways, and the Scottish Office is committed to its implementation. The rolling review of national planning policy guidelines and development plans is a prime example of that commitment.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how he ensures that land disposed of by the Scottish Office in Scotland has been put to productive use; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 28 October 1994]: Revised guidance on the disposal of surplus land and buildings was circulated within the Scottish Office and associated Departments last year. This guidance establishes the principles and procedures to be followed when disposing of such assets. Before a property is offered for sale, officials must seek explicit advice on its development potential, and, where appropriate, secure outline planning permission for a suitable use. The sale may entail associated conditions. Within any such constraints, it is then for the new owner to consider subsequent use or development, and to obtain any necessary permissions from the appropriate planning authority. For its part, the authority is required to consider any proposals for development against the land use framework set by the approved development plan for its area, and any other material considerations.

  Gaelic Language
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what new proposals he has to support and promote the Gaelic language.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 31 October 1994]: None, but I am currently considering a report on Gaelic education carried out by HM inspectorate.

  Sight Tests
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many NHS sight tests have been performed in each health board area in Scotland in each year since 1987.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 28 October 19941]: The number of national health service sight tests paid for by health boards in each of the financial years since 1987 is shown in the table.
  1115

  Number of NHS sight tests1 in Scotland by Health Board area

  Health Board

  1987–88

  1988–89

  21989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Western Isles

  4,320

  4,467

  2,043

  1,773

  2,073

  2,287

  2,309

  Scotland Total

  1,098,145

  1,168,610

  475,479

  432,885

  496,598

  538,683

  579,671

  1One person may have more than one sight test in the period.

  2Since 1 April 1989 free NHS sight tests have only been available to children, full time students under 19, those in receipt of Income Support or Family Credit, the registered blind or partially sighted, complex lens users, those who hold an AG2 exemption certificate from the Health Benefits Division, diagnosed diabetic or glaucoma sufferers, and close relatives aged 40 or over of glaucoma sufferers.

DEFENCE

  Indonesia
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when Field Marshall Peter Inge last visited Indonesia; with which Indonesian ministers and officials he discussed the procurement of military equipment; which military equipment was specified; and when he expects contracts for such equipment to be signed.

  Mr. Freeman
  During his visit to Indonesia, from eight to 12 October this year, Field Marshal Inge met with President Suharto, the Commander in Chief of the Indonesian Armed Forces General Feisal Tanjung, and other senior military figures. Discussions covered a range of equipments and topics of mutual defence interest. Details of negotiations are commercially confidential between the customer and supplier, but export of military goods from the United Kingdom has been, and will continue to be,subject to export control, which takes into account defence and foreign policy.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the privatisations which his Department has promoted since 1979 showing, in each case, the date of the sale, the proceeds of the sale, and the estimated current value of the company.

  Mr. Freeman
  My Department has completed only one full privatisation since 1979. The proceeds of the sale in 1987 of Royal Ordnance Factory, Leeds were £15.4 million and the gross receipts from the sale of the rest of royal ordnance were £190 million. Detailed figures are given in the NAO's report into the "Sale of Royal Ordnance plc (House of Commons Paper 162 1987–8 Session)". Current values of those companies are a matter for their present owners.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how recruits are to be accounted for in Territorial Army figures following the abolition of the recruits pool.

  Mr. Soames
  Territorial Army recruits will be held against the establishment of their parent unit.

  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Territorial Army recruits pool of 4,500 personnel is included in the 63,500 establishment figure.

  Mr. Soames
  The previous planned size of the Territorial Army of 63,500 included a margin of 4,500 to allow TA recruits to be held above the formed units' establishment of 59,000.
  1116
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if a recruits pool, as referred to in "Front Line First", was attached to the Territorial Army prior to 1992.

  Mr. Soames
  No.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average cost to his Department of answering(a) a written and (b) an oral parliamentary question.

  Mr. Freeman
  The current average cost of preparing an answer is assessed as £97 for a written question and £225 for an oral question.

  Nuclear Tests
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the United Kingdom organisations which have been engaged to assist with the cleansing of the Maralinga site, with reference to the exchange of notes between Her Majesty's Government and the Federal Government of Australia concerning the former United Kingdom nuclear test and experimental programme sites at Maralinga, the Monte Bello islands and Emu field, Cm. 2533; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The clean-up operation at the Maralinga site, and the appointment of organisations involved in it, are matters for the Australian Government. However, the Atomic Energy Authority Harwell has been retained by the Australian Government to act as health and safety advisors for the duration of the rehabilitation project.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent information Her Majesty's Government have received from the Federal Government of Australia regarding the implementation of the cleansing programme at the Maralinga site, with reference to the exchange of notes between Her Majesty's Government and the Federal Government of Australia concerning the former United Kingdom nuclear test and experimental programme sites at Maralinga, the Monte Bello islands and Emu field, Cm. 2533; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  We understand that preliminary discussions have taken place regarding the appointment of British contractors.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money has been paid so far to the Government of Australia in relation to the cleaning up of the Maralinga test site under the exchange of notes between Her Majesty's Government and the Federal Government of Australia concerning the former United Kingdom nuclear test and experimental programme sites at Maralinga, the Monte Bello islands and Emu field, Cm. 2533; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  An initial payment of £5,000,000 was made to the Australian Government in December 1993;
  1117
  £4,000,000 was paid in October 1994, leaving a balance of £11,000,000 to be paid in accordance with the exchange of notes.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the cleansing operation at the Maralinga site to be completed under the exchange of notes between Her Majesty's Government and the Federal Government of Australia concerning the former United Kingdom nuclear test and experimental programme sites at Maralinga, the Monte Bello islands and Emu field, Cm. 2533; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  That is a matter for the Australian Government.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what visits officials have recently paid to inspect the cleansing operation at the Maralinga site; if such officials and their federal Government counterparts have held discussions with representatives of the Aboriginal people living in the area in relation to the exchange of notes between Her Majesty's Government and the Federal Government of Australia concerning the former United Kingdom nuclear test and experimental programme sites at Maralinga, the Monte Bello islands and Emu field, Cm. 2533; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  There have been no such visits or discussions by my officials. Both the operation itself and any discussions with representatives of the Aboriginal people are matters for the Australian Government.

  European Armed Forces
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to whom allegiance will be given by British forces in the 1118
  proposed (a) European Army and (b) Anglo-French or European air force.

  Mr. Soames
  We have no plans for a European army, or for a bi-national or European air force.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what plans he has to discuss the pooling or merging of(a) some and (b) all of the RAF and the French air force for operations (i) outside and (ii) within continental Europe (1) at the next Franco-British summit and (2) on other occasions;

  (2) what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on the proposal to merge (a) some and (b) all of the RAF and the French air force on an operational basis.

  Mr. Soames
  Discussions are taking place with French officials to identify ways in which British and French air forces may operate together more effectively outside the NATO area. That does not involve any merger of the air forces. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence intends to carry forward those exchanges at the forthcoming summit.

  Defence Forces
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on current levels of the defence forces.

  Mr. Soames
  The current strength of the Armed Forces—as at 1 September 1994—is 246,926—Royal Navy 53,961; Army 120,058; Royal Air force 72,907. Our armed forces are manned, equipped and supported to enable them to meet their commitments as laid out in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1994".

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield.

Liquor Licensing Hours
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will reform the licensing laws to bring the hours during which alcohol is allowed to be sold in large shops and supermarkets on Sundays into line with those during which those shops may open under the terms of the Sunday Trading Act 1994.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the Government are considering whether to consult publicly about further reforms of the liquor licensing law in England and Wales, including possible changes in the hours during which shops with off-licences may sell alcohol on Sundays.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reasonably encouraging reply. Does she agree that it is rather strange that, although supermarkets are now allowed to open at 10 o'clock on Sunday mornings, customers are not allowed to buy alcohol until midday? The customers can see what they want to buy on the shelves, which are cordoned off; but are not allowed to buy it, and the shop is not allowed to sell it to them. Does she feel that it is time that there is a change in the law? What is so magical about midday? Why is one allowed to buy a drink at five past 12 and not allowed to buy it at five to 12?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend points to at least one of the reasons why my department is considering the possibility of reform. But before it took any legislative steps, it would want to consult on that issue so that if we decide to go forward with any ideas, it will be on the basis of full consultation.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, does the noble Baroness the Minister agree that the situation in Scotland is even more ridiculous? There one can sit in a pub all day but not go next door to the grocer's shop and walk out with a bottle of whisky.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. But one cannot buy drink in shops in Scotland before 12.30 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is an absurdity to have a different time for the sale of alcohol and for the opening of the shop in which it is sold?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend strengthens the argument for at least looking at this issue. One of the difficulties is that even within the retail sector some shops are restricted to six hours opening on Sunday while others are completely unrestricted. Therefore, even
762
if the hours were harmonised with the shops, it would mean that some shops could sell beyond the six hours and others could not do so. It is a matter which needs looking at.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, when she considers this matter, will the Minister bear in mind that responsible retailers usually appoint a person in charge of liquor who knows the law? It is usually a person of experience and strong character who is able to apply the law. Does she agree that if shops are allowed to sell liquor only between 12 o'clock and 3 o'clock, on Sundays when that person is not likely to be in attendance the retailers may feel inclined to give the job to a part-timer on that day? Does she further agree that, if the shopkeeper is allowed to sell alcohol during the whole of the six hours, it will mean that the person responsible will more likely be there in charge? That, in my opinion as an experienced retailer, is a very important consideration. Will she bear that point in mind?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I said that if we were to go further with this matter, there would be a period of consultation. That point would no doubt be brought out strongly during that consultation period.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend the Minister agrees that it is a passing strange world that we are coming to when, in a matter of a week or two, I shall be able to drive down to the Channel Tunnel, pop through it, make a short trip on the other side, buy five or even 10 cases of whisky, and make the return journey in time to offer my noble friend Lord Brabazon a glass of whisky—when he cannot walk down to his local supermarket to get any.
Baroness Blatch: Well, my Lords, he can between 12.30 and 3 o'clock. But the point is well taken. All the comments that have been made so far in this debate point to the need for consultation on this matter.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of us are not too encouraged by her reply that the Home Office is "considering" whether to consult? Does she agree that there is something profoundly foolish in a situation in which an area of a supermarket is roped off until the magic hour of 12 noon? It is a wholly absurd situation. Can she indicate that the department is prepared to look into this matter with rather more energy than she has so far suggested?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I note the point made by the noble Lord. But unless one is to be totally unrestrictive and allow the sale of alcohol for 24 hours round the clock, then, even with reform, there will always be a period of the day on Sundays when there will be some restriction on the sale of alcohol. I suspect that when we get into consultation—if we do—there will be a voice given to the notion that selling alcohol on a Sunday for 24 hours of the day will certainly fall foul of many Members of this House and maybe of another place, too.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that in some parts of Scotland it is not a

763
case of not being able to buy alcohol until after 12.30 in the supermarket; it is a case of not being able to buy it all day?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lady is right to remind me of that situation. That is the case at the moment; but through the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill it will be possible for harmonisation between shop opening hours and the on-licensing laws which are from 12.30 to 10 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in the review that the department is considering undertaking, will it also take account of the even more absurd fact that in England, if one has a wine merchant's or wholesale licence, it is possible to sell wine in amounts of no fewer than a dozen bottles, and beer as long as one buys more than four gallons at one time, all day from 10 o'clock in the morning?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is one more point that will no doubt be taken into account in consultation.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House what legislative change would be required to bring about a change in the law? Will it need a Bill, a statutory instrument or what?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my understanding is that it would need a Bill. There is a technical mechanism using an order-making power under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill. However, as noble Lords are aware, assurances have been given that order-making powers under that Bill will not be used for anything controversial. I suspect that this topic may well be controversial.

Rwanda and Burundi: Humanitarian Needs
2.44 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their latest assessment of humanitarian needs in Rwanda and Burundi.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, our latest assessment mission found the situation relatively stable, though still tense. The humanitarian needs in Burundi and Rwanda are best met by continuing the process of reconciliation and creating conditions for refugees and displaced persons to return to their homes.
Lord Judd: My Lords, will the noble Baroness agree that the work being done in Rwanda by humanitarian agencies and, indeed, the military is outstanding? Has the Minister seen reports by the humanitarian relief agencies that only 30 of the proposed 147 human rights monitors are in place and that they have only seven vehicles between them? What can be done to put that right? In relation to Burundi, can the Minister assure the House that the grave mistake made by the Security Council in not taking the pre-emptive action recommended by the Secretary-General in Rwanda will not be repeated? What
764
is being done to ensure that the large number of human rights monitors called for by the humanitarian agencies and the UN Commissioner for Human Rights are in place?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, certainly I give all praise to the humanitarian agencies and the military who have done so much to make life more reasonable for those who are back in Rwanda and a little less unreasonable for those who remain in the camps in Tanzania, Zaire, northern Burundi and the displaced persons' camps within Rwanda itself.
I am aware of the reports that fewer than one third of the human rights monitors are in place. I am told that the United Nations volunteers are now involved. But expertise is needed in these delicate situations and every effort is being made to find people with experience. It is not a job for well-intentioned amateurs.
Regarding the situation in relation to vehicles and other equipment, we are looking to help through various ways. We have already given £250,000 and four vehicles for the human rights monitoring in Rwanda. I am told that 18 further monitors are about to arrive, and that the European Union is looking at what further contribution it can make. In relation to Burundi, the report from the special representative indicates that we must get on with the job. We have been waiting for further proposals and are doing all we can to make sure that proper human rights monitoring exists in Burundi. I visited the country two months ago and the government are now trying to be helpful. However, they also need help from outside.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: My Lords, given the encouraging reports from the Chief of Defence Staff, who is on the spot in Rwanda at this moment, concerning the fine contribution being made by the 550 strong British military contingency—especially the field ambulance units and the Parachute Regiment—can the Minister tell us whether there is scope for increasing that form of medical relief? I understand that there is considerable need for it. Further, is the Minister able to tell us about the continuing progress of her laudable attempts to gain real help from the leaders of the neighbouring African states, to which she referred, especially President Museveni of Uganda, to bring concerted pressure on the Rwandan Patriotic Front to stop the revenge killings on the Hutus, to end the misappropriation of property and to ask the UN to bring the matter into the public arena of justice and reconciliation?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we are extremely proud of our Army medical relief teams, the Sappers and all others who have helped. But one of the valuable aids our Army men and women have given is to train local people so that they can hand over the way stations and small clinics to local people to run. But I agree with the right reverend Prelate that there is plenty more work to be done.
In relation to revenge killings, the numbers killed by the RPF are small compared with the numbers killed by others. I have spoken to the president and to the vice-president in Rwanda, who assure me that they are taking action against anybody who indulges in such horrendous practices. It is certainly not something

765
supported by President Museveni of Uganda or anybody else. It is what happens in war when tempers are deeply frayed.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister have any information about the report by the UNHCR concerning revenge killings which is alleged to have been suppressed by the United Nations? Does she agree that it is important that these allegations should either be verified or refuted, because if they are verified, prosecutions of those responsible can be instituted by the RPF government; and if they are refuted, reassurance can be given to the refugees in the camps so they are not afraid of returning?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I know that the government in Rwanda have put before military courts those who were found guilty of having indulged in revenge killings. We believe that the atrocities by the RPF were not as extensive as the publicity suggested. However, the matter is being followed up by the RPF government in Rwanda and is being watched very carefully by the United Nations Secretary-General's special representative, to whom I shall be talking on Friday.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, will the Minister accept that any package of humanitarian assistance should also factor in the needs of neighbouring countries such as Zaire and Tanzania so that an entire region will not be severely debilitated by the flood of refugees?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the £60 million contribution by Britain has been used already in Zaire, Tanzania and Burundi to help Rwandan refugees. We have certainly had very good value from that money through the British non-governmental organisations working in those three places.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, bearing in mind Britain's magnificent endeavours, would it not be possible for the United Nations to be approached to ensure that the example of our country can be followed by a few others in making their contribution, even if that effort is only two-thirds of that of Great Britain?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, that is exactly what lies behind the initiative on preventive diplomacy enunciated by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary at the United Nations when he spoke there last month; and, indeed, we are following it up.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, in addition to the admirable work of the military and of the humanitarian agencies, the work and the constant presence of the International Committee of the Red Cross in both Rwanda and Burundi deserve special commendation? Can she give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will continue to support the work of the ICRC not only in Rwanda and Burundi but also in other parts of the world which have tended to slip from the headlines, such as Afghanistan?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord a complete assurance. We work not only with the ICRC but the Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies in many places throughout the world through our own British Red Cross. But they are not the
766
only ones. Save the Children, Oxfam, CARE, Concern and many others have been involved. We can be justly proud of British non-governmental organisations and those with which they work, particularly the ICRC.
Lord Rea: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that a high priority should be given to setting up the international court which has been proposed to try those accused of the genocide in Rwanda? Does she not feel mat if those responsible were brought to justice it would be the best deterrent to anyone in other countries who might be thinking of committing similar crimes against humanity? What are the Government doing to speed up that process?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we are pressing the international bodies concerned and other countries to proceed with this. At the moment there is some hesitation among the Rwandese themselves about how this is to be done. But we hope to make progress very quickly.

National Lottery: Administration
2.54 p.m.
Lord Donoughue Lord Donoughue asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that the five bodies designated to distribute proceeds of the National Lottery have in place administrative structures and procedures competent to execute that task.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that the 11 bodies selected to distribute the proceeds from the National Lottery to good causes will execute the task competently. The distributing bodies have kept my department and the other departments with lottery responsibilities closely informed about the development of their systems. The bodies will be required to have their systems certified by the National Audit Office before they will be allowed to draw down lottery money to make grants.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the Minister for choosing that reply from among the many hundreds that she has there with her. But it is a gentle day today. Is she aware of the widespread concern about when or whether the bodies will be in full administrative order to handle the vast sums of patronage which will pass through them? I say that bearing in mind that the Charities Board has let it be known that it will not be ready for about a year, that the Sports Council is still subject to a major reorganisation and that the Millennium Commission, as we discussed last week, is in disarray after the sacking of its director general.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister two specific questions, which will be helpful to the people in the field, about science and about sport. The Minister in another place said yesterday that science projects might be major beneficiaries of the lottery funds, and that is an excellent thing. But can the noble Baroness tell us and the science world which of the distributing bodies will handle science projects, since it is not clear that any of them is specifically qualified in that area? Secondly, on sport, the Minister has announced a new policy for the Sports Council and sport whereby only a few core sports will be

767
supported by the Sports Council. Is it the case that only a few core sports will benefit from the lottery, or will the Sports Council hand out lottery money to sports but not hand out normal money to them?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, first, the Millennium Commission is not in disarray. Progress towards distributing funds from the lottery is proceeding very well. All the distributing bodies, with the exception of the National Lottery Charities Board, will be issuing guidance to applicants by 1st December and inviting applications from 4th January. The Charities Board is carrying out extensive consultations with the voluntary sector and will issue its guidance after that process is completed.
With regard to science projects, it would depend on the nature of the project. It may be possible for science projects to apply for funding to the Millennium Commission or, if there is a voluntary sector input, to the Charities Board. The Millennium Commission will be issuing guidance to applicants on 28th November.
The noble Lord asked about core sports. No, the Sports Council will focus its grant in aid more narrowly in future, but the National Lottery proceeds will be distributed where expenditure is connected with sport.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Arts Council and the regional arts boards have procedures in place and are raring to go and that it only remains for my noble friend to urge your Lordships and your friends and relations to buy your lottery tickets?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend, who seems to have done a lot of my work for me.
Lord Rea: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell us up to what value the tickets have been printed so far?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, tickets are £1 each and there will be enough to go around.

Road Fuel Prices: Effects on Rural Areas
2.58 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will take fully into account, when considering any recommendations to increase the running costs of road vehicles, the effects on rural and remote areas of a general rise in the price of fuel.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Henley): My Lords, we shall take great care in considering any recommendations, such as those of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, for increases in the running costs of road vehicles. There are, though, a wide range of factors which would have to be taken into account by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. Does he agree that a general increase would raise the cost of living disproportionately
768
in rural areas, where everyday life is dependent upon road vehicles, especially in Scotland and Wales, and where congestion and pollution occur infrequently? Will the Government therefore give urgent consideration to road pricing schemes, difficult though they may be, in urban areas and on congested roads where disincentives are very much needed?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I believe that increases of the sort which the Royal Commission is talking about would certainly have considerable implications for jobs, the economy and individuals. That would need to be the subject of detailed examination. I accept the point which my noble friend is making: that it would also possibly have greater implications for those living in rural areas. As regards road pricing and its possible effects, I can give an assurance to my noble friend that that is something which colleagues in the Department of Transport are looking into. A research programme into its possible effects, particularly on urban road pricing, has been carried out. No doubt in due course we shall be able to let my noble friend know more about that work.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in view of the fact that most noble Lords would always wish to obey, both in the letter and in the spirit, the Salisbury rules in connection with items included in party manifestos, will the noble Lord inform the House as to whether, at the last general election, the party opposite promised to increase the price of fuel?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord opposite that in last year's Budget my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I refer the noble Lord to paragraph 450 of the Red Book—gave a commitment to increase road fuel duties, and not prices, by an average of something of the order of 5 per cent. per annum. That is considerably less than what the Royal Commission is suggesting, but it is in order to help ensure that the United Kingdom meets its Rio commitment to reduce CO2 emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that if there were any draconian increase in petrol or fuel tax, that would not only inflict hardship on those living in rural areas, but it would be an additional cost on business which would reduce our competitive position? Does my noble friend further agree that careful consideration should be given to this matter because we must retain our competitive edge?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is right and that is why I answered my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy in the manner which I did the first time I replied. There will be considerable implications as regards jobs, the economy and individuals if we increase fuel prices by as much as the Royal Commission has suggested. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, I repeated the commitment which my right honourable friend has given to increase duties by an average of 5 per cent. a year—that matter would have to be considered each year—in order to meet our Rio commitment.
Lord Brooks: My Lords, will the Minister not agree that there are few worse pollutants than pollution of the

769
freedom of movement, freedom of choice and freedom itself and that the motor car is a vital freedom to so many of our people? Let us be careful before we injure it.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall be the first to agree that the motor car is a vital freedom to the individual. I believe that most of us would also agree that on occasions the numbers of motor cars—which normally mean other people's motor cars and not one's own—can be an infringement of the liberties of other people. Quite obviously there has to be a balance drawn between those two particular freedoms.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, are the Government aware that one of the biggest difficulties in terms of the cost of motoring is the perception of motorists that it costs them only the price of the petrol to travel from A to B when in fact, because of the fixed costs associated with motoring, the real costs which they incur are far higher? Have the Government any plans to transfer some of those fixed costs such as the road tax to increase the variable cost in fuel duty so that the actual cost of motoring would not change, but that the motorist's perception of the real costs would be improved?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I regret to say that I do not agree with the noble Lord. I believe that most consumers are sophisticated enough to recognise all the costs, both those of petrol and of the fixed costs. I believe that most of us find those costs quite a considerable burden on our individual budgets.
Lord Peston: My Lords, at the moment I find the noble Lord's answers puzzling. Does he agree that if the Government use the price mechanism for fuel the increase in price must fall on those who value the object the most? The Minister is trying to be as helpful to his friends as he can; but does he not recognise that if the price is raised in the end the user will bear the burden? Does he agree that there is no way around the problem other than not to raise the price in the first place?
Lord Henley: My Lords, if the noble Lord is trying to suggest that my answers have been contradictory, he is wrong. I made it quite clear that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given a commitment to increase duties by something of the order of 5 per cent. per year in order to meet our Rio commitments. I believe I said at first that the sort of increase suggested by the Royal Commission is considerably greater than that and that it would have very real and much greater implications than the increases purely in duty rather than in total price, as suggested by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, in expressing sympathy for the original point made by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, does my noble friend recognise that it is really the number of cars on the road which is the main problem? Does my noble friend agree that one way of regulating that is to use the annual road tax on cars which, since it was introduced in its present form in 1968, has fallen in real terms to less than 60 per cent. of its level at that time? Does my noble friend further agree that if the 1968 level were restored, it would mean raising the
770
current rate from £130 to £220 which would have the benefit of not only reducing the number of cars, but of producing an extra £2 billion to the Exchequer?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I believe is fairly obvious from the exchanges in this House, there are advocates of fuel duty and advocates of vehicle excise duty. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will, I imagine, continue to consider both those duties and the full implications of their effects.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, will the noble Lord indicate whether, in the light of the Royal Commission's report to which he referred frequently, and of the views expressed in this House this afternoon, the Government are contemplating issuing a strategy on the whole transport issue to which the various problems can be addressed?
Lord Henley: My Lords, no doubt my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport will consider that in due course. All I can say is that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider the implications, as far as the duties go, in the forthcoming Budget.

British Waterways Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Commons Message of 27th October 1994 be now considered; and that the promoters of the bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon in this session in order to proceed with the bill in the next session of Parliament, notice of their intention to do so having been deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than 9 a.m. on Thursday 3rd November next;
That such bill be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than 3 p.m. on the second sitting day in the next session with a declaration annexed, signed by the agent, stating that the bill is the same in every respect as the bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present session;
That the proceedings on the bill in the next session of Parliament be pro forma in regard to every stage through which the bill has passed in the present session, and that no new fees be charged to such stages;
That the Private Business Standing Orders apply to the bill in the next session only in regard to any stage through which the bill has not passed during the present session. —(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Business of the House
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 38 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with tomorrow to enable any Message which may be received from the Commons relating to the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill to be considered before the Motions standing in the names of the Lord Privy Seal and the Earl of Longford.— (Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Union (Accessions) Bill
3.9 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.— (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey.)
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, this is a most welcome Bill bringing four admirable countries into the Community. Even more admirable is the fact that, according to the papers, three out of four of those countries will in fact be net contributors to the Commission and to the Union. I welcome this Bill and I hope that it will pass very quickly.
Bill read a third time.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill now do pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Chalker of Wallasey.)
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I believe I am correct in saying that one makes comments at this stage about whether or not one likes the Bill and wants it to pass. Although I set down no amendments at Committee or Report stages—and nor did any of my colleagues or anyone else in the House—I would not want the Minister to believe that I have changed in any sense the view which I expressed at Second Reading that this Bill is not a good Bill but a bad one in that it will extend the number of countries which belong to the European Union, Community, or whatever we are now supposed to call it.
The fact is that the European Community is already far too big. We can already see the results of the things that the European Community is doing. We already know (because Christopher Booker and Mr. North made a calculation of the costs) how much the Community costs this country and the people of this country in direct contributions, in loss of trade—or at least in me increase in our adverse trade balance—and, indeed, in increased food costs. We already know that membership of the Community has done Britain no good at all.
What is more, I believe that the larger the Community becomes, the more difficult it will be to control and the more bureaucratic it will become. Indeed, we have already seen how difficult it is for the new President of the Commission to allocate the jobs which already exist and the problems that that has caused to Sir Leon Brittan and presumably to the Government. As I have said, the larger such an institution becomes, the more bureaucratic it will become and the more difficult it will be to control. Therefore, I say again that not only am I opposed to the
772
accession of those four countries, but I believe that the present institution of 12 nations is not serving Britain well, has served us very badly and the sooner we get out of it, the better.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, before my noble friend comes to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, might it be in order if I were to put a gloss on the noble Lord's question because he has stated that in his view the Community will be more difficult to control? My question to my noble friend is: does she believe that the expansion of the Community by having more member states will add power to the centre of the Community or, as Her Majesty's Government claim, will that power become more diffuse and more widely spread among all the members in future?
3.15 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, since the original introduction of the Bill, a number of developments have occurred which have made me change my views considerably, and I regret to say that they have become more extreme than previously. Your Lordships will have noted from the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill that:
"The Union will finance a range of expenditure programmes in the new Member States. This will require an increase in the financial perspective and the Community budget. But the increased financial perspective will continue to respect the limits on expenditure imposed by the Community's own resources ceiling".
Since those words originally came to the notice of your Lordships, there have been a number of developments in the European Community, particularly on the financial side, which have caused widespread unease not only in your Lordships' House and another place but also in the country at large. I refer to the quite disgraceful way in which the finances of the Community are dealt with by the Commission of the European Communities and in particular to some of the facts that were revealed for the first time by the publication of your Lordships' Select Committee report on fraud and mismanagement of Community resources.
The first point to note when reading those words in the Explanatory Memorandum is that the new expenditure programmes,
"will require an increase in the financial perspective and the Community budget".
However, we have been told in other explanatory memoranda dealing with the enlargement of the Community that so far as the United Kingdom is concerned there will be relief in its net contribution. The Government originally put that relief at some £300 million per annum. We now know, however, as a result of the issue of later memoranda that the benefit will be limited to £350 million spread over a period of five years. There is not very much relief in that.
The other point that your Lordships may have noted in the course of the debates that have taken place in your Lordships' House is that any reference to the Community budget anywhere in the Explanatory Memorandum or elsewhere is a complete farce because there is no control at all over the Community budget. There is certainly no control over it in the Parliament of Westminster since the expenditure levels were set at the 1992 Edinburgh

773
conference with the inter-institutional agreement which sets the ceiling over the next five years. We already have it on the record in evidence from experts that that ceiling is, in practice, equivalent to the budget itself, except for some minor tamperings.
Therefore, when we pass this Bill on European Union accessions, we should bear in mind that in 1992, without any consultation either with another place or this House and without any frank debate on the matter, we committed ourselves to increases in expenditure over the next five years. That was done without any consultation with or assent from the British Parliament. Those are not propitious symptoms for the development on successful lines of an enlarged European Community.
There will be other occasions on which it will be possible to return with perhaps even slightly more detail—and even more embarrassment to the Government—than has been produced so far, so I shall refrain from making any further comment upon it. However, this much I warn the House—perhaps I should say that I venture to warn the House: when the House really knows of the sordid transactions that have taken place at Commission level in regard to this whole affair, the House will be appalled. Although I do not question in any way the personal integrity or endeavour of the Minister, for whom I have the utmost respect, I venture to suggest to your Lordships that the passing of this Bill today will mark an occasion which in due course this country and other countries in Europe will have cause to regret.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I think that it would be most unfortunate if, as a result of what has been said, a message were to go out from this House that the new members were not welcome in the Community. I wish therefore strongly to support my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter in saying how glad we are that they are joining us. We believe that they will add to the strength of the Union. We believe that they will make a most valuable contribution and we look forward to their joining our company in the European Union.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, on a simple point of information, I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister could clarify the rather peculiar phrase in the Explanatory Memorandum, "in the financial perspective". I am not quite clear what that phrase means.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I support the views on this matter expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield. An extraordinarily insular point of view has been expressed this afternoon by the noble Lords, Lord Bruce of Donington, Lord Pearson and Lord Stoddart. There is an old Scottish saying that, "Everybody is oot of step except oor Jock". We are at the final stage of the Bill. Other countries in Europe similar to ours have been queueing up desperately anxious to join the European Union because the whole experience so far has been that the unity and integration that it promotes have been in the interests of the citizens of Western Europe.
We have these countries forming a queue to join the European Union—not a free trade area—and yet here in your Lordships' House on the Third Reading of this important Bill there seems to be a tone that urges the view
774
that the Union should not welcome those friendly countries, and the motivation of the speeches is that, instead of those countries joining the European Union, we in the United Kingdom should take urgent steps to withdraw from it. It is most extraordinary that we should have such unrepresentative views on the Third Reading of this important Bill.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wonder whether I may correct what the noble Lord has just said about my intervention.
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, it is merely that I did not seek in any way—
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I simply asked whether my noble friend thought that the addition of new members to the European Union now, and in future, would add to the power of the centre of the Union or whether it would make it more diffuse. That is a very important point.
Lord Richard: My Lords, perhaps I might just speak one or two sentences. I had not intended to speak today, but I would be very unhappy indeed if the two voices from the Bench immediately behind me were thought to represent the views of the Labour Party. They do not. The Labour Party is committed to this enlargement. We believe that it is in the interests not just of the Community as a whole but of the United Kingdom. Not only that, the fact that the enlargement is to take place is one of the great moments in the development of the integration of Europe. So far as concerns the Labour Party —not my noble friends sitting behind me—we welcome it.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, for what he has. just said. It would be easy at this final stage of the debate to get the whole matter out of perspective. Since we are talking about perspective, let me turn immedmtely to the questions asked by my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and say that we have not agreed to any increase in spending by the present 12 member states beyond that which we have already agreed at the Edinburgh European Council. So the implication for the financial perspective is that the Community will finance a range of expenditure programmes in the new member states, but much of that increase will come from three of the four applicant states, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said.
Further, I was asked by my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch about whether there would be more power to the centre the more countries that join. I happen to believe that there would be less power to the centre. Having spent the whole of this weekend looking at the need to have a more efficient Community—one which monitors its spending far better, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, would wish—I am convinced that the more countries which are part of this Community, the more we shall have proper subsidiarity and the proper monitoring of expenditure—something with which I fully agree.

775
I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Cockfield. I agree with him: it would be very bad if the Bill were to pass from your Lordships' House giving the impression that we did not wholeheartedly welcome the enlargement of the European Union to include these four prosperous countries, with their long democratic traditions. That can but benefit not just the United Kingdom but the European Union as a whole. In turn, these countries will benefit from being part of a dynamic and prosperous European Union. I am sure that they will play a full part in shaping its future. But this enlargement is more than that.
We must begin to look to the next round of enlargement—an enlargement which will include countries of central Europe which have so long been denied the political freedoms and economic prosperity that we enjoy, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, said. That will be one of the greatest challenges to the European Union. I believe that one of the safeguards of the European Union will be a Union based on a partnership that uses the talents of all the member states to grow into a truly European Union which will help ensure stability and prosperity for all the citizens of Europe. That is why I urge that the Bill do now pass.
On Question, Bill passed.

Weights and Measures (Metrication)(Miscellaneous Goods) (Amendment)Order 1994
3.25 p.m.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th July be approved [26th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the three instruments will implement the 1989 European Community Units of Measurement Directive in respect of authorising metric units of measurement and their use for weights and measures and price marking. As the House will be aware, the United Kingdom is already using the metric system for many purposes. The metric system has been taught in schools in the United Kingdom since 1974; and many everyday products are now sold in metric units, as anyone who visits a supermarket or DIY store will be aware.
The legislation before the House will continue that process of metrication. It will require the use of metric units from 1st October 1995 for sales of food pre-packed in variable weights such as cheese and meat, for sales of goods by length, such as fabric, or by area, such as carpet, and for sales of petrol, diesel and other liquid fuels. The legislation will also require the use of metric units from 1st January 2000 for food sold loose from bulk such as meat, poultry, cheese, fish and fresh fruit and vegetables. The legislation will, however, allow the continued use of the mile for road traffic signs, speedometers and odometers, and the pint for sales of draught beer and cider and for milk in returnable containers.
In preparing this legislation, the Department of Trade and Industry has undertaken very extensive consultations with industry, retailers, enforcement groups and consumer bodies. Over 700 organisations have been consulted. I can report that, in general, the responses have
776
been low key and supportive of the department's proposals, although some consumer organisations would have liked to have seen full metrication with no exceptions.
Provision has been made to assist those consumers who are not familiar with the metric system. During the transition periods, those retailers who display their unit prices in metric—for example, 50p. per kilo—will have to display either the imperial equivalent of the metric unit price or a price conversion chart. After the transition periods retailers may, if they wish, continue to use the imperial system for supplementary indications of price and quality.
I should mention that the principal metrication changeover date in the legislation, 1st October 1995, is nine months later than the date—1st January 1995— required by the directive. There are a number of reasons for that, including the need to consult interested parties on the conversion chart and the fact that the legislation has turned out to be more complicated to draft than was first envisaged. A conversion date of 1st January 1995 would not give industry sufficient time to make the necessary changes.
Finally, I should stress that the legislation goes no further than the requirements of the directive and that imperial units will not disappear. There will be a change to metric only where the law presently provides for the use of imperial units of measurement in a manner contrary to the 1989 directive. But in many cases units of measurement are used through custom and practice, not because they are required by law. Thus, for example, the measurement of a cricket pitch or a racecourse is not laid down by law and I can assure the House that these and similar examples will not be affected by the legislation. I commend the draft regulation and orders to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th July be approved [26th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Arran.)
3.30 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, this is not the most important problem confronting the country today. However, it is an interesting issue and certainly one that interests me, I can trace no element of party politics; it is a matter on which reasonable people can agree to differ. I agree with the main consumer bodies and am a full "metriciser", if there is such a word. As regards British industry, the consumer and everyone else, it is sensible to go fully metric. However, I recognise the fact that other people whom I regard as being reasonable and sensible may not take that view.
The present position is a mess. I looked in my refrigerator to discover that the milk is in an imperial measure (a pint) but that the bottled water and fruit juices are in metric measures. The rationale for that is beyond me. The butter from Sainsbury's is in grammes but the cheese from Sainsbury's is in pounds and ounces. Sainsbury's sells the best ice cream in the world—it is called Ben & Jerry's—and is in an American pint unit. Even if we go fully metric, I am not clear what will happen to American units when we try to import their products.

777
The Minister referred to sporting matters. Football pitches are measured in yards but rugby pitches are measured in metres. I have tried to investigate various other aspects of the problem but cannot obtain definitive answers. I had completely forgotten that a cricket pitch is a chain, and so forth. Almost all Olympic athletic and swimming events are in metric. Cloth is sold in metric by length but in imperial by width. It must be pointed out that with such a mess mistakes can be made. I am certain that I am not the only person who has had the experience of measuring for curtains in yards, ordering the amount and, because I have not specified, ending up with John Lewis sending the length in metres.
The main point is that in schools our children are taught wholly metric measures. The GCSE science syllabus is metric and all the details are in metric units. Even a measurement of force called "Newton"—and no greater name exists in our history—is metric.
I wish to ask the Minister and other noble Lords who may be so committed what is the nostalgia for the lost Empire that makes everyone say that we must have imperial units? Even the so-called imperial units are not strictly British; we got them from somewhere else. The Minister said that the consumer bodies were not happy with the slow speed at which we are moving—and nor am I.
The Minister quoted from the 26th Report of the Joint Committee of both Houses which was appointed to scrutinise delegated legislation. Paragraph 2 states:
"The Committee draws the special attention of both Houses to these Instruments on the ground that they fail to implement the Directive properly".
Is the Minister saying that he agrees with that but the only way he regards them as failing is in terms of date and that his justification is that it is taking a little longer to get the whole thing together? Secondly, why cannot his department come into the last part of the 20th century and prepare for the next century by going full steam ahead in the metric direction?
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, I fought a long rear-guard action in order to obtain the derogation for the mile, the pint and the inch. Although to some extent they are preserved, this is an extremely sad day. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that we are moving in this direction not in the name of progress but purely in the name of conformity for conformity's sake. I could not let the occasion pass without deploring that fact.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I wish to bring to the attention of your Lordships' House the practical importance of these measures. I agree with the main thrust of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in supporting the measures. However, I am at variance with him in the importance that is attached to them. Perhaps it is the difference between a practical person and an academic. As regards an academic, the importance of one set of measurements against another is numbers and letters on a piece of paper, but for a practical person it can amount to whether or not a piece of machinery fits or whether one has to have twice as many tools to work on that piece of machinery. The
778
problem has been a yoke that has fallen heavy on British industry and commerce. This country has been subjected to feet-dragging in terms of metrication.
Having been in power for 15 years, this Government bear a heavy responsibility but previous governments are also responsible. One can go back to our entry into Europe—and we were taken in by a Conservative Government—when we thought that we could be effectively competitive with our fellow nations in the EEC, as it then was, and with no emphasis on metrication. That put a yoke on British industry and commerce in terms of their ability to compete effectively.
I wish to ask two questions. First, when will the process of metrication be complete? Some of the measures will be implemented in 1995 and more in the year 2000. However, I understand that that will not complete the process. How much longer must industry, commerce and the people of this country wait until the Government bite the bullet and say, "Yes, we will complete the process of metrication that has been going on for so many years."? Apart from the United States of America, how many countries use the imperial system? I appreciate that America uses a bastardised form of this system. One might turn the question round the other way and ask what proportion of world trade and world production of, for example, manufactured goods is in metric and what proportion is in imperial measurement? We need to know the answers to those two questions.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, first, I should say, happily, that one cannot see the day when the metric system will rule world-wide, not least because of course there are more sensible units. The international aviation authorities are agreed that aircraft heights will be defined in feet—a good old imperial unit —and of course that distance and speed will be defined in nautical miles. Again, that is for very good reasons and the nautical mile is a much more logical unit than the kilometre, as all, except the French, are perfectly willing to admit.
Indeed, I am quite liberal minded about these matters. It seems to me that there would be some advantage if we expressed the length of a cricket pitch in the same number of metres as the number of yards we now use. That might give some of our batsmen a little longer to prepare themselves for a West Indian fast bowler, which would undoubtedly be an advantage.
I certainly believe that there will be continuing commercial pressure—not pressure from Brussels— which will over the years push us along the road of defining most units by the metric system. That is why I regard the orders as so objectionable. Why do we have to have Big Brother insisting that it must be done now, next year or in 1996? Why for once cannot we allow such matters to take their course? Why do we have to be so Big Brother-ish about it all; or rather, why do they have to be so Big Brother-ish about it?
I end by asking my noble friend one question. Can he assure me that even after the year 2000 the ordinary greengrocer with his stall in the ordinary English market will, if his customer comes to him and asks, "Can I have a pound or two pounds of potatoes?", be able to reply,

779
"Yes, of course. I will weigh you up a pound or two pounds of potatoes"? I hope that my noble friend is able to give me that assurance. It would make me a little less unhappy about these decrees which are being brought into our law today.
Lord Monson: My Lords, if on 1st November 1944 we had told British servicemen fighting hard and bravely in France, Belgium, Holland or Italy to liberate those countries from the German occupiers that 50 years hence the former occupiers and former occupied would gang up together to make it illegal for British people living in Britain to use their traditional measurements in transactions involving only themselves—that is, transactions which do not affect people living on the other side of the Channel—they would have thought that we were stark staring mad. If we had gone on to explain that that command would be mitigated slightly by certain extremely gracious minor concessions on the part of the Continentals, who would condescendingly allow us to sell for a few years longer lemonade and milk in a bottle by the pint, but not ginger beer, ginger ale, tonic water or milk in a carton; and subsequently to sell cider but not perry by the pint; and that yards could be used for road measurements but not for the measurement of timber, they would have thought that we were crazier still.
The alleged justifications for this are apparently considerations of economics, public health, public safety or administration. But no public health or safety considerations apply, and if there are any economic or administrative disadvantages in sticking to the present system, the merits or demerits of which need not concern us now, they disadvantage nobody but ourselves.
After all, we are not talking about tinned food, bottled food or drink or packaged food such as biscuits which we export to the Continent. Naturally, harmonisation on metric lines is entirely justifiable in those cases. We are talking about goods sold within the United Kingdom to United Kingdom subjects. At least 99.99 per cent. of Brussels sprouts sold loose here are not sold to Belgians but to the British. So what has happened to the much vaunted principle of subsidiarity which was held out to us as one of the few worthwhile aspects of the Maastricht Treaty?
I have three specific questions for the noble Earl, Lord Arran. Once the regulations are agreed to, will it be illegal for a small builder to quote a householder in writing for putting up a couple of three foot shelves rather than a couple of 0.9144 metre shelves? Secondly, will it be illegal for someone selling his house to advertise a 40 foot garden or, for example, that his main bedroom measures 16 by 12? Thirdly, supplementary imperial measurements can, by gracious permission of the EC Commission, be listed, provided that the lettering used is not higher than the metric lettering used. How many extra inspectors will be needed to monitor that? What would be the maximum fine or term of imprisonment which could be imposed upon the transgressors?
780
The regulations will cost British businesses between £32 million and £33 million. Those are not my figures; they are government figures. That is reason enough for opposing them. But the most powerful reason for doing so is that the doctrine of subsidiarity, which we were promised would come into effect the moment that the Maastricht Treaty was ratified, has either been deliberately ignored in this instance or shown up as a hollow sham.
3.45 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, perhaps I may raise a specific point which was mentioned also by my noble friend Lord Tebbit. I ask the Minister whether the word "mile" in Schedule 3B of the Units of Measurement Regulations 1994 includes the nautical mile? Will he assure me that nothing in the regulations will prohibit or prevent the continued use of the nautical mile?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I agree with everything which the noble Lords, Lord Tebbit and Lord Monson, and other noble Lords have said about these orders. I should like to know what will happen after the year 2000 if a retailer in a market sells a couple of pounds of potatoes rather than however many grams that may be. Will the retailer be hauled before the courts? If so, will he be fined, will he be liable to a fine and imprisonment, or just imprisonment or just a fine?
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend, when he comes to reply, could confirm what the total compliance costs of these three regulations are spread over the years, I think, 1993 to 1999 and how many individual trading entities they concern in this country.
I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, advanced the figure of some £33 million, but my calculations, from these somewhat coy statistics with which we have been supplied in the compliance costs assessment, seem to come to rather more than that.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful for the way in which the Minister explained the orders to the House. He referred to consultation and I believe that he said that he had consulted over 700 organisations. Can he tell the House how many replies he received?
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, thought that he might be a "metriciser". I am not sure how Hansard will report that, but perhaps it should be that he is a metricator.
The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, referred to the US and the aviation industry. Is he aware that the US ton is different from the imperial ton, and the US gallon and the imperial gallon are different? Can he be sure that there is no scope for confusion or even disaster?
The orders purport to be concerned with the implementation of metrication as required by an EC directive. In fact, government policy appears to be to retain imperial measurement for as long as possible. I am sure that many noble Lords and older members of the electorate will be very supportive of that action.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, referred to the difficulties with education and our children. Schedule 1 to the Weights and Measures Act 1985 buried certain obscure units such as the rood. But the Units of

781
Measurement Regulations 1994 currently before the House resurrect the rood as a "supplementary indication". Presumably, the rood is a very useful unit of measurement. Perhaps the Minister could indicate to the House the size of the rood. For example, is it the size of the Dispatch Box, the size of the Table or the size of the whole Chamber? The noble Earl's department will have consulted widely with trade associations and organisations which have requested the reintroduction of the rood. Can the Minister tell the House which trade associations requested its reintroduction?
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, referred to milk. I believe he said that the standard carton is 568 millilitres. That is a very peculiar amount; indeed, it is a few tablespoonsful more than half a litre. The need for that becomes much clearer when one looks at the supplementary indication. I say that because the supplementary indication for 568 millilitres is one pint. So, in fact, we are no nearer to metrication.
The noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, claims the credit, as she would have it, for retaining the mile, the inch and so on as regards roads. I am afraid that I cannot support her claim, as Schedule 3B of the Units of Measurement Regulations allows the inch, foot, yard and mile to be continued. Nowadays, we travel across the Channel a great deal, and we have no trouble using kilometres on the Continent. But let us consider the continental driver on this side of the Channel. He sees a sign showing, "London —57 miles". We may feel that that is no problem. However, how would we feel if we went to the other side of the Channel and saw a sign saying, "Paris—60 leagues"? That is the same sort of difficulty as a continental driver would have.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, thought that there would be no safety considerations, but we are retaining dual heights as regards bridge height limits, and that is a very serious safety consideration. When a lorry driver comes along he has to check whether his lorry can go under the bridge. He has to look at two heights, not one. Of course, the continental driver will only be familiar with his height in metres.
There is another difficulty as regards speedometers. When we drive on the Continent we have to have a dual scale so that we can see how fast we are travelling. But if we used kilometres in the UK, we would have just one very clear scale. Further, as regards an odometer in kilometres, one-tenth of a kilometre is 100 metres, whereas one-tenth of a mile is 176 metres.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: 176 yards!
Earl Attlee: My Lords, these imperial units are very familiar and very popular, but they are not suited to modern times. Metric calculations are much easier. For example, 1,000 litres of water weighs 1,000 kilos, which is the same as one tonne, which is exactly one cubic metre. There is one welcome exception to metrication in the orders. It is found in Schedule 3B. I refer to the pint of "draught beer or cider". There is no difficulty
782
with metrication. It is not the metric units, or the use of them; it is the prolonging of the agony of using dual units and measurements and supplementary indications.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, it is quite difficult to know where to start on this particular order because; your Lordships have very clearly demonstrated that there are very emotive and, indeed, passionate feelings: right across the House. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, quite rightly believes it not to be a party political matter. That is certainly not the set of circumstances which applies this afternoon. We were delighted to learn about the contents of the noble Lord's fridge. I must admit that it all sounded somewhat confusing.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked one question in particular; namely, whether or not we were fulfilling the requirements of the directive in the orders. Except for the date of 1st January 1995, we are meeting the deadlines in the directive. We are substituting 1st October 1995 in response to representations from retailers. As I have already said, they feel that they need more time so that such changes can be properly introduced. As regards other aspects of implementation, the instruments before the House make the necessary amendments to our national legislation on weights, measures and prices.
However, perhaps I may say in general—
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but what he said is enormously important for the record. Is he saying that, other than the date, we are fully implementing the directive in the orders?
The Earl of Arran: Yes, my Lords; mat is the case. Lord Peston: My Lords, I am much obliged.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, as I was saying, in general, the United Kingdom has already converted to the use of metric for industrial use and the sale of many common groceries. Moreover, we have taught the system in our schools now for 20 years. But, as your Lordships have clearly demonstrated, there is the difficulty of knowing what to do; for example, how quickly to do it, whether to do it immediately or whether to take time. However, the Government have decided to introduce such changes gradually and at minimum disruption to both business and the consumer.
It is also important to note that there is perhaps something of a generation gap involved. For example, it is quite difficult for the elderly to appreciate fully the complications of the metrication system. Therefore, I believe that the gradual process has definitely been more beneficial. We now hope to complete the process, again at minimum disruption to all concerned, while retaining the pint of beer in the pub and the pint of milk on the doorstep, as well as the mile and the yard.
Perhaps I may now respond to some of your Lordships' questions. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not answer all the detailed, technical questions this afternoon. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, asked which countries, other than the United Kingdom and Ireland, continue to operate the imperial system. So far as I am aware, the only countries where imperial is the principal system of measurement

783
are the United States, Barbados, the Bahamas, Jamaica, The Gambia, Western Samoa and Sierra Leone. One noble Lord asked whether, after the year 2000, a retailer could be prosecuted and fined. After the year 2000, a retailer could be prosecuted and fined, but he could not be imprisoned.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, asked whether the directive was in conflict with the doctrine on subsidiarity. Indeed, if he did not say that, he certainly implied it. The objective of the directive is to remove barriers to trade which arise from the differences between national laws on units of measurement. That can be achieved only by legislation at Community level to remove those differences. It follows that the directive is compatible with the principle of subsidiarity.
I have to say again—and I note that my noble friend Lord Tebbit is not now in his place—that the purpose of the present changes is to complete the move towards a full adoption of the metric system for trading purposes. Some noble Lords asked: why do it now? In the 1972 White Paper, the Government explained that the country could not drift towards metrication; there could well be too much chaos. An orderly staged transition would have to be the most appropriate.
I think your Lordships will agree that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is extremely well versed and has taken a great deal of trouble over this order. I hope that I have made clear to him some of the feelings the Government have on this matter. He asked about the rood. He will be pleased to hear it is now an abolished unit. Its length is certainly larger than the Dispatch Box from which I speak at the moment: it is some 1,210 square yards. I can assure the noble Earl that it has been abolished for at least 10 years and is now part of a comprehensive list of non-authorised units.
I am aware that I have not answered all your Lordships' questions. Some of them are somewhat technical but I will very carefully read Hansard and I assure noble Lords that they will receive answers to their questions in the next few days. I beg to move.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, can he answer the simple question: will the nautical mile continue indefinitely or not?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am not absolutely certain about the answer to that question. I hope my noble friend will regard that as a somewhat technical question to which I do not have the answer with me. I hope therefore my noble friend will allow me to write to him.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Weights and Measures Act 1985 (Metrication) (Amendment) Order 1994
4.1 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th July be approved [26th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Arran.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Units of Measurement Regulations 1994
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 19th July be approved [26th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Arran.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Conditional Fees
4.2 p.m.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner rose to ask Her Majesty's Government:
What safeguards they will add to the draft Conditional Fee Order and Regulations in the light of the concerns raised by the Lord Justice Steyn, the Chairman of the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct, in his letter to the Lord Chancellor of 26th May 1994 and further identified in the press notice of 9th June 1994.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, it shows great powers of discernment by the Government Whips that when altering the date for this debate they chose 1st November—All Saints Day! For once (although I hope it is not the first occasion) I am clearly on the side of the angels. As I shall explain in a little detail in a moment, the stimulus for this debate arises out of the acute concern expressed on more than one occasion publicly by the Lord Chancellor's own Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct.
Those concerns were also voiced by the Bar on the occasion of its annual conference at the end of September in the opening words of a detailed and well reasoned paper given by a senior QC. He said this:
"Conditional fees are bad news for individual litigants. They are good news for lawyers. They are therefore a bad idea".
Referring to the scheme as now proposed by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, he said:
"Superficially this appears to have some charm. So that is why it could seem popular. But when you see how it works out in practice only the lawyer benefits—and the litigant —the poor innocent man who has fallen off the Clapham omnibus—cannot win".
Further, in an article shortly to be published by Professor Zander, Professor of Law at the London School of Economics and a solicitor, the opening paragraph reads as follows,
"The idea that a winning litigant would have to pay most or even all the damages to his lawyer seems preposterous. But that would be the effect of conditional fees which the Government is about to introduce as a grand new way of financing litigation. For most clients conditional fees will just be a con".
The concerns which I am about to outline I know are shared by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice. An unrelated but happy feature of this debate is that we will hear the maiden speech of my noble and learned and great friend Lord Nicholls. He had an outstanding academic career. It was then followed by a very impressive practice at the

785
Chancery Bar. Then he demonstrated—in a forensic sense of course—what a fast worker he was. He became a judge of the Chancery Division in 1943—
Noble Lords:Oh!
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I should say 1983. I beg noble Lords' pardon. That shows what a slow worker I am. Inside those 11 years he graduated up from a judge of the High Court of the Chancery Division to the Court of Appeal, to Vice-Chancellor, and now to a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary. Just to emphasise his celerity, I think it is only a few days ago that he was introduced and here he is about to make a maiden speech and to demonstrate that he will add lustre to your Lordships' debates.
Section 58 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 made, for the first time, an agreement to enter into speculative litigation enforceable. A conditional fee agreement is a species of contingency fee which permits lawyers to take cases on a no-win, no-pay basis. In the event of the litigation being successful, a term which is not easy to define—that is, "successful"—the lawyer is entitled to his normal fees plus a mark up or "up-lift"—to use that odd term which sounds more relevant to a foundation garment.
Prior to the passing of the 1990 Act, conditional fees were unenforceable because they were considered to be contrary to public policy. The rule was imposed by the law with two principal aims: first, to prevent exploitation of litigants; and, secondly, to promote the interests of justice. By allowing the lawyer to have a personal financial interest or stake in the outcome of the case, it was thought that this might lead to improper practices by the lawyer and undermine the integrity of the administration of justice.
Section 58 was enacted in the teeth of opposition from seven Law Lords, the Master of the Rolls, the former Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and the former Attorney-General, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson of Ewell. Although I believe that the Government in thus altering the law rendered a considerable disservice to the administration of justice, that is water under the bridge. However, the proposal in 1990 was to limit the up-lift to but a small percentage of the solicitors' proper costs. The Government's White Paper reporting the reactions to this proposal as originating in the Government's Green Paper, recorded that whereas there was some support for legalising speculative actions, it was again stressed that their use would be minimal.
Section 58, to which I have referred, requires the conditional fee agreement, inter alia, to comply,
"with such requirements (if any) as may be prescribed by the Lord Chancellor".
Section 58(5) provides that,
"Any such order shall prescribe the maximum permitted percentage for each description of specified proceedings".
786
Section 119 defines "prescribed" as meaning "prescribed by regulations" and Section 120 (3) provides,
"Any such regulations … may contain such incidental, supplemental … provisions or savings as the person making the regulations … considers expedient".
Those are very wide powers indeed. In 1991, the year following the enactment, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor issued a consultative paper in which it was proposed to set the maximum up-lift permitted under a conditional fee agreement at 10 per cent. The Lord Chancellor's advisory committee agreed that this maximum up-lift appeared to be about the right figure. However, in May 1993 the Lord Chancellor raised the maximum permitted up-lift to 20 per cent. That apparently did not satisfy those solicitors who might be interested in this new species of speculative litigation because in August 1993 the Lord Chancellor announced—I stress this—without further consultation with his advisory committee that he intended to set the maximum permitted up-lift at 100 per cent.
The Lord Chancellor's advisory committee was so concerned that the practical implications of the decision of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor should be understood that it issued a press notice, dated 3rd November 1993, stating in terms that the committee was not persuaded that:
"the startling implications of the 100 per cent. permitted uplift had been fully appreciated".
This was, indeed, an entirely different ball game. The committee considered that either the permitted level should be reconsidered or additional safeguards should be introduced.
The committee pointed out that the permitted 100 per cent. up-lift would apply to personal injury litigation, in which the plaintiffs are often vulnerable people of limited means. I would add that, unlike commercial clients, who would, I suspect, be the majority of the clients of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, the typical personal injury victim is relatively unsophisticated in both his knowledge of legal matters and the capacity to bargain over fees. I agree with the observations of Professor Zander in his article that most personal injury litigation is straightforward. A recent article entitled Re-thinking Contingency Fees by Professors Brickman, O'Connell and Michael Horowitz, published by the Manhattan Institute in Washington, quoted Judge Grady as saying that:
"the vast majority of personal injury cases involve no uncertainty and the lawyer is going to be paid something".
If your Lordships needed further confirmation of that fact, it is to be found in the premium payable by a plaintiff for a policy of insurance, recently negotiated by the Law Society, against his liability for paying the defendant's costs in the event of the action failing. This is to be less than £100. From inquiries which I have caused to be made, it would be surprising to find that the plaintiff's costs of an action fought for some two days in the county court involving two or three witnesses on each side, including expert evidence but with agreed medical

787
reports, would amount to less than £10,000. It follows that if the insurers are to break even, ignoring the administrative costs of such a policy, 100 actions would have to be won for every action lost. That indicates their contemplation of the size of the risk in this type of litigation.
In the press notice the advisory committee points out that it is common for a plaintiff's costs to reach an amount equal to half or even more of the damages recovered. Accordingly, it points out that if the 100 per cent. permitted up-lift comes into force, the plaintiff may have to pay the solicitors an additional sum equal to the whole of the damages awarded to him. If there is a finding of contributory negligence, the damages are reduced accordingly and the risk of losing everything to his advising lawyer is that much greater.
The committee pointed out that:
"one way of eliminating some of the most glaring injustices would be to restrict the up-lift to a limited part of the damages"
in other words, to cap the proportion of damages which the successful plaintiff has to sacrifice to his lawyer, for instance 20 per cent.
In April this year the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor sent to his advisory committee the draft conditional fee order and regulations, which provided, inter alia, for the 100 per cent. up-lift. On 26th May the chairman of the committee, Lord Justice Steyn, a highly respected judge of the Court of Appeal, wrote a lengthy letter to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor saying that it was the committee's formal advice that the scheme should not be implemented until satisfactory provision had been made to deal with the following key issues of concern.
In respect of up-lift, the committee was concerned that the regulations leave lawyers completely free to choose the up-lift they require of the client within the maximum permitted up-lift of 100 per cent. This will result in many clients finding the lawyer's fee taking a disproportionate amount of the sums recovered. The regulations should provide that the amount of the up-lift should not exceed a set proportion of the sums recovered. To require the litigant to pay any significant sum out of his damages detracts from the fundamental principle of English law that the courts strive to put a wronged person back into the position that he would have been in had he not been wronged.
The second area of concern was controlling excessive up-lift. The committee indicated that the use of the taxation system to control excessive uplifts was likely to prove unwieldy and perhaps impractical.
In relation to information to clients, the committee considered that the draft regulations alone are not adequate to ensure that clients have sufficient knowledge of the issues when considering the conditional fee agreements. Lawyers should be required to explain at least some of the matters covered by the draft in specified terms and to take all reasonable care to ensure that clients understand them.
788
In relation to the Bar, the committee felt that conditional fee schemes would create new circumstances in the relationship between the lay client, the litigator and the advocate. Provision is needed for regulating these relationships before the scheme is introduced.
In relation to unmeritorious actions, although the courts have powers to strike out frivolous or vexatious claims and there are professional rules against abuses of the court's process, the committee considered that nevertheless problems developing in this area could involve defendants in considerable unjustified expense. There should be a rule prohibiting lawyers from undertaking, on a conditional fee basis, a case which they believe has no reasonable prospect of success. My noble and learned friend is, of course, aware that such a rule exists in Scotland.
The committee also considered that the existence of a conditional fee agreement should be disclosed to the opposing party and to the court, in the same way as a party in receipt of legal aid must make a disclosure. That will enable the position to be properly monitored, which is vital to ensure that the scheme does not give rise to abuses. Without such provision it is difficult to see how any effective monitoring can be carried out.
Once more, the committee was so concerned that it issued a press notice publicising the letter.
My Unstarred Question was erroneously treated by the Lord Chancellor's Department as a Parliamentary Question requiring a Written Answer. That was conveniently provided as long ago as 25th July in the following terms:
"The Lord Chancellor: There has been extensive consultation on the draft order and regulations and I have considered all the responses which have been put to me. I believe that the safeguards which are provided in the order and regulations are satisfactory. However, I am considering a provision requiring all conditional fee agreements to state whether or not there is to be a limit on the amount of any up-lift by reference to the damages awarded".
By letter of the same date the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor replied to Lord Justice Steyn's letter of 26th May, in substance to the same effect although at somewhat greater length. However, in regard to the proposition that the amount of the up-lift should not exceed a set proportion of the sums recovered, he made the point that he did not have power to make such provisions in the regulations. That is a brand new point which I and a number of my colleagues with whom I have informally discussed the matter have the greatest difficulty in following in view of the wide terms of Section 58(1) (c) and Section 120, which I have already quoted. However, if the Lord Chancellor does not have the requisite power then I respectfully suggest that he obtains it. After all, four years have gone by since the Act was passed and a little extra delay in ensuring that the very real concerns expressed by his own advisory committee will be time well spent.
I do not wish my contribution to this debate to be wholly negative. I join with the Bar Council in suggesting that further consideration be given to the introduction of a contingency legal aid fund, which would overcome all the dangers of the conditional fee

789
system as currently proposed. If a case is lost the lawyer is still paid. If the case is won, the plaintiff pays 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. into the fund. That system has been advocated by Justice on two occasions and has been successfully implemented in Hong Kong over the past 10 years. Clearly it needs an injection of capital to prime the pump, as has been done in Hong Kong, such capital being treated as a loan to be paid back with interest—in the case of Hong Kong in a three-year period.
In a recent address to the London Commercial and Common Law Bar Association, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor referred to the idea as having been canvassed three years ago when he perceived that there was general antipathy towards the idea of making winners pay. That, however, is exactly what happens under the conditional fee system, but in circumstances in which, as pointed out by Professor Zander, the lawyer with a financial stake in the outcome of the litigation has a concern to win the case which may distort the advice he gives and may even tempt him into unethical conduct.
In previous debates we have all joined in criticism of the American system where the lawyer gets a percentage of the sum recovered. Since the American courts, generally speaking, do not allow the lawyer to take more than 40 per cent. of the fruits of the litigation, the American litigant will on occasions be better protected than his English counterpart, since there will be cases where the double fee system results in the whole or virtually the whole of the proceeds going not to the injured party but to his lawyer. I urge my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to think again.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, claimed that he was on the side of the angels. I must say that I think this afternoon he is on the side of the angels, although that does not stop him from having stolen a great deal of my thunder, such as it is. But that will enable me to shorten my speech so that we shall not have to wait very long for the maiden speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Marshall of Birkenhead, to which we greatly look forward.
Noble Lords: Nicholls!
Lord Renton: My Lords, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, I hope that he will forgive me. I personally am strongly against the conditional fee scheme in principle. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor already knows my views on it. I understand that he considers that the scheme will help to overcome the enormous cost of legal aid. But I seriously doubt whether it will do so.
It is a fact that there are various causes of the high cost of legal aid, and other steps than the conditional fee scheme should be taken in any event. Perhaps I may mention an example that we had recently when my noble and learned friend was questioned in your Lordships' House about the notorious case of a Dr. Hashim from Iraq, which cost the taxpayer £4.1
790
million, for one case. I think that the time has come; for us to declare that foreigners and anyone living abroad, who have large resources abroad but have taken the precaution of extracting any of their wealth from this country, should not be eligible for legal aid. That is one positive step which could be taken quickly and easily.
I doubt whether this conditional fee scheme would in any event save much money on legal aid, unless a practice were to arise whereby those who apply for legal aid—whether to launch proceedings or to defend them, shall we say, with a counterclaim—are told that they should enter into a conditional fee agreement instead of being granted legal aid. If such a practice were to arise, it would be disgraceful. It would not only deprive people of the fundamental rights to obtain justice in the way that they have always done in England and Wales in our courts; it would force them into speculative litigation, of which there is already too much. That is well known.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend. Perhaps he ought to address himself to paragraph 17 of Schedule 19 to the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 where there are express provisions against the folly of which my noble and learned friend rightly urges us.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am relieved to hear that that is so. I had forgotten it, but nevertheless one would need to be careful about the practice that would arise behind the scenes. That is the point I was getting at.
I am not the originator of this concept, but it seems to me that conditional fees are contingency fees under another name, whatever safeguards are introduced.
Another problem about the conditional fee scheme is that it works well only when there has been a substantial award of damages. I must confess that I was rather shocked and did not know about the correspondence to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, referred and in which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has given an up-lift to the up-lift from 10 per cent. to 30 per cent. and then 100 per cent., whereas in the United States the maximum up-lift allowed is 40 per cent. in any circumstances.
Various practical problems would be certain to arise and I doubt whether they can easily be overcome. Perhaps I may give one example. It often happens that in running down cases of personal injuries after motor accidents, both parties are held to blame in different degrees. The court then apportions damages on a percentage basis and the order for costs tends to follow the apportionment. What is to be the outcome of the conditional fee agreement in those circumstances?
It is not only in cases where there are such damages that the problem will arise, because we know from the draft order which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has put forward that there will be many other types of agreement, including cases arising under European law. What will happen when the court decides that there should be no damages awarded but

791
that there should be, shall we say, an injunction or a declaration, or both? How will the solicitor for the successful party be rewarded for his efforts?
However, my main objection to the conditional fee scheme is that it would cause an increase in speculative litigation. It would do so in a way which, until Section 58 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 made it possible, was contrary to the principles, the ethos, the etiquette and the tradition of the Bar in England and Wales. Although in Scotland conditional fee agreements have been permissible for quite a long time, I understand that there the scheme has fallen into disuse. It has been tried from time to time, even in recent years, but broadly—and I am open to correction by my noble and learned friend, who knows more about it—I understand that in recent years it has been found to be generally unacceptable.
Here in England and Wales the Bar Council is against it, even though it would cause a great increase in work for the Bar, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said. The Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee is obviously worried about it. I need not repeat the correspondence to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, referred. The committee's anxiety, both in the chairman's letter of 26th May and the statement of 9th June, is reflected in the suggestions that it made, particularly with regard to up-lift.
There are so many questions so far unanswered. In my opinion a tremendous amount of work in depth would have to be done before this scheme could be acceptable to either House of Parliament. Thank goodness that my noble and learned friend has yet to ask Parliament to approve his draft order and the regulations which would follow. I hope that, after considering what has been said in this debate, he will decide to drop the scheme. If he were to do so, in my opinion his reputation would soar and he would earn the gratitude of the Bench and Bar of England and Wales.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead: My Lords, I am greatly fortified by the very kind remarks made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. It is still with considerable trepidation that I rise. I do so with two pieces of advice that I received for this occasion ringing in my ears. The first was that I should keep my speech short—advice that cannot be repeated too frequently for all lawyers. The second piece of advice that I received was that I should speak on a subject about which I care.
I care about the state of the law. I care that the legal system should in practice as well as in jurisprudential theory give a remedy to all who are legally wronged. I am concerned that financial might should not oust legal right.
For some few years until recently I was the head of one of the three divisions of the High Court. That division—the Chancery Division—comprises 17 High Court judges. They are all exceptionally able people and they are all highly motivated. But, as vice-chancellor, I became ever more concerned about the sheer cost, the prohibitive expense, of bringing and conducting
792
proceedings in front of those excellent people. I could not afford to be involved in proceedings in the High Court; nor could most individuals who are not legally aided.
How does this situation come about? What has gone wrong? I suggest that there can be only one answer to those questions. Although the law itself has developed as society has changed, the legal system still lags behind. The system contains many checks and balances—some excellent and some essential, but some now operate as a brake on progress. Procedures and provisions that were necessary and valuable as safeguards in a less sophisticated and non-technological society I believe now in some instances, overall, do more harm than good.
In those circumstances where do we go? I apprehend that everything that I have said is now widely recognised. It is also widely recognised that there is no simple solution. There is no single solution. Before your Lordships' House this afternoon is a Question concerning one particular proposed item of reform of legal procedure. On this occasion I am subject to the constraint that I must not be provocative—as if I ever would be. So I confine myself to just one observation of a very generalised nature.
Proposals for the reform of the legal system arouse strong feelings on both sides. That leads to misunderstandings, which hamper rather than help. I venture to suggest to those who support proposals for law reform that they should recognise that the strength of the feelings of those who oppose particular reforms is no more than a measure of the depth of their concern that the legal system should function properly. They are concerned that well intentioned proposals for reform should not damage but, rather, improve. Conversely, I venture to suggest to those who oppose particular reforms that they should recognise that to every proposal for a reform of the legal system some objection can be raised. I apprehend that there is no proposed reform that could be made without some risk. If we wait for a proposal which will be universally welcomed, to which there are no appendant risks and which has no possible ground for objection, we shall wait for reform truly for ever.
In those circumstances of course reforms must be thought through; of course there must be consultation; of course we must all have the humility to learn from the experience of other countries. But there must come a time in the process when a proposal—I do not allude indirectly to the matter that your Lordships are considering this afternoon—that on its face would improve access to justice should be favourably received unless there are truly compelling reasons why that should not be so. Only if some such approach is adopted will we sooner rather than later bring about the necessary changes for the advantage of those for whom the legal system exists at all.
4.38 p.m.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, it is a particular pleasure for me, on behalf of the whole House, to congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, on his maiden speech. It was

793
not provocative. It was well understood and appreciated. It is no surprise to me that it was so clear and concise. As a fellow Bencher of the Middle Temple, I, like many others, have long admired his great contribution to the administration of justice. We are, above all, a legislative assembly. We always value the contributions of noble and learned Lords. I hope that our latest noble and learned Lord will make many contributions. I know that they will all be most welcome.
I have re-read the debate which took place on 5th February 1990 on the Courts and Legal Services Bill. I had no doubt then and I have no doubt now that, whether you call contingency fees "conditional fees" or vice versa, the Government's step may well turn out to be a step in the wrong direction. But that is quite apart from the effect on legal aid, whether it is an alternative to legal aid or a means of curbing the cost. I do not intend to repeat earlier arguments. But in my view no one has successfully challenged the view which was so clearly expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, when he said,
"I have regretfully come to the conclusion that this measure is not in the interests of the client as a consumer. Furthermore, it is wholly contrary to the interests of the proper and efficient administration of justice".—[Official Report, 5/2/90; col. 546.]
My specific concern in that debate was that so much depended on orders made by the Lord Chancellor of the day. I questioned his powers to act by orders or regulations on such important issues. If your Lordships' Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee had been in existence at that time, I have little doubt that it would have drawn attention to the wide and unclear powers in the primary legislation and the implication of delegated powers that would have significant impact on something as fundamental as the administration of justice.
The draft Conditional Fee Order and Regulations do nothing to allay my anxieties, which mirror those expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. I do not believe that a satisfactory response has yet been given to all the issues raised by Lord Justice Steyn in his letter of 26th May. I therefore warmly support all that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said and I invite my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to do what was suggested and think again.
4.41 p.m.
Lord Benson: My Lords, I have great difficulty in speaking on this subject at all. It is highly complex and I am certain that before very long there will be a great many forms and types of conditional agreements. As a layman, it is impossible to form any judgment on these proposals until one has seen a series of specimen agreements together with the safeguards that will apply to protect the client. None of those is available and until they are it is impossible to form a balanced judgment or, indeed, to know whether the scheme is even workable.
One thing that emerges is that it appears to be the purpose of the scheme that a lawyer can double his fees on the basis that he takes the risk that his costs will be borne by himself. From that time forward the whole conditions change. The lawyer is no longer fighting the case for his client; he is fighting the case for his client and for his own pocket. His independence has gone. He
794
becomes a quite different animal from the normal lawyer with whom one is in contact. His advocacy, his opinions and his advice are open to doubt. The lawyer abandons one of the basic principles upon which the legal profession was founded.
My purpose this evening is to speak to only one item; that is, the need, if conditional agreements ever come into force, for the contents of those agreements to be disclosed to the court, to the opposing parties and to the public. The advisory committee of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor raised queries in relation to disclosure. On 25th July the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor wrote in reply to Lord Justice Steyn:
"I did not consider it necessary or appropriate to require solicitors to register the existence of conditional fee agreements with the courts or to require them to notify the opposing party. I took the view that the existence of such an agreement was a private matter between the solicitor and his client".
I sincerely hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be able to revise that view if the regulations ever come into force.
Between 1976 and 1979 the Royal Commission paid a great deal of attention to what it believed were the principles and behaviour which should govern a lawyer in good practice. In an early chapter it made this comment:
"we attach importance to the need for independence in the legal profession and the attitude of mind and outlook it involves. It has been emphasised, in one form or another, in the submissions of a very large number of witnesses".
There are ample supporting views for those principles, In the Cardozo lecture given in 1958 in New York by Lord Shawcross the following comment appears:
"The importance of detachment, of not being identified with the client's case is really of very great significance. It is, indeed, an essential aspect of the advocate's independence. Lord Eldon well expressed the position when he said of Counsel, 'he lends his exertions to all, himself to none'".
There is yet another compelling authority. In a much quoted passage from Lord Erskine's address in the Paine case it was said:
"I will for ever, at all hazards, assert the dignity, independence and integrity of the English Bar, without which impartial justice, the most valuable part of the English Constitution, can have no existence".
Both Lord Eldon and Lord Erskine in time took the office of Lord Chancellor and in that capacity both sat upon the Woolsack.
My view therefore is this. If a lawyer is allowed to discard one of the basic principles of his profession, then the fact that he has done so must be disclosed to the courts, to the opposing parties and to the public at large. It is quite inappropriate that it should be concealed in some squalid agreement between the lawyer and his client. If the Government are willing to allow professional standards to be lowered without disclosure, it will bring the profession of the law into disrepute. Worse than that, it will cause the public to look askance at a government who allow professional standards to be lowered without disclosure in this cavalier way. The quotation from Lord Erskine shows that the doctrine of independence was set well over 200 years ago. Ever since that time it has been precious to the legal profession and to the public at large.

795
So far I have spent time only on the principle. But there are certain practical issues which will make exposure of the agreements essential. First, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor proposed that in due course there should be a monitoring exercise, perhaps two years from now, to see whether the system is working. It is quite impossible for a proper monitoring exercise to be carried out unless there is unrestricted access to the conditional agreements which have been entered into so that a fair conclusion can be drawn.
The second point is probably the most convincing of all that I have mentioned today. It is that these agreements place all the cards in the hands of the lawyer. He has the strongest possible negotiating position against his own client and, sometimes intentionally and sometimes not, it is quite certain that an agreement will be entered into between the lawyer and his client which will be extremely harsh upon the client. I feel therefore that the greatest deterrent that can be applied is to make it quite certain that these agreements are exposed so that the content can be examined and they can be subject to public criticism.
My final point is a minor one and it has already been made. Legal aid has to be disclosed. I cannot see any possible reason why these conditional agreements should not be exposed in the same way.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, the House always listens with the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, both because of his devotion to the cause of justice, and because of the doggedness with which he pursues what he considers to be the eternal verities.
It is perhaps appropriate today that he should have started his speech by announcing himself on the side of the angels. The noble and learned Lord asks my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to think again and to add safeguards to the draft Conditional Fee Order and Regulations. For myself, I hope that my noble and learned friend will now be able to tell the House that at long last, four years after the passage of the Courts and Legal Services Act, he expects to be able to lay the necessary order and regulations before Parliament in the new Session, in substantially the form of the present draft. We should then have in place what I consider to be one of the most important and desirable provisions of the Courts and Legal Services Act.
The great merit of legalising conditional fees in personal injury cases is that it will enable many more injured claimants than before to have access to the justice system, including many who at no time in the past would have been entitled to legal aid, including, it would appear from his balanced and deeply philosophical maiden speech, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls.
Litigation can be an utterly destructive process for those who indulge in it. That is particularly because of the fear of unknown payments which may have to be made at an unknown future date. It must not be forgotten that neither the cost nor the outcome of litigation, in however clear-cut a case, can really be forecast with anything approaching certainty. It is for
796
this reason that I would forecast that conditional fees will be warmly welcomed by many who need the help of the law, including many who at no time in the past would have been entitled to legal aid.
I would also offer the House my personal opinion that in some cases conditional fee arrangements will be found to be the preferred options of litigants who might have sought and obtained legal aid. I make no apology for seeing conditional fees, to this extent, as a desirable substitute for legal aid.
Lord Justice Steyn's letter to my noble and learned friend makes the point that it is not possible or desirable to attempt to anticipate every problem that might arise when the conditional fee scheme is introduced. I agree, and I focus on the word "desirable", because I believe that the advisory committee would have my noble and learned friend go beyond what is desirable, and even, in the case of the compulsory cap, beyond what would be proper and in the interests of justice.
The advisory committee proposes that conditional fee agreements should go into much greater detail than the draft regulations would require and that a more user-friendly arrangement than the taxation of costs should be available to litigants who believe that they were persuaded by their lawyers to enter into unfair conditional fee agreements. The same might be said of all special arrangements as regards costs which can at this time legitimately be entered into between solicitors and their clients. I believe that the draft regulations, combined with existing and much strengthened powers of the courts and the professional bodies, are sufficient to deal with any problems which may arise. I would suggest, in any event, that if there is any change to be made, it should not be made now, in isolation, in relation to conditional fee agreements.
To those who do not believe in conditional fee agreements at all, I would make the point, which has been made before, that lawyers are not to be treated as so unethical and immoral that they will use conditional fee agreements as a means of manipulating their clients to their own advantage. We require of lawyers that they be people of integrity. They should need no reminding that they have no other personal interest in litigation than the furtherance of their clients' interests for fair reward, consistent always with the interests of justice.
Other noble Lords will have received a briefing paper from the Law Society. I find myself in a very large measure of agreement with it. The paper warmly welcomes the introduction of conditional fees and in general finds that the proposals of Lord Justice Steyn's committee are either unnecessary or unlikely to make conditional fee arrangements more effective. I quote from the briefing paper:
"The Law Society's view is that the safeguards proposed by the Lord Chancellor in the draft order and regulations together with existing professional rules of barristers and solicitors are sufficient to meet the concerns raised by the Advisory Committee".
The briefing paper continues:
"The Law Society's approach is that conditional fees should be widely available to clients as an alternative"—
and I stress the word "alternative"—
"to the existing methods of funding".

797
It states:
"The introduction of conditional fees, subject to a maximum success fee of 100 per cent., should enable the great majority of those with meritorious cases to pursue them without being deterred by fear of legal costs. At the same time, the fact that they will be unpaid for their work if the case is lost will ensure that there is no incentive for lawyers to take unmeritorious cases".
The Law Society agrees with my noble and learned friend that success fees should be limited to a maximum 100 per cent. up-lift, and not to some considerably lower percentage. This will generally result in lawyers not taking on cases under conditional fee arrangements where there is judged to be a less than fifty-fifty likelihood of success. That seems to me to be about right.
My noble friend Lord Renton contrasted this 100 per cent. with what he considered the equivalent 40 per cent. which would be the up-lift under the American system. I would point out to my noble friend that he was not comparing like with like. The 100 per cent. is a 100 per cent. up-lift of the fees which the lawyers will receive. The 40 per cent. is the cut of the cake which lawyers take in America.
I come to the point where the advisory committee's recommendation appears to me to be unfortunate.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. It was I who made the point that, when one considers the proportion of the fruits of litigation that can be achieved by the lawyer in America, where the conditional fee or the contingent fee operates as a proportion of the proceeds of success, it is limited, generally speaking, to 40 per cent. Under the conditional fee arrangement here, the percentage of the proceeds of the litigation is without limit, with the result that the successful litigant under the conditional fee can end up achieving nothing and the lawyer the whole of the proceeds of the successful action; whereas in America, with all its defects, the plaintiff will not end up with nothing—he will receive at least 60 per cent.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is of course correct in how he puts it. I was merely seeking to correct a wrong impression which I believe had been made by my noble friend Lord Renton. I shall shortly come to the point which the noble and learned Lord has now repeated.
The advisory committee recommends that regulations should provide that the amount of the up-lift should not exceed a set proportion of the sums recovered. The intention is to reduce the danger of the up-lift giving to lawyers a disproportionate share of sums recovered in litigation. I believe that Section 58 of the Courts and Legal Services Act would not permit any such regulation. In any event, we have again and again in this Chamber deplored the system whereby the fruits of litigation are directly shared between the lawyer and the client on a percentage basis. If one follows the road of a cap on the amount which a lawyer may receive in terms of up-lifted fee, one reaches the point where the plaintiff's lawyer in effect acquires a personal interest not just in the success of his client's litigation but in the actual amount of damages recovered. It is this cap proposed by the advisory committee which in my
798
opinion would introduce a speculative element akin to the sharing of damages allowed by so many American jurisdictions.
The Law Society goes a long way down the road proposed by Lord Justice Steyn's advisory committee in that they favour the idea that regulations should include a provision as a statement in writing in the conditional fees agreement whether or not a cap is to be applied. Although it may in theory be desirable for lawyers to assist in the recovery of relatively small awards of damages, we should also bear in mind that to encourage the capping of the up-lift is to risk creating situations where the sum at issue in litigation is dwarfed by the lawyer's fees incurred in the litigation. I do not believe that that is something which is required in the interests of justice.
My concluding point is that it would be wrong for regulations to impose any limit on up-lift, as proposed by Lord Justice Steyn's committee. On the other hand, I do not believe that it would be necessarily right to encourage the voluntary capping of up-lift in all circumstances. My suggestion would be that capping might be tolerated, but should not be actively encouraged by the implication which would be drawn from specific reference in the regulations.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, set great store by an unpublished article shortly to appear under the name of Professor Zander, in which Professor Zander said that it was preposterous that the client should pay all damages to the lawyer. At first sight that may seem a seductive thought, but already today there are cases where damages are swallowed up by lawyer's costs and the successful litigant gains nothing from them. I have in mind a case where the plaintiff is suing an impecunious defendant. To pursue the point of the cap, however one does it, is to encourage lawyers to encourage their clients to continue with litigation in circumstances where forbearance or an early settlement would have been the better way ahead.
5.5 p.m.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, having recently undergone major surgery for the first time in my life, I am not sure that I have the consent of my doctors to make this intervention in this debate. I hope therefore that I shall not appear abrupt, but for once it is in my interests, as well as those of your Lordships, that I speak briefly.
I wanted to participate in this debate because I believe that I have a practical contribution to make. I have now been in the practice of law for over 30 years, the first 13 of which were at the English Bar and the past 17 was and is as a solicitor of the Supreme Court. I hold currently a practising certificate from the Law Society. Perhaps also of interest in this debate is that since 1975 I have been a member of the Bar of the State of New York and, from my two-and-a-half years of practice in New York, have some experience of the United States contingency fee system.
Although we have already enacted the contingency fee system in the Courts and Legal Services Act, I believe that we should examine this system as proposed by my noble and learned friend, and as criticised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and others, in the

799
frame of access to justice. Indeed, in this regard the concerns that have been so forcefully expressed in your Lordships' House, and apparently at the recent Bar Council Annual Meeting, have not so much been over the safeguards of the conditional fee system, but over the scheme as a whole.
My noble friend Lord Coleraine drew attention to some of the facts. Perhaps I may also do so with a few statistics. In the early 1980s about 70 per cent. of the families in England were eligible for legal aid. By the end of the 1980s that figure went down to about 50 per cent. Also the level of legal aid contribution is often now such that many more families cannot afford legal aid. Therefore we have this ever widening gap between those who are too poor to fund their cases privately but who are too rich for the legal aid system.
There is also the "costs order" factor, to which my noble friend, Lord Coleraine, drew attention. This presents a quite serious deterrent for the private litigant, who faces the prospect, if he loses the litigation, of paying not only the high cost of his own legal fees but also the high cost of the legal fees of his opponent. This is exacerbated by the almost blind poker system of the payment into court. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls, had that in mind when he referred in his notable maiden speech to the dangers of the legal system lagging behind.
On these issues I speak with real practical experience. I am currently conducting two cases, not for commercial clients—a clientele with which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, brands me—but two cases of personal injury. In one case, my client was injured in the Clapham rail disaster and, in the other, my client was seriously injured in the Purley train disaster. In both those cases, access to justice, certainly through my firm, would not have been possible but for my firm's decision not to issue any invoices until the final adjudication. If your Lordships are concerned about the slowness of my conduct of litigation, I am happy to say that in the case concerning the Clapham train disaster we are now in the area of the taxation of costs, the case having completed its journey through the courts.
Therefore, it is against this background that we should be looking at the Lord Chancellor's proposals for introducing the conditional fee system as pursuant to the powers that are vested in him under Section 58 of the Courts and Legal Services Act. In doing so, I suggest first that congratulations should be extended to the noble and learned Lord. Although my noble friend Lord Coleraine was clearly in favour of the proposals, I am sorry that I am the first noble Lord to extend congratulations in this debate to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on offering this significant increase in access to justice.
Secondly, we should ask: what would be the effect of implementing the additional conditions proposed by the advisory committee? There are two answers. First, there will be delay. Second, there would be a less attractive (and hence less usable) conditional fee system. Those of your Lordships who have read the correspondence will have noted in the third paragraph of Lord Justice Steyn's letter of 26th May that there is an interesting attack on
800
the level of the percentage of up-lift. I also find it quite extraordinary that the argument should be advanced that the scheme should not be brought into place until the Bar has got its regulations in place. The Bar has had four years to get its regulations in place.
Like many others outside the Chamber, I believe that the noble and learned Lord has got it right. There is to be an agreement in writing with a full explanation and consent of the client on the operation of the system. This is in relation to legal aid and costs. Perhaps I may draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Benson, to the fact that the Law Society has drawn up a draft agreement for those who may enter into a conditional fee arrangement with their lawyers. It is not a "squalid agreement"— those were the words of the noble Lord—but an agreement that has been led by the Law Society.
I am aware of the "incentive" argument and that it is not thought to be a good thing for that to be applied to lawyers although it is applied everywhere else in our society. I find that somewhat baffling. Financial or performance incentives are increasingly being applied on my side of the profession and have always existed at the Bar. It is a good thing for a barrister to win cases— not just in the interests of his clients but for the further development of his practice.
In conclusion, perhaps I may refer to the United States experience. The contingency fee system has provided access to justice for millions of Americans who would otherwise not have it. It is carried out on an open basis with the full knowledge and consent of the client. It is not used as an extortionate process nor one of blackmail. Let nobody say from this side of the Atlantic that professional integrity is any less important for the American legal profession than it is for our own. It is on that basis that I give wholehearted support to the noble and learned Lord. After four years, let's get on with it!
5.13 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, from these Benches, I should like to add my congratulations to those proffered to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, on his maiden speech, which I found fascinating. I thought that all the professional lawyers among us benefited from his reminder to us of the incipient conservatism in the profession's approach to legal reform. The noble and learned Lord was right to make that point. Because litigation is now so expensive, it is right that we should tackle this as an immediate problem. Perhaps one of the answers to the problem lies in the committee of his noble and learned friend Lord Woolf which is considering simplifying litigation.
The basic problem which faced the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, and which faces the House now, was graphically put to me by a solicitor colleague who does not necessarily agree with everything that I shall say hereafter. She said:
"This is more a consumers' than a lawyers' issue. At present lawyers often cannot be afforded—one needs to be pretty wealthy, or to be eligible for legal aid. I believe that if people like me can't afford people like me, then the system needs changing".

801
The real questions at issue are whether the system should be changed in this way and, if it is to be changed in this way, what essential safeguards we require.
I am sure that my experience is common to all who have practised as a solicitor or a barrister. The great fear of the potential litigant who has a 50:50 chance of success in his case—the lawyer has to explain that chance very carefully to his client—is of having to pay the opponent's costs if he loses. I am sure that we have all had that experience. It is a problem that has been exercising me recently because I know of a community that has been advised by no fewer than two distinguished Silks that it has a 50:50 chance of success in a judicial review case in which it is opposed by a very large and well-provided-for authority. That community is fearful of taking the case forward although it has a considerable chance of success.
It was therefore with astonishment that I read in the briefing on conditional fees by the Law Society—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has already referred to this —that:
"Conditional fees should overcome clients' fears of having to pay their own solicitor's costs in the event of losing a case, but they do nothing in themselves to overcome the fear of having to pay the opponent's fees".
The briefing then states that a policy will be taken out,
"as soon as the lawyer takes on the case. The premium is expected to be less than £100".
That is absolutely astonishing. It is totally different from my experience of advising clients for over 40 years. That immediately raised in my mind the fear that is expressed by Lord Justice Steyn in his letter to the Lord Chancellor. I am not referring to one of the four main points but to the paragraph which states:
"The Committee wishes me to draw a further issue to your attention. The opportunity to litigate under a conditional fee agreement may tempt some people to bring wholly unmeritorious actions in the hope that defendants will settle them simply to avoid the trouble and further expense of going to court".
The letter continued on that theme.
I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, that lawyers should be regarded primarily as ethical people. Although most are ethical people, we should not blind ourselves to the fact that there are exceptions and that those exceptions will certainly embark upon totally speculative litigation, as has been the case in the United States. I have many friends in the United States—some are distinguished lawyers over there—and I can say that without exception they are all great admirers of our legal system. Most of them have warned me off any suggestion that we should follow the American example.
I think that the Lord Chancellor's approach to this is wrong, but I can appreciate his problem. Far fewer people now qualify for legal aid than was the case 10 or 20 years ago. The Law Society has exercised great pressure on the question of the conditional fee system.
802
However, I should like to refer to the matter that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, in his own inimitable way on the sixth day of Committee consideration of the Courts and Legal Services Bill when he asked:
"How many of us are really convinced that it would be right to make three distinct moves in the direction of the American system, and what gains would result from our doing so?",
He then came to the third question, with which we are concerned here:
"we are for the first time giving the advocate a pecuniary interest in the outcome of the case".—[Official Report, 5/2/90; col. 538.]
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor tried to answer this point but was interrupted so many times by other noble Lords that he did not deal with it in his final speech. This is the point that exercises the minds of most people who are concerned with the issue.
One knows very well that in the United States the system has so developed that there is a body of totally speculative litigators. Not only do ambulances hover in the neighbourhood of accidents but litigation clerks are also on the spot very soon thereafter. If the Law Society is able to get an insurance policy for less than £100 a case, it suggests that most of these cases will settle. Why? They will settle because of the fear of the cost to the defendant. I believe that we are opening; a very dangerous door.
However, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said, that is water under the bridge. But it does not remove the requirement for adequate safeguards if we are to go down that road. The problem that has been raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, today is whether the safeguards are sufficient. I do not repeat his arguments, with which I entirely agree, save to say that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is apparently of the view that he does not have power to introduce the second safeguard to which he adverts in his letter. I am bound to say that he has obtained many powers from this House and from Parliament. If he does not have the power in the Act — and I believe that he has—within the terms of Section 58, for heaven's sake, he should seek it. I do not believe that there would be any impediment either in this House or the other place in obtaining the power.
I express a general concern. I hope that I have pointed out my basic viewpoint. I can see the pressures, but I do not believe that the safeguards are sufficient.
5.23 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, from these Benches perhaps I may add my voice to the congratulations that have already been expressed to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls, on his maiden speech. Although in the tradition of this House it was commendably brief, it gave some insight into his experience, wisdom and, in the light of what he had to say, his tact. That makes clear that his contributions in this Chamber in the years to come will be looked forward to with relish.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has raised in this debate a number of matters which are of concern to all of us in this House and beyond who want to see the growing proportion of our population who cannot afford to pay for litigation for themselves, but who do

803
not now qualify for legal aid, provided with a real alternative means of access to justice. Some of us—and I confess I am one—dislike the idea of conditional fees. When the Government first raised the question of the introduction of a no win, no fee system in its Green Paper of 1989 some of us feared that such a scheme, without adequate safeguards and monitoring, could be a means by which ambulance-chasing, mushrooming awards of damages and sharp practice in the conduct of litigation—which rightly or wrongly are seen as features of such a system in other jurisdictions—might find their way into our legal practice here.
A number of noble Lords tonight have voiced those fears again. I shall try not to do so. Parliament has considered those fears. They were expressed graphically on all sides of the House, and indeed by noble and learned Lords, but the principle has been accepted. The Government will have their way. Whatever our reservations, we on these Benches are anxious to see that the scheme, which will undoubtedly be introduced, contains the necessary safeguards both to prevent the abuses which some of us fear and to ensure that the scheme is of real and not illusory value to the general public. A system of no win, no fee sounds mightily attractive to somebody with a genuine grievance but no money and no legal aid. If the reality is a scheme in which a win results in little or no damages because the lawyer takes the lot, it will be seen as a sham, and dissatisfaction with the lawyers and the legal system will rightly increase.
We have anxiously waited to see what safeguards the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has felt it right to incorporate. Since 1990 he has spent a great deal of time and care in consultation about the form which the conditional fee order and regulation should take. Clearly, his task has been a difficult one. He has not rushed the scheme into operation and has tried to meet a number of the concerns that have been expressed to him. For all of those things, we for our part are grateful to him. But, as he now knows, there remain a number of important areas of concern that are not fully met. Some of them have been expressed to him most powerfully by his own advisory committee. It is worth pausing to note that that committee was set up by the 1990 Act which established the conditional fee scheme. It is independent of Parliament and the legal profession, with a majority of non-lawyers sitting on it. The setting up of that committee under the Act was a powerful factor in reassuring those who were concerned about a number of aspects of that Act. It reassured them that the Lord Chancellor would receive, and hopefully act upon, the very best independent advice in implementing the provisions of that Act.
Where that Committee expresses serious reservations, as it has done, about aspects of the proposed scheme, I hope that even at this stage, on reflection, the Lord Chancellor will feel it right to take further steps to meet those concerns. Without I hope repeating what has already been said, we on these Benches share those concerns and ask the noble and learned Lord to look again at them. We remain deeply concerned about the 100 per cent. up-lift—double fees, as I believe the noble
804
and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, rightly called them— which lawyers will be permitted to charge. That figure has been accepted by the Lord Chancellor as a maximum. Our worry is that there is nothing to prevent it becoming the norm, and indeed we fear that that is likely to be the case. To say, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor did, in his letter to the chairman of the advisory committee of 25th July this year, that the client is free to refuse to enter into the agreement if he or she dislikes the terms, gives no effective protection to a lay client who is usually wholly unfamiliar with litigation and is relying on the lawyer's skill and experience. It is wholly unsatisfactory in terms of affording protection to the public from unfairness or exploitation.
We suggest to the noble and learned Lord that safeguards could be introduced with relatively little difficulty. The regulations and the profession's guidance to its members taken together should, we feel, oblige a solicitor to make clear to the client in writing, and in ordinary everyday language, exactly what the client is letting himself in for. He should understand from that agreement what a conditional fee agreement means and what he will have to pay under the agreement if he wins, if he loses, or if he draws; in other words, if the case is settled. He should also understand what he stands to receive after he has paid the lawyer, and also what happens if either party wishes to withdraw from the agreement. Those are simple, straightforward matters that should be clearly explained as part of the regulations and professional guidance given to everybody who embarks on such a scheme. Those matters are set out clearly in Annex A to the letter of the chairman of the advisory committee to the Lord Chancellor of 26th May. I would have thought that they could easily be incorporated, and should be.
In his letter of 25th July to the chairman, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor recognised the need for a requirement to be added to the existing draft regulations that the agreement should state whether or not a limit would apply to the amount of up-lift by reference to the amount of damages received. That is a step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough.
If there is no such limit, in some cases, particularly small claims, the scheme will, I fear, bring the legal profession into disrepute. The case will be won; the damages paid; and the lawyer, not the client, will pocket them. We welcome the proposed amendment to the draft regulations if it really is as far as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor feels able to go. But if he can go no further in amending the regulations, I would ask him to reconsider, in the light of his proposed amendment—as far as it goes—whether that does not merely underline the need for a separate review mechanism to control and correct both excessive up-lifts and failures to limit uplifts by reference to the amount of damages in certain cases.
The proposed use of taxation for that purpose will, it is true, permit individual cases to be examined where there is a dispute, but it will not provide an overall picture. A simple, speedy, practical review procedure, regulated by the professional bodies, would, I suspect, be cheaper, quicker, more effective, and, additionally,

805
be able to issue general guidelines to practitioners when the need becomes apparent. Surely that suggestion by the advisory committee is one which the noble and learned Lord could reconsider.
There are other aspects of the proposed scheme at which I would ask the noble and learned Lord to look again and to try to give some reassurance. The most important is the question of monitoring the scheme when it begins to operate. If only a small proportion of conditional fee agreements are ever notified, as I believe the noble and learned Lord currently proposes, it will be impossible accurately to establish the level of uplift which becomes the norm; the extent to which the scheme produces difficulties which fall short of having to go to taxation; and the extent of dissatisfaction with the scheme.
The registration and monitoring of all conditional fee agreements through the professional bodies, at any rate during the initial stages of the scheme, would not, I should have thought, be difficult, and would ensure proper monitoring of its operations. It is surely only then that the range of cases to which a conditional fee scheme is to apply can be judged satisfactorily. If the scheme, on the limited basis which is proposed, is successful, it may be right to extend it. If difficulties arise, as I anticipate they may—for example, in the area of insolvency—changes to the existing regulations may be needed. In respect of each area of practice to which the scheme is currently intended to apply, separate codes of practice are likely to be needed, and indeed may need to be revised in the light of experience. If only a sample of solicitors and agreements is to be monitored, how does the noble and learned Lord feel that that monitoring can be done satisfactorily?
We on these Benches remain concerned too about the safeguards for the protection of those on the receiving end of conditional fee litigation—the defendants. A great deal of further information will be needed about the operation of the insurance scheme which has been negotiated, apparently by the Law Society, to protect successful defendants when costs orders are made. The noble and learned Lord may be able to help us. Is that insurance to be compulsory, or is it to be an optional extra for the client? If the latter, how are the numbers who choose to take out such insurance to be monitored under his present proposals?
It is said that the Law Society has negotiated a premium which is likely to be less than £100, but for how long I wonder. If there are claims, as seems to be inevitable, that premium is likely to rise. If the scheme is not compulsory, fewer clients may chose to take out such insurance and therefore more meritorious defendants are likely to be left whistling for their costs.
Perhaps I may echo what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Benson. Just as a defendant is entitled to know that the plaintiff who brings an action against him is legally aided, so a defendant is surely entitled to know that a plaintiff is bringing his action under a conditional fee agreement with a solicitor. The implication for costs may be considerable. The plaintiff himself perhaps needs also to know that his opponent is covered by the insurance of the Law Society's proposed scheme. I ask the noble and learned Lord to reconsider his present
806
view on that matter—that it is a private matter between solicitor and client—because it seems to us that public: interest clearly requires that that is not so, that the matter is in the public domain.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord will, despite what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, be reluctant also to bring the scheme into operation until the Bar has finalised its advice to its practitioners. If only half the profession has received the guidance of its professional body, and half has not, the practical difficulties of knowing what is and what is not permitted under the Bar's rules of conduct, and the very much more difficult question of whether or not a contractual relationship arises between a barrister and a lay client, remain fraught with difficulties and are likely to create unsatisfactory results.
Those matters go to the independence of the legal profession, as the noble Lord, Lord Benson, said. The scheme requires major changes to existing rules of conduct, and until they are in place the scheme, I hope the noble and learned Lord will feel, should not begin to operate.
The regulations and guidance, as presently drafted, clearly need further improvement. The scheme, I accept, was designed and intended to help people who, for the most part, are members of the public in trouble, with limited means who are anxious to seek advice and help from the legal profession. To offer them no effective protection from uplifts which are too high in the circumstances of their case, or which will effectively absorb the whole, or virtually the whole, of any damages which they may win, by saying, in effect, caveat emptor—take it or leave it—is to leave the layman at the mercy of professionals, with effectively no redress if the professional proves greedy or unscrupulous, as, sadly, has occasionally been the case.
A proper review body for the scheme and a careful monitoring are the essentials which are lacking and very worrying in the present proposal. I know that the noble and learned Lord is anxious to make the scheme as good as it can be before letting the lawyers loose on the public. He has heard criticisms and suggestions from all sides of the House, including those from noble and learned Lords. I hope that he feels, having heard what has been said tonight, that it would be right for him to look again at the advice of his own committee and incorporate its suggestions for the safeguards which are required before he eventually brings the scheme into operation.
5.39 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I should like to begin not in a formal way, but by sincerely congratulating my noble and learned friend Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead on his excellent maiden speech. I shall take to heart all that he said and should like to proceed in the spirit which he enjoined on us. He comes to the House, as your Lordships have already heard, after a distinguished career. I am sure that he is very welcome here. We look forward to hearing his speeches, not just in relation to

807
cases of which the House disposes in its appellate capacity, but on matters of the kind we are discussing this evening.
I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner for raising this Unstarred Question and giving me an opportunity to hear the basis on which some of the expressed views rest. That is always helpful in considering what should be done. I have the utmost respect for the views of the advisory committee. I am glad to hear tonight the clear acknowledgment that these views are independent and worthy of respect.
One of the fundamental characteristics of the conditional fee agreement, as distinct from any kind of contingency fee, is that it is available either to plaintiffs or to defendants. The contingency fee taking a portion of damages works only if there is a claim of some kind for damages or for a monetary award. This scheme is intended to operate on both sides of the litigation. That is a fundamental aspect of it and the provisions of Section 58 were put forward on that basis.
I am well aware of the risk that in some cases costs may swallow up a disproportionate part of damages. Under our present legal aid scheme that may well be true because a successful litigant with legal aid, in so far as he does not recover the costs which he has expended under legal aid, cannot recover the costs from the other side. They are recovered by the Legal Aid Board from the damages awarded or the money is retained as a result of success in the case.
I know of cases in which, under the present system, the costs can be a high proportion if not the whole of the damages in question. Therefore, this is not a new phenomenon suddenly to arise as a result of conditional fees; this is a possibility under our present arrangements. Of course, the legal profession as a whole and individual practitioners are anxious to ensure that that does not happen.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Benson, I believe that the standards of integrity, dignity and independence of the legal profession are very high and the scheme ought to be predicated upon that basis. I do not for a moment accept the view that by entering into a conditional fee agreement a member of the profession reduces his professional standards. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Benson, that is a serious misapprehension. I hope that all those who enter into such agreements will be of the highest professional calibre.
I have not seen it demonstrated that under the existing statutory provision I have power to do more than fix a maximum uplift. The history of this matter has been narrated and I shall not repeat it. I did not reach 100 per cent. at one bound; I was persuaded that the correct logic leads to 100 per cent. as the maximum uplift that may be allowed in any case. I do not believe it right that that should be anything like the norm.
The insurance policy that the Law Society has negotiated contains stringent conditions. It does not apply to all actions that are covered by the present regulations and it does not follow that the average probability of success can be judged by that premium,
808
as my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner seemed to suggest. It applies only to part of the subject matter that I am proposing in the regulations.
As I have already signalled, I believe that it is right that the client and the lawyer should have an opportunity to consider whether a cap of some kind is appropriate in the individual's case. I propose that the draft regulations should require that in express terms. The lawyer and the client should discuss that issue and decide whether, in the circumstances of the particular case, a certain cap should be applied and what that cap should be.
It is not easy to suggest a particular cap as being justified by way of general regulation, even if I had the power to do so. After all, in the case of a quadriplegic, for example, a cap might allow a huge uplift but in smaller cases it might not. I regard as very important the principle which underlies Section 58: that it is related to the work done. The work that the lawyer does should be the basis on which he or she is paid and not the amount of damages.
The second point that I wish to make is that in the particular case the issue will be open and I shall require that the lawyer and the client discuss the question of whether or not in the circumstances there should be a cap. Thirdly, I am content to seek the best possible monitoring system for the scheme when it comes into operation. My officials are in discussions with the Law Society about the nature of the monitoring arrangements.
As regards recording the case for the court and the opposition, it has been suggested that because in the legal aid case there is a requirement of disclosure that must follow here. One of the principal reasons why disclosure is required in the legal aid case is the fact that a client who is legally aided can affect the award of costs against that client which the other side can obtain. The Legal Aid Act contains a statutory protection for the legally-assisted client against a finding of costs on the other side, at least against the implementation of such a finding. It is extremely relevant to the circumstances of the defendant to know that the other side is legally aided. There is a statutory effect on the costs regime. Many of your Lordships will know that, while the further extension of legal aid has great attractions, those who are unassisted and face legally-aided clients have a slightly different view of the matter. I am sure that many noble Lords who are interested in these issues have received correspondence from unassisted persons who regard such a protection as extremely unjust.
As regards conditional fees, that does not apply because it is expressly provided that the conditional fee arrangement makes no difference to the award of costs from the other side. In other words, any uplift is not to affect the costs award. Therefore, I do not see that the opponent has the same interest in the conditional fee agreement on the plaintiff's side as he has in the legally-aided case.
Perhaps I may cite the example given by my noble friend Lord Hacking. I know nothing about the financial status of his client but at present the kind of arrangement that he had went forward without disclosure to the other side. Obviously, the costs which the defendant could

809
have had awarded if the case had been unsuccessful for my noble friend's client would be affected by the financial position of the client. That happens in every case. Of course, there are circumstances in which the court may be invited to inquire into the financial circumstances of the plaintiff with a view in some cases to making an order for security for costs. Therefore, at the moment I see no basis on which this information can properly be required by the other side in the litigation.
This is a difficult area and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said, I have not rushed at this by any means. I have tried to consider carefully the submissions made to me. I have been asked to think again. Well, that is the business that I am in all the time. I certainly propose to take account of all that has been said this evening. I must say that some of what has been said is against the principle now enshrined in the statute. I am sure that your Lordships would think it right for me to proceed on the basis that that is the law enacted by both Houses of Parliament. But, subject to that, I shall certainly consider carefully all that has been said.
The consultation process has been going on for some time. I have had some very recent reflections on some aspects of the technical provisions in the rules, which in any event I should wish to consider, and it may be that I shall wish to amend the rules to give effect to that.
Therefore, I shall review all my thoughts in the light of the circumstances disclosed in the debate this evening and all your Lordships' views. I have expressed the views that I presently hold on these matters and, in particular, that I do not regard the idea of a cap as appropriate. However, I believe that it is right to direct the attention of clients to that question and make it clear that that is required as a condition before an agreement could be valid.
Finally, something has been said about the United States, ambulance-chasers and so on. There are a great number of lawyers in the United States and I believe that the professional standards there are high. But we have a different system and I wish to provide a structure which is based on and suitable for our system.
It is worth noting also that there is not just one lawyer available to a client. The legal profession has shown, particularly in relation to conveyancing, that when competition is opened up and there is freedom with regard to fees, the costs can be reduced remarkably. These agreements will be open to solicitors who wish to take them up and I should expect a good deal of competition among solicitors in that regard.
The noble Baroness referred to the work of the Bar Council in that connection. I believe that that is coming reasonably near to fruition. My impression is that the relationship between counsel and client will not be affected by the arrangements and that the arrangement will be between the member of the Bar and solicitor/client. But I certainly expect that those matters will be taken further, along with others, before the final form of the regulations are put before your Lordships for approval.
I certainly do not intend to delay much longer. The issues have been made very clear as a result of the discussions that have taken place over the past few years. Therefore, I hope to fulfil the requirement which
810
my noble friend Lord Hacking made of me and I shall endeavour to come forward with my final thoughts in the reasonably near future.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down, perhaps I may say that he gave reasons, although they might be disputed, as to why the agreement should not be vouchsafed to the other party. However, he did not deal with the argument that the agreements should be vouchsafed to the court. As I understand it, it was argued that that would be an aid both to the monitoring system and to obviate objectionable practices. My noble and learned friend merely reiterated, which begs the question, mat the agreement shall be private.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale said that, the agreement being private, that begs the question. The effect of the agreement is only as between solicitor and client in a case where it is a solicitor in question. It is certainly possible that the best form of monitoring may include giving the document to the court. Personally, I have not found it easy to generalise a situation in which the court receives from parties documents which are not available to the other side. On the whole—there are exceptions which have been enlarged recently in quite difficult circumstances—our legal system proceeds on the basis that what the judge has, all the parties before him will have also.
I agree that a monitoring system is required and, as I said, I am in discussion as to precisely what that should be and whether it should be effected through the profession or otherwise. It may be that some registration with the court is a proper aspect of that.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down again, I wonder whether he would be so good as to deal with the matter which I raised and to which my noble friend Lord Hacking referred; namely, the effect, if any, of the conditional fee scheme upon the overall cost of legal aid, bearing in mind the provision in paragraph 19 of Schedule 17 to the 1990 Act which provides that nobody shall be deprived of legal aid or deterred from it by means of a reference to the conditional fee scheme.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have never suggested that conditional fee arrangements are with a view to restricting legal aid. I made that: plain in the debate to which my noble friend Lord Rippon of Hexham referred earlier. In my view, the conditional fee arrangement is for dealing with those people who are, for whatever reason, outside the legal aid limits. It is precisely for those people that I believe that that is a useful system.
Obviously I am in the situation where the availability of legal aid is a matter which depends on the taxpayer and what the taxpayer is able to afford for that particular purpose. As my noble friend will know, the amount spent on legal aid has never been higher. No cuts have yet occurred in the amounts actually expended. But: notwithstanding that, there are still a great many people who have legitimate claims, as my noble and learned friend Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead said, who would not

811
find it possible to proceed under present circumstances but for whom that might be an option which could be considered. That option is more geared to the individual case than any contingency legal aid fund could be.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down, I wonder whether he will be kind enough to help me in relation to two matters. The first is the suggestion that he lacks power to cap the proportion of damages payable under the conditional fee agreement out of the sums which are recovered. I should like his assistance as to wherein lies that lack of power, because Section 58 says in terms that a conditional fee agreement means an agreement which,
"complies with such requirements (if any) as may be prescribed by the Lord Chancellor".
If one then proceeds to Section 119, the definition section, "prescribed" is defined as meaning:
"prescribed by regulations under this Act".
If one then finally turns to Section 120, which deals with regulations, it states:
"Any such regulations or order may contain such incidental, supplemental or transitional provisions or savings as the person making the regulations … considers expedient".
I and others do not see where my noble and learned friend lacks the power to impose the capping, assuming that he wished to do so.
I turn now to my second question which I put to my noble and learned friend now so that I will not disturb him yet again when he desires to sit down. I should like to know why my noble and learned friend is reluctant to comply with the suggestion of his own committee in regard to unmeritorious claims by providing that there should be a rule that it is necessary for the lawyer to be satisfied that there is a reasonable cause of action before entering into a conditional fee. I say that because that is exactly where the burden lies in Scotland. According to Lord Fleming, it imposes a special or higher duty in a conditional fee case upon solicitors and counsel than in the ordinary case. If it is good enough for Scotland, as we were told conditional fees were, that seems a very sensible pattern to follow. Perhaps my noble and learned friend could answer my two questions.
6 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in narrating the statutory provisions in his formulation of the question to me just now, I believe that my noble and learned friend did not make reference to the specific right to regulate the fee uplift. I regard that as the leading provision. I do not believe that to modify it would be appropriate under the incidental powers to which my noble and learned friend later referred. I have in mind the fact that, when the section was put together, it was on the basis that it would be available both to plaintiffs and defendants, because one of the objections put to the contingency fee arrangement was that it was only available to plaintiffs who claim an award of damages.
So far as concerns the second point of my noble and learned friend, I must say that I regard it as quite obvious that a lawyer has the responsibility not to take proceedings when he believes that there is no proper
812
basis for them. Indeed, I would regard that as a general obligation on the lawyer. I find it quite difficult—and I have had a little experience of the Scottish system—to formulate a basis upon which the state of mind of the lawyer can be satisfactorily examined. That is really what it amounts to. I believe that the risk of costs, and the like, is sufficient for the purpose.
Under the statutory provisions, the courts here have a very wide discretion as to costs. I believe that that is perfectly adequate to deal with the matter. I personally believe that to add such a requirement would suggest an imputation on the general standards of the legal profession which, up until now, I have not felt would be justified. However, I am certainly willing to consider that, along with all the other matters which have been raised this evening, when considering finally what draft I shall put before your Lordships and the other place for approval.

Sand Eels and Drift Net Fishing
6.3 p.m.
The Earl of Kimberley The Earl of Kimberley rose to ask Her Majesty's Government:
What they intend to do about unregulated fishing for sand eels by foreign nations; and whether they will reconsider their decision to support the North-East coast drift net fishing.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the Question is divided into two parts, but there is a close connection between the two which I shall endeavour to explain. Indiscriminate harvesting and industrial fishing of sand eels has many knock-on effects. The Salmon and Trout Association first heard about it in 1991, when Danish boats began to catch large numbers of sand eels in waters off north-east Scotland. That was mostly in May and June which is when salmon and sea trout smolts migrate to sea. Basically, the catches are concentrated on "Wee Bankie" off the Firth of Forth and Mar Bank off Aberdeen. Salmonoid smolts' main diet is sand eels and, therefore, it might not be unreasonable to suggest a link in the decline of salmon catches and the increased sand eel catch.
The Scottish Office of Agriculture and Fish Department (SOAFD) at Pitlochry was approached in 1991 by the Salmon and Trout Association, but it stubbornly refused to give any credence to the industrial fishing link and salmon catches. As a result, the Salmon and Trout Association commissioned Dr. Geoffrey Tingley of the Marine Resources Assessment Group (MRAG) to do some research. That was on the west coast of Scotland because of the limited budget available. The MRAG report in 1992 showed a definite link between sand eel abundance and salmon catches. Meanwhile the sea bird population collapse off Shetland and pressure from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds forced the suspension of the Shetland sand eel fishery as well as restrictions of the west-coast sand eel fishery. A subsequent consultative exercise by the Scottish Office resulted in continued suspension of the Shetland fishery and a limited quota for the west coast.
Sadly, however, industrial fishing is firmly on the European agenda. A European Union Commission in November 1992 concluded that a multi-species review was required before longer-term resource management could be tackled. Danish and Scandinavian boats continue to destroy the sand eels in the North Sea: 60,000 tonnes in 1992; 105,000 tonnes in 1993; and 130,000 tonnes in 1994. Again, these are mostly taken in May and June and recently a new fishing ground, Smith Bank off the Moray Firth, has been developed.
We must be insane to continue to exploit the sand eel which is right at the base of the food chain, in ever increasing and uncontrolled quantities, in the absence of any information on the stock of some fish or the impact on the salmonoids, sea birds and white fish which rely on the sand eel for their life.
My concern is shared by the Salmon and Trout Association, the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation, Atlantic Salmon Trust, the RSPB, the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, as well as officials in SOAFD at Aberdeen. It is suggested there is no scientific evidence to support that sand eels have any effect on the stock of fish and birds that they support. The death of 100,000 sea birds earlier this year is apparently not—and I repeat the word "not"— scientific evidence.
I argue that there is no evidence that it is not having an effect and that therefore we should apply the cautionary principle. I have four questions for my noble friend the Minister. First, will he clarify the future position on indiscriminate fishing; secondly, will he undertake full consultation with interested organisations; thirdly, will he authorise appropriate research into the sand eel fishery off the Scottish east coast; and, finally, will he consult with fellow EC Fisheries Ministers with a view to phasing out, or, at the very least, imposing quotas on this disastrously dangerous fishery? I gave my noble friend notice of one further question. I asked him whether he could find out how many tonnes of fish there were—and, if so, what they were—on the 10,000-tonne Russian factory ship which has just gone aground off the Shetlands.
I now turn to the north-east driftnet fishery. We have had two debates during the past two years on the problem, plus many questions. Her Majesty's Government have already accepted the principle that this driftnet fishery, which exploits mixed stocks, should be phased out. In his reply to my speech in the debate of December 9th 1993, my noble friend informed us that the Ministers concerned—that is, those in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Scotland—took the view that, in order to avoid hardship, it should be done gradually by reducing the number of driftnet licences as licence holders left the fishery.
My noble friend the Minister also expressed the view that Her Majesty's Government would find it acceptable that the run down of that fishery might be further accelerated by financial arrangements from sources outside the budget of Her Majesty's Government to induce licence holders to give up their licences. The example he gave on that occasion was that of a private buy-out. In view of the fact that the recent European
814
Union legislation banning the drift netting of tuna and salmon makes provision for compensation for driftnetsmen deprived of their livelihood, do Her Majesty's Government welcome the opportunity to remove hardship to the licence holders by making use of European compensation funds so that this netting operation, which damages English and Scottish salmon fisheries, might be much more rapidly run down? I would remind your Lordships that at least one of the Scottish fisheries affected, the River Dee, has recorded very serious losses of multi-seawinter salmon which government scientists at Freshwater Fisheries Laboratories in Pitlochry have now recognised with grave concern.
I expect my noble friend's answer to this question might be that Her Majesty's Government conducted a thorough review of the north-east coast fishery, published in 1991, which showed no threat to stocks. Nevertheless in the interests of good fishery management, a decision was taken to phase out the fishery without causing undue hardship to the licence holders. More than 23 per cent. of licence holders have now given up, a considerably faster rate of attrition than had been hoped.
However, my answer to this would be that the report was largely based on scientific work carried out in 1987, more than seven years ago. The situation with salmon stocks has changed significantly and the report is seriously out of date. Will my noble friend not accept this fact and take the advice proffered by the National Rivers Authority to the recent House of Lords Select Committee that it would like to see the phase-out of all interceptory salmon fisheries within the European Union speeded up?
It is true that numbers of licence holders have given up, but the catch by netsmen doubled in 1993, and despite further reduction in the number of net licence holders in 1994, the catch remained stable at around 40,000 salmon. This emphasises the point that the current 30 year phase-out is simply not achieving any reduction in interceptory netting of salmon.
It is pertinent to note here that the NRA discussion paper of October this year confirms that 80 per cent. of the salmon and 50 per cent. of the sea trout taken in this fishery,
"were destined for Scottish rivers",
and then, almost beyond belief, deducts 80 per cent. of the drift net catch from all the calculations on the basis that these fish are Scottish and consequently do not cost the NRA anything, or very little.
I am sure the Atlantic Salmon Trust will have something to say about this. It simply does not seem to be understood that the salmon is an international fish and that these are United Kingdom stocks which are being plundered. Will Her Majesty's Government respond to this new situation instead of trotting out the tired arguments of the past five years? And further, will Her Majesty's Government adopt the European Union

815
Bill which calls for the phasing-out of drift netting throughout the European Union within five years, with compensation for netsmen? If not, why not?
6.13 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I am still surprised that the Government continue to allow the operations of the north-east drift net fishery. I rise therefore to support the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, when he asks whether they will reconsider their decision to support the north-east coast drift net fishing. I am obliged to the noble Earl for once more giving us the opportunity to raise this question on the Floor of the House.
The operations of the north-east drift net fishery are certainly indiscriminate. It really is an indiscriminate fishing method. It is a bad management practice and it must be most embarrassing both to the Government and to the National Rivers Authority because of the embarrassments they receive at the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation meetings. It must be a constant irritant to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and to the National Rivers Authority that all the salmon conservation organisations constantly apply pressure for a halt to this practice and also press for a ban on the use of nylon monofilament gill nets. This method is indiscriminate. These nets not only take salmon and sea trout and all types of fish but also seals and porpoises. When a net breaks it lingers in the sea still trapping everything in the sea as well as birds such as gannets and other diving birds. They become "ghost nets", catching for years. The old hemp nets used to dissolve but these nets last forever.
This practice also constitutes bad management of a resource. The National Rivers Authority must be acutely aware of that. Thousands of salmon are taken south of the River Esk—the only salmon river in Yorkshire—and it is likely that of those taken, a majority could have been heading for the River Esk, therefore denying that river the return of many of its spawning stock. Indeed the Esk is undoubtedly suffering because of the north-east drift-netters. The National Rivers Authority must be aware that it cannot carry out its statutory duty to "maintain, improve and develop" fisheries, including particularly the River Esk, while this continues.
What of the embarrassments to Her Majesty's Government? Britain (and probably still Ireland) is the one country among all the Atlantic salmon countries which still allows this indiscriminate fishing practice of drift netting with nylon monofilament gill nets. Internationally Britain is looked upon as a disgrace in its attitude to salmon conservation. We are isolated and impotent at North Atlantic Salmon Conservation meetings. The North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation, alongside the Atlantic Salmon Trust, the Salmon & Trout Association and the Anglers Co-operative Association, have constantly condemned the Government's stance on this issue. The answer of course from Her Majesty's Government has been that they have agreed to phase it out. On the basis of their policy that will take 30 years. But the truth of the matter of course is that this is a political matter.
816
The Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said on 11th October 1994:
"One of the unfortunate consequences of a ban would be the gratuitous damage to employment in areas where employment opportunities are often poor".—[Official Report, 11/10/94; col. 817.]
What a cheek it is for a Government who have created areas of vast industrial devastation and have declared scores of thousands of men redundant and unemployed to say that. By God, that is bare faced cheek! The employment problem is minuscule compared with the steel plant and colliery closures in the industrial heartland of our country. This matter involves perhaps a few over a hundred part-time fishermen. Why not, therefore, buy out these drift-netters, the licence holders, part-time fishermen, who are only at work when the salmon are running?
Major drift netting operations off the Faroes and Greenland have already been bought out. Britain is stubbornly standing alone and at what cost? Has consideration been given to paying the drift-netters a redundancy payment? It seems so little to pay to save such a lot of international embarrassment. Do not the Government accept that the overall regional economic benefit to North-East England and East Scotland from increasing the runs of salmon into rivers outweighs the commercial value of the north-east drift nets? Bearing in mind that the National Rivers Authority in its evidence to your Lordships' Select Committee supported the view that it should now be phased out more rapidly, and that the European Commission and the Parliament have recommended the ending of salmon drift netting, why is it that the Government do not heed these national, European and indeed international representations and decide speedily to phase out this north-east drift net fishery?
6.19 p.m.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, has brought a most interesting Question to your Lordships' House tonight. It is interesting because not only does it ask about salmon; your Lordships might think when you see me appearing on these Benches that salmon is all I ever talk about, but it is a big subject and requires a great deal of input. But on this occasion, the Question which the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, has brought before your Lordships is about the very ecology of our coastline and the threat to the food chain which supports all the major fish species round our coasts. That is not only the salmon; it is also other forms of fish such as white fish—cod, for instance.
Why do we not see the great catches of cod that we used to see when I was a boy and when the noble Earl was a boy? The answer is that, apart from fishing them out, we have starved them out by destroying their food supplies. We have destroyed their food supplies in a number of ways. But the most sure way of doing so is by attacking the very fishes which are at the base of the food chain, which are the sand eel, the pout and the capelin. Those fishes which never appear on our tables and which we never fished for in the old days as a food for man, but which have now become a source of supply for food for farmed trout in Denmark, for farmed salmon in various parts of the European Union, for pet food, for

817
cosmetics—for lipstick and things like that —and for oil for firing power stations. There are power stations in Denmark which are being run on squashed sand eels.
Do we think it right that this important ingredient, which used to be available as the basis for the whole food chain of the North Sea and all round our coasts, should be used not to provide food for the fishes which we have traditionally fished over the years but as a form of industrial raw material, which is what it is now becoming? It is insulting to the beleaguered fishing industry. Coastal netsmen in Scotland are beleaguered people. I would happily support them as genuine fishermen who have employed their methods over the years and have done no harm to the fishes which they catch for our table. To produce and subsidise with government money—money which has come out of our pockets —a large factory to destroy the ecology of the North Sea and the ecology of our coastline is insulting to those fishermen.
The noble Earl has given us lots of figures which show the very large quantities of fish which are being taken, and sand eels in particular. Last year, off the coast of Fife alone, some 90,000 tonnes of these little fish were landed. They are tiny fish. A whole lot together would not amount to more than the fingers of my hand, the little ones smaller than my little finger and big ones like my middle finger, and not much bigger. If one can imagine the number of these little fish, which are not very long, which make up a pound, a tonne, or 90,000 tonnes. How many thousands and thousands of fish have been destroyed as a result of this fishery?
The fish are very easy to catch because their defence mechanism—to give an example with which your Lordships are probably familiar—is similar to that of the starling. The starling flies around in a large flock so as to be able to confuse its predators when they attack because of the mass of birds there are to choose from. These fish swim about in shoals to protect themselves in the same way. Methods are now being used which exploit their very defence mechanism to catch them more efficiently. They are literally being hoovered out of the sea in some instances. It is rather like taking a machine gun to the plains of the Serengeti and attacking the wildebeest and zebras with the machine gun and saying that that is sport. The method of fishing which is being employed is not a reasonable one. It is destructive.
The figures which have already been given to us show how from 1982 Shetland, which used to yield 50,000 tonnes of sand eels, declined by 1988 to a mere 5,000 tonnes. That is the kind of destruction that can be imposed upon a stock of fish in six years.
In my view the greatest danger to the salmon is the destruction of their food supplies. They survive, if at all, because of their opportunistic methods of feeding. They do not eat only one species of fish. But the trouble is that in this case the people who are catching so-called commercial fish do not catch only one type of fish, either. They go for anything that they can catch to put through their factories. That is a very grave danger, not only to the salmon but also to the seabirds—the puffins and guillemots. There is evidence that such damage is taking place. The Scottish Office itself admits that deaths of seabirds such as guillemots were as high as
818
50,000 early this year. If the Scottish Office admits to having discovered 50,000 dead birds lying around, how many more have sunk to the bottom and been eaten by lobsters, and so forth?
We also know that in Shetland, where the fish on which they feed have been destroyed, puffins, guillemots and other birds which rely on sand eels have begun to fail to breed and to produce young at all. From 1984 to 1987 puffins and terns failed to produce any young in the Shetlands. Therefore, it is a serious matter for the whole ecology. It is destroying our bird life; it is denying us the quality of fish which we used to have around our coasts; it is threatening the stocks of migratory fish such as salmon and sea trout. It is most harmful.
It is thoroughly reprehensible that our money should be being used to encourage this fishery by foreign fishermen and for Danish fishermen to come in to use our money, our land and our traditional fisheries to destroy the basis of our fish stocks along our coasts. That is most reprehensible. I hope that the Government will see what damage is being done not only to the fish stocks themselves but to the confidence of all those connected with fisheries in this country.
As to the drift net fishery off the north east coast of England, I would have preferred it if the noble Earl had worded his Question slightly differently and not asked the Government to reconsider their decision but rather to reinforce their decision to phase out the fishery as soon as possible. I should like to see it reinforced, not reconsidered. That might be done by using the means which I have already suggested in your Lordships' House by persuading some of those who want to continue fishing—perhaps the younger fishermen—to fish inshore by one of the methods which is acceptable. As the noble Lord, Lord Mason, has already drawn to our attention, the nets which they use are in themselves a menace and a danger not only to fish but to other forms of life in the sea.
I hope that the Government will take note of the Question which the noble Earl asked, will give us a helpful answer and will understand that in their hands lies the protection of the basis of all our fisheries, whether they be migratory fish or white fish. I hope that the Government will seriously reconsider—if they can reconsider anything—giving a subsidy for the building of the processing factory in Scotland. I hope that they will also reconsider their position with regard to the possible cessation of the fishery for what is known as commercial fish, particularly sand eels, capelin and pout.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Amherst of Hackney: My Lords, while I cannot support fish factories, I am afraid that I cannot agree with the view expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, that Her Majesty's Government should speed up, by one means or another, the gradual phasing out of the north-east salmon drift net fishery. The socio-economic hardship to the fishing communities along the Northumbrian and Yorkshire coasts, who have fished in this manner for more than 300 years, resulting from an early closure of this fishery would be severe.

819
The consequences of such a course of action becomes even more unpalatable if one considers that those employed in this fishery would be made scapegoats for the reluctance of the riparian interests to face up to what is surely the principal cause of the reduction in their catches.
The noble Earl said in his speech only last December in your Lordships' House that the average annual catch by the north-east coast drift-netters over the past 20 years totalled some 58,000 salmon and grilse and 50,000 large sea trout. To this, the noble Earl said that some 30 per cent. must be added for unrecorded catches and a further 35 per cent. for damaged fish that subsequently die from their injuries. The real grand average annual total catch of those drift-netters was calculated to be a little under 200,000 fish.
In the same debate, the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, referred to the grey seal around the Scottish coast being restricted in 1964 to a population of 24,000, whereas according to the Sea Mammal Research Unit in Cambridge the count has now risen to 86,000. That is an increase in the seal population of 62,000 over a period of 30 years. According to the Cornish Seal Sanctuary, an adult seal consumes about 15½ pounds of fish a day, or two-and-a-half tonnes per year. This equates, if described in units of 10 lbs, to 35 million more fish being eaten by seals off our coasts per year than was the case in 1964. In other words, an additional 156,000 tonnes of fish are now being consumed by these predators.
Of course, these additional seals are not going to have dined entirely on salmon and sea trout. However, I would again refer to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, when he referred to the Marine Research Unit in Aberdeen, who shot and collected a selection of seals at sea in 1973. The unit found that 80 per cent. of their stomach content was made up of salmon. This means that probably an additional 28 million salmon or sea trout which would have been reaching our rivers up until 1964 are now being taken out of our waters by the seal. Even if the figures are inaccurate, even highly inaccurate, they are so far removed from the 200,000 annual fish catch of the north-east salmon drift-netters as surely to make their activities look an irrelevance.
Does the Minister agree that the time has come for the riparians to work together with the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and their Scottish counterparts and Her Majesty's Government to educate the public into accepting that the seal does have to be culled in a humane and controlled manner?
6.35 p.m.
The Duke of Roxburghe: My Lords, first, I must apologise to your Lordships for the fact that I failed to put my name down to speak on the Question today as I did not think that I would be able to be present. I should also like to apologise to my noble friend the Minister and your Lordships because I shall have to leave early since I have an unavoidable commitment. I must also declare an interest, in that I am a Tweed proprietor and a Tweed Commissioner, the river most clearly affected by the north-east drift net fishery.
820
I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Kimberley for raising this matter yet again and we will all wait with interest to hear the Minister's response. This is the third occasion in as many years that the subject has been raised in your Lordships' House. I wish to add my firm support to my noble friend Lord Kimberley, and the noble Lord, Lord Mason, in their comments about the futility of the continuing north-east drift net fishery. All salmon organisations condemn the Government and I can only trust that the Government will have a change of heart.
Much has happened in the last two years: the announcement of the intention to phase out the drift nets over 30 years; the closing down of the Faroese and Greenland drift net fishery; and now the recent vote in the European Parliament in favour of the European Commission's proposal to ban drift netting for tuna and salmon.
There has been much movement internationally, but how much has there been in this country and by this Government? I would be most interested to hear my noble friend's response to the European Union's provision for compensation for driftsmen. If I may, I will quote from the Minister's comments last year in this House, when he stated:
"It is of course open to those who see a benefit from a faster phase-out to negotiate a private buy-out with the netsmen themselves, as has been done elsewhere … there is nothing to stop a driftnetsman from accepting payment in return for not renewing his licence. But I would say … that these are matters for private agreement and private capital and not for British taxpayers".— [Official Report, 9/12/93; col. 1106.]
If the Minister feels that it is not a matter for the British taxpayer, does he agree that it is a sensible use of European funds and merits encouragement by the Government?
Much was made in recent debates, and rightly so, of the value of the rod-caught salmon to local communities in the rural areas of Scotland and north-east England. Will the Minister agree, therefore, that this European initiative offers the perfect opportunity, as my noble friend Lord Kimberley said, to bring this about while safeguarding the interests of the north-east drift netsmen? The Government have for many years been isolated internationally in their support for drift netting of salmon and I hope that the time may now have come for this to change.
6.39 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, it is strange for me as very much a city person to be involved in this debate with many people who, I know, are experts. Noble Lords may remember that we have had this debate a number of times before. I took part in them and I felt that we did not need to go over the problems because everyone seemed to accept that the idea of phasing out the north-east fisheries would be the answer.
In view of this forthcoming debate, I began to look back at some of the earlier debates. I received briefings from various groups of people, and I am not so sure as I once was that phasing out the north-east fishery drift nets is the simple and easy answer that it appears to be.

821
The Question consists of two parts. I feel that on the first part there would be fairly general agreement that unregulated fishing for sand eels, particularly by foreign nationals, is undesirable. A number of noble Lords have mentioned the factory that it is proposed to build, probably at Grangemouth, to produce something like 100,000 tonnes per year of cattle feed. I understand that a company called Biomar Dansk is likely to build it. It will be built by means of a grant from the Scottish Office and a grant from an organisation in Scotland that used to be called "Locate". I understand that permission for the development has already been given.
As I said earlier, I am wary of accepting too readily the arguments of highly committed people on most topics. But when it appears that such a company has the freedom to take an unlimited tonnage of sand eels in a catch—100,000 tonnes has been mentioned—we have to look very carefully at the issues. I am on the same side of the argument as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds in many ways, but frequently they tend to go over the top in their defence of bird life. I get very worried about it. I am also worried about the composition of the National Rivers Authority. I understand that it is very largely composed of riparian owners who obviously have a vested interest in what I believe may be the over-easy solution of closing down the drift nets in the north-east.
There is always a balance to be struck in these matters. I shall be pleased if the Minister could tell the House whether the report of the factory to be built for producing animal feed is true. What is the reasoning behind the decision? It seems that considerable costs will be involved.
The job creation prospects for Grangemouth may very well have exerted quite an influence on the proposal that the factory should be located there. I am sure that such a consideration weighs heavily with the Scottish Office. However, it must be balanced by the possible damage to other fishing stocks in the Firth of Forth. I understand that the fishermen are extremely concerned about the industrial fishing, which seems to be uncontrolled.
The second part of the Question raised by the noble Earl has been raised many times in this House. I have taken part in a number of debates on this issue and thought that we had reached some kind of conclusion. I understand that north-east coast drift net fishing is seasonal and controlled by the Salmon Act 1986. It should also be noted that that type of fishing has a history of around 300 years. It is almost always a family business, passed on from one generation to the next.
The more that I read and hear about the subject, the more confused I become. Looking at the Scottish position, drift net fishing was stopped in 1962. That should be a period long enough to allow for an assessment of the effect of the ban on river salmon. According to the Official Report of 26th November 1991, in a reply to a Question about Scottish rivers from the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, the Minister of State said that the net loss to Scottish fisheries was 6
822
per cent. As was said at the time by my noble friend Lord Gallacher when he replied to a similar debate on 5th November 1992:
"That seems rather low in the light of what has been said … this evening"—[Official Report, 5/11/92; col. 1588.]
about the benefits of stopping drift net fishing.
Another point raised with me by fishermen was the issue of the illegal fishing which results when legal fishing is prohibited. Illegal fishing entails very heavy policing costs. I understand that the north-east fishermen are on the spot. They know the wiles and habits of the poachers. They can quickly bring to the notice: of the authorities any illegal fishing. I understand that the licence fee of the north-east fishermen meets about half the cost of policing that is required in the North Sea.
I am told that by contrast in Scotland there is a great deal of illegal fishing, perhaps by the very same people who earlier were stopped from fishing. In Scottish coastal waters it is quite a serious problem. Can the Minister confirm or otherwise; that the illegal fishing has been controlled? The ordinary fishery cruisers are not able to carry out such patrols and I ask the Minister whether he can confirm that naval minesweepers and helicopters have been used in trying to catch illegal fishing. That is the story that I have been told by fishermen. The fishing should be controlled. It has been suggested that traditional coastal communities were able to reduce the amount of work required by the fisheries cruisers when they were there because they were on the spot and knew the ways in which the poachers were likely to behave.
I await the reply from the Minister. I am genuinely concerned about this matter. I was very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Amherst, for putting another point of view. The MAFF has never been happy about the total abolition of trawling for salmon by traditional small trawlers—they are not big; 30ft long—with fairly limited length nets.
With all the experience that we now have of stopping the Scottish drift net fishing, I should be interested if the Minister could tell us what will happen to the north east? Will there be a total phasing out of this kind of fishing? Have the Government any idea of buying out the fisheries that are already there or can they suggest some other solution?
6.47 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, this has been a most interesting debate. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Kimberley and other noble Lords who have spoken. The issues that have been raised are important. Noble Lords' views on them clearly are deeply held.
My noble friend's Question covers the two distinct issues of the industrial sand eel fishery and the north east of England salmon drift net fishery. It is certainly true that vessels prosecuting the sand eel fishery take large catches each year, as my noble friend indicated. I am assured that the fishing activity off the Fife and Lothian coasts has fallen from its peak last year and that the more traditional grounds in the eastern North Sea are again being fished more actively.

823
Despite that undoubtedly high level of fishing activity, the latest advice from fishery scientists is that sand eel stocks are increasing and now stand at high levels. However, I do not wish anyone in your Lordships' House or outside it to believe that the Government are complacent about the levels or the practice of industrial fishing. Complacency would be foolhardy, given the importance of sand eels and other industrial species in the food chain.
Contrary to the assertion in my noble friend's Question, industrial fishing by foreign vessels is not unregulated. Controls on fishing activity, including industrial fishing, are set within the common fisheries policy. In the North Sea, for example, there is a limit of 10 per cent. by-catch of the main human consumption species; there is a ban on industrial fishing vessels processing their catch on board so that the true catch composition cannot be masked; there are restrictions on net mesh size which may be used, and some areas off the north-east coast of the United Kingdom and the western coast of Denmark are closed to fishing at certain times.
We enforce these fisheries regulations thoroughly. British Sea Fisheries Officers regularly board industrial fishing vessels in the UK sector of the North Sea to ensure that they are keeping to CFP regulations. The clear evidence is that they are. Last year, for example, the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency alone made over 500 boardings of such vessels, of which 430 boardings were of Danish vessels. All those vessels were found to be operating well within current by-catch limits.
At the same time, the UK has been encouraging the development of more effective monitoring and control measures for industrial fisheries within the CFP. We believe that the growth of industrial fishing should be limited until a better scientific understanding of its effect on other fisheries and on the wider marine eco-system is achieved. To that end, the UK took the lead in the December 1993 Fisheries Council in securing agreement that the Commission should establish a working group of marine ecologists and fisheries biologists to study the implications for the marine eco-system of fishing in general and industrial fishing in particular. We understand that the Commission now has that report. We look forward to receiving it and taking the argument forward in Brussels once more.
Our cautious approach to the sand eel fishery in the North Sea is reflected in the management arrangements we have applied in our own waters. As noble Lords will know, there are two small sand eel stocks within Scottish inshore waters. One is at Shetland and the other around the Western Isles. The Shetland fishery has been closed since 1991 and I am pleased to report to the House that the stock has now recovered quite strongly after a period of poor recruitment. At the same time access to the other fishery at the Western Isles has been strictly curtailed so that only vessels which have traditionally taken part in the fishery have access to it. I am advised that in 1993 fishing mortality here represents about 1 per cent. of the stock. That stands comparison with a natural mortality of this stock of about 20 per
824
cent. each year. It is important to remember that fishing is not the sole cause of mortality in the sea. Natural mortality is frequently greater; and natural mortality levels in the sea tend to be very high indeed.
I repeat that we are not complacent. Despite the increases in stock size which fisheries scientists have detected and despite the fact that no causal link has yet been identified between industrial fish populations and fluctuations in numbers of other species, we continue to keep a careful eye on the situation. If adverse links were proven or subject to strong suspicion we would most certainly take speedy action. I would remind your Lordships that it was during our presidency of the Community in 1992 that the duty to have regard to the wider effects of the marine eco-system was written into the basic common fishery policy regulations. We expect that precept to be followed.
The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, told us of his concern that encouragement may be offered to fishing vessels to take increased quantities of industrial species as a result of the new factory at Grangemouth. The new factory will not be a primary processor of industrial fish. Instead it will import semi-processed fish meal and fish oil from Denmark. It will then further process that material into fish feed intended for the salmon fish farming industry.
The opening of the plant will simply mean that secondary processing of fish meal for eventual use in the UK market and elsewhere will take place in Scotland rather than overseas. That move benefits the UK economy through the creation of new jobs, as the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said, and through the value added element of the processing process coming to Scotland.
I emphasise that there will be no direct landings of fish at the Grangemouth plant. There will thus be no encouragement to the UK fleet to participate in industrial fishing as a result of the establishment of that plant. The outlet for industrial fish catches will remain the fish meal factory at Shetland or competitor plants in Denmark. It is not attractive for British vessels to steam those great distances to discharge their catches. We believe therefore that there is little chance of increased participation by our fleet in the North Sea industrial fishery. I would emphasise also that the factory will bring employment to the east coast of Scotland, and that is surely to be welcomed.
My noble friend Lord Kimberley raised the question of the seabird deaths which occurred earlier this year on a large scale and questioned the role that industrial fishing played in that incident. It is believed that large numbers of seabirds die at sea each year during the harsh winter months but that under normal conditions their bodies are not washed up onto our beaches. There is a natural cycle of seabird mortality which is aggravated by severe weather. Weather conditions in the early months of this year were unusually severe on the east coast, with predominantly strong easterly winds. Those severe and persistent winds resulted in increased turbidity which could have made it much more difficult than usual for diving seabirds to locate their prey. Such weather conditions are also known to affect the behaviour of fish. Sprat shoals, for example, on which

825
seabirds are heavily dependent in winter become dispersed in stormy weather. Sand eel emergence in winter is also highly variable for they are burrowing creatures and their reaction to the weather may well have been to go deeper. In those circumstances the sad probability is that the birds just could not locate their food before hypothermia or starvation set in.
Your Lordships may like to know of two separate scientific examinations of the relationship between seabirds and fish. A study group of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea indicated last year that there was unlikely to be much competition between seabirds and the sand eel fishery. The North Sea Quality Status Report 1993 reported that time-series data for many seabirds go back to the beginning of the century and show large increases in the population of several species. It added that changes have also been observed in the at-sea distribution of seabirds that appear to be related to changes in the abundance and distribution of their prey and that there is no evidence that those changes have been caused by the industrial fisheries.
Sand eel fishing is sometimes blamed for the fact that in some years seabird colonies had failed to breed. Following incidents in the late 1980s the Scottish Office contributed to a study to examine any links between seabird breeding failures and levels of sand eel fishing in the Shetland area. The report concluded that, while sand eel stocks have certainly reduced in the late 1980s, that was due to unknown external factors—possibly hydrographic—and that the controls applied to the fishery in 1991 had prevented fishing activity from exacerbating the situation. As I have already said, that fishery remains closed. Industrial fishing does not seem to have been either the main or the only culprit in those incidents. They appear to have been natural events.
My noble friend began his speech by referring to the alleged link between sand eels and the population of salmon. Perhaps I could refer to the report commissioned by the Salmon and Trout Association in 1992 into the west of Scotland sand eel fishery and its impact on the abundance of salmonoids and other migratory fish. The report found no evidence that salmonoid catches were being affected by any by-catch of smolts in the sand eel fishery, though the research seemed to find a link between post smolt survival and the abundance of first and second year sand eels. However, the data in the report make it impossible to say whether that may be due to a direct causal link or to a common causal factor.
I should perhaps add that that uncertainty is likely to be academic since the effects of the fishery on the abundance of small sand eels are so small as to be virtually undetectable in relation to salmonoid catches. This is because predation is most likely to occur in the period April to June. Careful analysis of sand eel catch data shows that during this period less than 1 per cent. of the total population of first year sand eels is taken in the fishery.
Exploitation of second year sand eels is certainly somewhat higher and in the past some 5 or 10 per cent. have been caught in the fishery. However, even these figures are fairly minor if one is trying to explain a
826
major decrease in smolt survival. Furthermore, the level of fishing activity has been falling in recent years, and scientists estimated that in total only 1 per cent. of the west of Scotland sand eel stocks was caught in 1993.
Research continues into the biology of sand eels. But work so far done suggests that changes in abundance of first year fish are due to difference in the survival of larvae from year to year. That is certainly what has been found in other sand eel stocks, and indeed is found generally in marine fish stocks. The likelihood is that these changes in abundance are caused by environmental factors rather than by the very limited fishery which takes place against the stocks.
The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, referred to the over-fishing of cod. We must recognise that there is no proven link between current levels of industrial fishing and population numbers of predator species, including, incidentally, seabirds, despite a number of scientific studies. The noble Viscount also mentioned that fish oil is burnt in certain Danish power stations. Our understanding is that the Danish Government have not allowed any new contracts for the use of fish oil as a power station fuel since 1990. Current contracts may, we understand, be honoured until 1996.
My noble friend Lord Kimberley asked how many tonnes of fish were aboard the klondiker that went aground off the Shetland Islands during the past few days. The Lerwick Harbour Trust has reported that the vessel had around 240 tonnes of fish on board at the time of the accident. That is, of course, fish for human consumption.
I shall now turn to the second point in my noble friend's Question. The north east coast salmon drift nets fishery has been the subject of debate in your Lordships' House on two occasions during the past two years, the last occasion being 9th December 1993. Those debates were very full and much of the argument put forward this evening covers familiar ground. Nevertheless, I am grateful to my noble friend for initiating this debate as it is only right that these matters are regularly reviewed both by your Lordships' House and by Ministers.
I am sure your Lordships will be well aware from those previous debates that the salmon drift net fishery off the north east coast of England was considered in great detail in a report of a review of salmon net fisheries which the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Scotland jointly presented to Parliament in October 1991. The report noted that the review did not produce evidence that the drift net fishery posed an immediate threat to stocks and thus any justification for depriving licence holders of their licences at a stroke. It did, however, note that the fishery exploits several salmon and sea trout stocks; and that the dependence of the fishery on this multiplicity of stocks made the task of conservation and management more difficult.
The report concluded that it would aid and improve the management of individual stocks if drift netting for salmon and sea trout were to come to an end. It was for this reason that Ministers decided that it should be phased out. But they took the view that in order to avoid hardship this should be done gradually by reducing the number of drift net licences as licence holders left the

827
fishery. My noble friend Lord Kimberley suggested that the Government's report on the salmon net fisheries was based on information dating from 1987. The review on which the report was based includes data from as recent a year as 1990, and we have continued to monitor the situation since then.
Measures to implement the phase-out on the basis envisaged in the report were introduced by the National Rivers Authority at the beginning of 1993. As a result of these new measures the number of licences issued fell by almost 13 per cent. in 1993 compared with 1992. There was a further 8 per cent. reduction this year, giving a total reduction since 1992 of about 20 per cent., which is a slightly lower figure than that quoted by my noble friend. The number of licences now stands at 114, against 142 in 1992.
My noble friend asked whether the Government will reconsider their decision to support the north east coast drift net fishery. I am not sure that the netsmen concerned would share my noble friend's view that the Government's decision to bring this fishery to an end constituted support for it. Indeed, I am sure that they would not. That is not to say that we have ruled out further action to restrict exploitation in this fishery. My noble friend will doubtless know that we have been asked by representatives of salmon angling and conservation interests to introduce further restrictions on the fishery. We are considering their request. We are also considering what, if anything, further needs to be done to protect spring run and multi-sea-winter fish in the light of the Salmon Advisory Committee's recent report on the run timing of salmon. One of the recommendations of the report was that consideration be given to further control of exploitation in both commercial and recreational fisheries.
More generally, we have always made it clear that if further action is required in order to conserve stocks, we shall not hesitate to take it. To this end we will continue to monitor the phase-out, looking at the state of stocks, the levels of catches, licence numbers and fishing efforts, and the connections between them. As I said in an earlier debate, it is open to those who see a benefit from a more rapid phase-out of the fishery to negotiate a private buy-out with the netsmen themselves, as has been done elsewhere. Indeed, I understand that a meeting has recently taken place between representatives of a private interest and the netsmen to explore the scope for a buy-out. It remains to be seen whether anything conies of this.
My noble friend Lord Kimberley asked about the possibility of European Union funding for a buy-out. As far as I am aware, there is no provision for European Union funds to be used for that purpose. I will, however, look at that matter. If that were to be proposed we would of course consider it. However, my noble friend does not need me to tell him that even European Union money is ultimately funded by the British taxpayer.
The noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, suggested that Britain and Ireland are the only countries using drift nets. As I made clear in last year's debate, drift nets are more widely used than the noble Lord suggested. Although temporarily bought out in Greenland, the drift
828
netting method is not actually prohibited there. Drift netting for salmon is practised in France and is widely used in the Baltic.
My noble friend Lord Kimberley also asked about the Government's view on the European Union drift net proposal and he mentioned too the NRA's support for the European Union proposal on drift netting. The Commission's proposal is not restricted to the use of drift nets for catching salmon and sea trout. It is principally directed at the use of this method for high sea migratory species such as tuna. We do not believe that the Commission has made a case for its proposal. The use of drift nets for catching salmon and sea trout in UK waters is strictly regulated and has been so for many years. To phase them out within three years cannot in our view be justified on the basis of a threat to stocks and such action would impose considerable hardship on the netsmen concerned.
In its memorandum to the House of Lords European Communities Committee the NRA said that, purely on the basis of better fisheries management, it would welcome the speeding up of the phase-out of drift nets which exploit mixed stock fisheries within the European Union. However, it also acknowledged that the Government may wish to take account of other issues such as avoiding undue hardship, and indeed that is what we have done.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, referred to the importance of salmon fishing to the Scottish economy. We are well aware of the importance of salmon fishing to the economy north of the Border. However, scientists estimate that if the north-east coast net fisheries had not operated, the average increase in rod and net catches in Scottish east and north-east coast rivers would have been less than 7 per cent. The increase in rod catches would be likely to be less than that. The effect on individual rivers will of course vary. The benefit to those in southern Scotland would be greater but in some rivers further north it would be much less.
The noble Lord, Lord Mason, referred to so-called ghost drift nets; that is to say, drift nets continuing to fish after they have broken free and been lost. I know that this is a problem in some areas of the world, but in the North Sea the strong tides and turbid conditions ensure that such nets are soon knocked to the sea bed, where they fill with debris and cease fishing.
The noble Lord, Lord Amherst, raised the issue of seals. I know that there is anxiety among many fishermen that increasing numbers of seals present a threat to fishing activities. Some have argued for localised culls to reduce the pressure of predation on local fishing. The Government review their policy on seals each year using scientific advice and data from the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC). In the light of the latest review carried out in February, the Government have no plans to authorise a cull.
The Government are continuing to fund an extensive programme of research on seal numbers, diet and interaction with the fisheries. We know that there are many influences on commercially exploited fish stocks. Predation by seals is only one factor and it is difficult to estimate the precise effect of their varied diet on

829
particular species of fish. The Government have a major commitment to continuing research on diet and the behaviour of seals.
Let me finally assure your Lordships that we attach great importance to the maintenance of our salmon stocks. We have a long history of regulating our salmon fisheries, both commercial and recreational. We have adapted the regulation and management of those fisheries over the years to reflect changing circumstances and we shall continue to do so in order to ensure that salmon continue to run in our rivers.

Drug Trafficking Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.

Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with a privilege amendment; the amendment considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes past seven o'clock.

  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER: DISTURBANCES, 19TH OCTOBER
  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER: DISTURBANCES, 19TH OCTOBER
  FERRY SAFETY RESEARCH
  FERRY SAFETY RESEARCH
  WESTMINSTER HOSPITAL: REDEVELOPMENT
  WESTMINSTER HOSPITAL: REDEVELOPMENT
  RURAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION: MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
  RURAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION: MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
  COAL AUTHORITY: CHANGES TO GDO
  COAL AUTHORITY: CHANGES TO GDO
  CHILD BENEFIT: TAXATION YIELDS
  CHILD BENEFIT: TAXATION YIELDS
  GULF WAR: DE-INFESTATION PESTICIDE
  GULF WAR: DE-INFESTATION PESTICIDE
  GULF WAR: ALLEGED MUSTARD GAS FIND
  GULF WAR: ALLEGED MUSTARD GAS FIND
  PRINCESS ALEXANDRA HOSPITAL, WROUGHTON AND ARMY VEHICLE DEPOT, LUDGERSHALL
  PRINCESS ALEXANDRA HOSPITAL, WROUGHTON AND ARMY VEHICLE DEPOT, LUDGERSHALL
  GAS INSTALLERS: REGISTRATION
  GAS INSTALLERS: REGISTRATION
  DISCRIMINATION CONVENTION
  DISCRIMINATION CONVENTION
  HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE CONTROL: AGRICULTURAL INSPECTORS
  HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE CONTROL: AGRICULTURAL INSPECTORS
  PESTICIDE MISUSE. PROSECUTIONS
  PESTICIDE MISUSE. PROSECUTIONS