Sitting of 18 January 1995

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

    Local Government (Derbyshire)
    Mrs. Angela Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the local government review in Derbyshire.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): The commission published its final report on Derbyshire last Wednesday. There is a six-week period for representations to the Department of the Environment.
    Mrs. Knight: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widely held view of Derbyshire people that their arguments in favour of unitary authorities were ignored by the commission from the start? While Derby city rightly gets its independence under the proposals, does he agree that the benefits of unitary authorities should be spread more widely across Derbyshire, rather than leaving so many people to struggle on under the currently imperfect two-tier system?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend will know that during this period I have to listen very carefully to views from all sides, and I have noted very clearly what she and many of her colleagues think. At the end of the six-week period I shall have to make up my mind as to what to present to Parliament.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that in the course of the Local Government Commission's discussions—which extended over many months, during which the Minister sent the commission back to test the water again—every single piece of evidence from all the polling surveys made it clear that the Derbyshire people wanted to retain the status quo? It has been an extremely costly exercise for the taxpayers of Derbyshire and for Britain as a whole. It is time that the Minister got off his political high horse and stopped trying to disassemble Derbyshire just because he does not like its political complexion. Why does the Minister not accept the survey results?
    Mr. Gummer: There is clearly a difference of view in Derbyshire which has already been represented in the House today. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that, once the discussion period has ended, we should lay the order with due speed. I hope that he will ask his hon. Friends not to hold up all the orders until the end of the process because that would cause considerable difficulty for the people who work in Derbyshire and the districts. I hope that the Labour party will support a speedy process.

    Local Government (Hampshire)
    Mr. Viggers: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce his final response to the proposals of the Local Government Commission in relation to Hampshire.
    The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): We are still considering the commission's recommendations for Hampshire in the light of meetings with nine of the councils concerned and the views contained in some 2,000 letters.
    Mr. Viggers: While not many people threw their hats in the air at the commission's interim conclusions—which recommend that county borough status should be restored to Southampton and Portsmouth—very few people outside the New Forest can understand the late idea that the New Forest should have unitary status. I accept that my hon. Friend is not in a position to give me an answer this afternoon, but will he bear in mind the strong representations outside the New Forest that giving the New Forest unitary status will considerably damage the concept of Hampshire as a county?
    Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend will understand that in reaching our conclusions on this and all other counties we have to judge the intrinsic merits of the case for unitary status in particular areas, together with the consequential effects on the remaining county area if a hybrid solution is envisaged.
    Mr. Denham: The Minister will be aware of the strong support in Southampton for a unitary council for that area. Will he bring forward a clear timetable for local government reorganisation in Hampshire? Matters are drifting on month by month and people are unclear about whether they will face elections for new authorities this May or next year. It is also deeply unsettling for the staff who are delivering services. Will the Minister give a commitment to announcing a clear timetable for decision making and for implementing the results?
    Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we must consider carefully all the representations that we have received, and there is a heavy volume of representations from Hampshire. As soon as we have done so, we shall announce our intentions. When we have done that, I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman, for the reasons that he has just stated, will want us to invite Parliament to take a decision so that the staff, about whose future he is rightly concerned, will know exactly where they stand and will not be kicking their heels for several months or perhaps a year while the process is completed.
    Mr. Colvin: Contrary to what my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) had to say, does my hon. Friend appreciate that there is another view in Hampshire? Two thirds of my constituency is within the New Forest, so I can confirm that there is strong support for the recommendation that there should be unitary status for that district. With regard to resources, the New Forest is the fifth biggest district council in the country, out of 333 district councils, in terms of its tax base, and even if it were given unitary status Hampshire county council would still remain the fourth biggest. Will my hon. Friend confirm that, contrary to rumour, our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State still has an open mind on the

    693
    recommendations for Hampshire? Will the Minister also talk to the Secretary of State for Education about the recommendations—[Interruption.]—as she has undertaken to look carefully at the ability of the New Forest to provide an education service—[Interruption]—as good as, or better than, that which Hampshire county council now provides?
    Madam Speaker: Order. It is an abuse of Question Time when hon. Members go on for so long. I wish that they would spend part of their lunch time working out the questions that they want to ask the Minister. That would make very good use of the lunch period.
    Mr. Curry: As soon as we have considered the representations, we shall announce our decision. The case for the New Forest, as well as the implications for the rest of the county, must of course be borne in mind. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education will be able to consider the recommendations as all these matters are for the collective decision of the Government.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: Is the Minister aware that he could dispel the cynicism which surrounds the review process for Hampshire and the rest of the country if he would make it clear now that he will bring before the House the final recommendations of the commission in every case in which change is proposed? If he will provide that guarantee and also make it clear that staff will have the same terms and conditions, whether on redundancy or transfer, that they were given with the abolition of the metropolitan counties, the doubts which now divide his hon. Friends will be set at naught, particularly if we know that the House of Commons and the House of Lords will have a proper say in the process.
    Mr. Curry: The first part of the hon. Gentleman's question seems entirely without point. Of course we shall bring the matter before the House: we are obliged to do so. I look forward to the debate. I enjoyed the debate on Cleveland enormously and I hope to enjoy the same spectacle reproduced on the Opposition side in debate after debate on these matters. The one thing that would militate actively against the interests of the staff would be not knowing where they stand and following the Labour party policy of deciding nothing until all the recommendations were before the House. If that were the case, no one would know where they were and the recipe for uncertainty would be enormous.

    Environmental Pollution
    Mr. Elletson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about assistance provided by the Government to eastern European countries to deal with environmental pollution.
    The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. Robert Atkins): Like many other people, the Government have been appalled to learn of the extent of pollution and environmental destruction that has been exposed since the collapse of communism and socialism in the former eastern bloc. We are providing substantial support to the newly emerging democracies to improve the situation through our environmental know-how fund.
    Mr. Elletson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply and I congratulate him on the success of the environmental know-how fund, which has sponsored
    694
    more than 100 projects throughout eastern Europe. As eastern Europe continues to endure a horrific legacy of years of socialist central planning, is my hon. Friend prepared to consider how the environmental know-how fund might be expanded, perhaps in partnership with the private sector?
    Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend, with his knowledge of the eastern bloc countries, speaks with greater authority on the matter than almost anyone in the House and I pay great heed to anything he has to say. I assure him that we shall continue to consider ways and means whereby we can help those emerging democracies, and any ideas that he has to add to what we are already doing will be gratefully accepted.
    Mr. A. Cecil Walker: Much as I appreciate the Minister's actions in respect of other countries, will he continue to bear in mind Northern Ireland's problems with environmental pollution, of which he is much aware?
    Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman raises a point which could take us down a long and difficult path. He will understand that not all such problems can be solved quickly. I am sure that my successors in Northern Ireland, doing the job that I once did, are as aware as the hon. Gentleman of the need to continue the good work of environmental improvement there.

    Council Housing Waiting Lists
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people are on waiting lists for council housing; and what action he will take to provide housing for them.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert B. Jones): On 1 April 1994, there were some 1.1 million applicants—the lowest figure recorded since information was first collected in 1986.
    Mr. Cohen: Are not the Government proposing to make it harder for people to join housing waiting lists and to obtain the homes that they need? The demand will still be there, but people will be told that they cannot get on a waiting list and have no chance of rehousing while the Government claim, as the Minister just did, that they are getting waiting lists down. Is not the real problem shortage of supply? Ministers like to make comparisons with the last Labour Government. In the final year of the Labour Government, there were 107,000 starts on homes to rent, but next year the figure will be down to 20,000. Does the Minister accept that if starts returned to the level under the last Labour Government more people would be decently housed?
    Mr. Jones: We do not share the hon. Gentleman's obsession with that form of tenure. It is right and proper that there should be a choice of tenure which reflects the aspirations of the public. The waiting list in the London borough of Waltham Forest has fallen by 20 per cent. in the last two years.
    Sir Anthony Durant: Can my hon. Friend say how many empty council houses there are in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Jones: There is a substantial number of empty council houses, and we have been working with local

    695
    authorities to make sure that they are brought into use. Under-occupied and vacant council housing means that people do not get homes that they might otherwise obtain.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: Does the Minister accept that there are particular problems with homelessness in rural areas, especially where house prices are high due to an influx of people who work elsewhere or who wish to own second homes? Such areas are particularly worried about cuts in the housing association programme, which mean that some associations will be unable to build any new homes in the coming years. At the same time, many councils are unable to build and have sold off a large proportion of their already low housing stock.
    Mr. Jones: The Housing Corporation programme provides for a top slice for rural housing, which we have maintained as an important ingredient. The challenge for rural local authorities is the same as that facing authorities in general—to use their stock to best advantage, which means that they, too, must have proper strategies to deal with under-occupation and to command what available lettings there are in the private rented sector.

    Superstore Developments
    Mr. Duncan Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy on superstore developments on main arterial roads in urban areas; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Gummer: New retail developments should ideally be sited in or within easy walking distance of existing urban centres. Main arterial roads rarely provide suitable all-round access.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: I thank my right hon. Friend for that long reply. There is a dichotomy, in that many constituencies have major arterial roads—in my constituency it is the north circular—running through them. When a large superstore is developed on such a road, that adversely affects local shopping areas. Does my right hon. Friend agree that careful thought must be given to such developments as their adverse effect on high streets is the same as that caused by out-of-town developments?
    Mr. Gummer: My final sentence described the hiatus that occurs on local roads when an arterial route is built. My hon. Friend is right: the way in which arterial roads draw populations from outside and often attract business away from local shopping centres is a real issue. We are determined to improve and enhance existing shopping centres and to ensure that the public have better access to them so that those centres can grow and bring new vitality to our towns and small areas.
    Mr. Heppell: Will the Minister also take into account the dangers of the increased traffic associated with arterial roads? In my constituency there are two planned superstore developments on Valley road, both near accident black spots. Will he give a guarantee that if the submissions are referred to him he will take such factors into consideration?
    Mr. Gummer: I am, of course, very concerned with road safety. One of my beliefs is that if we can give new life to city centres and the centres of small towns, and if we can make proper provision for the motor car so that people can use their cars to shop, park them safely and
    696
    walk from the parking place to the shops—that would probably involve using closed circuit television—we could do a great deal to make them feel that such centres are pleasant, welcoming places. They ought also to be places where we can reduce the number of accidents by designing urban communities properly.
    Mr. Hawksley: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that his current policy on superstores will not adversely affect the application for the Merry Hill development in the west midlands, which would result in a welcome influx of some £8 million of private money? I hope that the slight change which seems to have occurred in Government policy will not result in any delay in that application being dealt with.
    Mr. Gummer: It would be wrong for me to judge an application on the Floor of the House; I shall look at each one on its merits. There is nothing in our proposition to suggest that out-of-town development is always wrong. We are saying that the balance should be changed and that greater weight should be given to the needs of city centres and the centres of our smaller towns. It is that balance that we have changed. The change has been extremely successful, people in the country at large believe it to be correct, and we shall continue with it.

    Home Renovation Grants
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many home renovation grants were made last year; and what were the figures for 1984 and 1989.
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: Figures are not yet available for 1994. In 1993, however, 90,000 grants were made under the new provisions of part VIII of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. In 1984 and 1989 local authorities awarded 229,000 and 98,000 home improvement grants respectively.
    Mr. O'Brien: Do not the figures prove that the grant system for renovation, improvements and community activities is wholly inadequate and is not working? As the Government have repeatedly cut the money provided over the years, local authorities now cannot even provide mandatory grants and it is quite impossible to supply discretionary grants. When will the Minister do something for people who are living in sub-standard accommodation and squalor? When may we expect the Government to provide the resources to improve accommodation and bring it up to the standards to which people are entitled?
    Mr. Jones: Concerns about the renovation grant system were expressed to me and to other Ministers during the housing investment programme round and at other times, and we have been consulting on what to do about the long-term strategy for renovation. We shall announce our conclusions in due course. It was wrong for the hon. Gentleman to say that there is necessarily a shortage of resources throughout the country as it varies from authority to authority. Some of them underspend their allocations. Wakefield benefited from a recent reallocation when we were able to give it a further £440,000 as a result of underspending by other authorities.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Although it is good for local authorities to improve their housing stock and its energy

    697
    conservation wherever possible, does my hon. Friend agree that it would be a waste of money to ask every local authority to do a complete audit of how that can be done? Unless a great deal more money can be obtained from the Treasury, such audits will be wasted and will use up money which could be better spent elsewhere.
    Mr. Jones: It is extremely important to get information on these matters so as to be able to judge housing investment programme bids, and others. We have been requiring local authorities to provide us with evidence of their energy efficiency strategy in order to evaluate their housing strategies. An assessment of every house would cost a great deal of money, which would be wrong, but there are now plenty of systems for assessing the energy efficiency of housing without going into that sort of detail.
    Mr. Raynsford: Will the Minister give a fuller reply to the main question? The figure of 90,000 includes not just renovation grants but disabled facility grants and minor works grants, most of them for small sums. If he compares like with like, he will find that the number of renovation grants has fallen dramatically since the mid and late 1980s.When will the Government recognise that thousands of people living in sub-standard housing have been waiting for years for grants which are supposed to be mandatory because the Government have not provided the money to enable local authorities to pay those grants?
    Mr. Jones: As I said earlier, that is not true of all local authorities. Issues have been raised by different councils throughout the country about quantity of resources and the nature of the regime. Some councils feel that the present mandatory system stops them focusing their regeneration strategies properly on areas which really need them. We shall have to weigh all the arguments before reaching a conclusion about the future of the system.

    Millennium Fund
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment for what projects under the control of his Department he will be applying for funds from the millennium fund.
    Mr. Gummer: None.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is the Secretary of State aware that when my former steelworker friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe), my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) and I made a four-hour visit to the greatest structure of the 19th century—the Forth rail bridge—we were appalled at the flaking paint, the debris of dead birds and, frankly, seagull shit on the bare steel structure? As Railtrack has other priorities, should this not be a matter for the millennium fund as the bridge is a national monument associated not only with Scotland but with Britain and Europe?
    Mr. Gummer: I shall take a considerable interest in inspecting personally the structure to which the hon. Gentleman refers and I will do my best to assess what he has said.
    I remind the hon. Gentleman that what he has done today in asking a question as a Scottish Member is something that he would be able to do in future if Labour's devolution plans were to go through but which
    698
    no English Member would be able to do as English Members would not be able to ask questions about Scotland.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend advise the House whether it would be in order to apply to the millennium fund to finance a preservation order on the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)?
    Mr. Gummer: The example that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) put forward is one of considerable importance. I also believe, however, that we should all recognise that we have a history which is worth preserving and that part of that history is a constitution which should not be monkeyed about with.

    Council Tax
    Mr. John Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average council tax for a band D house in Westminster and for a band D house in St. Helens.
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: For St. Helens it is £652 and for Westminster £245. If St. Helens were to spend at the same rate as Westminster relative to standard spending assessment, the band D council tax in St. Helens would be £224—even lower than in Westminster.
    Mr. Evans: Will the Minister acknowledge that St. Helens and Westminster city councils are roughly the same size and cover roughly the same population? Will he acknowledge also that the reason for the appalling figures that he has announced is that for every £1 that Westminster city councils spends it receives 97p in Government rate support grant while St. Helens city council receives only 77p? Would the hon. Gentleman be surprised to hear from me that the people of St. Helens increasingly regard an RSG system which creates enormous disparities between broadly similar authorities as utterly corrupt?
    Mr. Jones: To describe St. Helens and Westminster as broadly similar authorities is ridiculous, just as it would be ridiculous to compare St. Helens with, for example, the London borough of Hackney, which also receives a high standard spending assessment. As the hon. Gentleman knows, SSA reflects a range of factors which are different in different authorities. For example, millions of visitors and commuters come into Westminster, which is not the case in St. Helens. An apt comparison is what would happen if St. Helens spent as far below its SSA as Westminster did, and I commend that to the hon. Gentleman's local authority.
    Mr. Congdon: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if other inner-London boroughs that get similar resources from the Government to those of Westminster were as efficient as Westminster, there would be no reason why they should not have a similarly low council tax? Is not Westminster's low council tax a tribute to the fact that it has been at the forefront of contracting out and, wherever it can, it seeks out and roots out waste?
    Mr. Jones: What my hon. Friend says is absolutely correct. If other local authorities in inner London were as persistent in examining the cost-effectiveness of their administration, they would end up with the dividends for their council tax payers.
    Mr. Dobson: Do not the figures quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans)

    699
    show that the Government are pouring taxpayers' money into Westminster to keep down the council tax there, at the expense of money being available for other places, such as St. Helens? Why should other parts of Britain, including the parts represented by Conservative Members, have to suffer because the Government have to give extra money to Westminster to make up for the £3 million that they squandered on the cemeteries, the £21 million on the homes for votes scandal and the £13 million that Westminster Tories forgot to collect in service and repair charges from the people who bought their council houses?
    Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman is a Member for the London borough of Camden, the SSA for which is almost exactly the same per capita as for the London borough of Westminster. I assume, therefore, that, as the figures came out of the same system, he wants the grant to the London borough of Camden to be cut dramatically. I think that he will have awful difficulty with the councillors on his selection board when he goes up for reselection.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that Westminster provides services that are much appreciated by the citizens of Westminster, but in Ealing, a comparable area, the Labour council is drastically reducing services as well as putting up the council tax by 10 per cent? Is that not socialism as we see it. in this country?
    Mr. Jones: If one needs to judge socialism, the best place in which to look is where it is practiced—Labour-controlled authorities. What my hon. Friend says about the London borough of Ealing will, I am sure, get home as a very important message to the electors of Ealing, North for the next general election.

    Single Regeneration Budget
    Mr. Dowd: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for a second round of bidding for the single regeneration budget.
    Mr. Curry: A second bidding round of the single regeneration budget will be launched later this year. Some £40 million will be available in 1996–97 for early funding of approved bids and £200 million the following year.
    Mr. Dowd: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that the London borough of Lewisham, which has an exemplary record in public-private finance partnerships, including city challenge and estate action, is still unaware of the status of the three unsuccessful first-round bids in relation to the second round of bidding, which is due to commence shortly? Does he agree that his Department has a responsibility to provide all local authorities with unambiguous and clear guidelines at the earliest opportunity if they are to persist with their cut-price, gameshow approach to urban regeneration?
    Mr. Curry: If it is a cut-price approach, I am surprised that the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) said that he thought that the sums spent on it were about right; he said that Labour would spend roughly the same amount of money.
    The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) has forgotten, perhaps, that Lewisham received £14 million from the urban programme, that Deptford city challenge is receiving £37.5 million over five years and that the task force is receiving £1 million of Government money and
    700
    £10 million levied from other sources. There are four major estate action programmes worth £83 million of public funds, two successful SRB bids related to ethnic minorities, and the docklands light railway extension. so it ain't a bad record as far as Lewisham is concerned.
    As for the Deptford creek project, the local authority will have been in discussion with the Government office about the nature of that bid. The bidding will not change so substantially for the second round that the bids that did not qualify this time will not be eligible as candidates in the second round. Clearly, one cannot prejudge the outcome.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Sadly, Macclesfield was unsuccessful in the first round under this programme—perhaps even more so than Lewisham, Macclesfield being one of the few councils still with overall Conservative control, well run, abiding by every regulation that the Government request of it. Does my hon. Friend accept that, even in an area that is considered to be prosperous, there are pockets of deprivation and poverty and that this project can uniquely assist in such areas? Will he give me an assurance that any further application from Macclesfield will receive his sympathetic consideration?
    Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend will know that the single regeneration budget has national coverage, so all areas in the country are eligible to bid. There were successful bids from rural and urban areas. I cannot give my hon. Friend an assurance that a bid will receive sympathetic consideration any more than I can say that it will receive unsympathetic consideration. However, the regional office will be working with the partners to ensure that any problems or deficiencies in a bid are pointed out so that the authorities are capable of bidding in the second round.
    Mr. Vaz: The Minister is clearly not aware of the huge costs and the great difficulties faced by those local authorities that have been unsuccessful in their first round bids. Will he ensure that, before the second round begins, a detailed regional statement is produced by the regional offices—something that he failed to have produced at the last round of the SRB—so that local authorities know precisely what the criteria will be, or is it the case that the statement cannot be published because the Government do not have a clue what their regeneration policy should be?
    Mr. Curry: That is rather rich coming from the hon. Gentleman, who is allegedly the author of "City 2020", which sank without trace soon after being launched; even the assistance of the mayor of Baltimore could not rescue that document. The regional office has instructions to work with all the partners in order to point out where there were deficiencies so that they are capable of bidding for the second time around. [Interruption.] It is not a blind date process. It is done with a great deal of consideration.
    The best bids won this time, but we do not intend that those that were unsuccessful should not be capable of putting their bid in order so that they can bid the second time around, when their bid will be judged on its merits in competition with other bids.
    Mr. McLoughlin: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government are often accused of diverting money to areas that support the Government's case? Will he therefore explain to me why, under the single regeneration budget,

    701
    the two most successful areas in Derbyshire were Bolsover and Chesterfield? Are they well known for their support of Government policies?
    Mr. Curry: I am tempted to say that it clearly must reflect the particular characteristics of the Members of Parliament concerned, but I do not wish to mislead the House on the matter. It happened because those bids, which were the result of public and private sector support, were among the best bids in the region. That demonstrates that this is not a political process; it is based on the merits of a bid in a competitive process which has proved to be successful.

    Pollution
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions he has had with the National Rivers Authority regarding pollution from abandoned mine workings; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Atkins: My Department maintains regular contact with the National Rivers Authority about this issue.
    Mr. Mullin: As the Minister knows, there is much concern in the north-east and elsewhere on this issue. Will he assure the House that the Coal Authority will continue to fund the pumping of abandoned mine workings for as long as the NRA thinks is necessary, bearing in mind the fact that, if it all goes wrong, the cost of clearing up will be much greater than the cost of the pumping?
    Mr. Atkins: It is certainly the intention that the Coal Authority will continue to fund the necessary pumping and I have no reason to suppose that that situation will change.
    Sir Donald Thompson: As my hon. Friend says, disused coal mines are fairly well catered for, but mines from which other minerals came seem to have been completely forgotten, especially those whose ownership has been lost in the mists of time; a similar situation applies to quarries. Will my hon. Friend consider that?
    Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend is right to raise that matter, which will be dealt with in the Environment Bill, which is being discussed in another place. We will be interested to hear what he has to say on the matter when it arrives at this end.
    Ms Ruddock: Is the Minister aware that, under the Environment Bill, polluting water from abandoned mines will continue to emanate therefrom until the turn of the century? Why is liability to prosecution not to be imposed until 1999? Could it be because the contracts of private mine owners with the power generators come up for renewal in 1998 and the Government expect more mines to be abandoned at that point? Is that not just another example of a Government trying to protect private profits over the environment?
    Mr. Atkins: As usual, the hon. Lady is living in cloud cuckoo land. We are dealing with the real world, in which we must give as much warning as possible to those involved. That is why we consider 1999 an appropriate date. I have no doubt that, when the matter is discussed as we debate the Environment Bill, the hon. Lady will make similar points and I shall give a similar response.
    Mr. Devlin: Should not those who close mines in future have to give the new agency ample notice of their intentions, and also state what provision they will make for the pumping that may be necessary thereafter?
    Mr. Atkins: Yes, and we hope that the Bill will contain precisely that recommendation. We intend, for instance, that six months' notice will be required in 1999. My hon. Friend's points will be taken on board.

    Nuclear Waste
    Mr. Chisholm: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to make a decision about the proposal to use local authority landfill sites for the dumping of low-level nuclear waste.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): Currently, hospitals, universities and laboratories dispose of low-level radioactive waste at a small number of landfill sites under strictly controlled conditions. By low-level radioactive waste, I mean rubber gloves, wrappings and clothing, for instance, that may have been contaminated in the handling of radioactive material such as that used in the treatment of cancer. The extent of use of this method has been reviewed, the results have been out to consultation and conclusions will be announced in due course.
    Mr. Chisholm: Will the Minister reject the recommendation of his own Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee that local authorities should be forced to accept low-level nuclear waste, including waste from nuclear power stations, against their wishes? Does he admit that that is a cost-cutting proposal, connected at least in part with future privatisation of the nuclear industry?
    Hon. Members: Nonsense.
    Sir Paul Beresford: Hon. Members on both sides of the House put the point rather well; it is absolute nonsense. The committee to which the hon. Gentleman refers is an advisory committee, and is not forcing anyone to do anything.
    Mr. Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend confirm that low-level waste usually has a half life of only a few months? That means that, after a couple of years, the level of radioactivity is asymptotic to zero and virtually non-existent.
    Sir Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend has put the matter into perspective. The radioactivity level is extremely low, and if any movement took place in the wrong direction there would be an outcry from the national health authorities about disposal facilities.

    Noise Working Party
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the working party on noise to complete its work; if it will take evidence; and in what form it will publish its conclusions.
    Mr. Atkins: The working party expects to complete its review shortly, and I intend to consult extensively on its conclusions and recommendations.
    Mr. Hughes: That answer is welcome. I believe, however, that the working party is composed of officials

    703
    from the Home Office and other Departments, the police and local government; out there, the public want their shout on the issue. I consider that the public take a much harder line than officials on the need to be tough on noise makers. Will the Minister guarantee that they will have their say, and that their views will prevail rather than those of enforcement agencies which often want an easy life?
    Mr. Atkins: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support. He will know of the campaign being run by The Mail on Sunday and the responses—more than 30,000—that it has received: it is welcome that the newspaper has taken such a public interest in the issue.
    We have sought the advice not only of the Departments to which the hon. Gentleman refers but of others, including environmental health officers, who are very much in the front line. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the conclusions of the working party, which will report in the not too distant future. I am only too aware of the problems of noise, not only in urban but in rural areas, and I intend to do something about them.

    Town and Parish Councils
    Mr. Rendel: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to set up town and parish councils in unparished areas.
    Mr. Gummer: I am on record as being very much in favour of parish councils and am looking at ways in which we can enhance their role.
    Mr. Rendel: I welcome the Secretary of State's support for parish councils. Regardless of what he does about other recommendations for Berkshire, will he confirm that the strong recommendation for the creation of a parish council for Newbury will be accepted, in line with the long-standing thoughts of local people?
    Mr. Gummer: I shall certainly look at that and also at the difficulty under present legislation, which is that if an ancient town already has some sort of trust council it cannot also have parish council status. Many towns want to keep their historic regalia and historic ways of doing things and have the powers that a parish council may give to them. I am looking to see whether we can find a way around that difficulty.
    Mr. Thomason: Does my right hon. Friend agree that some areas do not actively seek parish status and that we should not rush down the road of establishing new parishes unless there is clearly a genuine need for doing so?
    Mr. Gummer: I am sure that some places do not look for this status. However, I hope that we shall encourage those other authorities, district and county councils, which in recent months have made clear their desire to work with parishes and give them greater powers— which, of course, is in their remit—to continue down that road after the announcements of the final decisions on local government reorganisation. I should not like any of those
    704
    who have promised such co-operation during the run-up to the decisions to forget those promises when they have achieved the status that they sought.
    Mr. Pike: Is it the Government's view that a parish council should have the right to levy a precept and that a nation which is a part of the United Kingdom should not have the right to levy a tax?
    Mr. Gummer: It is certainly the Government's view that the present arrangements for precepting should continue. However, it is not our view that we should so break up the United Kingdom that there should be tax-levying powers in other parts of it in circumstances in which Members of this House would have no right to ask questions about how those taxes were raised or spent.

    Homelessness
    Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress he is making with reducing homelessness.
    Mr. Curry: Over the past two and a half years, there have been successive reductions in the number of households accepted by local authorities as homeless.
    Mr. Nicholson: I am glad to hear that there has been progress on this issue. Does my hon. Friend agree that success in this matter involves co-operation with other Departments, especially the Department of Social Security, and with local authorities and voluntary organisations? Does he further agree that individuals have different reasons for homelessness? In some cases, it may be because of the breakdown in caring community facilities. Would he question the right of people publicly to sleep in the streets and publicly to beg?
    Mr. Curry: I agree with my hon. Friend that there are many reasons for people being homeless. I am extremely happy to praise the good work of the voluntary organisations in this matter. We depend heavily on them and co-operate successfully with them. It is thanks to their efforts and the partnership which we have created that the figures have come down so dramatically. We wish 10 make sure that we settle and deal with this problem effectively wherever it occurs.
    Mr. Soley: Perhaps the Minister will explain where homeless people are to sleep if it is not on the streets. They do not have anywhere to live. Does he recall a report by the Duke of Edinburgh's committee a few years ago, which was supported by the churches and various other experts on housing, that a loss of 2 million rented sector houses, which are not being replaced, was a primary cause of homelessness and housing queues? Why does he think that he has got it right and both God and the royal family have got it wrong?
    Mr. Curry: Clearly, I was not the Minister at that time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] My memory is certainly good enough to recall that. If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the right to buy, he is referring to people who had secure tenancies and were therefore occupying houses which they would have occupied as rented tenants in any case. That means people have not taken houses that would otherwise be available; they are living in the same houses under a different form of tenure.

    Rural Challenge
    Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to meet representatives of parish councils in East Anglia to discuss rural challenge.
    Mr. Atkins: My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.
    Mr. Bellingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that, when dealing with local matters, parish councils often understand much more about rural areas and the needs of their communities than district or county councils? Does he further agree that more influence and weight should be given to parish councils? Will he confirm that when he frames his policies for the countryside, he will listen to local people on matters such as access to the countryside and country sports? Will he pledge to do all that he can to listen to the views of local people in rural areas?
    Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend will have heard my right hon. Friend show his affection for parish councils and I join him and my hon. Friend in that. My hon. Friend speaks with great knowledge about the countryside and I shall listen to him, to his constituents and to others with similar views and interests during progress on the White Paper on rural matters, which we intend to publish towards the end of the year.

    Housing Statistics
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the number of (a) local authority and (b) housing association dwellings started in 1978 and (c) the estimated number in each category for 1994.
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: Housing associations started 17,900 new dwellings in England in 1978. We estimate that they will have started over 33,000 new dwellings in 1994. English local authorities started 67,600 dwellings in 1978, with new towns starting a further 7,000 dwellings. We estimate that they will start fewer than 500 dwellings in 1994. This change reflects the shift to an enabling role for local authorities with housing associations becoming the main providers of new social housing.
    Mr. Winnick: Does the Minister recognise that the comparison between 1978 and today illustrates only too well why so many people face such appalling difficulties in trying to find, usually without any success, affordable rented accommodation? Is he aware that when I leave here in the evening and walk up Whitehall, within five minutes of the Palace of Westminster I see a sight that I certainly did not witness before 1979—people sleeping out in the rain and the cold, because they have no alternative? They are among the victims of the Government's callous housing policy, which has left so many people homeless or near homeless.
    Mr. Jones: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the House earlier when I answered a question from the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) about waiting lists. I told him that they had fallen substantially.
    We cannot cover every blade of grass with new housing development. We must ensure that there is a proper balance between building new homes, with the costs associated with that, and ensuring that existing housing stock is properly used.
    Mr. Hendry: Will my hon. Friend confirm that what really matters is the number of new lettings made every
    706
    year? Will he further confirm that last year there was the highest number of new lettings since 1979? Lettings are on the increase.
    Mr. Jones: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a valuable point. Local authorities, with their new enabling role, can ensure that lettings are available not just in the public sector but in the private sector. Some local authorities whose representatives I met during the recent housing investment programme rounds have been much more successful than others at managing to persuade owners of empty properties in the private sector to make them available for rent. I commend that strategy to all local authorities—it is copying the successes of the best.
    Mr. Dobson: Why will not the Minister admit that, despite the claim that housing associations have taken on the role of councils, the figures that he has quoted show that the number of houses available for letting by councils and housing associations together has more than halved? Roughly speaking, 50 council houses were built in 1979 for every one that this rotten, mean-minded Government are building today.
    Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman seems to think that money grows on trees. The only suggestion he has for making more money available is to release capital receipts, which would have a dramatic effect on council taxes as well as driving up borrowing. That would be most unsatisfactory in present circumstances. The hon. Gentleman also sets his face against harnessing private money for the redevelopment of housing and the creation of new housing. I commend the large-scale voluntary transfers as a way of getting additional resources for housing.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Do not the figures that my hon. Friend just quoted represent a real achievement in helping the homeless? Do they not make the Labour party's professions on wanting to care for the homeless seem extremely hollow?
    Mr. Jones: What the Labour party wants more than anything else is for people to be captives in the public sector, which is the very opposite of our view. We believe that people should realise their aspirations to be home owners or to rent, whichever they want.

    Carbon Dioxide Emissions
    Mr. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what contributions he now expects to the reduction of carbon dioxide required by Rio targets to be contributed by value added tax on domestic fuel, rises in transport fuel duties, action by the Energy Saving Trust, energy conservation measures in building regulations and other schemes.
    Mr. Atkins: We are currently reviewing the contributions expected from the measures in our climate change programme in the light of recent developments, and will also be taking account of the revised energy projections on which the Department of Trade and Industry is working. The climate change convention requires us to take measures aimed at returning emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2000 and we are committed to fulfilling these requirements.
    Mr. Bennett: When will the review be completed? Can the Minister confirm that unless the Energy Saving Trust has some money, it will be unable to carry out any of the work that the Government intend it to do?
    Mr. Atkins: As soon as possible, and yes, Madam Speaker.
    Mr. David Shaw: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the home energy efficiency savings scheme has been remarkably successful? Many hon. Members have seen equipment installed in constituents' homes. Will he confirm that people are eligible for some £300 of Government assistance if they install energy conservation equipment in their homes? Will he also confirm that the Government will continue the scheme and that it will save a considerable amount of energy?
    Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I have been involved in a scheme at a house in my constituency which I found interesting, and those who have received the grant have certainly been pleased. The scheme was increased substantially last year by an energy-conscious Government and Department, and it will be increased this year by a further £30 million by the energy-conscious Chancellor, Secretary of State and Ministers. We intend to keep our objective because we know—perhaps more than anyone— how important energy efficiency is.
    Mr. Dafis: Does the Minister accept that energy in all of its aspects is the central environmental consideration, and that it therefore ought to be the central matter in relation to the environment agency legislation? What proposals do the Government have to ensure that the new agency will be able to offer guidance to other Departments, such as the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Transport, on energy policies?
    Mr. Atkins: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman either awaits the passage of the Bill or goes to another place to hear the discussions which are going on about the matter. When the Bill is brought to this place, the hon. Gentleman will find much to excite him.

    Local Authority Leaseholders
    Mr. Gerrard: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce measures to assist local authority leaseholders who are encountering difficulty selling their homes.
    Mr. Curry: I hope to introduce a revised scheme in the spring.
    Mr. Gerrard: That is welcome news. Is the Minister aware that council leaseholders are lobbying here this afternoon and that they have only invited Tory Members as they think that Tory Members need educating about the effects of believing Government propaganda about buying their flats? Some local authorities are willing in principle to buy back the flats of people who were persuaded by the Government to buy their flats and who now find that they cannot sell them, but the authorities cannot because they do not have the capital. Is it not about time that those people were given some help to get out of the trap in which they have found themselves?
    Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman ought to know that the Government are concerned about the position of
    708
    leaseholders who are unable to raise mortgages on properties which they have bought. We are working hard on a scheme to introduce a more flexible form of agreement which local authorities can use to assist in the sale of flats by indemnifying commercial mortgage lending to new purchasers. We are also looking at an exchange sales scheme to help local authorities to Cake back certain flats which have been affected by mortgageability difficulties in exchange for selling leaseholders another home more suitable for their needs.
    Madam Speaker: Mr. David Tredinnick. Mr. John Spellar. Mr. Rhodri Morgan. Mr. John Battle. It is a total disgrace that Members are absent without apologising either to the Minister or to me.

    Planning Legislation
    Mr. Cox: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for a review of planning legislation.
    Mr. Gummer: I shall consider the need for amending legislation in the light of the Government's imminent response to the report "Shopping Centres and Their Future" by the Select Committee on the Environment, and of the follow-up to the symposium on quality in town and country which I hosted last month.
    Mr. Cox: Hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome the Secretary of State's reply, in view of the earlier exchanges. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of our constituencies are now facing massive supermarket developments, and that there is a real fear of their effect on existing trading centres? Is there not also a fear that the concerns and the opposition of constituents are, frankly, not being listened to?
    Mr. Gummer: We are looking carefully at each of the cases. In the first round, it is for the local authority to make the planning decisions. The hon. Gentleman will know that I want to ensure that the balance and bias are towards the invigoration of town and city centres. At the same time, we must ensure that we raise the quality of what we build. Far too often, we have allowed our city centres to be disfigured by poor buildings, built in poor styles and with a poor lifetime ahead of them. I hope soon to be able to see the Marsham street towers in which I work pulled down. It is a bad building which is badly built, and it did not enhance the city centre. I hope that the building into which we will move before we pull that down will be better.

    Sewage Outfalls
    Mr. Ainger: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many sewage outfalls into British rivers and the sea discharge untreated sewage, other than by maceration.
    Sir Paul Beresford: Some 96 per cent. of the United Kingdom population is connected to a sewerage system. A total of 83 per cent. of sewage is treated and 90 per cent. of this receives secondary treatment or better. The proportions, already high in comparison with those in many continental countries, will rise as a result of investment over the next few years.
    Mr. Ainger: Does the Minister accept that there is still a serious problem in our rivers and around our

    709
    coast? A recent survey showed that our beaches are not getting any cleaner. Is it not about time that the Government insisted that all river and sea discharges were worth tertiary treatment, so that we do not have the problems that have been experienced on, for example, the Gower peninsula where there has been possible infection as a result of sewage discharges into Carmarthen bay? Is it not time that we tackled this problem seriously by insisting on tertiary treatment of all sewage discharges?
    Sir Paul Beresford: The hon. Gentleman should put the matter into perspective. Compared with other countries, the United Kingdom is among the highest in
    710
    the provision of treatment. Given the nature of the climate, the beaches are much cleaner than the hon. Gentleman is insinuating. We must tackle a problem such as this in the nature of priorities.
    Mr. Skinner: What is the Minister doing here? He is supposed to be pulling teeth.
    Sir Paul Beresford: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) obviously requires a dentist. I am prepared to see him free of charge—not even under the national health service—and extract his teeth without a local anaesthetic.
    Madam Speaker: On that note, time is up.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you will inquire into a matter that does not seem to be anybody's responsibility, but is clearly a House of Commons matter. In the front of the House of Commons parliamentary diary, there is a list of notable dates, many of which will be found in any diary in the land. However, it also includes some which are not found in other diaries and which are inappropriate. They include the dates for the end of pheasant and partridge shooting, the expiry of game licences, the beginning of grouse and partridge shooting, and the end of grouse shooting, but, most importantly, "fox hunting begins" is in the diary as a notable date. That diary bears the name of this place, has the portcullis on the cover and is sold here. I have received a complaint about that. I wonder whether in future years you can rule that we should not have such controversial and, arguably, unacceptable practices publicised in documents bearing the coat of arms of the House of Commons.
Madam Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman certain that it is a House of Commons diary? Perhaps he will let, me see it. He might refer the matter to the appropriate Committee, which I think is the Administration Committee, rather than raise it on the Floor of the House. Perhaps next year we can put my birthday in the diary so that I might expect flowers all round.
Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am looking forward to sending you flowers on the appropriate day. May I assist you on another matter? I am an enthusiastic supporter of your campaign for terser questions at Question Time. Have you noticed that on the past four occasions when questions have been asked by Members from Welsh and Scottish constituencies, Ministers have been instructed to add a coda to their answers, saying that they could not answer the question if there was Welsh and Scottish decentralisation? That is a campaign which wastes time at Question Time. It is unfair because hon. Members cannot answer such a statement and it is tedious and futile.
Madam Speaker: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is trying to co-operate with me in seeking brisker questions and answers. I shall continue to ensure that that happens at every Question Time. I am sure that it is a great advantage to Back Benchers—I can call more of them if answers are brisk and questions are equally so.

Protection of Animals (Amendment)
3.34 pm
Mr. Harry Greenway: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act 1954 to require the courts to order the disqualification for life from owning animals for any person convicted of severe cruelty to a companion animal.
I have no pecuniary interest in this matter, but I have the honour to hold the British Horse Society's award of merit for outstanding services to the horse world. Clearly, the British Horse Society is concerned with the welfare of horses.
Millions of pets are kept in Britain and, thankfully, most of them are loved and well cared for. Whatever they are—dogs, hamsters or budgies—they all play a special part in people's lives. It is well established that pet owners and pet lovers generally live longer and more healthily than others, so they gain much from their pets.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I have two cats.
Mr. Greenway: In that case, my hon. Friend will live a long time. However, it is, sadly, not true that all companion animals are loved and well cared for. In 1993, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals secured 3,065 convictions against people who caused cruelty to animals in their care, the very animals that rely on human intervention for their welfare needs.
The House should be in no doubt that the cruelty inflicted on animals comes in many forms. Animals may be starved through neglect, viciously beaten, left to die in hot cars, denied urgent veterinary treatment or simply thrown from a building for the fun of it. Some of the cases that come to court defy belief. For example, a dog died after being locked in a microwave; a cat was thrown from the top of a cathedral; a hamster was held under hot water.. thrown against a wall and then sealed in an airtight container before being dumped in a freezer; and a kitten had its claws removed by a 12-year-old boy before being thrown into a freezing pond.
However, it is not only the domestic pet that suffers at the hands of cruel owners. Some people take pleasure in organising illegal events such as dog fights and cock fights. They are evil forms of sport—so-called—which cause enormous, suffering to the animals involved. Incidentally, such events are a growing problem in the west London area and elsewhere, and all in the name of sport.
What price do people pay for inflicting needless cruelty on animals? The maximum penalty is six months in prison and/or a £5,000 fine.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: What about calves in crates?
Mr. Greenway: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. The cruelty caused to calves kept in crates is unacceptable and the country will not tolerate it. I am glad that the Government are examining what can be done, but we must keep up the pressure.
As I was saying, the maximum penalty for cruelty to animals is six months in prison and/or a £5,000 fine.
Mr. John Marshall: It is not enough.
Mr. Greenway: I agree that such penalties are not sufficient but even they are used only in cases of the most

713
severe cruelty. If someone is convicted of cruelty, no matter how sickening, it is possible for him to continue to be allowed to own animals. At the moment, magistrates can order a ban on the ownership of animals, but that option is used in only a small percentage of cases.
In a recent RSPCA cruelty case, a Kent man pleaded guilty to causing unnecessary suffering to a friend's Jack Russell. In a statement to an RSPCA inspector, the man admitted kicking and beating the dog. When the inspector found the dog, it was lying outside an oven covered in grease. Traces of dog hairs were found inside the oven. Yet the man responsible for causing that appalling suffering was banned from keeping animals for only five years. In 1999 he will be able to keep pets again.
In another recent case, a young foal was fitted with a head collar when it was a few weeks old. As the foal grew, naturally, so did its head, but the noseband did not. After a while the noseband began to eat into the flesh on the animals' face, causing enormous pain—so much so that the poor creature could not bear to open its mouth to suckle from its mother. The penalty for knowingly inflicting such pain was a derisory fine. The owners were not imprisoned, nor did they receive suspended prison sentences, but they knew what they were doing. Our legal system allowed them to continue keeping horses and, to my knowledge, they still own four horses.
If such astonishing cruelty is hard to understand, it is even harder to punish. How can it be right that someone convicted of mindless cruelty should hear the magistrate order an RSPCA inspector to hand the animal back to the guilty party? How can we stand for that? It is not right or just. Anyone convicted of causing cruelty to animals should be banned for life from owning another such animal. What can be done?
Mr. Terry Dicks: We should treat them in the same way.
Mr. Greenway: The point is taken.
A mandatory life ban on keeping companion animals for those convicted of causing cruelty must be introduced. That will serve to protect animals that have already been mistreated and will prevent people causing more suffering in future. That is the basis of my Bill. I seek to extend the principle that already exists and is enforceable, and to make it compulsory—a life ban from keeping companion animals for those convicted of cruelty.
I am grateful to you for your indulgence, Madam Speaker, and for having this opportunity to raise the matter in the House. I know that many of my constituents feel extremely strongly about it. I hope that in years to come I and other hon. Members will not need to return to this issue to highlight further cruelty and suffering, when a sensible and rational change in the law will offer magistrates the power to penalise that minority of people who have so little regard for an animal's suffering. That will go a long way towards stamping out a serious and malicious evil.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harry Greenway, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Nigel Waterson, Dame Jill Knight, Sir Marcus Fox, Mr. Menzies Campbell, Rev. Martin Smyth, Mr. Sebastian Coe, Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones, Mr. Michael Stephen, Mr. Richard Spring and Mr. John Marshall.

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS(AMENDMENT)
Mr. Harry Greenway accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act 1954 to require the courts to order the disqualification for life from owning animals for any person convicted of severe cruelty to a companion animal: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 17 February and to be printed. [Bill 36.]
Opposition Day
[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Through Ticketing under Rail Privatisation
  Madam Speaker: We now come to the first debate on the Opposition motions. I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister. I have not thought it right in this debate to limit speeches to 10 minutes, but I ask Back Benchers to exercise voluntary restraint in their speeches. In the spirit of the Jopling report, I also ask for the co-operation of Front Benchers to give Back Benchers opportunities to speak.
  3.44 pm
  Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to move,
  That this House, noting the repeated assurances already given by Ministers that it will be mandatory for rail operators to ensure through-ticketing following the franchising of passenger services, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to guarantee that these promises will be honoured.
  The aim of the motion is clear, simple and straightforward: that the unequivocal commitments that Ministers have made on several occasions that through ticketing will be fully maintained after privatisation shall be honoured. During the Second Reading of the Railways Bill on 2 February 1993, the then Minister for Public Transport, the right hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), stated in the clearest terms:
  "we have said that it will be mandatory for rail operators to ensure through ticketing."
  Later in the same speech he reiterated that point even more clearly when he said:
  "Through ticketing will be mandatory through the licensing system. Anyone who wants to run a passenger train service must ensure that through tickets are available for all journeys. That will be an obligation."—[Official Report, 2 February 1993; Vol. 218, c. 242–58.]
  On discounts, he further added:
  "I firmly believe that discounts on through tickets, which amount to 10 or 20 per cent. off the sum of the fares on individual lines, will continue. The intention is to continue to use British Rail's ticket issuing machinery."—[Official Report, 18 February 1993; Vol. 219, c. 258.]
  Similar binding commitments were given in another place. On Second Reading in their Lordships' House on 15 June 1993, Lord Caithness, speaking for the Government, stated:
  "Through ticketing will continue to operate across the network and operators will be required to participate in common ticketing and revenue allocation arrangements."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 June 1993; Vol. 546, c. 1428.]
  In all those commitments, Ministers simply confirmed Government policy as it was expressly laid down in the White Paper of summer 1992. Paragraph 88 of the White Paper on network benefits states:
  "The Government is concerned to ensure that, so far as possible, passengers and freight customers continue to enjoy the advantages they get from a national rail system, including through ticketing, cross validity,"—
  I think that that is another word for inter-availability —
  "discounted fares, and a national timetable. This will be taken into account in the arrangements made for timetabling and ticketing."
  716
  But Ministers went even further than that. In March 1994, the Department of Trade and Industry issued a leaflet for general distribution to the public entitled "Franchising of Rail Passenger Services". It is written in the form of questions and answers:
  "Can I still buy a through ticket to any destination?
  Yes. Through tickets will continue to be available as at present."
  I do not think that it could be any clearer than that.
  Time and again, Ministers in both places have repeatedly made unequivocal commitments that, following the franchising of passenger services, through ticketing will continue to be available on exactly the same basis as at present. I remind the House that through tickets are now available at more than 1,300 stations throughout the country.
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way at such an early point in his speech. What does he mean by "on exactly the same basis"? I understand that, of about 2,500 stations in the British Rail system at present, only 440 offer a full through-ticketing and seat reservation service.
  Mr. Meacher: The fact is that 1,316 stations are staffed and 1,580 stations currently offer through ticketing in one form or another. The Department's literature made it clear that arrangements would continue "as at present". That is what we are talking about; that is the key issue in today's debate.
  It was reported 10 days ago that the Rail Regulator was expected to limit the purchase of through tickets to just: 294 core stations throughout the network. That produced an immediate and strong reaction from the Secretary of State, and I give him credit for that. On the Saturday he issued a press release saying:
  "If the regulator is proposing that the number of stations offering through ticketing should be fewer than now,"—
  I emphasise those words—
  "that is unacceptable. There must be an improvement".
  Presumably, he was referring to an improvement on the current position. However, 48 hours later he was back-pedalling fast. On Monday, he was forced to make the humiliating admission that the Rail Regulator, not the Minister, would have the final word in determining the number of stations offering through ticketing. With that admission, echoed several times by the Prime Minister and again yesterday, all the proud boasts, which have regularly been repeated by Ministers, that network benefits would be fully preserved under privatisation, collapsed ignominiously like a pack of cards.
  As hon. Members will know, the right hon. Gentleman has sought to cover his embarrassment by putting forward three defences of his position. Each repays some examination. First, he makes out that the Rail Regulator's proposals are purely consultative, but even a cursory reading of the Rail Regulator's report can leave no one in any doubt that the other two options are purely tacked on as a cosmetic in order to allay the political furore that the main proposal provokes.
  I presume that the Secretary of State is perfectly well aware that Mr. Swift devotes no fewer than 21 pages of his document to the issues arising from putting a limit on 294 core stations, while the other two options— one of which is to leave things as they are— get fewer than four pages. The thrust of the document is about eroding the

  717
  number of through-ticketing stations and the only argument is about how far and how fast that can be achieved. The document is consultative in name only.
  Mr. George Kynoch: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that at present not only stations sell through tickets, but that there is a large network of travel agencies and telephone sales? Does he also accept that it would be in the interests of private operators to ensure that they get the best possible access to their potential customers of through tickets? Does not he accept, therefore, that there are ways of providing through tickets other than just through stations?
  Mr. Meacher: No one is objecting if there is an improvement on the present position and there are more outlets for the sale of through tickets. We are objecting to the fact that the number of stations, which are used overwhelmingly for the purchase of through tickets, will be dramatically reduced.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Meacher: Anyone who reads the Rail Regulator's report knows perfectly well that that is the direction in which policy will go and, as I shall explain, the Secretary of State cannot stop it.
  The right hon. Gentleman's second defence is that the Rail Regulator is laying down no more than minimum standards with which train operators must comply. He wants to believe that private operators will go further of their own accord. They may to some degree do so, but that is not the point.
  Ministers gave repeated commitments, and their publicly distributed literature made it clear that through ticketing would continue as at present, and at present it is available at more than 1,300 stations across the country. They insisted that services for passengers would improve after privatisation, but no amount of fantasising by the Secretary of State will lead private operators to increase the number of through-ticketing stations to anywhere near 1,300.
  The Rail Regulator has pulled the rug from under the Secretary of State when he concedes that private operators are unlikely to want to be burdened by excessive costs. The truth is that the Secretary of State's defence that minimum standards will be substantially bettered does not cut ice even with the regulator.
  Mr. James Clappison: The hon. Gentleman mentioned minimum standards. Can he assist the House by saying what British Rail's present minimum standard is?
  Mr. Meacher: I am well aware that one feeble excuse made by the Secretary of State is that there is no statutory binding commitment at present. The point is that the public know that they can go into more than 1,300 stations and buy a ticket to any destination that they choose. That facility will be eroded by the regulator's proposals.
  The Secretary of State's third defence is that he can issue formal guidance to the regulator. Although that is true, it is worthless because the regulator does not have to comply. In Committee, Ministers reserved to themselves the power to override the regulator in two specific respects—the granting of exclusive franchises
  718
  and the limiting of track access charges. Significantly, both powers were designed to restrict competition on behalf of franchise bidders, not to assist passengers. The key point is that there are no other specific respects in which the Secretary of State can override the regulator.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this debate is the most appalling waste of time? Franchisees will want to maximise their ticket sales. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the post-nationalised British Airways and the Galileo system. The hon. Gentleman will find that computerised booking systems for every form of transport are developing fast throughout the world. At a time when national lottery tickets are available at petrol stations, newsagents and the like, through on-line computer terminals, this debate is farcical. We are entering a world of thousands of outlets.
  Mr. Meacher: If the hon. Gentleman is so convinced that commitments made by Ministers can be guaranteed and will be honoured, we shall be glad to welcome him in our Lobby tonight.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I support the hon. Gentleman in putting it to the Government that the system has already broken down. A letter dated 14 January, but which arrived on 16 January, bears out the fact that the commitment to a national network timetable has not been honoured. If one asks for an InterCity timetable at Waterloo station, one is told that Waterloo is not an InterCity station and is given a telephone number, which one must call to request a timetable to be sent. If the network provision of services is to be guaranteed by the regulator, does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the regulator has already failed?
  Mr. Meacher: I shall refer later to many aspects of the beginning of the erosion of inter-availability and national timetabling systems.
  Ministers have repeatedly affirmed that there will be no reduction in through ticketing after privatisation. The regulator, on the other hand, is clearly determined to reduce core stations offering through ticketing to perhaps as few as one in eight of Britain's 2,500 stations—and the Secretary of State cannot lift a finger to stop him. The right hon. Gentleman, in all his splendid isolation and irrelevance, sits there like a beached whale. He is a monument to the crass ineptitude of a privatisation that is fast running out of control. The fact is that the right hon. Gentleman is wholly unable to carry through the commitments that his predecessors gave, and he is being humiliated by what the regulator is doing.
  The absurdity goes even further. We are told that the list of 294 was drawn up using a set of criteria to ensure that the key towns and cities, airports and recognised commercial centres would have core stations. The bizarre result is that travellers will be able to buy tickets to any destination from the Kyle of Lochalsh—a little-used station that is also a port on the west coast of Scotland—or from Ryde Esplanade on the Isle of Wight, or from Llandrindod Wells in mid-Wales, through which only three trains a day pass.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Spell it.
  Mr. Meacher: Conservative Members are being exceedingly silly, because they know that they have no defence against the thrust of our argument. They are

  719
  deeply embarrassed by the way in which commitments have been given, which the Government are now totally incapable of carrying through.
  At the same time, some of the stations at which ticket sales will be limited are among the busiest in Britain. They include Lichfield in Staffordshire, with two stations and 185 trains a day. It will have no core station. Yeovil in Somerset, a base for Britain's aerospace industry, will be without one, too. Under the regulator's proposals, there will be an 88-mile stretch between Salisbury and Exeter, with Yeovil at its centre, with no core station. Thus a passenger wishing to travel from Yeovil to Birmingham will have to detour to Bristol or to Swindon to get a through ticket. [Laughter.] I agree, it is laughable. The hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) is right to laugh. It is an absurdity that beggars belief.
  Sir Donald Thompson: The Labour party Front-Bench spokesman has been kind enough to show that party's quinquennial interest in my constituency by naming a few stations there. My constituents are convinced that the privatisation of the railway industry will be as successful as the privatisation of British Airways. The railway industry will have a chance to compete, just as BA and BT compete. The hon. Gentleman is stuck in the steam train era.
  Mr. Meacher: I am grateful for that intervention. The whole House would like to know how the hon. Gentleman intends to justify to his constituents the fact that two of the stations in his constituency, Hebden Bridge and Todmorden, core stations at present, will, under the regulator's proposals, cease to be so. Perhaps he will explain that to the House—if he catches Madam Speaker's eye.
  It beggars belief that it is seriously intended, as part of the privatisation of the rail system, that the number of stations selling through tickets should be reduced by 80 per cent; and that as a result people will be expected, when necessary, to divert to another station on the same line—or even, from there, to another station on another line. They must then get off the train to buy a through ticket. Having purchased it, they will almost certainly find that their train has already departed, and they will have to wait for the next connection. [Interruption.] Perhaps the Secretary of State would like to tell us why he finds that so funny. Millions of rail passengers will find it quite intolerable. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman sits there giggling just shows his contempt for millions of people around this country.
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): Subject to catching Madam Speaker's eye, I shall have an opportunity to respond.
  Mr. Meacher: Instead of the Secretary of State looking so pleased with himself, perhaps he will accept that I should be pleased if, on this crucial issue, he intervened in my speech. I should be glad to give way to him. Perhaps he would like to explain. We shall be waiting for his explanation, but noting that he seems extraordinarily reluctant to give it following my offer to allow him to intervene.
  Mr. John Sykes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Meacher: No. I am concerned with the Secretary of State.
  720
  Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously telling us that what I have described is the new Tory vision of a smart and efficient railway system, or if it is not, that there is nothing that he can do to stop it happening?
  On Monday, the Prime Minister at his press conference, which I believe was designed to prop up sagging Conservative party morale, announced that he intended to turn Britain's railways from a stand-up comedian's joke into the envy of the world. Not for the first time, the irony of the situation seems to be sadly lost on the Prime Minister. It is he and his policies that are the stand-up comedian's joke. Proposals such as the one that we are discussing are making him and his Government the laughing stock of the western world. Even Harry Enfield could not have managed to produce a better script.
  Why are the Government in such a position? It is riot because the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State are stupid. None the less, they obviously fail to recognise the consequences of their policies.
  The internal contradictions of privatisation are driving events in the direction that I outlined.
  Mr. Gyles Brandreth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on his point about internal contradictions?
  Mr. Meacher: I do not believe for a moment that the hon. Gentleman will intervene on that point. He has been persistent, however, in his efforts to intervene, and I am glad to give way to him.
  Mr. Brandreth: When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wants to make an announcement about his policy on the railways, he at least makes it himself, whereas the Leader of the Opposition has his press secretary sort it out for him.
  The hon. Gentleman is either being mischievous or is hopelessly muddled. We are talking about a consultation document. A minimum standard is being talked about. Two of the purposes of the exercise of privatisation are to improve service and to increase the availability of tickets. That is what the thrust will be. The hon. Gentleman must understand and recognise that. That is why we find what he is saying risible. There is no thrust to his argument. He is tilting at illusory windmills.
  Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman is not a silly man—
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Oh yes he is.
  Mr. Meacher: He is not silly by the standards of Conservative Members, but he is being disingenuous. If the Government's proposals are about improving standards, why is it that there is not one line in the regulator's report about improving the current system? The report is all about worsening it. The only issue is the degree to which and the speed with which that will come about. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that a consultative exercise is taking place, perhaps he is sillier than I thought. If he reads the report, he will find that it is clearly about severely reducing the number of stations that can offer through ticketing. The key point is that, consultative exercise or whatever, the Secretary of State cannot stop whatever the regulator decides to implement.
  Why are the Government in such a situation? The regulator did not propose 294 stations because—
  Mr. Kynoch: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Meacher: I shall not give way again.
  The regulator did not make that proposal because he wanted to improve—
  Mr. Kynoch: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Meacher: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman and I shall not give way again.
  The reason—
  Mr. Kynoch rose—
  Madam Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Meacher: The regulator did not propose 294 core stations because he wanted to improve services for passengers. That never entered his head. When asked whether he considered that passengers should be no more than an hour's drive from a core station selling through tickets, he said, amazingly enough, that he had considered that, but he thought that the value of such a criterion "was not obvious".
  The irrelevance of the interests of passengers could hardly be clearer. The reason why the regulator wants to cut the number of core stations by 80 per cent.—meaning that people will be forced to travel up to 50 miles out of their way to buy a through ticket, which is of absolutely no interest to him—is to secure a sale of the passenger franchises at any cost.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Meacher: If the hon. Gentleman persists like that, I shall certainly not give way.
  Mr. Evans: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Opposition spokesman told the House a moment ago that the regulator's report did not mention improvements in services at all, whereas—
  Madam Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order at all. It is a point of argument. It is not a matter for me what the regulator says. There has been no breach of Standing Orders or of our procedures here.
  Mr. Gary Streeter rose—
  Madam Speaker: Order. I am on my feet.
  The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) must try to correct the Opposition spokesman in debate, not through a point of order.
  Mr. Streeter: But surely when an hon. Member misleads the House—
  Madam Speaker: Order. Let me try to explain the art of debate in Parliament. If hon. Members feel that another hon. Member is quoting incorrectly or is giving incorrect information, the way to correct that is to catch my eye. That is the way to do it, not through a point of order. Do we all understand now how points of order should be used and what the art of debate is? Very good.
  Mr. Meacher: Before those bogus points of order were made, I was explaining that the real motive for what the House is debating today is to secure the sale of the
  722
  passenger franchises at any cost. That is what underpins the debate. The Secretary of State said on 14 December that he intended to effect the sale of at least 50 per cent. of those franchises by April 1996. The fact is that there is such investor apathy about the sales that minimising the conditions that franchisees must meet, as in through ticketing, is a vital part of the exercise, and the interests of the passengers come absolutely nowhere. That is the first reason why this zany proposal has emerged.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman sees any correlation between the argument that he is making now and what happened with British Gas. Is he aware that British Gas closed a number of showrooms in which people could pay their gas bills, but at the same time it did a deal with the Post Office, which means that there are 20,000 new places where people can pay their bills? Does he regard that as an improvement for the customer or a decline in the service? I regard it as an improvement.
  Mr. Meacher: I do not think that there is any parallel at all, for the simple reason that people expect to be able to go to stations to buy through tickets. If they can buy them at the local taxi company or the local showroom, fine, but that is not an acceptable substitute for a reduction of 80 per cent. in the number of through-ticket stations.
  There is a second reason, too, for this ridiculous proposal. If one breaks up an integrated national rail system into 85 different companies, which is what the Government are doing, one is forced to devolve ultimate power in policing the railways to an independent regulator and his staff, to prevent the conflicting interests that have been unleashed getting out of control. Once one gives such power to an unelected quango, one is handing over to an unaccountable body extremely sensitive political decisions that should be taken only by a political representative. But that, of course, is precisely the logic of privatisation. That is why it is so flawed. That is why a large and growing majority of the population is so passionately opposed to this privatisation.
  Mr. Sykes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Meacher: No. I shall not give way again.
  Those people know that it is madness to split up a single integrated rail system into 85 separate, conflicting companies, which will produce a mountain of bureaucracy. They are opposed because they do not want the regulatory and safety framework of the railways undermined. They are opposed because they know that services will have to be cut drastically in order to generate the profits that shareholders demand, pushing the railways into a vicious spiral where higher fares will lead to fewer passengers, which will then force fares still higher. They are opposed to £700 million being frittered away in City and legal fees, money that could have been far better spent on redressing crumbling investment.
  A growing majority of the population is opposed because there are no guarantees on season tickets or off-peak fares, because inter-availability is already being eroded and because the blight on investment imposed by privatisation is already producing serious damage. Temporary speed limits have had to be imposed on several lines because major track renewal work is simply not being done. Back-up for train breakdowns has been cut to the bone, so that one lost train can now wreck a day's timetable as cancellations and delays build up and,

  723
  as we found in our recent survey, trains are increasingly having to run on no spares, so that branch line trains are having to be transferred to keep busier lines operating.
  In his amendment to our motion, the Secretary of State talks about his plans to reverse the decline in rail use. But the facts are clear. The biggest barrier to greater rail use in Britain at present is the Secretary of State and his privatisation plans. The large-scale abandonment of through-ticketing stations is but the first of the disasters that will hit millions of passengers if rail privatisation is allowed to proceed.
  The regulator has made a monkey of the Secretary of State and all that the right hon. Gentleman can do is to repeat plaintively that it was Parliament that decided that there should be a regulator. He has made no mention of the fact that it was not Parliament but Ministers who decided to privatise the railways in the first place, not Parliament but Ministers who decided that there should be 85 separate companies that required regulation, and not Parliament but the Secretary of State's predecessor who guaranteed that through ticketing would be fully protected in the privatised system.
  It is Ministers who have produced this mess. It is Parliament that can still stop it. In the 60 most marginal Tory seats, there are now 173 stations. Under the regulator's proposals, only 24 of those will be core stations selling through tickets. Tory Members of Parliament have a clear and straight choice tonight. Either they take the Secretary of State at his word that any cut in through ticketing would be unacceptable and support our motion, or they support the Whips and vote down their constituents. But I give them this warning. This is a campaign on which we shall not let up until we have stopped this detested privatisation in its tracks by the next election.
  4.17 pm
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "reaffirms the Government's commitment to maintaining through ticketing; welcomes the publication by the Rail Regulator of the Consultation Document 'Retailing of Tickets at Stations'; endorses the view expressed in the document that the continuation of network benefits such as through ticketing 'will be one of the key tests of the success of the restructuring of the industry'; notes that despite massive investment in British Rail the proportion of travel undertaken and freight moved by train has steadily decreased during nationalisation; and supports the Government's commitment to seeking to reverse this decline through the creation of a flourishing railway system operated by the private sector which will offer a better deal for passengers and for freight customers.".
  I have always thought that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) wanted to enter the Labour party's hall of fame of bons mots which go down in history and are remembered, such as that of the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), on the Gas Bill, who said:
  "There is no evidence that the Bill will … produce cheaper gas".—[Official Report, 10 December 1985; Vol. 88, c. 780.]
  or that of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who said that the British Steel Bill was
  "totally irrelevant to the real interests of the industry, and it is based on dogma. The Labour party is unequivocally, implacably opposed to it".—[Oflicial Report, 23 February 1988; Vol. 128, c. 238.]
  About British Airways, the same hon. Gentleman said:
  "It will be the pantomime horse of capitalism if it is anything at all."—[Official Report, 19 November 1979; Vol. 974, c. 125.]
  724
  I invite my hon. Friends to read Hansard tomorrow and perhaps we can have a ballot on which of the statements made today by the hon. Member for Oldham, West will go down alongside those bons mots of expressions of Labour party policy. I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman because he has not had a comfortable week. Last Wednesday, this debate seemed like a good idea to him. I bet that he regrets it now.
  Last week, the hon. Gentleman appeared to be in charge of Labour's policy—whatever it is. Today, the whole country knows that it is not the hon. Gentleman who controls Labour's policy, but the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). On Sunday afternoon, it was the hon. Gentleman who was to be on Monday morning's "Today" programme with me; by Sunday evening, he had been dumped.
  Today's debate is entitled "Through Ticketing under Rail Privatisation". I wish to deal with the issue of through ticketing first, but I assure Opposition Members that I shall then deal with the privatisation issue, as did the hon. Member for Oldham, West.
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: Who is in charge of the Government's policy? Why did the Government make so many promises to maintain through ticketing, and then hand over that policy to an unelected, unaccountable regulator?
  Dr. Mawhinney: If the hon. Gentleman waits a moment, he will have the answer to his question.
  The Government's commitment to through ticketing is absolutely clear: it has been a constant theme of our privatisation proposals. It was in our 1992 election manifesto, and in the White Paper that we published in July of that year; it was reiterated when we introduced our legislation at the beginning of 1993, and it is now in the Railways Act. Section 4 of that Act places a duty on the Secretary of State to promote measures to facilitate journeys involving more than one operator, and states specifically that through ticketing is one such measure. The same duty applies equally to the regulator, and it was in the exercise of that duty that he published his consultation document on the retailing of tickets at stations.
  I should also remind the House that the regulator issues licences under a general authority from the Secretary of State. The general authority issued to him on 31 March last year makes it clear that he is obliged to include through-ticketing requirements in the licences that he issues.
  In addition, Parliament has given the regulator responsibility for protecting passengers' interests, and the decision on what ticket retailing requirements should be imposed is for him, although it is open to me to give him guidance under the Railways Act. Incidentally, the hon. Member for Oldham, West was wrong: the regulator is not free to ignore that guidance as though it had not been given. He is under a statutory obligation to take account of it.
  Mr. George Stevenson: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Dr. Mawhinney: Not yet. As I have said, the regulator is under a statutory obligation. In other circumstances, the hon. Member for Oldham, West has ascribed some importance to that.
  Mr. Stevenson: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Dr. Mawhinney: I will in a moment.
  As the regulator is turning his mind to the issue of ticket retailing for the first time, he has decided to issue a consultation document to establish the views of those who would be affected by the requirements—the operators and, importantly, the passengers.
  Mr. Stevenson: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Dr. Mawhinney: I said that I would give way in a moment.
  That is an entirely new development. In the past, no one consulted passengers about the kind of ticket retailing requirements that they wanted from the railways. Again for the first time, the regulator proposes that passengers should have guarantees that a specific level of ticket retailing service will be safeguarded.
  Mr. Stevenson: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Dr. Mawhinney: I said that I would in a moment. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make a little progress, I will come back to him.
  Neither of the two new services that I have just described operated in the old public-sector railway, and both are characteristic of the future rather than of the past.
  The regulator's document contains three options—a requirement that operators maintain the current ticketing arrangements unless they can justify any changes to the regulator; the designation of core stations that will be required to offer the full range of ticketing facilities, with operators left free to decide what services to offer at other stations; and a two-tier approach, with core stations providing the full range of tickets and a less demanding requirement to be placed on other stations. The regulator is not committed to any particular option. He will carefully consider the responses that he receives before reaching any decision. The hon. Gentleman should be more careful about what he says in public about the regulator than he was in the debate. I shall quote what the regulator said on "Newsnight" on 11 January because, as my hon. Friends will understand, it goes precisely to the heart of the hon. Gentleman's argument and blows it away. The regulator said:
  "I have never committed myself to a plan to reduce the number of stations at which through tickets can be bought to 294. That is absolutely absurd."
  Mr. Stevenson: I was a bit worried that the Secretary of State might have gone beyond this point before giving way. Given his commitment that the present level of through ticketing would be maintained, if after the consultation the regulator produces a plan to reduce the availability, what will the Secretary of State do to maintain the commitment?
  Dr. Mawhinney: The Leader of the Opposition put that question to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister
  726
  yesterday, and the Prime Minister answered in exactly the same terms as I have answered. It is all in the record for the hon. Gentleman to read. [Interruption.]
  The regulator and I have the same statutory objective: we both want an improvement in passenger services. The idea, which is absurd—to use the regulator's word—that the hon. Member for Oldham, West has been peddling to the House does not fall within the statutory remit that the House gave to the regulator. The hon. Gentleman needs to understand that that is the essence of the consultation document.
  If I were to tell the House that there would be so many stations providing a certain service at a certain cost on certain days, the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends would say, "Why have a regulator and a consultation process in the first place? Why is the Secretary of State standing at the Dispatch Box and undermining the regulator's role?" That is exactly the point that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made yesterday to the Leader of the Opposition.
  If the Opposition had voted in Committee against having a regulator with such powers perhaps the House would be more impressed by their arguments now.
  Mr. Stevenson: I am trying to help the Secretary of State because he is clearly in a hole of his own making. I thought that he would have reached the part of his script that would have given me some answers but he has not, so I will repeat the question. If, after the consultation, the regulator comes up with a reduced number of stations that can provide through ticketing, what will the Secretary of State do to honour the commitment given by him and by the Prime Minister to maintain the present level? Will the right hon. Gentleman please answer the question?
  Dr. Mawhinney: I do not propose to anticipate what the regulator will produce by way of a response. I reaffirm to the hon. Gentleman the statutory requirement that through ticketing will be available and will be maintained. I remind him that I have the opportunity to provide statutory guidance to the regulator on that point, if I judge it necessary. So that everybody understands it, the fundamental difference between us is that we have plans to create an environment in which it will be advantageous for operators to do what passengers want. The hon. Gentleman is firmly in the grip of those trade unionists who want no change and, indeed, want to go backwards.
  I reaffirm that I have also made it clear that the idea that the retailing of through tickets should be restricted to 294 stations is unacceptable. The regulator and I are as one on that. As he said in the same interview from which I have already quoted:
  "So far as I am concerned there is no difference at all between my objectives and the objectives of the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, that is to get better value for the passengers and better services."
  Lest anyone doubt the regulator's commitment to ensuring that passengers' interests are protected, I shall quote from his document, which states:
  "Privatisation and restructuring of the railways are intended to improve services to customers and stimulate innovation. In looking at new proposals to replace British Rail's current arrangements I will want to be satisfied that they are likely to achieve these objectives."

  727
  He also said:
  "In going out to consultation on the issue of ticket retailing at stations, I want to be satisfied that there will be a better rail network and better use of the network by reason of the decisions I take."
  Ms Jean Corston: As the Secretary of State appears to be incapable of dealing with reasonable questions from my hon. Friends, which reflect the genuine concerns of our constituents, I shall put a simple question to him. What advice would he give to my 81-year-old father who lives in Yeovil, has no credit card and so would not be able to make telephone bookings and who regularly travels to Bristol to visit me? How would he get his tickets?
  Dr. Mawhinney: I advise the gentleman to do two things—first, not to vote for his local Member of Parliament, and secondly, not to listen to his daughter. What his daughter and her right hon. and hon. Friends are doing is trying to scare him into believing that something will be the case when in fact the very Act of Parliament on which the proposal is based makes it clear that our aim is to produce a better service rather than a worse one.
  Mr. Bob Dunn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Labour party should make it absolutely plain this afternoon that the price of a deal between Labour and the trades union bosses is the handing over of British Rail under a Labour Government—if there were to be one—to be run by the trades unions?
  Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend anticipates what I had already warned the House would form the second part of my speech. After I deal with through ticketing I shall deal with privatisation.
  The regulator is proposing minimum obligatory standards which will be imposed on operators. That is also new. Under its old nationalised structure British Rail was under no such obligations. The same was true for other aspects of its operations. It was free to vary levels of service—and it did—subject only to very general constraints such as the statutory closure procedures. The railway operated under a system of bureaucratic centralised control with BR taking all the decisions—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Oldham, West need not sigh; it happens to be the truth. It is slightly depressing that he does not recognise the truth.
  Under privatisation things are improving. Not only will passengers get better services, they will have specific safeguards for levels of service. Henceforth, passenger services will be provided under franchise agreements that provide clear contractual obligations that operators have to meet, unlike now. They will have to provide a specified level of service set out in the passenger service requirement. They will have to meet specific standards of punctuality and reliability, unlike now. They will have to provide discounted travel for the elderly, young and disabled and—where necessary—there will be safeguards against excessive fare increases. So under privatisation passengers can look to enjoy not just better, more efficient services, but greater security that the railways will be run for their benefit.
  Let me repeat—the regulator is seeking to establish a minimum requirement to act as a safeguard. I do not believe that that minimum will in any way become the norm. It is self-evidently in the interests of operators to
  728
  make their tickets widely available. Indeed, it will be more in their interests to do that in the future than it is in BR's interests now.
  Mr. McLoughlin: Is not the difference between the Government and the Labour party that we are not prepared to see the railway industry fossilised, as it has been for some time? Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents are not bothered if they buy their rail tickets at a station? They want to know that they have access to tickets, whether from a shopping centre or a railway station.
  Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is exactly right.
  Ticket retailing will be an important part of a franchisee's business. It is his main interface with his customer. I expect operators to build on the current arrangements, using the new technology available to provide a better ticket retailing service to passengers. They do not need to be told that. No one tells the airline industry how to retail its tickets, but it has developed sophisticated, flexible and highly effective ticketing systems admirably suited to the needs of its customers. I believe that the privatised railway will do the same.
  I confirm the point made earlier by some of my hon. Friends. There is a widespread myth that all BR stations provide a full range of ticketing facilities. Even now, ticket availability at individual stations is restricted by limitations on staff resources, fares information about remote journeys and ticket-issuing equipment. At least 1,200 of BR's stations are totally unmanned and offer no staffed ticketing facility, and only about 440 stations have direct access to the seat reservation data.
  Ticket retailing will not be confined to stations. Some operators will choose to sell tickets on trains. Telephone sales will become more usual. There will continue to be sales through self-service ticket machines, and travel agents will have a role to play. Large organisations with staff using the railways will continue to be able to use travel warrants.
  So the position is clear. Through ticketing will be maintained and passengers can have an influence on its form by responding to the regulator's consultative document. For the first time in history, they can influence the sort of service that they would like to enjoy. Passengers will enjoy an expanding range of services as franchisees develop policies to satisfy existing passengers and to attract new ones.
  Dr. John Marek rose—
  Mr. John Home Robertson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Mawhinney: Not at the moment.
  More broadly, competition on the railways will offer passengers and freight customers a better deal. Do not take just my word for it. I remember being impressed by an impassioned speech which I heard at a party conference in Blackpool a few years ago. The speaker said:
  "Nothing would more stimulate a change of attitude to the travelling passenger, than allowing a little competition for the privilege of our custom".
  I agree. That is why we are privatising the railways.
  Incidentally, the House will want to know that those words were spoken by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), the leader of the Liberal Democrats. He

  729
  seems to have changed his mind. What is the right hon. Gentleman's policy today? Does he still want to see competition on our railways? If so, he and his hon. Friends will be voting with the Government this evening. If he does not, it will come as no surprise to my hon. Friends. His party does not change. It says one thing in one place and does something different somewhere else. Never judge a Liberal by his words—just look at how he votes.
  But I digress. Let me turn, for a moment, to the amazing performance of the Labour Front Bench in response to the regulator's consultation document. My hon. Friends may have thought that today was pretty amazing, but today was not the first occasion.
  The hon. Members for Oldham, West, for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) and for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) each issued a press release. Taken together, they were an embarrassment to Labour. [Interruption.] Let me help the hon. Members. The hon. Member for Oldham, West, on behalf of Labour, thought that the regulator's three options were all different and he picked the one that he liked. The hon. Member for Fife, Central, on behalf of Labour, condemned all three options, saying that they all
  "amount to the same thing".
  The hon. Member for Fife, Central, on behalf of Labour, claimed that I had been "humiliated" by the regulator. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North, on behalf of Labour, said that I had hung the regulator "out to dry". The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North, on behalf of Labour, said:
  "I understand Mr. Swift threatened to resign … That is why Mawhinney backed off."
  On "Newsnight" the regulator replied:
  "I certainly did not threaten to resign."
  The interviewer said:
  "That's what Labour are saying."
  and John Swift said, "Well, they are wrong". What a shambles. It is no wonder that the Labour party cannot formulate a policy; it cannot even formulate a sensible press release.
  Certain facts are not in dispute. Since nationalisation, under Governments of both parties, £54 billion has been invested in the railways. Every Conservative Government since the war has increased investment in British Rail. Since 1979, the Government have invested more than £15 billion in British Rail—more than £6.5 billion in the past five years. Yet, the proportion of all travel undertaken by train has fallen dramatically. In 1953, 17 per cent. of all travel was by train. Today, it is 5 per cent. In 1953, 24 per cent. of all freight was moved by train. Today it is 5 per cent.
  Mr. Denis MacShane: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Dr. Mawhinney: Not at the moment.
  To be fair to the Labour party, in speeches, the hon. Member for Oldham, West and his hon. Friends have said the same as we have. Both parties have said that
  730
  they want to halt the decline and reverse it. That is common ground between us. The question that each party must answer is—
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: If the Labour party wishes to increase the use of the railways, can my right hon. Friend explain why it backed the signalmen's strike?
  Dr. Mawhinney: That is a good question. I do not have a clue about the answer and I suspect that Labour Members do not know either. Each party must say how it plans to reverse that trend.
  Dr. Marek: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Dr. Mawhinney: No, I will not.
  We plan to do that by injecting into the railway industry private finance, private management skills, privately driven investment decisions and private sector sensitivity to what the customer wants. We believe that that will work.
  What about the Labour party? Let me tell the House the Labour party's position as I understand it. At the Labour party conference in October the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) pledged:
  "The next Labour Government will reverse the break-up and privatisation of Britain's railways."
  That is fairly straightforward.
  On 24 November, the hon. Member for Oldham, West—he is now taking refuge in a conversation because this is becoming too embarrassing—refused to back that pledge. All that he would say was:
  "Labour remains wholly committed to a publicly owned rail system."
  Dr. Marek: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Dr. Mawhinney: I will not give way.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) has noticed that the Secretary of State is not giving way. The hon. Gentleman should not continue to stand up. Perhaps he will leave a decent interval before trying to intervene again.
  Dr. Mawhinney: On new year's eve the Leader of the Opposition told the "Today" programme that he could not give any
  "cast-iron commitments in one direction or another"
  about renationalisation.
  On 9 January the Leader of the Opposition said:
  "I'm not going to get into a situation where I am declaring that the Labour Government is going to commit sums of money to renationalisation."
  On 10 January the hon. Member for Oldham, West was twisting and turning on the "Today" programme. He said:
  "if you are asking me to set out now at this moment in time exactly what we would do in the light of the state of the economy, which we do not know about, when we do not know how much of the industry and what way it has been privatised in conditions which cannot be foreseen, I cannot sensibly give that answer, but our commitment to the objective is very clear."
  Whatever that is, it is not a policy.
  Last Monday, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East refused to confirm that Labour was committed to renationalisation. This Monday he told the "Today" programme:
  "We're going to make it a publicly owned, publicly accountable railway."

  731
  Alastair Campbell, lately of the Daily Mirror and Today and now co-ordinating Labour's public messages—he must have a headache today—told David Frost on 15 January:
  "There is a commitment that there will be a publicly owned, publicly accountable railway under a Labour Government."
  Dr. Marek: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Dr. Mawhinney: No, I will not.
  Yesterday the hon. Member for Oldham, West said that the commitment given on Monday by his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East was merely an "option". What a shambles. The Labour party does not have a policy on through ticketing because it does not have a policy on the railways. Why the shifting? Why the twisting and turning?
  I am not a cynical man—
  Dr. Marek: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot just stand on the Back Benches and ask the Secretary of State to give way. It is up to any right hon. or hon. Member to decide whether to give way. Clearly, the Secretary of State does not wish to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Dr. Mawhinney: This is a short debate. I am coming to the end and I want to allow time for my hon. Friends to contribute.
  As I have said, I am not a cynical man, but if I were I might be inclined to think that the twisting and turning may he something to do with clause IV. I wonder whether it is possible that the Labour party may have been influenced by Vernon Hince of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. On 10 January on the "Today" programme he said that the
  "Labour party is committed to fighting privatisation before it happens and we would see it being returned to public ownership under a Labour Government."
  That is pretty clear. In case it was not clear enough, in Tribune on 13 January, Jimmy Knapp said:
  "We expect a … Labour Government to renationalise any part of the rail network that has been sold, including Railtrack."
  John Edmonds said that renationalisation was "a very popular move".
  So much for the "new" Labour party. It is just the same old Labour party—full of socialism and driven by the unions.
  "Working out Labour's position on rail privatisation is like catching a train.
  If you miss a policy, don't worry … there'll be another one along in an hour or two.
  Does Labour really have a clue what is going on? Because we don't.
  Last week Tony Blair refused to commit himself on whether Labour would re-nationalise the railways.
  Then John Prescott jumped in. Labour wanted a 'publicly owned, publicly accountable' rail system.
  That kept the unions and the Left-wingers happy.
  But yesterday, Mr. Prescott decided to clarify everything—and as only he can, made everything as clear as mud.
  Labour wouldn't take the railways straight back into public ownership, he appeared to say.
  British Rail would be allowed to challenge for franchises (which it can under the Tory plans in any case). Confused? Of course you are.
  But what do you expect from a party that seems to be making it up as it goes along?"
  732
  That comes from the editorial in The Sun yesterday. I wish that I was half as eloquent in condemning the nonsense from the Labour party. It leaves unanswered the fundamental question that I have put to the House which is how the Labour party plans to reverse the decline of the railway industry. It takes me back to what the Leader of the Opposition said. Last Wednesday, at a remarkably candid press conference, he told us that the British people did not trust the Labour party. He said:
  "1995 is the year in which Labour will finally re-establish a bond of trust with the British people".
  That means that the British people do not trust them at the moment.
  One of the reasons why the British people do not trust the Labour party is that the Labour party will not tell them what it has in store for them. Will it tell them what it has in store for them on education? No way. On devolution? No way. On the railways'? No way. I tried to be helpful to the Leader of the Opposition by asking some questions, but it is not only me that is asking them—radio arid television journalists and newspaper reporters across the country have been seeking answers, too.
  Mr. Hugh Bayley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a debate about through ticketing. Would it be in order for the Secretary of State to get back to the issue before the House instead of debating more general issues?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: When the hon. Gentleman is invited to take the Chair, he will be in a position to judge what is in order. Apart from his point of order, I judge that the rest of the debate has been in order.
  Mr. Dunn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I do not raise bogus points of order. A number of Members have sought to intervene and will continue to seek to catch your eye. A number of Labour Members are sponsored and controlled by trade unions but have not declared their interest. Will you please require all interventions from the hon. Members for Hampstead (Ms Jackson), for York (Mr. Bayley), for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) and for Wrexham' (Dr. Marek) and others, to declare their interest and the fact that they are controlled by transport and railway unions?
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall take other points of order in a moment. I shall rule on one at a time. It is entirely up to hon. Members to decide when to declare their interests. It is a matter of honour for individual hon. Members.
  Mr. Roger Berry: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that it is a new point of order.
  Mr. Berry: It is. Is it in order for an hon. Member to refer to the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) when that hon. Member is not present? I thought that the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) was referring to me although I represent Kingswood. I wanted to put the

  733
  record straight on that point and to make it clear that I and my colleagues are not controlled by the Transport and General Workers Union.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Many hon. Members of all parties want to make a positive contribution. I suggest that we get back to the substance of the debate.
  Dr. Marek: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am, of course, sponsored by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers but I receive no pecuniary benefit. I object to the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) saying that I am controlled by a union. It is very objectionable and does not befit the dignity of an hon. Member. May I ask him through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to withdraw his accusation which is palpably untrue? Every hon. Member says only what he believes.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already said that I believe that hon. Members behave honourably and that they are all equal in this respect. I think that we can let the matter rest there.
  Ms Glenda Jackson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was hoping that the hon. Lady wanted to intervene.
  Ms Jackson: Is it in order for an hon. Member to allege that another hon. Member attempted to conceal sponsorship when the latter has not made or attempted to make an intervention?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members are entirely responsible for what they do and say. There are plenty of methods available to hon. Members to respond to any allegations that may or may not be made.
  Dr. Mawhinney: I remind the House that this is an Opposition day. They picked the subject and the title and included privatisation in the motion. I am merely speaking to the amendment to Labour's motion.
  Let us return to the fact that the British people do not trust the Labour party. They do not trust the Labour party because the Labour party will not tell them what it has in store for them. As I was saying, it is not only me asking the questions—television, radio and newspaper reporters are asking them, too. My goodness, even the "Today" programme has started to ask them.
  I wanted to be helpful to the Leader of the Opposition so I wrote to him last Friday. I asked six simple questions and wanted six straight answers. I did not ask for warm words or for him to smile at me; I wanted six straight answers. I have not yet had a reply to my letter so I am going to give the hon. Member for Oldham, West, who is putatively in charge of Labour's policy, the opportunity to answer.
  Does the hon. Gentleman intend to renationalise the railways? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] If he does plan to do so, will compensation be paid to the shareholders of Railtrack? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Precisely how would passenger services be brought back under state control in view of the fact that legal franchises and
  734
  contracts would govern the use of the railways? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] If the hon. Gentleman and his party do not plan to renationalise the railways, what changes would they make in the way that the railways are run? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] It is amazing to my hon. Friends that I still have to ask such questions, but there was no hint of an answer in the hon. Gentleman's speech.
  The fifth question is how would—
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman is in enough trouble without the input of his Back Bench colleagues. How would he fulfil Labour's commitment to encourage more passengers and freight onto the railways? Would he invest more in the railways and, if so, how much would the shadow Chancellor allow him?
  Unlike Labour, we have a policy to reverse the decline in our railways. We are creating a modern railway. Our battle cry on behalf of passengers and businesses is, "Forward to the 21st century." Labour's battle cry on behalf of the unions is, "Forward to 1945". The Opposition do not have a policy on the railways; they have only a motion. Given the antics of their Front Bench spokesman, it is almost certainly a composite motion. I invite the House to vote against it and to do so with the disdain—
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State has been on his feet for 40 minutes but just before Christmas the House approved the Jopling proposals which state that Ministers should not speak for more than 30 minutes. As the Secretary of State is not even speaking to the motion, do you think that you could advise him that it is time that he allowed Back Benchers to speak?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: In answer to one of the hon. Gentleman's points, the Secretary of State's speech has been in order. Whether or not it was to the liking of hon. Members is not a matter for the Chair. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman is correct in what he said about the Jopling proposals, which have been approved for a trial period. They state clearly that Ministers and Front Bench spokesmen should be encouraged to speak for no more than about 30 minutes.
  Dr. Mawhinney: On that note, I invite the House to vote for the amendment. I also invite the House to vote against the motion and to do so with the disdain that it so richly deserves.
  4.58 pm
  Ms Glenda Jackson: As I invariably do if fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in debates on the railway and the rail industry, I declare an interest as the only hon. Member to be sponsored by ASLEF, the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen.
  I well understand why the Secretary of State and Tory Members do not regard today's debate as a good idea, but I assure them that Opposition Members regard it as a very good idea—as do the 64 per cent. of the British people who totally oppose privatisation of British Rail. In the last analysis, the arguments for and against privatisation boil down to one fundamental question: will privatisation provide a better or a poorer service for those who depend on the railways?

  735
  Last week we had one of the first major announcements on the practical service implications of privatisation: the Rail Regulator's proposals on through ticketing. He came up with three proposals. The first was to allow what he called "incremental change" to the current arrangements until operators could, to use the regulator's own words,
  "justify a reduction in the prescribed services at stations".
  The second proposal recommended what would amount to the virtual annihilation of through ticketing by reducing from 1,300 to 294 the number of outlets providing a through-ticket service, forcing passengers in some instances to travel up to 50 miles simply to buy a ticket. The third proposal was something of a hotchpotch and involved reducing the number of origins and destinations served by through ticketing. The Secretary of State failed to explain which of the options—slashing the current service, instantly reducing the current scope of the service or gradually reducing the scope of the current service—could possibly be deemed to provide a better service for railway customers.
  There was a time when Ministers were robust in defending the future of through ticketing. In Committee on the Railways Bill, the former Minister with responsibility for railways said:
  "Through ticketing will be mandatory … Anyone who wants to run a passenger train service must ensure that through tickets are available for all journeys … That will be an obligation."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 18 February 1993; c. 258.]
  Unfortunately, that promise has proved to be as empty as our stations and trains will be if the proposals are implemented, and almost as empty as the pledge given by the current Secretary of State for Transport who said last Saturday that he would not allow the proposal to stand but then on Monday said that there was nothing that he could do and that it was all a matter for the regulator.
  What I find particularly amazing about through ticketing and Ministers' responses is the way in which they appear to have been caught completely unawares by the proposals that the regulator has published. The Secretary of State initially said that they were unacceptable to him. But what, in all honesty, did he expect? It has always been in the interests of British Rail, as a single entity, to provide access to all its services at all points of the system. Now that British Rail is to be fragmented, however, what possible incentive is there for operators to retail tickets on behalf of other operators, many of whom are their direct competitors?
  The Secretary of State referred to ticketing facilities for airlines. Would he seriously expect British Airways to sell tickets on behalf of Virgin or vice versa? I do not believe that I would be the only person prepared to pay good money to see the Secretary of State for Transport try to explain to Sir Colin Marshall that he is expected to sell tickets for Richard Branson; there would be an international audience wanting to watch such an attempt.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Jackson: No, I will not give way.
  The present ridiculous situation has come about solely and directly because of the Government's privatisation proposals. The services provided to passengers before privatisation will he reduced or totally withdrawn after privatisation. How can that be good for the customer?
  I have not given an isolated example of the effect that privatisation will have on service quality. On Second Reading of the Railways Bill, the then Secretary of State
  736
  for Transport was asked by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) whether rail privatisation would improve reliability, improve infrastructure and improve rolling stock. The Secretary of State said:
  "The answer to all three questions is yes".—[Official Report, 2 February 1993; Vol. 218, c. 158.]
  Mr. Arnold: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Jackson: No.
  Rail privatisation was to bring us greater reliability. The headline of a copy of a press release issued in December last year by the London Regional Passengers Committee, an independent organisation set up by statute to represent the interests of rail users, stated:
  "Performance Crumbles as New Rail Structure Takes Shape". SHAPE".
  It continues:
  "the weaknesses of the new rail industry structure are beginning to appear, and the short-term outlook is bleak … Already, punctuality is falling on most commuter lines into London, and cancellation rates are up … The outlook for British Rail's passengers is grim indeed."
  We were promised that rail privatisation would improve reliability; as the group set up by statute to monitor service quality on behalf of the public says, however, far from improving reliability, privatisation is eroding it.
  The House will recall that we were also promised that rail privatisation would improve infrastructure. I have a copy of the December issue of the magazine of the Railway Development Society, "Railwatch". On the front page is an interview with Mr. John Ellis, production director of Railtrack, who states:
  "We will not necessarily support every station or every route … We want to develop the network as far as we can but it will be on a commercial basis. We cannot and should not take into account social issues."
  He added, for good measure:
  "I don't see us doing much re-equipping on the branch lines."
  We were promised that rail privatisation would improve infrastructure; yet Railtrack's own production manager admits that the quality of infrastructure on the branch lines will be allowed to deteriorate and the social value of the rail network will no longer be taken into account.
  Finally, we were promised that rail privatisation would improve rolling stock. That is the cruellest of all the broken promises that Ministers have used to bolster this broken piece of legislation. Far from improving rolling stock, the proposals mean that for the first time in its history British Rail has no new rolling stock on its order books.
  Mr. Waterson: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Jackson: No, the hon. Lady will not give way.
  An advertisement in last Friday's edition of Kent Today, placed on behalf of the ABB train manufacturing company and sponsored by the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley), states:
  "although British Rail has been due for some time to place a follow-on order for the next phase of Networkers, it has still failed to do so.
  If the order is not received by the manufacturers, ABB Transportation Ltd in York, within the next few weeks, the factory will run out of work and close with the loss of its entire workforce.
  This will mean no new trains for three years".

  737
  Will Ministers explain how the loss of 750 jobs, the closure of one of the country's last train manufacturing companies and no new trains for at least three years will benefit anyone, let alone provide a better service for the public?
  That is the central point about this piece of privatisation: whenever the question is asked whether privatisation will lead to a better service, the answer is a resounding no, whether we are talking about fares rising by double the rate of inflation, the loss of a central timetable, the loss of inter-availability of tickets or a lower passenger service requirement. We no longer have to predict the effects of privatisation; we can already see them.
  Mr. MacShane: The fundamental hostility of Ministers to the very existence of a rail service is reflected in the answers given to my parliamentary questions. Last year the Prime Minister used the rail service just once and the Secretary of State for the Environment, who should be using the rail service instead of elite, chauffeur-driven limousines, used it just five times. The President of the Board of Trade, who is supposed to be committed to British industry, used the rail service just nine times last year. The Government Front Bench have no interest in and no knowledge or practical experience of our rail service.
  Ms Jackson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, which will appear in the public record. My constituents have raised that subject with me on more than one occasion, and it deserves a wider audience.
  Almost without exception, the effects of privatisation are bad for the rail passenger and bad for the country as a whole.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Jackson: No, I will not give way.
  The Government have no coherent strategy for improving the rail service. One has only to look at the new funding regime: the budget for British Rail and Railtrack will be cut by more than £400 million in the coming financial year, with the shortfall supposedly made up by privatisation receipts to be received sometime in the distant future. Consider what happened yesterday: the Rail Regulator made one announcement about access charges and the value of those receipts was cut by an estimated £2 billion. That sum was lost to the industry in one day because of one announcement.
  Rail investment has become a privatisation lottery, with the Secretary of State for Transport the Noel Edmonds of the rail industry, constantly promising each rail manager that he will be the one to receive a Treasury windfall, when in reality the Minister is totally unable to influence events or to deliver on his promises or those of his predecessors. One can almost hear the right hon. Gentleman saying, "Don't worry, Sir Bob, it could be you".
  In this environment of fragmentation rather than co-ordination, of competition rather than co-operation, and of investment on the never-never, it is no wonder that the quality of service offered to passengers is deteriorating daily—and that is why this privatisation will ultimately fail. Whatever Ministers pledge, whatever excuses they
  738
  give and no matter how often they point to the privatisations of the past, at the end of the day people will judge privatisation on the basis of the service that they receive. As the fiasco over through ticketing has so graphically illustrated, privatisation can mean only one thing: a poorer rail service and a country that is the poorer for it.
  5.12 pm
  Mr. Barry Field: There we have it: independence for Scotland, independence for Wales and nationalisation for British Rail—a policy so popular in uniting Her Majesty's Opposition that only 12 Labour Members are present for the debate. The Opposition constantly call for more power for the regulators, but as soon as a regulator makes a pronouncement they invite the Secretary of State to intervene, clip the regulator's wings and subdue him.
  It seems to have escaped hon. Members' attention that British Rail has already been privatised. For a number of years it operated the ferries to the Isle of Wight—which were run for the sole inconvenience of the passengers. As one crunched one's way through the paper cups and fag ends, if one found a seat that was not covered with seagull poo it was probably occupied by a burly British Rail seaman. If the train arrived on time, the ferry left early; if the train was late, the ferry left before it arrived. I should also mention the wonderful British Rail sandwich available on the Isle of Wight ferry, which was so curled from staleness that when one bit into one corner the other corner poked one in the eye.
  Mr. Waterson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Has it escaped his attention that the Labour spokesman, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), spoke for more than half an hour without making one solitary suggestion as to how renationalising British Rail would improve services to passengers?
  Mr. Field: I will come to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) later in my speech.
  Mr. Sykes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, especially as the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) refused to do so. Does my hon. Friend think, like the rest of us, that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) was contributing to the wrong debate? As he was all at sea, perhaps he should have been speaking in the fishing debate which begins at 7 pm.
  Mr. Field: I will disprove some of the theories of the hon. Member for Oldham, West later.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has visited the Isle of Wight. He travelled there on the ferry, which is almost the only way to reach the Isle of Wight—as the escapees from Parkhurst discovered the other day—via one of the car ferry routes. With regard to Mr. Swift's arrangements for through ticketing, as my right hon. Friend tried to point out— though he had difficulty getting it through to Labour Members— this is a consultation document. It is clear that the Opposition do not intend to produce any policies on the subject today. According to Lord Stanley, it is the duty of Oppositions to oppose everything and to propose nothing, but I was not aware that he had also said that Opposition Members must remain silent whenever they are asked about policy.

  739
  The debate presents an ideal opportunity for me to put forward my ideas about through ticketing on behalf of the people of the Isle of Wight, knowing that my right hon. Friend the Minister will be present on the Front Bench and as attentive as ever. Mr. Swift suggests in his document that Ryde pierhead should be the through-ticketing office for the Isle of Wight, and the hon. Member for Oldham, West alluded to it in his speech. That is an extraordinary suggestion as Ryde pierhead is the most difficult of the three through-ticketing offices on the Isle of Wight to access. The other two have car parking facilities and passengers do not have to catch a train, have a long and drafty walk, or buy a ticket for their motor car and drive the length of the pier to reach those offices. Ryde is also an extraordinary choice because it is the route on which services are most subject to cancellation due to bad weather.
  Whenever I am asked to advise Ministers about travel arrangements to the Isle of Wight—it happens from time to time—I find that their staff always choose the Portsmouth to Ryde route. That seems to be the preferred route because it appears in the British Rail timetable, but it is not the most convenient route. Passengers can catch a train from Waterloo, arriving in Southampton just over an hour later, and then catch the Red Jet—which was built on the Isle of Wight— to Cowes, which takes 20 minutes. Red Funnel has had a franchise for through ticketing for British Rail for years and I am sure that it will be most concerned at the prospect of losing it. At Yarmouth, car parking facilities are conveniently located outside the ticket office.
  Mr. Bayley: The hon. Gentleman will recall that the Isle of Wight rail services were initially in the first tranche of franchises that the Government intended to put out to contract—indeed, they were due to be franchised by October last year—but the Government subsequently withdrew the Isle of Wight services from that tranche. Does the hon. Gentleman welcome the Government's decision to withdraw Isle of Wight services from the franchising timetable, or does he wish that they had gone ahead in October last year?
  Mr. Field: The hon. Gentleman is incorrect: the Government did not withdraw them. I will return to that point later in my speech. If he can contain himself, he will find that the train will eventually arrive at its destination.
  At Yarmouth passengers can purchase a ticket for the half-hour ferry journey. It is one of the few services where the train arrives at the pierhead near the ferry service in Lymington. It would be extraordinary if one had to travel virtually the length of the island—from Yarmouth to Ryde pierhead—to buy a through ticket, when at present one can buy one at Yarmouth, catch a train through to Brockenhurst, which is on the main system, and on to Wales or Scotland.
  I have taken quite an interest in British Rail and another extraordinary matter puzzles me. British Rail invested heavily in a computer system, which I understand is called Sportis. I travel regularly from the House to the Isle of Wight by train. If one does not have a ticket, the ticket collector comes round and uses a portable piece of equipment to issue one. It will issue a ticket to almost anywhere in the United Kingdom, but for some reason British Rail left the Isle of Wight out of the computerisation. Every night, when the ticket inspector goes off duty he downloads the information on to the
  740
  British Rail mainframe and that is how the costs are analysed. Having acquired that mainframe computer and the ability to issue tickets on the train throughout the system, it seems extraordinary for anyone to suggest that through ticketing is to go. Indeed, perhaps we should shut down the ticket offices and issue tickets only on the trains.
  Mention has been made of British Airways, which has a giant mainframe computer able to allocate seats and tickets all over the world.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: It may be of interest to my hon. Friend and to the House that one can book flights on Virgin Airways through British Airways by means of the computerised booking system developed by British Airways after it was privatised, so the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms 'Jackson) is totally wrong.
  Mr. Field: My hon. Friend is ahead of me. I understand that the system is called Galileo and that the Ministry cif Defence has adopted the same system for its own air transport requirements because it is so successful in allocating space.
  As for the hon. Member for Oldham, West misleading the House and being mistaken, one of the keynotes of his speech was that there was investor apathy for the privatisation of the railway. That was the spur which made me apply to speak in the debate.
  As hon. Members will know, I have been a keen advocate of privatisation of the Isle of Wight railway. which is just 12 miles long and runs from the end of Ryde pierhead to Shanklin. When I met my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell), the Minister responsible for the railways at the time, he said, "If you are going to do this, Barry, we must first assure ourselves that ministerial powers are available for the Isle of Wight railway to be sold." That took a few months. Then he said that there might be a problem with the Monopolies and Mergers Commission because we had formed a consortium on the Isle of Wight. I use the royal "we" because although I am not part of it, I was an instigator of it.
  The consortium involved one of the privatised bus companies which have been so successful. We read about Opposition Members being shareholders in such ventures and we know how tremendously successful that privatisation has been. There was concern about whether the MMC might rule out the consortium and not allow it to bid for the Isle of Wight railway system, but we got MMC clearance for the bid as the consortium does not want to be the majority shareholder and is quite happy to be the minority shareholder. Tomorrow morning I shall be meeting my hon. Friend the present junior Minister to raise the matter with him.
  I also met my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo), when he was in charge of railways, and we had several discussions. There was a feeling that, because privatisation was on the manifesto agenda, it would happen in due course anyway, so it would be premature to do it in isolation from the rest. That was fair enough. Then I met my right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), who is something of a steam and railway buff and he was very enthusiastic about the Isle of Wight railway being privatised.
  So much for the suggestion by the hon. Member for Oldham, West that there is investor apathy: on the Isle of Wight there is investor anger that we have not got on with

  741
  it yet. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering came to the Isle of Wight and met the consortium, bringing with him one of the Rail Regulator's staff. We were all horrified to be told that it was all rather difficult and that perhaps the Isle of Wight would not take first place after all.
  Another ingredient made me decide to speak today. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) also made a journey to the Isle of Wight and travelled on the railway system. I did what I always do after any hon. Member has visited the Isle of Wight, including the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). I always thank them for coming to the Isle of Wight because we need all the tourist statistics we can get. When I asked the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East how he had got on and whether people on the Isle of Wight and had made him welcome, he said that they had and that he thought that privatisation might just work for the Isle of Wight railway line.
  That is what really annoys me about the politics of the House and of the nation, and it gets right up the nose of the British people. The Opposition's policy has nothing to do with whether privatisation or nationalisation is right or wrong: it is about the Labour party's own agenda and delivering clause IV, and I can prove it. If the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East were the chairman of British Rail and we gave him half a billion pounds to improve the rail structure, I can say with certainty that he would not begin by expanding the railway system on the Isle of Wight. If my right hon. Friend were to make me the chairman of British Rail and gave me half a billion pounds to expand the system, I would not begin by expanding the railway system on the Isle of Wight either, and nor would my right hon. Friend. Certainly British Rail will never expand the system on the Isle of Wight.
  We have ideology for its own sake and we cannot get the project through even though a consortium of local business people and hoteliers believes that we can expand the system on the island. The Liberal Democrat county council is also in favour of expanding the railway system on the Isle of Wight, although it pretends not to be and the Liberal Democrat spokesman will be speaking against it today. To give the Liberal Democrats their due, however, they have backed the project fully and are as disappointed as I am that it has been delayed.
  It is a remarkable situation: I want to privatise British Rail on the Isle of Wight, and so do the Liberal Democrats, the people on the Isle of Wight, the consortium and the Ministers. Only Mr. Swift clearly does not want to privatise the railway line on the Isle of Wight. The other day he announced that the legal bill for doing so would be much too big and that it would have to be put on the back burner.
  Mr. Bayley: The hon. Gentleman kindly answered my question by saying that he is disappointed that privatisation on the Isle of Wight has been deferred. The original proposal involved what was termed a vertical privatisation whereby the private owner would own the infrastructure of the track and run the services. Is the hon. Gentleman advocating that as a pattern for privatisation
  742
  in England, Scotland and Wales? If so, will he explain why? If not, why does he feel that that should be the case on the Isle of Wight, if he still believes it to be the case?
  Mr. Field: I am glad of the opportunity to ask the hon. Gentleman why his party's manifesto does not include devolution for the Isle of Wight. As I often tell my constituents when they talk about problems in England, I am responsible only to the Isle of Wight, whose electorate sent me here, and I hope that I do a reasonable job in representing them.
  . Mr.Mawhinney: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's commitment to his constituents. He is saying, in effect, that the private sector's enthusiasm and commitment to passengers will be so great that it will not need to be told that ways must be found to make it easy for people to buy tickets. The private sector understands that that is an essential part of its success. As regards the consultation document, I hope that my hon. Friend and his constituents will make their views clearly known to the Rail Regulator as this is the first time in British Rail's history that they have an opportunity to help shape our future railways.
  Mr. Field: My right hon. Friend knows me well enough to assume that Mr. Swift will receive robust letters on that point from me and from more than a few of my constituents.
  When an industry, business or other undertaking is in the hands of the state, the customer is seen as the enemy—a bit of an inconvenience. When such concerns are privatised, however, customers are seen as an opportunity and as friends. That is precisely what has happened with privatisations thus far. When British Rail ran ferries, we saw staff with glum faces and scruffily turned out, scruffy ships and all the problems to which I alluded earlier. Everything was done for the sole inconvenience of the customer. Today, the same employees who once worked for a nationalised industry are smart in appearance, proud, know who they work for and, above all, know that the customer is king.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering was 100 per cent. behind the Isle of Wight consortium to which I referred. The other day, he telephoned me with remarkably good news from the Ministry of Defence. He said that the Government were ordering 24 of the C 130J Hercules aircraft, which is good news for Westland Aerospace. When I asked my right hon. Friend whether they would be operational from the moment they were delivered, there was a long pause. Then he said, "Yes, they will—why do you ask?" I replied, "Because I would like their first task to be to bomb the office of the Rail Regulator so that we can get some action by him as soon as possible."
  5.32 pm
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I shall not take a journey around the Isle of Wight because I want to return to the subject of the debate. That has nothing to do with the fact that, when I visited the island recently, I was not welcomed by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), even though I took full advantage of its transport facilities.
  Unfortunately, the Secretary of State has left the Chamber, but I shall pay the same attention as he did to the detail of statements. He made much fun of statements taken out of context, but I shall quote a statement precisely in

  743
  context. It was made to my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) after hon. Members in the House and in Committee, from all parties, pressed for information about what guarantee the Government would give on the continuation of through ticketing. The right hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), then Minister for Public Transport, said:
  "Through ticketing will be mandatory through the licensing system. Anyone who wants to run a passenger train service must ensure that through tickets are available for all journeys…That will be an obligation."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 18 February 1993; c. 258.]
  According to members of the Government Front Bench, that statement can now be interpreted as meaning that anyone who wants to run a passenger train service could provide only one outlet offering through ticketing—for example, the west of England could be covered by just Port Talbot station and, if the Secretary of State is right, the obligation would be met. That is patent nonsense. Even if that is the way that the Secretary of State intends to interpret the assurance given by the right hon. Member for Kettering, the House will not tolerate an attempt to undermine an assurance which, no doubt, was made with all honesty and integrity.
  The Minister said also that there was a statutory obligation to take account of the Secretary of State's guidance. If we cannot be told what the guidance is, what is the statutory obligation? Promises and performance do not tally.
  We are confronted with the extraordinary core list. The Minister said that it was only one of three options. It is curious that the core option is spelt out in so much detail but that the two others represent a diminution of the present position. The regulator's document makes a token examination of the two other options, and nothing that the Secretary of State said this afternoon has changed the rationale behind the document.
  There is madness afoot, in the way that the regulator is approaching the planning of our rail network. Towns as large as Yeovil and Peterborough seem to be denied through ticketing. The right hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) may care to explain why his town has been overlooked.
  The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): I do not want to allow the hon. Gentleman to go too far down a dead end. There was a transcription error in the document, whereby parts of Edinburgh were included twice and Peterborough was omitted. It was never the regulator's intention not to include Peterborough.
  Mr. Tyler: The Minister took the words out of my mouth. There was an oversight. The document was issued without Peterborough being included, which is precisely my point. Such sloppy thinking has gone into—
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Was it within your hearing that the words used by my hon. Friend the Minister were "a transcription
  744
  error"? Has that not been translated by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) into "an oversight"? Are not the meanings quite different?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): My hearing is exceptionally good and the hon. Gentleman is correct—but it is not for me to judge how any hon. Member interprets words used on either side of the Chamber.
  Mr. Tyler: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support. My point is that, if the transcription was a mistake, why was it overlooked? I hope that the right hon. Member for Peterborough will explain to his constituents why such an important railway station came to be overlooked.
  Dr. Marek: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Tyler: I shall not give way again; I must make progress.
  I suspect that the Peterborough question—or the Yeovil question, if the House prefers—will come to haunt the Secretary of State, as the West Lothian question has come to haunt the Leader of the Opposition.
  Other areas of the country will not have the benefit of through ticketing. Newbury, serving a large area of Berkshire, will be without it, as will Lichfield, Stowmarket and Liskeard. The whole of south-east Cornwall will be without even one core station. People in that area will have to cross the national boundary into England, to Plymouth, to obtain through tickets. That will not only cause inconvenience but mean additional costs. If people have to take one single ticket journey after another, it is quite possible that there will be an increase of about 20 per cent. in the cost of their journey.
  Mr. Nigel Evans rose—
  Mr. Tyler: No, I want to make progress.
  The rationale for this proposal—if that is not too flattering a word—is that the Government want all the train operators, of which there will be dozens after privatisation, to be able to issue their own tickets. Unfortunately, however, the Minister does not seem to have realised that the combinations that result from that are so complex, with so many different tickets, that only a few highly trained squads of crack ticket task forces will be able to understand what on earth is going on, hence the proposal for core stations.
  Of course, ticket chaos is already rife. I am advised that there are now no fewer than 17 different return tickets for journeys between London and Birmingham alone, and the difficulty of getting information out of stations at either end is already considerable. The Minister says that this is all done to encourage diversity and choice, but diversity is a sham when no one can explain what is on offer, and choice means chaos when the consumer cannot weigh up the options.
  As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight mentioned, there is a system that allows those who cannot get a ticket at an unmanned station to obtain one for most destinations from a portable computerised ticket machine. For instance, on the Newquay to Par branch line, people can obtain through tickets to almost anywhere—as long as the British Rail network is still in existence. What we have not heard from the Secretary of State today is whether it is intended that that system should be taken apart or made obsolete or whether some new system of portable through ticketing should be made available in its place. It is

  745
  because such a system fills in the gaps in the network at present that those who start their journeys from one of the unmanned stations can obtain a reasonable service en route.
  We should surely be demanding an expansion and improvement of the ticketing system. After all, the technology is in place already; I understand that any station with a telephone line can provide this service. We should, therefore, not tolerate any retreat to a second-class service.
  There is a sinister undercurrent to all this. The debacle is symptomatic of the Government's attitude towards privatisation in general; it is a portent of things getting worse. If through ticketing is for the chop, what are we to make of ministerial assurances about integrated timetables which we were given at the same time? My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has already referred to the difficulties of obtaining timetables. In many places, passengers will have to cross-reference between piles of pamphlets. What we need is a national passenger information service, providing seamless journeys, through ticketing and through timetable information.
  What are we to make of the promises we were given at the same time about through train services? Horror stories are already surfacing about the difficulties that have become apparent even before the franchisees come on the scene. Operators will become so desperate to meet their punctuality targets that they are likely to decide that connections are of less importance. The logical conclusion is that, if operators ran no trains at all, they would be able to guarantee 100 per cent. punctuality.
  It takes no genius to see that the upshot of all this is that even more people will desert the railways for their long-distance journeys. At present, a number of important holiday resorts in Devon and Cornwall benefit from Saga Holidays' use of through trains, with through ticketing and through services—not to mention the through timetables which are of critical importance to Saga's elderly holidaymakers, who routinely travel by train from the north of England to most of the major resorts in the south-west. In future, Saga says, they will go by coach. That will lessen the chances of maintaining a viable rail service and will put more pressure on the roads.
  The conclusion to be drawn from all this muddle is that the Government want a minimalist, slimmed-down railway which will not pose a challenge to the great car economy which they used to champion. No doubt, the Minister will say that he is building a railway fit for the 21st century, or some such platitude. He came close to using one again this afternoon. More probably, he is building a railway fit for the scrap heap.
  The motion is drawn in strictly limited terms, but the Government amendment opens up the whole privatisation can of worms. No doubt that is why a number of Conservative Members seemed to be shaking in their shoes. Perhaps they have been listening to their constituents on the subject of the unpopularity of this "privatisation too far" or, as The Daily Telegraph calls it, this "poll tax on wheels". I have good news for them. For the reasons that I set out in Monday's debate, I believe that the privatisation of Railtrack before polling day now
  746
  looks increasingly unlikely, so Tory Members may be spared the experience of going to the electorate with Railtrack already in the private sector.
  I believe, too, that the alleged attractions of the franchises are proving far from convincing, which is why so few bids are in. For our part, we have said—I said it on Monday—that we shall use our influence to retain or reclaim a golden share in Railtrack, to ensure that the network remains a public service. The Secretary of State quoted my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). I agree entirely with what my right hon. Friend said. We have repeatedly made it clear that we have no objections to introducing an element of competition—to the Isle of Wight or to any area where that would be appropriate but within a national railway network and only if there is a framework of guaranteed public service obligations, together with a national long-term transport plan.
  Next week, we shall be able to take stock again, because we expect then to have the announcement by the Office of the Passenger Rail Franchising Director on minimum service specifications. If that announcement is in line with the sort of thinking exhibited by the Secretary of State this afternoon, and by last week's report from the regulator, we shall have further confirmation of the fact that standards are to be drastically lowered. Even the limited requirement that last year's timetable should form the base point for improved services in future will be torn up.
  Perhaps all this does not bother Ministers. We know that the Prime Minister does not use trains—I understand that he has been on one only once since becoming Prime Minister—but the travelling public cannot afford to be so optimistic. This plan for rail privatisation is a one-way ticket to disaster. It is time someone pulled the emergency cord and stopped the train.
  5.46pm
  Mr. Matthew Banks: In view of the limited time available, I propose to keep my remarks short so as to be fair to other hon. Members who wish to speak.
  Regrettably, far too much time was wasted earlier in the debate. When I saw the Opposition motion on today's Order Paper, it struck me that this was a debate of National Union of Students standard—it was all about playschool politics. It gives me no pleasure to say that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) came into the Chamber today with few notes and very little of substance to say.
  One of the benefits of a national railway network is through ticketing. Parliament has expressly required the regulator to promote through ticketing as a network benefit, now and in future. That is why the Opposition motion is so silly. I feel that the hon. Member for Oldham, West could have done a great deal better. He did not even answer any of the points put to him by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We heard only the usual mishmash, "One day we will renationalise; the next day we won't." I feel sorry for the hon. Gentleman, because all too often in recent days I have heard remarks on the subject of transport made by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), who is no longer an Opposition transport spokesman but who appears to give advice to the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish). The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), also no longer an Opposition

  747
  transport spokesman, appears to have taken the lead in these matters, and Alastair Campbell seems to be telling Opposition Members what they should be saying.
  The Transport Select Committee quite rightly took a critical but constructive look at the Government's proposals, and the Government listened and acted on virtually all its suggestions. I was struck by how many British Rail employees privately told members of the Committee that they, acting as individuals or collectively, could provide a better service for the travelling public.
  In this debate, as in similar debates over the past couple of years, we have heard far too little from Opposition Members about the necessity of improvements for the travelling public. That is what the Government's proposals are about. It is all very well for the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) to say that he and his party agree with increased competition, when he wants British Rail to remain lock, stock and barrel in the public sector. There must be change if some of the improvements that the Government want are to come to fruition.
  Mr. Tyler: If the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard tomorrow, he will find that what he suggests is not what I said. The commitment that I gave this evening and on Monday was specific. I hope that he will do me the honour of at least reading what I had to say in Hansard.
  Mr. Banks: If I am wrong, I shall, of course, apologise. I know from personal experience, however, that the hon. Gentleman is not different from his Liberal Democrat colleagues: he says one thing in this place, one thing in his constituency, one thing at one end of his constituency and another thing at the other end of it.
  Those of us who want to improve the quality of service to the travelling public back the Government's rail privatisation proposals. We should give those individuals who have said privately that they could do better individually or collectively the chance to do so through the franchising mechanism that the Government are putting in place to give a better deal to the travelling public. We must make rail travel more attractive and, above all, attract more people on to the railways and off the roads.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West talked about the number of through stations where we can buy a through ticket. Even though only half the stations in the United Kingdom are staffed, there are wide discrepancies between the sort of tickets that we can buy from different British Rail operators and from different stations. It is necessary to book in advance for many tickets to obtain them at a competitive price. It is necessary also to book a seat. Booking is necessary for a variety of other reasons, all of which are positive and are designed to improve the service that is available to the travelling public. I am not concerned at the fact that many tickets and fares are available.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) talked about the airlines. A person who wants to use one route from one destination to another will find that a wide range of fares is available. That choice is important. All too often, we hear, especially from trade union sponsored Labour Members—particularly those sponsored by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers—about what is important to the union interest. Insufficient consideration is given to the travelling public.
  748
  Ticketing in the current British Rail set up has not been the result of statutory regulation or legal obligation; instead, it has been brought about by the commercial wisdom and know-how of those within British Rail. That is exactly what will happen within the new privatised franchises. Those who run the franchises will have a vested interest in encouraging as many people as possible to use their services.
  The introduction of new ideas and privatisation will increase choice. That has happened in and between the airlines and it will happen within the railways. British Airways is not, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in quoting an Opposition spokesman, the pantomime horse of capitalism; instead, it has been a rip-roaring success. When the travelling public recognise the benefits of franchising in years to come, they will not see renationalisation as something on the menu that they might wish to choose. They will not take that view when they have experienced the substantial improvements that franchising will bring about.
  As I have said, British Rail has no current statutory minimum service for ticketing. That is the point behind the regulator's consultation document. The hon. Member for Oldham, West said that there are just one or two paragraphs in the report on the existing system and a great deal on core and secondary services. It is not necessary to write many paragraphs on the present system, because everybody knows about it. We want maximum opportunities for passengers to buy through tickets to continue. The best solution to emerge from the debate would be new standards in the provision of service, with independent decision making by operators and standards prescribed and enforced by the regulator.
  The current arrangements must form the starting point. For a period, the regulator should approve all changes within certain criteria. After a given time, operators such as British Rail should be able to exercise more and more of their own commercial judgment when introducing new ideas and innovation to improve the service that they provide. In short, changes must be gradual and incremental. I have no doubt that that is exactly what will happen.
  We have not heard Opposition Members, and especially those on the Opposition Front Bench, set out their ideas on how they would improve the service. I have referred before to the fuddle and muddle of Opposition statements. Indeed, a press officer for the Leader of the Opposition has contradicted Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen. It is sad to look across the Chamber and recognise that if ever there were a Labour Government, probably not one of the present Opposition Front-Bench team—well, possibly one for the sake of continuity—would end up as a Minister in the Department of Transport.
  At one stage, the Leader of the Opposition is back-pedalling on renationalisation; the next minute, he is saying, "Yes, we need to follow that route." Where is he? I gather that he is travelling the country trying to drum up support for getting rid of clause IV. Why is there fuddle and muddle on the Opposition Front Bench? The National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers and other union influence have ensured that the Leader of the Labour party knows that he will not be able to ditch clause IV if he does not stick to his guns on renationalising British Rail.

  749
  What a way to carry on. What a contradiction. That is not the way forward. The public will not be fooled now or at the ballot box come the next general election by such nonsensical thinking by Opposition Members.
  If the Labour party were to win the next general election, the union barons who are their pay masters would come out of the woodwork, as they are beginning to do now. I Live no doubt that the interests of the unions would be put before the interests of the travelling public. It is the interests of the travelling public that have made me so supportive of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench. The Government amendment contains the most sensible balance to be found in the Order Paper and I shall have no hesitation in supporting the Government.
  5.59 pm
  Dr. John Marek: We heard much invective from the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks), but little sound advice of which the House could take notice. I can advise the hon. Gentleman that the next Labour Government—yes, the Labour party will win the next general election and there will be a, Labour Government—will take the railways back under public control and ownership. The quicker that that is done, the better. We shall do so for good reasons, one of them being that we want an integrated transport system.
  In the area that I represent, rail connections with Chester have already been broken. Regional Railways prefers travellers from Wrexham who are making a journey to the capital or to the midlands to use sprinters, using Regional Railways stock. It discourages them from going to Chester—to go up the Trent valley using InterCity stock. The Government have no answer to that. There are no longer any decent connections at Chester for travellers from Wrexham to other places in the United Kingdom. That is something that privatisation cannot solve. I predict that the disintegration of the service will become greater.
  Liberals a re sometimes their own worst enemies. I thought that I would be helpful to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) about the contents of the consultation paper. I was on the Minister's side when it came to interventions. The hon. Gentleman did not even allow me to intervene in his speech. I wanted to tell him that Wrexham does not appear in the paper.
  Why is Wrexham not in the document? It is a borough of 115,000 people. One criterion that appears in the consultation paper is to be found on page 29, where it is stated that all towns and cities with a population of more than 50,000 will have at least one core station. There are four stations within the borough of Wrexham. Two are in the centre, where there is a population of well over 50,000. As I said, Wrexham does not appear in the consultation document.
  There are plenty of things wrong with the consultation paper, but let me take it a little further. One little secret has been kept from the public and from the House in the debate so far. It is simplified by reading page 1, the regulator's foreword. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said, 21 pages deal with cutting the number of stations in the British Isles where one can buy through tickets. That cannot possibly be an
  750
  improvement in services. I know that Conservative Members have been standing on their heads trying to pretend that such consultation papers are improvements in services, but they are not. The regulator says, in the first line:
  "One of my duties under the Railways Act is to promote the use of the railway network."
  The regulator talks about customers, about service, about better railways. That is one of his duties. Does he tell us another of his duties? It is in section 4 of the Railways Act—to promote economy in the British railway network. That has not been mentioned. The Secretary of State did not mention economy. Perish the thought that that word should cross his lips. What it is about is an economic sanction being applied, and, of course, the British railway traveller will pay for the Government's decision to privatise the railways, if it ever comes about.
  I accept that the Minister said that through ticketing will be available, give or take a few stations, in more or less the same stations as we have at present. But the problem is a little deeper. I hope that the Minister is listening, because I would appreciate a reply if one can be given, although in some instances the absence of a reply is rather telling. Will through ticketing be available at the best prices for the day of travel? I can see grave difficulties and that, I suspect, is why we are debating the matter.
  This is not infantile, as Conservative Members have sought to make out. I know all about Conservative briefings and I am willing to bet that the words "infantile" or "petty" have appeared in the briefing that is handed out in the Whips Office to all the hon. Members who are dragged in to make their speeches. By and large they never use the railways, or very rarely. They are dragged into the Chamber on pain of not getting any further promotion, or whatever.
  If through ticketing is to remain—this is a serious question—will any person going to a station to get a through ticket be able to get one at the best possible price on the day of travel? It would be easier, perhaps, to promise that if one was buying the ticket two or three weeks in advance, but what if one wanted to travel that day or the next? It is possible that one might pay standard class fares when there may be offers from another station, and if one booked a ticket to that station and rebooked, one might pay a cheaper price. That is something that the Government will have to face up to if this mad scheme ever comes about. I do not think that it will, because there is another problem.
  There are literally tens of thousands of ways in which to book tickets, and if there are to be different operating companies, they will have different offers at different times and on different days. Some companies might have cheaper tickets after 4 o'clock, some after 7 o'clock. I do not believe that British Rail or the Rail Regulator, at this stage, has the ability through the computer system to get everything right.
  British Rail's system is called Tribute. As far as I understand it, British Rail says that everything is going smoothly at the moment, but I do not believe that it has the ability to cope at this stage. The comparison with airlines is wrong, because airline ticketing is much easier. It is true that there are different fares, but the destinations by and large are the same or grouped for the same fare.

  751
  The rules are much easier. The rules for rail through ticketing will be very complicated, and I suspect that that is why the Government are in trouble.
  Mr. Matthew Banks: The hon. Gentleman referred to airlines. Why should the system that may operate when franchising takes place, with a variety of different fares available at different times, from different locations and ticketed in a variety of ways, be any less a means of providing choice and value for money to the travelling public using the railways than the airline industry?
  Dr. Marek: My contention is that the system on the railway is much more complicated and is liable to vary in a much more complicated way and with much greater frequency. I do not believe that the Government can do it.
  I should be grateful if the Minister gave the assurance when he replies that through ticketing will continue at the best available price. Let us remember that many people go to ticket offices. I know that a business traveller with a credit card can go to a travel agent or whatever and get his ticket whenever he likes two or three days in advance, but most of my constituents turn up at the railway station. They have either a £10 or a £20 note. They do not quite know where or when they are going. They do not know the fare structure, but they want to buy a ticket there and then and be off. It would be a disgrace if passengers were inconvenienced by withdrawal of through-ticketing facilities.
  Let me draw to the attention of the House a previous debate that we had. As a member of the Committee that considered the Railways Bill, I should perhaps repeat that I am sponsored by the RMT, although I have said it once before. I do not want anybody to be under any misapprehension. On 16 February 1993, I tabled an amendment to what was then clause 4 of the Bill, making it the priority of the Rail Regulator to promote the railway network and to give it precedence over economies and efficiencies in the railway network. That was not acceptable to the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman). He said:
  "I recommend the Committee to reject the amendment. All the duties are important. I concede that the first two are extremely important."—
  that is, promoting the railway system. He said that the third duty was to provide for economies on the railway system, and continued:
  "I recommend the hon. Member for Wrexham not to attempt to put the regulator in a straitjacket. We have set out his duties clearly in the Bill. They are comprehensive and sensible. Let us not attempt to prioritise them. We must let the regulator make his own decision."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 16 February 1993; c. 136.]
  If one wanted to make a right old mess of anything, the Government did just that. They did it in Committee and are now paying the penalty. One of the reasons why they do not like this debate is that the average passenger, the average citizen, who will vote in a general election in the next two years, understands very well what the debate is about. It is not about airy-fairy economics, monetary supply, or relations with Cambodia or anywhere else. It is about being able to travel on a train when one wants to, to understand the system and not have to pay too much for it and to have the convenience of getting a ticket when one wants it. The public understand that. Unfortunately, Conservative Members do not.
  6.9pm
  Mr. James Clappison: I welcome this opportunity to make a brief contribution to the debate, which has already had some distinguished contributions by Conservative Members. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) on managing the keep within the time limit that he set himself. He dealt with matters in some detail and gave the House an idea of some of the pressures that Opposition Front-Bench Members will have to face from their Back Benchers in favour of nationalisation. That came out quite clearly in his speech.
  I wish to raise an important matter that is of great interest to my constituents. Although I welcome the opportunity to raise it, my first reaction when I saw the Opposition motion was one of some surprise. Although railway through ticketing is an important subject, it is surprising that the Opposition chose it for debate when there are so many other important issues before the House at the moment, and when the Opposition have chosen this time to launch important debates on matters such as devolution, which, incidentally, may enter into this debate.
  If the Opposition were to have their way and set in train a course of events that broke up the United Kingdom, we might be unable to procure through tickets to Scotland. We would arrive at the Scottish border, pay a border tax to go into Scotland and then be unable to purchase a ticket for the return journey because the trains would be full of Scots people trying to escape from the high taxation being imposed on them by an Edinburgh assembly.
  That is not the only reason why this seems a strange debate. We are debating a consultation document. It is strange for the Opposition to use their time to debate a document that is about the best way of achieving certain ends on which the Government have given firm commitments and which, as my right hon. Friend has said, the Government have a statutory duty to procure.
  The fact that we are considering a consultation document places certain limits on the debate. It makes it impossible to do as the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) did and call upon the Minister to give a cast-iron guarantee that the operation will be carried out in a particularly detailed way. It is impossible for the Minister to give such a guarantee when the consultation document is about the best way forward. I would not for a moment accuse the hon. Gentleman of deliberately asking the Minister for a guarantee on something on which it is impossible for the Minister to give a guarantee. It is probably an oversight on his part, if I may put it that way.
  Mr. Tyler: It was precisely because Ministers gave those assurances, which Conservative and Opposition' Members took to be guarantees, that this debate is taking place.
  Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman illustrates the distinction that I made between guarantees given by the Minister and matters of detail concerning the way in which those guarantees will be fulfilled. That is what the hon. Gentleman was referring to and that is what the consultation document is all about.
  I rest upon the criterion by which the proposal will be judged, which is contained in the consultation document. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said that there was nothing in the consultation document about

  753
  having a better railway service at the end of the day. But if he had got as far as page 2, he would have found in paragraph 4 that the regulator had set himself the following criterion:
  "I want to be satisfied that there will be a better rail network and better use of the network by reason of the decisions I take."
  One can dispose of the debate on through ticketing by urging my right hon. Friend the Minister to judge the consultation by that criterion. To be fair, my right hon. Friend gave every sign that that was just the criterion that he would apply.
  That brings me to an important point that has been missed by some Opposition Members, which is the nature of privatisation itself. Like other Conservative Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks), who spoke so forcefully on the subject, I look forward to privatisation delivering benefits to railway users across a wide range of railway services. I see no reason to doubt that they will bring the same entrepreneurial spirit, the same innovation and the same skills as have been brought to so many other privatisations.
  During the debate, we have heard all the scare stories that we have heard about privatisations in the past. But the important point, which Opposition Members must regard in a responsible way, is that it is vital for passengers that this privatisation is a success. The process is in train and its success is important if a good service is to be provided. We shall be letting down our constituents if, in our actions or words, we do anything to undermine the success of the venture.
  We have heard much today about what has been said during the past week by Opposition Members on the subject. I do not want to go over the glaring differences that have already been amply exposed, but it is impossible to leave things as they stand. There is a glaring difference between Opposition Members as to whether they want the privatisation to succeed.
  Yesterday we heard the news that the regulator was reducing by 8 per cent. the rents to be paid by privatised train companies. Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen could not make up their minds whether that was a good thing. In The Daily Telegraph today, the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) is quoted as saying that the rent cut would make Railtrack less attractive to the private sector. He was therefore criticising the Government for making the privatisation unattractive to potential operators.
  At the same time, the hon. Member for Oldham, West is quoted in the same edition of The Daily Telegraph, somewhat ironically juxtaposed on the same page, as saying that pulling the privatised companies back into the public sector remained an option. The report went on to say:
  "In a sparsely veiled warning, he said: 'We are going to draw the attention of investors to the risk involved in that they will be dependent on continuing levels of high public subsidy.'"
  Spelling out such a warning is damaging to the process of privatisation and getting good management on to the railway. It is also damaging to the interests of railway users.
  754
  I hope that the hon. Member for Fife, Central will deal with the question of ownership when he replies. The present state of play came from the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) yesterday. He is quoted in The Guardian yesterday as saying:
  "We will allow those contracts"—
  which are to be allocated under the privatisation programme—
  "to continue and when they are up we want a publicly owned and publicly accountable railway."
  One must take into account the fact that those contracts will last for seven years. How does that leave railway users and franchise operators during that seven years? It is more serious than the Labour party simply having a seven-year itch for a bit of nationalisation. It affects the railway's future during those seven years. How can franchise operators operate a franchise for seven years knowing that at the end of that time their franchises will come to an end and the system will be taken into public ownership? That is a recipe for chaos and confusion in our railway system for the next seven years.
  No one would award a franchise under such circumstances. No one would take up a franchise with any confidence if there was a threat of renationalisation after seven years. The hon. Member for Fife, Central shakes his head. I should be grateful if he clarified what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East said and said whether that is Labour party policy. I shall willingly give way to him if he wishes to do so. He remains in his seat. I hope that he will specifically say whether the Labour party has a definite commitment to renationalise the railways after seven years. Such a policy would be a recipe for chaos and confusion over seven years for railway users—for my constituents who depend on the railway service.
  During the next seven years and beyond, I look forward to a railway service under private ownership having all the benefits of other privatised industries. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to proceed with that course.
  6.18pm
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) is worried about a seven-year backing for franchisers, but it is a pity that he has not been worried about backing for a railway system which has meant that the United Kingdom has the lowest level of investment in rail infrastructure in Europe. It would be more appropriate if he turned his attention to that.
  This is a highly specific debate, but it affects all rail users and so is of great concern to the general public. Although the Government are trying to dismiss it as being trivial, it is anything but trivial to people who have to use rail transport and to people who wish to see a properly funded and operating rail transport system.
  The Government gave clear promises regarding through ticketing, but it is not clear whether they can or will deliver those promises. The public have had a comprehensive, country-wide integrated rail system, but they now see that that system is in danger of fragmentation as it goes through a Government experiment. No one can judge the outcome of that, but many of us are extremely worried by what we have seen in the early stages of the Government's plans. The rail

  755
  system needs investment and modernisation, but the Government are delivering simply a strong dose of ideology.
  The debate is about the practical consequences of the Government's policy and philosophy. Their privatisation scheme is creating a fragmentation of rail service provision and control whose consequences are just beginning to become apparent. From a unified, easily identifiable network is emerging a shattered, stuttering, incomplete system. The Government should not be surprised by the reaction to their plans, which could mean that only one railway station in eight will sell a complete range of tickets. Currently, 1,580 stations sell through tickets.
  The public watchdog, the Central Rail Users Consultative Committee, has observed:
  "Making people travel 50 miles on a 2 hour round trip to buy a ticket and then clutch a pack of cards to go by train is quite bizarre."
  The committee is entirely correct.
  It is feared that only one in eight of Britain's 2,500 railway stations will sell a range of tickets enabling passengers to travel anywhere in the area controlled by what may soon be 25 franchisees in the new divided rail system. Of the three options given by the regulator, only that one is described in detail; no such space is accorded to the alternative—a considerable increase in the number of stations selling tickets.
  Indeed, privatisation seems designed to make rail travel more difficult and expensive. The administrative costs of preparation, including legal and City fees, have been estimated at over £700 million. Surely it would he far better to invest such a large sum in services than to waste it by implementing an experiment intended to fulfil the Government's narrow-minded ideology, against the wishes of the general public.
  Railtrack will be required to earn a much higher return on capital, and the higher fees to franchise holders will be passed on in higher passenger costs. I have heard nothing from the Government to dispel that worry. An estimated 90 per cent. of their income will have been pre-empted by access charges to Railtrack and fees to the rolling stock leasing companies. There is a real danger that services will have to be cut drastically so that they can generate the profits that shareholders have now come to expect. That must lead to fewer passengers and higher fares. The Government should heed that warning, because it came from the House's own Transport Select Committee, but so far I have seen no sign that they are listening to the views of a Committee that contained many of their own Back Benchers.
  The debate is, in itself, a warning of forthcoming unattractions: unmanned stations, fewer ticket outlets and fewer services at stations. That adds up to a fall in service standards that the Government are describing as an improvement, which strikes me as monumental cheek. Gaps are opening up between the Secretary of State for Transport and the regulator—as we have heard today—between the public and their rail service provision, between different sections of the rail industry and between different types of provision; all that is a consequence of Government policy.
  Let me ask a question that the Secretary of State ducked earlier. How will he use his powers of guidance vis-a-vis the rail regulator? Will guidance on through ticketing become an instruction? That question is at the heart of the
  756
  debate. I stand to be corrected, but I believe that, under his own legislation, the Secretary of State cannot interfere with the regulator's independence. What exactly is the relationship between the publicly elected Secretary of State and the unelected, unaccountable regulator? Who will make the final decision?
  The relationship between the Government and the regulator is at the heart of the debate. Under the Railways Act 1993, the regulator takes "direction" from the Secretary of State until the end of next year; but the regulator will determine the size of the network because he is the final decision maker on line closures—and for that he is paid £125,000 a year and is given 50 members of staff. No wonder the public are fed up, and worried about yet another growth in. quangos—bodies that are unelected and unaccountable, and are making decisions that affect all our daily lives.
  The Government cannot escape the fact that they made clear promises on through ticketing. We are entitled to ask why they did not include guarantees on present levels of through ticketing as part of any franchising deal. The Secretary of State said today, clearly and unequivocally, that through ticketing would be maintained; but how does he know, and who will decide? Ministerial bluster will not hide the threadbare nature of past promises and the present failure to deliver.
  The Secretary of State was very good at asking questions of the Opposition Front Bench, but managed to avoid answering questions about through ticketing. Will he make the final decision? Will he, the elected Minister, decide whether through ticketing is to be maintained at present levels, or will that be decided by an unelected, unaccountable regulator? I regret to say that, in this age of quangos, the answer lies in the right hon. Gentleman's avoidance of that key question: it speaks volumes.
  Power is being taken from the people, against whose wishes these privatisation measures are being imposed. Apparently, a direct Government promise is now in the hands of an unelected regulator acting through an unelected, unaccountable quango. That is what the Government have brought us to, and they will take the full blame at the next general election.
  6.25pm
  Mr. Nigel Evans: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. Opposition Members have said that Conservative Members are unhappy that the debate is taking place, but that is nothing to do with what they have said. The whole debate is facile: all the arguments have been rehearsed in the Chamber before, during debates on the original question of privatising the railways.
  I am as confused now as I was before about the Opposition's policy on the railways, and I do not think that they know exactly what it is either. I will not take any lectures from Opposition Members who have now started to bleat about their concern for people who use the railways, given that theirs was the party that supported a signalmen's strike that brought misery and discomfort to many millions of passengers throughout a dreadful period; I do not think that they can give us any lectures about the care and service that we want customers of the railways to receive in future.
  It is the same old story of scaremongering. Opposition Members are trying to scare passengers into thinking that they will be given a worse service after privatisation. We

  757
  heard the same arguments in regard to all the earlier privatisations. In an excellent article, today's Daily Express talks of "Power to the people", referring to several of the privatisations that Opposition Members opposed. It mentions British Airways, for instance. I do not know whether any Opposition Members will stand up and say, "If we win the next general election, we will nationalise British Airways again", but I do not think that very likely. As a nationalised company, British Airways was losing taxpayers' money hand over fist, but profits for the last six months are expected to be around £450 million. It is the world's favourite airline. We want to ensure that ours is the world's favourite railway system—and we can do it, with the same efficiency savings that have been brought to bear on British Airways.
  British Telecommunications is another example. Opposition Members put out their scaremongering stories about what would happen, saying that there would be fewer telephone boxes—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate is about railway privatisation and through ticketing; we do not want to hear a whole lot of questions about other privatisations.
  Mr. Evans: I will move on, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was trying to draw a parallel, and to show the difference between what Opposition Members are saying now and the reality following privatisation, but I shall return to the subject of railways and through ticketing.
  I wonder whether any Opposition Members have bothered to read the regulator's report. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) said that he was not sure whether the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) had got as far as page 2; I have grave concerns about whether he even reached page 1. Paragraph 3 states:
  "Privatisation and restructuring of the railways are intended to improve services to customers and stimulate innovation. In looking at any new proposals to replace British Rail's current arrangements I shall want to be satisfied that they are likely to achieve these objectives."
  The first sentence of a press notice issued by the regulator on Wednesday 11 January, which I am sure Opposition Members have seen, states:
  "The rail regulator, John Swift…today invited views on the future arrangements for the retailing of through and other tickets at stations in the restructured railway industry …
  There are a number of options canvassed in this consultation paper. They range from enforcing the status quo to a radical change in concept, the core station and the core services."
  It should be fairly clear to everyone that this is a consultation paper and that Opposition Members and the public have until 28 February to make their views known. That is why this debate is facile. No firm decisions have been taken and it is reprehensible for Opposition Members to try to scare passengers into thinking that they will get an inferior service after privatisation.
  The public have a choice: they can use the railways or they can use their cars, or coaches, or various other forms of transport. Since 1953, there has been a decline in the number of people using the railways. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the numbers have gone down from 17 per cent. in 1953 to 5 per cent. today. The
  758
  tale of freight is even more tragic. A poll in today's Evening Standard shows that more people would like to use the railways if the service were up to it.
  We need to improve the whole range of services for passengers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) said, a service should be advertised as much as possible so that as many people as possible have access to it. Through ticketing will be preserved, but we must also look at innovative ways by which people will have access to train tickets.
  Clitheroe railway station is in my constituency and a service from there to Blackburn opened last year. Ticket facilities, including through ticketing, are provided not by British Rail but by a Clitheroe travel agent. I congratulate that Clitheroe travel agency on providing that imaginative service.
  I hope that privatisation will improve stations because in the main they are miserable places. People sometimes have to wait 20, 30 or 40 minutes when changing trains, and much more could be done through investing in stations the sort of sums that BAA has invested in our airports. That should be done to provide comfort for passengers. I congratulate Keith Taylor and Ribble Valley council on holding an art exhibition in Clitheroe station to provide some pleasure for people who are waiting for trains. I also congratulate the regulator on reducing access charges for train operators who wish to use the lines. I hope that that will result in lower prices for consumers because we want to attract to the railways as many people as we can.
  I had a letter last year from one of my constituents who had bought a ticket for his daughter at a cost of £8. When she could not use it her father sought a refund and was charged an administration fee of £5. That is outrageous, and I hope that that system will change. I have already brought the matter up with British Rail, which is not at all interested in the plight of one of its customers. It must do something about that.
  I hope that after the changes more freight will be attracted to the railways because that would be good news. Castle Cement in my constituency has been forced off the railways by British Rail because of some of the high charges that have been introduced. I would be interested in hearing what Opposition Members propose to improve the service to rail customers and passengers—they have certainly not told us so far. We are not certain whether a future Labour Government would totally renationalise the railways, bringing the service back down to the level that people have experienced over the years.
  We want to improve the quality of service for the public, and that can be done only through more private money being invested to improve lines such as the north-west coast main line, which runs through my constituency. That needs to be improved, and the only way to do it is by allowing access to private money. There has already been a fantastic investment of £15 billion in the railways since 1979, but it is not enough. As I say, more private money must be invested.
  Such investment will attract more people to return to the railways, but that will certainly not happen if we follow what the Opposition have suggested. They do not have the slightest idea of policy on the railways. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has the policy somewhere. Perhaps it is in the boot of his car and he cannot work out where he has put it. If he ever does and he is able to read that policy

  759
  document, perhaps he will share Labour's rail policy with us. We are waiting to hear what it is but we do not want to wait for two years until the next general election to discover Labour's policy on rail nationalisation. Opposition Members now have an opportunity to tell us. The country is listening. Perhaps they will share their policy with us.
  6.35pm
  Mr. Henry McLeish: One has to retain a sense of humour when listening to Conservative Members. Their contributions ranged from a pathetic obsession with privatisation to sheer drivel. I shall not dignify them by responding to some of their points because this is a serious debate about through ticketing. They may not like it, but you will find out fairly soon in your constituencies as the station network is decimated and representations—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman of the convention on the word "you".
  Mr. McLeish: Conservative Members say that this debate is a waste of time and that they want to talk about our policies. We have heard about consultation. Does any hon. Member believe that the consultation smokescreen is anything other than a device to get the Secretary of State for Transport off the hook on which he is impaled?
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McLeish: I will not give way.
  My hon. Friends repeatedly asked the Secretary of State for his view on the fiasco that the regulator has unleashed on passengers. He dug himself into a hole and he kept digging. He was rescued only when some of his hon. Friends started to speak about further aspects of privatisation. The key question for Conservative Members is whether there will be 300 or 500 stations.
  Mr. Arnold: I will answer that.
  Mr. McLeish: I am not giving way just now: I shall give way in a minute.
  Is it to be 1,000 stations or, like us, do they want to make sure that there is no diminution of the existing network for through ticketing, which provides an excellent service to the travelling public?
  Mr. Arnold: The hon. Gentleman asked whether there will be 300, 500 or 1,000 stations, but that is the wrong question. Why should people have to go many miles to a station to buy tickets? Why cannot they buy them at thousands of outlets in the same way as they can buy lottery tickets? That is the question that the hon. Gentleman should ask. They cannot buy tickets in that way because the nationalised British Rail insists that travel agents who sell rail tickets must use complicated,
  760
  cumbersome and cost-driven paper systems. That is why the overwhelming majority of travel agents do not sell rail tickets.
  Mr. McLeish: That was merely an abuse of an intervention.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House and the hon. Gentleman that interventions should be short.
  Mr. McLeish: Let us have a unique and non-controversial idea injected into the debate. Possibly when one arrives at a station one might be able to buy a ticket. That seems to be one of the hallmarks of railway development this century. There is an obsession with the market. People are told to go to a Tesco or Safeway store for tickets. The Government want to take an axe and decimate the station network. Conservative Members may not like the facts, but one of them is that the regulator wants 294 core stations and that will mean first-class and second-class stations.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McLeish: No, I shall not give way again.
  Conservative Members know that even if people get access to trains there will be a problem. Through ticketing will become a nightmare and fares will rise because of the marketing mechanism that the Government envisage. I thought that we had just one national lottery, but the Government want to turn British Rail into a second lottery. I do not believe that any passenger or member of the public could support the notion that to cut the number of stations from 1,580 to 294 could be called progress.
  Another phrase for what is happening is sheer lunacy. Conservative Members are dismayed by the fact that the public simply do not want privatisation. The issue of through ticketing is their first opportunity to become involved in that complicated process.
  Conservative Members have lectured us on our policies, so it is with rich irony that I say that the Government want to smash British Rail into 100 private political pieces, sell them to the private sector and then claim that there will be a national rail network, that through ticketing will be an instant success and that passengers will enjoy more choice, greater accessibility, lower fares and a better service. It is an insult to the House to suggest that any of that could be taken seriously.
  Mr. Clappison: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
  Mr. McLeish: No.
  In the brief time available to me, I want to deal with two issues that the Government do not want to discuss. The first is why, between 7 and 10 January, the Secretary of State changed his mind so quickly on the question of through ticketing. When he was first approached about the leaked regulator's report, he was quick to say that the proposals were unacceptable. He acted on instinct or, possibly, out of ignorance. Two days later he acted on instructions from his Department, the basis of which was a little-known report prepared on 7 January 1993—the right hon. Gentleman may not even have seen it—that shows conclusively that the original decision to decimate the rail structure was not taken by the regulator, but was hatched in the report. The report states clearly that it

  761
  envisages the number of stations offering through ticketing to be about 400 or 500. The regulator might have gone further than that.
  The whole thing suggests a conspiracy. I shall use just one quote to show how the public have been conned. The report states:
  "There are potential weaknesses in presenting the difficulties in option 3"—
  that is, the free-for-all that the regulator now has. It continues:
  "It offers no definitive guarantees and might lead to criticism that through ticketing in some areas could simply wither on the vine."
  Does not that underline our case? Stations throughout the country will be removed from the through-ticketing system. Whether we call that withering on the vine or the Tory axe makes little difference.
  I warn the Government that the report will be widely circulated to ensure that the regulator does not become the scapegoat for the Government's obsessive nature. Ministers may shake their heads, but they have not read the report. I can provide a copy for any Minister who wishes to read it. It is a "Policy-in-confidence" document sent to a "Mr. McCarthy", a "Mr. Freeman" and the Secretary of State. It is a long report.
  The key issue is that the report shows that the public have been misled. For two years, behind closed doors, there has been a private agenda, while the public agenda has been, "Not me, guy, it's the regulator." We must speak up for the regulator tonight and say that he is being abused. The Government should come clean and say that it is not the regulator but they who initiated the proposal.
  The Secretary of State is in a real tizzy about another issue. He is caught between a rock and a hard place. He wants to be able to say that, because the regulator is independent, he cannot interfere with him, but the right hon. Gentleman also wants to sit idly by and watch the rail network be decimated. Why cannot some courage and leadership be shown by the motley crew on the Conservative Front Bench—
  Dr. Mawhinney: What is Labour's policy?
  Mr. McLeish: The Secretary of State asks for our policy, but the real issue for the people of Britain is why a rail network that needs investment, encouragement and a way forward into the next century has to deal with the ravages of a privatisation which, in many people's eyes, is a fiasco. In fact, the media is running out of words to describe the mishmash of Government policy. The tragedy is that even if their objective could be accomplished, and it cannot, damage is being done to the morale of those who provide the service and to the very service itself.
  Conservative Members keep asking us for our policy. Why do not the Government tell us why, for the first time since 1948, there will be no new orders for rolling stock from British Rail or from 25 operators? That is the question that the public want answered. They do not want the smokescreen of, "Where are your policies?" The Government are on a hook and it is high time that they dealt with some of the issues.
  The Secretary of State waffled on about whether the regulator is so independent that the right hon. Gentleman can do nothing other than stand idly by. It was the
  762
  Government who introduced and pushed through the House that ruination of a Railways Act in 1993. However, under section 4 the regulator and the Secretary of State have dual responsibilities and both have a duty to passengers. The same section also says that through ticketing is one of the subjects that will be covered by that— [Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. My views on seated interventions apply as equally to Secretaries of State as, to anyone else.
  Dr. Mawhinney: If the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) had been listening, he would know that I had dealt with that question in my speech.
  Mr. McLeish: I enjoyed your rebuke of the Secretary of State, Madam Deputy Speaker, more than I enjoyed his subsequent intervention.
  I want to conclude my remarks with two important points. First, the Government want us to believe that the problems are not their responsibility. They are trying to slide out of that key question of responsibility, but we have a document to support our claims. The issue is not the minimum or the maximum; it is not consultation—which is a sham anyway—it is whether, when the House divides, the Government are willing to support the proposal that 294 core stations should offer through ticketing while the remainder are abandoned to the vagaries of the market.
  Secondly, will the Government now assume the responsibilities provided for in the Railways Act and inject some sanity into the debate about the future of the railways? I am a very moderate person; all I want is some common sense from the Government. The people of Britain share Labour's view; the passengers who use the network share our view. I hope that when the Minister for Railways and Roads responds to the debate he will be all sweetness and light, put the nonsense of the regulator's report behind him and begin to address the real issues that dominate the debate about the future of the rail network.
  6.48 pm
  The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): I hope that I shall be all sweetness and light and so not disappoint the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) in that respect. He suggested that the consultation exercise—he called it a sham—was designed to get my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State off the hook. However, as I understood the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), he argued that the consultation exercise had put my right hon. Friend on the hook. Perhaps the two hon. Gentlemen should agree on which it is.
  The hon. Member for Fife, Central then quoted, as is typical of the Labour party, from what he claimed was a secret report—something of dreadful import, which suggested that there should be between 400 and 500 core stations. Had he listened to my right hon. Friend's opening speech, he would have known—as he should have known anyway—that currently only 440 of British Rail's 2,500 stations have the physical capability to offer a complete through-ticketing service. In contrast to the hon. Member for Oldham, West, the hon. Member for Fife, Central said that he would speak up for the regulator who was being abused. I am sure that the hon. Member for Fife, Central had in mind some of the opening

  763
  comments of the hon. Member for Oldham, West, who took considerable pains to rubbish the office and the person of the regulator.
  I am surprised that there remains some scepticism among Opposition Members about the extent of the Government's commitment to through ticketing. We all know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has a reputation for being a man who means what he says and says what he means. If Opposition Front-Bench Members had been listening to my right hon. Friend's excellent speech, they would have heard him reaffirm the Government's commitment to through ticketing.
  Mr. Stevenson: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Watts: No, I must make progress at this stage.
  My right hon. Friend went through the various occasions on which the Government's commitment has been reiterated. He dealt with the point on which the hon. Member for Fife, Central invited my right hon. Friend to comment, which is that section 4 of the Railways Act 1993 places a duty on the Secretary of State to promote measures to facilitate journeys involving more than one operator and states specifically that through ticketing is one such measure. My right hon. Friend went on to say that the same duty applies equally to the regulator, and that it was in the exercise of that duty that he published the consultation document on retailing tickets at stations. My right hon. Friend went on to explain that he also has the power to give guidance to the regulator under the Railways Act.
  Mr. McLeish: Will the Minister answer two simple questions? If the consultation is a real exercise, when will the Government submit their response and what will he in it, especially in relation to the core station figure of 294?
  Mr. Watts: Let us first allow the consultation process to get properly under way. Every interested party will be able to make representations, and I am sure that the regulator will look on today's debate as a part of that process. Certainly, my hon. Friends have made valuable points about the stations in their constituencies. Let us see what the regulator proposes should be the framework for imposing requirements on the operators. It would be premature, and almost churlish, of my right hon. Friend to start offering further guidance to the regulator before the consultation process has got properly under way.
  Mr. Home Robertson: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Watts: No, I must make progress, or I feel that I shall not be able to reply to all the important points which have been made.
  Let us return to the widespread myth that all British Rail stations provide a full range of ticketing facilities. Those who ask for a guarantee that the status quo will be maintained ought to ask themselves what the status quo is. The availability of a full service at stations is restricted by limitations on staff resources, fares information about remote journeys and ticket-issuing equipment.
  More than 1,200 British Rail stations are totally unmanned and offer no staff ticketing facility. Only 440 stations have direct access to the seat reservation database which is critical to the issuing of some through tickets. British Rail itself has no central record of the precise range of ticketing services offered by every station in its network. The current position is that matters are left very much to local commercial judgment.
  764
  My hon. Friends and I, who represent some of the more marginal seats, have been threatened with dire consequences as a result of the regulator's consultation on through ticketing. Indeed, I was rather surprised that no Opposition Member made any mention of the impact of the proposals of the consultation on Slough. That may have been out of kindness, but, unlike my right hon. Friend, I am sometimes a slightly cynical man. The reason they did not mention it might have had something to do with the egg which the Labour party found on its face last week, when it announced that none of the three stations in my constituency would be a core station under the proposals set out in appendix A of the regulator's document. Of course, it was always the case that Slough, which is No. 56 in the hierarchy of stations selling a full range of through tickets and which has every facility—
  Dr. Marek: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the Minister. The hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) has just returned. Before you were in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, he said that many of my hon. Friends and I were sponsored and controlled by trade unions. [Interruption.] I took exception to that at the time, but I want your advice on the matter, Madam Deputy Speaker. If the hon. Member for Dartford is prepared to withdraw his remark, nothing further need be done. If he is not prepared to do that, may I ask you for permission to refer— [Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a point of order. I expect to be able to hear it.
  Dr. Marek: If the hon. Member for Dartford withdraws his remark, that will be the end of the matter. If not, may I have your advice as to how the matter can be raised in the Privileges Committee, Madam Deputy Speaker?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise a matter of privilege, the course for him is clear. The matter may not be discussed across the Floor of the House, and he must write directly to Madam Speaker.
  Mr. Dunn: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Of course, I withdraw any imputation, if that is required, but the best way to clear up the matter up once and for all, and to avoid any misunderstanding in the future, would be for all Opposition Members to resign their sponsorships.
  Mr. Bayley: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) suggested that there should be no fear for through ticketing because one could purchase tickets from travel agents, yet, when making that observation, he did not announce to the House that he is a paid consultant for a firm of travel agents.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I feel that the matter can now be dealt with adequately in other ways.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would have done so had you been kind enough to call me to speak.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We must now return to the debate. I ask hon. Members to remember that a very important debate is to follow this one.
  Ms Glenda Jackson: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Dartford

  765
  demanded that Opposition Members declare their interests when making interventions. The fact that many of my hon. Friends had not at that point made interventions may have escaped his notice. That seems to be the defence that the hon. Member for Gravesham is putting up.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Deputy Speaker who was in the Chair earlier dealt with this matter at some length. I do not propose at this stage to take any more points of order on it.
  Mr. Watts rose—
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The rules of the House state that a Member is required to declare an interest in any intervention, apart from during a question.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is up to each individual Member to decide when or how he makes a declaration of interest.
  Mr. Watts: I was making the point that perhaps the egg which the Labour party found on its face last week when it made false claims about the impact of the proposals in the consultation document on my constituency led Labour Members to make no mention of the matter today. Indeed, the fact that they had to be corrected on that point shows clearly that they were indulging in their normal practice of commenting on a document which they had not bothered to read first.
  The Opposition then switched their attack to the two other stations in my constituency, Langley and Burnham. Although they are both extremely important in offering services to my constituents who commute to London or Reading, neither of them has APTIS, so they are not capable of issuing a full range of tickets or of making seat reservations and selling tickets for InterCity services. If that is all that I have to fear, I have few qualms about facing my electorate in two years' time.
  I am conscious of the importance of the debate that follows this one. I am sorry that I have not had an opportunity to respond to all the important constituency points that have been raised by hon. Members. I shall endeavour to do so as fully as possible by correspondence.
  I invite the House to support overwhelmingly the amendment in the names of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and to reject the Labour motion.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 282, Noes 317.

  Division No. 40]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Denham, John

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Dewar, Donald

  Ainger, Nick

  Dixon, Don

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Dobson, Frank

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Allen, Graham

  Dowd, Jim

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Ashton, Joe

  Eastham, Ken

  Barnes, Harry

  Enright, Derek

  Barron, Kevin

  Etherington, Bill

  Battle, John

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Bayley, Hugh

  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, Rt Hon Derek

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Berry, Roger

  Foulkes, George

  Betts, Clive

  Fraser, John

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Fyfe, Maria

  Blunkett, David

  Galbraith, Sam

  Boateng, Paul

  Galloway, George

  Boyes, Roland

  Gapes, Mike

  Bradley, Keith

  George, Bruce

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Gerrard, Neil

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

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

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Burden, Richard

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Byers, Stephen

  Gordon, Mildred

  Caborn, Richard

  Graham, Thomas

  Callaghan, Jim

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Gunnell, John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hain, Peter

  Cann, Jamie

  Hall, Mike

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Hanson, David

  Chidgey, David

  Hardy, Peter

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Church, Judith

  Harris, David

  Clapham, Michael

  Harvey, Nick

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Clarke, Eric (Midtothian)

  Henderson, Doug

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hendron, Dr Joe

  Clelland, David

  Heppell, John

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Coffey, Ann

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cohen, Harry

  Hodge, Margaret

  Connarty, Michael

  Hoey, Kate

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Home Robertson, John

  Corbett, Robin

  Hood, Jimmy

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Corston, Jean

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Cousins, Jim

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Cox, Tom

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cummings, John

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Hume, John

  Dafis, Cynog

  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, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jamieson, David

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Janner, Greville

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

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  815

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Pope, Greg

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jowell, Tessa

  Prescott Rt Hon John

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Keen, Alan

  Purchase, Ken

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Radice, Giles

  Khabra, Piara S

  Randall, Stuart

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Raynsford, Nick

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Redmond, Martin

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Reid, Dr John

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Rendel, David

  Lewis, Terry

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Litherland, Robert

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Rogers, Allan

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Rooker.Jeff

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Rooney, Terry

  McAllion, John

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Rowlands, Ted

  McCartney, Ian

  Ruddock, Joan

  McCrea, Rev William

  Salmond, Alex

  Macdonald, Calum

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McFall, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  McGrady, Eddie

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McKelvey, William

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Short, Clare

  McLeish, Henry

  Simpson, Alan

  Maclennan, Robert

  Skinner, Dennis

  McMaster, Gordon

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  MacShane, Denis

  Snape, Peter

  McWilliam, John

  Soley, Clive

  Madden, Max

  Spearing, Nigel

  Maddock, Diana

  Spellar.John

  Mahon, Alice

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Mallon, Seamus

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mandelson, Peter

  Stevenson, George

  Marek, Dr John

  Stott, Roger

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Straw, Jack

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Martlew, Eric

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Maxton, John

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Meacher, Michael

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Meale, Alan

  Timms, Stephen

  Michael, Alan

  Tipping, Paddy

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Tyler, Paul

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Vaz, Keith

  Milburn, Alan

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Miller, Andrew

  Wallace, James

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Walley, Joan

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Wareing, Robert N

  Morley, Elliot

  Watson, Mike

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Mudie, George

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Mullin, Chris

  Wilson, Brian

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Winnick, David

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Wise, Audrey

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Worthington, Tony

  O'Hara, Edward

  Wray, Jimmy

  Olner.Bill

  Wright, Dr Tony

  O'Neill, Martin

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Patchett, Terry

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Pearson, Ian

  Mr. Joe Benton and Mr. Dennis Turner.

  Pendry, Tom

  816

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Duncan, Alan

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Alexander, Richard

  Dunn, Bob

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Ancram, Michael

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Arbuthnot, James

  Elletson, Harold

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Ashby, David

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Atkins, Robert

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Evennett, David

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Faber, David

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Fanner, Dame Peggy

  Baldry, Tony

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Forman, Nigel

  Bates, Michael

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Beggs, Roy

  Forth, Eric

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Bendall, Vivian

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  French, Douglas

  Booth, Hartley

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Boswell, Tim

  Gale, Roger

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Gallie, Phil

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Bowis.John

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Garnier, Edward

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Gill, Christopher

  Brazier, Julian

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Gorst, Sir John

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Burns, Simon

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Burt, Alistair

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Butcher, John

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Butler, Peter

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Butterfill, John

  Hague, William

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Churchill, Mr

  Hannam, Sir John

  Clappison, James

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hawksley, Warren

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hayes, Jerry

  Colvin, Michael

  Heald, Oliver

  Congdon, David

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Conway, Derek

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hendry, Charles

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hicks, Robert

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Couchman, James

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Cran, James

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

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

  Horam, John

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

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

  Day, Stephen

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Delvin, Tim

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Dicks, Terry

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Dorrel, Rt Hon Stephen

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Hunter, Andrew

  Dover, Den

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  817

  Jack, Michael

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Renton, Rt Hon Trm

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Richards, Rod

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Riddick, Graham

  Key, Robert

  Robathan, Andrew

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Knapman, Roger

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Knight Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

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

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Knox, Sir David

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Sackville, Tom

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Legg, Barry

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Leigh, Edward

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lidington, David

  Shersby, Michael

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Sims, Roger

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lord, Michael

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Luff, Peter

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Soames, Nicholas

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Speed, Sir Keith

  MacKay, Andrew

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Maclean, David

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Madel, Sir David

  Spring, Richard

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Sproat, Iain

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Malone, Gerald

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mans, Keith

  Steen, Anthony

  Marland, Paul

  Stephen, Michael

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Stern, Michael

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Stewart, Allan

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Streeter, Gary

  Mates, Michael

  Sumberg, David

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Sweeney, Walter

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Sykes.John

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Merchant, Piers

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mills, Iain

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Thomason, Roy

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Thurnham, Peter

  Moss, Malcolm

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Tracey, Richard

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Tredinnick, David

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Trend, Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Trotter, Neville

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Norris, Steve

  Viggers, Peter

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Walden, George

  Ottaway, Richard

  Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)

  Page, Richard

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Paice, James

  Waller, Gary

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Ward, John

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Waterson, Nigel

  Pawsey, James

  Watts, John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Wells, Bowen

  Pickles, Eric

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  818

  Whitney, Ray

  Wolfson, Mark

  Whittingdale, John

  Wood, Timothy

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Yeo, Tim

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Willetts, David

  Wilshire, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.
  MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House reaffirms the Government's commitment to maintaining through ticketing; welcomes the publication by the Rail Regulator of the Consultation Document "Retailing of Tickets at Stations"; endorses the view expressed in the document that the continuation of network benefits such as through ticketing "will be one of the key tests of the success of the restructuring of the industry"; notes that despite massive investment in British Rail the proportion of travel undertaken and freight moved by train has steadily decreased during nationalisation; and supports the Government's commitment to seeking to reverse this decline through the creation of a flourishing railway system operated by the private sector which will offer a better deal for passengers and for freight customers.

  Fisheries
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I must inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. There is to be a limit of 10 minutes on speeches and she trusts that Front Benchers will exercise considerable self-restraint.
  7.14 pm
  Dr. Gavin Strang: I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of the agreement of the Council of Fisheries Ministers, allowing Spanish fishing vessels into all areas of the Irish Box other than Area VIIa and Area VIIf north of 50° 30' and allowing increased access for Spanish fishing vessels to the remaining waters to the west of the United Kingdom; believes that this agreement presents an unacceptable threat to the long-term economic viability of fishing communities in England, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland, and places an unsustainable pressure upon the fish stocks in these already sensitive waters; and calls upon the Government to convey to the European Commission the extent to which this agreement has undermined the credibility of the Common Fisheries Policy in the view of the United Kingdom industry and to raise in the Council of Fisheries Ministers and in the European Council the whole question of the extent of access granted by the Common Fisheries Policy to non-United Kingdom registered vessels to fish in the waters around the United Kingdom.
  The motion sets out—objectively, I believe—the agreement that was reached at the Council of Fisheries Ministers before Christmas and declares that it is unacceptable because of its implications for the long-term future of our fishing communities. It calls on the Government to spell out to Brussels the fact that the deal is undermining any confidence that our industry had in the common fisheries policy and urges the Minister to raise the question of access to British waters for non-British vessels.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Strang: I must point out that I am not going to give way too frequently for the reason outlined by Madam Deputy Speaker, but I shall give way briefly to the hon. Gentleman now.
  Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman and his party have repeatedly made it clear that they would accept without argument everything that came from Brussels so how can he, in all seriousness, move this motion when my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has negotiated an excellent deal, especially for the fishermen of the north-west coast, by ensuring that the Spanish continue to be excluded from the Irish sea?
  Dr. Strang: If that is all that we are going to get, the less I give way the better. The hon. Gentleman talks nonsense. We have fundamentally opposed the common agricultural policy and have criticised aspects of the common fisheries policy. I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's point in the course of my speech.
  The amendment calls on the House to congratulate the Government on securing the agreement. I do not know what sort of world Ministers are living in, but why has the agreement been denounced by all the fishermen's organisations? I refer hon. Members to a couple of headlines. The Times of 11 January 1995 contains the headline:
  772
  "fishermen plan to wage war on Spanish trawlers".
  The accompanying article states:
  "Fishermen in Devon and Cornwall yesterday promised a 'prolonged campaign' of action, beginning next month, to keep Spanish trawlers out of British waters … Mike Townsend, chief executive of the Cornish Fish Producers' Association, said that his members would consider any means possible to stop the Spanish fishing in the 90,000 square miles around Ireland."
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Strang: No, I am not giving way again. The headline in this week's Fishing News is "We face ruin". The first sentence of the article states that fishermen in the south-west
  "say the Brussels deal on Spanish accession reached just before Christmas will destroy them. They totally reject it and say they will not take part in any further consultation to finalise the agreement."
  As the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) knows, his colleagues who represent constituencies in the south-west criticised the deal before Christmas.
  Mr. Nicholls rose—
  Dr. Strang: I have already dealt with the hon. Gentleman. I have given way once and may do so again but I shall not be interrupted after every sentence.
  The truth is that the deal has been rejected by the fishing industry.
  Several hon. Members rose
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his view very clear. No hon. Member is obliged to give way unless he or she chooses to do so.
  Dr. Strang: If the deal is so good that the House should congratulate the Government on it, why did not the Minister vote for it when it came before the Council of Fisheries Ministers after all the negotiations? When his grandchildren ask him what he did as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to keep the Spanish vessels out of British waters and to defend our fishing communities, the answer will be, "I abstained." It is nonsense to ask the House to congratulate the Government on the deal. The truth is that it is a bad deal and the House knows it.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I should not have to remind hon. Members twice in about two minutes of the normal rules and courtesies of the House.
  Dr. Strang: It is not a good deal; it is a bad deal, and the Government know it. Spanish vessels will have new access to most areas of the Irish box. Contrary to the assertion in the Government's amendment, only area VIIa and the northern part of the Bristol channel will be protected. Spanish vessels will also have increased access to all other waters, stretching from the south-west of England to the north of Scotland.
  Hon. Members who know anything about the fishing industry know perfectly well that stocks in those waters are under enormous pressure. They are sensitive waters and there is no case for additional fishing effort in them. There is no case for Spanish access to those

  773
  waters. Under the Spanish accession treaty, whatever deal was made on western waters other than the Irish box, it did not need come into effect until the year 2002. The Government have still to explain why they have allowed the changes to become effective from 1996.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Dr. Strang: I shall give way to one hon. Member—the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman)—and then I must continue.
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will he confirm that it will be part of Labour party policy to reclaim the territorial waters for British fishermen only?
  Dr. Strang: I want a broad expression of view from Conservative Members. As the hon. Lady knows, we cannot accept her position on the European Union or the common fisheries policy. The common fisheries policy is flawed and it is time to address that problem.
  It is a bad deal. The Government's first defence is the pretence that it is a good deal. The Government's second defence is that it was inevitable and there was no alternative but to negotiate an agreement along those lines. It is not good enough for the Minister to say that it was our opening position. In October 1993 the Minister of State explicitly said that the Council of Fisheries Ministers needed to agree to continue the current restrictions on access to the Irish box and the North sea. He said that the United Kingdom Government's concern was that the new arrangements should, in practice, confine Spanish and Portuguese fishing activities as closely as possible to the current pattern, but that was not accepted. Far from saying that increased access was inevitable, the Minister of State wanted the fishing activities to be confined to the historical pattern.
  The deal is a reflection of the Government's failure to represent the United Kingdom's national interest in Europe. Since 1985 the Government have had a chance to win support for a fair deal for our fishermen. All the Government needed to secure was the support of two other member states, one of which had to be a major state such as Italy or Germany. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"] Conservative Members ask, "Who?" How was it that the Government could not obtain the support of even Germany or Italy? It is disturbing to realise that we have come to the stage when, if an Opposition spokesperson asks the Government why they could not obtain the support of one large member state and one small member state in the European Union, Conservative Members laugh. That is a measure of how far we have sunk and how hopeless our position is in Europe. The Government are totally unfit to represent the British national interest.
  The Government's policy on Europe does not reflect what needs to be done. It does not reflect the interests of our fishermen, but the Government's need to go with the shifting pattern of opinion and divisions on Europe within the Conservative party. It is a clear example of
  774
  the Government's failure, not just on this subject, but on others, adequately to argue the case and win the argument for Britain in the European Union.
  Mr. Gary Streeter: What would the hon. Gentleman do?
  Dr. Strang: I am grateful for that intervention from a sedentary position and I shall answer the question of how we move forward from here—[Interruption.] Hon. Members might not think that the debate is important, but many people outside the Chamber are interested in it. There are many people in the fishing communities and the wider British community who are interested in our debate and hon. Members should have the courtesy to allow the mover of the motion to be heard.
  Mr. Nicholls: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member constantly to refer to the south-west while adamantly refusing to give way to anyone from the south-west?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: It is perfectly in order, as the hon. Gentleman well knows.
  Dr. Strang: There is a strong rumour—
  Mr. Phil Gallie: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to refer to a lack of interest in the debate among Conservative Members when our Benches are packed and the Opposition Benches are sparsely occupied?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: The occupant of the Chair is not responsible for the content of speeches—I am thankful to say.
  Dr. Strang: It would be wise to continue the debate.
  There is a strong rumour that the Government will this evening announce that they are to provide additional cash aid for the industry. Hon. Members who take a close interest in fisheries matters will be aware of the state of play between the industry and the Government. But some hon. Members participating in the debate may not be fully apprised of the situation. They may not recognise that we are soon to see the spectacle of the United Kingdom Government fighting the United Kingdom fishing industry in the European courts. The Government's compulsory tariff scheme has been referred by the High Court to the European Court of Justice.
  Hon. Members may not be aware that in July 1993 the Government invited fisheries organisations to submit proposals for the way forward on conservation. Those organisations—including the Scottish Fisherman's Federation and the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations—submitted excellent proposals, which they went to great lengths to achieve and which often caused controversy in their ranks. What has the Government's reaction to the proposals been so far? Nothing.
  Hon. Members may not be aware that, after years of refusal, in 1992 the Government finally conceded that a decommissioning scheme should be introduced. A small scheme has been launched. The Select Committee on Agriculture concluded that it was so small that the cuts achieved would be more than offset by efficiency gains in the remainder of the fleet.

  775
  Extra money is needed for the modernisation and improvement of our port facilities. If the Government announce extra money tonight for decommissioning, modernisation and our port facilities—additional aid from our Government for the fishing industry—that will be welcomed. But there is a problem. If extra money is to be made available for a decommissioning scheme it must be remembered that the point of decommissioning was to bring our fishing effort and capacity into line with the stocks. It is unacceptable that money should be announced for decommissioning that is intended to facilitate Spanish access in our waters. It is unacceptable that our fishermen should be asked to take up a decommissioning scheme which proposes to scrap their vessels not in order to bring the fishing fleet in line with fishing stocks, but to enable Spanish vessels to catch our fish. Of course, Government assistance is welcome; but it is not sufficient. We have to address the issue at the European level.
  Much of the package is yet to be agreed. For example, we do not know how many additional Spanish vessels will have access to the waters north of the Irish box. We know that vessels must be listed on a register and that each Government will put forward their proposals for controlling the fishing effort of each member state. Therefore, it seems that not only will Governments put forward vessels to go on the register but each Government will propose a system for controlling the fishing effort. Presumably, that means that different countries will have different arrangements for controlling the fishing effort. Perhaps the Minister will explain that.
  Important parts of the deal are yet to be settled. The House of Commons must make it clear that we want a better arrangement and a more satisfactory outcome than the one that was agreed before Christmas.
  Mr. John Sykes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Strang: I will give way to one hon. Member from the south-west, and that is it.
  Mr. Streeter: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has said that he does not favour abandoning the common fisheries policy, although that is what the fishermen now want. He said that he is in favour of improving the common fisheries policy. Can he list the improvements that he made to that policy during the Labour Government of 1975 to 1979?
  Dr. Strang: The common fisheries policy as it currently exists came into operation in the early 1980s and it was reviewed in the early 1990s. Of course, there were arrangements prior to that. The Minister should tell the Commission that, as a result of the latest agreement, our fishermen have lost any faith that they had in the common fisheries policy.
  Effective conservation is possible only with the co-operation and support of the fishermen. Our motion calls on the Minister to raise with the Commission the question of access by non-British vessels to our waters.
  I believe that the common fisheries policy is fundamentally flawed. The overriding objective of any fisheries policy—whether it is a British fisheries policy, a common fisheries policy for the European Union, or
  776
  a Canadian fisheries policy—should be to conserve fishing stocks for future generations of fishermen. In my opinion, the common fisheries policy is not designed to achieve that aim. The Government have an obsession with avoiding national discrimination and they have reached the point of allowing foreign vessels with no historical pattern of fishing in the area to enter our waters. We have to meet that issue head on.
  The problem will not be solved overnight. The Government should not pretend that it is a good deal; it is not. It is no use their pretending that it was the best that could be achieved in the circumstances. I am not talking about what happened at the December Council; the situation has built up over two or three years. We are now in a position whereby we cannot muster the support needed to block the deal on the basis of qualified majority voting.
  It will not be enough for hon. Members to abstain from voting on the motion this evening. The fishing communities and the British people as a whole want the motion to be carried. Britain has a proud maritime history. Our fishing communities are part of the economic and social fabric of this country.
  Mr. Timothy Kirkhope (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury): Opportunistic nonsense.
  Dr. Strang: If the hon. Gentleman does riot understand the way that the British people feel about our fishing communities he does not understand what the debate is about. The British people want the motion to be passed because they want to see arrangements which will enable our fishing communities to have the opportunity—I put it in no stronger terms than that—
  Mr. Sykes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Why is the hon. Gentleman answering sedentary interventions, but not those interventions from the Floor?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. I also add my well-known view that sedentary interventions are not acceptable, and I hope that they will cease.
  Mr. Sykes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Strang: No, I will not give way. Madam Deputy Speaker has asked us to make our speeches brief. The new arrangements recommended by the Jopling report also ask Front Bench speakers to be brief. I have already given way on numerous occasions.
  Our motion is in the best interests of the fishing communities. I pay tribute to the hon. Members for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) and for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks). Their amendment accepts the Opposition motion in its entirety and simply adds a few sentences with which I do not disagree.
  The Opposition motion, which has been accepted by those Conservative Members who represent fishing communities, aims to defend the long-term future of our fishing industry. It has the support of the British people and I urge the House to vote for it.
  7.36 pm
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. William Waldegrave): I beg to move, to leave out from "Ministers" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "congratulates the Government on securing the exclusion of Spanish fishing vessels from the Irish Sea and the Bristol Channel, the limiting of Spanish fishing within the rest of the Irish Box to 40 vessels simultaneously and the inclusion of special restrictions on Spanish vessels within the Box West of Scotland; notes that the agreement does not call into question the continued exclusion of Spanish vessels from the North Sea and the principle of relative stability; recognises this outcome represents a major improvement for United Kingdom fishermen compared to the original Commission proposals, the negotiation of which was made more difficult by the failure to win Hague Preferences for South West English fishing communities in 1976; welcomes the undertaking the Government secured from the Commission to provide annual reports on the findings of Commission Fisheries Inspectors; notes the Government's current annual expenditure of some £25 million on fisheries enforcement and welcomes the Government's commitment to ensure effective policing of the agreement; welcomes the Government's success in extending the benefits of the EC's structural programmes to areas of the United Kingdom dependent on fishing; notes that the Government are also spending some £17 million per annum on fisheries research and monitoring and some £5 million per annum on other forms of assistance to the fisheries sector; notes the Government's current substantial programme of decommissioning expenditure; and welcomes its commitment to provide further programmes in 1996–97 and 1997–98.".
  Madam Deputy Speaker, you requested Front Bench speakers to be brief in their remarks during the debate, but I do not think that you precluded hon. Members from making speeches. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) failed to make a speech; it slipped his mind.
  Indeed, the issue has slipped the Labour mind on a number of occasions. A good way of gauging the importance that a party attaches to an issue is to look at what it says about it in its election manifesto. The hon. Gentleman does not want to be reminded that the Labour party said nothing about fishing in its election manifesto of 1992. It is even more extraordinary—in view of the common fisheries policy and other crucial European issues—that there was nothing about it in the Labour party's Euromanifesto either. That is a better test of the Opposition's sincerity than the hon. Gentleman's rather thin speech.
  All hon. Members know that the Labour party does not care two hoots about fishing; with one or two honourable exceptions, it knows nothing about the subject. The hon. Gentleman moved the motion in an attempt to score some political points and to make a few headlines tomorrow by persuading one or two of my hon. Friends to support him. That is what the Opposition's motion is about; it is not about United Kingdom fishing communities at all.
  Mr. Sykes: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for at last allowing me to say something in the debate. If he goes back even further he will find that the Labour party's 1987 election manifesto also did not say a word about fishing. One needs a magnifying glass to find what the Labour party has said about fishing. If the Opposition are so concerned about the issue, why have they tacked on a
  778
  measly three-hour debate at the end of an Opposition day debate? If they really cared about fishing, they would have allowed a full day for debate and not a measly three hours.
  Mr. Waldegrave: It is clear that the Opposition consider the matter far less important than through ticketing on the railways.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East made some straightforward mistakes. He said:
  "I mean, for a start, originally these changes were not going to come into operation till year 2002."
  In fact, the Spanish act of accession provided for the Irish box arrangements to end after 1995. It also provided for the other restrictions to be reviewed in 1993. The hon. Gentleman ought to correct that misstatement. The radio interviewer was not fully briefed on the subject and did not realise that the hon. Gentleman had not got it right.
  Dr. Strang: If the right hon. Gentleman reads the transcript of the debate that we had before Christmas, he will see that we reached agreement on the position. The Irish box arrangements ended automatically, but a whole lot of other arrangements outwith the Irish box could have continued until 2002.
  Mr. Waldegrave: All the ships on the reference list would have had no restrictions on access whatever and there would have been no controls on the Irish box.
  On the "Today" programme today, when the question at issue was the Irish box, the hon. Gentleman said:
  "I mean, for a start, originally these changes were not going to come into operation until the year 2002".
  He should have made it clear to the interviewer that the Irish box failed, as it would have done in 1996.
  The Opposition's own policy, which I shall mention as the hon. Gentleman has not done so, is called regionalisation. The hon. Gentleman made it up in one or two radio studios around the country. As I understand it, the basis of it is that we should have controls to limit the access of fishermen from one region of the United Kingdom to other regions of the United Kingdom and other parts of the Community. That would be wonderful for the fishermen at Brixham, who spend a great deal of time in the North sea, and for the tuna, mackerel and herring fishermen who have to follow stocks which migrate. Sailors from Lowestoft, and the Grimsby sailors who are well known to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), go to Norwegian, Dutch and Danish waters. The hon. Gentleman's policy would restrict them—or, in his words, regionalise them— around the coasts of the United Kingdom. It is a typical half-baked, meaningless Labour policy made up on the run in an interview studio and probably already abandoned.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: I understand that the Minister's own track record is that he attended one Fisheries Council and abstained at one. Does he feel sufficiently in command of his subject to lecture anyone else about their knowledge or lack of it in respect of the fishing industry?
  Mr. Waldegrave: I feel every confidence in lecturing the Labour Front Bench spokesman. If the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) wishes to defend the Labour party on this, that is an internal problem for him which I shall not seek to enter into at present.

  779
  The fact that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East is confused is confirmed by the fact that he said something completely different before Christmas, when he stated:
  "The problem is in the short run and right up to the year 2002 we have to operate within the framework of the current CFP".
  That is the end of the regionalisation policy, so the pirouettes have already taken place, as they do elsewhere in his party.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who I am sure has a great deal of good will and sympathy from everyone on this side of the House. Among the farrago of nonsense from the Opposition Front Bench spokesman was the question of how one explains to the fishing community why we are paying to take our boats out of the water so that the fish that they would otherwise have caught will now be caught by the Spanish and Portuguese. Would it be right to suggest that the answer is that under qualified majority voting the Luxemburgers have 20 times as much influence per capita over what happens to British fish, so there is very little that the Government can do about it until we come out of the Common fisheries policy?
  Mr. Waldegrave: I shall come to decommissioning at the proper place in my speech. I remind my hon: Friend that there is nothing in the deal or in the accession deal which gives any more fish to Spain under the quota system. We have about 43 per cent. of the quotas in the relevant western waters. Spain has about 2 per cent. of the quotas in those relevant western waters. That has not changed, and nor has the balance between them.
  Dr. Robert Spink: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the agreement that he reached, which was better than was predicted, raised our quotas by £14 million above the level originally suggested by the Commission?
  Mr. Waldegrave: That is indeed so. We negotiated a number of the swaps that are usually undertaken. For instance, we got a large extra tonnage of cod and whiting for the northern Irish fishermen, which is extremely useful to them.
  Mr. Anthony Steen: One understands about the quota, but Spanish fishermen will also be allowed to fish without limit non-quota stock in the Irish sea, which will affect the fishermen of Brixham considerably.
  Mr. Waldegrave: That is perfectly true, but the crucial point is that the fishing effort cannot increase overall. That is the point on which we have to stand.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Waldegrave: Let me proceed a little. I want briefly to remind the House, as I want to get on to the positive actions that we can take, about the Labour record on the issue.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East made great play of how I should have done this or that. For five years, between 1974 and 1979, his party negotiated with various specific objectives and had the benefit of the veto as it
  780
  was before qualified majority voting. Its performance was lamentable. Mr. David Owen, who was then part of the Labour party and may be again for all I know—
  Mr. Derek Enright: No chance.
  Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman says, "No chance". Lord Owen gave away the vital issue of Hague preferences for the south-west. Had he not made a complete mess of that negotiation in 1976, much of the pressure on south-western fishermen that we are debating today would have been relieved as they would have had the same privileges as Irish and Scottish fishermen. That was a poor piece of negotiation and he had the veto to deploy.
  Mr. William Cash: My right hon. Friend knows the ins and outs of the matter, but can he explain why we did not properly renegotiate the common fisheries policy in the run-up to the Maastricht negotiations?
  Mr. Waldegrave: It was not on the agenda at that time. I shall come to the future in due course, but I hope that my hon. Friend will hear something that he likes about how the British Government will approach the measures.
  The truth of the negotiation before December was set out with typical lucidity and clarity by my right hon. and noble friend Lord Tebbit talking on the radio just before Christmas. He was kind enough to agree with the interviewer, who put the proposition to him that I got the best possible deal for Britain. My right hon. and noble Friend went on to say:
  "It does go back to the accession agreement and it was thought at that time to be in British national interests that the Spaniards should be brought in, and I guess in the longer term it probably is."
  At the time, the House supported that position. My noble friend Lady Thatcher said:
  "The terms are very satisfactory for the United Kingdom."
  The then Leader of the Opposition, now the European Commissioner for Transport, said:
  "I welcome the. enlargement of the European Economic community membership with the accession of the newest democracies of Spain and Portugal".—[Official Report, 2 April 1985; Vol. 76, c. 1061–62.]
  The Labour spokesman, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), said:
  "We welcome the accession of Spain and Portugal. The Opposition do not welcome accession blindly or ignorantly or oblivious of the difficulties and anxieties".—[Official Report, 10 December 1985; Vol. 88, c. 883.]
  The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), speaking for the Liberal Democrats, went a great deal further, saying:
  "By bringing Spain into the fisheries regime and now applying to Spain the regulations on, for example, mesh sizes, we are exerting a control which would not have been possible if Spain had remained outside the Community. It was very difficult to get and I congratulate the Government on it."—[Official Report, 4 December 1985; Vol. 88, c. 335.]

  781
  I hope that the Liberal Democrats will be honest enough to stand by what their spokesman said then and vote down the motion today because they know perfectly well that the negotiation— [Interruption.]
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister give way?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House again that if the Minister does not give way, others must resume their seats.
  Mr. Waldegrave: Opposition Members know perfectly well that what I was negotiating in December was winning back ground that they realised at the time would be lost.
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend reflect for a moment on his remark that the Labour Government were negotiating with the advantages of the veto? After his experience, where many of us would concede that he made a good job of a difficult position, is it now the Government's considered view that negotiations about our territorial waters ought not to be subject to qualified majority voting?
  Mr. Waldegrave: If things had fallen out differently and we had had no qualified majority voting on the matter, I would have found negotiating easier and I would have done a great deal better than John Silkin, who gained nothing even though he had the veto to deploy.
  The position now, as my hon. Friend knows, is that as part of the Single European Act, out of which great benefits came in the establishment of the single market, qualified majority voting covers those issues which affect the single market. It is a good moment to make the point that our fishermen benefit greatly from the single market. We export about £450 million worth of fish and fish products to the single market and to the European market. Fishermen from our ports catch species which do not have a real market in the United Kingdom for historical reasons. Those fish are sold at much higher prices in Europe than if the single market did not exist. If our fishermen had to export against tariff barriers, they would not enjoy that income. By a tradition going back hundreds of years, people in this country eat much less fish than the French or Spanish. The Spanish eat 70 lb of fish per head each year while the figure for the UK is 14 lb. We must maintain access to that market for the sake of our fishermen.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister give way now?
  Mr. Waldegrave: I must press on or I shall get into trouble with Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Until an hour or two before the December negotiations ended, we were steadily winning back ground and secured extra gains—particularly in relation to Scotland, which is why I abstained rather than voted against. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East rightly said, the negotiations are continuing because there are other matters to negotiate. If people are giving things, it is bad negotiating policy not to respond. The hon. Gentleman has experience of that. He was good at negotiating with his colleagues
  782
  between 1974 and 1979 and obtaining nothing. After five years of steady negotiation to extend fishery limits from 12 miles to 50 miles, the limits remained at 12 miles.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Waldegrave: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  I did not claim then and do not claim now that we returned triumphant, having won everything, but we achieved two thirds of our objectives. If the strict legislative and legal basis had been followed, we could have returned with nothing. People know that it was not a bad deal. The Spanish know that, too. Just before Christmas, the Spanish newspaper El Pais commented:
  "Inevitably, the Spanish fishery associations will see no cause for celebration."
  Correct. El Mundo quoted Jaime Tejedor, chairman of the Basque country fishermen's association, describing as "terrorism by the state" the agreement allowing Spain limited access to European Union fisheries in 1996. He said:
  "If they were going to give up like this, there was no need to go to Brussels to negotiate. I thought they were going to be firm this time, that they were going to defend our fishing industry to the hilt, as the President of the Government, Felipe Gonzalez, promised, even to the extent of vetoing the enlargement of the EU, but that isn't what happened."
  That is quite right—it is not what happened. The report continued:
  "The Galician fishermen spoke in similar terms, and consider `unacceptable' the discrimination against the Spanish fleet regarding its exclusion from the Irish Box. They believe the agreement will bring little benefit to Spain from 1996, since it establishes further limitations on the fleet's access to resources and maintains the unequal treatment to which Spain has been subjected since the treaty of accession was signed."
  Another El Mundo report stated:
  "Spain will join the Common Fisheries Policy on I January 1996 … The compromise agreed yesterday is a long way from the full participation in the CFP sought by the Spanish Government."
  Those are true and sober assessments from the Spanish end—how it looks from Spain. We returned with a continuation of the Irish box, with only 40 ships in it, whereas halfway through the negotiations the Spanish still wanted 70, and there might have been no Irish box protection. We kept them out of the Irish sea and the Bristol channel, and we maintained their exclusion from the North sea, which is crucial to British fishermen.
  When there are further big negotiations on the common fisheries policy in 2002, or perhaps earlier, we shall have established Spain's exclusion from large areas as part of a non-discriminatory and balanced policy. That will give far better hopes of keeping control in the long-term future. We have added two extra zones to the North sea under that principle.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East correctly quoted a headline from Fishing News, but for some reason he did not quote its comment on 6 January:
  "The Ministers did fight hard in Brussels and got more than many feared."
  That, too, is correct. People who really understand the issue know that it was not a bad deal in a weak situation.
  Mr. Robert Hicks: My right hon. Friend will notice that the Order Paper includes an amendment in the names of hon. Friends from the far

  783
  south-west emphasising the need for a Government commitment to negotiate with our European partners to ensure fundamental changes in the CFP and, in the interim, to introduce a meaningful decommissioning scheme—for which right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House have asked.
  Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. We need a CFP that is better at controlling stocks. No one doubts that there is too much fishing capacity in Europe, including the United Kingdom. A decommissioning scheme is needed so that our fleet is profitable and there can be reinvestment in building new ships. That will secure the industry's long-term future against a background of somewhat lower fishing effort.
  I can tell my hon. Friend and others who have raised the same point—including my hon. Friends the Members for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) and for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe), the hon. Member for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder) and the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor)—of a further addition to the decommissioning scheme. We will add to the present scheme of £25 million over three years a further £28 million, more than doubling the size of the scheme. It is essential that the British fleet should be profitable and trade at full capacity and the scheme will secure the long-term future better than anything else. That is one of the things that we must do immediately, to make the present situation work.
  In the House the other day, a number of my hon. Friends rightly raised the question of enforcement: although Spain has small quotas and we have the biggest, we do not believe that the Spanish play according to the rules. We are not alone in the world in believing that: the Canadians and the Norwegians tell the same story. As none of this starts until next year, we have a little time to review our enforcement systems: our assets, the Royal Navy ships; aerial surveillance, which will be vital; and how to make the hailing in and hailing out system work. Also, my noble Friend Lord Howe reported to the other place yesterday on the satellite system which is under trial.
  The Commission inspectorate, which this Government brought into being as a result of work by Lord Walker, is to report back and to be strengthened. Above all, the deployment of Royal Navy ships must be strengthened and correctly located.
  Mr. Rupert Allason: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Waldegrave: I will give way to my hon. Friend, who comes from a relevant region.
  Mr. Allason: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that although additional decommissioning money is most welcome, there is a requirement by the Commission to reduce our overall fleet by 19 per cent. by the end of 1996, but that the industry itself calculates that the sum required will be not less than £75 million?
  Mr. Waldegrave: That will not be the only measure in place, as my hon. Friend will be aware from his knowledge of the subject. I hope that he accepts our good faith in putting money on the table today, which shows that we will meet the programme and are taking it
  784
  seriously. Most of my right hon. and hon. Friends will welcome the statement that I have made. The fishing industry will certainly welcome it.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
  Dr. Norman A. Godman rose—
  Mr. Waldegrave: I will get into a good deal of trouble if I give way so much that no time is left even for the eloquent speeches that Opposition Members are doubtless capable of making.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not complain that I have not been allowed to intervene on the Minister, but is it riot discourteous to the House for a Minister to give way uniquely to hon. Members on his own side?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): That is not a point of order, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. It is for the Minister to decide whether or not to give way.
  Mr. Waldegrave: It may have escaped the hon. Gentleman's attention that I gave way several times to his hon. Friends earlier in the debate.
  The present system of fisheries management—I think that I shall take most people with me on this—is highly complex, burdensome on fishermen and expensive to operate. For the longer term, we need to look for ways of simplifying it, to see whether it could be more effectively market driven, while still ensuring that exploitation of fish stocks is sustainable. I want to look at a range of ideas and to learn from what other countries are doing—from New Zealand to Norway, from Canada to the south Atlantic—with different types of quota systems and fisheries management, different approaches to enforcement, and so on. I shall also want to examine the scope for further action in technical areas, including technical conservation and discard policy—one of the most offensive aspects of current systems for managing fish.
  Over the years, much thought has been given to these matters, hut if we can find better approaches I shall want to discuss them with our industry and, if they seem workable, to take them up with the Fisheries Council.
  I therefore intend to ask the fisheries Minister, who enjoys an almost unique degree of respect in the industry for the work that he has done, to convene a group, parallel to the one that I established to review the common agricultural policy, to review the common fisheries policy and to look at all these options again, particularly with a view to limiting overfishing and bureaucracy. We must remove bureaucracy from this business wherever it is found.
  Some concern has been expressed on another front currently in the news—the projected framework document on Northern Ireland—that there could be provision for a joint north-south marine fisheries policy for the island. I make it plain today that we do not intend there to be such a policy and that we shall 4make no such proposals.
  We shall be looking at the costs and the benefits. We shall be looking at the undoubted problems that the CFP poses for us. We shall also be looking at the benefits of our participation in the single market, which I discussed earlier with my hon. Friends. We need a modern, profitable fleet investing in new boats and new

  785
  technology. That is already happening in some places. It is not all doom and gloom. Some areas have had good years and new boats are being built at this very moment—
  Mr. John D. Taylor: A few moments ago the Minister said something which requires a little clarification. Can he confirm that there will be no cross-border committee in Ireland with executive powers over fishing?
  Mr. Waldegrave: I confirm what I said—that we make it plain that we do not intend that there should be provision for joint north-south marine fisheries. No one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman—I am not sure that he did not invent them himself—that there are some special arrangements governing inland waters, but we will not have joint arrangements with the Republic to deal with common fisheries policy matters.
  As I have said, we need a modern fleet. Today Labour Members have tried to make political capital out of the fishing industry, pretending a sudden concern for it even though they forgot to include it in their manifesto. That is to play politics with the future of a serious industry. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will not fall for that old ploy. I remind them of what the Leader of the Opposition has said about negotiating in Europe—that he will negotiate in a consensual manner and that he will never be isolated in Europe. He will never do what poor old John Silkin did, sitting there for five years, with a veto, and getting nowhere at all. At least Silkin had the courage to be isolated. The Leader of the Opposition is throwing in the towel before he has even started on all these issues.
  I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject this piece of opportunism from the party of Silkin and of Owen—the party which has now said that it will never stand alone in Europe. We should reject this ridiculous motion and see it for what it is: a rather pathetic ploy to try to mislead and to make political capital out of the fishing industry. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to throw out the Labour motion and to vote for our amendment.
  8.3 pm
  Mr. James Wallace: We shall find out at 10 o'clock tonight whether the bait on the long line that the Minister has cast will be swallowed by those in whose direction it was clearly aimed. I have argued in the House on many occasions in favour of decommissioning. Indeed, the Minister echoed some of my arguments for bringing fishing capacity into line with available stocks. If that was his reason for strengthening the decommissioning scheme, we would warmly welcome it, although we would probably say that the money was not enough.
  It was only a matter of weeks ago—on 14 December—that the Minister of State told us that none of this would be possible. The right hon. Gentleman's speech this evening will be regarded by fishermen, especially in the south-west of England, as providing millions of pounds of taxpayers' money simply to lay up British vessels, which will have to make way for Spanish vessels entering our waters. The Secretary of State refused to say whether the additional £28 million will be spread throughout the United Kingdom, in line with the arrangements now in
  786
  force for decommissioning. The Minister of State must answer that question and tell us whether the money will be concentrated on the areas most affected by the agreements reached by the Council of Ministers.
  It is welcome to see so many hon. Members in the Chamber expressing an interest in the fishing industry. I hope that they will attend many of our future debates on the subject. Those of us who participated in December's debate were in no doubt as to the depth of feeling about the important decision that was to be taken at the Council meeting. We know, too, about the outcry and the expressions of utter dejection on the part of many in the industry thereafter. The fact that we are holding this debate shows just how badly let down the industry has felt following the meeting of the Council of Ministers. Salt was rubbed in the wound when the Minister could not even bring himself to vote against the deal. Tonight, he has moved an amendment which amounts to nothing but self-congratulation.
  This decision was not just one of a kind; it is the latest in a series of decisions which have adversely affected the industry. To be fair to him, the Minister of State did a great deal of work during the run-up to the negotiations, talking to the industry and lobbying some of our European partners. During last year's European election campaign, I met fishermen in Devon and Cornwall who believed that they were getting a raw deal the whole time, however, because their industry operated so far from London, in scattered communities. They thought that their interests did not feature largely enough in the minds of Ministers, and that the issues concerning the industry were always subordinated to others. I fear that that impression will have been reinforced this evening, and by the decisions taken in Brussels at the end of December.
  One key example of the betrayal of the fishing industry's interests was also the forerunner of these discussions. I saw the Minister look to his Minister of State to find out the answer to this when pressed earlier in the debate. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East was right: with the exception of the Irish box, which, it was always known, was to be renegotiated before the end of 1995, the other arrangements in respect of Spanish and Portuguese access were to remain in place until the end of the year 2002. That was set out in a letter from the former Commissioner to our Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, then President of the Council of European Communities. The Commissioner set out the legal position on 23 December 1992:
  "the general arrangements in the Act of Accession, as regards conditions of access and fishing by the Spanish and Portuguese fleets in the waters of the 'Ten' and vice versa, remain in force until 31 December 2002".
  But this House has never been told why the Government supported the Council of Ministers' decision to go back on that.
  On 24 June 1993, the Council of Ministers took the view that the
  "adjustments to the accession arrangements should be undertaken in the spirit of the reform, in order to strengthen its impact."
  What reform? What impact? The House has never been told. The Minister owes us and the fishing industry an explanation of why the pass was sold at such an early stage.
  The deal that was struck gives rise to a whole series of other questions, too. The Minister won a valuable concession at an earlier Council meeting, when we were

  787
  told that the Irish box had become a biologically sensitive zone. How can 40 more vessels enter part of that zone while it is maintained that the British fleet will not be compromised? How does the Minister square that circle?
  The Minister said today that the whole Bristol channel would be denied to Spanish vessels. That all depends on how the Bristol channel is defined. The Trevoes head area is one of the most sensitive in terms of breeding stocks, yet the Spanish will have access to it. Will that really be the case? Will that not destroy the conservation purpose of the area? Important issues will arise in fleshing out the deal.
  At present, 18 standard Spanish vessels are allowed in the waters of area VI north of the Irish box. It is unclear how many will be allowed in after the deal. Is the Minister able to tell us how many Spanish vessels will be allowed in that area? Will there be more than 18?
  We have been told that a system of effort control might be required of member states. What will the Government propose?
  What happened to deregulation? I remember that after the meeting of the Council in November deregulation was claimed to be one of the great successes of the British negotiation. I endorsed much of what the Minister said about the need to reduce bureaucracy, but the deal that we are discussing will increase bureaucracy. We shall have more regulation.
  The Minister was silent on swaps. I understand that he was silent after the meeting of the Council of Fisheries because he did not know what had happened. As a result of swaps between Spain and, I think, Belgium and France, Spain will be able to fish for cod, haddock, whiting and saithe in areas of western waters where its fishermen were not hitherto allowed.
  Can Spain enter into swaps with other European Community nations in, for example, the North sea, which would give it the right to fish in the area for stocks? The Minister shakes his head. I invite him to deny now that the Spanish cannot enter into swaps and get the right to fish white fish in the North sea and, therefore, upset relative stability.
  The problem was that the Government were isolated in Europe. When it came to a critical national issue, they had no friends. In the midst of negotiations, Mr. Robert Shrimsley of The Daily Telegraph wrote:
  "One Tory source said that Mr. Major had been attempting to call in favours across Europe to find an acceptable compromise."
  We saw the result of the Prime Minister's efforts. Imagine him phoning the Belgium Prime Minister and saying, "Mr. Dehaene, I did you a great favour by saving you from becoming the president of the Commission. Will you do us a favour and save our vital national fishing interests?"
  Year after year, the Government have taken a negative attitude in Europe. When the time comes to try to cash in some credit, they find that they do not have any. Britain's national interests have been fatally compromised by the Government's isolationist approach to European matters for far too long.
  The Minister has said that a working group may be set up to reform the common fisheries policy. He told the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) that he could not do it earlier because it was not on the agenda at the time of Maastricht. He conveniently avoided mentioning that the
  788
  following year the CFP was up for review, during a period when Britain had presidency of the Council. The Government did not take that opportunity.
  We welcome the Minister's statement that he is to set up a working party. No doubt, the fishing industry will contribute to it, as it did in 1993 when it was asked for its views on how to take forward technical conservation ideas. Its views seem to have gathered dust either in the Scottish Office or in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We want a commitment that this time the industry's ideas will be given serious treatment. If we are looking to a review of the CFP, let us have a commitment that the views of the industry will be not only sought but acted on.
  Somewhere along the line, the Commission has lost its way. No longer does it appear, as once it did, to have in its focus the needs of many of our fishing Industries and fishing communities around our coastline. If we are to review the CFP, we must look to those communities where families depend so much on fishing opportunities. They seem to have been sacrificed in the most recent deal and in a series of deals. We shall support the motion not least because it would enable a fundamental review to be undertaken.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that, between now and the replies by the Front-Bench speakers, speeches will be limited to 10 minutes.
  8.14 pm
  Mr. David Harris (St. Ives): First, I shall say a few words about my ministerial colleagues and their performance in Brussels at the climax of protracted negotiations. The climax came on 22 December, when what I think was a disgraceful episode occurred and the United Kingdom was outvoted. I only wish that we had had the veto on fishing policy. I cannot help but observe that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), the leader of the party represented by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace)—I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is not in the Chamber this evening—would give away the last vestiges of our veto in Europe. That is by the by.
  I return to the Ministers. I have one criticism, and one alone, about the way in which they conducted the negotiations, or the way in which they acted. They fought hard and they fought well, and there is much in what they say, given the rotten nature of the hand that they had to play in Brussels during the negotiations. My one criticism is that, despite what my right hon. Friend the Minister said tonight, he abstained rather than voting against the deal. I believe that he should have voted against it.
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State has, I believe, been the finest Minister with responsibilities for fishing that we have had for many a long year. I pay full tribute to all that he has done, especially in re-establishing links with the industry and the trust of the industry. I am sad that this evening much of the good work that he has done might well be in jeopardy because of the understandable attitude of the industry to what happened in Brussels.
  I loathe what happened in Brussels on 22 December. In my opinion—I have used the phrase before—it was a cynical stitch-up of an agreement, which was led by the Commission. All sorts of bilateral deals were struck,

  789
  particularly the quota swap between France and Spain that will increase Spanish fishing opportunities. I am sorry to say that at the end of the day the United Kingdom was left completely and utterly isolated. There was little it could do but fight a rearguard action. I think that my right hon. Friend the Minister did well, along with the Minister of State, in fighting that action.
  Where are we left? What is the future for our fishing industry? I do not mind admitting that I have always described myself as a pragmatic European. I was a Member of the European Parliament for five years. The result of the negotiations, however, has had a profound effect on my attitude to Europe, to our relationship with Europe and to the way in which we shall in future approach fisheries problems. Although the negotiations were about fishing, they encapsulated so many of our difficulties, as I see it, in our future relationships and in the way in which member states will be treated.
  What was wrong, and perhaps different, about the negotiations was that, in my reading of the situation, there was no acceptable compromise, I believe that there was a ganging-up against the United Kingdom. I accept that the deal was unpopular in Spain among the fishermen as well but there was a ganging-up by the other member states, egged on by the Commission, and we were skewered in Brussels.
  What happens now? We have not reached the end of the story. There are further stages in the CFP. Above all, in 2002 there must be a complete revision of the policy. That will be done on the basis of qualified majority voting. We shall not have a veto. Liberals welcome that, but I do not. Somehow, we must get some control.
  I do not have an easy answer, there are many, including my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman)—I am sorry that she is not in her place because I thought that she was developing a great interest in fishing matters, but clearly it is transient—and some representative members of the industry, who are somehow giving the impression that there is an easy solution.
  One of the easy solutions, of course, is to withdraw from the common fisheries policy just like that. I wish that somebody could tell us how that could be achieved. If somebody could convince me that it was possible unilaterally to withdraw from it I would be tempted by that prospect. As the amendment tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) makes clear, I want a fundamental recasting of the arrangements, be they inside or outside the common fisheries policy, to return a much greater element of control of the fish stocks around our coast to our own Government. That is what I want to see. What I am not convinced about is how on earth we can achieve that objective.
  I deal now with decommissioning. In a way, the amount of money that my right hon. Friend squeezed out of the Treasury is a personal embarrassment. He was kind enough to inform me and my hon. Friends the Members for Cornwall, South-East and for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) of the amount when we met him a couple of nights ago. Quite frankly, I was taken aback by the size of what is now available. It will help enormously. Fishermen come to my surgery—one came last Saturday—and say, "We want to leave the industry. We want to take decommissioning." It will help, but it is not the answer to
  790
  the fundamental problem that we and the industry will face in future or to what it faced before. We are all aware of the problem. How on earth can we have a policy that conserves stocks and cuts back on effort on a fair basis?
  Again, I return to the wretched deal in Brussels. It is not a fair deal for our fishermen, whatever is said about it. No one can convince me for one second that somehow there is some means to ensure that only the 40 Spanish vessels—I wish that there was not a single Spanish vessel—allowed into some of the waters of the box will fish there. I am convinced that more than 40 Spanish vessels will fish from time to time and probably most of the time in that huge area of water.
  If there are more vessels, there will be an increase in fishing effort. The pretence that has been put up that somehow there will be no overall increase in fishing effort is laughable. Of course there will be. The Spanish, of course, are notorious for breaking every known rule in the book. They will cheat and cheat again. Of course there will be an increase in effort. I know what will happen. Next year or the year after, the scientists will come forward and say, "We are sorry but the stocks have been under still more pressure. They are reaching danger states and therefore there must be a cut in quota." Although my hon. Friend the Minister of State is correct that, as part of the deal, we still have our full quota, it will be cut and cut again. That follows as surely as night follows day.
  That is the prospect for the deal and for the future of the common fisheries policies. It fills me not with apprehension but with utter dismay. I am bitter about what happened in Brussels on the night of 22 December, but if I am bitter, imagine how my constituents who fish from Newlyn feel. Their anger is justifiable.
  That leads me to one conclusion, and I shall finish on this note of deep, deep sadness. I applaud what Ministers have done. I am very grateful indeed for the way in which they have tried to accommodate me, my colleagues and other hon. Members, but I am going to vote against the Government tonight. I have come to that conclusion after a lot of thought. There is an illogicality in my voting. I know that it will not change the situation, but at some point individual Members of Parliament must make a stand on an issue. I can only say that, for my part—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up.
  8.24 pm
  Mr. Robert Hughes: It would be normal courtesy in the House to welcome the Minister on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box to speak in a fisheries debate, but I am afraid that the best that I can say is that it would have been better if he had stayed away, because he said only two things, the first being that abstention is an honourable stance. I should tell him that quite often people who stand in the middle of the road get run down. Secondly, he said that it was a good deal, a marvellous negotiating position, but we could not bring ourselves to vote for it. That is hardly an honourable position for the Minister to take.
  We are debating an industry that is in an extremely precarious position. It is bound to be. It is an industry that seeks to harvest a crop, yet there is virtually no control over the stocks that are available. We already have evidence from scientists who say that the cod and haddock are under an even greater threat than we thought. They

  791
  now suggest that there may have to be as much as a 30 per cent. cut in the total allowable catch. That is a quick synopsis of what the scientists are saying.
  The trouble is that there is no stability. The scientists tell us one year that the stocks are under dire pressure. A couple of years later they come back and say that we can double the quota. Then they say again that the stocks are under dire pressure. The problem is that none of us can afford to ignore their advice. We have the dreadful precedent of what happened in the Canadian cod grounds.
  The fishing industry, not unnaturally, does not accept all that the scientists say. I believe that it accepts what they say about cod, but not about haddock. We are in the dreadful position of not knowing where we are on that matter. The industry needs stability, but it does not get it, because the common fisheries policy undergoes crisis after crisis. It is crisis management. We have been asking for extra decommissioning money for years. We have been told that it was not necessary, that it would have to be done gradually. It really is no good the Minister coming to the House tonight and saying that he has found an extra £23 million for decommissioning—
  Mr. Wallace: It is £28 million—so far.
  Mr. Hughes: I apologise. Perhaps after the principled stand taken by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) it might be a bit more than that by the time that the Minister replies.
  The point is that the £28 million is not being offered on any rational basis, but is being offered purely and simply to try to save the Minister's political skin. That is no way to deal with an industry and give it confidence. Its needs should be properly addressed. There was an allusion to an additional quota that the Minister had secured through swap arrangements and so on. It is no good him coming to the House and saying, "I've got a little extra fish for you lads in the north of Ireland, and a little extra fish for you lads somewhere else," on the basis that the only thing that matters in fishing is to stave off defeat in a parliamentary debate. That is what has bedeviled the Government's position.
  We all know that it is a simple mathematical formula. I do not pretend to be an Einstein in mathematics, but it is a simple fact that if there are more vessels fishing in an area, the amount of fish caught will go up—the Minister says that that will not happen, and no more fish will be taken out—and, if the catch goes up, the extra amount taken out by the Spanish will have to be taken off the people who traditionally fish there. These are the only two possible consequences of the deal. He must know that.
  The fundamental problem is that the common fisheries policy is now dangerously destabilised. The policy was never popular. It will never be popular, and there is no point pretending that it can be. I may not please some people by saying so, but I believe that the call to withdraw from the common fisheries policy is dangerous. It is unrealistic and those who advocate that are peddling a dangerous illusion. Whatever people might think of the past we are locked into the European Union and into the common fisheries policy.
  It is no good being nostalgic and looking back to the halcyon days of an abundance of fish. My knowledge of the industry is not that of someone who has gone to sea fishing, but my father was a fisherman. Paradoxically, in the days when there was an abundance of fish in the sea,
  792
  the fishing communities were pretty poorly off. The fishing communities were not great thriving areas of richness. Yes, they had a richness of culture and common community, but they were not rolling in money. We must face up to that paradox.
  It beggars belief that anyone with any intelligence could support the Government's amendment. It congratulates the Government on having achieved a magnificent deal, yet the Minister could not vote for It has the cheek to refer to 1976, as though that was when the whole problem began. The problem with fishing began when we acceded to the Common Market. The truth of the matter is that the fishing industry was sold down the river when we joined the Common Market. No Government have so far been able to repair that damage.
  The Minister says—oddly enough, in view of my strictures of him, as so often happens in speeches, I had written this before he spoke—that we need a radical review of the common fisheries policy. That is true. We do. The trouble is that, in that common fisheries policy review, we do not want the fishing industry being treated as a pawn to be exchanged in European bargaining on events which have no connection with the industry. That is how we landed in this position. The Spanish Prime Minister made threats just a couple of months ago.
  In dealing with the Spanish, will the Minister tell us how much of our "fishing fleet" is owned by the Spanish? I have heard figures as high as 23 per cent. I cannot believe that it is as high as that, but it would be interesting to know the exact figure.
  The difficulty that we are in is that, for the Prime Minister, Europe is either a great triumph in which he has negotiated everything that is good, or it is a place of damnation in which he wraps round his shoulders the Union Jack and plays the most nationalistic of cards.
  If we are to have a proper review of the common fisheries policy, we must recognise that there are poor fishermen in Spain, as there are in other parts of the Community. There are the big boys who travel the world and rape the resources around Africa. One need only speak to the people in Africa about the Spanish to learn what the Spanish do. They could not get away with it in the Irish box and other places where they are being allowed. They come in at night, paint their numbers and names out, fish like hell and go back out again. There is a constant moving of boats. The big boys in the Spanish fleet have nothing to commend them.
  A common fisheries policy review cannot be left to the European Commission or to national Governments. I say to fishermen in all parts of the United Kingdom something which I have said to them before and which they must take on board even more: such a review cannot be left just to the fishermen of individual communities.
  When one talks to fishermen one discovers that they have a lot more in common with fishermen in other parts of the Community than one might at first think. The fishing industries of the European Community must make common cause with one another so as to get the policy right and to bring about stability. If that is done, there is a possibility that, with a European-wide international convention, with Governments, the Commission and fishing industries considering the industry, we might save the industry. Unless we do something radical and tackle the problem seriously, we will not have to bother about having fishing debates because there will be no industry left.
  8.33 pm
  Mr. Rupert Allason: The sad background to the debate is well known to us all. Half of it is the fact that at the time of the treaty of Spanish accession, the Spanish had a fleet one and a half times the size of the rest of the European fleet put together. Since that time, that fleet has been modernised at Britain's expense. What sickens our fishermen is not just that the Spanish will be plundering British stocks, but that they are doing it with tackle for which we have paid. That is what is so desperately depressing.
  On top of that, even more depressing is the fishermen's firmly held belief that they have been betrayed, in particular by the abstention in Brussels. Whatever the long-term tactics are, whatever the advice from the Foreign Office, our fishermen cannot understand why our Ministers are not prepared to back Britain and Britain's fishermen.
  The consequences of what is taking place are difficult to predict. But we know that it will be Spanish vessels in British waters. Quota hopping will continue and British stocks will be denuded. The net effect of all that will be the removal of British ships to allow Spanish expansion at our cost.
  Decommissioning is something of a side issue because the reality is that, with selective tendering, most of the decommissioning money will favour Scotland and the north-east, because those are the areas of the greatest concentration of fishermen. The corollary of that is that decommissioning will have minimal effect in the south-west.
  The amendment in my name and that of 24 of my hon. Friends recommends withdrawal from the common fisheries policy. That may well be impractical. It may well be an exercise in gesture politics. But, quite frankly, our fishing communities want some gesture politics. They want to be able to go back to square one, to start again and to renegotiate the deal that will force on our fishermen's children and their grandchildren a future of redundancy or bankruptcy, all now called decommissioning. They have no future in the fishing industry and it is clear whom they hold responsible for that position.
  It may well be that a unilateral withdrawal from the common fisheries policy would be illegal. It may well end up in the European Court. But our fishermen would regard that as at least an opportunity to poke Europe in the eye. That is what they want and I would be happy to accommodate them if that could be achieved.
  The fishing communities of Britain are not minor areas that can be set aside as part of the common agricultural policy. Once ships are taken out of our fleet, they are gone for ever. What is so desperately sickening is to see all this British effort being removed at enormous cost to our fishing communities and then to see the Spanish ships moving in on British waters. That is what sticks in the throat of all those who live in the fishing communities, not just the fishermen, but their neighbours and their friends. Ministers should not misunderstand the level of support, particularly in the south-west, that those fishing communities have.
  That strikes at the very heart of our relationship with Europe. Are we really to allow the Europeans to walk all over us every single time? Are we really to abstain on every important issue because the Foreign Office has some
  794
  long-term objective? If the Spanish were blackmailing us and threatening not to allow expansion of the market on 1 January, I rather wish that we had indulged in precisely the same tactics and said that we would hold up expansion unless we got precisely what was required and what was intended under the original treaty agreement.
  Some serious questions have not been answered, and I am afraid that my right hon. Friend the Minister did not deal with them in his speech. Who will count the 40 Spanish ships? Who will check their catches? Who will inspect the tackle? We can be sure of one thing: it will not be the Spanish.
  This will the third vote on the issue that we are discussing. Some of us were given some pretty strong assurances when we were persuaded to vote for additional money for Europe last year. That vote was followed by a second, just before Christmas. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who talked tough: he told us what he would do in Europe, and asked for our support. On that occasion, some of us who were very doubtful agreed to support him, but made it clear that if there was an abstention or he came back with a poor deal—and we urged him to stand up for Britain's interests—a price would have to be paid. That price must be paid tonight.
  No one who heard the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) can have failed to be moved by his determination and his support for his constituents, and I shall be right beside him in the Division Lobby. As I have said, this is our third vote on the issue. I urge the House to take full account of what my hon. Friend said; the Government amendment takes us a vote too far.
  8.41 pm
  Mr. Alex Salmond: There will be some interesting combinations of people in the Division Lobbies tonight. My colleagues in the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru will certainly support the motion.
  Let me first say a word to the Opposition Front Bench. As has been amply demonstrated today, this is a Parliament of minorities, although admittedly some of those minorities are bigger than others. I suggest that, if Opposition Members wish to put real pressure on the Government, the official Opposition should discuss Opposition motions with spokesmen for minority parties: only if a coalition of interests in the House is determined to exert real pressure in regard to a critical issue can a Government come near defeat.
  Although the ranks are now thinning in comparison with the beginning of the debate, I think that we have already heard enough to gather that there is real concern in many parts of the House. There is evidence of that from Government Front Benchers. After a campaign lasting at least five years for adequate sums for decommissioning, the amount previously available has been more than doubled. I do not think that fishermen in my constituency will miss the fact that the first tranche was announced just before the declaration of a general election, while the second tranche has been announced at a time when the Government are under fundamental pressure. There may be some advantage in a Parliament composed of minorities for the fishing communities. I must, however, echo the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris): in the context of tonight's debate, that decommissioning money will be seen as a facilitation of the process of getting one British boat out for every Spanish boat that comes in.

  795
  Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that he would not succumb to Danegeld in any circumstances. We now have a case of what can only be described as Spanish doubloons. There will be real resentment at the fact that, all of a sudden, £28 million has become available when the Government are under pressure from a number of quarters. I understand from our colleagues in Northern Ireland not only that they have scuppered a cross-border agreement, but that they have 1,000 tonnes of fish coming from somewhere. The night is young; who knows how much more may be offered before the last desperate stage at 10 pm?
  There has been some disagreement about exactly when the pass was sold on the common fisheries policy. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food says that it was sold back in the 1970s, when he had no responsibility for the CFP, but I prefer a more recent version. I do not think that the problem was the treaty allowing accession to Spain and Portugal, which was a very limiting document; in fact, the bulk of Spanish strategy in the past two years of negotiations has been aimed at getting the Spanish out from under the limitations in the treaty. If they had not been concerned about that, they would not have had to doctor article 157—with the help of the Commission—and proceed with negotiations on an argument that, surprisingly enough, is supported only by the Spanish version of the treaty.
  It is remarkable that, over the past two years, the United Kingdom Government have allowed the Spanish Government to get away with such a negotiating trick in Europe. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) asked a good question: we want to know why on earth the United Kingdom allowed the current position to arise. An agreed policy based on limited access, with certain exceptions, is now becoming a policy based on free access with certain exceptions. The Government do not understand the weakness of their negotiating position for the future; even at this stage, they do not realise how they have been outfought and outmanoeuvred by the Spanish Government over the past two years.
  There is qualified majority voting, and we do not even have a minority of one; we have a minority of one half, because the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food chooses to abstain on vital votes. A former Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, the late Frank Maguire, achieved a certain notoriety because he used to transport himself from Fermanagh to abstain here in person. We now have a Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who goes to Brussels to abstain in person, such is his belief in the rightness of his negotiating position.
  The situation becomes worse as things go on. We do not have an agreement, as the Minister appears unable to tell the House; we have the framework of an agreement. The real negotiations are to take place over the next year. The Spanish are now in an extremely comfortable position: if no agreement is possible in the Council of Ministers, the matter will be decided in the Commission, or it may even be left to national Governments to enforce a policy. It seems to me that the Spanish negotiators have done the difficult job in Europe, and it will be all downhill as far as the Spanish are concerned.
  The reality is that the Spanish are now in the Irish box. It is not a concept for the future. Thanks to swaps from France and Belgium, they now have access to vital stocks of cod, haddock, whiting and saithe—limited quantities, admittedly, but they have legal access in areas VI and VII.
  796
  No one in the fishing community seriously believes that, now that they have that access, it will be easy to prise the Spanish out of the vital waters west of Scotland.
  What has happened to the CFP over the past two years has changed a position of relative stability—the cornerstone of the policy—to one of total instability. No fisherman looking at what has happened during that period can have any confidence in prospects for the future. I find it remarkable that our former circumstances—with the Spanish in a weak position at least in regard to efforts to achieve significant change before the year 2002—have changed to such an extent: the Spanish are now in a commanding position in the negotiations.
  The Minister of State returns from negotiation after negotiation, Council meeting after Council meeting, saying what an enormous victory he has achieved. He describes the way in which he has managed extraordinarily radical proposals from the Commission, and says that the fishing communities should celebrate his negotiations over the past two years. I do not understand how, after so many victories at so many Council meetings, we can possibly have arrived at our present position.
  I feel that it is very much up to those who have brought the negotiations to so disastrous a pass to explain to the fishermen of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland how they can possibly be protected in the current circumstances. I, for one, am certain that they will not be protected by this Government or this Parliament. I am increasingly of the belief, given the incompetence of the UK negotiations, that those fishermen can no longer be protected within the current framework cf the common fisheries policy.
  8.49 pm
  Mr. Christopher Gill: If time permitted, I would preface my remarks by offering some sympathy to the Minister who has, of course, inherited what is in effect an intractable problem. It is not a problem of his creation, nor was it created by his immediate predecessors. It has not even been created by this Government or this Parliament. The problem results from a mistake made by Parliament in 1972 which, in its anxiety to join the European Economic Community, as it was then called, agreed, among other things, to pool British waters with other countries of the EEC so as to create a common resource of all EEC waters and to accept the policy of equal access.
  Subsequently, successive Fisheries Ministers have sought to create a smokescreen to disguise those facts, to bamboozle the House and the nation so as to hide the enormity of what Parliament did in 1972. Unfortunately, the Minister just happens to be in post at this time as the fog begins to clear. It is no longer possible for him to bamboozle the House with talk of multi-annual guidance quotas, total allowable catches, relative stability and the rest of it, because the day of realisation has dawned. The consequences of what was done in 1972 are unfolding, and the Spanish fishing armada is less than 12 months away.
  The Government will undoubtedly try to find shelter in conservation measures, decommissioning schemes and perhaps in other measures as yet unknown. The truth is that, in 2002, quotas and TACs and all the other paraphernalia of the past 30 years will be swept away, to be replaced by those principles and policies that

  797
  Parliament agreed to in 1972—the establishment of a common resource with equal access for all members of the European Community to enjoy.
  What that Parliament in 1972 and subsequent Parliaments could never do was create more fish; on the contrary, successive Parliaments have invited more countries to catch them. If more and more countries join the European Community, two consequences will follow. First, more and more vessels will claim a right to fish in the waters that were once British and, as many hon. Members have said, that can be done only by displacing British fishing vessels. That will happen because of the finite resources of the waters around these islands.
  Secondly, the effect on our fish stocks will be disastrous because, instead of the good sense of British fishermen, greed, cheating and fraud will rapidly and savagely take hold and the seas around these islands will be hoovered clean. The House need not take just my word for it, because in a recent press report, that eminent gentleman, Sir Crispin Tickell, and his panel of environmental experts predicted that fish stocks in the North sea and the Irish sea might be on the verge of a collapse similar to that which put 18,000 fishermen in Newfoundland out of work two years ago.
  What Parliament did in 1972 was wrong and this Parliament must correct that wrong. I regret, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you have not been able to see your way clear to call the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and his 24 hon. Friends. Hon. Members must not vote an important British industry into oblivion, nor must we vote an important and renewable British resource into extinction. The House must consider the consequences of trying to defend the indefensible and of trying to fool all the people all the time, and the downright hypocrisy of saying one thing and meaning or doing something entirely different. For all those reasons, I shall vote against the motion and against the amendment in the full knowledge that one day I shall have to answer to the British electorate.
  8.54 pm
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: The betrayal which the agreement to admit the Spanish to our fishing waters represents is merely the outcome of a long story of neglect and indifference by Ministers towards the fishing industry. They have been happy to see that industry restructured by bankruptcy. They have never defended it from Europe and have never been prepared to take a stand in Europe, because some other issue has always been more important. They have never listened to the industry but have always listened to the Commission and to the arguments of other people in Europe.
  The industry has not even been served by continuity of Ministers. Ministers with responsibility for fishing are here today and gone tomorrow. There is a constant turnover and there is nobody to whom the industry can relate. The turnover in officials is at about the same rate and the industry has lost faith in the Government and in their administration of fishing.
  At the end of all that, fishing has been betrayed by allowing rapacious, cheating Spanish fleets into our waters six years ahead of time. The central question, which the Minister has not answered, is, why did the Government agree in principle to make Spain a full
  798
  partner in the CFP six years ahead of time? Why was that done? It is an insane negotiating tactic to agree such a matter in principle without knowing the administrative details, because once the principle is accepted, the details can be forced, and the Spanish have been clever at doing that.
  On top of that, the Minister returned to the country and the House in December and claimed a triumph. The Government claimed a wonderful achievement and successful negotiations. In a press release of 21 December, the Government said, "We shall increase the earnings of British fishermen." That is an insult to the intelligence of the industry and the House, and it has culminated now in another offer to try to buy off discontent with a kind of burial grant to get the industry to shut up by taking the money and getting out and dying.
  The Government are trying to buy off the dissatisfaction that they have produced by increasing the decommissioning grant. I was delighted to see that that did not buy the votes of the Members for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), who is an honourable Member, or for Torbay (Mr. Allason). I hope that it will not buy the votes of the other Members in the south-west. I heard a rumour that the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) would be bought off by being made a parliamentary private secretary. In fishing terms, that would be a kind of technical conservation measure. It certainly will not buy off the industry because, desperate as it is for better decommissioning grants—it wanted £75 million in the first place—it does not want the money to be paid, not as Danegeld but as a kind of Spaingeld to buy off its dissatisfaction.
  People in the industry are not prepared to be bought out, decommissioned, just to make room for Spanish vessels, which is the Government's intention. The Government are giving £28 million, which they have got to give anyway for other purposes to reduce the British effort under the multi-annual guidance programme. It will not buy off discontent. The industry does not want money on that basis; it wants a proper plan for putting money into supporting and restructuring the fishing industry.
  The decommissioning money is only the beginning of the rundown that is to come. The industry has to meet the multi-annual guidance programmes by 1996. The threat is that, if it does not and if, as will be the case, the agreement increases pressure. on the fish stocks in the area where the Spanish will fish, the industry will face a limitation on days at sea imposed not by our Government, who have been defeated on that point, but by the Commission.
  It is a bad agreement. I do not want to go into the detail, but I do want to know how it will be policed. Without a massive increase in resources for fishery protection, there is no way in which Spanish vessels can be inspected or we can prevent the practice of secret fish holds or illegal nets. We certainly cannot control landings at Spanish ports, which will not be interested in whether there has been overfishing, whether the wrong species has been caught or whether the fish are too small. The agreement cannot be effectively policed.
  The Minister claimed that this is a non-bureaucratic system. However, a Grimsby fishing vessel, such as the Sparkling Line, will have to report in and out eight times just to get to fish in the Irish box. What will be the effect of the swaps given to the Spanish to fish in those waters and does that not disturb relative stability? It establishes a track record for the Spanish in those areas. If it can be

  799
  done here, in crucial waters, why cannot it he done in the North sea? If a Spanish vessel is arrested in the North sea, it will have the right of appeal to the European Court, because our courts will not deal with such an arrest. What is to keep the Spanish out of the North sea?
  I want to concentrate on the main argument, which is that the fishing industry has been betrayed. It will always be betrayed—that is implicit in the common fisheries policy. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) threw away our fishing claims in his desperate desire to get into the European Community in 1972. We have always negotiated at a disadvantage—whoever else wins, we lose. That is the principle of the CFP. They have got us by the floats—or whatever those little balls are called that keep the nets afloat in the sea. We can always be overruled by majority voting. Every claim can be satisfied in our waters, from our fish. Other countries are not interested in defending those waters or those fish and they cannot be effectively policed.
  Policing at the port of landing is inadequate and the shore authorities will always be on the side of their fishing fleets, not on our side. There is no adequate way to police the agreement. Fishing is never perceived to be important enough for the British Government to take an effective stance. Only the nation state can conserve and manage its own fish stocks for the inheritance of future generations of fishermen. That is the basic principle of conservation.
  The Minister makes a number of tricky debating points, most of which are wrong. I wish that he would negotiate in Brussels with the vigour that he has shown in the House tonight. Instead, he is supine in the negotiations but vigorous when defending them in the House. Tricky debating points cut no ice with our fishermen. They want out of the whole business. They are fed up with being confused by counter-claims, lies and distortions about the CFP. If the Government say constantly, as the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and other Ministers do, that we cannot do this or that because of Europe, the only outcome will be violence. That is the inevitable result when people cannot get satisfaction from their own politicians and Government. There has been violence over the export of live animals and there will be violence in the fishing ports and grounds because the democratic process is being frustrated.
  It is a pity that the learning process about the consequences of European control is concentrated in a Minister who thinks he knows it all. It is a consequence of impotence in the negotiations. What do we get out of the CFP? It is a diet of lies and excuses. There is no effective conservation because other countries are not policed. There is increasing pressure on shrinking stocks. All of that is building up towards the year 2002, when all the derogations and regulations will be swept away and we will be left with the naked reality of a common fisheries policy of equal access to a common stock and a regime dictated by the Commission.
  We should begin to take back power and build up our strength, our position and our industry to face that eventuality. We must begin to flex our muscles. Unless Ministers are prepared to accept guidance and work with the industry rather than with the Commission, unless they begin to stand up for fishing rather than hitting it with the double whammy of no support while leaving it exposed to the depredations of the CFP, this betrayal will culminate in disaster in 2002.
  9.3 pm
  Mr. Phil Gallic: I shall begin by quoting from the January 1995 newsletter of the Clyde Fishermen's Association, of which I am proud to be an honorary vice-president. The newsletter states:
  "Many of our Members are still under the impression that, by hard negotiation, the British Government could have ensured the status quo so far as the fleets of Spain and Portugal were concerned … Unfortunately this was not the case."
  The association—as ever—is being pragmatic. I wish that Opposition Members demonstrated similar meritorious trends. Sadly, there has never been any evidence of that since I came to this place, and I see no evidence of it tonight when I read the motion.
  The motion tabled in the names of the Leader of the Opposition and his hon. Friends is as meaningful as reports of the lost cars of certain Opposition Members, and it does no credit to those who carry the label of Her Majesty's Opposition. If passed, the motion will do nothing for fishermen, other than make a futile gesture towards Europe. The motion as presented represents views that have already been argued by United Kingdom Ministers and their European counterparts, not just this evening, but at the time of the fisheries statement.
  Having examined the amendments that have been tabled, I have no doubt that I shall give full support to that tabled by my right hon. Friends. Their amendment does not congratulate the Government on a magnificent deal, as has been stated by some Opposition Members. It congratulates the Government on sustaining in the negotiations exclusion zones that had previously been seen as indefensible.
  I contend that my hon. Friends went to Brussels in December with a handful of twos and threes. While they did not turn up trumps, their determination and doggedness achieved more than many had expected before their departure. Once again, they found themselves in a minority of one in a majority voting situation. Once again, the majority could point to the cries of Opposition Members in the United Kingdom, who charge our negotiators with being anti-European for daring to stand against the collective will. Much has been said about the abstention, but unfortunately, without the veto, my hon. Friends' vote would have counted for naught. One does not always vote against items when the points have been won, and I accept the explanations given tonight about that abstention.
  My overall view is thank heavens—for the fishermen's sake—that my hon. Friends were carrying the torch, and not people such as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), whose double standards were exposed in the House yesterday. I draw the attention of the House to an article in Aberdeen's Evening Express on Monday last, in which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East called on my hon. Friends the Members for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) and for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) to support the Opposition's inane motion.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East failed to recognise that the agreement keeps the Spanish and Portuguese fishermen out of the North sea, and that is a significant point for my hon. Friends from north-east constituencies. Perhaps, of course, the hon. Gentleman simply wanted to give an inaccurate impression for the media to propagate—a not unfamiliar tactic from Opposition Members.

  801
  I note the amendment tabled by 25 of my hon. Friends who are noted, let us say, for their strong anti-European feelings. I respect them, even if I do not always agree with them.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Gallie: I only have 10 minutes in which to speak.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend has been very unfair.
  Mr. Gallie: In that case, I shall give way.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Does my hon. Friend accept that at no time have any of the 25 Members to whom he refers been anti-European? We are totally opposed to the European Community, which we believe is basically obliging a Conservative Government to impose socialism and abolish democracy.
  Mr. Gallie: I accept my hon. Friend's explanation. I perhaps should have said anti-European Community, rather than anti-European.
  I recognise that the fishing industry is divided on the suggestion that we withdraw from the CFP. I believe that even if it were practical to follow that course, it would do more harm than good and that our market potential would be damaged. We have heard tonight about the £450 million trade with Spain in particular. The Spanish market is important to my constituents, both fishermen and processors, and it is fundamental to the future prosperity of the fishing industry in the west of Scotland.
  I have some sympathy with the amendment tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) and for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) and I welcome the announcement of further decommissioning funds. I am sure that that announcement will be welcome in my part of the world and across the whole range of fishing interests in the United Kingdom.
  The preservation of the Irish box is a success of which I fully approve. I find it hard to understand how any hon. Member can object to it. The exclusion zones for areas VIIa and VIIf are most welcome. The limitation of vessels is much better than anyone could have expected and, as was illustrated by my right hon. Friend the Minister, that was reflected in the Spanish press around Christmas.
  It is understandable that our fishermen could hardly celebrate the results of negotiations that brought about further intrusion into our traditional fishing areas. However, if the federalists on the Opposition Benches had been conducting the negotiations, things would have been much worse.
  I am concerned that the limitations in the western waters should be maintained. I should like to believe that in areas VIb, VIIc and VIIk the numbers of vessels currently restricted will be maintained far into the future. I am concerned also that the French and the Belgians have already arranged to swap quotas with the Spanish. That gives them access to cod, haddock, whiting and saithe, which will create control problems.
  The key to the success of the negotiations is the manner in which they are policed. The problems felt by fishermen are based on a belief that the Spanish will cheat on quotas
  802
  and landings. There must be strict control over the measurements of the quotas and the landings, and there must be scrutiny of the landings.
  I should like to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister about how the detail involved in all this can be achieved. I believe that there is more detail to be put into the negotiations. There will be on-going contact. I believe that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department are the best that Britain has to conduct these negotiations and I look to their success in the future.
  9.12 pm
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) described himself as an honorary vice-president of the Clyde Fishermen's Association. I am an honorary president of that association, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). I can only assume that the Clyde fishermen have demoted the hon. Member for Ayr.
  Recently I spoke to Cecil Flynn of the Clyde Fishermen's Association and the president of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, as well as some of my constituents who are members of the association. They expressed serious concern about the disastrous deal.
  I thought that the Minister offered an offensive observation when he said that Labour Members have a Johnny-come-lately attitude to the well-being of the fishing industry and the fishing community. That is not the case. In what was no doubt a less than brilliant article that I wrote in Tribune 25 years ago—
  Mr. George Foulkes: It was very good. I remember it.
  Dr. Godman: In that article, I argued that there were too many fishermen chasing too few fish around seas that are the richest in the world for the harvesting of commercially valuable species. I went on to say that the common fisheries policy would need to be altered drastically before I would vote for membership of the European Community. I voted against it because the CFP did not protect our fishermen.
  Twenty years ago I wrote a paper for the Scottish government year book, arguing for a common fisheries policy based inter alia on the need to protect our local fishing communities against the international nomadic fishermen who had no history of fishing in our waters, especially the fragile waters such as those around the Western Isles. My hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) has argued the case more recently than I have—he is a little younger.
  During a debate on the European Union (Accessions) Act 1994, and in response, I think, to an intervention by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), I made the fairly safe prediction that the Norwegian people would vote against membership of the European Union. I said that on the basis of my knowledge of the fishing communities of northern Norway.
  I am the son of a fisherman and a fishergirl. I know that all my life, our Administrations have failed our fishing communities and let them down badly because they—the fishing communities and the fishing industry—did not have the clout that, for example, the National Farmers Union had with the Conservatives or that some trade unions had with Labour Governments. That is perhaps

  803
  especially true of my trade union—the Transport and General Workers Union—although I hasten to add that I am not sponsored by it. Successive Governments have betrayed the interests of those communities.
  My brother is right now fishing off the northern Norwegian coast. He and his family depend on this lousy, rotten common fisheries policy, which needs to be radically revised before 2002. It has to be reformed so that it protects the historic fishing communities from Cornwall to Shetland, including the Western Isles and the entire east coast of Britain, as it has not done hitherto.
  Scotland has witnessed the disappearance of its steel industry and the virtual disappearance of its shipbuilding industry. We cannot allow an indigenous industry, which is part of our culture—more so, I would argue, than steel, or shipbuilding for that matter—to slip away. In the long run, we must argue for a dramatic revision of the CFP which, despite the Minister's sneering remarks about so-called regionalisation, must stress the importance of traditional fishing communities. It is possible, within a national framework, to negotiate agreements between traditional communities, such as those in the Western Isles, and the fishermen who come there from elsewhere in Scotland.
  Time is short—no doubt Conservative Members are saying, "Fortunately so." In the short term, I have grave concerns about Spanish intervention and the so-called 40 vessels. The Spanish will not stick to their quotas. Has any hon. Member spoken to British crew members on Spanish trawlers? They will list the fiddles that take place when such vessels fish in our waters. My cousin, Len Whur, was the mate on a Spanish trawler and told me about the fiddles undertaken by Spanish fishing operators operating in Vigo and elsewhere. The Spanish will abuse the scheme.
  I shall end by asking the Minister a question. I am sure that he agrees that the toughest policing of fishing activity in the north Atlantic is to be found in Norwegian waters. My brother told me recently that the Norwegians boarded his vessel and were on board for several hours. His employer has told him that if he is caught out due to any irregularity, he will be sacked because of the harsh sanctions that the Norwegians impose against violations of their rules. Any Scottish fisherman or any fisherman from the Humber fishing those waters will say that he has to be spot on. Our fisheries protection fleet does a great job, but I do not think that it is a match for the Spanish.
  When a Spanish vessel is apprehended and the skipper is convicted in a British court, does the Minister have the power to remove the licence from such a vessel and prevent another Spanish vessel from replacing it? Were we to have that sort of power, we might go some way to diminishing the appalling consequences of the lousy deal negotiated by the Minister who is, admittedly, new to the job of fishing. I am not an expert and I have been around the industry all my life. The Government should have the power to say to any transgressor convicted in a court that he would lose his licence and no replacement vessel would be allowed into those fishing waters. Such policing is now becoming the norm in Canadian, American and Norwegian waters, and we need it here to protect what is left of the once valuable and prolific stocks.
  On my first trip to sea I came back after 20 days with 30,000 stone of fish—not due to me. Now those once-rich seas are nearly bare. The industry is almost destroyed and we must introduce, in the short run, policing methods to
  804
  frighten the Spanish and others into obeying the laws. Without that, the stocks will decline further. Despite what was said in the Spanish newspapers, the Spanish will laugh all the way to the bank at the expense of our fishermen. In the long term we need a radical revision of the CFP. In the short term we need policing as tough as that in place in Norwegian waters.
  9.22 pm
  Mr. Sebastian Coe: I shall detain the House for only a few short minutes this evening.
  This debate, to give it the most charitable gloss, is synthetic. It is fraudulent and mischievous because it is all about gestures. I shall immediately pick up on the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason)—I take gesture politics more seriously than he does. It is serious becasue gesture politics is callous. Hon. Members in both the major Opposition parties and some of my hon. Friends seek to reinforce the illusion prevalent in fishing communities that my right hon. Friend the Minister and my hon. Friend the Minister of State did anything but go two thirds of the way towards a negotiated package in Brussels before Christmas—which, although not ideal, they could have improved on in some way.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) has moved a motion that plays second fiddle to scare stories about through ticketing from a party whose leadership has consistently ascribed little or no status to fishing as an industry that affects the long-term livelihood of those communities who depend on that way of life. I absolve the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) of guilt in the matter.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East will need no reminding this evening—it is possible that some of his colleagues will—of what happened between 1974 and 1979 when he was responsible for such matters. In contrast to the cheap currency and soundbites of Opposition rhetoric today, the Labour Government of that period achieved no change to any of the mechanisms in place then, not even at the margins. They did not even have the excuse of qualified majority voting to fall back on. It is intellectually fraudulent to suggest that Labour would or could have fared any better around that pre-Christmas table than my right hon. Friend the Minister.
  In the cold light of day, we know that it was not a path on which either of the Opposition parties would have set foot. In 1985, the Labour party—again, I absolve the hon. Member for Great Grimsby—supported the accession of Spain and Portugal to the European Community. Knowing the full implications of that decision, it hid from the reality and palmed off the fishing communities. The Labour party failed to frame one policy or even mention fishing in its election manifesto of 1992. The issue was scrubbed from its European manifesto this year and it merits only a few lines in the Labour party's latest countryside policy paper entitled "In Trust for Tomorrow". Care, commitment and concern—tell me.
  The Liberal party shared in the sclerosis of ideas between 1974 and 1979 by way of the shabby Lib-Lab pact. Its leader, the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), is committed to getting rid of our national veto and stripping all protection from those communities for which the Liberals shed their crocodile tears.

  805
  That is what lies behind the Opposition's motion tonight—not policies intellectually argued and rigorously applied but cheap gestures which demean this Chamber and insult the intelligence of fishing communities the length and breadth of the Union.
  I am even less prepared to take lectures from the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) in this Chamber or to listen to the waterfall of rubbish that she speaks on the subject elsewhere. I suggest that her time would be spent more fruitfully thumbing nervously through local authority planning guidelines.
  The Minister should be in no doubt about the concern and understandable frustration which we feel at the hand of cards—our wretched history and the collective memory, often conveniently dimmed in this place—that the Minister took to Brussels. Although I recognise his notable achievements and the compromises reached during the negotiations, I regret that—even in the full knowledge of defeat—he did not vote against access by Spanish vessels to Cornish waters.
  I am relieved and very pleased about the extra money allocated for decommissioning which my right hon. Friend has announced tonight. It more than meets the expectations of fishing organisations and it is a sensible response to many of the underlying issues that have been well discussed in this place on other occasions.
  The truth is that this debate is about visiting the historic sins of the parents on the children. Those parents signed away many of our traditional fishing rights, either in ignorance or by collusion. It is those parents—many of whom are on the Opposition Benches tonight—who have much to answer for. I cannot support their motion.
  9.27 pm
  Mr. Calum Macdonald: I wish to ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food a few questions on behalf of fishermen in my constituency. Many details of the deal are still unclear, and we do not know how badly it will impact on many sectors of the fishing industry on the west coast of Scotland. However, the fishermen have good reason to fear that its effects will be very grim indeed.
  In his opening remarks, the Minister made great play of the fact that the Spanish fleet has a very small proportion of the fishing quotas available on the west coast— he mentioned the figure of 2 per cent. However, that does not take into account the latest manoeuvres within the French and Belgian industries which have made significant quota swaps with the Spanish. The importance of that is not just that the total owned by the Spanish has been increased but that many of the boats which otherwise would have no quotas whatsoever and no right to fish will now have some nominal quota and, therefore, can engage in the duplicitous practices for which the Spanish are notorious.
  Will the Minister also spend a little time on the steep increase in catches recorded by Spanish flag of convenience vessels fishing against the British quota? In species such as nephrops, monkfish and plaice and all total allowable catch species, foreign landings have increased by between 50 per cent. and 100 per cent. It is clear, therefore, that flag of convenience vessels are biting deeper into British quotas. That causes great concern,
  806
  particularly given the context of Spanish access, and it is important that the Minister says something about those increases.
  Finally, I congratulate my hon. Friends on having called the debate. It is notable that it was not the Government who found time for such an important debate; my hon. Friends pushed forward the interests of British fishermen and are defending them vigorously.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Elliot Morley: We have had an important debate tonight which has demonstrated many of the problems that the fishing industry faces at the present time. Many of those problems go back to the early negotiation of the Common Market and demonstrate that, although the Government may point to failures in the past, they have had 16 years to do something about them.
  We have had 16 years of policy failure in fishing—in particular, the failure of the original CFP agreement in 1983. That agreement sold out our fishing industry and left open the door of opportunity exploited by the Spanish and Portuguese in the recent accession agreements.
  The great tragedy is that the CFP has been severely discredited, as my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) pointed out. There is a growing movement demanding the radical and unrealistic unilateral termination of the CFP, as the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) mentioned. It has to be recognised, however, that, given the discontent within the industry, calls to withdraw from the CFP are hardly surprising. It is clear that there is a need for urgent action to be taken to rectify the current position. That is the main thrust of our motion tonight and it is deadly serious.
  It is an insult to the fishing industry for the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) to describe the debate as bogus. The fishing industry wanted the issue debated. The Government could have made a statement and provided an opportunity for a debate, but the Opposition have taken the matter so seriously that we have devoted one of our Supply days to it.
  Those of us who represent the fishing industry and ports know the strength of feeling on this issue and the risk that is posed to sustainable management by discrediting our position, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) pointed out. Not only is the CFP discredited, but all that is positive about the European ideal is also discredited when people have no confidence in agreements from Brussels.
  Whatever gloss the Minister may put on it, Spanish boats are fishing in United Kingdom waters and establishing track records where they had no previous entitlement. At the same time, the British fleet faces a reduction through decommissioning.
  In a letter recently, the Minister of State reassured fishermen that there would be no new measures to control efforts as long as effort on fish stocks did not increase in the area and in the former Spanish box. Is that really likely, with the admission of an extra 40 Spanish vessels in the Irish box?
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) pointed out, the Spanish have a poor record in abiding by rules. There is also need for effective enforcement, which does not appear in the new deal, but to suggest that there will be no increase in effort

  807
  by allowing the Spanish in is about as likely as the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) eloping with Jacques Delors and opening a bijou French restaurant in the Dordogne. According to the Minister, the deal was apparently approved by Lord Tebbit. It seems that the Government must meet a new standard—the Tebbit test—before a deal may be regarded as acceptable. It makes one wonder who makes foreign policy in the Conservative party.
  We are serious when we ask for a review of the CFP. There will be an opportunity in 2002, or even sooner—as the right hon. Gentleman interestingly said. Perhaps the Minister of State will expand on that comment. Will there be an early opportunity to review the policy? There is no reason why Britain cannot renegotiate a better deal for its fishing industry. The Norwegians, led by their fisheries Minister, Mr. Olsen, secured a much better deal as part of accession negotiations. Following its referendum, Norway is not to pursue membership of the EU, but it secured a better deal than the British industry when this country joined the CFP in 1983—of course, Mr. Olsen was a Labour fisheries Minister.
  The right hon. Gentleman stated that much of the deal is still to come and to be agreed. We would like more details. Will the Minister confirm that the concept of the standard vessel measurement is incorporated in the deal? How does it compare with our current measurement of vessel capacity units in calculating effort? More importantly, will the Minister comment on whether the deal leaves the door open for standard vessel days to be introduced as a control measure? We would welcome his comments also on remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman about introducing market-driven controls. Are the Government considering introducing individual transferable quotas on the New Zealand model?
  We welcome the extra £28 million to boost the decommissioning scheme which was announced tonight. It is regrettable that such announcements are forced from the Government by an Opposition motion and threats from Conservative Back Benchers. I calculate that 27 Government Members signed amendments to our motion, which means more than £1 million per wavering voter—that puts £1,000 a question in the shade. Perhaps that should be declared to the Nolan committee. A few words have also been said to our Ulster friends as part of the Government's package of measures.
  Decommissioning is a serious issue. It is an important part of effort control and deals with overcapacity. Far from there being no policy statement in our manifesto, in 1992 we devoted a specific policy statement to the matter, "Marine Harvest: Labour's Policy for a sustainable Fishing Industry."
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jack): It was produced on a word processor.
  Mr. Morley: I do not deny it. It was produced on a rather cheap word processor, but in 1992 the Labour party did not have the benefit of donations from dodgy foreign millionaires. I admit that our materials were not quite up to the standard of the Conservative party. Nevertheless, some of the policies presented in that document have been adopted by the Government.
  We are moving towards a more realistic and effective decommissioning scheme, but it has been a slow process. It would have been better for the industry if the money
  808
  had been front loaded and made available three years ago rather than now. Will the Minister confirm that £8 million of the £28 million announced tonight is from the initial scheme?
  Mr. Jack indicated dissent.
  Mr. Morley: The Minister says not, which I accept. However, it is worth comparing the scheme with others on which the Government have spent money, such as rail privatisation. Having lavished £600 million on consultancy fees, the Government could have paid fishermen to stay at home and order their fish from Harrods, in addition to financing a more effective decommissioning scheme.
  The hon. Members for St. Ives and for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) have accepted our motion, and we agree with the main points of their amendment; we think them sensible. We are only sorry that the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne did not add his name to their amendment, but he can still join those of his hon. Friends—and the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason)—who have said that they intend to vote with us tonight.
  The common fisheries policy is facing a crisis. We need to demonstrate to the industry that we share its concerns and recognise its problems, which fishermen feel are beyond their control. We must also show that this country will stand up for its industry in the same way as the Spanish— whatever one might say about them—have done in skilfully negotiating on behalf of their country. We should be able to get deals for our fishermen in the same way as the Norwegians have been capable of getting deals for theirs. We need a Government who are prepared to stand up for the industry in the same way as other Governments do for theirs.
  Some Conservative Members have shown principle and have shown concern for the fishing communities that they represent. A common thread running through this debate has been the degree of concern felt for our fishing industry. That is why we should all take it seriously.
  All Conservative Members who are worried about the impact of the CFP, and about how this deal will affect our industry, all Conservative Members who want to stand up for the British fishing industry and to give it a sustainable future, should vote with us in the Lobby tonight.
  9.40 pm
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jack): This has been a debate of powerfully expressed views, of strong emotions and—from many Conservative Members—of sound common sense. I pay tribute first to my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe), who made a thoughtful and considered speech. I defend him against the cheap jibe from the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who accused my hon. Friend of allowing his opinions to be bought by the Government My hon. Friend has served with distinction for the past. six months as a parliamentary private secretary and he has shown more concern for his constituents in the fishing industry than have many Opposition Members for theirs.
  My hon. Friend's excellent and realistic speech brought a note of realism to our consideration of these matters. His was an honest statement; he spoke of the difficulties experienced by many in the south-west, and I listened carefully to what he had to say.

  809
  Whatever the final arrangements for Spain and Portugal may be, playing by the rules will clearly be central to them. We take that very seriously. Once the final details are settled, I assure the House that my right hon. Friend and I will examine all the implications for enforcement. If the common fisheries policy is to have real credibility and be seen to work, enforcement must be effective. There will be no no-go areas in the Community in respect of the inspection of Spanish vessels, to ensure that they play by the rules.
  I have already sent an invitation to the new fishing Commissioner, asking her to the United Kingdom for talks. I hope to persuade her to come and meet some real fishermen from the south-west of England. When she comes, I shall put enforcement at the top of my agenda, because it is central to confidence in these policies.
  By contrast with my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne, who dealt with real issues in the real world, the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) asked us yet another list of questions. Besides the importance of enforcement, the other obvious factor in this debate has been the total lack of any clearly stated policy on fishing from the Opposition parties.
  Mr. Salmond rose—
  Mr. Jack: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He knows that I have been generous in the past, but this time I have a great deal of information with which to educate him on the subject of fisheries.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) made a gritty speech. He was right—[Interruption.] It was certainly a deal stronger in its content and better thought out than some of the pap that we heard from Opposition Members. My hon. Friend was right in emphasising what I can describe only as one of the most shambolic performances that I have ever heard from an Opposition Front Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang). I shall return to the hon. Gentleman for special treatment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr was right to emphasise the importance to all our fishermen—especially those in the west country—of the market in Spain, France and wider Europe. If we are to have the benefits of a common market and a common fisheries policy, there must be a two-way process. We have the gains that come from that market and that policy. Those who advocate that we should leave the CFP set out a false agenda and put at risk the very market that gives a livelihood to our fishermen throughout the land.
  My hon. Friend mentioned enforcement. I hope that he takes assurance from what I have said about that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) made a thoughtful and moving speech. I take the opportunity of thanking him for his personal kindness and courtesy, which he has demonstrated throughout in dealing with me over these issues. It is—[Interruption.] The ribald laughter of Opposition Members does a great disservice to my hon. Friend, who has laboured long with the difficulties of his constituents and the issues now before us.
  I have put to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives on many occasions the arguments that my right hon. Friend the Minister and I have deployed—I think with
  810
  skill—in negotiations in Europe. My hon. Friend knows only too well the difficulties that we face. He set us a challenge, and I responded to it. He asked us whether we could keep the Spanish out of the North sea, the Bristol channel and the Celtic sea. My right hon. Friend, after tremendously complex negotiations, achieved two of the three targets.
  My hon. Friend asked us whether we could restrict the activities of Spain in the remainder of the Irish box. We did. We restricted it to 40 vessels. It is relevant to refer to the report of the Select Committee on Agriculture on fishing, which was published in August 1993. In its report, the Committee drew the attention of the House to the fact that before Spain joined the Common Market it fished in the western waters from which it has since been barred with a fleet of 460 vessels. When Spain joined the Community, it was constrained to not 460 vessels but a basic list of about 300. Of that list, only 150 could fish at any one time.
  The negotiations that my right hon. Friend and I conducted have restricted Spain to 40 vessels in the same area. To answer the question, "What happens in the other area?", though the Spanish fishing effort that can be deployed will have to be in ratio to the catch quotas that are available in the areas, the idea that there will be a limitless Spanish free-for-all is not possible as a result of the negotiations. That is what I say to those who denigrate the CFP.
  My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives has stood on the quayside at Newlyn, no doubt, and agonised with the fishermen about the problems that we have been discussing. I hope that even in these last minutes of the debate my hon. Friend will understand that we negotiated with the needs of the fishermen in his constituency and of all the fishermen of the United Kingdom in mind in our deliberations at Brussels. We fought extremely hard to the end. There is still work to do. Whatever my hon. Friend decides to do at the end of the day, I can assure him that we shall continue to be dedicated to the interests of west country fishermen and of others in our proceedings.
  Dr. Michael Clark: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Jack: Not for the moment.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Torbay (Mr. Allason) and for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) have associated themselves with emotional speeches over whether they thought the CFP had served the country well and whether we have had protection from it. I hope that in my remarks, with particular reference to the number of Spanish vessels, my hon. Friends will see quite clearly that the common fisheries policy has provided a defence for the interests of our fishermen.
  Let us examine for a moment the situation if we did not have that policy—the dream world of a return to the 200-mile limit, of little no entry signs at the front of the English channel or half way out in the Irish sea. That would not stop anybody. There would also have to be negotiations with others who have traditional rights to fish in those waters. What power would we have to stop them? None. It is an illusion, a false promise. For the hon. Member for Great Grimsby to associate himself with such an argument does his interest in the fishing industry a grave disservice.

  811
  My hon. Friends who represent constituencies in the west country know, as do other Conservative Members, that we have responded to the needs of the fishing industry. Many hon. Members have talked about the fishermen's livelihood. My right hon. Friend, in winning the additional resources for decommissioning, has made it possible to bring into better balance the catching capacity of our fleets with the possibilities presented to them, so that those with old vessels and those who wish to retire from the industry can take their capacity out with money in their pockets and leave for the rest of the fishermen a livelihood to enjoy for the future. That is true investment in the future of the fishing industry and shows which party in the House has the interests of the industry at heart.
  I am also aware that my hon. Friends the Members for Torbay and for Ludlow are concerned about rule breaking. I give them the assurance that I and my right hon. Friend will make it one of our principal priorities to ensure that the common fisheries policy is properly and fully enforced. I share their concerns. I cannot argue to the House that it is a policy with credibility unless it can be enforced with rigour, transparency and openness. I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay that, if he had had a chance to examine the achievement of the negotiation, he would know that we secured from the Commission the promise of a report for the first time to shine a light of transparency into the activity of Community inspectors. We will know where they go and, more importantly, where they do not go, and challenge it.
  Dr. Michael Clark: My hon. Friend is talking about Spain obeying rules. Does he recall that, in the previous debate, I reminded him that Spain had tried to link the extension of the European Community to access to the Irish box? I suggested to him that we should link access to the Irish box to Spain behaving properly with regard to the Gibraltar border. Did he take that up with the Foreign Secretary? Was it discussed with Spain? Will Spain obey the rules here, too?
  Mr. Jack: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is aware of my hon. Friend's point. I have already rechecked the situation in case my hon. Friend, having studied the debate last time, raised it again. He will understand that it is not directly a debate about foreign affairs, but I understand the point that he makes about linkage. Indeed, the Government are maintaining pressure on the Spanish to reduce the inconvenience caused on the border by the overzealous border controls to which my hon. Friend refers. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised that issue with his counterpart on 19 December and those secondary restrictions have now been lifted. I shall emphasise that point again to my right hon. Friend.
  I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow—I hope that he is listening—that as a result of my right hon. Friend's negotiations, the armada that he saw in his mind's eye will not be able to enter the waters off our western shores. We stopped it; we stopped the Spanish going into the Irish sea; we stopped them going into the English channel. We restricted them to 40 in the remainder of the Irish box and we will constrain, by our
  812
  negotiation, the effort of Spain in the remainder of that water. They will be limited. There will be no free-for-all on that particular matter.
  Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Jack: No. The hon. Gentleman has had more than adequate time and his hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) had all my intervention time in the previous debate.
  I shall now deal with the speech by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby. It shows that with no policy the Labour party is a divided party on Europe and on the common fisheries policy. At least the hon. Gentleman is consistent with his own line and, unlike the Opposition Front-Bench Members, has some ideas. I do not agree with those ideas. His is an anti-Community stance. He makes no secret of that. The hon. Gentleman nods in agreement. I say to him and other hon. Members that to suggest in any way that an easy solution to the problems is to come out of the common fisheries policy is a false agenda. We are signatories to the European Union. We cannot leave the common fisheries policy. It is better that we work within it for change.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: The argument is simply that unless Ministers have the guts to stand up for Britain and fight for a better deal, the fishing industry will turn against the common fisheries policy, as is shown by the rising strength of Save Britain's Fish throughout Britain.
  Mr. Jack: If you are peddling the Save Britain's Fish line, you are doing a grave disservice to Britain's fishermen. [Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: I am not calling order. The hon. Gentleman is referring to me personally. I am sure he means the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell).
  Mr. Jack: The hon. Member for Great Grimsby is doing a grave disservice to the British fishing industry if he is peddling that particular line. The policy that he advocates is a non-starter. He would do far better to turn his intellectual fire power on to reform, joining in with ideas for the working party which my right hon. Friend has established. His line is clearly incompatible with that of his Front-Bench spokesmen. I do not know whether they have a line, but it is incompatible with the views expressed by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang).
  I remind the hon. Member for Great Grimsby that on 10 December 1985 the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), said:
  "We welcome the accession of Spain and Portugal. It is the right move for the Community and for Spain and Portugal. We welcome. it because we recognise the merits of those two new democracies joining the rest of Europe and facing Europe's problems with us. The Opposition do not welcome accession blindly, ignorantly or oblivious of the difficulties and anxieties."—[Official Report, 10 December 1985; Vol. 88, c. 883.]
  The Opposition knew what they were letting themselves in for and they cannot run away from those responsibilities now. They had the opportunity to change the common fisheries policy.

  813
  On 15 July 1982, the former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, now Lord Walker, said:
  "I wish to remind the Opposition that they decided when they renegotiated the terms of our entry they did not wish to renegotiate the terms on fishing."—[Official Report, 15 July 1982; Vol. 27, c. 1186.]
  That is the policy that we are following. Lord Walker negotiated improvements in the common fisheries policy with no help from Opposition Members.
  I come now to remarks made by the hon. Gentleman and others on a technical question about the North sea. I owe the hon. Gentleman an answer on that. He asked whether swaps could allow the Spanish into that area. Theoretically, Spain could swap, but she could not fish those quotas as she has no right of access to the North sea. That is a crucial part of the agreement. My right hon. Friend secured an absolute barrier to Spain coming into the North sea. There is no mention of that in the Opposition's motion.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East gave a shambolic performance. It contained no positive ideas. We are none the wiser about the Opposition's fishing policy. The hon. Gentleman showed scant knowledge of what happened in the negotiation. He asked about allies. We had nearly every member state on our side in the September Fisheries Council in order to turn back the Commission's over-bureaucratic and complex proposals.
  I remind the hon. Gentleman what Labour Members of the European Parliament did to that proposal. When it came to the vote in the European Parliament for the over-complex, bureaucratic system of standard vessel days, about which the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe asked, Labour Members of the European Parliament voted in favour of that proposal, which would have put an unacceptable burden on our fishing industry. They voted against proposals agreed by his own representatives in the European Parliament's fishing committee to modify those proposals to the benefit of the United Kingdom's fishermen.
  That shows the duplicity of and divide in the Labour party and the opportunism of its approach to the common fisheries policy. We worked hard to get the necessary alliances together in order to fight for and win the concessions that we did. We kept Spain out of the North sea, the Irish sea and the Bristol channel and we limited Spanish vessels.
  Tonight is not the night for my hon. Friends to give smug satisfaction to socialists whose parliamentary predecessors did nothing properly to safeguard the future of the common fisheries policy for the United Kingdom.
  I have mentioned the European Parliament. Tonight is not the night to vote for the "Brussels knows best" party, which would have no stomach for the fight for our fishermen. It was Conservatives who stopped the Spanish free-for-all; it was Conservatives who brought extra resources to the common fisheries policy; it is Conservatives who are fighting for an industry of brave men with proud traditions. Conservative Members have a proud tradition of fighting socialism: let us do that in the Lobby tonight.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes294, Noes312.
  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 310, Noes 301

  Division No. 41]

  [10.16 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Congdon, David

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Conway, Derek

  Alexander, Richard

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Ancram, Michael

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Arbuthnot, James

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Couchman, James

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Cran, James

  Ashby, David

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

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Atkins, Robert

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Day, Stephen

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Delvin, Tim

  Baldry, Tony

  Dicks, Terry

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bates, Michael

  Dover, Den

  Batiste, Spencer

  Duncan, Alan

  Beggs, Roy

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Bellingham, Henry

  Dunn, Bob

  Bendall, Vivian

  Durant Sir Anthony

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Elletson, Harold

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Booth, Hartley

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Boswell, Tim

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Bowis, John

  Evennett, David

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Faber, David

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Fabricant Michael

  Brazier, Julian

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bright Sir Graham

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fishbum, Dudley

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Forman, Nigel

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Burns, Simon

  Forth, Eric

  Burt, Alistair

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Butcher, John

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Butler, Peter

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Butterfill, John

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  French, Douglas

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Carrington, Matthew

  Gale, Roger

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Gallie, Phil

  Churchill, Mr

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Clappison, James

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Garnier, Edward

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Coe, Sebastian

  Goodson-Wckes, Dr Charles

  Colvin, Michael

  Gorst Sir John

  819

  Grant Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Mans, Keith

  Greenway, Hany (Ealing N)

  Marland, Paul

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mates, Michael

  Hague, William

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Merchant Piers

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Mills, Iain

  Hannam, Sir John

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Haselhurst Alan

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hawkins, Nick

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Hawksley, Warren

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hayes, Jerry

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Heald, Oliver

  Moss, Malcolm

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hendry, Charles

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hicks, Robert

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Norris, Steve

  Horam, John

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Ottaway, Richard

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

  Page, Richard

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Paice, James

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Patrick, Sir Irvine

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Pawsey, James

  Hunter, Andrew

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Pickles, Eric

  Jack, Michael

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Powel, William (Corby)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Jones, Robert B (Hertfdshr)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Richards, Rod

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Riddick, Graham

  Key, Robert

  Robathan, Andrew

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Roberts,. Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Knapman, Roger

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

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

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Knox, Sir David

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Sackville, Tom

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Scott Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Legg, Barry

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Leigh, Edward

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lidington, David

  Shersby, Michael

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Sims, Roger

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lord, Michael

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Luff, Peter

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin

  Lyell. Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Soames, Nicholas

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Speed, Sir Keith

  MacKay, Andrew

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Maclean, David

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Madel, Sir David

  Spring, Richard

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Sproat Iain

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Malone, Gerald

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  820

  Stephen, Michael

  Walden, George

  Stern, Michael

  Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)

  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)

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Whitney, Ray

  Thomason, Roy

  Whittingdale, John

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  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

  Wolfson, Mark

  Tredinnick, David

  Wood, Timothy

  Trend, Michael

  Yeo, Tim

  Trotter, Neville

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Viggers, Peter

  Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Clarke, Tom (Monkldands W)

  Ainger, Nick

  Clelland, David

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Coffey, Ann

  Allen, Graham

  Cohen, Harry

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Connarty, Michael

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Ashton, Joe

  Corbett, Robin

  Barnes, Harry

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Barron, Kevin

  Corston, Jean

  Battle, John

  Cousins, Jim

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cox, Tom

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Cummings, John

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Bell, Stuart

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Dalis, Cynog

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dalyell, Tam

  Berry, Roger

  Darling, Alistair

  Betts, Clive

  Davidson, Ian

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Blunkett, David

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Boateng, Paul

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Body, Sir Richard

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

  Boyes, Roland

  Denham, John

  Bradley, Keith

  Dewar, Donald

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Dixon, Don

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Dobson, Frank

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

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Dowd, Jim

  Burden, Richard

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Byers, Stephen

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Caborn, Richard

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Callaghan, Jim

  Eastham, Ken

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Enright, Derek

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Etherington, Bill

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Canavan, Dennis

  Fatchett Derek

  Cann, Jamie

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Fisher, Mark

  Chidgey, David

  Flynn, Paul

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Church, Judith

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Clapham, Michael

  Foulkes, George

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Fraser, John

  821

  Fyfe, Maria

  McAllion, John

  Galbraith, Sam

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Galloway, George

  McCartney, Ian

  Gapes, Mike

  McCrea, The Reverend William

  George, Bruce

  Macdonald, Calum

  Gerrard, Neil

  McFall.John

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  McGrady, Eddie

  Gill, Christopher

  McKelvey, William

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Godsiff, Roger

  McLeish, Henry

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Maclennan, Robert

  Gordon, Mildred

  McMaster, Gordon

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  McNamara, Kevin

  Graham, Thomas

  MacShane, Denis

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  McWilliam, John

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Madden, Max

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Maddock, Diana

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mahon, Alice

  Gunnell, John

  Mallon, Seamus

  Hain, Peter

  Mandelson, Peter

  Hall, Mike

  Marek, Dr John

  Hanson, David

  Marlow, Tony

  Hardy, Peter

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Harris, David

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Harvey, Nick

  Martlew, Eric

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Maxton, John

  Henderson, Doug

  Meacher, Michael

  Hendron, Dr Joe

  Meale, Alan

  Heppell, John

  Michael, Alun

  Hill. Keith (Streatham)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Milburn, Alan

  Hoey, Kate

  Miller, Andrew

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Home Robertson, John

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hood, Jimmy

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Morley, Elliot

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Mudie, George

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Mullin, Chris

  Hume, John

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hutton, John

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Illsley, Eric

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Ingram, Adam

  O'Hara, Edward

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Olner, Bill

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jamieson, David

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Janner, Greville

  Patchett, Terry

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Pearson, Ian

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Pendry, Tom

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Pope, Greg

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Jowell, Tessa

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Keen, Alan

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Purchase, Ken

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Khabra, Piara S

  Radice, Giles

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Randall, Stuart

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Redmond, Martin

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Reid, Dr John

  Lewis, Terry

  Rendel, David

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Litherland, Robert

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Rogers, Allan

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Rooker, Jeff

  822

  Rooney, Terry

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Timms, Stephen

  Ruddock, Joan

  Tipping, Paddy

  Salmond, Alex

  Tyler, Paul

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Vaz, Keith

  Sheerman, Barry

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wallace, James

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Walley, Joan

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Warded, Gareth (Gower)

  Short, Clare

  Wareing, Robert N

  Simpson, Alan

  Watson, Mike

  Skinner Dennis

  Welsh, Andrew

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Snape, Peter

  Wilkinson, John

  Soley, Clive

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Wilson, Brian

  Spellar, John

  Winnick, David

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Wise, Audrey

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Worthington, Tony

  Stevenson, George

  Wray, Jimmy

  Stott, Roger

  Wright Dr Tony

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Straw, Jack

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mr. Joe Benton and Mr. Dennis Turner.

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MADAM SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of the agreement of the Council of Fisheries Ministers, congratulates the Government on securing the exclusion of Spanish fishing vessels from the Irish Sea and the Bristol Channel, the limiting of Spanish fishing within the rest of the Irish Box to 40 vessels simultaneously and the inclusion of special restrictions on Spanish vessels within the Box West of Scotland; notes that the agreement does not call into question the continued exclusion of Spanish vessels from the North Sea and the principle of relative stability; recognises this outcome represents a major improvement for United Kingdom fishermen compared to the original Commission proposals, the negotiation of which was made more difficult by the failure to win Hague Preferences for South West English fishing communities in 1976; welcomes the undertaking the Government secured from the Commission to provide annual reports on the findings of Commission Fisheries Inspectors; notes the Government's current annual expenditure of some £25 million on fisheries enforcement and welcomes the Government's commitment to ensure effective policing of the agreement; welcomes the Government's success in extending the benefits of the EC's structural programmes to areas of the United Kingdom dependent on fishing; notes that the Government are also spending some £17 million per annum on fisheries research and monitoring and some £5 million per annum on other forms of assistance to the fisheries sector; notes the Government's current substantial programme of decommissioning expenditure; and welcomes its commitment to provide further programmes in 1996–97 and 1997–98.

  James Wilkinson
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]
  10.32 pm
  Mr. David Hinchliffe rose—[Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who are leaving please do so quietly? We still have business to conduct in the Chamber.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: I am most grateful for the opportunity to raise some detailed concerns about the case of James Wilkinson, a three-year-old boy in my constituency who suffers from a rare syndrome termed Ondine's syndrome. As well as drawing the attention of the House to some specific problems relating to the funding of James's care, I want to press the Minister over my concern about the way in which proposed changes to the funding of the Wakefield health authority will impact on James's personal situation and those of other constituents with health problems.
  James was born on 20 April 1992. He was Ann and Gary Wilkinson's first child. He weighed 61b 13oz at birth and appeared, at first, to be normal and healthy, except for a slight problem with his breathing. Within minutes of his birth he was rushed into intensive care and, despite rigorous tests, his condition baffled doctors for some considerable time.
  James was transferred from maternity care in Wakefield to the Clarendon wing of Leeds general infirmary and, subsequently, to the North Staffordshire general hospital in Stoke-on-Trent for highly specialised care. He was diagnosed as suffering from Ondine's syndrome, a condition which affects only a handful of people—I believe about eight—in the whole of Britain. Ondine's syndrome is characterised by hyperventilation and shallow or slow breathing during sleep. It is believed to be caused by an abnormality in the. automatic control of respiration. The respiration centre does not react adequately to carbon dioxide levels in the blood in the way that is necessary to maintain normal breathing. It has been suggested that this may be due to lesions of the high spinal chord or brain stem. The condition is named after Ondine, a character in Greek mythology who allegedly caused a mortal who loved her to sleep for ever.
  James Wilkinson spent the first 18 months of his life in hospital. His parents travelled a round trip of 200 miles to see him each weekend before he was able to return to Yorkshire. They had to adjust to a regime of monitoring his condition 24 hours a day. When he became weary or fell asleep he was attached to a ventilation mask which maintained his breathing.
  Mrs. Wilkinson told me recently that, shortly after James's diagnosis, she was advised by another family facing the same tragic problem to seek the support of her Member of Parliament in the anticipated struggles to enable James to be brought up in as normal an environment as possible in the family home. She arid her husband contacted my constituency office during summer 1992, and my constituency researcher and I have been involved in making representations on their behalf, particularly with regard to James's care at home, since that time.
  824
  I know that Mr. and Mrs. Wilkinson were very frustrated by the length of time that it took to secure an adequate package of care for James at home. They went to the extent of writing to the Secretary of State for Health about their concerns. I do not want to dwell on that point, other than to say that I think that the family were rightly aggrieved at the way in which they saw James becoming institutionalised because of inability to arrange his domiciliary care.
  The Minister will be aware that I also wrote to his Department on 20 July 1993 outlining my concerns on that point. No doubt he will have seen a copy of the reply that I received, dated 31 July 1993, from the then Minister for Health, the right hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney).
  James eventually went home to his family on 5 October 1993, the ventilation equipment necessary for his care having been installed in an extension of the Wilkinson's house constructed to meet his specific needs. The current care package involves 24-hour nursing cover, and the family also have the support of a home carer from the local authority social services department for six hours each week.
  Last summer, Wakefield health authority invited me to attend a discussion about James's case. I was made aware of the difficulties that the authority faces in funding, on an annual basis, the care that he requires. As a means of possibly reducing costs, it was suggested that Mrs. Wilkinson might undertake some of the monitoring of James's condition which was carried out by nurses, with social services caring for James's sister, Harriet, who I believe is about two years old.
  The family—rightly, in my view—resisted that proposal. Mrs. Wilkinson is firmly of the opinion that her daughter should be cared for by her own parents and not by a substitute. Their views on the matter were endorsed by the family's general practitioner, Dr Brain, in a letter to me dated 29 September 1994. Nevertheless, I appreciate the difficulties faced by the Wakefield health authority, which finds its budgetary arrangements skewed because of the resourcing required to meet one person's needs. I ask the Minister to consider that point tonight because his response in a letter to me in November, following my written representations on the issue, did riot address in any way the difficulties faced both by the Wilkinson family and by Wakefield health care.
  I pay a sincere tribute tonight to Mr. and Mrs. Wilkinson and to their wider family for the care that they have given James in such tragic circumstances. It is completely unacceptable that they should feel constantly subject to the possibility of a reduced package of care because Wakefield health care's budgetary difficulties in funding such care are not taken into account by the Government in the allocation of resources.
  It cost Wakefield health authority nearly £260,000 for James's care as an in-patient at the North Staffordshire hospital and the Leeds general infirmary and a further £147,000 for in-patient care and home care during the last financial year. Those figures do not include equipment costs, which are in the region of £32,500.
  It costs Wakefield health authority around £102,000 per annum to fund James's care at home. Wakefield health authority pointed out to me that, if used in another way, that funding could purchase 17 coronary artery bypass grafts, 45 hip replacements or 132 cataract operations. In other words, the health needs of a significant number of

  825
  my constituents and, indeed, yours, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are not being met because the Government's allocation of funds to Wakefield health care do not take into account the manner in which James's care skews its existing budget.
  I want to make absolutely clear, knowing Wakefield people as well as I do—I was born in Wakefield and have lived there all my life—that I doubt whether there is one person in Wakefield whose health needs might otherwise be met, who would resent those resources being spent on James's care, but I suspect that many of them will feel as I do that it is wrong that such expenditure is not taken into account by the Government in the calculation of local funding requirements.
  Last April, Wakefield community health council wrote to local Members of Parliament for the Wakefield district suggesting that central funding might be ring-fenced to cope with such special cases from a national point of view. At a meeting on Monday this week, council members agreed to table a motion to the annual conference of the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales later this year urging the Department of Health to fund from a central source the extra resources that are required to meet the cost of extensive funding for individual patients needing specialised care. The motion points out that this position will become even more uncertain with the impact of total purchasing by GP fundholders.
  Before I conclude, there is another factor with a bearing on James Wilkinson's case that I want to raise with the Minister. I have given him notice of the points that I intend to raise tonight. As he will know, on 21 October last year, the national health service executive published new guidance on the distribution of resources in the national health service, following a review of the methodology of the allocation of revenue funding.
  At its December meeting, Wakefield health authority considered a paper from its director of finance and information on the outcome of the review in respect of its impact on the local budget. The paper suggested that the new formula changed the district health authority's distance from its target allocation quite dramatically, as it is allegedly overfunded at present by some £7 million per annum. The 4.9 per cent. variance is the biggest percentage variance in the new Northern and Yorkshire region, and is obviously of great concern in terms of its implications for funding the future care of patients such as James Wilkinson.
  I will not expand on matters beyond the scope of this debate, but I fear that the 1991 consensus on which the new formula is based pre-dates many of the employment and health implications of the coal closure programme that devastated Wakefield. You more than anybody, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be aware of the point that I am making. I fear also that the population age profile showing that Wakefield has a relatively small population of elderly people fails to take account of the fact that local demand for health care shows that the total requirement for resources has not reduced. The same amount of health care is being used over a shorter life span.
  826
  The implications of those changes add to existing pressure on funding the current care package needed by James Wilkinson and his family. The Government must address the understandable anxieties of the Wilkinson family and of Wakefield health authority.
  It would be wrong not to express on behalf of the Wilkinson family their thanks to all those who have supported them since James was born. They are particularly grateful to the current nursing team and to the home carer from a local authority social services department who visits every week. The family are also most appreciative of the support of their general practitioner, Dr. Brain, and of colleagues from the same practise.
  The Wilkinson family are bravely facing up to an extremely difficult situation. They would welcome assurance that the support that they will need in future will not be threatened because Wakefield health authority's specific funding problems have not been taken into account by the Government.
  10.46 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I congratulate the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on securing this Adjournment debate on Ondine's syndrome and the case of James Wilkinson. I listened with great interest to his remarks. Thankfully, Ondine's syndrome is a rare condition, but I appreciate the support that the hon. Gentleman has given the Wilkinson family and the concern that he feels. I know that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House join me in conveying our sympathy to members of James Wilkinson's family, whose lives have inevitably been turned upside down by his condition. The illness of any loved one is always traumatic and difficult to come to terms with, and especially so with one so young—in this case, a two-year-old child.
  The NHS accords a high priority to children's health services. In 1991, a good practice guide on the welfare of children and young people in hospital was issued to health authorities. It made a number of important points, including—this is relevant in this case—the point that children should be treated at home wherever possible, with help from primary care and other services.
  In 1993, following the Audit Commission report "Children First", which welcomed the guide's recommendations, the NHS Executive made child health a second-line priority for 1993–94. Furthermore, perinatal, infant and child mortality are, as the hon. Gentleman knows, falling significantly compared with figures for 20 years ago, for which we can all be grateful.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke of what he views as Wakefield's difficult future funding situation. Regional health authorities, in making allocations to health districts for 1995–96, are following the policy that no district such as Wakefield—which, as the hon. Gentleman said, is over target in terms of the allocation formula—will lose resources in real terms.
  It is for regional health authorities to make allocations to district health authorities and to decide which formula to use in setting targets. The resources that Wakefield health authority will receive next year will be greater than was predicted earlier by the authority. Although the revised weighted capitation formula will have a bearing

  827
  on future years, it will not affect Wakefield's level for growth in 1995–96. To put this in absolute numbers, I understand from the regional health authority that Wakefield health authority will receive total funding of £134 million next year, which amounts to an extra £6.2 million, including £900,000 of growth money.
  This does not commit anyone to specific funding for future years, but it does show that real growth in health resources continues; so some of the hon. Gentleman's dire predictions, made here and elsewhere, about reductions in allocations to Wakefield are clearly exaggerated.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: They are not my predictions; they are those of the director of finance of the health authority. The figures were put to the December meeting of the health authority.
  Mr. Sackville: To suggest that, because Wakefield is a certain percentage above target, there will be a cut next year, or in any succeeding year, is wrong. That is unlikely. There will probably continue to be real growth in health resources in years to come, so there will continue to be more resources, in real terms, for Wakefield.
  I understand that James Wilkinson spent almost all the first year of his life in hospital, and Wakefield health authority, the local authority and the Pinderfields trust have worked together to ensure that he can now be supported at home. I believe that the hon. Gentleman became involved in acting on behalf of the family to clarify the position of the various statutory authorities while the Wilkinsons' house was adapted and James's health care needs were assessed. I am aware of how diligently the hon. Gentleman has worked, and continues to work, to represent the needs of the family.
  As the hon. Member for Wakefield said, James is now supported at home by qualified nursing staff, who, in conjunction with his parents, provide a 24-hour care package. Mr. and Mrs. Wilkinson currently cover two shifts at a weekend and two evenings each week. The full cost of the care package exceeds £100,000. I am aware that the health authority has maintained contact with North Staffordshire hospital, which provides specialist paediatric services to children with this condition. The view of Professor Southall, the acknowledged expert on Ondine's syndrome, is that 24-hour qualified paediatric nursing is not necessarily required. It is also very important that the family circumstances be normalised as soon as possible.
  I understand that James already attends a nursery for three mornings a week, where he is accompanied by qualified staff, and that, as a result of a recent review of his care needs, it is expected that he will shortly attend Pinderfields hospital school for two full days a week. The school is specifically for children with complex health problems. While he is at the school, a bed will be dedicated for him on a ward in case he should require a nap. The nursing cover which is usually available at home will continue to be available in the school.
  Wakefield health authority fully understands the nature of its on-going responsibility towards James, but his needs may, of course, change as he grows older. The authority has made it clear that there is no possibility of it withdrawing support for James. The extent of the support, however, will need to be reviewed from time to time to ensure that it is appropriate. As children grow older, they are more easily able to control their pattern of sleep and
  828
  are less likely to need sleep during the day time. Thankfully, the level of care needed by such a child as James may alter in future years.
  I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join me—he has already praised Wakefield health authority—in welcoming the actions of the authority in providing resources so that James can be cared for properly at home. James is, and will remain, the responsibility of Wakefield health authority while he resides in the area. His case clearly involves considerable resources, but it is not unknown for such expensive cases to be borne by many health authorities. That is one of the reasons why we have sought to have health authorities that are financially strong. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have fewer and larger health authorities than we had some years ago, so that where there are such expensive cases they can be borne by individual authorities without an undue impact on other patients.
  As I have said, there is no question of Wakefield health authority withdrawing its support of James. It is a matter not of resources but of the authority continuing to fund the appropriate level of care for James.
  Clearly, it will be in everyone's interest for the health authority and all those concerned to continue to review James's case regularly. I can assure the hon. Gentleman and James's family that that is not because the authority lacks the commitment to pay for his continued care. It is essential that, as he gets older, the care that is provided is appropriate to his needs.
  I share the hon. Gentleman's determination to ensure that high-quality treatment is available to those suffering from Ondine's syndrome, like James, for the benefit of patients and their families. I am sure that, in the case of James Wilkinson, Wakefield health authority, Pinderfields hospital trust and the local authority all share that commitment. Once again, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising such an important subject.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: I have no personal doubt about Wakefield health authority's commitment to offering the care that James Wilkinson and his family need. I am concerned that it has told me that it faces immense difficulties. To its credit, it invited me to a meeting to discuss James's case during the early autumn of last year. It was made clear to me that the health authority feels that it is under immense budgetary pressures because of the demands of one patient for £102,000 of its fairly tight annual budget.
  The Minister will know that there other cases nationwide that are causing similar concern. I learnt today of a Minister who has someone in his constituency with a problem similar to that of James Wilkinson, where there is a difficulty with the local health authority budget.
  Away from James's case, I am saying as a point of principle that it should be recognised that there are health authorities, such as Wakefield, that are facing difficulties, and other constituents are not receiving treatment as a result of the huge resourcing demands of one particular case.
  I ask the Minister whether the principle of earmarked funding—top-slicing funding within a budget—to protect the care package for someone like James can be considered by the Government. It is an issue of principle; accepted, as the Minister will be aware, by his Department. in ring fencing community care funding. It is no different, in my view, from recognising a specific area of need and

  829
  difficulty that may not be properly resourced without some protection. The hon. Gentleman has not really answered the central point in the debate—looking at the way in which the formula will operate in future to secure and protect funding in cases such as James Wilkinson's.
  Mr. Sackville: I can say only that the future funding for James Wilkinson is protected by the fact that Wakefield must accept responsibility for providing an appropriate level of care. It now has a budget of £134 million. It is by no means unusual that health authorities should have individual cases that cost a great deal of money: it may be because of the level of nursing care, as in this case; it may be because of very expensive drugs or particular treatments, or because of long periods spent in intensive care, or whatever. We have attempted to find a structure with a smaller number of larger health authorities so that a health authority is able to absorb such costs. As I have also said, James's condition and needs
  830
  may change, and that issue must be reviewed regularly. While he needs that level of care, he will receive it from Wakefield. The hon. Gentleman has my assurance on that.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: After he has studied the comments in Hansard tomorrow, will the Minister give an assurance that he will personally discuss with Wakefield health authority its concerns in respect of the principles in James Wilkinson's case and the specific difficulties? It would be helpful if Wakefield said to the Minister directly what it has said to me. Clearly, his brief does not take into account Wakefield's very real concerns about its budget.
  Mr. Sackville: Health authorities must provide a wide spectrum of care for many different patients, some of whom have special needs. They must make the commitment to care for all those patients. I will certainly consider what the hon. Gentleman has said.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Eleven o'clock

HEALTH

  Cheviot and Wansbeck Hospital
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many jobs have been lost in the last two years in the Cheviot and Wansbeck hospital and trusts; and what were the financial savings;

  (2) how many litigation cases Cheviot and Wansbeck trust has been involved in over the last two years;

  Number of ordinary admissions and outpatient attendances, forensic psychiatry specialty, England and Regional Health Authority areas, 1988–89 to 1993–94

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Ordinary admissions (finished consultant episodes)

  Northern

  88

  75

  25

  128

  151

  72

  Yorkshire

  135

  148

  161

  234

  144

  108

  Trent

  72

  82

  124

  100

  106

  138

  East Anglian

  35

  64

  109

  93

  79

  75

  North West Thames

  108

  154

  70

  71

  136

  314

  North East Thames

  31

  40

  14

  98

  112

  81

  South East Thames

  74

  112

  90

  76

  68

  42

  South West Thames

  27

  1

  7

  8

  22

  26

  Wessex

  16

  48

  46

  42

  41

  15

  Oxford

  0

  18

  28

  52

  36

  27

  South Western

  26

  53

  105

  140

  176

  156

  West Midlands

  62

  62

  95

  98

  98

  98

  Mersey

  50

  28

  68

  79

  91

  91

  North Western

  107

  104

  136

  161

  210

  224

  Special Health Authorities

  102

  31

  28

  78

  64

  70

  England

  933

  1,020

  1,106

  1,458

  1,534

  1,537

  Total outpatient attendances

  Northern

  459

  505

  1410

  485

  531

  530

  Yorkshire

  2,894

  2,067

  2,037

  2,299

  3,094

  3,174

  Trent

  1,533

  819

  724

  537

  389

  385

  East Anglian

  190

  285

  472

  557

  400

  394

  North West Thames

  0

  0

  0

  166

  188

  22,289

  North East Thames

  2,788

  2,617

  2,082

  801

  338

  329

  South East Thames

  412

  926

  1,547

  813

  725

  1,204

  South West Thames

  109

  83

  122

  95

  67

  61

  Wessex

  0

  195

  355

  90

  329

  60

  Oxford

  5

  58

  106

  291

  415

  542

  South Western

  452

  297

  231

  567

  632

  273

  West Midlands

  996

  1,475

  1,317

  1,415

  1,127

  1,058

  Mersey

  874

  918

  930

  970

  1,223

  987

  North Western

  48

  913

  1,096

  1,015

  1,658

  3,621

  Special Health Authorities

  0

  0

  1,246

  1,617

  1,253

  1,424

  England

  10,760

  11,158

  112,675

  11,718

  12,369

  16,331

  Source:

  DH Forms KP70 and KH09.

  1 Revised.

  2 In previous years forensic psychiatry data were included in the mental illness specialty and cannot be separately identified.
  478
  (3) how many staff of each grade of nurse and health care assistant work in the maternity unit at the Cheviot and Wansbeck hospital;

  (4) how many complaints were made by general practitioners about sub-standard care and inappropriately early discharges from the Cheviot and Wansbeck hospital.

  Mr. Sackville
  These are matters for Cheviot and Wansbeck national health service trust, which was set: up on 1 April 1994. The hon. Member may wish to contact its chairman, Mr. Roger Baker, for details.

  Forensic Psychiatry Patients
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many forensic psychiatry patients have been treated in each regional health authority in each year since 1988.

  Mr. Bowis
  The tables show the number of admissions and number of out-patients for the forensic psychiatry specialty by regional health authority for the period 1988–89 to 1993–94.
  479

  Small Pharmacies
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations she has received during the past three months concerning the need to maintain the professional allowance for small pharmacies dispensing between 1,000 and 1,500 prescriptions per month; and if she proposes to modify her intended policy in the light of such representations.

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 19 December 1994,Official Report, column 983, since when there have been a further seven representations about the graduated transitional payment. We expect to discuss the matter with pharmacists' representatives in the forthcoming pay round.

  Midwives
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the ratio of patients to midwives in(a) the Northumberland health authority and (b) the Wansbeck and Cheviot maternity unit.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact the vice chairman of Northumberland health authority, Mr. David Wright, and the chairman of the Cheviot and Wansbeck national health service trust, Mr. Roger Baker, for details.

  Community Care
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action her Department is taking to monitor local authority spending in the independent sector in their provision of community care services.

  Mr. Bowis
  Local authorities are required to spend 85 per cent. of the Department of Social Security transfer element of their special transitional grant in the independent sector. Annual returns of this expenditure have to be agreed by the district auditor before being submitted to the Department of Health.

  Health Education Authority
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 10 January 1995,Official Report, column 126–27, what plans she has to put out to tender in the private sector the work now being carried out by the Health Education Authority.

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 10 January,Official Report, column 126–27.

  Secure Accommodation
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many places in secure accommodation are currently available for persons aged under 16 years in Northumberland; at what location; and what were the figures for the previous five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Bowis
  There are five places in secure accommodation approved for use by young people in Northumberland, located at Netherton Park children's home, Morpeth. This figure has not changed in the period requested, but there are plans to provide an additional seven places by mid-1996. The places are not restricted to those aged under 16.
  480

  Cot Mattresses
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence she has in respect of the effect of biodegradation of compounds of antimony used in flameproofing cot mattresses; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The hypothesis that toxic gases are released from the biodegradation of the flameproofing compounds in cot mattresses and covers was thoroughly investigated in 1990 by an expert working group chaired by Professor Paul Turner. The group found no evidence that there was a link between sudden infant death syndrome incidence, the presence of antimony and associated low levels of arsenic impurity, or phosphorus additives in cot mattresses and their covers, microbial contamination of those mattresses and covers and the generation of toxic volatile gases.

  Dr. Kenneth Calman, the chief medical officer, has recently set up an expert group to steer further work by the Department of Health on cot deaths. This group is chaired by Lady Limerick.

  The group's terms of reference are:
  To review the findings of the report on "Sudden Infant Death Syndromes (The "Turner Report", 1991) and any subsequent data on hypotheses linking antimony with unexplained deaths in infants; and to advise the CMO on what further studies should be undertaken to investigate postulated causal relationships between chemicals and cot deaths.

  The group has been asked to review the available material and to provide the Department with advice as quickly as possible.

  Guillain Barré Syndrome
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in how many cases known to her Department children vaccinated against measles and rubella in the last five years have developed symptoms of Guillain Barré syndrome; what research has been done by her Department or elsewhere into the causes of the syndrome; what action she will be taking or is considering; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Guillain Barré syndrome is a rare neurological condition that usually presents as acute flaccid paralysis. The condition is thought to have a post-infectious aetiology. In its detailed review of adverse effects of vaccines, the United States Institute of Medicine could find no evidence to support or reject a causal association between Guillain Barré syndrome and measles or rubella immunisation.

  Three cases of Guillain Barré syndrome after measles, mumps and rubella vaccine have been reported to the committee on the safety of medicines since 1988. The reporting of a temporal association with immunisation does not necessarily imply causality. One case of Guillain Barré syndrome has been reported in association with the measles and rubella immunisation campaign. Further investigations are being undertaken into this case.

  At the instigation of the Department of Health, the communicable disease surveillance centre of the public health laboratory service set up nationwide surveillance of acute flaccid paralysis—for which Guillain Barré syndrome is the commonest cause—between July 1991 and June 1994. The study is being analysed, but preliminary evaluation suggests that the number of cases reported in association with the measles and rubella

  481
  campaign are similar to those that could be expected in the absence of the campaign.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff in her Department have reported an offer of employment from an outside employer since February 1993 as required under the civil service management code; and how many of these reports were followed by an application to join the company concerned.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information about more junior staff is not held centrally. Since February 1993, there have been two reports of job offers from staff in grade 3 and above. So far, one of these has been followed by an application under the business appointments procedure.

  Ambulance Service

  1992–93 Number

  1992–93 percentage of all responses

  1993–94 Number

  1993–94 Percentage of all responses

  Rural Ambulance Services

  Cumbria

  1,341

  8.8

  1,277

  8.0

  Durham

  876

  2.9

  1,392

  4.5

  Northumbria

  782

  1.0

  880

  1.1

  Humberside

  342

  0.8

  708

  1.6

  North Yorkshire

  1,053

  4.6

  1,206

  5.6

  Derbyshire

  1,500

  4.3

  1,646

  4.2

  Leicestershire

  975

  3.0

  1,082

  3.0

  Lincolnshire

  844

  4.7

  893

  4.5

  Nottinghamshire

  1,248

  2.3

  1,450

  2.4

  Cambridgeshire

  1,105

  5.8

  886

  4.3

  Norfolk

  901

  3.3

  1,108

  3.6

  Suffolk

  939

  7.9

  652

  4.7

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire

  1,829

  3.1

  2,001

  3.2

  Essex

  896

  1.4

  1,711

  2.4

  East Sussex

  835

  2.3

  993

  2.4

  Kent

  2,093

  3.6

  2,755

  4.6

  West Sussex

  716

  2.7

  703

  2.2

  Dorset

  1,096

  3.9

  1,670

  5.3

  Hampshire

  1,229

  2.6

  1,205

  2.4

  Wiltshire

  618

  4.1

  800

  4.9

  Isle of Wight

  88

  2.1

  77

  1.5

  Berkshire

  284

  1.0

  736

  2.4

  Two Shires1

  989

  2.5

  1,116

  2.9

  Oxfordshire

  936

  5.8

  1,320

  7.5

  West Country2

  2,868

  4.3

  4,323

  5.9

  Gloucestershire

  433

  3.2

  581

  3.8

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  608

  2.9

  672

  2.9

  Shropshire

  508

  4.0

  452

  3.2

  Staffordshire

  1,862

  4.7

  1,845

  3.8

  Warwickshire

  683

  4.7

  640

  4.0

  Lancashire

  934

  1.3

  1,091

  1.4

  Urban Ambulance Service

  Cleveland

  725

  3.0

  967

  4.0

  West Yorkshire

  6,494

  6.0

  5,295

  4.4

  South Yorkshire

  5,678

  10.1

  6,526

  11.0

  Surrey

  2,272

  5.2

  3,089

  6.3

  London

  196,921

  41.5

  186,973

  37.8

  Avon

  3,691

  10.0

  5,085

  12.8

  West Midlands

  12,526

  8.9

  10,189

  6.7

  Mersey

  6,815

  4.6

  5,511

  3.4

  Manchester

  4,333

  2.6

  4,073

  2.3

  1 Buckinghamshire and Northamptonshire Ambulance Services combined to form Two Shires Ambulance NHS Trust on 1 April 1993. Figures for 1992–93 have been combined for ease of comparison.

  2 Cornwall, Devon and Somerset Ambulance Services combined to form West Country Ambulance Service NHS Trust on 1 April 1993. Figures for 1992–93 have been combined for ease of comparison.

  482

  Ambulance Service
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many times an ambulance has not arrived within the national charter standard time by ambulance service in each year since April 1991.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 13 January 1995]: The national patients charter standard provides that ambulances responding to an emergency call should arrive at the scene of an incident in 95 per cent. of cases, within 14 minutes for urban services and within 19 minutes for rural services.

  Information was not collected in sufficient detail in 1991–92 to provide the figures requested. Figures for 1992–93 and 1993–94 are shown in the table.
  483

  Budgets
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total budget of(a) fundholders and (b) district health authorities in 1991–92, 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95.

  1991–92 £ million

  1992–93 £ million

  1993–94 £ million

  1994–95 £ million

  General Practitioner Fundholders

  400

  800

  1,800

  2,800

  District Health Authorities

  17,300

  18,200

  17,900

  18,200

  Notes:

  1. Allocations to district health authorities and general practitioner fundholders are made by regional health authorities who have provided the information in the table.

  2. Final district health authority cash limits for the years 1991–92, 1992–93, and 1993–94 include initial cash limits and adjustments in-year, and exclude general practitioner fundholder allocations. For 1994–95 the figures recorded are initial cash limits and exclude in-year adjustments. Some regions have included general practitioner fundholder budgets in these initial cash limits.

  Cot Deaths
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the budget for health promotional activities on cot death in each of the last five years; and what is the projected budget for the next two years.

  1991–92 £000s

  1992–93 £000s

  1993–94 £000s

  1994–95 £000s

  1995–96 £000s

  1996–97 £000s

  DH Expenditure

  Cot Death

  1,611

  —

  21

  30

  —

  —

  HEA Expenditure

  Teenage Smoking Campaign

  2,101

  2,650

  2,650

  1,362

  —

  —

  Smoking in Pregnancy

  500

  500

  500

  446

  —

  —

  Adult Smoking

  -

  5,438

  8,256

  8,052

  4,000

  4,000

  Birth to Five

  253

  21

  77

  1107

  —

  —

  Pregnancy Book

  326

  328

  151

  1196

  —

  —

  Total

  4,791

  9,147

  11,655

  10,193

  4,000

  4,000

  1 Provisional figures for the year to date. Further expenditure is planned to the end of the current financial year.

  The Department of Health budgets for 1995–96 and 1996–97 and most of those for the HEA have yet to be agreed.

  Departmental expenditure in 1991 went towards a press and television cot death campaign, as well as the production and distribution of a departmental leaflet, "Reducing the Risk of Cot Death", which has since been reprinted and almost 5 million copies distributed so far.

  The recently announced national anti-smoking campaign managed by the HEA over the next three financial years will be primarily aimed at adults, and especially parents of young children. This is particularly relevant to cot death because smoking is a major risk factor associated with it. The HEA's two major publications in this field, the "Pregnancy Book", given free to first-time mothers and "Birth to Five", given free to first-time parents, both contain advice on reducing the risk of cot death.

  Much health promotion work of this type is carried out by local health care units and health authorities. It is not possible to quantify this either in terms of time or cost. Health promotion activity aimed at pregnant women and new mothers is carried out in face-to-face contacts by individual midwives, health visitors, general practitioners, obstetricians and paediatricians during the course of routine care.
  484
  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 13 January 1995]: Details of budgets allocated to general practitioner fundholders and district health authorities are shown in the table. General practitioner fundholder data include allocations for drugs and staff in addition to the hospital and community health services that they can purchase.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 13 January 1995]: The table shows the amounts that the Department has spent on publicity aimed specifically at reducing the risk of cot death since the introduction of the "Back to Sleep" campaign in December 1991 and Health Education Authority initiatives aimed at reducing smoking prevalence in district groups.

  With the efforts of all those health professionals and the success of those initiatives, there has been a remarkable reduction in the number of cot deaths. In England and Wales over the period 1988–1993, we are pleased to say that the numbers have fallen by more than 70 per cent.

TRANSPORT

  Passenger Timetable
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding inaccuracies in the Great Britain passenger timetable; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Watts
  We have received a small number of representations about inaccuracies in the Great Britain passenger timetable. The timetable is published by BR, which is responsible for its accuracy.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many staff in his Department have reported an offer of employment from an outside employer since February
  485
  1993 as required under the civil service management code; and how many of these reports were followed by an application to join the company concerned.

  Mr. Norris
  The rules on outside appointments do not require Departments to maintain records of job offers to their staff.

  Roads Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of United Kingdom roads expenditure, broken down to show the split between central and local government, for each of the following time periods expressed in 1993 prices(a) 1969 to 1974, (b) 1974 to 1979, (c) 1979 to 1984, (d) 1984 to 1989, (e) 1989 to 1994 and (f) 1994 to 1999 planned; and if he will provide the equivalent figures showing central and local government expenditures on the United Kingdom rail system.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Comparable figures for the split between national and local roads expenditure relate to England only and are not available before 1989. Figures for each of the years 1989–90 to 1993–94 and estimated outturns for 1994–95 are given in 1993–94 prices. Central Government rail figures represent the external finance limit for BR-Railtrack; local government rail figures represent support for services in the metropolitan areas.

  £ million

  Roads

  Rail

  National

  Local

  Central Government

  Local Government

  1989–90

  1,655

  623

  877

  125

  1990–91

  2,042

  724

  1,249

  128

  1991–92

  1,983

  838

  1,584

  139

  1992–93

  2,022

  923

  2,137

  144

  1993–94

  2,040

  1,039

  1,461

  143

  1994–95

  1,945

  851

  1,496

  359

  Table 1

  Heavy Goods Vehicles

  Public Service Vehicles

  Other Vehicle Types

  Month

  Planned

  Inspected

  Failed (Prohibitions)

  Planned

  Inspected

  Failed (Prohibitions)

  Planned

  Inspected

  Failed (Prohibitions}

  December 1993

  10,247

  8,130

  996

  2,266

  2,568

  183

  4,662

  4,246

  261

  January 1994

  "

  6,560

  933

  "

  1,601

  119

  "

  2,099

  112

  February 1994

  "

  10,956

  1,458

  "

  2,672

  205

  "

  3,740

  213

  March 1994

  "

  18,297

  2,720

  "

  5,577

  494

  "

  6,985

  398

  April 1994

  11,076

  11,505

  2,017

  2,443

  1,467

  171

  4,506

  2,490

  252

  May 1994

  "

  12,834

  2,132

  "

  2,140

  219

  "

  3,328

  291

  June 1994

  "

  10,578

  1,644

  "

  2,435

  295

  "

  3,362

  232

  July 1994

  "

  14,183

  2,483

  "

  3,701

  429

  "

  4,405

  269

  August 1994

  "

  10,982

  1,724

  "

  2,619

  250

  "

  4,143

  237

  September 1994

  "

  12,081

  2,024

  "

  2,651

  344

  "

  7,867

  308

  October 1994

  "

  11,986

  1,979

  "

  2,602

  285

  "

  4,893

  373

  November 1994

  "

  10,448

  1,566

  "

  2,752

  235

  "

  6,465

  588

  Notes:

  1. The number of planned inspections has been calculated from using the planned inspections for the year.

  2. In relation to roadworthiness enforcement inspections "failed" has been interpreted as being the number of occasions when it was found necessary to issue a roadworthiness prohibition notice.

  3. The inspections include all roadworthiness enforcement spot checks and exclude any conducted in connection with:

  a) accident or mechanical defect investigations and

  b) roadworthiness inspections done for operator licensing purposes.

  Public Transport
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to redirect reductions in the roads budget into expenditure on public transport.
  486
  Forward plans for 1995–96 to 1997–98 will be published in the transport report 1995.

  Vehicle Checks
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list vehicle spot checks planned and carried out in each of the last 12 months, stating in each case how many vehicles were tested, how many failed to meet roadworthiness standards, and how many planned checks were cancelled due to lack of police resources.

  Mr. Norris
  This is an operational matter for the Vehicle Inspectorate agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ron Oliver to Ms Joan Walley, dated 18 January 1995:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question concerning vehicle spot checks planned and carried out in each of the last 12 months, stating in each case how many vehicles were tested, how many failed to meet roadworthiness standards, and how many planned checks were cancelled due to lack of police resources.

  The attached table shows the number of vehicle spot checks planned and carried out in each of the last 12 months, and the number failing to meet roadworthiness standards, to the extent that prohibition action was necessary.

  The number of planned checks cancelled due to lack of police support is not available. The information we do have is set out below and covers the period from 1 April 1994 to the end of September 1994. It shows the number of unproductive hours (attendance hours) resulting from the withdrawal of police support from organised checks in progress.

  Month

  Attendance Hours Lost

  Month

  Attendance Hours Lost

  April 1994

  310

  July 1994

  344

  May 1994

  316

  August 1994

  338

  June 1994

  310

  September 1994

  327

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The broad apportionment of my Department's budget was announced on 29 November. Details will be published in due course in the transport report 1995.
  487

  Mr. R. Howard
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to reply formally to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration's draft report on the care of Mr. R. Howard of Bexley.

  Mr. Watts
  The Department of Transport made its detailed response to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration last November, since when there has been further correspondence on factual and textual matters.

  Highway Code
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimates his Department have made of the percentage of total motorists owning a current copy of the highway code.

  Mr. Norris
  On the basis of sales figures provided by HMSO, about 20 per cent. of motorists, some 6.8 million, have bought a copy of the current edition of the highway code.

  Motorists (Training)
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when his Department will announce plans for a scheme to offer further training for motorists who have already passed their test.

  Mr. Norris
  Soon.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his Department's response to the proposal advanced by the Automobile Association for a graduated points threshold for new drivers.

  Mr. Norris
  We have considered carefully a number of proposals for improving the safety of new drivers, including those put forward by the Automobile Association. I am pleased to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) has introduced the Road Traffic (New Drivers) Bill, which provides for the retesting of newly qualified drivers who commit certain traffic offences.

  Rolling Stock (Safety)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what response British Rail made to recommendation 55 of the Hidden report on the Clapham junction railway accident in respect of mark 1 rolling stock including class 411, 413, 415 and 416 vehicles in use on Network South East's south-eastern division routes in Kent.

  Mr. Watts
  British Rail carried out its stated programme of research into the structural integrity of its rolling stock, which included an assessment of the structural changes necessary to strengthen mark 1 vehicles with an expected life span of eight years or more. BR completed the programme by April 1991 and then discussed the results with the Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate. BR concluded that very few of the mark 1 vehicles in classes 411, 413, 415 and 416 were projected to remain in service for eight years or more, and that it would not be reasonably practicable to carry out structural changes to these vehicles or to the remainder of mark 1 vehicles. I understand that Her Majesty's railway inspectorate agreed with BR's conclusions.
  488

  Motorists (Sight)
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimates his Department have made of the percentage of total motorists with inadequate eyesight due to(a) an absence of glasses or contact lenses and (b) inappropriate glasses or contact lenses.

  Mr. Norris
  None.

  Safety Schemes, Derbyshire
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the allocations that have been made to Derbyshire county council under supplementary credit approval for local safety schemes over the last six years.

  Mr. Norris
  The allocations are:

  Year

  £

  1991–92

  300,000

  1992–93

  250,000

  1993–94

  330,000

  1994–95

  602,000

  1995–96

  642,000

  Supplementary credit approvals were allocated for 1994–95 and 1995–96. Before then, support was given as transport supplementary grant, 50 per cent., and annual capital guideline, 50 per cent. Specific allocations for local safety schemes were not given before 1991–92.

  Train Drivers' Radio Phones
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what estimate he has made of the cost of ensuring that drivers' radio phones are effective at all points on the rail network through the installation of extra line side transmitter relay facilities;

  (2) what agreement he has reached with British Rail and its subsidiary companies to ensure that drivers' radio phones can be used effectively on all parts of the rail network;

  (3) what estimate he has made of the proportion of the rail network on which drivers' radio phones are ineffective because of reception blackspots;

  (4) if he will publish a map indicating those sections of the rail network on which drivers' radio phones are ineffective because of reception blackspots.

  Mr. Watts
  These are operational matters for British Rail and Railtrack. I understand that British Rail has fitted the major part of the network with a system known as the national radio network. The target coverage for the NRN is 98 per cent. The remaining 2 per cent. of the network consists of problem spots, mainly in cuttings or tunnels, where complete coverage is not reasonably practicable unless the cab secure radio system for communicating with train drivers is provided. There is no map of these problem spots. The Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate continues to monitor implementation of the cab radio programme by British Rail and Railtrack.

  Cost Benefit Analyses
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what criteria he uses to assess whether value for money is obtained from his Department's road programme.
  489
  Mr. Watts
  The Department employs cost-benefit analyses to appraise new road schemes at different stages of their preparation to ensure that they will provide value for money. The benefits measure is accident reductions and time and vehicle operating costs savings to road users. The analysis is complemented by wide-ranging appraisals of environmental impacts.

  When schemes are completed, the accuracy of the predicted traffic flows—the key input for both the cost-benefit analyses and the environmental appraisal—is monitored. In response to a recommendation of the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment, research is being undertaken to enhance and extend "before and after" scheme monitoring.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what adjustments he intends to propose in respect of the fixed trip matrix assumption in COBA.

  Mr.Watts
  In response to the recent report of the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment, the Department has issued guidance on the use of currently available techniques for variable trip matrix appraisal. These appraisals will be undertaken for all national road schemes in preparation, except where prior assessment shows that the trip matrix will not vary significantly as a result of the scheme.

  The Department has commissioned consultants to develop improved techniques for undertaking variable matrix economic appraisal, to complement the fixed matrix COBA program.

  Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received the eighth annual report of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee.

  Mr Norris
  The report has been received by my right hon. Friend and copies have today been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Jury Service (Blind People)
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many blind people were turned down for jury service in the last year for which figures are available and in each of the previous four years.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  My Department does not collect data about the number of blind people who were either discharged or excused from jury service. Such information for the last five years could be obtained only at disproportionate cost and its accuracy could not be guaranteed.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many staff in his Department have reported an offer of employment from an outside employer since February 1993 as required 490
  under the civil service management code; and how many of these reports were followed by an application to join the company concerned.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Since February 1993, one offer of employment has been reported and was followed by an application to join the company.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many staff in his Department have reported an offer of employment from an outside employer since February 1993 as required under the civil service management code; and how many of these reports were followed by an application to join the company concerned.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  Information about offers of employment from outside companies is not held centrally. Since February 1993, four applications to join an outside employer have been received.

  Internet
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to introduce measures to combat the spread of pornography on computer via the Internet; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  CCTA, the Government centre for information systems, has established a collaborative open group to examine and discuss all the ethical issues relating to the use of the Internet, and to report to me with recommendations.

  All views and suggestions on such matters are most welcome, and should be sent either via Internet electronic mail to "ethics & ccta.gov.uk" or by post to:

  Internet Ethics COG

  Room WG6

  CCTA

  Rosebery Court

  St Andrews Business Park

  Norwich NR7 OHS

  Information Super-highway
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much public investment has been spent on research into the information super-highway by the Government for each of the financial years 1990–91, 1991–92, 1992–93, and 1993–94; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  Most of the public investment in research into leading-edge communications networks, or information super-highways, has focused on the joint academic network known as SuperJANET. The Higher Education Funding Council contributed £5.35 million and £8.06 million in the respective financial years 1992–93 and 1993–94 to the development of this multimedia broadband network for universities and other research institutions.
  491

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Great Clock
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee, pursuant to his answer of 8 December,Official Report, column 327, when the modernised lighting behind the clock faces of the Great Clock will become fully operational; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  The new lighting will become fully operational at dusk on 19 January 1995 and it will save some £1,000 in electricity and £2,500 in maintenance costs each year. Thus, the installation cost of £20,000 will be recovered from savings in six years. The new fittings that have been installed are a special type of fluorescent bulb, which works on a high frequency induction principle. They have a lamp life of 60,000 hours which is about 13 years of normal use, and the output from each 55 watt bulb is equivalent to a 250 watt conventional incandescent lamp.

  Banqueting Rooms Events (Sponsors)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee for what reasons the names of hon. Members sponsoring events in the Banqueting Room A, B, C and D are no longer listed on the notice board in the Terrace Corridor.

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  [holding answer 17 January 1995]: A new notice board was installed in the corridor outside the Terrace Dining Rooms during the Christmas recess. The lettering for this board has now been received, and I am pleased to advise the hon. Member that, for the convenience of those attending, the names of hon. Members hosting functions in Banqueting Rooms A, B, C and D are once again listed on the notice board in the terrace corridor.

PRIME MINISTER

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Prime Minister how many staff in his Office have reported an offer of employment from an outside employer since February 1993 as required under the civil service management code; and how many of those reports were followed by an application to join the company concerned.

  The Prime Minister
  Since February 1993, there have not been any applications for staff in my Office to join outside employers.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Government's view of the report by Lord Finsberg on Cyprus to be discussed at the Council of Europe meeting in Strasbourg on 2 February.

  The Prime Minister
  Lord Finsberg's report on the situation in Cyprus has been prepared in his capacity as rapporteur of the political committee of the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe. As such, it would not be proper for Her Majesty's Government to comment on the judgments made in the report. We share Lord 492
  Finsberg's desire to see continuing efforts to resolve the Cyprus dispute on the basis of UN resolutions, most recently UN Security Council resolution 939 of 29 July 1994.

  Brendan Smyth
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he made to Ministers or officials of the then Irish Government over delays in the extradition from the Irish Republic of Brendan Smyth.

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Modbury Team Ministry
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Prime Minister what are the reasons for the delay in Privy Council approval for the Modbury team ministry within the Exeter diocese; and when a decision will be reached.

  Mr. Alison
  I have been asked to reply.

  The matter is not yet with the Privy Council. The position is that the Church Commissioners have recently considered three representations against a draft Pastoral Scheme providing, inter alia, for the creation of the Modbury team ministry. The Commissioners' conclusions have now been shared with the Diocesan Bishop and their decision is expected to be announced shortly.

TREASURY

  Inflation Forecasts
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many of Her Majesty's Treasury panel of independent forecasters were, in their latest estimates, forecasting an inflation rates of less than 2.5 per cent. in 1996.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The inflation requested can be found in table B7 of the panel's latest report. A copy of the report is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Taxation
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest estimates of the personal allowance as a percentage of average manual earnings in(a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94, (c) 1994–95 and (d) 1995–96 for taxpayers who were (i) a single person, (ii) a married man with no children, (iii) a married man with two children and (iv) a married man with four children.

  Sir George Young
  Using the illustrative assumptions for the growth in earnings and prices given in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" 1995–96, real take-home pay for a married man on average earnings for all occupations will rise by £3.50 a week between 1992–93 and 1995–96 and for a single man by £7.50 a week.

  Estimates of the income tax threshold as a percentage of average male manual earnings based on illustrative assumptions for earnings growth in 1994–95 and 1995–96 are in the table. A married person's tax threshold is unaffected by the number of children.

  Since the introduction of the lower rate band in 1992–93 taxpayers with income just above the threshold pay tax at a rate of only 20 per cent.
  493

  Tax threshold

  Tax threshold as a percentage of average male manual earnings

  Single person £

  Married man1 £

  Single person

  Married man1

  1992–93

  3445

  5165

  24.4

  36.5

  1993–94

  3445

  5165

  23.8

  35.7

  1994–95

  3445

  5165

  223.0

  234.5

  1995–96

  3525

  4815

  222.5

  230.7

  1 Assumes that the married man receives a full married couple's allowance.

  2 Provisional. Assumes average male manual earnings increase by 3.5 per cent in 1994–95 and 4.5 per cent in 1995–96 in line with the assumptions for growth in average earnings given in the financial statement and budget Report 1995–96.

  Electronic Mail
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to be able to receive and respond to communications via electronic mail.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Treasury already sends out information electronically. Its Internet service was launched on 15 November 1994.

  Material is provided on the Teasury's own Internet server on the world wide web. In addition to the world wide web, the same information can be obtained by electronic mail or by file transfer.

  Users can also obtain help about the service using electronic mail. My Department has replied to all queries it has received to date.

  As the service expands the Treasury hopes to be able to respond to more communications.

  Exchange Rates
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what was the lowest rate of exchange between the pound sterling and the deutschmark in February 1993; and what has been the change in the rate of the pound sterling against(a) the deutschmark (b) the ecu and (c) the dollar since then;

  (2) what part, a desire to protect the value of the pound sterling fully against other EEC currencies played in the uneven interest rates this year;

  (3) if (a) pound sterling and (b) the dollar are overvalued; and how over valuation is to be measured;

  (4) what was the percentage reduction in the value of the pound sterling against the ecu and against non-ecu currencies included in the Bank of England index since August 1992;

  (5) what conclusion he has drawn from Britain's membership of the ERM of the EMS.

  (6) if he will publish an assessment of the effects of Britain's membership of the ERM on (a) jobs, (b) growth, (c) manufacturing and (d) the balance of payments.

  Mr. Nelson
  Movements in the exchange rate are considered as part of the general assessment of monetary conditions in setting monetary policy. The Government recognise the value of a stable exchange rate, but we do not set target rates. The valuation of any currency is determined by transactions in the foreign exchange markets.
  494
  The United Kingdom's membership of the ERM demonstrated that, for currency mechanisms to achieve greater exchange rate stability, broader economic convergence between member states is required.

  Levels of employment, growth, manufacturing output and the balance of payments are affected by a wide range of factors; it is not possible to isolate the effects of any single factor.

  Sterling's exchange rates against ecu and non-ecu currencies are published in table 7.1A of the Central Statistical Office's "Financial Statistics".

  EU Price Index
  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the EU harmonised price index is due to be introduced; how it will be constructed; and what plans there are to use it to update or replace the current retail prices index.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Statistical Office of the European Communities—Eurostat—has drawn up a Council regulation that prescribes that harmonised consumer price indices be developed from spring 1996. The methodology for constructing these indices is currently under discussion between groups of experts from EU member states and Eurostat. The harmonised consumer price index will be produced in addition to the retail prices index.

  Central Statistical Office
  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the budget of the Central Statistical Office was for each year from 1979; and what the projected budget is for the years 1994 to 1999 in current year prices.

  Mr. Nelson
  The table shows the net expenditure of the Central Statistical Office. The CSO's first full financial year as a separate Department with its own accounts was 1990–91, but also shown are figures from 1986–87, which have been published in the departmental report for information purposes. No figures are available prior to 1986–87. Figures from 1995–96 reflect planned expenditure. All figures are calculated in current year prices.

  Year

  Net Expenditure £ million

  1986–87

  21.9

  1987–88

  21.5

  1988–89

  25.5

  1989–90

  24.6

  1990–91

  32.0

  1991–92

  36.2

  1992–93

  41.6

  1993–94

  44.0

  1994–95

  48.1

  1995–96

  47.3

  1996–97

  44.4

  1997–98

  43.2

  1998–99

  42.3

  495

  Income Tax
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of income tax revenue was paid by the lowest(a) 5 per cent., (b) 10 per cent., (c) 20 per cent. and (d) 30 per cent. of earners in each year from 1978–79 inclusive; and what are his future projections.

  Sir George Young
  The information requested is given in the table. The bottom 5 per cent. of income tax payers have accounted for less than one half of 1 per cent. of the total income tax liabilities for each year since 1978–79. Estimates for 1993–94 onwards are based on projections from the 1992–93 survey of personal incomes.

  Shares of total tax liability1

  Groups of taxpayers (percentage)

  Bottom 30 per cent.

  Bottom 20 per cent.

  Bottom 10 per cent

  1978–79

  7

  3

  1

  1979–80

  7

  3

  1

  1980–81

  6

  3

  1

  1981–82

  7

  3

  1

  1982–83

  7

  3

  1

  1983–84

  6

  3

  1

  1984–85

  6

  3

  1

  1985–86

  7

  3

  1

  1986–87

  6

  3

  1

  1987–88

  6

  3

  1

  1988–89

  6

  3

  1

  1989–90

  6

  3

  1

  1990–91

  5

  2

  1

  1991–92

  5

  2

  1

  1992–93

  4

  2

  3—

  1993–942

  4

  2

  3—

  1994–952

  4

  2

  3—

  1995–962

  4

  2

  3—

  1 For years up to and including 1989–90, married couples are counted as one taxpayer and their incomes are combined. Following the introduction of independent taxation in 1990–91, husbands and wives are counted separately.

  2 Provisional.

  3 Less than 0.5 per cent.

  Retail Prices Index
  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to update the basis upon which the retail prices index is calculated; and what amendments have been made to it since 1990.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Chancellor announced in answer to the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) on 10 January,Official Report, column 9, his acceptance of the recommendations made by the retail prices index advisory committee in its reports, Cm 2717 and Cm 2716, on owner-occupiers' housing costs and cars respectively. The changes will be implemented in the RPI from February 1995. The recommendations of the advisory committee in its previous reports, Cm 2142 in January 1993 and Cm 2153 in February 1993, on council tax and holidays were implemented in the RPI for 1993 and, for United Kingdom holidays, 1994. Minor changes to the items included in the RPI are made each year to take account of changes in consumer spending patterns. Details of the 1993 and 1994 changes are given in the April 1993 and March 1994 issues of the publication "Retail Prices Index", CSO business monitor MM23. All the above publications are available in the House of Commons Library.
  496

  Civil Servant Travel
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which airlines have been granted preferred carrier status for civil servant travel to overseas destinations.

  Mr. Nelson
  The preferred carrier for any civil servant's travel will depend on the circumstances of the journey concerned, including value for money. For regular requirements the Treasury has entered into arrangements with British Airways and British Midland.

  VAT on Fuel
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue has been raised from value added tax on gas and electricity standing charges since its introduction.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Standing charges on gas and electricity supply from 1 April to the end of December 1994 will give rise to £100 million of VAT.

  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimation he has made of the proportion in value added tax as a percentage of the total bill paid in(a) standing charge and (b) actual energy consumption by (i) low-income households and (ii) high-income households.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The answers will depend on the particular energy company and factors such as whether an economy rate is used, severity of weather, level of insulation and so on. The Government have made available a substantial package of help for those on low incomes.

  Civil Aviation Authority (VAT)
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the status of the Civil Aviation Authority for VAT purposes in respect of en route air navigation services now; what it will be after 1 April; who took the decision to change its status; what will be the implications of its changed status; what are the revenue implications; and who will benefit from them.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) on 14 December 1994,Official Report, column 651.

  Tax Office, Doncaster
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what targets Doncaster tax office(a) achieved and (b) failed to achieve during the last financial year; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  Both tax offices in Doncaster—Doncaster 1 and Doncaster 2—achieved all key assessment and customer service targets in the year to April 1994, as shown in table. With the exception of one target in each office, all key compliance targets were also met. Doncaster collection office also achieved all except one of its key operating targets in the year, as the table shows.
  497

  Doncaster 1

  Doncaster 2 Target per cent.

  Target per cent.

  Achieved per cent.

  Target per cent.

  Achieved per cent.

  Schedule D Assessments.

  98

  99.7

  98

  98.85

  Schedule E open cases 1992–93 1991–92 and earlier

  90

  99.3

  90.5

  98.95

  larger and complex cases

  98.5

  99.55

  95

  99.68

  other cases

  98.5

  99.98

  98.5

  99.96

  CT assessing reduction in assessment made late

  5

  86

  10

  62

  Return forms examined by October 1993

  99

  100

  99

  100

  EOY returns cleared by October 1993

  99

  99.8

  99.4

  99.84

  P11Ds examined by December 1993

  98

  100

  99

  100

  Correspondence dealt with within 28 days of receipt

  94

  99.98

  94

  99.9

  Callers without an appointment dealt with within 15 minutes

  —

  —

  95

  96.15

  Compliance

  Corporation Tax

  Settlements per unit

  15

  17.65

  15

  12.77

  Average Case points

  10.7

  12.13

  9.7

  11.75

  Total settlements

  6

  6

  5

  6

  Income Tax

  Settlement per unit

  25

  27.15

  25

  36.59

  Average case points

  8.6

  9.1

  7.86

  8.34

  Total settlements

  95

  82

  105

  146

  Doncaster collection

  Target Per cent.

  Achieved Per cent.

  Assessed taxes

  63.6

  69.5

  PAYE—All cases

  86

  85.4

  PAYE—Returns

  92

  97.8

  PAYE—Underpayment

  69

  85.4

  PAYE—Band 1

  93

  97.7

  Band 2

  92

  93.9

  Miscellaneous work arrears

  60

  80.2

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Attorney-General how many staff in his Department have reported an offer of employment from an outside employer since February 1993 as required under the civil service management code; and how many of these reports were followed by an application to join the company concerned.

  The Attorney-General
  Since 1 February 1993, one offer of employment has been reported by a member of staff in the Crown Prosecution Service. No such offers have been reported in the legal secretariat to the law officers, the Treasury Solicitor's department or the Serious Fraud Office.

  Brendan Smyth
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Attorney-General how many times between April 1993 and February 1994 his advice was sought by(a) British Ministers, (b) British Government officials, (c) Irish Republic Ministers, (d) the
  498
  Irish Attorney-General or (e) his officials about his view on the effect of lapse of time clause in the Extradition Act 1987 on the extradition of Brendan Smyth.

  The Attorney-General
  It is a well-established convention that the law officers do not normally disclose whether they have been asked to advise or the nature of their advice. The hon. Gentleman will however also note that the Extradition (Amendment) Act 1987 is not a United Kingdom statute but an Act of the Dail.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Drug Trafficking
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy on the use of death penalty for British citizens found guilty of drug trafficking abroad.

  Mr. Baldry
  The use of the death penalty for persons found guilty of drug trafficking abroad is a matter for those countries concerned, provided that respect is shown for the provisions on the death penalty of international human rights law. Once a British national has been sentenced to death, and all local appeals for clemency have been exhausted, we consider whether, and at what level, any further appeal should be made. Intervention is considered on a case-by-case basis.

  Child Labour, India
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Government of India about the employment of children in Tirupur to make garments for supply to United Kingdom high street retailers.
  499
  Mr. Baldry
  We have urged all United Nations member states to abide by the programme of action for the elimination of the exploitation of child labour, which was agreed in 1993 by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, of which India is a member.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has had from Esmat Abdel Maguid on the issue of Libya's position in relation to the Lockerbie case.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Dr. Meguid handed a copy of the Arab League's resolution concerning the Lockerbie bombing to Her Majesty's ambassador in Cairo on 31 March 1994. I discussed the Lockerbie issue with Dr. Meguid in November 1994.

  East Timor
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to support the latest resolution of the European Parliament concerning the illegal occupation of East Timor; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  There is no obligation on EU member states to implement the recommendations on this resolution. The measures it proposes would not, in our view, bring about a change in the circumstances of East Timor. We believe that the continuing dialogue between Indonesia and Portugal, under the auspices of the UN Secretary-General, offers the best prospect for securing agreement on a just, comprehensive and internationally acceptable settlement on the future of the territory.

  United Kingdom Nationals (Expulsions)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many United Kingdom nationals have been expelled from other countries, and from which countries, in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Baldry
  This information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many staff in his Department have reported an offer of employment from an outside employer since February 1993 as required under the civil service management code; and how many of these reports were followed by an application to join the company concerned.

  Mr. Goodlad
  FCO staff have reported 27 offers of employment from outside employers since February 1993; 24 were followed up by an application.

  Chechnya
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration he has given to a role for the Organisation for Co-operation and Security in Europe, formerly CSCE, in resolving the conflict in Chechnya.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe has an important role to play in 500
  the search for a settlement to the conflict in Chechnya, in particular in ensuring respect for human rights, the restoration of constitutional order and the preparation as soon as possible of elections.

  The United Kingdom fully supports the efforts being undertaken by the OSCE chairman-in-office to maintain close contact with the Russian Government and welcomes Russia's willingness to involve the OSCE in the wider search for a long-term solution to the conflict.

  Foreign Nationals (Expulsions)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many foreign nationals have been expelled from the United Kingdom in each year since 1979; and if he will list their nationalities.

  Mr. Baldry
  The number of foreign nationals—that is, diplomats officially accredited to missions in London—expelled from the United Kingdom since 1979 is as follows:

  Nationality

  Number

  1979

  nil

  —

  1980

  Libya

  3

  1981

  Soviet Union

  1

  1982

  nil

  —

  1983

  Czechoslovakia

  2

  1984

  Czechoslovakia

  2

  Libya

  2

  Soviet Union

  1

  1985

  Soviet Union

  2

  1986

  nil

  —

  1987

  Bulgaria

  1

  Soviet Union

  1

  1988

  Soviet Union

  1

  Cuba

  2

  Vietnam

  1

  Czechoslovakia

  3

  Iraq

  4

  1989

  Czechoslovakia

  4

  South Africa

  3

  Soviet Union

  8

  1990

  Iraq

  11

  1991

  Iraq

  9

  1992

  Iran

  1

  1993

  nil

  —

  1994

  Iran

  1

  Sudan

  1

  UN Human Rights Commission
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what issues will be discussed at the UN Human Rights commission in Geneva on 30 January.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  During its annual meeting—30 January to 10 March 1995—the UN Commission on Human Rights will as usual discuss a wide range of subjects. It is likely to pass over 100 resolutions on thematic issues and on human rights in individual countries. A copy of the annotated agenda will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Copenhagen Summit
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who will represent Her
  501
  Majesty's Government at the United Nations summit for social development in Copenhagen in March.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A final decision on attendance at the summit will be made nearer the date.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what issues Her Majesty's Government intend to raise as matters of priority at the United Nations summit for social development in Copenhagen in March.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Our principal priorities are to raise the level and improve the focus of the international debate around the issues of development.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Sustainable Tourism
  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received from the English regional tourist boards regarding the future of sustainable tourism projects; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have received no such representations, but I hope that the regional tourists boards will continue to support and participate in sustainable tourism projects. Their past efforts, and those of their project partners, will form the basis of a guide to good visitor management practice, to be published later this year by my Department, in collaboration with the Countryside and Rural Development Commissions and the English tourist board. I believe that this guide will prove helpful to the tourism industry in further developing sustainable tourism in this country.

  Mr. McWilliam
  To aks the Secretary of State for National Heritage what resources have been directed to sustainable tourism initiatives drawn up by the English regional tourist boards in the last three years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Since December 1991 the English tourist board has committed, out of grant in aid from my Department, a total of £257,500 to six local sustainable tourism initiatives in which the regional tourist boards have been involved.

  Community Television Channels
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the number of holders of cable television licences which are currently providing community television channels; if he will identify those companies and the areas in which community channels are operating; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Independent Television Commission has awarded 95 licensable programme services licences, of which 35 are operational and providing local programming. Local programming is produced in Telewest's south London and Avon franchises, Devanha group's Coventry and Aberdeen franchises, Telecential's Swindon franchise, the Cable Corporation's Windsor franchise, the Comcast-managed Birmingham franchise, LCL Cable Communications' Leicester franchise, IVS Cable Holdings in Andover and in Videotron's London holdings.
  502
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what requirements are imposed on holders of cable television licences to provide community television channels.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Under broadcasting legislation, there are no requirements on holders of cable television franchises to provide a community service channel.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what action he is taking to ensure that the provision of local community television channels by holders of cable television licences do not become subject to the monopoly control or influence of existing news providers.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The cross-media ownership restrictions in the Broadcasting Act 1990 prevent local newspapers, local radio and regional Channel 3 companies from controlling cable franchises if there is a significant overlap in the areas served.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what action he is taking to ensure that all holders of cable television licences fulfil their requirement to provide a community television channel.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Under broadcasting legislation, there are no requirements on holders of cable television franchises to provide a community service channel.

  Cable Television
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what guidance has been issued on access to community television channels provided by cable television companies under the terms of their licence.

  Mr. Dorrell
  If community television channels are provided by cable television companies, it is for individuals to decide whether they wish to subscribe to them.

  Cross-media Ownership
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans his Department has for encouraging a European Commission resolution on pluralism arid cross-media ownership.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I will consider my response once the European Commission launches its consultation exercise and provides details of its proposals.

ENVIRONMENT

  Edwardes Committee
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made following the Edwardes committee report on the development of national parks.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Part III of the Environment Bill, which is being considered in another place, includes provisions which take forward our commitments to primary legislation for the national parks. These commitments are set out in our 1992 policy statement, "Fit for the Future", which we issued in response to the report of the Edwardes committee.
  503

  Local Government Review (Shropshire)
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the recommendation of the local government review affecting Shropshire.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The Local Government Commission published its final report on Shropshire last Wednesday. Following publication, there is a six-week period during which interested parties can make representations to us before we take any decisions on the commission's recommendations.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he foresees the development of compulsory competitive tendering on housing management.

  Mr. Curry
  We have put in place the legislative framework extending compulsory competitive tendering to housing management. The first contracts are due to be in operation from April 1996. I am pleased to say that local authorities are making good progress with their preparations.

  Latham Report
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about progress in implementing the Latham Report.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The review implementation forum, which is chaired by Sir Michael Latham, reported to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 19 December, with recommendations for taking forward the proposals in the Latham report. The report will be discussed at a meeting of the construction industry's standing strategic group, which is chaired by my right hon. Friend, on 7 February.

  Conservation Sites
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the designation of conservation sites under the European habitats directive.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Work is well advanced on a draft list of possible sites which will be published shortly for public consultation in preparation for the submission of a list of candidate special areas of conservation. Formal designation of sites will take place only after agreement has been reached between the Government and the Commission and after the list of those sites has been adopted in accordance with the directive.

  Landfill Tax
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the impact of the proposed landfill tax on the operation of waste landfill sites in residential areas.

  Mr. Atkins
  The proposed landfill tax is not expected to raise issues which are specific to landfill sites in residential areas. However, we will issue a consultation paper shortly on the detailed operation of the tax, which will provide an opportunity for representations to be made. I will place a copy in the Library in due course.
  504

  Air Pollution (London)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about air pollution in London.

  Mr. Atkins
  Ambient concentrations of sulphur dioxide and lead in London have been declining for many years. Levels of traffic-related pollutants are also expected to decline significantly as catalyst-equipped cars replace older more polluting models in the vehicle parc.

  Repossessions
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest estimate of the number of households likely to lose their home through repossession for mortgage arrears in the next 12 months.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra) on 30 November 1994,Official Report, column 731.

  Building and Construction Industry
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his current assessment of the prospects for the building and construction industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Construction output began to increase last year after three and a half years of decline. New orders are increasing and growth is expected to continue.

  The latest state of the construction industry report is currently being produced jointly by the Department of the Environment and representatives of the construction industry. Copies will be placed in the Library in due course.

  Environmental Protection
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in environmental protection over the last year.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  A full account will be given in this year's annual report on "This Common Inheritance", which we will publish in the spring. It will report progress during 1994 both on the commitments in the environment White Paper series and on those in the sustainable development strategy published in January 1994.

  Retail Development
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the effect on consumer choice and price competition of encouraging new retail development in the centre of our towns and cities.

  Mr. Gummer
  Locating new retail developments in or on the edge of town centres ensures that they are accessible to the largest number of people. This enables comparison shopping to be made, thereby increasing choice for all consumers and price competition.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what visits he has recently received from eastern European water Ministers.
  505
  Sir Paul Beresford
  My right hon. Friend has received no recent visits from any eastern European water ministers, nor from any eastern European environment ministers with responsibility for water interests.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Ssecretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for a second round of bidding for the single regeneration budget.

  Mr. Curry
  My right hon. Friend announced on 5 December 1994 that a second bidding round of the single regeneration budget will be launched later this year, under which £40 million will be available in 1996–97 for early funding of approved bids and £200 million in 1997–98.

  Air Pollution (Eastern Europe)
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what contribution the United Kingdom Government are making to improving air pollution in eastern Europe.

  Mr. Atkins
  The United Kingdom is a signatory, along with other states including those from Eastern Europe, of the United National Economic Commission for Europe convention on long range transboundary air pollution and plays an active part in the convention's various subsidiary bodies. Protocols under the convention control a range of air pollutants from sources within eastern and western Europe. The United Kingdom has made voluntary contributions to a UNECE trust fund to facilitate the participation of Eastern European countries in relevant meetings and in the convention.

  In addition to its contribution to multilateral programmes of assistance to central and eastern Europe, the United Kingdom has also established the environmental know-how fund, which includes projects to combat air pollution in central and eastern Europe. Help is also being given for the restructurirg of the energy sector in central and eastern European countries, with benefits to the environment, under the main know-how fund.

  Legislation
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new items of legislation affecting the work of his Department have been introduced as Government Bills since 1979.

  Mr. Gummer
  Since 1979, there have been 79 Acts of Parliament on subjects for which the Department of the Environment is currently responsible. Of these, 64 were Government Bills, including 12 consolidation Bills. The remainder were introduced as private Member's Bills.

  River Thames
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to put the River Thames to better use for residents and tourists.

  Mr. Gummer
  I shall shortly publish the report of the study of the Thames that I announced last year. This will be followed in the spring by draft strategic planning guidance for the Thames, on which I shall consult widely. The report and guidance will give encouragement to 506
  maximising the use of the river and the valuable resources it offers for resident and tourist alike.

  Merseyside Development Corporation
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the future of Merseyside development corporation.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Merseyside development corporation is to be wound up on 31 March 1998. The corporation is discussing succession arrangements with local partners.

  Negative Equity
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 30 November 1994,Official Report, column 726, if he will now update the table on negative equity with the latest figures available.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The estimates in the answer given on 30 November were in respect of the third quarter of 1994. Estimates based on Department of the Environment house price data for the fourth quarter will be available in February.

  Leisure plc
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to require Leisure plc to conform to the requirements of the Audit Commission Publication of Information (Standards of Performance) direction 1994.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The requirements of the Publication of Information (Standards of Performance) direction, issued by the Audit Commission, apply to the local authority irrespective of whether the services are provided by the council or are contracted out to the private sector. We have no plans to review these arrangements.

  Private Landlords
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to require private landlords to meet the same standards as local authorities are required to meet under the Audit Commission Publication of Information (Standards of Performance) direction 1994.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  None. It would not be appropriate to apply to private landlords the publication requirements imposed on public sector bodies.

  Transitional Relief
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what level of transitional relief in(a) actual and (b) real terms Nottingham city council has received compared to the average district council;

  (2) what level of transitional relief in (a) actual (b) real and (c) percentage terms Nottingham county council has received in each of the last five years; and what level was received in each case by the average shire county.
  507
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The table shows the amounts of community charge transitional relief grant paid to each billing authority in Nottinhamshire in respect of 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93, the amounts of council tax transitional relief grant claimed by each billing authority

  Amounts of community charge and council tax transitional relief grant paid to each billing authority in Nottinghamshire

  1990–9 £

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  1993–941 £

  11994–95 £

  Ashfield

  384,194

  3,673,827

  3,604,396

  162,276

  37,659

  (0.2 per cent.)

  (0.4 per cent.)

  (0.4 per cent.)

  (0.1 per cent.)

  (0.1 per cent.)

  Bassetlaw

  519,195

  4,266,115

  4,157,831

  523,009

  157,305

  (0.2 per cent.)

  (0.4 per cent.)

  (0.4 per cent.)

  (0.1 per cent.)

  (0.1 percent.)

  Broxtowe

  736,134

  2,767,579

  2,697,999

  400,197

  99,545

  (0.3 per cent.)

  (0.3 per cent.)

  (0.3 per cent.)

  (0.1 per cent.)

  (0.1 per cent.)

  Gedling

  591,515

  2,546,494

  2,545,633

  472,552

  123,235

  (0.3 per cent.)

  (0.2 per cent.)

  (0.3 per cent.)

  (0.1 percent.)

  (0.1 percent.)

  Mansfield

  595,775

  5,007,145

  4,846,980

  327,347

  126,214

  (0.3 per cent.)

  (0.5 per cent.)

  (0.5 per cent.)

  (0.1 percent.)

  (0.1 percent.)

  Newark and Sherwood

  727,530

  3,808,439

  3,699,602

  810,254

  288,362

  (0.3 per cent.)

  (0.4 per cent)

  (0.4 per cent.)

  (0.2 per cent.)

  (0.2 per cent.)

  Nottingham

  1,025,521

  11,360,503

  10,744,316

  692,040

  224,148

  (0.4 per cent.)

  (1.1 percent.)

  (1.1 per cent.)

  (0.2 per cent.)

  (0.2 per cent.)

  Rushcliffe

  376,559

  1,578,363

  1,523,778

  1,011,437

  300,128

  (0.2 per cent.)

  (0.2 per cent.)

  (0.2 per cent.)

  (0.3 per cent.)

  (0.3 per cent.)

  Average claim per billing authority

  642,076

  2,803,279

  2,721,311

  1,038,251

  327,869

  1 90 per cent, of an authority's estimated claim for council tax transitional relief grant is paid during the relevant financial year, with any outstanding amounts paid in the following financial year.

  Aquifers
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what was the annual rate of replenishment of chalk, limestone and sandstone aquifers in(a) 1970, (b) 1980 and (c) 1990;

  (2) what assessment he has made of run-off from the land as a proportion of the annual rainfall in England and Wales and by water authority for the year 1964, 1970, 1980 and 1990.

  Mr. Atkins
  The available data, which are not in precisely the form sought, are published annually in "Hydrological Data UK" by the Institute of Hydrology and the British Geological Survey.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what considerations underlay his decision to increase capping limits for county councils for 1995–96 by less than the predicted rate of inflation.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The considerations were set out in my right hon. Friend's statement on the local finance settlement on 1 December,Official Report, column 1333.

  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the level of local government expenditure in Blyth Valley in each year since 1988.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The information is as follows:

  Blyth Valley expenditure1

  £ 000

  1988–89

  6,375 (outturn)

  1989–90

  7,077 (outturn)

  1990–91

  8,153 (outturn)

  1991–92

  8,533 (outturn)

  1992–93

  8,570 (outturn)

  508
  in respect of 1993–94 and 1994–95, and the percentage of the total grant paid in England for each year which each claim represents. Grant is paid to billing authorities; no grant is paid to county councils.

  Blyth Valley expenditure1

  £ 000

  1993–94

  8,169 (outturn)

  1994–95

  8,304 (budget)

  1 Total Expenditure 1988–89 to 1989–90. Net Revenue Expenditure 1990–91 to 1994–95.

  Rented Housing
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the average level of public, private and housing association rents for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The available information is given in the table:

  Average rents in England, 1979–80 to 1993–94

  Financial year

  Local authority rents

  Calendar year

  Housing association rents1

  Private sector rents1

  1979–80

  6.49

  1979

  n/a

  n/a

  1980–81

  8.19

  1980

  n/a

  n/a

  1981–82

  11.53

  1981

  n/a

  n/a

  1982–83

  13.58

  1982

  n/a

  n/a

  1983–84

  14.03

  1983

  n/a

  n/a

  1984–85

  14.79

  1984

  n/a

  n/a

  1985–86

  15.63

  1985

  n/a

  n/a

  1986–87

  16.48

  1986

  20

  24

  1987–88

  17.40

  1987

  24

  26

  1988–89

  19.01

  1988

  23

  29

  1989–90

  20.86

  1989

  22

  31

  1990–91

  23.92

  1990

  27

  43

  1991–92

  27.59

  1991

  30

  51

  1992–93

  30.84

  1992

  37

  55

  1993–94

  33.70

  1993

  38

  63

  1 These figures are from the Family Expenditure Survey and are subject to sampling error.

  509

  Tyne and Wear
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what impact the work of the Tyne and Wear development corporation has had on employment levels in the shipbuilding, ship repair, heavy engineering, offshore and mining industries in Tyne and Wear.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Since its inception, the Tyne and Wear development corporation has made strenuous efforts to assist the shipbuilding, ship repair, heavy engineering, offshore and mining sectors. It has given support worth £3.1 million to companies and initiatives that have created or safeguarded 3,300 jobs in these sectors.

  Water
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the cost of removing sediment and treating discoloured water in reservoirs in(a) the uplands and (b) the lowlands of England and Wales (a) in total and (b) by water authority in each of the last three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Atkins
  This information is not held centrally.

  Absenteeism
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the absenteeism rate for his Department in each year since 1991.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The table shows for each year the number of days lost through sick absence per member of staff and the percentage of the working days in the year which the days of absence represent.

  Year

  Average days of lost per member of staff

  Percentage working days lost

  1991

  9.3

  4.1

  1992

  9.5

  4.2

  1993

  10.2

  4.5

  1994

  9.0

  4.0

  The table excludes the staff of the Building Research Establishment, The Buying Agency, the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre and the Security Facilities Executive. The figures relate only to staff currently employed by the Department: information for staff who left the Department during the period is not readily available.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the absenteeism rate for the Buying Agency in each year since 1991.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information available is:

  Year

  Percentage of working days lost through sick absences Year (Self Certified and Certified)

  1991

  3.0

  1992

  3.6

  1993

  4.2

  1994

  3.4

  Tenant Deposits
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many tenants under the age of 21 years were unable to recover deposits from their former landlords in 1993 and 1994;
  510
  (2) how many students in full-time education were unable to recover tenant deposits in 1993 and 1994;

  (3) how many took legal action against former landlords for non-repayment of tenant deposits in 1993 and 1994;

  (4) how many landlords refused to return tenant deposits in 1993 and 1994;

  (5) what assessment has been made of the number of tenant deposits that were not returned in 1993 and 1994; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The arrangements for holding and return of deposits for private tenancies are for negotiation between the landlord and tenant at the outset of the tenancy. Although we are aware that problems with the return of deposits sometimes arise, we have no figures on the number of cases where deposits have been withheld or action has been taken.

  Dioxins and Furans
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the contamination by(a) dioxins and (b) furans in each local government area in England and Wales; and what action he proposes to take.

  Mr. Atkins
  No assessment has been made by local government area, as this would be prohibitively expensive. However, a general assessment has been made of contamination, including dioxins and furans, in soil across England and Wales on a 50 km grid basis. This was published in November 1989 by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. A programme was also started in 1991 measuring various micropollutants in air, which includes dioxins and furans, in five towns and cities.

  Private Rented Housing
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the impact of the demand of student rented housing on the availability of private rented housing for non-students.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  None. The composition of the private rented sector in any locality will be subject to the supply of property available and demand for it. As students comprise only 5 per cent. of households in privately rented accommodation, we have no reason to believe that demand for student housing is likely to make it more difficult for non-students to find accommodation except, perhaps, in a limited number of localities.

  Housing in Multiple Occupation
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many councils in England and Wales have introduced a registration scheme for houses in multiple occupation.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Since 30 April 1991, when local authorities were given powers to charge for registering houses in multiple occupation, 49 councils in England have introduced registration schemes. Registration schemes do not necessarily cover the whole of an authority's area, but may be for a specified district. Records for the period prior to 30 April 1991 are incomplete, but we believe that there are a further 19 councils in England operating registration schemes.
  511
  The figures for Wales are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Energy Saving Trust
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what estimate he has made of the income of the Energy Saving Trust in each year from 1994–95 to the year 2000, and for each year, the percentage of this income to be derived from each identifiable source;

  (2) what estimate he has made of the percentage of the income of the Energy Saving Trust to be derived from levies on consumers' fuel bills in each year from 1994–95 levies on consumers' fuel bills in each year from 1994–95 to the year 2000;

  (3) what estimate he has made of the expenditure of the Energy Saving Trust in each year from 1994–95 till the year 2000.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The Energy Saving Trust is an independent company. The detailed financial implications of its contribution to the Government's climate change programme must properly be a matter for the trust.

  Rents
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average rent paid by tenants of private landlords; and what were the equivalent figures for 1978–79 in actual and real terms.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The only figure available for 1978–79 is for median rent, and this measure is used for both years. Estimated private rents in England were a median of £48.50 a week in 1993–94 and £4.75 a week in 1978–79, the latter being equivalent to £13 a week at 1993–94 prices.

  These estimates are from the 1993–94 survey of English housing and the 1978–79 private renters survey, and are subject to sampling error.

  Housing Association
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many Housing Association properties have been built since 1979; how many of these have since been wholly sold to the tenant; how many are part-owned by the tenant; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Housing associations built some 253,000 and rehabilitated 173,000 homes between 1979 and the end of June 1994. In the same period, associations sold some 81,500 properties outright to tenants, 28,400 on a shared-ownership basis, and 8,800 under the do-it-yourself shared ownership scheme. Some of these sales were of pre-1979 properties: separate figures for post-1979 properties are not available.

  Albert Dock
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment who will own Albert dock after the Merseyside development corporation ceases to exist; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Merseyside development corporation is looking at a number of options for transferring the freehold. These include setting up a management company in which the freehold would be vested and management arrangements in which all long 512
  leaseholders, including the residents' association, would be involved.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many staff in his Department have reported an offer of employment from an outside employer since February 1993 as required under the civil service management code; and how many of these reports were followed up by an application to join the company concerned.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Information on offers of outside employment to staff below grade 3 is not recorded centrally in this Department. Since February 1993, no officer at grade 3 or above has reported such an offer, although three officers in these grades have applied under the business appointment rules to take up posts after retirement.

  Air Quality
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he proposes to take to promote further improvement in air quality.

  Mr. Gummer
  I am publishing a wide-ranging statement of the Government's strategic policies for improving air quality at 9 am tomorrow, when copies will be placed in the Vote Office and the Libraries of the House.

  Environment Council
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Environment Council on 15 and 16 December 1994.

  Mr. Gummer
  I attended the Environment Council in Brussels on 15 and 16 December with my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside. The Council reached a common position on the directive on polychlorinated biphenyls in a form acceptable to the United Kingdom. The Council decided by a qualified majority on a list of hazardous waste as required by directive 91/689. The UK and Italy voted against because the list contains wastes which, under certain circumstances, are not hazardous, and thereby contrary to the directive.

  Council conclusions were agreed on a Community strategy to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, which, inter alia, reflected the view reached at the European summit at Essen on the possibility of an optional carbon and energy tax. Council conclusions were also agreed on the preparation of an EU position for the first conference of the parties to the framework convention on climate change.

  During the discussion of the Commission's annual report on the implementation of Community law my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside emphasised the need to consider the effectiveness of existing Community legislation in the real world and suggested that there should be an assessment of each piece of environmental legislation to see how successful it had been in meeting its objectives.

  There were helpful discussions to prepare the EU position for the next meeting of the Commission for sustainable development and on the draft biocides

  513
  directive. Council conclusions were also agreed on transport and the environment following a useful debate during which I highlighted the very positive measures which the UK Government have already taken in this area.

  Regional Enterprise Grants
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, what resources will be available for the regional enterprise grants scheme in 1995–96.

  Mr. Curry
  The regional enterprise grant scheme will continue to operate on the basis of existing criteria in 1995–96 as part of the single regeneration budget. A maximum of £13.7 million will be available for existing and new commitments during the year.

EDUCATION

  Pupil-to-teacher Ratios
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the pupil-to-teacher ratio as at January 1994 for each local education authority in(a) the primary sector, (b) the secondary sector and (c) overall.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Pupil:teacher ratios for maintained primary and secondary schools and overall in each local education authority in England—January 1994

  Pupil:teacher ratio within schools

  LEA

  Primary(including grant-maintained)1

  Secondary(including grant-maintained)1

  Over all pupil:teacher ratio2

  Corporation of London

  15.0

  N/A

  14.3

  Camden

  20.5

  15.3

  16.2

  Greenwich

  21.0

  16.4

  17.3

  Hackney

  19.9

  14.6

  16.3

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  18.9

  15.2

  15.6

  Islington

  20.3

  15.4

  14.0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  17.7

  12.5

  14.5

  Lambeth

  19.1

  14.8

  15.8

  Lewisham

  21.5

  16.2

  17.0

  Southwark

  22.4

  17.0

  18.0

  Tower Hamlets

  18.0

  14.2

  14.6

  Wandsworth

  19.8

  14.7

  15.9

  Westminster

  17.6

  15.5

  14.2

  Barking and Dagenham

  22.1

  17.1

  18.2

  Barnet

  21.0

  15.0

  16.2

  Bexley

  23.5

  16.5

  18.7

  Brent

  22.0

  15.9

  17.6

  Bromley

  24.4

  16.2

  18.1

  Croydon

  21.8

  16.9

  17.9

  Ealing

  21.3

  16.3

  18.2

  Enfield

  22.5

  16.6

  18.0

  Haringey

  20.4

  13.9

  16.4

  Harrow

  20.5

  15.7

  17.3

  Havering

  23.1

  16.5

  18.0

  Hillingdon

  22.1

  16.4

  18.3

  Hounslow

  21.1

  16.2

  17.5

  Kingston upon Thames

  23.5

  16.0

  16.9

  Merton

  20.2

  16.1

  17.2

  Newham

  24.3

  17.1

  20.0

  Redbridge

  22.9

  16.6

  17.9

  Richmond upon Thames

  20.6

  16.9

  17.3

  Sutton

  24.4

  16.9

  18.7

  Waltham Forest

  21.9

  15.9

  17.9

  Birmingham

  23.3

  16.3

  18.1

  Coventry

  22.7

  15.8

  17.5

  514

  Pupil:teacher ratios for maintained primary and secondary schools and overall in each local education authority in England—January 1994

  Pupil:teacher ratio within schools

  LEA

  Primary(including grant-maintained)1

  Secondary(including grant maintained)1

  Overall pupil:reacher ratio2

  Dudley

  22.5

  16.7

  18.3

  Sandwell

  22.5

  15.9

  17.2

  Solihull

  23.3

  16.4

  17.8

  Walsall

  22.4

  15.8

  17.5

  Wolverhampton

  21.3

  15.4

  16.6

  Knowsley

  23.5

  16.9

  19.7

  Liverpool

  23.4

  15.9

  19.1

  St. Helens

  22.0

  15.3

  17.5

  Sefton

  23.2

  16.4

  18.3

  Wirral

  22.6

  16.3

  18.0

  Bolton

  22.0

  16.1

  17.9

  Bury

  23.4

  17.1

  19.4

  Manchester

  22.3

  15.7

  18.6

  Oldham

  22.9

  15.6

  18.2

  Rochdale

  24.3

  16.9

  19.3

  Salford

  23.7

  16.6

  19.5

  Stockport

  23.6

  16.4

  19.2

  Tameside

  24.9

  17.4

  20.0

  Trafford

  24.4

  16.2

  19.4

  Wigan

  22.9

  15.8

  17.8

  Barnsley

  24.2

  17.1

  19.1

  Doncaster

  23.5

  16.3

  18.2

  Rotherham

  21.3

  15.8

  17.5

  Sheffield

  22.4

  16.5

  18.3

  Bradford

  21.3

  17.3

  16.6

  Calderdale

  23.7

  16.3

  17.9

  Kirklees

  22.1

  15.8

  17.7

  Leeds

  23.4

  16.0

  18.6

  Wakefield

  23.1

  16.3

  18.6

  Gateshead

  21.6

  15.7

  16.6

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  22.9

  16.5

  18.5

  North Tyneside

  23.1

  17.0

  18.1

  South Tyneside

  23.2

  17.0

  18.6

  Sunderland

  22.1

  16.1

  17.8

  Isles of Scilly

  14.0

  8.8

  10.7

  Avon

  23.1

  16.2

  18.0

  Bedfordshire

  22.0

  17.2

  18.1

  Berkshire

  22.9

  16.0

  17.6

  Buckinghamshire

  23.0

  16.8

  18.6

  Cambridgeshire

  23.3

  17.1

  18.1

  Cheshire

  23.9

  16.8

  19.1

  Cleveland

  23.8

  17.0

  18.5

  Cornwall

  23.3

  17.3

  19.1

  Cumbria

  22.5

  16.0

  18.0

  Derbyshire

  23.3

  15.7

  17.7

  Devon

  22.9

  16.4

  18.8

  Dorset

  23.4

  17.2

  19.6

  Durham

  22.9

  16.6

  18.2

  East Sussex

  22.3

  16.1

  17.7

  Essex

  22.8

  17.1

  18.8

  Gloucestershire

  22.5

  17.7

  18.4

  Hampshire

  22.4

  16.4

  18.8

  Hereford and Worcester

  22.2

  17.3

  18.3

  Hertfordshire

  22.2

  15.7

  17.7

  Humberside

  24.3

  17.5

  19.2

  Isle of Wight

  22.3

  17.6

  17.4

  Kent

  23.9

  16.7

  18.7

  Lancashire

  23.0

  16.1

  17.8

  Leicestershire

  22.5

  16.4

  17.7

  Lincolnshire

  23.3

  15.8

  17.9

  Norfolk

  21.9

  15.7

  17.7

  North Yorkshire

  22.9

  16.0

  17.4

  Northamptonshire

  22.6

  16.6

  17.7

  Northumberland

  24.3

  18.1

  18.8

  Nottinghamshire

  22.9

  15.8

  18.0

  Oxfordshire

  21.5

  16.8

  17.4

  Shropshire

  23.1

  16.1

  18.0

  Somerset

  22.6

  16.6

  17.6

  Staffordshire

  25.1

  17.5

  19.7

  Suffolk

  21.6

  16.2

  16.9

  515

  Pupil: teacher ratios for maintained primary and secondary schools and overall in each local education authority in England—January 1994

  Pupil:teacher ratio within schools

  LEA

  Primary(including grant-maintained)1

  Secondary(including grant-maintained)1

  Overall pupil: teacher ratio2

  Surrey

  21.8

  16.8

  18.9

  Warwickshire

  22.1

  16.1

  17.7

  West Sussex

  22.0

  16.5

  17.9

  Wiltshire

  22.9

  16.7

  17.9

  England

  22.7

  16.4

  18.13

  1 Excluding all unqualified teachers and teachers providing short term cover as well as teachers absent for a term or more but including the latter's qualified replacements, if any.

  2 The overall pupil:teacher ratio is measured across the three maintained school types—nursery, primary and secondary. The figures include all qualified teachers (including those not in schools and teachers providing short term cover), student teachers, instructors and licensed teachers employed by local education authorities.

  3 Includes an estimate of the full-time equivalent of teachers employed by Northamptonshire LEA.

  Surplus School Places
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is her latest estimate of the number of surplus places in primary and secondary schools in(a) Nottinghamshire and (b) England.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) on Friday 9 December 1994,Official Report, columns 410–14.

  Book and Equipment Expenditure
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much was spent by each local education authority on books and equipment in 1993–94 prices in(a) 1979–80 and (b) 1993–94.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following table sets out expenditure in 1993–94 prices by LEAs in England on books and equipment at LEA-maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in 1979–80 and 1992–93, the latest year for which figures are available. These figures are drawn from LEAs' own returns of their expenditure to the Department of the Environment. Equivalent information is not available for grant-maintained schools.

  Expenditure on books and equipment in 1979–80 and 1992–93 by LEA (in 1993–94 prices)

  Nursery, primary and secondary 1979–80 £000s

  Nursery, primary and secondary 1992–93 £000s

  ILEA

  43,087

  —

  Corporation of London

  0

  24

  Camden

  0

  1,702

  Greenwich

  0

  1,526

  Hackney

  0

  808

  Hammersmith

  0

  847

  Islington

  0

  1,232

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0

  787

  Lambeth

  0

  331

  Lewisham

  0

  5,919

  Southwark

  0

  1,856

  516

  Expenditure on books and equipment in 1979–80 and 1992–93 by LEA (in 1993–94 prices)

  Nursery, primary and secondary 1979–80 £000s

  Nursery, primary and secondary 1992–93 £000s

  Tower Hamlets

  0

  3,942

  Wandsworth

  0

  1,251

  Westminster

  0

  4,252

  Barking

  1,102

  2,666

  Barnet

  2,431

  3,990

  Bexley

  2,446

  1,779

  Brent

  3,031

  2,087

  Bromley

  2,418

  1,919

  Croydon

  2,673

  2,832

  Ealing

  2,488

  1,626

  Enfield

  2,231

  1,239

  Haringey

  2,240

  365

  Harrow

  2,036

  2,835

  Havering

  2,288

  2,974

  Hillingdon

  2,171

  2,167

  Hounslow

  1,791

  2,970

  Kingston upon Thames

  920

  1,189

  Merton

  1,301

  2,166

  Newham

  2,623

  3,043

  Redbridge

  1,877

  3,377

  Richmond upon Thames

  897

  1,269

  Sutton

  1,412

  1,060

  Waltham Forest

  2,649

  1,904

  Birmingham

  7,449

  12,626

  Coventry

  2,961

  3,060

  Dudley

  1,579

  2,258

  Sandwell

  2,774

  2,689

  Solihull

  1,587

  3,169

  Walsall

  2,589

  3,525

  Wolverhampton

  2,437

  1,910

  Knowsley

  1,854

  1,995

  Liverpool

  4,618

  3,678

  St. Helens

  1,313

  2,453

  Sefton

  2,533

  3,227

  Wirral

  2,744

  3,030

  Bolton

  2,397

  4,104

  Bury

  1,676

  1,837

  Manchester

  6,040

  4,980

  Oldham

  2,042

  3,263

  Rochdale

  2,112

  1,641

  Salford

  2,305

  440

  Stockport

  2,474

  4,270

  Tameside

  1,847

  2,587

  Trafford

  1,374

  2,092

  Wigan

  2,882

  4,157

  Barnsley

  2,117

  2,945

  Doncaster

  3,034

  0

  Rotherham

  1,818

  2,612

  Sheffield

  5,141

  4,561

  Bradford

  3,633

  4,561

  Calderdale

  1,434

  2,346

  Kirklees

  2,492

  5,708

  Leeds

  4,689

  6,001

  Wakefield

  2,419

  3,238

  Gateshead

  1,934

  2,511

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  2,744

  2,492

  North Tyneside

  1,797

  36

  South Tyneside

  2,115

  1,797

  Sunderland

  3,005

  3,874

  Isle of Scilly

  13

  5

  Avon

  5,974

  14,342

  Bedfordshire

  5,450

  7,122

  Berkshire

  5,473

  9,936

  Buckinghamshire

  4,890

  7,700

  Cambridgeshire

  4,815

  8,698

  Cheshire

  6,857

  9,268

  Cleveland

  5,879

  6,754

  Cornwall

  3,366

  5,429

  517

  Expenditure on books and equipment in 1979–80 and 1992–93 by LEA (in 1993–94 prices)

  Nursery, primary and secondary 1979–80 £000s

  Nursery, primary and secondary 1992–93 £000s

  Cumbria

  3,500

  4,456

  Derbyshire

  7,425

  8,759

  Devon

  6,253

  12,447

  Dorset

  4,022

  5,544

  Durham

  4,121

  4,676

  East Sussex

  5,273

  7,784

  Essex

  12,136

  15,367

  Gloucestershire

  3,285

  5,096

  Hampshire

  9,142

  20,274

  Hereford and Worcester

  4,833

  7,919

  Hertfordshire

  8,672

  2,707

  Humberside

  7,847

  11,924

  Isle of Wight

  1,090

  1,420

  Kent

  13,196

  9,135

  Lancashire

  9,734

  20,806

  Leicestershire

  6,836

  15,985

  Lincolnshire

  3,797

  7,299

  Norfolk

  5,746

  5,752

  North Yorkshire

  5,389

  10,301

  Northamptonshire

  4,775

  7,352

  Northumberland

  2,902

  3,012

  Nottinghamshire

  8,477

  11,989

  Oxfordshire

  5,165

  6,560

  Shropshire

  2,782

  1,007

  Somerset

  3,025

  4,384

  Staffordshire

  10,261

  11,643

  Suffolk

  4,542

  16,827

  Surrey

  4,848

  5,917

  Warwickshire

  3,133

  6,230

  West Sussex

  5,476

  10,129

  Wiltshire

  4,242

  6,876

  Total

  406,716

  522,438

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many staff in her Department have reported an offer of employment from an outside employer since February 1993 as required under the civil service management code; and how many of these reports were followed by an application to join the company concerned.

  Mr. Forth
  Since February 1993, nine staff in this Department have reported an offer of employment from an outside employer, as required under the civil service management code. In each case, applications have been made to join the company concerned.

  Ministerial Visits, Bradford
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what is the purpose of her visit in March to Bradford city technology college; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) if she will visit local authority schools when she visits Bradford in March;

  (3) how many invitations to visit maintained schools in Bradford she has received since her appointment from (a) the hon. Member for Bradford, West and (b) Bradford local education authority; and what has been her response to those invitations;
  518
  (4) how many of (a) her predecessors, (b) Ministers from her Department and (c) other Ministers have visited Bradford city technology college since it opened.

  Mr. Robin Squires
  My right hon. Friend will be visiting Dixons city technology college in Bradford on 1 March. She likes to visit schools when time permits and this will be her first visit to a CTC. A programme for the day has yet to be settled but my right hon. Friend very much looks forward to visiting local authority schools if this can be arranged.

  Between July and November last year, my right hon. Friend received three invitations from the hon. Member and three from the local authority to visit schools in Bradford. Other pressures ruled out an early visit to Bradford and many other parts of the country. My right hon. Friend did, however, meet the hon. Member and representatives of Bradford local education authority on 26 September in London and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) made a full day's vi sit to local authority schools in Bradford in November 1993.

  Dixons city technology college opened in September 1990 and has been visited by two previous Secretaries of State for Education, including for the occasion of Ihe official opening. It has also been visited by my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar).

  Voluntary-aided Schools
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will update the table of underspending and overspending on grants to voluntary-aided schools published on 28 January 1994,Official Report, columns 413–14, to include the relevant figures for 1993–94; what changes have been made to her Department's approval, monitoring and in-year reallocation procedures; to what extent such changes have contributed to any reduction in 1993–94 underspending; and whether there are reasons to expect either underspending or overspending to be reported for 1994–95.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Details of aided school capital and repair grant budget provision, final outturn and percentage of underspend or overspend for the years 1990–91 to 1993–94 are as follows:

  Year

  Budget £ million

  Outturn £ million

  Per cent. under/overspend

  Repairs:

  1990–91

  35

  41.8

  19 overspend

  1991–92

  47.5

  49.1

  3 overspend

  1992–93

  55

  36.8

  33 underspend

  1993–94

  48

  37

  23 underspend

  Capital:

  1990–91

  71

  64

  10 underspend

  1991–92

  84.2

  63.9

  24 underspend

  1992–93

  96.6

  81.3

  16 underspend

  1993–94

  841

  79.5

  13 underspend

  1 £2 million was transferred in year to GM schools capital budget to meet commitments for projects at voluntary aided schools which became grant-maintained during the year. The percentage rate of underspend shown is therefore based on a budget figure of £82 million.

  A number of detailed changes have been introduced to the Department's internal procedures and these are being reviewed further in preparation for the introduction of a new computer system in the course of the next financial

  519
  year. Administrative work relating to the approval of building projects has been moved from London to Darlington and integrated with the work of grant allocation and monitoring. A series of seminars has been held to improve LEA and voluntary bodies' understanding of the grants system and procedures that they must follow. The comments of seminar delegates on the existing system are being taken into account. Detailed written guidance setting out procedures will shortly be issued to schools, LEAs and voluntary bodies.

  In the current year the latest estimate is for a small overspend on the capital budget, balanced by a similar underspend on the repair budget, but my hon. Friend will be aware that a high proportion of grant falls to be paid near the end of the financial year.

  Allowing for the fact that the expenditure is responsive to demand, I believe that the procedural changes introduced over the last two years have made an important contribution to the reduced underspend in 1993–94 and to the improvement which is in prospect for the current year.

  Education Information
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans she has to require privately operated schools(a) to provide and (b) to publish the same information as local authority schools are obliged to provide under the Publication of Information (Standards of Performance) direction 1994.

  Mr. Forth
  I am not aware of this direction. The proprietors of independent schools are required by the Education (School Performance Information) (England) Regulations 1994 to provide information identical to that provided by maintained schools for publication in the annual school and college performance tables.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisoners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (I) what is the offence for which each prisoner, at present being held in a special secure unit, was sentenced;

  (2) how long each prisoner who was held in a special secure unit in prisons in England and Wales on 10 January has been held in such a unit.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 18 January 1995:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the offences for which each prisoner at present being held in a Special Secure Unit was sentenced and how long those prisoners had been held in such a unit.

  The information on the eight prisoners currently held in Special Secure Units is given below:

  Offences for which convicted

  Length of time in Special Secure Unit at 10 January 1995

  1. Attempted Murder and Robbery

  2 years

  2. Importation of Drugs

  1 year 5 months

  520

  Offences for which convicted

  Length of time in Special Secure Unit at 10 January 1995

  3. Attempted Murder and Conspiracy to Cause Explosions

  1 years 3 months

  4. Conspiracy to Cause Explosions and Possession of Firearms and Explosives

  3 years and 1 month

  5. Attempted Murder (2 counts) and Possession of Firearms

  1 year 9 months

  6. Possession of Explosives with Intent and Conspiracy to Cause Explosions

  2 months

  7. Armed Robbery (2 counts). Using a Firearm to Resist Arrest, Possession of a Firearm with Intent, and Assault with Intent to Resist Arrest

  9 months

  8. Possession of Firearms with Intent

  1 year 10 months

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) males and (b) females remanded in custody in 1994 spent (i) up to one week, (ii) one to two weeks, (iii) two to four weeks, (iv) four to eight weeks, (v) eight weeks to three months, (vi) three to six months, (vii) six months to 12 months and (viii) over 12 months in prison before their case was concluded; how many were found not guilty in each section; and what were the figures for each year since 1990.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 18 January 1995:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how many (a) males and (b) females remanded in custody in 1994 spent (a) up to one week, (b) one to two weeks, (c) two to four weeks, (d) four to eight weeks, (e) eight weeks to three months, w three to six months, (g) six months to 12 months and (h) over 12 months in prison before their court case was concluded; how many were found guilty in each section; and what were the figures for each year since 1990.

  The readily available information is given in the attached tables, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. I regret that no information is available on the numbers found not guilty.

  Remand prisoners in Prison Service establishments on 30 June 1990: by length of time since first reception1

  England and Wales

  Number of persons2

  Length of time since first remand into a Prison Service establishment

  Males

  Females

  All lengths

  8,750

  350

  Less than 1 week

  800

  50

  1 week

  —

  —

  More than 1 week up to and including 1 month

  2,000

  100

  More than 1 month up to and including 3 months

  2,650

  100

  More than 3 months up to and including 6 months

  2,050

  100

  More than 6 months up to and including 12 months

  1,100

  50

  More than 12 months

  200

  —

  1 Time since first reception on remand into a Prison Service establishment. This includes any intervening time spent on bail, but excludes time spent in police cells beforehand.

  2 Rounded estimates which therefore may not add to the totals.

  521

  Remand prisoners in Prison Service establishments on 30 June 1991: by length of time since first reception1

  England and Wales

  Number of persons2

  Length of time since first remand into a Prison Service establishment

  Males

  Females

  All lengths

  8,900

  400

  Less than 1 week

  1,000

  50

  1 week

  10

  —

  More than 1 week up to and including 1 month

  2,050

  100

  More than 1 month up to and including 3 months

  2,850

  100

  More than 3 months up to and including 6 months

  1,800

  100

  More than 6 months and up to and including 12 months

  1,000

  50

  More than 12 months

  200

  —

  1 Time since first reception on remand into a Prison Service establishment. This includes any intervening time spent on bail, but excludes time spent in police cells beforehand.

  2 Rounded estimates which therefore may not add to the totals.

  Remand prisoners in Prison Service establishments on 30 June 1992: by length of time since first reception1

  England and Wales

  Number of persons2

  Length of time since first remand into a Prison Service establishment

  Males

  Females

  All lengths

  9,200

  350

  Less than 1 week

  800

  50

  1 week

  100

  —

  More than 1 week up to and including 1 month

  1,850

  50

  More than 1 month up to and including 3 months

  3,150

  100

  More than 3 months up to and including 6 months

  2,000

  50

  More than 6 months up to and including 12 months

  1,150

  50

  More than 12 months

  200

  —

  1 Time since first reception on remand into a Prison Service establishment. This includes any intervening time spent on bail, but excludes time spent in police cells beforehand.

  2 Rounded estimates which therefore may not add to the totals.

  Remand prisoners in Prison Service establishments on 30 June 1993: by length of time since first reception1

  England and Wales

  Number of persons2

  Length of time since first remand into a Prison Service establishment

  Males

  Females

  All lengths

  10,250

  400

  Less than 1 week

  850

  50

  1 week

  150

  —

  More than 1 week up to and including 1 month

  2,100

  100

  More than 1 month up to and including 3 months

  3,250

  150

  More than 3 months up to and including 6 months

  2,250

  100

  More than 6 months up to and including 12 months

  1,300

  40

  Over than 12 months

  400

  10

  1 Time since first reception on remand into a Prison Service establishment. This includes any intervening time spent on bail, but excludes time spent in police cells beforehand.

  2 Rounded estimates which therefore may not add to the totals.

  522

  Remand prisoners in Prison Service establishments on 30 June 1994: by length of time since first reception1

  England and Wales

  Number of persons2

  Length of time since first remand into a Prison Service establishment

  Males

  Females

  All lengths

  12,150

  550

  Less than 1 week

  850

  50

  1 week

  150

  —

  More than 1 week up to and including 1 month

  2,150

  100

  More than 1 month up to and including 3 months

  3,800

  150

  More than 3 months up to and including 6 months

  2,550

  100

  More than 6 months up to and including 12 months

  1,900

  100

  More than 12 months

  750

  50

  1 Time since first reception on remand into a Prison Service establishment. This includes any intervening time spent on bail, but excludes time spent in police cells beforehand.

  2 Rounded estimates which therefore may not add to the totals.

  AIDS Advisory Service
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the recommendations made by the Prison Service AIDS advisory committee; and when he expects to respond.

  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. Harry Cohen, dated 18 January 1995:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about publishing the recommendations made by the Prison Service AIDS Advisory Committee.

  The report of the Committee and its recommendations are extensive and require careful consideration. It is not yet possible to provide a response date.

  A copy of the report will be placed in the Library of the House once decisions on the recommendations have been reached.

  HM Prison, Everthorpe
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the recommended establishment of inmates that HM Prison, Everthorpe should hold; what it was when the prison was opened; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will list by category the number of inmaies held at HM Prison, Everthorpe on 2 January; what the figures were for each year since 1990: and if he will make a statement.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 18 January 1995:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about Everthorpe prison.

  Everthorpe had previously held young offenders but was converted to hold 304 adult prisoners and re-opened in October 1991. In July 1994 a new education block was built and the original one converted into a hostel for up to 14 prisoners, bringing its

  523
  potential capacity to 318. Between 1991 and 1994 work to upgrade the accommodation, including installing toilets in cells, meant that on average about 75 per cent. of the cells were usable.

  On 2 January this year there were 229 category C and 32 category D prisoners at Everthorpe. It is not possible to distinguish between those categories for earlier years. On the same date in each of the five years to 1994 the number of prisoners at Everthorpe was 344, 252, 169, 222 and 216 respectively.

  The Home Secretary has already made a statement about Everthorpe prison in his speech of 10 January [Hansard Col. 31].

  Drug Addicts
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each metropolitan borough council in south Yorkshire, how many children were identified as drug addicts in each year since 1988 by type of drug; and what assessment he has made of the incidence of drug addiction amongst children in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Under the Misuse of Drugs (Notification of and Supply to Addicts) Regulations 1973, doctors are required only to notify the Home Office if they attend persons they know, or have reasonable grounds to suspect, are addicted to cocaine or any of 13 opiate drugs. Since 1988, the Home Office has received only one such notification from south Yorkshire—Rotherham—for a child under the age of 16 which referred to an addiction to cocaine.

  Diamorphine
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many doctors currently prescribe diamorphine for drug addicts in each metropolitan borough council in south Yorkshire; and what were the figures for each year since 1990.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Under the provisions of the Misuse of Drugs (Notification of and Supply to Addicts) Regulations 1973, as amended, doctors may be licensed to prescribe diamorphine in the treatment of addiction. Currently available records, from 1991 only, indicate that no applications have been received from doctors in any of the south Yorkshire metropolitan borough councils.

  Europol Database
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the legal status of the proposed Europol large database in The Hague; by whom and by what mechanism it is controlled; what transfers of United Kingdom information and data to Europol are proposed; what proposals there are for inaccurate data to be accessed, challenged and corrected; what legislation is required to facilitate United Kingdom involvement in the project; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Europol drugs unit in The Hague is based on the ministerial agreement signed by Ministers of the interior and justice in Copenhagen in June 1993. It has no central database. Negotiations are continuing on the draft convention, which will establish the full Europol. A draft text was submitted for scrutiny on 17 November 1994.

  Prison Riots
  Mrs Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department where and when riots have occurred in 524
  prisons, over the last 10 years for which figures are available; and what has been the cost of repairing damage caused and of relocating prisoners in each case.

  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 Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 18 January 1995:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the occurrence of riots in prisons over the last ten years and the cost of repairing damage caused and of relocating prisoners in each case.

  The number of disturbances since 1984 are shown in the table below:

  Year

  Number

  1984–851

  38

  1985–86

  38

  1986–87

  45

  1987–88

  42

  1988–89

  67

  1989–90

  67

  1990–91

  105

  1991–92

  149

  1992–93

  142

  1993–94

  146

  1994–13/1/95

  96

  1 For this year only the figures are for a 15 month period.

  The attached tables provide details of:

  (a) the more serious disturbances since 1988; and

  (b) the cost of building repair work

  We have been able to obtain detailed information on disturbances before June 1988.

  In some cases where serious damage was caused, the opportunity was taken to refurbish beyond merely repairing the damage caused by a disturbance. This might mean refurbishing a complete wing or, in the case of Manchester, refurbishment of the whole prison. Where this occurred, it is shown on the table.

  The cost involved in transferring prisoners to other establishments as a result of a serious disturbance is not available centrally.

  Prison

  Cost of damage£000

  Comments

  20 June 1988 to 31 March 1989

  Hindley

  0

  Haverigg

  217.8

  Lindholme

  100.8

  Northeye

  0

  Estimated cost £4.13m—prison closed

  Whatton

  0

  Canterbury

  0

  1April 1998 to 31 March 1990

  Spring Hill

  0.5

  Risley

  5,000

  Cost of replacing/refurbishing wing

  Brixton

  0

  Kirklevington

  10

  1 April 1990 to 31 March 1991

  Frankland

  0

  Blundeston

  3.2

  Manchester

  25,000

  Excludes full refurbishment costs

  Bristol

  2,600

  Cardiff

  27.4

  525

  Prison

  Cost of damage £000

  Comments

  Pucklechurch

  59.6

  Dartmoor

  185.6

  Glen Parva

  22.3

  Portland

  0.7

  Stoke Heath

  11.2

  Norwich

  0

  Full Sutton

  3.5

  Acklington

  11.4

  Kirklevington

  10

  Acklington

  1.5

  Full Sutton

  3

  1 April 1991 to 31 March 1992

  Full Sutton

  22

  Full Sutton

  3

  Norwich

  5

  Full Sutton

  0

  Frankland

  20

  Frankland

  3

  Lindholme

  15

  Moorland

  196.1

  Brinsford

  58

  Durham

  19.7

  Kirklevington

  20

  Haslar

  0

  Nottingham

  0

  Whitemoor

  0

  Wymott

  150

  1 April 1992 to 31 March 1993

  Durham

  5

  Full Sutton

  164.8

  Includes repairs from incident in 1991/92

  Frankland

  1

  Full Sutton

  1.3

  Lindholme

  3

  Holme House

  6.3

  Moorland

  22

  Dartmoor

  0

  Highpoint

  2.4

  Reading

  145

  Wolds

  5

  Whitemoor

  2.5

  Acklington

  5.2

  Parkhurst

  19.8

  Leeds

  75

  Full Sutton

  6

  1 April 1993 to 31 March 1994

  Wymott

  5,000

  Excludes costs of rebuilding wings

  Whitemoor

  17

  Wolds

  23

  Haverigg

  1

  Everthorpe

  0

  Styal

  1.3

  Acklington

  1

  Bullingdon

  1

  Whitemoor

  0.6

  Blakenhurst

  25

  Lindholme

  2

  1 April 1994 to 13 January 1995

  The Verne

  0

  Styal

  2.3

  Haslar

  0

  Highpoint

  1.5

  526

  Prison

  Cost of damage £000

  Comments

  Haslar

  0

  Guys Marsh

  0

  Everthorpe

  130

  Estimated

  Everthorpe

  Swaleside

  1

  Armed Response Units
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many police authorities currently have armed response units;

  (2) how many non-fatal injuries have resulted from the deployment of armed response units in each police authority area in each of the past five years;

  (3) how many members of armed response units have been killed or injured in each police authority area in each of the last five years;

  (4) how many deaths have resulted from the deployment of armed response units in each police authority area in each of the past five years;

  (5) how many people have been killed or injured by police marksmen in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Maclean
  The following information is available centrally. On 31 December 1993, 33 of the 43 police forces in England and Wales operated armed response vehicles. The number of people killed or injured as a result of shots fired by authorised police firearms officers, including armed response vehicle officers, in England and Wales between 1984 and 1993—figures for 1994 are riot yet available—was as follows:

  Killed

  Injured

  1984

  —

  5

  1985

  2

  2

  1986

  no deaths or injuries

  1987

  5

  6

  1988

  —

  3

  1989

  Metropolitan Police

  2

  —

  1990

  Metropolitan Police

  3

  —

  1991

  Cheshire

  1

  —

  Northumbria

  1

  1

  West Mercia

  1

  —

  Metropolitan Police

  —

  1

  1992

  Metropolitan Police

  1

  3

  West Yorkshire

  1

  —

  Suffolk

  1

  —

  Durham

  —

  1

  Surrey

  —

  1

  Sussex

  —

  1

  South Yorkshire

  —

  1

  527

  Killed

  Injured

  1993

  Kent

  —

  1

  Devon and Cornwall

  1

  —

  Metropolitan Police

  2

  1

  The number of Metropolitan police armed response vehicle officers injured during the first three years the force operated these vehicles were one in 1991, none in 1992 and two in 1993. None was killed. Corresponding figures are not centrally available for the rest of England and Wales although statistics for notifiable offences in which a police officer on duty was injured by a firearm are set out in table 3A of the published criminal statistics for England and Wales 1993, Cmnd 2680.

  News International
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions in the last two years immigration officials have visited or contacted the News International plant in Wapping; and what has been the outcome.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Details of contacts made with commercial organisations by the divisions and directorates in the immigration and nationality department of the Home Office are not collated centrally and the information requested is not, therefore available.

  Immigration
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to amend his policy on family reunion for people granted exceptional leave to remain; and what representations he has received on this subject.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Representations have been received from the Refugee Council, United Nations Association and representatives of religious organisation, but we have no plans to amend our policy.

  Police, Northumberland
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the ratio of police officers to(a) population and (b) crimes in the Northumberland police authority area.

  Mr. Maclean
  The report of Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary for 1993 gives a ratio of one police officer to every 399 persons in Northumbria.

  Taking recorded crime for the year to June 1994 and force establishment at 30 June 1994, there were 58 crimes per police officer in Northumbria.

  Prison Suicides
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many suicides there were in prisons in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General for the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  528
  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 18 January 1995:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your Question about suicides in prison.

  Table one below gives the number of self-inflicted deaths in prisons in England and Wales for the years 1990 to 1994 inclusive, and 1995 to 12 January.

  Table One

  Year

  Number of deaths

  1990

  50

  1991

  42

  1992

  41

  1993

  47

  1994

  60

  1995

  3

  Table two gives the breakdown of these figures by the verdict of the Coroners' Courts.

  Table Two

  Year

  Suicide

  Misadventure

  Accidental death

  No verdict

  Open

  1990

  33

  2

  4

  —

  11

  1991

  33

  2

  2

  —

  5

  1992

  27

  5

  1

  —

  8

  1993

  35

  1

  —

  4

  7

  1994

  16

  4

  2

  35

  3

  1995

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  Young Offenders, Northumberland
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) children aged eight to 15 years and (b) youths aged 16 to 20 years have been convicted of offences in south-east Northumberland in each of the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information for the age groups 10 to 15 and 16 to 20 is given in the table. Children below the age of 10-the age of criminal—responsibility—may not be found guilty of an offence.

  Number of young persons found guilty in South East Northumberland1 magistrates' court and at the Crown Court by the committing South East Northumberland1 magistrates' court by age-group and type of offence 1989–1993

  Age-groups

  Year/Type of offence

  10–15

  16–20

  1989

  Indictable offences

  60

  335

  Summary non-motoring offences

  12

  286

  Summary motoring offences

  7

  279

  All offences

  79

  900

  1990

  Indictable offences

  39

  327

  Summary non-motoring offences

  11

  263

  Summary motoring offences

  2

  294

  All offences

  52

  884

  1991

  Indictable offences

  38

  323

  Summary non-motoring offences

  13

  204

  Summary motoring offences

  2

  307

  All offences

  53

  834

  529

  Number of young persons found guilty in South East Northumberland1 magistrates' court and at the Crown Court by the committing South East Northumberland1 magistrates' court by age-group and type of offence 1989–1993

  Age-groups

  Year/Type of offence

  10–15

  16–20

  1992

  Indictable offences

  49

  352

  Summary non-motoring offences

  14

  217

  Summary motoring offences

  1

  337

  All offences

  64

  906

  1993

  Indictable offences

  56

  268

  Summary non-motoring offences

  15

  162

  Summary motoring offences

  2

  216

  All offences

  73

  646

  1 From 1 April 1993 Blyth Valley, Morpeth Ward and Wansbeck Petty Sessional Divisions combined to form the South East Northumberland PSD. Data given for the years 1989 to 1992 and part 1993 is for the three PSDs combined.

  Family Reunion Applications
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have at present applied for family reunion; and how many of these applications are from people who(a) have applied for asylum, (b) have been given exceptional leave to remain and (c) have been given refugee status.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Information on the number of applications for family reunion from persons seeking asylum, persons recognised as refugees and persons refused asylum but granted exceptional leave to remain is not available.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the criteria for granting family reunion for people on exceptional leave to remain and be given refugee status; what is the average wait for an application for family reunification; and how many applications are currently outstanding.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Persons who have been recognised as refugees in the United Kingdom are eligible to be joined immediately by their spouses and minor children under the family reunion concession. Applications are considered under the immigration rules, but maintenance and accommodation requirements which are applied to other immigration cases, are waived for refugees.

  Applications for family reunion from the spouse and minor children of a person on exceptional leave will usually be granted after four years, subject to the general requirements of the immigration rules on the admission of spouses and dependants, including those relating to maintenance and accommodation. An application for family reunion may be granted earlier if there are compelling compassionate circumstances. Information on the average wait for an application for family reunification and the number of applications outstanding is not available.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals in Great Britain" for(a) 1993 and (b) 1994 will be published.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The Command Paper "Statistics of Scientific Procedures performed on living animals,530
  Great Britain, 1993" is to be published on 26 January. The next similar Command Paper, containing information relating to scientific procedures started in 1994, is expected to be published towards the end of July 1995.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will define the categories of experiments on living animals which would fall within the most severe classification; how many applications for licensed experiments for(a) medical and (b) non-medical were under the most severe classifications; and how many applications for experiments in each security category were made in 1993.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Scientific procedures are regarded as being of substantial severity if they result in a major departure from the animal's usual state of health or well-being. These are likely to include acute toxicity procedures where significant morbidity or death is the end point, some efficacy tests of antimicrobial agents and vaccines, some models of disease, and major surgery where significant post-operative suffering may result.

  In 1993, project licence applications in each severity category were submitted: mild, 614; moderate, 743; substantial, 21; unclassified, terminally anaesthetised or decerebrated animals, nine.

  Fourteen of the licences assessed as of overall substantial severity were relevant to human medicine, one to veterinary medicine and six to non-medical topics.

  Election Fraud
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to improve election processes to reduce the possibility of fraud.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  A review established after the 1992 general election has identified a number of detailed improvements in election procedures, including improvements aimed at reducing the possibility of fraud. As a result of this work, new absent voting application forms have been produced to reduce the risk of fraudulent proxy appointments. We have no proposals for further changes.

  Family Reunion Policies
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the latest developments regarding harmonisation of family reunion policies across the EU.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  EC immigration Ministers agreed the terms of a resolution on the harmonisation of family reunification policies in Copenhagen in June 1993. There have been no developments since then.

  Public Houses
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many licensed public houses there were in(a) North Yorkshire (b) South Yorkshire, (c) West Yorkshire, (d) Humberside and (e) the United Kingdom for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The available information by county is given in the table. This information is collected only every three years for each licensing area in England and Wales. Figures are produced and published for each county for the year of collection along with a total for England and Wales for the previous year.
  531

  Public houses, etc1 licensed for the retail sale of intoxicating liquor, as at 30 June 1983 to 1992

  1982

  1983

  1985

  1986

  1988

  1989

  1991

  1992

  Humberside

  —

  941

  —

  1,020

  —

  1,105

  —

  1,143

  North Yorkshire

  —

  1,657

  —

  1,678

  —

  1,714

  —

  1,757

  South Yorkshire

  —

  1,472

  —

  1,462

  —

  1,508

  —

  1,505

  West Yorkshire

  —

  2.673

  —

  2,796

  —

  2,883

  —

  2,889

  England and Wales

  68,373

  69,136

  70,331

  71,200

  71,875

  72,712

  74,229

  74,053

  1 Includes public houses and hotels etc. (other than those licensed under Part IV of the Licensing Act 1964) having a justices' on-licence which authorises the sale of intoxicating liquor for consumption on or off the premises, unless a condition is attached to the licence prohibiting off-sales.

  Drugs, Blyth Valley
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what strategies he is currently promoting to tackle drug problems in Blyth valley; and if he will make it his policy to introduce further measures.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Government's overall strategy for tackling drug misuse is aimed at reducing the supply of and demand for drugs throughout the United Kingdom. From 1 April, the area covered by the local drugs prevention team in Newcastle is being extended to the whole of Northumberland and Tyne and Wear, including Blyth valley.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy on access to travel documents for asylum seekers granted exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom; what representations he has received about access to travel documents; and what is the average wait to obtain such documents.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  I am satisfied that the policy on access to travel documents for asylum seekers granted exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom, which was introduced on 1 January 1994, allows those who cannot obtain a passport from their own authorities to be issued with such documents. I receive a number of representations from hon. Members, representative organisations and individuals about particular cases. A wide variety of factors influences the time taken to issue travel documents. However, applications on which no further enquiries are necessary are generally completed within eight weeks of receipt in the immigration and nationality department.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what arrangements he has with the French authorities to return to France persons refused asylum in the United Kingdom on safe third country grounds;

  (2) what arrangements he has with the German authorities to return to Germany persons refused asylum in the United Kingdom on safe third country grounds.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  There is close liaison with the French and German authorities over the return of persons refused asylum on safe third country grounds in accordance with the immigration rules.

  Juvenile Offenders
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what considerations has been given by his Department and other interested Government Departments to the establishment of a national agency to 532
  manage the custody and supervision of persistent juvenile offenders as recommended in the sixth report of the Home Affairs Committee (HC 441) of Session 1992–93.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Home Office is considering this recommendation against the background of charges to the law on juvenile offenders contained in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many applications have been lodged with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority since 1 April 1994;

  (2) what has been the administrative cost of considering all applications to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority since 1 April 1994;

  (3) how many awards have been made by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority since 1 April 1994; and in which of the tariff bands those awards fell.

  Mr. Maclean
  In the period 1 April 1994 to 12 January 1995, 49,065 applications were registered by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.

  Total expenditure on administration of the compensation scheme in the period 1 April 1994 to 31 December 1994 was £11.1 million. It is not possible, at this time, to give a breakdown of that expenditure as between CICB, in respect of applications received before 1 April 1994 CICA, in respect of applications received on or after 1 April 1994 and the appeals panel.

  CICA offered the following awards in the period 1 April 1994 12 January 1995:

  Band

  Awards offered

  1

  320

  2

  67

  3

  330

  4

  23

  5

  131

  6

  43

  7

  190

  8

  39

  9

  20

  10

  22

  11

  15

  12

  69

  13

  4

  14

  1

  15

  2

  16

  11

  17

  3

  19

  1

  25

  1

  Total

  1,292

  533

  Director General of the Prison Service
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how performance-related pay bonuses for the Director General of the Prison Service are calculated; and by whom.

  Mr. Howard
  The performance of the Director General of the Prison Service is assessed on the basis of both qualitative and quantitative measures. They reflect the Prison Service's key targets, as set out in the agency's corporate and business plans, copies of which are in the Library. The details of the arrangements for assessing the performance of the Director General are personal to him and I have no plans to publish them. I decide what performance bonus the Director General should receive on advice from the Permanent-Secretary of the Department.

  Immigration Detainees
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total cost to the Home Office in the financial year 1993–94 of detaining persons under Immigration Act powers; and if he will provide a breakdown of these costs.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The total cost to the immigration service of running its detention accommodation in the financial year 1993–94 was £7,466,352. This comprises:

  £

  Detention, escort and related costs paid to contractors

  5,132,900

  Running costs, including accommodation charges

  1,065,106

  IS staff costs

  912,454

  Capital expenditure

  355,892

  Information about the costs of immigration detention in police cells and Prison Service establishments is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a breakdown of the number of asylum seekers currently detained under Immigration Act powers by(a) nationality, (b) gender, (c) length of detention, (d) place of detention and (e) immigration status at the time of application.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  At 13 January 1995, a total of 572 people who had sought asylum were detained. This figure includes people awaiting the setting of directions for removal following refusal of the application, as well as those whose application was under consideration or subject to appeal. Of this figure, 138 had been in detention less than one month, 97 between one and two months, 237 between two and six months and 100 had been in detention longer than six months.

  Information on the gender, immigration status, nationality and location of detention is given in tables A B and C.

  Table A: Number of people detained on 13 January 1995, who had sought asylum, by immigration status and gender.

  Immigration status

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Port case

  285

  20

  305

  Illegal entrant case

  202

  8

  210

  Deportation case

  50

  7

  57

  Total

  537

  35

  572

  534

  Table B: Number of people detained as at 13 January 1995 who had sought asylum, by nationality

  Number detained

  Afghanistan

  1

  Albania

  7

  Algeria

  63

  Angola

  9

  Bangladesh

  16

  Cameroon

  3

  China

  19

  Colombia

  6

  Cyprus (TRNC)

  16

  Dominica

  1

  Ecuador

  2

  Egypt

  1

  Eritrea

  1

  Estonia

  1

  Ethiopia

  3

  Gambia

  3

  Georgia

  1

  Ghana

  60

  Guyana

  1

  India

  61

  Iran

  2

  Iraq

  2

  Ivory Coast

  9

  Jamaica

  4

  Kenya

  6

  Lebanon

  5

  Liberia

  4

  Libya

  4

  Malawi

  1

  Mauritius

  3

  Morocco

  7

  Mozambique

  1

  Niger

  2

  Nigeria

  119

  Pakistan

  32

  Peru

  1

  Poland

  1

  Romania

  10

  Russia

  3

  Sierra Leone

  10

  Somalia

  1

  South Africa

  5

  Sri Lanka

  9

  Sudan

  5

  Trinidad and Tobago

  1

  Tunisia

  1

  Turkey

  20

  Uganda

  2

  Former Yugoslavia

  7

  Zaire

  17

  Zimbabwe

  1

  Nationality doubtful

  2

  Total

  572

  Table C: Number of people detained as at 13 January 1995, who had sought asylum, by location of detention

  Number detained

  Immigration service establishment

  Campsfield House

  145

  Gatwick Beehive

  10

  Harmondsworth

  97

  Manchester airport detention suite

  1

  Queens building

  20

  Stansted

  6

  Newhaven

  2

  Dover Harbour Board

  7

  Holmhouse detention centre

  1

  535

  Table C: Number of people detained as at 13 January 1995, who had sought asylum, by location of detention

  Number detained

  Prison service establishment

  Armley

  6

  Belmarsh

  2

  Birmingham

  28

  Brinsford

  4

  Bristol

  2

  Brixton

  13

  Bullingdon

  2

  Cardiff

  1

  Chelmsford

  1

  Crumlin Road

  2

  Dorchester

  1

  Edinburgh

  1

  Elmley

  3

  Erlestoke House

  1

  Exeter

  2

  Feltham YC centre

  1

  Greenock

  4

  Haslar

  85

  Highdown

  3

  Hindley remand centre

  2

  Holloway

  1

  Leicester

  1

  Lewes

  2

  Maidstone

  1

  Manchester

  5

  Norwich

  3

  Pentonville

  2

  Risley

  1

  Rochester

  59

  Wandsworth

  3

  Winchester

  3

  Winson Green

  3

  Wolds remand prison

  2

  Wormwood scrubs

  7

  Police cells

  26

  Total

  572

  Date of escape

  Establishment

  Offence

  Length of time at large

  17 November 1989

  Feltham

  Burglary

  5 years 2 months

  2 February 1992

  Downview

  Importation of Drugs

  2 years 11 months

  8 November 1992

  Downview

  Importation of Drugs

  2 years 2 months

  4 September 1993

  Downview

  Importation of Drugs

  1 year 4 months

  23 October 1993

  Feltham

  Robbery

  1 year 3 months

  30 August 1994

  Downview

  Robbery

  4 months

  1 January 1995

  Wandsworth

  Burglary

  2 weeks

  Information on whether any of them had previously escaped is not recorded centrally.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff in his Department have reported an offer of employment from an outside employer since February 1993 as required under the civil service management code; and how many of these reports were followed by an application to join the company concerned.

  Mr. Howard
  The information is not available in precisely the form requested. Details of the number of offers received by staff below grade 3 are not recorded centrally. Staff in these grades are required only to report any offers—and, in the case of procurement and contracts staff, any approaches—received from prospective employers to a senior member of staff at least two grades higher.
  536

  Prison Escapes
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many escaped prisoners are currently at large.

  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 Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 18 January 1995:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of escaped prisoners currently at large.

  This information has only been recorded centrally since 20 June 1988. From that date to 13 January this year (inclusive) 123 prisoners who escaped are still unlawfully at large.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many escaped prisoners from prisons in the Greater London regions are currently at large; how long each has been at large; what offences each has been convicted of; from which prison each escaped; and whether each has escaped before.

  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 Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 18 January 1995:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of prisoners who have escaped from prisons in the Greater London area and who are still currently at large; their offences; the prisons from which they escaped; the length of time they have been at large and whether those prisoners had escaped before.

  The information you request has only been recorded centrally since 20 June 1988. The table below gives the relevant details of the seven prisoners who escaped between 20 June 1988 and 13 January this year (inclusive) and who are still at large:

  Since February 1993, there have been 10 applications under the business appointment rules by Home Office staff for permission to take up offers of employment from outside employers on leaving Crown service. In the same period, three additional members of staff reported offers of employment which did not require an application under the rules. In each case, the report was followed by an application to join the company concerned.

  Crime Victims (Compensation)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the totals of compensation paid to the victims of crime in each of the past 10 years; and what he expects it to be in each of the next three years.

  Mr. Maclean
  The amounts of compensation paid under the criminal injuries compensation scheme in the
  537
  last 10 years, and the forecast expenditure in the next three years are as follows:

  Year

  Compensation paid/payable £ million

  1984–85

  35

  1985–86

  42

  1986–87

  48

  1987–88

  52

  1988–89

  69

  1989–90

  73

  1990–91

  109

  1991–92

  144

  1992–93

  152

  1993–94

  165

  1994–95

  178

  1995–96

  180

  1996–97

  142

  1997–98

  144

  It is expected that by the year 2000–01 the amount of compensation payable will exceed £200 million.

  Electric Shock Equipment
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Royal Ordnance possesses or has possessed a section 5 permit allowing it to hold electric shock weapons.

  Mr. Maclean
  Electric shock weapons are covered by section 5(1)(b) of the Firearms Act 1968, as amended, which prohibits the unauthorised possession of any weapon of whatever description designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas or other thing. Royal Ordnance holds authority under section 5(1)(b) of the 1968 Act. The terms of this authority are currently under review.

  Justice and Home Affairs Council
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence),Official Report, 20 December, columns 1213–14, what was the voting record of each member state on items agreed at the meeting of the European Community's Justice and Home Affairs Council held on 30 November and 1 December; and if he will make it his practice to include details of all votes in future.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 17 January 1995]: The items agreed by the Justice and Home Affairs Council were adopted by unanimity, in accordance with the relevant provision of title VI of the treaty on European Union. Although there are possibilities under title VI for the Council to decide procedural matters and certain implementing measures by majority voting, substantive matters can be decided only by unanimity.

  Disturbance (Everthorpe)
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library the findings of the report on the disturbances at Everthorpe on 2 and 3 January; and if will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  I have today placed in the Library a summary of the findings and the conclusions of the report 538
  together with a report of the action that is being taken in response.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 7 December,Official Report, columns 265–66, what was the number and cost of (a) first-class tickets, (b) business-class tickets and (c) economy-class tickets for overseas flights paid for by the Overseas Development Administration in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The details for overseas flights in respect of ODA in 1993 and 1994 are:

  Class of travel

  Number

  Cost £

  1993

  First Class

  13

  45,400

  Business Class

  800

  717,291

  Economy Class

  57

  28,403

  1994 (January to October)

  First Class

  12

  28,661

  Business Class

  628

  576,375

  Economy Class

  41

  18,597

  For travel in 1992, it is not possible to provide a breakdown by class and mode of travel, nor is it possible to distinguish between overseas and domestic travel. Total expenditure on official travel by UK-based Ministers and officials in the ODA that year was £791,094.

  The proportion of business class flights reflects the long-distance nature of much of ODA's travel.

WALES

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the division of responsibilities and relationship between his departmental Ministers and agencies.

  Mr. Redwood
  I am responsible for Cadw and Welsh historic monuments and I have joint responsibility for the planning inspectorate and ADAS agencies, as set out in the published framework documents.

  Suckler Cow Premiums
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date the Welsh Office agriculture department released the first suckler cow premiums advance subsidy cheques to Welsh farmers.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  On 24 November 1994.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the reasons for the problems experienced by the Welsh Office Agriculture
  539
  Department in the payment of suckler cow premium during 1994 and the particularly long delays for Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Delays in making payments for the 1993 scheme were due to the establishment of a new computer system, when the making of payments was transferred from the MAFF centre at Guildford to the Welsh Office.

  Payments under the 1994 scheme commenced in November 1994.

  Business Rates
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what will be the likely increase in business rates in Wales arising from the five-year review announced in the Chancellor's Budget speech.

  Mr. Redwood
  The estimated average increase in 1995–96 rate bills for property on the local rating list is 4 per cent.

  VAT (Tourism)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement of the effect on jobs, rural energy and areas dependent on tourism of the extension of VAT to cover tourism activities and entrance fees to tourist sites.

  Mr. Redwood
  The application of VAT is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who announced on 29 November that services relating to entertainment or recreational activities and car parking at airports, which include passenger transport, will become wholly standard rated. The measure will affect a limited range of businesses in Wales.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to ensure that Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 rules regarding transfer of council employees to reorganised local authorities apply to all county and district councils in Wales; what representations he has received on the matter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Whether or not the TUPE regulations apply depends on the circumstances of each case. My hon. Friend and I have made it clear on a number of occasions that we will include in the staff transfer order staff whose contracts of employment are considered to be protected under TUPE, but that we do not believe that all local government staff will fall into this category.

  The staff commission for Wales wrote to me on 8 December suggesting that, in order to ensure equal treatment of employees of county and district councils, all staff who wish to transfer should be transferred. My hon. Friend and I have received a large number of representations from hon. Members, councils and others in support of the staff commission's letter.

  We hope to give our response shortly.

  "People and Prosperity: A Challenge to Wales"
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on measures taken to implement 540
  the proposals of the Welsh Office document "People and Prosperity: A Challenge to Wales".

  Mr. Richards
  My right hon. Friend will publish an action plan early this year to follow up "People and Prosperity". This will set out the action needed to raise standards, make faster progress towards the national targets for education and training and promote a culture of learning and enterprise.

  Departmental Creche Facilities
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new plans he has to provide creche facilities to staff in his Department.

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies that I gave to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) on 10 January 1995 Official Report, column 50.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many staff in his Department have reported an offer of employment from an outside employer since February 1993 as required under the civil service management code; and how many of these reports were followed by an application to join the company concerned.

  Mr. Redwood
  Since February 1993, three staff in my Department have reported an offer of employment from an outside employer and each was followed by an application to join the company concerned.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales pursuant to his answer of 24 November 1994,Official Report, column 367, if he will now publish information for 1993–94 on general practitioner fundholders savings.

  Mr. Richards
  [holding answer 17 January 1995]: The amount retained for the financial year 1993–94 was £4,470,000. This will be used by general practitioner fundholders for the benefit of their patients.

  NHS Redundancy Payments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the cost of redundancy payments to NHS staff in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Richards
  [holding answer 17 January 1995]: The information requested is as follows:

  Gross redundancy payments to NHS staff

  £000

  1992–93

  1,496

  1991–92

  984

  1990–91

  254

  1989–90

  84

  1988–89

  108

  Source:

  Health authority financial returns. Pembrokeshire NHS Trust financial returns (1992–93 only)

  Note:

  1992–93 figures are latest available. As from 1993–94 the information is not held centrally.
  541

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Fraud
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what amount of money was recovered through investigations into social security fraud in the last financial year; and how many staff were employed on these duties.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The administration of fraud work is a matter for Michael Bichard, chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Simon Hughes, dated 17 January 1995:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the amount of money recovered through fraud investigations in the last financial year and the staff employed on these duties.

  Over 3,000 staff are involved in the investigation of benefit fraud.

  Estimated benefit savings, from fraud identified and stopped during 1993–94, were £654m. The value of overpaid benefit actually recouped, including fraud cases, totalled £80m. Information relating to the amount of benefit recovered directly as a result of anti-fraud work is not readily available and could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Fraud Allegations
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will total the number of instances where information from non-custodial parents alleging social security fraud by the parent with care has(a) been reported to the Child Support Agency and (b) been referred to the Benefits Agency for action; and what has been the outcome of these investigations, in respect of each three months of the CSA's existence.

  Mr. Burt
  It is not a business requirement of the Child Support Agency to keep statistics centrally on allegations of benefit fraud as any such allegation is referred to the Benefits Agency for investigation. Statistics provided by the BA on the numbers of cases referred by the CSA and those investigations which subsequently yielded a weekly benefit saving are as follows:

  April-June 1994

  July-September 1994

  October-November 19942

  Total April-November 1994

  Referrals1

  2,897

  2,664

  2,049

  7,610

  Cases yielding WBS

  1,131

  1,086

  748

  2,961

  Percentage

  39

  41

  37

  39

  1 No information is kept on the origins of an allegation eg: Absent Parent, Parent with Care or other.

  2 Two months only.

  Doncaster and Mexborough Benefit Offices
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many invalidity benefit awards have been(a) reviewed, (b) disallowed following review and (c) reinstated on appeal during the last 12 months in each of the Doncaster and Mexborough area Benefits Agency offices.
  542
  Mr. Hague
  This is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 17 January 1995:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about Invalidity Benefit (IVB) awards in Doncaster and Mexborough.

  The Benefits Agency (BA) Doncaster District comprises Doncaster West District Office (DO) and Doncaster East Benefit Office (BO). Reviews of IVB cases appropriate to the Doncaster District are centralised at Doncaster West DO.

  Mexborough BO is part of the BA Rother and Dearne District which comprises Rotherham South DO and Goldthorpe, Mexborough and Rotherham North BO's. Reviews of IVB cases for customers dealt with by Mexborough BO are dealt with at that office.

  The information requested is provided in the following table:

  IVB awards reviewed between 1 January and 31 December 1994

  Office

  IVB awards reviewed and disallowed

  IVB awards reinstated on appeal

  Doncaster DO

  616

  126

  Mexborough BO

  260

  55

  Requests for review were received by the Adjudication Officer (AO) in 707 cases at Doncaster and 383 at Mexborough. Of those cases, the AO decided that in 91 cases at Doncaster and 123 at Mexborough the requirements for entitlement to IVB were still satisfied and IVB should not be reviewed. However, in the remaining cases the AO decided that the award of IVB should be reviewed and disallowed.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Disabled Persons
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the full costs of the Government's current campaign on disability; and if he will break down the expenditure by category of advertisement and publication.

  Mr. Hague
  The total cost of the recent public awareness campaign was £1 million, broken down as follows:

  Break down of expenditure

  Advertising

  Posters

  £490,000

  Press

  £310,000

  Insertion appear in:

  Daily Star

  Daily Mirror

  Daily Express

  Daily Mail

  Today

  The Sun

  The Guardian

  The Independent

  Daily Telegraph

  The Times

  News of the World

  Sunday Mirror

  The People

  Sunday Express

  Mail on Sunday

  The Observer

  Sunday Telegraph

  Sunday Mail

  543

  Break down of expenditure

  Publications

  You and Disability leaflet

  £76,000

  Braille and audiotape

  £2,000

  Marketing/distribution

  £44,000

  Research

  £78,000

  Note:

  The Costs of individual press insertions are negotiated individually by our advertising agency and are commercial in confidence.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of disabled people in the United Kingdom; how that figure is arrived at; when it was last calculated and by what method; when he plans to update the figure; and what definition of disabled people is used for the calculation of these figures.

  Mr. Hague
  All the information is contained in the Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys, surveys on disability in Great Britain published between September 1988 and July 1989, copies of which are held in the Library. No date has been set for a further survey.

  Pensioner Incomes
  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest estimate of the number of pensioners who are in receipt of(a) income support and (b) housing benefit.

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

  Number

  Income Support recipient with persioner premiums

  1,492,000

  Housing Benefit recipients With pensioner premiums

  1,977,000

  Notes:

  —some 900,000 Income Support recipients will also be in receipt of Housing Benefit.

  —Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  —a case is defined as being a pensioner if in receipt of the pensioner premium, higher pensioner premium or enhanced pensioner premium.

  Source:

  Income Support Statistics Annual Enquiry May 1993.

  Housing Benefit Management Information Statistics May 1993.

  Income Support
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security under what circumstances payments of income support are made to persons under 18 years of age; how many such recipients are currently recorded; and what is the average weekly payment to such persons.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Young people aged 16 and 17 can claim income support at any time if their circumstances exempt them from the availability for work rules. In addition those who have ceased compulsory education and of necessity have to live independently from their family because they are estranged can claim in the period that their parents would have received child benefit. The young person is required to register unemployed with the Employment Service and for work or training opportunities with the careers service.

  Outside the child benefit period, the temporarily sick with supporting medical evidence can claim until fit for
  544
  work or training, as can recently discharged offenders who are estranged from their family for up to eight weeks, provided they are registered for work and training.

  Further, the Secretary of State may direct that income support be paid to any registered young person who is not entitled under the above rules but who would be at risk of unavoidable severe hardship if benefit were withheld. Income support would normally be paid until a job or a Government training place is secured.

  The number of income support recipients aged under 18 is 36,000 and the average weekly amount paid is £36.79.

  Source: Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry February 1994 (sample survey of 1/20 cases). The figure is rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Housing Benefit
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidance he will be issuing to local authorities on implementation of the new housing benefit provisions.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Details of the changes announced in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's uprating statement on 30 November 1994 were issued to all local authorities in mid-December. Officials are currently discussing the housing benefit proposals with the local authority associations before preparing regulations and detailed guidance, which will be issued to all authorities nearer to the October 1995 implementation date.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many staff in his Department have reported an offer of employment from an outside employer since February 1993 as required under the civil service management code; and how many of these reports were followed by an application to join the company concerned.

  Mr. Hague
  Staff in the Department are required to report job offers to a senior officer at least two grades higher but no such records are kept centrally.

  Records that are kept relate to staff who have made an application to take up an outside business appointment. The total for the Department since February 1993 is six.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the actual expenditure total for his Department for the combined years from 1990–91 to 1995–96 in 1994 prices; and what is his estimate of total expenditure assuming that unemployment from 1990–91 to 1995–96 had remained constant at the average unemployment level of 1990–91.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is not available in the form requested. such information as is available is in the following tables.

  Actual expenditure total for department of social security

  £millions

  year

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Amount(1994–95 prices)

  69,206

  75,451

  82,975

  545

  Estimated expenditure if unemployment remained constant at 1990–91 level

  £millions

  Year

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Amount (1994–95) prices

  75,218

  82,594

  1. The data source is the Government Expenditure Plans 1990–91 to 1992–93 (CM 1014) and the 1994 Departmental Report.

  2. 1992–93 is the latest year for which the actual outturn figures are available.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Civil Servant Travel
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which airlines have been granted preferred carrier status for civil servant travel to overseas destinations.

  Mr. Jack
  My Department has not granted preferred carrier status to any airline.

  Fisheries
  Dame Peggy Fenner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) on 10 January,Official Report, columns 21–22, if he will make available fuller details of the agreement that was reached on the integration of Spain and Portugal into the common fisheries policy.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Council reached agreement on the basis of documents prepared by the German presidency. It is the intention that legal instruments embodying the agreement should be issued as soon as possible. These will be made available to the House in the usual way. However, in order to facilitate hon. Members' consideration of the matter, I have placed copies of the substance of the agreement in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will make a statement about the offence which will be committed by a Spanish vessel fishing for non-precious stocks in the North sea as a full participant in the common fisheries policy after 1 January 1996;

  (2) for what reasons he informed fishermen in his letter after the December Fisheries Council that the exclusion of Spanish fishermen from the North sea would continue unaffected.

  Mr. Jack
  The recent negotiations on Spain and Portugal confirmed that Spain has acquired no fishing rights in the North sea after 1 January 1996. The decisions reached at the December Fisheries Council on Spanish and Portuguese integration in the common fisheries policy apply only to those waters referred to in their act of accession west of 4 deg west and the English channel. Council regulation 1275/94, article 4, adopted by the Fisheries Council last April, provides a possibility for the Commission to make a proposal granting Spain access to other waters, including the North sea, for non-quota species taking account of track record in a recent and representative period. However, unless and until such a proposal is made, and a Council decision taken on it, it will remain an offence for Spain to fish in the North sea.
  546
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what system of reporting is proposed by him for Spanish vessels fishing in the Irish box as a result of the December Fisheries Council agreement; what plans he has for reporting in person to the coastal state on arrival and departure; to whom the vessels will report; and what co-ordination will be developed with Irish authorities.

  Mr. Jack
  Further to the agreement reached at the December Fisheries Council, detailed plans for the implementation of control measures for the Irish box from 1 January 1996 have still to be developed. These, along with other matters, will be the subject of consultation with the fishing industry and other interested parties.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many fishermen in(a) Grimsby, (b) Hull and (c) the south-west were sent his letter of explanation after the Fisheries Council; and how the fishermen who received it were selected.

  Mr. Jack
  My letter explaining the outcome of the December Fisheries Council was sent to recipients of all currently valid licences issued by my Department for fishing vessels over 10m based in England and Wales. At the time that the letter was sent, there were 1,483 such vessels. A separate breakdown of the number of letters sent to people in particular areas could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the division of responsibilities and relationship between his departmental Ministers and agencies.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Precise details of the responsibilities and relationships are set out in the various agency framework documents, copies of which are in the Library of the House. In broad terms, agency chief executives report directly to me. Detailed arrangements are in place for the performance of each agency to be monitored through its ownership board which is chaired by a senior official in the core Department.

  Veal
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what has been the production of veal in the United Kingdom in each year since 1985;

  (2) what has been the consumption of veal in the United Kingdom for each year since 1985.

  Mr. Jack
  Details of veal production and the veal available for consumption are given in the table.

  UK Veal Production and Consumption 1985 to 1993

  Production1 '000 tonnes

  Available for consumption2 '000 tonnes

  1985

  5.3

  8.1

  1986

  3.7

  6.5

  1987

  3.2

  4.2

  1988

  1.9

  2.8

  1989

  1.4

  1.4

  547

  UK Veal Production and Consumption 1985 to 1993

  Production1 '000 tonnes

  Available for consumption2 '000 tonnes

  1990

  1.9

  2.6

  1991

  2.0

  3.6

  1992

  1.4

  2.4

  19933

  0.8

  n/a

  1 The meat produced from calves—under 127 kg dressed carcase weight—slaughtered in the United Kingdom.

  2 Production plus imports of veal minus exports of veal—excluding live exports.

  3 It is no longer possible to identify separately imports and exports of veal.

  Source:

  MAFF

  Mr. David Uren
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his review of procedures with regard to the application of the rules of the farm woodland premium scheme as they relate to the growing of coppice by Mr. David Uren.

  Mr. Jack
  Our legal advice is that the rules of the farm woodland premium scheme, as set out in statutory instrument 1992 No. 905, do not allow for any land converted to woodland to be managed as coppice. We have therefore reviewed the scheme rules and procedures booklet and the standing instructions to the Ministry's regional organisation on administering the scheme, to ensure that this provision is clear and is being applied consistently. The question of whether this rule or other details of the scheme should be changed can be considered as part of the review of the scheme which will begin later this year.

  Harvesting Restrictions
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has made to the European Union regarding the harvesting restrictions imposed on crops grown on land which is coming out of set-aside provision.

  Mr. Jack
  Marketable food crops can only exceptionally be sown on set-aside land and the clear intention, supported by the text, of both EC and United Kingdom legislation is that the facility can be used only for crops sown for harvesting the following year. No reference to EU authorities is necessary in this case.

  Calves
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many dairy calves have been exported from the United Kingdom in each year since 1985;

  (2) how many live calves have been exported each year from 1985 (a) for veal production and (b) in total.

  Mrs. Browning
  The available information, relating to exports from Great Britain, was given in my answer to the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) on 12 January,Official Report, columns 208–10. It is not possible to say what numbers were destined for veal production, or what numbers originated from dairy herds.
  548
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what measures were taken for the welfare and alternative transport of calves waiting for export at Coventry airport delayed due to the crash on 21 December 1994 of the transport aircraft,

  (2) what reports he has received of calves that died between 1 and 10 January while awaiting export.

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 13 January 1995]: The Department is aware of 1,587 calves that were intended to be flown out of Coventry on the day of the air crash or the day following; four exporters were involved.

  Our information on these calves is derived from welfare inspections carried out by Ministry veterinary staff at premises where animals were subsequently held, from inspection carried out for certification purposes in relation to animals eventually presented for export and from information obtained from the animals' owners.

  Following the unforeseen unavailability of the air route out of Coventry, alternative plans to export some of the calves on the Shoreham-Dieppe route were frustrated or delayed when the opening of the route was delayed first by bad weather and then by demonstrations.

  Around 1,070 of the animals were sooner or later retained or sold for rearing in the United Kingdom; 435 were exported through Shoreham on 6 January and Plymouth on 7 January.

  We are aware that 51 calves died, apparently from disease. Twenty-seven of these deaths occurred at one holding premises where a further 35 calves were found to be unfit for transport and were humanely slaughtered on the premises.

DEFENCE

  Housing, Aldershot
  Mr. Critchley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what opportunities there are for local housing associations to purchase houses or flats no longer needed by his Ministry in Aldershot.

  Mr. Soames
  My Department has no plans to sell any houses or flats in Aldershot in the foreseeable future.

  Military Equipment
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what military needs it was decided that truck-mounted concrete mixers were required, as set out in future purchase No. EM and D1 A/150; what consideration has been given to leasing the equipment; what information he has as to the availability of such equipment on the civil market; why there has been a delay in the issue of tenders; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The two truck-mounted concrete mixers in future purchase No. EM and D1A/150 are for use for construction by the Army on operational deployment. Vehicles that meet the military specification for this requirement are not currently available for leasing or immediate purchase on the civil market. Issue of the tender has been delayed pending finalisation of the specification.

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what military needs 39 commercially proven
  549
  ultra-light dumpers are required as set out in future purchase No. EM and D1A/154; what consideration has been given to leasing the equipment; what information he has as to the availability of such equipment on the civil market; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The 39 ultra-light dumpers announced in future purchase No. EM and D1A/154 will be used for military engineering construction and training. This purchase represents a proportion of the overall Army requirement. Leasing was considered but ruled out because of cost and the extensive use of these machines on overseas deployment. The balance of the Army's requirement will be met from short-term hire on an as-required basis.

  Rescue Co-ordination Centre
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on when the consultation document on the Air Officer Scotland and Northern Ireland and the location of the rescue co-ordination centre will be published;

  (2) whether RAF Kinloss is now being considered as a site for the relocation of the rescue co-ordination centre at Pitreavie and alternative to RAF Leuchars.

  Mr. Soames
  It remains my Department's plan to relocate the Air Officer Scotland and Northern Ireland to RAF Leuchars, although the future location of the rescue co-ordination centre is under review. I hope to make an announcement shortly. Neither relocation entails any civilian job losses and it is not therefore our intention to issue a formal consultative document. Nevertheless, the trade unions have been, and will continue to be, consulted on our plans.

  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from the Royal Navy on the future of the rescue co-ordination centre at Pitreavie.

  Mr. Soames
  None.

  Pitreavie
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide a detailed breakdown of the savings that are expected to accrue from the transfer of Flag Officer Scotland Northern and Northern Ireland from Pitreavie to Faslane, with particular reference to the cost of building an extra floor on the command building at Faslane to accommodate FOSNNI, compared to the maintenance of Pitreavie.

  Mr. Soames
  The savings accruing from the proposed transfer of FOSNNI from Pitreavie to Faslane are broken down in detail in the consultation document. These savings accrue against the option of maintaining FOSNNI's operations at Pitreavie. Since that date, further planning has revealed that the provision of an extra floor on the command building at Faslane, as opposed to the refurbishment of the building originally proposed to accommodate FOSNNI, may offer additional saving despite the slightly higher works costs—some £600,000—involved. This is currently being evaluated and would be proceeded with only on the basis that it improved or preserved the level of savings set out in the consultation document.

  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration has been given to developing 550
  Pitreavie as part of the tri-service communication network.

  Mr. Soames
  For as long as Pitreavie remains operational, the site will be included as one of the many establishments that the tri-service defence fixed telecommunications system will be required to serve. The development of Pitreavie in this respect would not be required. No broader development of Pitreavie for tri-service communications has been considered.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff in his Department have reported an offer of employment from an outside employer since February 1993 as required under the civil service management code; and how many of these reports were followed by an application to join the company concerned.

  Mr. Freeman
  No reports have been made, but offers of employment may have been submitted using the Department's usual application form. Since February 1993, 526 business appointment applications have been received.

  Homosexuality
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what use is made by the service police of(a) the British Telecom Intelligence Department or (b) the Post Office Investigations Department in investigating allegations of homosexuality among armed forces personnel.

  Mr. Soames
  None.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the service police use a computer database lo cross-reference names in investigations into homosexuality in the armed forces.

  Mr. Soames
  The only purpose of the computer databases maintained by the service police is to record investigations of service personnel suspected of breaching service law.

  Records (Police Access)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what access civilian police have to the records of members of the armed forces.

  Mr. Soames
  Civilian police do not, as a matter of routine, have access to the records of service personnel. They may, however, request and receive information from service records to assist in their investigations.

  SAS Trade and Investments
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the involvement of Royal Ordnance in 1985 in plans to sell anti-riot guns to SAS Trade and Investments.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have no knowledge of any such involvement.

  Lesbians
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what records were kept by his Department in 1989 regarding possible lesbians in the armed forces.
  551
  Mr. Soames
  The only such records held by my Department would be those relating to investigations into suspected breaches of service law.

  Anti-personnel Land Mines
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the failure rates of anti-personnel land mines which are intended to self-destruct or self-neutralise; and what is their purchase cost.

  Mr. Freeman
  No self-destructing or self-neutralising anti-personnel land mines are in service with the armed forces and no MOD tests have been carried out into their failure rates. Details of their purchase cost are not held by my Department.

  Security Conferences
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what delegations from Iran or from the Iranian embassy in London have attended conferences or exhibitions involving the display of defence-related security or paramilitary products in the United Kingdom since March 1993.

  Mr. Freeman
  Since March 1993, the Ministry of Defence has not invited any delegations from Iran or the Iranian embassy in London to attend such conferences or exhibitions.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Electricity Generation
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will invite the Director General of Offer (Northern Ireland) to carry out a cost-benefit analysis on the next tranche of electricity generation which will take into account the social, economic and environmental effects on Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ancram
  No. Following the privatisation of the electricity supply industry in Northern Ireland responsibility for future generation planning rests with Northern Ireland Electricity plc. Under the terms of its licence NIE is obliged to purchase its power requirements at the most economic price obtainable having regard to the sources available. This enables NIE to consider other aspects such as fuel diversity and security of supply. In doing so, NIE will have to satisfy the independent Director General of Electricity Supply for Northern Ireland.

  Maze Prison
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in what circumstances hacksaws or similar articles have been made available to some prisoners at Her Majesty's prison at the Maze in the last year; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Wheeler
  Prisoners at Her Majesty's prison Maze, in common with other prisons in Northern Ireland, have access to a range of approved handicraft materials and tools. These are issued on the basis of the risk they would pose to the security of the prison and the safety of staff. Prison officers carry out regular checks to ensure that all tools are accounted for. No hacksaws are issued.
  552

  Home Helps and District Nurses
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) home helps and (b) district nurses per 1,000 people over the age of 65 years there were for each of the years 1989 to 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moss
  The information as at 30 June each year is as follows:

  Number per 1,000 people aged 65 and over

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Home helps

  14.3

  12.9

  11.3

  10.6

  9.7

  District Nurses

  1—

  2.4

  2.2

  2.1

  1.8

  1 Information prior to 1990 was not collected on a comparable basis.

  Disabled Students
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the number of disabled students' awards in each of the last three years; and what has been the cost in each year.

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is as follows:

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Number of allowances

  14

  36

  75

  Cost

  16,228

  51,532

  108,473

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many staff in his Department have reported an offer of employment from an outside employer since February 1993 as required under the civil service management code; and how may of those reports were followed by an application to join the company concerned.

  Sir John Wheeler
  There have been no reports of offers of employment from home civil servants in the Northern Ireland Office since February 1993.

  The civil service management code does not apply to Northern Ireland civil service staff. The equivalent regulation for Northern Ireland civil servants are contained in the Northern Ireland pay and conditions of service code. Under these regulations, two members of staff from the Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Ireland Office have reported an offer of employment from an outside employer since February 1993 and both were followed by an application to join the company concerned.

  Stormont (Fire)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what parts of the Stormont buildings were maintained, redecorated or refurbished by his Department, over the past five years; and what was the cost to the Exchequer.

  Mr. Moss
  [holding reply 16 January 1995]: The cost to the Exchequer of maintaining Parliament buildings over the last five years is as follows:

  553

  1990–91 £

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  85,073

  63,184

  71,240

  81,092

  74,017

  The figure for 1994–95 represents expenditure incurred prior to the fire.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the Fire Precautions (Places of Work) Regulations 1993 have an equivalent in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moss
  [Holding reply 16 January 1995]: I understand that the Fire Precautions (Places of Work) Regulations will come into effect in Great Britain in early 1995. A consultation paper incorporating proposals for equivalent Northern Ireland Regulations is expected to be issued by the end of February 1995.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what fire regulations are imposed on(a) the Stormont Parliament building and (b) Northern Irish stately homes and heritage buildings which are open to the public.

  Mr. Moss
  [Holding reply 16 January 1995]: The inquiry by Sir Reginal Doyle into the fire at Parliament buildings on 2 January 1995 will consider the fire safety legislation which applies to Parliament buildings.

  The majority of stately homes in Northern Ireland which are open to the public are in the care of the National Trust, which co-operates with the Fire Authority for Northern Ireland to ensure that the properties comply with the relevant legislation.

  Listed buildings which form part of the Government Estate are subject to the Fire Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1984 as it applies to Crown property. Other listed buildings open to the public are required to have a fire certificate if they belong to a class of building so designated under the 1984 order.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what insurance against fire loss or damage exists in relation to the fabric of the Stormont buildings and the furnishings and artefacts therein.

  Mr. Moss
  [holding reply 16 January 1995]: In line with Government policy that Departments do not normally insure commercially, there is no insurance against fire loss or damage in relation to the fabric and furnishings of Parliament buildings.

  Some items of silverware, which were not damaged in the recent fire, were insured commercially.

  New Zealand Flatworm
  Mr. William Ross
  To aks the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what studies he has carried out into the numbers of areas in Northern Ireland where the New Zealand flatworm has been found; whether it is increasing in numbers and areas affected; and what has been its impact on native earthworms and soil structure.

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding reply 17 January 1995]: The New Zealand flatworm has now been identified at more than 500 sites in Northern Ireland. The majority of these are domestic gardens, but available evidence indicates that it is spreading into agricultural land.

  Department of Agriculture scientists are engaged in studies into the impact of the flatworm on earthworms in grasslands in Northern Ireland. These studies have shown
  554
  that native earthworm numbers are significantly decreased and some earthworm species may be eliminated. Flatworm—induced reductions in earthworm numbers have been linked to adverse changes in soil, bulk density and water-holding capacity, hence soil fertility is likely to be adversely affected.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Shipbuilding
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what comparative assessment he has made of the effectiveness of his Department as the sponsoring Department for the shipbuilding industry in Tyne and Wear alongside the work of the Scottish Office and Northern Ireland Office.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Government's policies on sponsorship of the shipbuilding industry apply equally in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The success of individual companies in the United Kingdom depends upon the management and work force of those companies, and the market conditions they encounter.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the future for the shipbuilding industry in Tyne and Wear.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  All sectors of the economy are equally important in maintaining and increasing our national prosperity. The Government make no judgments about the relative prospects of individual sectors.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many staff in his Department have reported an offer of employment from an outside employer since February 1993 as required under the civil service management code; and how many of these reports were followed by an application to join the company concerned.

  Mr. Heseltine
  No central records of offers are kept, but 52 staff have made applications to accept offers of outside employment since February 1993.

  VAT (Fuel)
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of the effect of value added tax on gas and electricity levels of consumption by(a) low users and (b) high users.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy's reply to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) of 22 March 1993,Official Report, column 484–85 stated that the imposition of VAT on 17.5 per cent. on gas and electricity was expected to reduce domestic sector energy consumption by about 4 per cent. below what it would otherwise have been. This estimate took no account of any offsetting measures. There is no specific estimate available for the effect of 8 per cent. VAT on domestic fuel, but it may be assumed that the effect would be roughly half that given for the 17.5 per cent. rate. No separate estimates of the effects on low and high users are available.
  555

  Executive Search Agencies
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what use his Department has made of executive search agencies in filling vacancies within his Department and executive agencies administered by his Department during the last year; and how much these services have cost his Department.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  During the past year the Department of Trade and Industry filled one post, the chief executive of the Invest in Britain Bureau, using the services of an executive search agency. The total cost, including advertising, was £23,850.

  Chief executives of agencies will reply direct, where appropriate, in respect of their own use of executive search agencies.

  Letter from R. D. Worswick to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 20 December 1994:

  I have been asked to answer with respect to the Laboratory of the Government Chemist your question to the President of the Board of Trade tabled on 12 December 1994.

  The Laboratory of the Government Chemist has not used the services of an executive search agency during the last year.

  Letter from John Hobday to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 18 January 1995:

  Further to Mr Taylor's reply to your question of 12 December about the use made by the Department of Trade and Industry of Executive Search Agencies, the position in respect of the Accounts Services Agency is that it has made no use of such Agencies during the last year.

  Letter from Seton Bennett to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 18 January 1995:

  USE OF EXECUTIVE SEARCH AGENCIES

  Further to Mr. Taylor's reply to your Parliamentary Question on this subject, I can add that this Agency has not had any occasion to use the services of an executive search agency during the past year.

  Letter from Jim Norton to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 18 January 1995:

  DTI USE OF SEARCH AGENCIES

  During the past year the Radiocommunication Agency has not used the services of an executive search agency in order to fill vacancies.

  Letter from W. Edgar to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 18 January 1995:

  I would refer to your Parliamentary Question to the President of the Board of Trade concerning the use of executive search agencies in filling vacancies within the Department of Trade and Industry and its Executive Agencies. I would confirm that NEL has not, during the last year, used an executive search agency to fill any vacancy which has arisen at NEL.

  Letter from David Durham to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 18 January 1995:

  You recently tabled the following Parliamentary Question:

  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, what use his Department has made of executive search agencies in filling vacancies within his Department and executive agencies administered by his Department during the last year; and how much these services have cost his Department.

  I am replying as Chief Executive and Registrar of Companies House.

  During the past year, Companies House have had no occasion to make use of Executive Search Agencies in filling vacancies.

  Letter from P. R. S. Hartnack to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 18 January 1995:

  I am responding on behalf of the Patent Office to your Parliamentary Question about use of executive search agencies in filling vacancies. The Patent Office advises executive search agencies of vacancies where in our experience it is hard to find
  556
  suitable applicants, such as computer specialists. However, no staff were recruited by this means in the past year and no fees were paid.

  Letter from Peter Joyce to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 18 January 1995:

  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your question about the use and cost of executive search agencies by The Insolvency Service.

  The Insolvency Service has not made any use of executive search agencies during the past year. It has used employment agencies for the recruitment of casual administration grades and for short term appointees with professional qualifications and experience on a non-permanent basis.

  Letter from Dr. Peter Clapham to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 18 January 1995:

  You asked the President of the Board of Trade about the use of executive search agencies within DTI and its Executive Agencies.

  In the case of the National Physical Laboratory, I can tell that no use of such agencies has been made during the last year.

  British Gas
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the case of Rose McKeown and British Gas.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  This is a matter for British Gas.

  Professional Football
  Ms Hoey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what assessment he has made of the current accountancy procedures relating to the fees and payments of the transfer of professional footballers;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the accountancy procedures of the valuation of the professional footballers as assets of the football clubs.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  None. Football clubs that are limited companies must follow the provisions of the Companies Act 1985, accounting standards and generally accepted accounting practice. Complaints about departures from the accounting requirements of the Companies Act by public and large private companies are dealt with by the financial reporting review panel; my Department deals with other such complaints.

  Wool Content Labelling
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action his Department is taking to ensure that the wool content declarations for imported garments and carpets are correct.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  EC Directive 71/307/EEC, as amended, requires textile products which are placed on the market to bear or be accompanied by an accurate indication of their fibre content. The directive is implemented in the United Kingdom by the Textile Products (Indications of Fibre Content) Regulations 1986, as amended by the Textile Products (Indications of Fibre Content) (Amendment) Regulations of 1988 and 1994, which are enforced by local authority trading standards departments. The European Commission pursues complaints about the manner in which member states have implemented and enforced the requirements of the directive. Following representations by my Department, I am informed that the Commission has instituted infraction proceedings against Italy for incorrect implementation of the directive.
  557
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next plans to meet chief trading standards officers to discuss imports of wool content garments and carpets.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I have no such plans. The Department's actions in this area are set out in my reply of today to the hon. Member.

  Export Credits Guarantee Cover (Russia)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the nature of export credits guarantee cover currently available for Russia; how much of that cover has been taken up by British companies; what the criteria for cover are; what sort of commercial ventures this cover is intended to stimulate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  ECGD has made US$800 million of medium to long-term export credit and investment insurance cover available for United Kingdom business in the Russian Federation. Approximately US$180 million of this ECGD cover has been utilised and two further projects, currently in negotiation, are expected to use up about another US$420 million. It has been agreed with the Russian authorities that the ECGD cover should be used to support projects which will earn hard currency earning or save foreign exchange, by means of import substitution or are in certain priority sectors: energy, minerals, food processing or distribution, health care or medical equipment. It is intended that the cover should be used primarily to support self-financing projects which, after completion, should earn much-needed foreign exchange revenues for Russia.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much funding his Department will be providing to TECs in 1995–96 for small and medium businesses.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  For 1995–96, my Department is providing TECs with £32.7 million to part fund a range of business—support measures aimed mainly at small and medium-sized businesses. A further £8.8 million is being provided to TECs for the diagnostic and consultancy service delivered by Business Link. My Department is also providing funding totalling £42.9 million for providing a range of advisory services in Business Links and for helping to complete the Business Link network which will mainly assist small and medium-sized businesses.

  The total funding for 1995–96 is £84.4 million, as compared to £57.4 million for 1994–95. This substantial increase reflects the high priority which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade attaches to the speedy development of the Business Link network and to the enhancement of the level and quality of business support services.

  Electricity Prices
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much the price of electricity has increased or decreased in real terms since privatisation in each of the regional electricity companies.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The percentage changes in real terms in the price of electricity for domestic consumers 558
  between 1989 and 1994 in each of the regional electricity companies are shown in the following table.

  Percentage change between 1989 and 1994 on average household bill (excluding VAT)1.2

  Regional electricity company

  Standard tariff

  Economy 7 tariff

  East Midlands Electricity

  -2.3

  -1.4

  Eastern Electricity

  -4.4

  -4.8

  London Electricity

  -6.8

  -3.3

  Manweb

  -5.4

  -3.5

  Midlands Electricity

  -9.7

  -4.7

  Northern Electricity

  +0.7

  -0.7

  Norweb

  -7.1

  -5.9

  Seeboard

  -6.9

  -5.8

  South Wales Electricity

  +2.0

  +1.5

  South Western Electricity

  -1.0

  +0.2

  Southern Electricity

  -3.1

  -1.9

  Yorkshire Electricity

  -9.3

  -5.5

  1 Based on the assumption that the average household consumes 3,300 kWh of electricity per year on the Standard tariff and 6,600 kWh (3,000 day units and 3,600 night units) on the Economy 7 tariff. Standing charges are included as are any lump sum rebates made in 1994. No account has been taken of discounts given by the regional electricity companies for direct debit or similar methods of payment.

  2 Real terms prices are calculated using the GDP (market prices) deflator.

  VAT has been excluded from the above figures. This tax, at 8 per cent. was imposed from 1 April 1994, but an unspecified number of consumers paid in advance and will not have paid any VAT during 1994.

  The average price of electricity to industrial consumers in the United Kingdom decreased, in real terms, by 12.4 per cent. between 1989 and 1994. Details of prices charged to industry by individual companies are commercially confidential.

  Iraq (Arms Sales)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the Ministers in his Department who have had responsibilities in respect of the sale of arms to Iraq.

  Mr. Heseltine
  As President of the Board of Trade, have responsibility for export licensing, to Iraq or anywhere else. This responsibility has been exercised by Governments prior to this Administration.

  Since May 1979, the Presidents of the Board of Trade and Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry have been:

  Right hon. Sir John Nott

  Right hon. John Biffen Mp

  Right hon. Lord Cockfield

  Right hon. Lord Parkinson

  Right hon. Lord Tebbit

  Right hon. Sir Leon Brittan

  Right hon. Paul Channon MP

  Right hon. Lord Young

  Right hon. Lord Ridley

  Right hon. Peter Lilley MP

  Right hon. Michael Heseltine MP

  Since May 1979 the Ministers for Trade have been:

  Right hon. Lord Parkinson

  Right hon. Lord Rees

  Right hon. Paul Channon MP

  559

  Right hon. Alan Clark

  Right hon. Lord Trefgame

  Right hon. Sir Timothy Sainsbury MP

  Right hon. Richard Needham MP

  The following Ministers have also held certain responsibilities for trade matters:

  Right hon. Kenneth Clarke MP

  Right hon. Tony Newton MP

  Edward Leigh MP

  Ian Taylor MP

  It is not practical to determine which of these Ministers may have considered export licences for arms to Iraq.

  Anti-personnel Mines
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which types of anti-personnel mine are manufactured in Britain and are allowed to be exported.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Anti-personnel mines have not been produced in Britain, or exported, for over a decade. On 27 July 1994, the Government announced an indefinite moratorium on the export of mines that do not self-destruct or self-neutralise. In considering any application for an export licence for self-destructing or self-neutralising anti-personnel mines, my Department, together with our advisers in other Government Departments, would consider very carefully the political and military implications of allowing consignments to go overseas. Adherence by the proposed recipient country to the principles of protocol II of the UN weaponry convention, which places certain prohibitions and restrictions on the use of land mines, would be a significant factor in such considerations.

  Atomic Energy Authority
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what external financing limit has been set for the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority for 1995–96.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The UKAEA's external financing limit for 1995–96 will be minus £10.3 million.

  Post Office
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much the Royal Mail spent on its campaign promoting greater commercial freedom for the Post Office; and how this money was spent.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 17 January I995]: This is an operational matter for the Post Office.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Milburn
  To aks the President of the Board of Trade how many of the individuals appointed by his Department to public positions in the last year were first identified by the public appointments unit.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 17 January 1995]: I am currently responsible for a total of more than 630 public appointments. The public appointment unit provides names of suitably qualified candidates for a wide range of DTI public appointments. In 1994, nine appointments to six separate public bodies were made from names supplied by the PAU.
  560

  British Gas
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the consequences of Her Majesty's Government's policy of disaggregating the operations of British Gas on the current routine inspection, servicing and supply of spare parts for domestic gas appliances and any implications for the safety of their operations.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 16 January 1995]: We expect British Gas to continue to provide an emergency service to respond to suspected gas leaks. This will include the free half hour's work to fix the leak, and deal with any related minor repairs to appliances.

  The Government are determined that safety standards will be maintained in the proposed extension of competition to the domestic gas market. The Health and Safety Commission has been asked to report on this issue.

EMPLOYMENT

  Youth Unemployment
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide estimates of the number of 16 and 17-year-olds not currently in full-time education, work or training in Lewisham.

  Mr. Paice
  Estimates for Lewisham are unavailable, but the labour force survey shows that in summer 1994 there were 17,000 16 and 17-year-olds who were not in full or part-time employment, training or full-time education in the Greater London region. Of these, 10,000 were actively seeking employment or training. The remainder were economically inactive and include, for example, those young people who were looking after the home or who were long-term sick or disabled. The Government guarantee that all 16 and 17-year-olds who are not in full-time education or a job and are seeking training are offered a suitable youth training place.

  Disability Symbol
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many organisations have applied to use the disability symbol and been refused;

  (2) how many complaints have been received regarding employers using the disability symbol and not implementing the five commitments to action;

  (3) how many organisations have used the disability symbol in the past but have had the facility removed for not carrying out the five commitments to action;

  (4) how many organisations now use the disability symbol.

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. John Heppell, dated 18 January 1995:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions about organisations who use, or have used, the disability symbol.

  You asked how many organisations have applied to use the disability symbol and have been refused. While there are occasions when the Employment Service (ES) recommends that an organisation delay in adopting the symbol until they have taken

  561
  some further action, we do not maintain records of such instances. I am aware of no circumstance where we have refused an employer authority to adopt the symbol.

  You also asked how many complaints have been received about symbol users not implementing one of their commitments, and how many had been asked to withdraw from symbol use due to non-fulfilment of their commitments.

  We do not keep a central record of complaints, although I am aware of two that have reached my head office direct. Any complaints of this nature are taken very seriously and investigated with the symbol user concerned by a representative from the Placing, Assessment and Counselling Team or the Major Organisations' Development Unit. In cases where the symbol was clearly being abused we would ask the organisation to stop using it, although I am not aware of any instance to date where this has happened.

  The last published statistics in July 1994 record 940 employers using the symbol, including a number of organisations operating throughout the country.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish the turnover rates of each TEC board for each year since their creation.

  Mr. Paice
  I am unable to give the information that the hon. Member is asking for, as it is not collected in that form. However, the total annual turnover for board members for training and enterprise councils in England and Wales is shown in the table:

  Date

  Annual turnover per cent.

  January 92 to December 92

  14.9

  January 93 to December 93

  14.6

  January 94 to December 94

  25.7

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the surpluses in the accounts of every TEC for every year since their creation(a) as a percentage of that TEC's total expenditure and (b) in money terms.

  Mr. Paice
  Lists of English training and enterprise councils with the information requested on "in year" operating surpluses, obtained from their annual statutory audited accounts, at the end of the financial years 1990–91,1991–92 and 1992–93 are shown in the tables.

  I am unable to give the figures requested for 1993–94, as this information is not yet in the public domain for every TEC. However, as TEC accounts for 1993–94 become available to the Department, copies are placed in the Library.

  TECs by region 1990–91

  Post tax surplus £

  Total percentage of expenditure

  NORTHERN

  County Durham

  1,168,483

  9.08

  Northumberland

  1,199,961

  19.84

  Teesside

  1,956,000

  7.12

  Tyneside

  2,548,930

  8.09

  Sunderland (Wearside)

  1,707,787

  10.17

  8,581,161

  9.06

  562

  TECs by region 1990–91

  Post tax surplus £

  Total percentage of expenditure

  NORTH WEST

  CEWTEC

  Started April 1991

  —

  Cumbria

  1,682,149

  13.19

  ELTEC

  1,751,853

  15.93

  LAWTEC

  Started April 1991

  —

  Merseyside

  Started June 1991

  —

  NORMID

  Started April 1991

  —

  QUALITEC

  Started April 1991

  —

  3,434,002

  14.46

  GREATER MANCHESTER

  Bolton/Bury

  292,200

  6.49

  Manchester

  1,321,382

  14.00

  METRO

  222,585

  3.79

  Oldham

  805,748

  13.37

  Rochdale

  88,448

  1.61

  South and East Cheshire

  877,438

  11.60

  Stockport and High Peak

  292,697

  6.14

  3,900,498

  8.93

  YORKSHIRE AND HUMBERSIDE

  Barnsley/Doncaster

  Started January 1991

  —

  Bradford

  133,539

  3.75

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  364,269

  2.20

  Humberside

  Started April 1991

  —

  Leeds

  1,211,214

  16.94

  North Yorks

  1,313,000

  16.79

  Rotherham

  485,255

  7.75

  Sheffield

  934,106

  10.29

  Wakefield

  323,352

  17.36

  4,764,735

  9.12

  EASTERN

  Bedfordshire

  Started April 1991

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  27,124

  3.80

  Essex

  1,256,762

  12.37

  Greater Peterborough

  116,772

  14.89

  Hertfordshire

  578,706

  5,39

  Norfolk and Waverney

  1,292,717

  21.21

  Suffolk

  1,277,059

  42.00

  4,549,140

  14.43

  EAST MIDLANDS

  Greater Nottingham

  Started April 1991

  —

  Leicester

  Started April 1991

  —

  Lincolnshire

  Started April 1991

  —

  Northamptonshire

  Started April 1991

  —

  North Derbyshire

  Started April 1991

  —

  North Nottinghamshire

  122,137

  1.31

  South Derbyshire

  (16,090)

  (0.58)

  106,047

  0.88

  WEST MIDLANDS

  Birmingham

  600,534

  4.98

  Central England

  Started April 1991

  —

  Coventry/Warwick

  2,185,542

  22.25

  Dudley

  Started April 1991

  —

  HAWTEC

  Started April 1991

  —

  Sandwell

  Started April 1991

  —

  Shropshire

  Started April 1991

  —

  563

  TECs by region 1990–91

  Post tax surplus £

  Total percentage of expenditure

  Staffordshire

  2,671,771

  21.24

  Walsall

  409,681

  13.36

  Wolverhampton

  Started April 1991

  —

  5,867,528

  15.64

  SOUTH WEST

  Avon

  Started April 1991

  —

  Devon/Cornwall

  1,701,876

  4.75

  Dorset

  1,597,625

  19.26

  Gloucester

  Started January 1991

  —

  Somerset

  646,783

  10.00

  Wiltshire

  Started April 1991

  —

  3,946,284

  7.80

  LONDON

  AZTEC

  230,464

  12.47

  CENTEC

  Started September 1991

  —

  CILNTEC

  Started October 1991

  —

  LETEC

  Started November 1990

  —

  North London

  Started January 1991

  —

  North West London

  Started November 1990

  —

  SOLOTEC

  Started April 1991

  —

  South Thames

  Started April 1991

  —

  West London

  Started August 1991

  —

  230,464

  12.47

  SOUTH EAST

  Hampshire

  1,363,924

  11.03

  Isle of Wight

  239,236

  22.29

  Kent

  Started November 1990

  —

  Milton Keynes/North Buckinghamshire

  335,225

  13.00

  Heart of England

  600,664

  16.30

  Surrey

  Started April 1991

  —

  Sussex

  Started April 1991

  —

  Thames Valley Ent.

  Started April 1991

  —

  2,539,049

  12.89

  Grand Total

  37,918,908

  10.31

  TECs by region 1991–1992

  Post tax surplus £

  Total percentage of expenditure

  NORTHERN

  County Durham

  2,818,075

  9.47

  Northumberland

  1,262,703

  8.90

  Teeside

  3,838,000

  13.91

  Tyneside

  2,818,000

  7.03

  Sunderland (Wearside)

  293,924

  1.44

  11,030,702

  8.36

  NORTH WEST

  CEWTEC

  1,974,732

  10.49

  Cumbria

  1,187,739

  7.22

  ELTEC

  370,271

  2.02

  LAWTEC

  3,150,027

  12.81

  Merseyside

  3,012,181

  8.16

  NORMID

  1,511,822

  16.77

  QUALITEC

  741,670

  8.47

  11,948,442

  9.00

  GREATER MANCHESTER

  Bolton/Bury

  1,720,642

  14.67

  Manchester

  2,936,887

  8.56

  564

  TECs by region 1991–1992

  Post tax surplus £

  Total percentage of expenditure

  METRO

  188,000

  1.84

  Oldham

  570,321

  6.94

  Rochdale

  399,262

  6.03

  South and East Cheshire

  1,124,823

  11.01

  Stockport and High Peak

  1,833,580

  23.94

  8,773,515

  9.86

  YORKSHIRE AND HUMBERSIDE

  Barnsley/Doncaster

  2,688,055

  11.73

  Bradford

  1,773,485

  10.92

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  465,421

  2.29

  Humberside

  2,952,198

  8.43

  Leeds

  2,352,648

  13.14

  North Yorkshire

  2,104,000

  14.08

  Rotherham

  1,485,797

  14.25

  Sheffield

  2,340,235

  10.53

  Wakefield

  2,118,035

  20.68

  18,279,874

  10.74

  EASTERN

  Bedfordshire

  1,335,932

  13.03

  Cambridgeshire

  560,998

  10.08

  Essex

  3,037,484

  12.50

  Great Peterborough

  754,539

  10.79

  Hertfordshire

  863,034

  5.26

  Norfolk and Waverney

  1,279,837

  6.36

  Suffolk

  1,234,110

  9.80

  9,065,934

  9.42

  EAST MIDLANDS

  Greater Nottingham

  844,000

  4.55

  Leicester

  2,709,000

  13.18

  Lincolnshire

  1,225,370

  6.74

  Northampton

  1,867,401

  18.83

  North Derbyshire

  653,113

  6.48

  North Nottinghamshire

  1,494,000

  9.98

  South Derbyshire

  3,510,586

  25.89

  12,303,470

  11.63

  WEST MIDLANDS

  Birmingham

  2,217,000

  5.74

  Central England

  992,591

  11.52

  Coventry/Warwick

  9,899

  0.04

  Dudley

  411,480

  4.06

  HAWTEC

  978,862

  10.13

  Sandwell

  917,391

  9.28

  Shropshire

  598,942

  4.92

  Staffordshire

  1,399,654

  4.88

  Walsall

  988,580

  14.04

  Wolverhampton

  1,032,122

  10.47

  9,546,521

  6.01

  SOUTH WEST

  Avon

  1,925,855

  8.10

  Devon/Cornwall

  3,187,000

  6.47

  Dorset

  1,171,204

  9.08

  Gloucester

  1,574,830

  11.19

  Somerset

  388,152

  2.99

  Wiltshire

  849,313

  7.97

  9,096,354

  7.35

  565

  TECs by region 1991–1992

  Post tax surplus £

  Total percentage of expenditure

  LONDON

  AZTEC

  1,289,656

  15.00

  CENTEC

  148,575

  1.30

  CILNTEC

  550,812

  8.12

  LETEC

  (483,267)

  (1.72)

  North London

  1,153,445

  13.01

  North West London

  438,984

  8.04

  SOLOTEC

  896,400

  5.99

  South Thames

  1,292,463

  7.22

  West London

  162,104

  1.89

  5,449,172

  4.92

  SOUTH EAST

  Hampshire

  1,884,488

  6.68

  Isle of Wight

  479,142

  14.84

  Kent

  3,542,667

  10.15

  Milton Keynes/North Buckinghamshire

  360,889

  5.46

  Heart of England

  962,649

  10.48

  Surrey

  693,092

  5.97

  Sussex

  3,253,000

  15.45

  Thames Valley Ent.

  2,719,118

  14.57

  13,895,045

  10.41

  Grand Total

  109,389,029

  8.73

  TECs by region 1992–1993

  Post tax surplus £

  Total percentage of expenditure

  NORTHETRN

  County Durham

  2,595,107

  10.07

  Northumberland

  1,233,752

  8.58

  Teesside

  3,388,000

  12.00

  Tyneside

  (883,000)

  (2.13)

  Sunderland (Wearside)

  512,381

  2.72

  6,846,240

  5.32

  NORTH WEST

  CEWTEC

  603,311

  3.12

  Cumbria

  110,772

  0.67

  ELTEC

  1,338,587

  7.32

  LAWTEC

  (236,657)

  (0.83)

  Merseyside

  1,191,532

  2.59

  NORMID

  (418,902)

  (3.08)

  QUALITEC

  312,509

  3.70

  2,901,152

  1.92

  GREATER MANCHESTER

  Bolton/Bury

  847,848

  6.64

  Manchester

  (880,942)

  (2.42)

  METRO

  108,000

  1.03

  Oldham

  83,406

  1.01

  Rochdale

  597,651

  6.98

  South and East Cheshire

  420,244

  3.21

  Stockport and High Peak

  655,247

  6.93

  1,831,454

  1.85

  YORKSHIRE AND HUMBERSIDE

  Barnsley/Doncaster

  1,012,208

  4.15

  Bradford

  1,524,888

  8.73

  566

  TECs by region 1992–93

  Post tax surplus £

  Total percentage of expenditure

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  (1,574)

  (0.01)

  Humberside

  2,258,408

  6.84

  Leeds

  2,160,436

  12.01

  North Yorkshire

  936,000

  5.87

  Rotherham

  1,134,336

  9.85

  Sheffield

  883,000

  4,19

  Wakefield

  668,301

  6.08

  10,576,003

  6.08

  EASTERN

  Bedfordshire

  220,801

  1.88

  Cambridgeshire

  34,280

  0.55

  Essex

  742,805

  2.45

  Greater Peterborough

  661,071

  8.67

  Hertfordshire

  1,199,133

  5.70

  Norfolk and Waverney

  (411,789)

  (1.94)

  Suffolk

  473,259

  3.28

  2,919,560

  2.59

  EAST MIDLANDS

  Greater Nottingham

  98,000

  0.48

  Leicester

  1,888,317

  8.35

  Lincolnshire

  1,328,872

  6.46

  Northamptonshire

  109,609

  0.82

  North Derbyshire

  87,828

  0.91

  North Nottinghamshire

  (376,000)

  (2.14)

  South Derbyshire

  611,343

  3.77

  3,747,969

  3.11

  WEST MIDLANDS

  Birmingham

  (1,606,000)

  (4.12)

  Central England

  347,027

  3.47

  Coventry/Warwick

  7,122

  0.03

  Dudley

  801,744

  7.50

  HAWTEC

  702,859

  6.14

  Sandwell

  788,829

  7.07

  Shropshire

  703,807

  5.40

  Staffordshire

  1,717,636

  5.47

  Walsall

  941,491

  10.99

  Wolverhampton

  379,147

  3.37

  4,783,662

  2.78

  SOUTH WEST

  Avon

  1,647,961

  6.03

  Devon/Cornwall

  121,000

  0.25

  Dorset

  53,973

  0.34

  Gloucester

  666

  0.00

  Somerset

  711,143

  5.70

  Wiltshire

  251,265

  1.98

  2,786,008

  2.14

  LONDON

  AZTEC

  411,486

  3.73

  CENTEC

  757,876

  3.54

  CILNTEC

  1,610,046

  7.94

  LETEC

  1,138,517

  3.51

  North London

  1,851,198

  10.82

  North West London

  424,679

  4.30

  SOLOTEC

  2,530,966

  14.37

  South Thames

  2,318,842

  7.55

  West London

  1,000.929

  6.35

  12,044,539

  6.84

  567

  TECs by region 1992–93

  Post tax surplus £

  Total percentage of expenditure

  SOUTH EAST

  Hampshire

  1,430,483

  4.67

  Isle of Wight

  161,087

  3.95

  Kent

  2,231,284

  7.31

  Milton Keynes/North Buckinghamshire

  99,326

  1.21

  Heart of England

  860,611

  7.88

  Surrey

  967,259

  8.03

  Sussex

  1,875,000

  8.23

  Thames Valley Ent.

  643,002

  2.95

  8,268,052

  5.87

  Grand total

  56,704,639

  4.04

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the administrative costs for each TEC for every year since their creation.

  Mr. Paice
  A list of English training and enterprise councils and their "in year" administrative costs, as shown in their annual statutory audited accounts, at the end of the financial years 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93 are shown in the tables.

  I am unable to give the figures requested for 1993–94 as this information is not yet in the public domain for every TEC. However, as TEC accounts for 1993–94 become available to the Department, copies are placed in the Library.

  Administration Costs

  TECs by region

  1990–91 £

  1991–92 £

  1991–93 £

  NORTHERN

  County Durham

  1,291,920

  1,930,205

  2,109,458

  Northumberland

  1,230,408

  1,631,608

  2,350,938

  Teesside

  1,696,000

  2,975,000

  3,837,000

  Tyneside

  2,533,590

  3,241,000

  3,475,000

  Sunderland (Wearside)

  974,086

  1,376,968

  2,094,139

  7,726,004

  11,154,781

  13,866,535

  NORTH WEST

  CEWTEC

  Started April 91

  1,258,007

  1,484,953

  Cumbria

  1,301,023

  1,477,556

  1,653,511

  ELTEC

  736,697

  1,393,572

  1,390,484

  LAWTEC

  Started April 91

  1,535,907

  2,018,045

  Merseyside

  Started June 91

  2,334,212

  4,622,631

  NORMID

  Started June 91

  1,067,312

  1,604,052

  QUALITEC

  Started April 91

  669,078

  920,483

  2,037,720

  9,735,644

  13,694,159

  GREATER MANCHESTER

  Bolton/Bury

  554,160

  1,278,992

  2,009,487

  Manchester

  871,970

  3,168,334

  3,989,996

  METRO

  512,329

  1,161,000

  1,424,000

  Oldham

  498,808

  734,111

  1,112,007

  Rochdale

  459,879

  594,712

  765,910

  South and East Cheshire

  651,096

  2,128,048

  1,126,094

  Stockport and High Peak

  446,341

  789,504

  956,269

  3,994,583

  9,854,701

  11,383,763

  568

  Administration Costs

  TECs by region

  1990–91 £

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  YORKSHIRE AND HUMBERSIDE

  Barnsley/Doncaster

  Started January 91

  1,590,594

  1,820,761

  Bradford

  267,487

  1,453,408

  1,106,553

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  1,057,394

  1,730,039

  2,041,575

  Humberside

  Started April 91

  2,814,334

  3,119,039

  Leeds

  735,776

  1,730,338

  1,999,374

  North Yorkshire

  945,000

  1,370,000

  1,675,000

  Rotherham

  600,955

  1,143,527

  1,318,793

  Sheffield

  762,207

  2,500,135

  2,866,000

  Wakefield

  120,737

  1,027,992

  1,179,304

  4,489,556

  15,360,367

  17,126,399

  EASTERN

  Bedfordshire

  Started April 91

  923,120

  1,191,963

  CAMBS

  31,722

  786,073

  972,382

  Essex

  1,193,476

  1,961,749

  2,567,573

  Greater Peterborough

  154,684

  828,190

  1,297,530

  Hertfordshire

  1,638,449

  1,855,181

  2,103,148

  Norfolk and Waverney

  860,049

  1,626,594

  2,679,051

  Suffolk

  334,217

  1,309,588

  1,557,908

  4,212,597

  9,290,495

  12,369,555

  EAST MIDLANDS

  Greater

  Nottingham

  Started April 91

  1,679,000

  1,842,000

  Leicester

  Started April 91

  2,916,000

  2,612,117

  Lincolnshire

  Started April 91

  183,502

  564,370

  Northamptonshire

  Started April 91

  1,097,575

  1,221,752

  North Derbyshire

  Started April 91

  933,356

  1,067,426

  North Nottinghamshire

  703,865

  1,084,000

  1,349,000

  South Derbyshire

  302,641

  1,749,634

  2,372,992

  1,006,506

  9,643,067

  11,029,657

  WEST MIDLANDS

  Birmingham

  926,293

  2,639,000

  3,058,000

  Central England

  Started April 91

  810,650

  1,074,936

  Coventry/ Warwick

  530,854

  1,083,099

  1,253,093

  Dudley

  Started April 91

  1,019,678

  1,369,523

  HAWTEC

  Started April 91

  997,787

  1,287,504

  Sandwell

  Started April 91

  865,159

  947,277

  Shropshire

  Started April 91

  991,146

  1,113,304

  Staffordshire

  931,374

  2,363,849

  2,925,055

  Walsall

  315,326

  830,837

  966,586

  Wolverhampton

  Started April 91

  919,339

  1,087,057

  2,703,847

  12,520,544

  15,082,335

  SOUTH WEST

  Avon

  Started April 91

  2,099,463

  2,347,261

  Devon/Cornwall

  2,330,485

  4,174,000

  4,841,000

  Dorset

  854,630

  1,166,387

  1,274,644

  Gloucester

  Started January 91

  1,313,161

  1,387,979

  Somerset

  548,636

  1,114,066

  1,139,745

  Wiltshire

  Started April 91

  1,002,296

  1,237,141

  3,733,751

  10,869,373

  12,227,770

  LONDON

  AZTEC

  162,548

  1,197,226

  1,892,569

  CENTEC

  Started Sept 91

  1,158,024

  2,770,562

  CILNTEC

  Started Oct 91

  792,984

  2,054,389

  LETEC

  Started Nov 90

  2,966,277

  3,787,841

  569

  Administration Costs

  TECs by region

  1990–91 £

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  North London

  Started January 91

  882,327

  1,545,921

  North West London

  Started Nov 90

  635,970

  1,229,654

  SOLOTEC

  Started April 91

  1,826,341

  2,118,678

  South Thames

  Started April 91

  2,230,347

  3,301,964

  West London

  Started August 91

  1,030,390

  2,018,400

  162,548

  12,719,886

  20,719,978

  SOUTH EAST

  Hampshire

  955,888

  1,790,270

  2,185,086

  Isle of Wight

  212,813

  369,227

  492,737

  Kent

  Started Nov 90

  2,859,350

  2,065,046

  Milton Keynes/ North Bucks

  381,525

  939,139

  1,002,384

  Heart of England

  548,372

  1,037,979

  1,539,912

  Surrey

  Started April 91

  1,159,231

  1,816,177

  Sussex

  Started April 91

  1,960,000

  2,376,000

  Thames Valley Ent.

  Started April 91

  2,119,515

  2,272,152

  2,098,598

  12,234,711

  13,749,494

  Grand Total

  32,165,710

  113,383,569

  141,249,645

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the number of women appointed to each TEC board for each year since their creation.

  Mr. Paice
  Information on women appointed to each training and enterprise council board for each year since the TECs' creation is not held centrally. However, records held centrally on the numbers of women currently on TEC boards in England is shown in the table:

  TEC

  Number

  AZTEC

  3

  Avon TEC

  3

  Barnsley/Doncaster TEC

  1

  Bedfordshire TEC

  2

  Birmingham TEC

  3

  Bolton Bury TEC

  1

  Bradford and District TEC

  2

  CENTEC (Central London)

  3

  CEWTEC (Chester, Ellesmere Port, Wirral)

  2

  CILNTEC (City and Inner London North)

  1

  Calderdale/Kirklees TEC

  1

  CambsTEC (Central and South Cumbridgeshire)

  1

  Central England TEC

  3

  County Durham TEC

  2

  Coventry and Warwickshire TEC

  1

  Cumbria TEC

  1

  Devon and Cornwall TEC

  2

  Dorset TEC

  1

  Dudley TEC

  1

  ELTEC (East Lancashire)

  3

  Essex TEC

  3

  Gloucestershire TEC

  2

  Greater Nottingham TEC

  2

  Greater Peterborough TEC

  1

  HAWTEC (Hereford and Worcester)

  3

  Hampshire TEC

  2

  Heart of England (Oxfordshire) TEC

  3

  Humberside TEC

  2

  Kent TEC

  2

  Leeds TEC

  1

  Leicestershire TEC

  1

  Lincolnshire TEC

  2

  London East TEC

  3

  570

  TEC

  Number

  Manchester TEC

  1

  Merseyside TEC

  2

  NORMIDTEC (North and Mid Cheshire)

  1

  Norfolk and Waveney TEC

  3

  North Derbyshire TEC

  3

  North London TEC

  1

  North Nottinghamshire TEC

  2

  North West London TEC

  1

  North Yorkshire TEC

  2

  Northamptonshire TEC

  2

  Northumberland TEC

  I

  QUALITEC (St. Helens) Ltd

  2

  Rochdale TEC

  3

  Rotherham TEC

  1

  SOLOTEC

  2

  Sandwell TEC

  1

  Sheffield TEC

  1

  Shropshire TEC

  2

  Somerset TEC

  1

  South and East Cheshire TEC

  3

  Southern Derbyshire TEC

  3

  Stockport/High Peak TEC

  2

  Suffolk TEC

  3

  Sunderland City TEC

  2

  Surrey TEC

  2

  Sussex TEC

  2

  Teesside TEC

  1

  Thames Valley Enterprise

  1

  Tyneside TEC

  2

  Wakefield TEC

  1

  Walsall TEC

  2

  West London TEC

  4

  Wight Training and Enterprise

  1

  Wiltshire TEC

  2

  Wolverhampton TEC

  1

  Total

  128

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the members of each TEC board and their companies for each year since their creation.

  Mr. Paice
  It is not possible to provide a list of the members of each training and enterprise council board and their companies for each year since their creation as this information is not held centrally.

  Since January 1994 a list of current members of each TEC board and their companies is placed in the Library every quarter.

  Career Development Loans
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 20 December,Official Report, column 1098, what was the total cost of the career development loan advertising campaign.

  Mr. Paice
  The cost of the 1993–94 career development loan advertising campaign was £1,862,491.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a table comparing male, female and total full-time and part-time employees (i) in employment, (ii) unemployed for October 1992 and the latest available date in(a) Doncaster, (b) Llanelli, (c) Retford, (d) Chesterfield, (e) Nottingham, (f) Mansfield, (g) Sunderland, (h) Wakefield and Dewsbury, (i) Barnsley, (j) Sheffield, (k) Stafford, (l) Wigan and St.

  571
  Helens, (m) Stoke, (n) Alfreton and Ashfield, (o) Merthyr and Rhymney, (p) Sunderland, (q) South Tyneside, (r) Aberdare, (s). Morpeth and Ashington, (t) Rotherham and Mexborough and (u) Worksop travel-to-work areas.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The employment information requested is not available for 1992. The latest reliable employment information for these travel to-work areas is for September 1991, from the periodic census of employment. This information and the unemployment statistics requested can be obtained from the NOMIS database available in the Library.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many staff in his Department have reported an offer of employment from an outside employer since February 1993 as required under the civil service management code; and how many of these reports

  Leavers in Hampshire TEC

  Percentage of leavers in each outcome six months after leaving

  Full-time work

  Part-time work

  Self employment

  1Further education and training

  Unemployment

  1991–92

  47

  6

  1

  14

  24

  1992–93

  49

  5

  1

  14

  26

  April 1993–February 1994

  50

  6

  2

  15

  21

  Source:

  YT national follow-up survey.

  Notes:

  1 Includes those on another Government training programme.

SCOTLAND

  School Inspections
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) primary and (b) secondary school inspections were carried out in 1994; and how many in each category he estimates will be carried out in 1995.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Inspections of primary and secondary schools take place for a range of purposes including inspections leading to published reports on individual schools, those which contribute evidence to a published report on an aspect of education and those designed to obtain information on miscellaneous other matters. Approximately 310 inspections were carried out in primary schools in 1994 and 170 in secondary schools. A similar number is projected in each category for 1995.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the lengthiest period, on current plans, that(a) a primary and (b) a secondary school will go without an inspector's visit.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Inspections of primary and secondary schools take place for a range of purposes, including inspections leading to published reports on individual schools, those which contribute evidence to a published report on an aspect of education and those designed to obtain information on miscellaneous other matters. The pattern of inspection visits for these purposes means that, on average, six years may elapse between an inspector's visit to a primary school and two years in the case of secondary schools.
  572
  were followed by an application to join the company concerned.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I regret that the information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the percentage of those leaving youth training schemes who progressed to(a) full-time work, (b) part-time work, (c) self-employment, (d) further education and training and (e) unemployment, in Southampton, Itchen, Southampton and Hampshire in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Paice
  Information is not available for individual constituencies and local authorities. Information for Hampshire training and enterprise council is available from 1991–92, the first full year of operation. The information is given in the table.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the value of chapter 10.5 payments to general practitioners in the highlands and islands for each year since its introduction(a) in total for the highlands and islands and (b) as an average for applicable practices.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information about payments made to general medical practitioners in Highland, Orkney, Shetland and Western Isles health boards under the chapter 10.5 payments scheme is set out in the table.

  Financial year

  1990–91 £

  41991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  Payments to GMPs1

  Chapter 10.5

  202,795

  257,436

  325,472

  326,155

  Transitional2

  129,813

  62,704

  —

  —

  Total

  332,608

  320,140

  325,472

  326,155

  Average payments per GMP1,3

  Chapter 10.5

  1,865

  2,263

  2,812

  2,830

  Transitional2

  1,194

  551

  —

  —

  Total

  3,058

  2,814

  2,812

  2,830

  1 GMPs in practices qualifying for chapter 10.5 payments.

  2 Between 1990 and 1992 amounts paid to GMPs under the transitional payments scheme were deducted from any chapter 10.5 payments due. The transitional payments scheme ceased on 31 March 1992 and thereafter chapter 10.5 payments were made in full.

  3 Whole time equivalent of GMP.

  4 Estimate, based upon data for the second half of the financial year.

  573

  Students (Sickness)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many students at each further education college have had their grants withdrawn because of sickness absence of more than 28 days in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Students at further education colleges in Scotland may be eligible for support from either the Student Awards Agency for Scotland or their education authority, depending on the nature of their course.

  No student in receipt of support from the awards agency would have his or her grant withdrawn solely on the grounds of a sickness absence of more than 28 days. There is provision for the level of grant to be adjusted, exceptionally, after the student returns to study where there has been a significantly lower maintenance requirement during the period of absence.

  Where a student withdraws from his or her course—permanently or temporarily—following a prolonged period of sickness the maintenance grant will be terminated with effect from the date of withdrawal. Details of the reasons for individual withdrawals are not held centrally.

  The terms and conditions on which education authorities in Scotland offer assistance to students are entirely at the discretion of the authority concerned.

  Further Education Expenditure
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the percentage increase or decrease in real terms, allowing for inflation, for spending on(a) universities and (b) further and adult education from 1982–83 to 1992–93.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Between 1982–83 and 1992–93 the then eight Scottish universities were funded by the University Grants Committee and, latterly, the Universities Funding Council. During that period total recurrent public expenditure on the eight universities, in the form of UGC and UFC grants for teaching and research and tuition fees in respect of those students on full-time courses who were charged fees at the home rate, increased by 3.5 per cent. in real terms.

  The increase in current expenditure on further education in real terms by local authorities over the same period was 4.2 per cent. This includes expenditure on adult education.

  Private Housing Developers
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the levels of Scottish Homes' grants to private housing developers in each year since Scottish Homes was established.

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

  Scottish homes' grants to private housing developers

  £ million outturn

  1989–90

  0.84

  1990–91

  9.24

  1991–92

  14.93

  1992–93

  25.09

  1993–94

  28.30

  574

  Innumeracy and Illiteracy
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps are currently being taken to assist schools to overcome innumeracy and illiteracy.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Improving pupils' standards of attainment in English language and mathematics is central to the Government's five to 14 programme. The programme sets out attainment targets, which allow such pupils' performance and progress to be assessed and assisted. National tests also provide an important source of evidence of achievement in key skills and processes in reading, writing, and mathematics. Diagnostic materials have been prepared to help teachers tackle pupils with particular difficulties in English and mathematics.

  Social Work Inspectorate
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many full-time equivalent staff are involved in the social work inspectorate; what is(a) its annual revenue budget and (b) its budget for training and staff development; how much has been spent in the past year on away days for staff to hotels; and what were the purposes of such activities.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are 18 full-time equivalent professional members of staff in the inspectorate and 17.5 administrative staff. The inspectorate's budget for 1994–95 is £1,134,618, of which £3,525 was allocated to job-related training. Ten members. of staff attended a strategy day along with their colleagues in the social work services group. The purpose of the day was to review the issues involved in local government reorganisation and to consider key objectives over the next two years. The cost of the one-day event was £1,240.

  Lochranza Castle
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much in public funds has been spent on the renovation and upkeep of Lochranza castle in each of the past 20 years; and what further expenditure is proposed.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to Historic Scotland under its chief executive, Mr. Graeme Munro. I have asked Mr. Munro to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Graeme Munro to Mr Brian Wilson, dated 18 January 1995:

  1. Sir Hector Monro has asked me to reply to your Question 272 of 11 January about the cost of renovation and upkeep of Lochranza Castle on Arran.

  2. Lochranza Castle has been in the Secretary of State's guardianship since 1956. Under Section 13 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, guardianship gives the Secretary of State a duty to maintain the Castle and full control and management of it. The maintenance and management are carried

  575
  out by Historic Scotland on behalf of the Secretary of State. The Castle is open to the public free of charge.

  3. The information which you sought about costs over the past 20 years and our future expenditure plans is:

  3.1 Between 1975 and 1985 we carried out routine maintenance at a cost of approximately £2,000 per annum;

  3.2 Between 1986 and 1990, we spent £79,000 consolidating the main entrance tower and repairing a collapsed sea wall, as well as carrying out routine maintenance;

  3.3 Between 1991 and 1994, we carried out routine maintenance at a cost of about £1,000 per annum;

  3.4 Over the next five years, we plan to undertake another phase of consolidation work which we expect will cost about £15,000 to £20,000 per year.

  I am sorry that precise annual figures are not immediately available but I hope that this letter provides the information which you need. Please let me know if I can help further.

  Transplant Operations
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many heart transplants were carried out in Scotland in the calendar year 1994;

  (2) how many patients were referred outside Scotland for consideration of heart, lung or heart-lung transplant in the calendar years 1993 and 1994;

  (3) how many patients were operated on outside Scotland for heart, lung or heart-lung transplant in the calendar years 1993 and 1994.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  During the period January-October 1994, 14 heart transplant operations were carried out in Scotland. The figure is provisional and data for November and December are not yet available.

  Information about the number of patients either referred or operated on outside Scotland for heart, lung or heart-lung transplant is not held centrally in Scotland. The hospital to which a patient is referred is a matter for individual clinicians.

  Forestry
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what timetable he envisages for the implementation of his future policy towards forestry.

  Sir Hector Monro
  We are currently considering the responses to "Our Forests—The Way Ahead", which set out our conclusions following the forestry review, and will make an announcement in due course.

  Civil Servant Travel
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which airlines have been granted preferred carrier status for civil servant travel to overseas destinations.

  Mr. Lang
  The preferred carrier for any particular civil servant's travel will depend on the circumstances of the journey concerned and value for money. For regular requirements, my Department has entered into arrangements with Sabena for travel to Brussels and Air France for Paris.

  Right to Buy
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total value of discounts to public sector tenants in Scotland exercising their right to buy in each year since 1980–81, both in cash terms and expressed in 1994–95 prices.
  576
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is set out in the table for each full year for which data are available.

  £ million

  Year

  Value of discounts (cash)

  Value of discounts (at 1994–95 prices)

  1980–81

  37.647

  79.814

  1981–82

  73.290

  141.675

  1982–83

  104.473

  188.526

  1983–84

  130.756

  225.495

  1984–85

  137.929

  226.485

  1985–86

  130.145

  202.475

  1986–87

  139.921

  211.489

  1987–88

  257.497

  369.521

  1988–89

  425.120

  571.674

  1989–90

  513.940

  646.189

  1990–91

  420.089

  488.777

  1991–92

  371.803

  406.947

  1992–93

  376.111

  396.520

  1993–94

  355.854

  362.972

  Scottish Enterprise Loans
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what were the locations of the head offices of the firms which benefited from Scottish Enterprise loans and grants in 1993–94;

  (2) which companies have benefited from Scottish Enterprise loans and grants in 1993–94; and what were the amounts.

  Mr. Stewart
  These are operational matters for Scottish Enterprise. I have asked its chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Agricultural Arbitrators
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give a breakdown of Scottish agricultural arbitrators, indicating in each case the individual's stated profession.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Arbitrations conducted by arbiters appointed by the parties themselves are not notified to my Department. Arbiters appointed by the Secretary of State, following an application by either party, are selected from a panel whose membership was last reviewed in October 1993. I am arranging for copies of the full list of current panel members, with each member's stated profession, to be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will detail the guidelines issued to agricultural arbitrators in respect of(a) their basis of selection of comparable farms and (b) the number of comparable farms to be selected for the purposes of an arbitration; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Provisions for arbitration on the level of rent, including reference to comparable subjects, are contained in section 13 of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991. The Act does not, however, specify how the comparables should be selected nor the number. Given the great variation in size and circumstances of farms, comparables are selected by the arbiter in the context of each particular case.

  My Department does not issue guidance to arbiters beyond that contained in the relevant legislation. However, training by the Scottish Association of Agricultural Arbiters and the Royal Institution of

  577
  Chartered Surveyors in Scotland is available to all arbiters.

  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has carried out of the costs to tenant farmers associated with agricultural arbitration cases; what fresh proposals he has to brin'g forward to the makings of the scheme as laid down under the 1991 Act with particular reference to the introduction of a right of appeal to his choice of arbitrator in any given case; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The rate of remuneration for arbiters appointed by the Secretary of State is set by him in accordance with Section 63 of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991. It is a matter for the parties themselves to decide how they wish to be represented at the arbitration and the arrangements for awarding expenses set out in schedule 7 to the 1991 Act provide for the arbiter to disallow expenses incurred by the parties unnecessarily.

  There are no proposals to introduce changes to the provisions of the 1991 Act to provide parties with a right of appeal against the choice of arbiter by the Secretary of State.

  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many farm arbitrations were held in Scotland in the last five years, indicating the number of arbitrations carried out by each arbitrator; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Members of the Secretary of State's panel of agricultural arbiters were appointed to conduct 255 arbitrations in the years 1990–1994. The information on the number of occasions on which each member of the panel was appointed is set out in the table. A number of these cases were, however, settled by agreement without proceeding to an arbitration hearing.

  Member of panel

  Appointments 1990–1994

  R. Baird

  11

  F. Barraclough

  19

  J. Boyne

  3

  A. Bremner

  8

  D. Buchan

  10

  C. Campbell

  8

  I. Chalmers

  6

  G. Chalmers

  6

  A. Clark

  2

  D. Craib

  1

  T. Cruikshank

  1

  T. Donald

  10

  I. Douglas

  10

  G. Dunlop

  1

  J. Elliot

  1

  A. Elvy

  2

  T. Finlayson

  1

  R. Forrest

  3

  W. Fraser

  4

  W. Gourlay

  10

  N. Graham-Campbell

  3

  T. Graham

  8

  A. Gray

  3

  P. Hardie

  2

  I. Harley

  1

  J. Hunter

  2

  W. Ironside

  1

  J. Jones-Perrott

  1

  D. Laird

  1

  J. Lamont

  1

  R. Lennox

  1

  578

  Member of panel

  Appointments 1990–1994

  G. Lumsden

  5

  J. Lumsden

  5

  A. MacDonald

  1

  I. K. MacKenzie

  13

  K.F.S. MacKenzie

  16

  R.A.M. MacKenzie

  1

  J. McLaren

  2

  I. McLaren

  1

  J. McNaughton

  1

  J. Marshall

  1

  J. Maxwell

  1

  M. Milligan

  19

  C. Mitchell

  1

  J. Pattullo

  5

  D. Reid

  5

  T. Renwick

  1

  G. Robertson

  1

  J. Seed

  5

  J. Sharp

  4

  R. Shearlaw

  4

  J. Smith

  1

  G. Tait

  2

  J. Thorburn

  10

  P. Waddell

  2

  R. Walker

  1

  R. Weir

  1

  I. Wilson

  4

  R. Wilson

  1

  Set-aside Payments
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the number of farmers in Scotland who have not yet received payments under the 1994 arable aid scheme for land set aside from oilseed production for non-food use; how much money in total is currently being withheld; what is the reason for the delay in making such payments; and when he expects the money to be released.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Seventy-nine payments involving a non-food crop element under the 1994 arable area payments scheme, amounting to a total of just over £2.3 million, are being withheld. My Department has no authority under the relevant EC legislation to make these payments until the collectors-first processors concerned have sent the Intervention Board the necessary documentation covering proof of delivery and the board has given formal clearance for payment to proceed.

  My Department will make these outstanding payments as soon as the Intervention Board can give the necessary clearance.

  Electro-shock Weapons
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information his Department has in respect of(a) past and (b) present production of electro-shock weapons at ICL Technical Plastics in Glasgow; what approval his Department has given for such production; and what support he has given (i) directly and (ii) indirectly for the export of such goods.

  Mr. Stewart
  The Scottish Office does not have, and never has had, any information about the production of electro-shock weapons at ICL Plastics Ltd. nor has the Department ever given, or been asked to give, approval for such production.
  579
  Scottish Trade International, the export arm of the Scottish Office and Scottish Enterprise, had some discussions in 1993 with the company about the marketing of a range of conventional riot gear which had been already sold to police forces within the United Kingdom. No mention of electro-shock weapons or similar products has ever been made to officials. The company has not had any direct or indirect financial support from STI.

  Sheriff Courts
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was(a) the number of cases disposed of and (b) the number of custodial sentences imposed,each sheriff court in Scotland, for each of the past five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 16 January 1995]: The available information is set out in the table.

  Outcome of sheriff court proceedings in Scotland in 1989

  Sheriff court

  Persons called to court

  Persons with charge proved

  Persons receiving a custodial sentence

  Aberdeen

  4,989

  4,490

  556

  Banff

  481

  466

  27

  Peterhead

  849

  807

  92

  Stonehaven

  875

  806

  19

  Elgin

  1,383

  1,301

  112

  Wick

  545

  517

  39

  Inverness

  2,177

  1,990

  205

  Fort William

  650

  604

  31

  Portree

  278

  250

  13

  Dingwall

  701

  647

  70

  Tain

  503

  469

  19

  Dornoch

  225

  209

  4

  Kirkwall

  589

  554

  7

  Lerwick

  505

  493

  16

  Lochmaddy

  178

  165

  7

  Stornoway

  398

  362

  16

  Arbroath

  1,228

  1,128

  72

  Forfar

  995

  901

  52

  Dundee

  4,002

  3,393

  511

  Perth

  3,137

  2,790

  248

  Alloa

  875

  756

  75

  Falkirk

  2,544

  2,230

  211

  Stirling

  3,078

  2,711

  231

  Cupar

  970

  880

  78

  Dunfermline

  3,200

  2,828

  268

  Kirkcaldy

  3,876

  3,511

  384

  Haddington

  1,431

  1,282

  133

  Edinburgh

  10,766

  9,232

  928

  Linlithgow

  2,567

  2,347

  247

  Duns

  179

  170

  10

  Selkirk

  343

  315

  25

  Jedburgh

  461

  435

  45

  Peebles

  289

  276

  10

  Glasgow

  11,668

  9,763

  2,057

  Campbeltown

  446

  422

  35

  Dunoon

  542

  491

  49

  Oban

  611

  546

  33

  Rothesay

  195

  185

  28

  Dumbarton

  3,287

  2,836

  269

  Greenock

  2,169

  1,976

  542

  Kilmarnock

  5,106

  4,524

  838

  Paisley

  5,361

  4,455

  495

  Dumfries

  3,862

  3,439

  174

  Kirkcudbright

  688

  615

  58

  Stranraer

  1,035

  939

  84

  Airdrie

  2,678

  2,321

  444

  580

  Outcome of sheriff court proceedings in Scotland in 1989

  Sheriff court

  Persons called to court

  Persons with charge proved

  Persons receiving a custodial sentence

  Ayr

  4,045

  3,583

  356

  Hamilton

  5,215

  4,318

  642

  Lanark

  1,026

  893

  57

  Not known

  83

  20

  7

  Total

  103,284

  90,641

  10,929

  Source:

  Unpublished Scottish Office statistics on criminal proceedings.

  Outcome of sheriff court proceedings in Scotland in 1990

  Sheriff court

  Persons called to court

  Persons with charge proved

  Persons receiving a custodial sentence

  Aberdeen

  5,739

  5,116

  547

  Banff

  482

  464

  36

  Peterhead

  924

  882

  65

  Stonehaven

  851

  761

  19

  Elgin

  1,304

  1,212

  93

  Wick

  673

  608

  55

  Inverness

  2,386

  2,192

  228

  Fort William

  631

  569

  48

  Portree

  247

  225

  17

  Dingwall

  771

  730

  64

  Tain

  539

  496

  29

  Dornoch

  285

  260

  7

  Kirkwall

  562

  503

  2

  Lerwick

  561

  531

  11

  Lochmaddy

  207

  192

  3

  Stornoway

  390

  371

  14

  Arbroath

  1,302

  1,155

  78

  Forfar

  1,119

  1,011

  54

  Dundee

  3,452

  2,880

  384

  Perth

  3,072

  2,666

  272

  Alloa

  956

  852

  100

  Falkirk

  2,277

  2,026

  257

  Stirling

  3,225

  2,871

  199

  Cupar

  931

  854

  65

  Dunfermline

  2,443

  2,123

  218

  Kirkcaldy

  3,962

  3,614

  437

  Haddington

  1,229

  1,082

  98

  Edinburgh

  11,356

  9,557

  876

  Linlithgow

  2,658

  2,405

  217

  Duns

  234

  216

  10

  Selkirk

  425

  403

  37

  Jedburgh

  453

  428

  47

  Peebles

  290

  271

  12

  Glasgow

  11,103

  8,947

  1,874

  Campbeltown

  381

  333

  32

  Dunoon

  583

  536

  73

  Oban

  720

  621

  52

  Rothesay

  161

  155

  28

  Dumbarton

  3,389

  2,742

  218

  Greenock

  2,089

  1,918

  522

  Kilmarnock

  5,376

  4,628

  736

  Paisley

  4,951

  4,079

  467

  Dumfries

  3,189

  2,864

  161

  Kirkcudbright

  582

  523

  42

  Stranraer

  1,022

  937

  113

  Airdrie

  2,585

  2,169

  379

  Ayr

  3,514

  3,129

  334

  Hamilton

  4,804

  3,956

  458

  Lanark

  1,184

  1,026

  77

  Not known

  56

  20

  3

  Total

  101,625

  88,109

  10,168

  Source:

  Unpublished Scottish Office statistics on criminal proceedings.
  581

  Outcome of sheriff court proceedings in Scotland in 1991

  Sheriff court

  Persons called to court

  Persons with charge proved

  Persons receiving a custodian sentence

  Aberdeen

  6,199

  5,506

  610

  Banff

  528

  509

  41

  Peterhead

  858

  820

  84

  Stonehaven

  940

  863

  22

  Elgin

  1,339

  1,257

  88

  Wick

  558

  483

  33

  Inverness

  2,292

  2,076

  228

  Fort William

  606

  539

  53

  Portree

  206

  184

  8

  Dingwall

  809

  768

  73

  Tain

  525

  468

  39

  Dornoch

  272

  231

  5

  Kirkwall

  349

  324

  10

  Lerwick

  461

  440

  17

  Lochmaddy

  152

  140

  2

  Stornoway

  491

  450

  13

  Arbroath

  1,334

  1,203

  117

  Forfar

  867

  795

  70

  Dundee

  3,057

  2,441

  285

  Perth

  3,314

  2,947

  238

  Alloa

  918

  831

  72

  Falkirk

  2,344

  2,080

  220

  Stirling

  3,021

  2,658

  171

  Cupar

  893

  791

  91

  Dunfermline

  2,765

  2,355

  299

  Kirkcaldy

  3,731

  3,286

  394

  Haddington

  1,144

  1,049

  125

  Edinburgh

  10,770

  9,549

  954

  Linlithgow

  2,399

  2,179

  203

  Duns

  208

  191

  9

  Selkirk

  384

  361

  18

  Jedburgh

  483

  467

  28

  Peebles

  347

  328

  9

  Glasgow

  9,169

  7,435

  1,498

  Campbeltown

  308

  274

  24

  Dunoon

  584

  534

  62

  Oban

  556

  508

  64

  Rothesay

  134

  122

  13

  Dumbarton

  3,705

  3,085

  197

  Greenock

  1,699

  1,547

  395

  Kilmarnock

  4,184

  3,583

  645

  Paisley

  3,998

  3,274

  416

  Dumfries

  2,722

  2,497

  165

  Kirkcudbright

  552

  512

  48

  Stranraer

  1,200

  1,094

  87

  Airdrie

  2,390

  1,915

  315

  Ayr

  3,056

  2,669

  336

  Hamilton

  4,944

  3,976

  387

  Lanark

  1,200

  1,040

  78

  Not known

  49

  7

  —

  Total

  95,014

  82,641

  9,359

  Source:

  Unpublished Scottish Office statistics on criminal proceedings.

  Outcome of sheriff court proceedings in Scotland in 1992

  Sheriff court

  Persons called to court

  Persons with charge proved

  Persons receiving a custodial sentence

  Aberdeen

  6,106

  5,486

  745

  Banff

  493

  468

  32

  Peterhead

  733

  700

  58

  Stonehaven

  899

  836

  25

  Elgin

  1,252

  1,173

  71

  Wick

  595

  529

  68

  Inverness

  2,231

  2,092

  253

  582

  Outcome of sheriff court proceedings in Scotland in 1992

  Sheriff court

  Persons called to court

  Persons with charge proved

  Persons receiving a custodial sentence

  Fort William

  514

  483

  64

  Portree

  213

  196

  8

  Dingwall

  866

  813

  69

  Tain

  650

  578

  38

  Dornoch

  217

  196

  7

  Kirkwall

  383

  361

  27

  Lerwick

  369

  350

  20

  Lochmaddy

  170

  162

  6

  Stornoway

  347

  298

  14

  Arbroath

  1,324

  1,093

  96

  Forfar

  974

  893

  51

  Dundee

  3,787

  3,100

  460

  Perth

  3,088

  2,653

  284

  Alloa

  815

  717

  70

  Falkirk

  2,550

  2,296

  288

  Stirling

  2,781

  2,438

  311

  Cupar

  901

  810

  96

  Dunfermline

  2,437

  1,967

  227

  Kirkcaldy

  3,375

  2,973

  414

  Haddington

  1,122

  1,033

  126

  Edinburgh

  11,736

  10,385

  1,022

  Linlithgow

  2,569

  2,281

  169

  Duns

  214

  199

  5

  Selkirk

  412

  386

  16

  Jedburgh

  554

  522

  24

  Peebles

  384

  365

  7

  Glasgow

  10,133

  8,162

  1,838

  Campbeltown

  309

  257

  29

  Dunoon

  536

  499

  66

  Oban

  501

  464

  57

  Rothesay

  144

  131

  22

  Dumbarton

  3,458

  2,838

  325

  Greenock

  1,978

  1,709

  388

  Kilmarnock

  5,129

  4,272

  943

  Paisley

  4,194

  3,397

  525

  Dumfries

  3,486

  3,153

  178

  Kirkcudbright

  641

  589

  51

  Stranraer

  1,149

  1,040

  93

  Airdrie

  2,413

  1,907

  379

  Ayr

  3,834

  3,293

  447

  Hamilton

  5,503

  4,428

  539

  Lanark

  1,165

  1,009

  102

  Not known

  30

  7

  1

  Total

  99,664

  85,987

  11,154

  Source:

  Unpublished Scottish Office statistics on criminal proceedings.

  Outcome of sheriff court proceedings in Scotland in 1993

  Sheriff court

  Persons called to court

  Persons with charge proved

  Persons receiving a custodial sentence

  Aberdeen

  6,340

  5,649

  694

  Banff

  488

  466

  33

  Peterhead

  760

  710

  49

  Stonehaven

  915

  859

  22

  Elgin

  966

  902

  81

  Wick

  536

  493

  79

  Inverness

  1,991

  1,829

  256

  Fort William

  572

  536

  61

  Portree

  185

  167

  16

  Dingwall

  682

  630

  61

  Tain

  540

  471

  40

  Dornoch

  198

  169

  11

  Kirkwall

  335

  312

  15

  Lerwick

  340

  316

  20

  Lochmaddy

  237

  216

  9

  583

  Outcome of sheriff court proceedings in Scotland in 1993

  Sheriff court

  Persons called to court

  Persons with charge proved

  Persons receiving a custodial sentence

  Stornoway

  232

  206

  13

  Arbroath

  963

  832

  138

  Forfar

  1,021

  924

  80

  Dundee

  3,881

  3,009

  413

  Perth

  2,735

  2,289

  236

  Alloa

  716

  655

  85

  Falkirk

  2,747

  2,408

  257

  Stirling

  2,415

  2,143

  309

  Cupar

  935

  855

  87

  Dunfemline

  2,692

  2,291

  234

  Kirkcaldy

  3,461

  3,010

  469

  Haddington

  1,082

  988

  99

  Edinburgh

  11,292

  10,096

  1,346

  Linlithgow

  2,456

  2,218

  144

  Duns

  237

  219

  14

  Selkirk

  355

  340

  30

  Jedburgh

  517

  481

  46

  Peebles

  241

  233

  14

  Glasgow

  10,947

  8,650

  1,949

  Campbeltown

  245

  219

  13

  Dunoon

  569

  511

  58

  Oban

  444

  396

  50

  Rothesay

  125

  119

  31

  Dumbarton

  3,239

  2,650

  399

  Greenock

  2,027

  1,731

  521

  Kilmarnock

  4,122

  3,538

  943

  Paisley

  4,531

  3,580

  556

  Dumfries

  3,094

  2,664

  177

  Kirkcudbright

  588

  537

  51

  Stranraer

  925

  805

  73

  Airdrie

  2,644

  2,044

  386

  Ayr

  3,595

  3,087

  422

  Hamilton

  4,945

  3,951

  463

  Lanark

  1,046

  860

  88

  Not known

  455

  6

  4

  96,604

  82,270

  11,645

  Source:

  Unpublished Scottish Office statistics on criminal proceedings.

  Housing
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each of the years between 1979–89 and 1993–94 inclusive of the total number of completed dwellings(a) built for rent by (i) local authorities, (ii) new towns, (iii) Scottish Homes and (iv) housing associations and housing co-operatives, (b) rehabilitated for rent by (i) local authorities, (ii) new towns, (iii) Scottish Homes and (iv) housing associations and housing co-operatives, (c) built or rehabilitated by local authorities for low-cost home ownership, (d) built or rehabilitated by housing associations and co-operatives for low-cost home ownership, (e) built or rehabilitated by private developers through GRO grant for rent and (f) built or rehabilitated by private developers through GRO grant for ownership.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 16 January 1995]: The available information on (a) and (b) is published quarterly in the statistical bulletin series "Housing Trends in Scotland" which is available in the House Library.

  (c)No information is collected centrally on local, authority low-cost home ownership provision.
  584
  (d) The available information is given.

  Housing association/co-operative low-cost home ownership completions

  Number

  1981–82

  115

  1982–83

  244

  1983–84

  156

  1984–85

  63

  1985–86

  166

  1986–87

  79

  1987–88

  388

  1988–89

  89

  1989–90

  209

  1990–91

  319

  1991–92

  400

  1992–93

  475

  1993–94

  858

  (e), (f) The number of units approved is given.

  GRO grant unit approvals for:

  Market rent

  Owner occupation

  1989–90

  —

  123

  1990–91

  56

  1,059

  1991–92

  159

  1,228

  1992–93

  309

  1,617

  1993–94

  586

  1,534

  Independent Schools
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of independent schools operating in Scotland for each financial year since 1975.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 13 January 1995]: The information requested is as follows:

  Financial year

  Number of registered independent schools

  1975–76

  102

  1976–77

  99

  1977–78

  100

  1978–79

  98

  1979–80

  96

  1980–81

  92

  1981–82

  90

  1982–83

  90

  1983–84

  87

  1984–85

  90

  1985–86

  108

  1986–87

  115

  1987–88

  127

  1988–89

  121

  1989–90

  122

  1990–91

  123

  1991–92

  125

  1992–93

  116

  1993–94

  117

  1994–95

  117

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment his Department has made of the average household income of the pupils applying for
  585
  assistance under the assisted places scheme; and what is the average household income of pupils covered by the assisted places scheme.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 13 January 1995]: Comprehensive information on the household incomes of pupils applying for assistance under the assisted places scheme is not collected centrally. No details, for example, are held on the incomes of households below the threshold at which full fee remission applies nor of those applicants who may be successful in obtaining an assisted place. Applications to join the scheme are made direct to participating schools which must administer the scheme in accordance with the statutory regulations.

  Information which is available centrally shows that, in the 1993–94 school session, over 81 per cent. of the families of pupils receiving assistance had household incomes of less than £18,000 per annum, and just over 45 per cent. had household incomes below the £9,522 threshold for full fee remission.
  586

  Plastic Surgery, Ayrshire and Arran
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of plastic surgery on patients from Ayrshire and Arran is carried out within hospitals in the Ayrshire and Arran health board area; what action is being taken to increase the percentage treated in local hospitals; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 10 January 1995]: The percentage of plastic surgery in patient discharges of Ayrshire and Arran residents from hospitals within the local health board area rose from 56.8 per cent. in 1991 to 65.3 per cent in 1993, the latest full year for which figures are available.

  The Ayrshire and Arran health board's draft acute services strategy states the boards' commitment to purchase more plastic surgery services locally. A new consultant plastic surgeon post to be made at Canniesburn hospital in Glasgow will further impact on local Ayrshire and Arran services as the post will cover patient consultations in Ayrshire.

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.

Lord Steyn
The Right Honourable Sir Johan van Zyl Steyn, Knight, a Lord Justice of Appeal, having been appointed a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary and thereby created a Baron for life, by the style and title of Baron Steyn, of Swafield in the County of Norfolk—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Roskill and the Lord Mustill.

Organophosphates: Post Dipping Exposure
2.49 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they will not publish in full the final report entitled CVLS 50/93 DIAZINON: Post Dipping Exposure in Humans.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, the report referred to by the noble Countess was commissioned from the ministry's Central Veterinary Laboratory by the National Office of Animal Health as part of a commercial contract. The report is therefore its property and it is for the National Office of Animal Health to decide on publication and not the Government. I understand that copies are available from it on request and I have asked for one to be sent to the noble Countess.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. But does he recall that on 26th May 1994, in a Written Answer to my Question asking for the definition of a freshly dipped sheep, he said that:
"A sheep is regarded as being freshly dipped for the short period which follows immediately after dipping, when the sheep is still wet from the dip bath"?—[Official Report, 26/5/94; col. WA 57.]
The paper to which I refer states that diazinon is still present in the sheep's fleece after 10 weeks. One of the problems we have had is in ascertaining for how long protective clothing should be worn when handling sheep. Should not this information have been put in the public domain in November 1993 when the report was formulated?
Earl Howe: My Lords, a preliminary paper was presented to the Veterinary Products Committee as part its review in October 1993. The final version of the report is currently being considered by the committee along with other papers on the subject. The Government are awaiting its expert advice.
644
The leaflet issued to sheep farmers last year by the Health and Safety Executive and Veterinary Medicine Directorate called Sheep Dipping contains clear advice on post dipping procedures.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the House and the agriculture industry generally should be grateful to the noble Countess for pursuing this important matter in the way she has done. Can the noble Earl give an assurance that the report now under consideration will be published?
Earl Howe: My Lords, publication is a matter for the National Office of Animal Health as it is the office's property, as I explained. However, we understand that copies are available from it on request and in essence the report is already in the public domain.
Lord Carter: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether advice was sought from the Chief Medical Officer of Health before deciding whether there was a public interest element that required full publication of the report?
Earl Howe: My Lords, we have not yet reached that stage. Until Ministers receive a report from the Veterinary Products Committee, which they expect to do in the not too distant future, it is impossible to take a view of that kind. We shall certainly bear the noble Lord's suggestion in mind.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, in view of the range of medicaments which are now available for the treatment of sheep scab and which are much safer for humans than the organophosphorous compounds, will my noble friend the Minister consider the provision of an information document on alternative medicaments that can be used by owners of sheep when dipping them?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend raises a very important point. Advice is published by the Health and Safety Executive which draws attention to the products that are available apart from organophosphorous products. OP dips are, however, the only type of dip which in a single application can treat sheep scab and blow fly at the same time.

Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994: Costs
2.53 p.m.
Lord Hughes Lord Hughes asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their latest estimate of the cost of implementing the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, in his 1995 public expenditure plans my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland made provision for local government reorganisation costs of £41 million in 1995–96; net costs of £40 million in 1996–97; and net savings of £20 million in 1997–98.

645
The costs of water reconstruction in 1995–96 are estimated to be £11.4 million.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, given that the figures for the estimated costs given by CoSLA range between £124 million and £199 million, does the Minister agree that the figure likely to arise will be at the very best somewhere between the £41 million that the Government are allowing and the minimum £124 million stated by CoSLA? If that is the position, what do the Government intend? Will they make an additional payment if it becomes obvious that £41 million is inadequate; or will they expect the shadow authority to go into business a year later on borrowed money?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I do not for a moment accept the figures that CoSLA has put forward. I shall explain very simply. For example, in Tayside, where there are to be three unitary authorities—Dundee, which the noble Lord once headed; Perthshire; and Angus—each of those unitary authorities estimate that they will be able to perform the task more cheaply than Tayside Region, covering the whole, can at present. I therefore do not accept CoSLA's figures. CoSLA allowed for a quite extraordinary number of redundancies and early retirements. It would be foolish and impractical if it were to follow that course.
I can tell the noble Lord, and I announce today, that the provision for the cost of local government reorganisation in 1995–96 includes £36 million for the funding of shadow councils. When my right honourable friend announced the provision on 13th December he said that he was still considering whether the funding would be provided by grant or by borrowing consent, as allowed for in Section 25 of the Act. I am glad to announce today that my right honourable friend has now decided that the shadow councils should be funded by grant—which was of course the option preferred by CoSLA.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the last part of that Answer.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is it not a fact that the cost of the changes to local government in Scotland would be much greater if some of the amendments that were proposed on the other side of this House had been accepted? Is it not also a fact that, in the long run, the ratepayers of Scotland will have benefited from these changes?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I have no doubt that after the third year—that is to say 1997–98—the council tax payers of Scotland will find that there are net savings to be achieved. What we cannot predict accurately is just how responsibly local councils, left to their own independence, will react. There is absolutely no reason why they should not achieve that saving by the third year. About £500 million to £600 million should be saved over the next 15 years.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, if, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, says, there will be tremendous savings to the Government and to taxpayers in Scotland as a result of local government reform in Scotland, can
646
the Minister explain why, if all those savings are about to accrue, the Government have decided not to proceed with local government reorganisation in England?
Can the Minister also comment on the disappointment that was felt by people throughout Scotland today on reading the press headline in the Scotsman that Lang had entered the race for the presidency of France—only to discover that it was not Ian Lang but Jack Lang, the former socialist environment Minister?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am bound to say that when I read that headline this morning it caused me a tremor of concern as well. However, I was pleased to see that it was Jack.
So far as Scotland is concerned, we are confident that if local authorities behave responsibly these very substantial savings will be achieved. A very real tremor of concern will have been felt throughout the business industry in Scotland at the announcement by the shadow Secretary of State, Mr. Frank Dobson, that if there were to be a Labour government he proposed to reintroduce business rates at local level. I cannot think that a single small business in Scotland will welcome that threat.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I am sure that everybody in Scotland will be delighted to hear that the cost of shadow councils' changeover period is to be met by central government grant rather than being added to the council tax.
Can my noble friend say whether local councils are now co-operating one with another in order to achieve a cost-effective and smooth hand-over from the old system to the new?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her welcome to my announcement. Since the Bill received Royal Assent there has been a sea change in attitude in Scotland and that is to be welcomed. Now that the councils know that £36 million is to come by way of grant rather than be imposed on them by way of borrowing, I hope that their enthusiasm for achieving a smooth transition will be that much greater.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, will the Minister accept that he made a very good announcement and we could not possibly cavil at it? Can he say whether there will be some kind of guarantee to local authorities that they will not inherit debts from other local authorities? If they do inherit such debts, will there be any likelihood of the Government rate-capping those local authorities who try to get out of the mess that the quite unnecessary Bill, whether or not he likes it, will land him with? He did not mention the cost of the joint committees that will be set up in order to make Scottish local government work, even with the terrible Bill that was passed a few months ago in this House.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the welcome he gave to my announcement. Clearly there will be successor authorities taking on the liabilities of their predecessors; but I emphasise again that if they act responsibly in this

647
matter the additional costs from the first two years will latterly be wholly overcome by the net savings that will be achieved in year three and thereafter.

Homeless Young People: Assistance
3 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal Baroness Fisher of Rednal asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will examine the operation of their programmes for the young homeless, including counselling and resettlement schemes, to ensure that assistance is given where it is most needed.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have a number of programmes which provide assistance to young single homeless people. For example, the Government's £180 million Rough Sleepers Initiative in central London is focused on the largest concentration of people sleeping rough. Grants are also available to voluntary sector organisations across the country which offer direct, practical help to single people in housing need. The Department of the Environment will shortly consult relevant bodies about what will happen when the Rough Sleepers Initiative ends in March next year.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that reply. Does he agree that the Rough Sleepers Initiative only operates in the London area and not in the rest of the country? Will he accept that last year there were approximately 3,000 young homeless people in Birmingham who had to be catered for? Can I inform him that the majority of them use the St. Basil's homeless organisation, which has been going for 22 years, and as part of its resettlement scheme has a resettlement centre to which people who have passed from them can return when they have not found a job or have other problems or difficulties? There is also a supported lodgings scheme. Can the noble Viscount tell the House whether any other part of the country has a supported lodgings scheme in operation? Will he accept that in Birmingham the scheme has made permanently available 65 beds in private homes for people from St. Basil's, the residents having taken those people into their families?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right. The Rough Sleepers Initiative is for central London. I know that she is a patron of St. Basil's centre and is obviously concerned with it. It is one of the centres funded by a Section 73 grant. I am afraid that I cannot tell her whether the innovative scheme of supported lodgings is repeated elsewhere in the country. I note that St. Basil's is one of some five projects funded in Birmingham to assist with the problem.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House how the figures compare in relation to rough sleepers in London and the accommodation available to provide them with sleeping accommodation if they want it?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Rough Sleepers Initiative has been enormously successful. We have
648
provided some 3,300 units of permanent accommodation, fund outreach work and resettlement support by voluntary organisations. The RSI has also significantly reduced the numbers of those sleeping rough in central London. The latest voluntary sector count in November 1994 found 288 people sleeping rough. That figure is down by more than three-quarters compared with similar estimates of over 1,000 before the RSI began. I am afraid that some people who sleep rough are very difficult to place.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in his reply the Minister emphasised most the London problem. Will he accept that it is a core problem for young people who make their way to London? My noble friend and colleague Lady Fisher mentioned the good work that is being done in Birmingham through local initiatives. She mentioned that there were 3,000 homeless youngsters in that city. Can I tell the noble Viscount that in my own city of Manchester there is a similar problem, as there is in other conurbations outside London? Does he agree that we must help those youngsters, give guidance to them and not lose control over them, or they may drift towards the less desirable parts of society? In those circumstances, if people come forward with schemes to look after such youngsters, will they receive the fullest government encouragement, both in a material and financial sense? Will they also receive encouragement at ministerial level?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, we have undertaken a recent evaluation through York University of the effectiveness of the Section 73 programme, since it has been running in its present form unaltered since 1990–91. We sought recommendations on its possible future direction. We received the University of York's report only in October. Ministers are anxious that the implications of the report should be fully evaluated before decisions are made on the way forward. I might add that well over 100 projects around the country are likely to receive funding throughout 1995 and 1996. That is in addition to continuing support for the national homeless advice service.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that the former Westminster Hospital stands empty and that it is likely to be subject to long delays with regard to planning permission and redevelopment? Would not this hospital provide an excellent base for housing, counselling and resettling young homeless people?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord raised a very interesting point. However, experience from the Government's winter shelter programme has shown that cellular office space is more suitable than hospital space for use as temporary accommodation for the homeless. This year we are funding over 330 places in seven shelters in central London from December until the end of March, with around 200 further bed spaces available in the event of severe weather.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that there is sufficient co-operation with police authorities throughout the country?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I do not believe that I should stand at this Dispatch Box and say that we are

649
satisfied. It is a very difficult problem which, in some instances, throws up hard problems to solve. I have tried to indicate the initiatives that the Government are taking to try to alleviate the problem where it exists. Co-operation between the local authority and the police is a matter at which we need to look. I certainly could not say that we are satisfied.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many young homeless people are still to be seen begging on London's Underground? Would he consider commissioning a study to find out the causes that drive young people to need to beg, so that passengers on London Underground and others who may be solicited by such beggars know whether or not they are worth helping?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, that is an interesting suggestion. It would appear from some newspaper reports—I do not believe everything that I read in the newspapers—that some of those who beg are not in fact in need of help.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, are the Government aware that some local authority housing departments go beyond their responsibility for housing homeless families and extend a useful service to young people who are homeless? The City Council in Manchester is an instance of that. Will the Government consider laying that as an obligation on all local authorities? If the Government are not prepared to lay such a responsibility on local authority housing departments, would they at least encourage them to engage in that useful work? I am thinking particularly in terms of the Westminster local authority, which has caused some concern around the country because of its housing policies.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the homelessness code of guidance issued by the Department of the Environment, to which local authorities must have regard, advises local authorities to consider whether young applicants may be vulnerable and at risk as a result of being homeless. Therefore the legislation provides an important safety net for those who are most vulnerable in our society and who are homeless through no fault of their own. But it does not and cannot provide a universal right to accommodation.

ECOFIN: Rules of Procedure
3.10 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the rules of procedure governing the functions and proceedings of the Economic and Financial Council of the European Communities (ECOFIN) contain, as regards the President of the Commission:

(a) his right to attend and participate in Council meetings;

650

(b) his right to direct individual members (including the president for the time being) as to what it is proper for them to discuss.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Henley): My Lords, the rules of procedure for the work of the Council of Ministers are set out in Council Decision 93/662/EC of 6th December 1993. According to those rules the Commission may attend and participate in Council meetings unless the Council decides otherwise. The Commission has no voting powers in the Council. Under the rules, the President of the Commission has no powers to direct individual Council members, including the President of the Council, as to what it is proper for them to discuss.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that satisfactory Answer, which is exactly in accordance with the views that I have always held upon the subject. Is the noble Lord aware that the second part of my Question arises from the fact that during the British presidency of the Council, at which the former Chancellor of the Exchequer raised the question of fraud and irregularity within the Community, the President of the Commission—whose mandate expires in seven days' time—indicated that he was not in order in raising the matter because it was a political question? In view of the utterances of the new president, who takes up his duties on 26th January, will the Minister ensure that a copy of my Question and his Answer to it are forwarded with a kindly letter to the new president, in the spirit of the utmost friendship, together with a copy of the rules of procedure of the Council?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am sure that I can leave it to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, to draft his own letter and send a copy of Hansard to the new President of the Commission. The noble Lord said that the previous President of the Commission interfered and told the then President of the Council—my right honourable friend Mr. Lamont—that he was out of order. I am not sure that that is correct. The noble Lord makes that assertion, as he made it last week when we debated the European Communities Finance Bill. If he looks at what my right honourable friend said in the debate in the other place, he ended by saying,
"and then Mr. Delors attacked me for being political by introducing the subject of the Court of Auditors".—[Official Report, Commons, 24/11/94; col. 961.]
I am not sure that that goes as far as saying that my right honourable friend was out of order.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it is important that the reply given to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, is well known? Though his Answer makes clear that they have no right under the procedures to assume these powers, in fact in the past they have given the impression of having these powers and to that extent have had influence outside their power of authority.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am sure that once the new President of the Commission receives the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, with a copy of

651
today's Hansard, he will be in no doubt whatever about what rules apply in terms of the conduct of a Council of Ministers meeting.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many of us believe that the President of the Commission should be a civil servant and act as such? The present President of the Commission—and the past one—is behaving like a dictatorial policy-maker in threatening the British Government that they must—his word was "must"—carry on and support further European political, economic and monetary integration. Does not the noble Lord agree that it is time that the British Government slapped the President of the Commission down and told him that policy is a matter for the Council of Ministers and, in so far as this country is concerned, for the properly elected British Government and Parliament?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can agree more or less with most of what the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, says. However, the President of the Commission has his own role to play and it would be wrong to denigrate him merely to the position of a civil servant, as the noble Lord implies. He has the power to request a meeting of the Council, as does any member state, and the Commission has the same right as member states for a submission of items for inclusion in the agenda of the Council meetings. However, as the noble Lord rightly stresses, in the end it is a matter for the Council of Ministers as the final deciding body to make the appropriate decision.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, are the Government aware that the President of the Commission and the Commission have their own rights and duties under the treaty to which the Government are an adherent? In that sense the president is not simply a civil servant. Is the Minister aware also that the president elect, in his speech yesterday, was expressing the general view of the developments ahead of the Community and at the very heart of the Community? Would it not be better for the Government to get themselves there as well?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I believe that the Government are there. But this is not the time to enjoin in the discussion into which the noble Lord wishes to draw me. In answering the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, I said that the president and the Commission had their own roles to play, as set out in the treaty. I was not seeking to denigrate that. But in the end it is the Council of Ministers who makes decisions.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that he used the word "denigrate" when referring to a person who may be deemed to be a civil servant? Is he aware that he may have an uncomfortable time when he returns to his Ministry unless he rectifies what he said?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall look carefully at what I said. I am grateful to the noble Lord for drawing that point to my attention. I hope that that interpretation cannot be put on what I said and if such an interpretation
652
can be placed on it by a wily lawyer like the noble Lord, I shall be the first to withdraw any intention that it should have such a meaning.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, does not the noble Lord repeat his denigration by referring to me as a "wily lawyer"?
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Mr. Lamont's comments in another place are a rare insight for your Lordships' House into the workings of ECOFIN? Can the Minister tell us what is the current role of ECOFIN in the so-called surveillance of British economic policy? Does that surveillance extend to any attempt to co-ordinate economic policies within the Union?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord describes my right honourable friend's remarks on that occasion as,
"a rare insight … into the workings of ECOFIN".
I can only say that that point was dealt with by my right honourable friend the Chancellor when he responded to his right honourable friend Mr. Lamont by saying that things have certainly moved on rather a lot since then, particularly in relation to the attitude of ECOFIN—if I can go slightly beyond the noble Lord's question—to matters of fraud which it takes more seriously than it appeared to do at the time to which my right honourable friend Mr. Lamont was referring.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, my question was particularly directed at the role of ECOFIN in its surveillance role in respect of British economic policy. Its role in commenting on and affecting the economic stance of the country in general was what I wanted to probe the Minister about.
Lord Henley: My Lords, if the noble Lord will bear with me, I believe that that is a different Question from the one we are debating today. I was dealing with the point he made in regard to how the workings of ECOFIN have changed since the time of Mr. Lamont.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord wise in delegating to me personally the task of writing to the new President of the Commission? Is he aware that if I do write to the new president, particularly after his remarks yesterday which were an indirect attack upon the British Prime Minister, I shall be bound to advise him, as an aged practitioner in politics myself, that it is most unwise to kick away the ladder by which you climb?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I would rather not be drawn on the wisdom of asking the noble Lord to write to the new President of the Commission. But I am sure that he will find a way of writing a letter in the same polite terms as he asks Her Majesty's Government to write it in. I am sure that he is quite a master at writing such a letter.

Local Authority Services
3.20 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbletonrose to call attention to problems faced by local authorities in providing the services their communities need; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to have the opportunity to move this Motion, which stresses the importance of local authorities having the resources to meet the needs of the people in the communities that they serve. There is no doubt that the quality and quantity of services provided by local authorities throughout Great Britain affect the quality of life of every single man, woman and child. I do not need to remind your Lordships that an adequate fire and public protection service, an adequately maintained road network, and street lighting together with social services and education are critically important to the lives we live.
In speaking to the Motion, I shall concentrate on three aspects of this issue. First, I wish to call attention to the financial problems facing local government on a national basis and to draw the attention of your Lordships to the fact that local government is faring badly in terms of the generality of government proposals for public expenditure next year. Whereas general government expenditure and the control total will rise by 3.3 per cent. and 2.4 per cent. respectively, local government will face a cash freeze. An example of this unequal treatment in funding is that the health programme will increase by 4.1 per cent., but personal social services budgets will increase by only 0.3 per cent. The implications of this cash freeze are likely to be severe, with authorities having no ability to respond to the increased demands placed upon them. The result of the reduction in the grant element of resources available to local authorities will be cuts in services and, with a reduction in central government grant, an increase in council tax.
The figures I shall use refer to local government expenditure proposals for next year and relate specifically to England; but I know that similar problems face colleagues in local government in Wales and Scotland. One problem is that the Government calculate and announce their increase in expenditure for the coming year basing it not on what local authorities currently spend to provide services to meet the needs of their communities but by comparison with the figure that the Government think they ought to have spent in the current year. That is not a fair comparison in terms of evaluating the quality and quantity of services local authorities will be able to provide in the coming year.
Next year's proposals for local authority expenditure across the country will allow authorities to increase their expenditure against this year by only 0.5 per cent. There are variations as that is an average figure; but I know that 28 out of 39 shire counties in England are faced with that prospect. That figure pays no regard to the fact that there will be 110,000 additional pupils in the schools provided by local education authorities. That figure pays no regard to the increase in the number of elderly people in the community and the pressures on
654
local authorities that will be caused by the inevitable inflationary increase due to pay and price increases, neither of which has been reflected in the figures suggested by the Government for local authority expenditure next year.
That is in direct conflict with the fact that the Government themselves, through their own assessment, are assuming that there will be an increase in inflation next year. There will be assumptions in the figures that have been agreed and discussed between local authorities and the Secretary of State and his officials on the financial calculations for next year. Those include an acceptance by local authorities and local government as a whole that, in line with the audit figure suggestions that are made annually, there will be a £250 million saving through increased efficiency. That programme rolls on from year to year.
Perhaps it would be appropriate at this stage for me to refer (as one of the speakers who follows me may refer to it) to the Audit Commission report that was published on Wednesday of last week. The report claims that the commission had surveyed those it viewed as managers in local government. I am aware that the local authority associations have never failed to pay serious regard to such reports. The local authority associations have agreed with the Secretary of State to a meeting with the Audit Commission to look at the contents of that report. However, even at this early stage, it is quite apparent that the Audit Commission, in taking £18,000 and above as a salary cut-off point to determine who is a manager rather than a service provider, has failed to acknowledge that using that figure will bring in senior librarians, environmental health officers and a range of those who are direct service providers in local government. However, notwithstanding acknowledgement that there is a need to consider the report in detail, that does not negate the Motion standing before the House today.
The implications for services of such a level of expenditure and an increase limited to 0.5 per cent. in local authority budgets can be seen across a range of services. It is quite clear that there is not adequate funding to meet the needs of the 110,000 new pupils coming into our schools. This year saw a further worsening in the pupil-teacher ratio. Next year no money will be available to local authorities to meet the teachers' pay award and the increased costs, through inflation, of providing a similar level of education service for the children in our schools. The only thing that can happen, our school governors warned, is that class sizes across the country will worsen yet again.
Other speakers will no doubt refer to the increased pressures on local authorities as a direct result of new statutory duties placed on local government. One example can be cited in the field of education—namely, the special educational needs provisions—which are welcomed by all but which cannot be delivered without additional expenditure and for which adequate additional finance has not been provided. To review, assess and provide a statement of a child's special educational needs takes time and money. The process of statementing alone has meant the recruitment of

655
additional educational psychologists, many of whom incidentally, because of their level of experience, will he in that group earning more than £18,000 per annum.
As your Lordships are aware—because I have heard the subject mentioned in many contributions to debates since I became a Member of your Lordships' House—one further example of the pressures on local authorities is the care in the community legislation. There is a tragic side to the increased pressure to try to meet the needs of the community in those areas where local authorities deal with statutory services. Those local government functions which are discretionary come under even greater pressure. I refer in particular to discretionary awards. A Question was asked in this House earlier this week about the 21-hour rule. The Minister who replied referred to the role of local authorities in paying awards to people who wish to seek vocational qualifications. For non-advanced vocational qualifications awards have to be met in full by the local education authority. However, if local education authorities are faced with ever larger classes in primary schools, they cannot then afford to meet the discretionary areas of activity and provide discretionary awards so that adults who are under-qualified and unemployed can play a full role in society.
There is also the problem of reductions in public expenditure on housing. I refer to the massive reduction in the amount of money that is available for social housing through housing corporations. I understand that originally it was the Government's intention that some local authority social housing needs could be met by money from the housing association sector. However, that money is to be reduced inexorably, year on year, by 25 per cent. I appeal to your Lordships that if we really want to uphold family life, we must accept the responsibility to make resources available so that families can live in civilized conditions and children can grow up in a household where families are not under pressure from overcrowding and multiple occupancy. Many examples could be given to illustrate the problems.
I shall conclude by referring to democracy. Central government has a responsibility to accept that the relationship between communities and the councils they elect is little short of sacrosanct in a genuinely democratic society. Any central government which arrogates to itself powers to appoint people to serve as placemen and women to replace those elected councillors do so at their peril. That erodes democratic accountability.
Local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales are responsible organisations, but they face an almost impossible task in providing the services that their communities need, rather than desire, in order to have a civilized quality of life. If care in the community cannot be properly funded to meet people's needs, the solution is not for those services to be carried out by somebody who is appointed rather than elected. We should respect
656
the role of local government, and it should receive its fair share of national resources and national public expenditure. I beg to move for Papers.
3.34 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the whole House will be grateful to the noble Baroness for providing the opportunity to debate this important Motion today, and will have been very interested by the way in which she introduced the subject. The noble Baroness holds an office which I held formerly. Therefore, at one and the same time we are old friends, old colleagues and indeed, old antagonists. I hope that that explains our relationship sufficiently.
Of course local government has problems. But one only has to read the daily financial press to realise that every country in the world has its financial problems. One has only to look at any daily newspaper to realise that our own Government have their financial problems. Business and commerce constantly have problems. It could be argued that compared with business and commerce local government has done rather well in recent years. Many businesses have had to close altogether, a matter which we all regret. I know that in many businesses staff have received letters from management inviting them to take 5 per cent. salary cuts. Their opinion is sought, and they are invited to decline. If they are rash enough to do so the consequences are immediate.
That is a reasonable summation of the background environment. Therefore, while I accept that the revenue support grant settlement for local government for the coming financial year is hard and could be argued to be harsh in relation to the generality of government expenditure, in fact local government in general within the economy as a whole has not done too badly over the past few years. When I look back over the 28 years in which I served in local government the current regime seems particularly hard, because during that period expenditure rose by 12½ per cent. annually, year in and year out. That is an average figure. Obviously there were years when it was greater and years when it was less. However, that is the background environment. It is a problem which for a number of years central government—not exclusively under Conservative management—has had increasing difficulty in handling.
Despite the perceived attempt of the present Government to create a procrustean bed and squeeze local government into it, there is still immense diversity within local government, in a physical, cultural, economic, philosophical and political sense. Although I hesitate to bore the House with a few statistics it may be worth illustrating that diversity, taking as my source the CIPFA comparative statistics for local government for 1993.
Costs per head of population provide a reasonable indicator. Average amounts spent on education were: inner London, £484; outer London, £376; metropolitan districts, £385; shire counties, £338. The highest amount was £717 per head of population and the lowest was £280 per head of population. One was the borough of

657
Tower Hamlets and the other the county of East Sussex. One can immediately perceive the immense differences, which one would expect.
Social services have received a strong mention. Again, the figures are instructive. In inner London, the average cost per head of population for such services is £241.67. The amount goes down to £124 in outer London. The figure for the metropolitan districts is £109 while it is £74 for the shire counties. The highest expenditure is £507 per head of population—that is in Newham—and the lowest such expenditure is £58 in Surrey. Again, the cultural differences do not need explanation.
I turn now to the figures for refuse collection and disposal. It is a basic service, but it is one of the most important. Again, there is a similar range of figures, varying from £33 per head of population which, as one might expect, is the average figure for inner London, down to £4.45 in the shire counties. The highest figure is over £40 in Merton and the lowest is £1.24 in the county of Cambridgeshire.
One might have expected there to be greater homogeneity in the cost per secondary school pupil. However, there is again great diversity. The cost is greatest in inner London with an average of £2,635 per pupil, with the shire counties coming at the bottom end of the range with expenditure of just over £2,000 per pupil. The highest figure in the country was £3,207 in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea while the lowest was £1,698 in Suffolk.
I could go on in that vein, but I think the point is made. Despite all that is done, local government is still flourishing; it is still local and, wherever you go in the country, it is still different. The consequences of those differences and of the philosophical, structural and economic problems that arise mean that each authority will have its own particular difficulties and its own particular problems. They will be different.
I listened to the opening speech of the noble Baroness with considerable interest. It would have been immediately familiar to any chairman of a local authority finance committee who was meeting any one of his service committee chairmen during the construction of the council's budget for the coming year. Despite the increase in expenditure over my career in local government, which I have retailed, the point that I did not make at that time was that for the whole of that period we were supposedly cutting expenditure. Listening to the chairmen of the service committees as they appeared before me as a member of the finance committee, I heard that each of those reductions severally was potentially disastrous and that the services would break down. They have not done so.
Equally, anybody who has an experience of the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance, which is the consultative organisation in which local government meets Ministers from the Department of the Environment and elsewhere to discuss the coming year's finance, would also recognise that argument. Since I have done it myself, I know exactly what the arguments are. The old ploy of local government at this time of the year is to compare outturns and actual expenditure with
658
estimates. Local government consistently goes to the consultative council with comparisons of year-on-year expenditure. The Government quite properly go to the council every year where they compare their original estimate for that year with their original estimate for the previous year. The sadness is that ne'er the twain shall meet. Both sides are essentially correct. Local government has not broken down—so to that extent the Government are right—yet if one compares the original estimates with the outturns, one sees that they are different. That is not surprising. In the end, it is with the delivery of service and the quality of that service that we should be concerned.
Many of the problems relate to political philosophy and money. I find it slightly ironical to go back to my former local authority and to talk to my former colleagues who, despite the description of the overall situation of local government finance, now regard that authority as being awash with money. There is a certain delicious irony in the fact that after I was kicked out of office the council was given for whatever reason—and probably for a very good reason—an enhanced cash flow by the Government. I find that interesting. In fact, the council now holds a great deal of money in balances, which was not formerly the case. It holds those balances as an authority; and because it now gives its departments devolved budgets—a new departure to make them more financially responsible—the departments hold cash balances. Schools with devolved budgets also hold cash balances. Aside from everything else, that raises the question of how best those sums of money should be used.
Particular mention has been made of personal social services and funding. On a strict year-on-year comparison there is almost no enhancement of funding for the coming financial year, but the special transitional grant is continuing next year at the rate of £647.6 million and personal social services departments will have a total of about 11 per cent. in additional funds to dispose of in relation to care in the community and the provision of personal social services.
The Audit Commission report to which I should like to refer is not that which the noble Baroness called into account. I refer to the report Taking Stock, Progress with Community Care of December 1994, which assesses progress in the development of community care. The report contains two chilling statements. Paragraph 31 states:
"It is particularly worrying that some Authorities audited were unable to assemble the sort of information needed to check the financial implications of placements already made, let alone explore possible options for tackling projected overspending. These Authorities could be heading for difficulty without a clear idea of what is going wrong or why!"
I could go on, but time prevents me, so I shall say simply that local government is strong and healthy. Its situation is not as bad as the noble Baroness portrayed it to be.
3.47 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, as a mere London borough council leader I find it a little daunting to follow two such distinguished Chairs of the Association of County

659
Councils, but I shall do my best. I start by joining the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, in paying tribute to and thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, for initiating today's debate. We have served together on a number of local authority bodies both in this country and in Europe. The noble Baroness is always a passionate advocate for local government, so it comes as no surprise to me that she has chosen this subject for what I believe is the first debate that she has initiated in this House. I welcome that.
Now is a particularly opportune time to be having such a debate. The Government are currently consulting (in their customary manner) on the settlement, and local authorities throughout the land are wrestling with ever-more difficult and severe budget cuts. As I have said, this is a particularly good time for the debate. I am sure that reference will be made to a number of the tangible effects of what has been happening year after year in local government. Indeed, that has already been mentioned.
I should like to start, however, by referring to some of the less tangible effects. They may be more difficult to measure, but they are nonetheless very real. Local government in this country is facing a period of enormous change. Some of that change is for the good and the better and is generally welcomed by everybody; some of it is not. Nevertheless, change is always unsettling. People are never quite sure whether the risk of losing what they have is worth the rather less obvious benefits of what they might get. So it is always difficult and a challenge to go through change. We are also in a period of ever-increasing public expectations, especially of local authorities—public expectations encouraged by central government, but often rightly so. Yet, at the same time, almost every local authority faces a period of ever-diminishing resources with which to meet the challenge of change and all those increased public expectations.
I want to pay tribute to local government staff who, on the whole, do their best to meet that challenge, and try still to be creative in doing so; but my impression is that their morale is at rock bottom. People are worrying increasingly not just about their jobs but about the services of which they feel so proud. They are faced with making ever more difficult decisions. Local councillors wonder increasingly why they volunteer to inflict such pain upon themselves and upon others when their powers are constantly being diminished. Those are not tangible effects which are easy to measure, but they are real and dangerous to the health of our democracy and the fabric of our society.
In my few minutes, I want to dwell on just one particular aspect of the subject. As a council leader there are many upon which I would wish to dwell, but I shall talk about one only, and that is education. For those local authorities that are LEAs, it is usually the largest part of their budget. It is usually stated to be the priority, or certainly one of them, for most people and all political parties. In Sutton (my own council) the schools budget alone represents 40 per cent. of the total council budget. Our small London borough is now looking at cuts of £8 million for the fifth year running. It is difficult
660
to make cuts of that magnitude for the fifth year running without affecting that 40 per cent. of the budget that relates to schools.
Nevertheless, education has been a stated priority for all parties, and one would like to think that it has been relatively protected in the round of cuts, and to some extent that is true: it has been relatively protected because local authorities, including mine, have sought to make their cuts elsewhere than in schools. They have cut the central departments of the education department considerably. Reference has been made to cuts in discretionary funding, and that is serious. They have tried to protect schools. Yet we need to look at what has happened with our schools budgets.
The Government like to talk in global figures, and in global figures to show an actual increase in funding for schools, but that is masked by the rise in the number of pupils. A rather better measure about which the Government are singularly reluctant to speak, is the standard spending assessment per pupil. There we find that next year, as compared with this year, for primary schools there will be an actual cut on average of 2.5 per cent. per pupil; in secondary schools there will be a cut of nearly 7 per cent. per pupil. There will be a £194 per pupil cut in funding for secondary schools. Those are average figures. As with any average, they disguise figures which are very much worse.
I wish to illustrate that point with some figures from my own authority. That is not to use the House for special pleading, but because it happens to be the authority that I know best. Sutton's SSA for secondary education this year is £2,916 per pupil. Next year—assuming the settlement goes ahead—it will be £2,727 per pupil. That is a cut of £189 per pupil before we have taken any account of inflation, teachers' pay awards, increased demands, and so on. That is a strange way of showing a priority for education.
Recoupment is ending next year. That will have almost disastrous effects on boroughs such as mine, which is a substantial importer of children. That may be because my authority seems always to come near the top of the much disputed examination league tables. We import 2,400 pupils to our schools from outside the borough; 1,100 of those are secondary school children from the next door borough of Croydon. Yet Croydon will be allowed to spend £129 more per pupil on educating those children if they remain in Croydon than if they cross the borough boundary and come to Sutton.
When we met the Secretary of State last week at the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance (the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, was also there) he said that he was anxious to put right all the "technical errors, quirks and stupidities"—those were his words—in the settlement. That is one stupidity that I hope he will put right this year rather than next year.
We all know that it has been a tough settlement for local government this year. One might perhaps say that this year is a one-off, so we need to look at the cumulative effect on the per pupil SSA over the years. Comparing 1992–93 with 1995–96, funding per pupil has fallen in real terms by 2.5 per cent. in primary schools and nearly 11 per cent. in secondary schools—again, a strange way to show priority for education. That is not

661
the end of it. We are already told that for the next three years the local government settlement will be even worse. There will be 3 per cent. cuts in real terms. The Audit Commission has calculated that if community care is taken out of that, the cuts will be 6 per cent. in real terms. As education forms such a substantial part of local government expenditure, it cannot be immune from the effects of such severe cuts.
I said earlier that local authorities have done their best to avoid hitting schools with these cuts by making cuts elsewhere in the budget; but, even so, if we look at class sizes and compare what has happened—the most recent figures available are to January 1994—with the position in January 1992, just two years previously, we see that the number of primary school classes of over 30 has risen by 19 per cent. There are 173,676 more children now in primary school classes of over 30. That number has now reached over 1 million for the first time.
In those two years secondary school classes of over 25 have increased by 15 per cent.; 44 per cent. of all secondary school children are now in classes of over 25. If you ask any teacher—I happen to be married to a teacher—what is most important, they will always say that it is class size. There has been some questioning of that, but I have yet to meet a teacher, or anyone who has been a teacher, who says that class size is unimportant. With smaller classes pupils can be given the individual attention that is so necessary, and yet our classes are becoming larger and larger by the year.
Shortly before Christmas the Minister of State for Education said:
"The plea from LEAs that they do not have enough money will not wash".—[Official Report, Commons, 19/12/94; col. 1514.]
It is the Minister of State's statement that just will not wash. The figures deny it, wherever one looks and however one interprets them.
I wish to conclude in the same way as did the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, with a plea for democracy. My plea, first, is to say to Ministers, "Please stop pretending that everything is all right when everyone knows that everything is not all right. But above all"—this is a plea that will fall on deaf ears—"set local government free" because we must return to the position where local councillors have their fundamental democratic right restored; that is, the right to determine the priorities that meet the needs of local communities, balanced by the level of tax and charges that they have to levy to meet those needs, and to be properly and effectively accountable to their local communities for their decisions. There will always be difficult decisions to take, but it is high time that local government again was allowed to take its own decisions.
4 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I too thank and express appreciation to my noble friend Lady Farrington for initiating the debate. I wish to concentrate my remarks on the emasculation of local authorities, which I believe makes it more difficult for them to provide the services that local government can and
662
should provide. My noble friend clearly outlined in detail the financial restraints against which those services have to be provided.
In 1979, Michael Heseltine, then Secretary of State for the Environment, pledged to sweep away tiresome and excessive control over local government. But 15 years later, with the passage of more than 150 separate Acts of Parliament, power has been shifted from the town hall to Whitehall, creating the most centralised system in Western Europe. Local government has become a means of carrying out the wishes of central government instead of being the voice of local people.
This Government, despite their protestations, have centralised power in a deliberate way. Power has been transferred from people in the localities to non-elected, non-accountable quangos and boards appointed by various Secretaries of State. These government-appointed bodies now spend more than £30 billion that was previously under the influence or control of elected local authorities. These bodies go about their business in secret and in this era of so-called open government Whitehall is stuffed to the gills with more than 100,000 secret files. Compare that with the innovative, flexible way in which most local councils have themselves decentra-lised their administration and involved their electors.
It is quite plain that as the influence of local representatives has diminished people are not clear who is responsible for what. In the past, if people wanted to complain about any local service they could go to their local councillor. That is no longer the case. They are, for instance, no longer represented on the governing bodies of grant-maintained schools, further education and sixth-form colleges, school-funding councils, housing action trusts and urban development corporations or bodies responsible for local bus services. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, I must point out that these bodies may still be local but they certainly are not accountable.
Responsibility has been fragmented. Therefore, for instance, in order to reduce crime in the locality a local group will have to liaise not only with its local council but separately with a range of other bodies, including the local police, the health authority, the local TECs and so forth. However, it is significant to note that of those bodies only the council and the police are obliged even to listen to local demands.
Realising public expectations is best achieved by local people having the power to decide for themselves how they want to live, what services they require and to choose who represents them in the provision of those services. The views of users should be aggressively sought and thoroughly considered. As my noble friend Lady Farrington said, we are talking about the quality of life of the people of this country.
The Audit Commission, in its guide to the Citizens Charter indicators, Watching their Figures, states:
"Everyone has the right to know how their money is being spent".
It is unfortunate that that is not the reality.
To paraphrase Sir Karl Popper in his book, Poverty of Historicism, the greater the centralised power the greater the loss of knowledge. Ministers cannot know

663
what the priorities should be in every community. Again I quote the Audit Commission document, Watching their Figures:
"No two councils are the same, there may be different reasons for the way services are provided in different authorities—differences between councils that are beyond their control".
We see again a further emasculation of local government by the imposition of the toughest financial settlement on local authorities since the 1970s.
Department of the Environment officials have made it clear that this reduction in aggregate external finance is a shift of the tax burden from centrally-raised taxation to council tax. If local councils follow the advice of government, and meet their standard spending guidelines, council tax bills for those in Bands C and D can expect an increase of more than £20. This is effectively a new tax on local communities. There was an opportunity to look at ways in which the tax could be made fairer. It might have been achieved by introducing new tax bands at the top end of the existing scale to differences in property values, introducing regional valuations to reflect regional differences in house prices and providing better arrangements for updating valuation lists and a better and speedier appeals machinery.
As has been said, no provision has been made in respect of the extra burden that will be placed on local government. The local government associations estimate that to be £1.6 billion. No provision has been made to cover inflation, pay rises or any further changes in local government responsibilities. No account has been taken of the extra demands on local authorities that will arise next year; that is, additional school pupils, nursery education and a rise in the number of elderly people requiring care. Nothing has been done relating to a previous debate on housing the homeless. However, it does include the cost of local government re-organisation and a 3 per cent. funding for police authorities, which is ring-fenced. As has been said, the net result is a virtual cash freeze.
The Secretary of State for the Environment, Mr. Gummer, told Members of the other place that the settlement was "tough" but that it was clear that many authorities had considerable scope to increase efficiency—a theme expanded by the Audit Commission. In the document entitled Paying the Piper, the Audit Commission asserts that during the past six years the cost of local authority non-manual staff has increased by 85 per cent. to £10 billion. It stipulates that if essential services are not to be curtailed there will need to be a cut of 10 per cent. in local authority wage bills. This is a direct result of the Government's three-year freeze on local authority running costs.
In reality, however, most local government salaries lag behind the median for the national pay market. The Audit Commission defines "senior posts" as anyone paid more than £18,000. Those in senior posts are not all managers; they include necessary front-line staff, housing officers, social workers, consumer protection and other officers. If local government is to reach the standard set by government it must have reasonably-paid, well-trained and motivated staff. The
664
Audit Commission needs to adopt some caution, in particular as, in its own words, it justifies at least some of that increase in staff when it states:
"There are very few services in local government which cannot justify more staff—the demands on services seem almost infinite".
So it is not argued that the growth in staff is not needed. The Controller of the Audit Commission stated:
"Councils have done well to cope with a formidable agenda of change".
But local authorities should not dismiss this report. They are responsible bodies and I am sure that they will not do so. It is necessary for them to deal constructively and efficiently with the increased pressures arising from new statutory duties and to continue the process that many councils have begun in streamlining structures, sharpening performance and finding ways of getting closer to the public.
In debating the finances of local government, one must look at the impact made by compulsory competitive tendering. The Association of District Councils, in its response to the consultation paper Competing for Quality, expressed the view that CCT is not always the most cost-effective way of ensuring service delivery. If the Government really want to assist local authorities they could adopt the ADC proposal that local authorities are allowed to draw up their own communal targets for exposing new areas of activity to competitive tendering.
The study carried out by the London Business School, which looked at the long-term effects of CCT, showed that after an initial saving of 20 per cent. in the first two years, the cost at the end of five years was up by 11 per cent., even though average staff members went down by 20 per cent. The reason for that was that a number of private sector contractors introduced loss leaders in the early stages of the contract. They will now disappear. It is useful to note that that study took examples of councils which put out contracts to tender in the early 1980s, before there was a compulsory element.
Despite many attacks on local government over the years and the starving of resources by central government, local authorities and the public whom they are there to serve have begun a debate on the quality of the services and the way in which local authorities react to community and individual needs.
In that context, finally, I wish to refer to the role of the Citizen's Charter. The Citizen's Charter is a useful contribution to a long-standing commitment to public service by most of those who are in local government. In the 1980s the Labour Party issued two policy documents on the potential use of charters and the introduction of a quality commission responsible for ensuring that local government provides value for people as well as for value for money.
For example, Sheffield was pushing for clean air laws long before they became fashionable. Leeds decentralised its housing service in the 1960s. York and Lewisham were pioneers of service guarantees and Lancashire and Derbyshire were acting to save local jobs and attract new ones.

665
The whole question of the charters and charter marks should not be seen as a substitute for the services which local authorities should be providing. We need to ensure that those services are well funded. I echo the joint statement of the three local authority associations by saying that vital services could be lost during this difficult year for local authorities.
While central government should set standards and have a responsibility for macro-economic management, they should cease their detailed interference in the day-to-day affairs of local councils. They cannot know better than local people and local councillors about the depth, degree and urgency of the needs of each and every local community and its capacity to pay for what it needs. That cannot be right—in principle or in practice. That interference does not make for responsible government; quite the reverse. As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said, let us set local government free.
4.12 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I join with others in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, for initiating the debate.
I wish to approach the debate from a very grass-roots practical point of view. Last week I visited Greenwich. A mental hospital there had been emptied completely and community care had been given to all the patients who had been in the hospital. I attended a party with those patients and they told me how they felt about being in a community rather than in the mental hospital, which has since closed down. I support entirely the Government's policy with regard to community care. I believe that that is the right policy for this country at this time.
This morning I visited the Royal Free Hospital. I talked to doctors, managers and social workers about the community care which is being provided jointly by the hospital and the social workers. In fact, it was a celebration of the health-related social service which was started 100 years ago. That service has been developed jointly by the Royal Free Hospital and Camden council. It has been a great success.
We should do all that we can to support community care. However, I should point out that I have travelled to many authorities and many shire counties have had their expenditure cut to such an extent that they have had to declare redundant social workers in their services. It cannot be right to have and support a very good policy on the one hand but at the same time to have the local authorities in a position where they are unable to carry it out through a lack of good staff.
It is very difficult to be a social worker. As regards the implementation of the Mental Health Act, one may be called out at night in order to help patients and to be with doctors if patients are being admitted to hospital. One has to deal with handicapped children, children in care and children who have been sexually abused. It is a very difficult role to play. Nevertheless, if the community is to be happy and balanced, there must be an adequate number of well qualified social workers.
666
I have great sympathy with city treasurers. They have to reduce their expenditure and very often incur feelings of animosity in doing so. Unfortunately I do not have the figures with me, but I am a vice-president of the Association of County Councils and I understand that there has been a serious reduction in the number of social workers in the country at the moment.
I turn now to the question of special needs under the Education Act 1993. That legislation was introduced by the Government and I believe that it was a very good Act. In particular, Part III which deals with special educational needs is excellent. I am sure your Lordships will understand that I could not get away without speaking about the needs of children. Many children in this country could have been helped and prevented from becoming delinquent and disturbed had we used the facilities which we now have.
I pay tribute to the many voluntary homes in this country which provide services for difficult and emotionally disturbed children who come from families which have disintegrated and which, therefore, are not able to give them support. But what has happened? If those voluntary homes are to provide a good service, it is expensive. I do not wish to say in any way that it is not expensive. There are vacancies in many homes in this country because the treasurers have said that the local authorities do not have the money to pay for children to go to those homes. Therefore, I regret to say that there is a rise in the delinquency rate; there are more disturbed children in this country due to the breakdown of families; and there is a rise in the crime rate among young children.
One or two years ago, I approached several people and begged them to set up secure local authority units. But the response that I received from someone who is well-known to your Lordships and who is a leading county councillor was that local authorities could not afford to set up secure training units within local authorities and under their jurisdiction. So what has happened? We have now passed an Act of Parliament which provides that secure training units are to be set up for children. The estimated cost is £30 million per year for the next five years for only 200 children aged 12 to 14.
I contend that if the local authorities had had enough money to set up secure training units over the past five years, it would have been unnecessary to spend that £30 million per year for the next five years. That would have been a more cost-effective way in which to proceed rather than waiting until matters became so serious that the Home Office felt it necessary to set up those expensive centres.
We should really look to see whether or not measures are cost-effective. I believe that by depriving local authorities of the money to spend on those children this country has had in the end to spend much more. I would suggest that we look seriously at our social services, at our community care and at our care for children taking into account the whole spectrum. We should also think about a five-year plan and not just a one-year plan. While resources for local government are being cut back, I believe we will find that at the end of the day we will spend more. That will not be in the interests of

667
the country. I believe that community care and the special needs mentioned in Part III of the Education Act 1993 are both valid and excellent policies. Let us interpret them and administer them in a cost-effective way over a long period.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, as she started off by making some interesting remarks about her grass-roots experience at Greenwich, and as she has a few minutes left of her quota, I wonder whether she would be so good as to elaborate a little on the feelings and comments of those whom she met at Greenwich—the mental health patients now in community care.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his question. I have three minutes left in which to speak. I met all the mental patients and had a party with them. In turn they were allowed to tell me how they had benefited from going into the community. The mother of one of the 17 year-olds said that her son had completely altered since he went into the community and into a house with only eight patients and a manager. She said that her son was now quite different from the person he had been when he was in hospital and living under a hospital regime.
4.22 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Farrington on initiating this debate in a competent manner. I shall speak primarily about what is called the single regeneration budget. It is one of the cutbacks in government that has a special connotation. The single regeneration budget effectively abolished 57 urban area programmes and brought them under one umbrella. Those urban areas are the most deprived local authority areas.
Not only has the amount of money in the budget been reduced but deprivation as a criterion for funding decisions has been downgraded. The urban area programmes benefited not only the community but also the area concerned. They helped to abolish deprivation. The hidden reductions within the single regeneration budget mean that the problems of socially excluded groups in urban areas must worsen. That is obvious.
I remind the House that after the 1991 population census the Department of the Environment commissioned a team from the University of Manchester to consider relative levels of deprivation in England. The work indicated that Birmingham was the fifth most deprived local authority in England and the most deprived authority outside London. Birmingham is a city I know well. I have lived there all my life. I am an honorary alderman of the city. If one interprets the figures, one can see that 52 per cent. of its citizens live in, or on the margins of, poverty.
If one studies the figures for the single regeneration budget, one can see that compared with Birmingham's funding of £28 million over five years, Coventry and Warwickshire will receive £23 million. Stoke on Trent will receive £27 million and Cannock £20 million. I remind the House that Birmingham will receive £28 million. I am sure that all the places I have mentioned need the funding and I say, "Good luck to them".
668
However, not one of those places has a population which is a third the size of Birmingham's. Nor do they have the level of deprivation of Birmingham, resulting from the Government's cutbacks. Therefore it would appear that the city of Birmingham is not receiving its fair share of the new resource. Those of us who live in Birmingham know that it is this Government's most hated local authority. At the previous municipal elections, on the night before the poll, a programme was transmitted about Birmingham. That programme was scandalous. The Birmingham newspapers denounced it as scandalous, as did the population of Birmingham. The programme was completely misleading. However, I shall not go into that now.
At those municipal elections two Tory seats on the local council were captured by the opposition. They were the safest Tory seats in Birmingham. Therefore the programme that was shown did not do any good as it was composed of lies. If my assumption that Birmingham is not receiving its fair share of the resource is wrong, I hope that the Minister will give me the figures to prove it. We, in Birmingham, believe that we are not receiving our fair share.
As regards the quality of overall improvements in the environment, the net impact of the introduction of the single regeneration budget has been to introduce a competitive rather than a needs-led regime. As far as I understand the position, the city of Birmingham is therefore not only bidding for funds for housing investment but is also bidding for those funds from a much reduced pool in which such investment is not seen as a high priority. Housing investment has suffered more cuts than any other public service. The new figures reveal at what great cost that has been done in terms of misery, ill health and homelessness. Local authorities used to have the power to build in their own name, or at least to a certain extent, but that power has been taken away from them. Local councillors see their responsibility on their doorsteps. They meet it day after day and week after week. The people who sit in Whitehall advising the Government do not see the problems and neither do the Government themselves. The Government would not know what those problems were about—this applies in many cases—even if they were hit on the head with them.
Housing investment is suffering as a result of these measures. The Housing Corporation's figures show that the number of dwellings built by housing associations will fall from 60,700 this year to 41,500 next year. An article on housing appeared in the Guardian about 10 days ago. It quoted the comments of Sir Michael Latham. I understand that he is the leading adviser to the Government on the construction industry. The Minister is nodding his head, so the Guardian must have got that right. The article stated:
"Latham is concerned about the proposed 25 per cent. reduction in social housing grants".
I repeat that he is the Government's adviser. Sir Michael said:
"The decline has gone far enough and the Government should consider an increase in funding".

669
The article added:
"Efforts by the Housing Corporation to work with the private sector have been superb, but now the going will get harder and harder. Falling levels of grants and reductions in housing benefit are squeezing the system too hard".
I hope that on this occasion the Government will accept the advice of one of their advisers. We do not consider only social housing at that level; we must consider owner occupation. A report was published last week which indicated an increase in the number of home owners with negative equity. It is a hopeless problem.
Does the Minister agree that housing is central to what the Government refer to as the "feel good" factor"? When government cut local authority spending, as other speakers have stated, it generally means cuts for people, children, the disabled, the elderly, ethnic minorities and individuals who depend on services. In many cases, local councillors can do nothing about it. They cannot provide the services because the money is not there, although they are elected to do so.
What a pity that the Government have no trust in the people elected at local democratic level. For some reason, central government find it hard to believe that local authorities can do things well. Public opinion polls show clearly that most people are satisfied with the provision of local services when the money is available and that the services provided are good. The only difficulty is that the authorities cannot provide more.
The Government appear to do all they can to control local government either with an iron fist or with handcuffs. They treat local government as some financial problem rather than an organisation in what we call a democratic state.
I conclude by saying, very sincerely, that even the Greater London Council—I supported that body so I use the phrase in context—at its worst could not have managed the government financial fiasco of the Welsh Development Agency, Canary Wharf, the never-to-be-completed British Library or the international hospital. Although that hospital was built in Scotland by a private developer, it is now being flogged on the market at half the price it cost the taxpayer. No local authority could be as bankrupt in ideas as this Government.
4.33 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I, too, wish to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, for the debate today. I begin by endorsing a point made by many noble Lords who have spoken, including the noble Baroness Lady Gould. Although not all local authorities have identical problems, we are all limited by capping and capping constraints. When I joined my local authority some 10 years ago it was still possible to take a decision to recommend to local people that by paying X amount more in rates they would receive X amount more in services. Even if we wished to do so—Surrey is notoriously careful with its money—it is not now possible to do so. There is no connection between the willingness, if any, or desire of local people to obtain better services and the ability of local authorities to
670
deliver those services. That is the democratic deficit which Government must address one of these days—if not this Government then another.
I wish to concentrate on two areas: highways and social services. Surrey has something like three times the national average of traffic on the roads, a fact that is only partly reflected in the allocation of SSA or borrowing permissions to the highway and transport part of our work. For example, while I much welcome the additional sum allocated for minor works in the settlement for 1995–96—that is to say, highway schemes costing less than £2 million—the £3 million or so available from the national Government combined with the gradual exhaustion of our own ability to provide large sums for highways improvements means that next year we shall still be spending on those schemes less than we did three or four years ago. All those schemes are dedicated to the Government aim of reducing accidents by one third by the end of the decade.
On another aspect of highways, we have set ourselves a target of reducing the percentage of carriageway with a residual life of less than five years to 15 per cent. That is the national average. However, by reason of the constraints upon our capital availability, next year we may not even be able to put into the structural maintenance of minor roads even that amount which will prevent further deterioration of those roads. Our success in achieving our objective—it is a rational objective—will be delayed even further. In Surrey it is generally recognised that the minor roads will receive the greater increase of traffic over the next few years since many of our major roads are already taking as much traffic as they can bear.
I enter into the subject of social services with some trepidation. Indeed, I would not have done so had not our difficulties in coping with our new responsibilities under community care been dealt with in the press and by the junior Minister for Health, Mr. John Bowis, in a most unfortunate, if not in some cases a misleading, way. Like several other local authorities, Surrey County Council has a crisis in its delivery of care in the community. I do not need to rehearse before your Lordships the number of counties which have had problems in that respect. That overspend reflects a sudden surge in clients presenting for assessment under the care in the community programme in the autumn of last year. That occurred to such an extent that there has been a 58 per cent. increase in the number of such clients over the projected number for this current year. It is worth noting that in the first year of care in the community, 1993–94, the inflow of new clients was also unpredictably erratic. It would be of great value if such surges of demand could be analysed and explained. We should then be able to manage our budgets better. The Government would do better to turn their attention to those issues rather than hurling insults at local authorities in the way in which that has been done.
Our director of social services has made great efforts to bring the budget back into balance while satisfying his legal obligations to purchase care. At least one of those methods has been controversial. I could go into detail but I am conscious that the debate may continue longer than it ought so I shall leave the detail. Suffice it

671
to say, when Mr Bowis was tackled on Radio 5 Live about that initiative on the part of our director of social services, he took the opportunity to suggest that all Surrey's problems stemmed from its failure to spend up to the SSA for social services. In fact some years ago there was a large gap between Surrey's SSA and its spend on social services. However, under all party agreement that differential has been gradually reduced and will be eliminated next year. Therefore in that respect Mr. Bowis' remarks were quite out of line.
Mr. Bowis also claimed—the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has repeated the suggestion to some extent—that next year the social services' SSA would be increased by 11 per cent. However, what both the Minister and the noble Lord omitted to mention is that the 11 per cent. increase in social services budgets reflects an increase in the responsibilities which the local authorities are taking on and which will not be incorporated into our SSA until next year. Next year we shall receive a further additional amount of money in order to take on new clients. So it is misleading to compare our spend plus the special transitional grant against our SSA and say that we are not spending up to what we should be spending. We have been spending what we were given.
Interestingly enough, in 1993–94 we served 2,362 new clients and in 1994–95 an additional 1,788 new clients. Most of them were people in high need because, like others, our budgets will only cover services to people who are in high need.
The annual underlying increase in SSA for Surrey, properly put forward, was 2.4 per cent. from 1993–94 to 1994–95 and only 1.3 per cent. from 1994–95 to 1995–96. Surrey has reduced the unit cost of its support for social services clients. The Audit Commission has commended our system of needs assessment as a model for other authorities and it has also commended the relationship which we have established with local health authorities in order to facilitate the transfer of patients and funds from hospitals to local authority care. In those circumstances, I do not think it is helpful that we should be criticised in the way that we have been.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, I support the policy for care in the community. I should, however, point out that early supporters of the approach, such as my own party, never thought that it would be a cheap option. Some of the clients to whom the noble Baroness referred—especially children—require extremely expensive care, whether or not they are in the community. The number of clients is rising faster than expected, as people understand that they may have an entitlement to care under the programme of care in the community. There is a high growth, particularly of the frail elderly in high need. There is also, sadly, a growth in people who are in need of mental health services.
What has happened is that the Government, faced with a high growth in their old demand-led budget to satisfy the needs of those categories of clients, have transferred all new clients from those groups to the care of local authorities, but have cash-limited the budget. It cannot be too often stated that that is the case. I hope that the Minister will pass on to his colleagues in the Department of Health the grave worries that have been
672
caused by his response to our difficulties, and, for that matter, the difficulties of other social services departments in other counties. I think that all county councils and county councillors, as well as people who deal with social services in other levels of local government—such as the London boroughs and so on—all of us, of all political parties, take our responsibilities seriously. We want to provide a service which is good value for money. I wish that the Government would recognise that that is the case.
4.43 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lady Farrington for giving us such a clear overall picture of the position in which local authorities find themselves, which is, to put it bluntly, less money available for more duties and responsibilities thrust upon them. How often from the Dispatch Box opposite have we heard, when we point out some problem or inadequacy, that that is a local government responsibility, that that is for local authorities to decide. The local authorities would like to shoulder their responsibilities, but often they just cannot.
I wish to concentrate on education. The local authorities have faced a series of settlements that seemed designed to reduce education spending in real terms. The Government standing spending figure for education in England of £17,204 million for 1995–96 is 3.87 per cent. below the local authority education budgets for the current year 1994–95. The Government claim that it represents a 1.1 per cent. increase, but in reality it means that the standing spending figure for 1994–95—which itself was inadequate—is not being allowed to increase in line with inflation or rising pupil numbers. Those numbers are rising by 1.5 per cent. a year. So the gap between the Government's assumptions for education spending and the real need to spend will continue to grow. Capping rules will limit increases in the majority of LEAs to a maximum of 0.5 per cent.
We are tired of hearing that the answer to this is in efficiency savings. These have long been used up. Efficiency savings—and I have read the Audit Commission report—of the order sought by the Government in practice mean not only the erosion of important though discretionary local education services, but also a continuing deterioration in the pupil-teacher ratio, leading to over-large classes in schools, probably with less experienced teachers. That is because less experienced teachers are cheaper. Over a quarter of primary school children are now taught in classes of over 30.
I intend to look at some of the effects on my own county of Cambridgeshire. The policy committee has done what it can to help the education committee. For instance, it has handed over £2.5 million for rising pupil numbers. It has given protection for Section 11 work through additional funding to replace the £300,000 withdrawn from the government grant and a further allocation of £0.5 million to address the growing problems of children at risk, especially those who are out of school. In spite of all that, there is no new money

673
to fund the teachers' pay settlement or the cost implications of the rapidly rising number of new statements for children with special educational needs.
The rising cost of providing for pupils out of school—a statutory requirement, your Lordships will remember—is something which we should be aware of. If the present trend goes on, the need will be £1 million not the £0.5 million allocated. This could only come from school budgets, meaning larger classes and making it even more difficult to retain children with behavioural difficulties. I hope that the Department for Education is fully aware of the problem that these children create in financial, educational and social terms.
Far from being able to improve the quality of home to school transport, there will have to be charges where there were none before. In September 1995, £25 per term will have to be paid by all new students at post-16 establishments more than five miles from home. A similar contribution will be paid for September 1996 in respect of all new pupils at denominational schools where transport is provided by the LEA beyond the usual two and three-mile limits. Admissions policy will be changed. From September 1996, all autumn-born children will start school in September of the academic year in which they are five, but spring and summer-born children will start in January.
I am particularly upset by what is bound to happen to community education and the youth service. As the Chief Education Officer said to me, there will be misery all round and the real prospect of community education as we know it coming rapidly to an end. As the county where Henry Morris was chief education officer creating community education in the village college, this is very hard to bear. Two million pounds will be left out of a £5 million programme. The effect on the youth service will be vast. At a time of concern about drug abuse and youth crime, we ought to be investing more in the social education which the youth service can offer. I understand that Cambridgeshire will be giving priority to the youth service out of the funds that remain. That is right, but it is devastating for adult education. The budgetary pressures on LEA provision were exacerbated by the transfer of funds to the Further Education Funding Council and the loss of the LEA infrastructure which had supported both adult and further education. I am now speaking generally, not just about Cambridgeshire.
The provision of liberal non-vocational courses has already been vastly reduced as the quantities of letters which I have received from irate, disappointed people over the past few months bear witness. There is outrage that the classes which have given them so much pleasure and made such a difference to their lives have gone or, if they are there, it is at a fee which many, as pensioners, simply cannot afford. Mental health costs may well accelerate.
I mentioned earlier the cost of providing for increased numbers of children with statements, and indeed the cost of providing for rapidly rising numbers of new statements. All who are involved with special needs welcome the recent code of practice. The new arrangements will be challenging, and rightly so. But to
674
rise to that challenge will require partnership between schools, LEAs, parents and central government—and adequate financial support. There is plenty of evidence of the former but the Government have failed to address the latter, arguing that the code of practice will be cost neutral. It will not. Without that support there is a danger that we might repeat the mistakes that followed the 1981 Act, which created many desirable duties but never recognised the scale of the costs that were attached to them. Parental expectations will not be fulfilled and disadvantaged children will not receive the support that they need.
DFE figures indicate a gradual increase in the proportion of children with statements to 2.53 per cent. in 1993. Evidence from the ACC suggests that the number now touches 3 per cent. In some authorities it is as high as 4 per cent. As the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, suggested, we need a thoroughgoing review of the relevant Acts.
Very important is what happens at 16-plus to children with special needs. There is a grey area of responsibility between the LEAs and the FEFC. The FEFC is responsible for funding courses to teach people with learning difficulties independent living and communication skills which prepare them for entry to other courses. But it looks for evidence of progress to justify its funding. Many are unlikely to be able to demonstrate such progress, and that leaves the LEA to pick up the bill. How are they to do that, considering the spending restraints that are placed on them and the transfer of the bulk of the money to the FEFC?
Another difficulty occurs when those young people transfer to the independent or voluntary sector. Funding responsibility can become complex. LEAs can be left with a bill for which they believe the funds have been transferred to the FEFC. The Tomlinson Committee, in looking at these problems, will have a lot to consider. There is no doubt that the provisions of the 1992 Further and Higher Education Act for students with disabilities or learning difficulties have not, in practice, created a clear entitlement for the student or a clear demarcation of responsibility between the FEFC and LEAs.
Finally, I turn to nursery education. The Prime Minister, the National Commission, the Social Justice Commission, Sir Christopher Ball et al have all made the case for good quality nursery education as underpinning the work of schools and of continuing education post-school. It helps reduce the incidence of pupils with special needs. Local authorities, despite tight spending settlements, have been increasing the availability of places for three and four year-olds. Government rhetoric encourages hopes for further expansion. But the spending settlement must dash these hopes.
The Government appear to be agonising not simply on how to find the resources but also on how to reconcile any development with their doctrine of choice and diversity. The simple answer is to allocate to LEAs whatever resources can be found, with the discretion to develop local solutions in the light of their knowledge of local circumstances. The wrong approach, with this

675
as with everything else, is to run round creating expectations while cutting resources so that the reality is less or worse, rather than more or better.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Harmsworth: My Lords, I, too, would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, for introducing this debate. On 15th December the local government commissioners for England made their final recommendations for Dorset. I believe that Dorset local authorities would face many problems in providing the services that Dorset communities need if the county were to become four unitary authorities. I hope that noble Lords will not mind my dipping a little into the future for the county, narrowing the focus of the debate for the time being.
After 33 years of travelling down to Dorset, I still regard myself as a foreigner there. I was born within earshot of Bow Bells. Although the war almost instantly resulted in my becoming an evacuee for most of the next five years, I suppose that in reality I am a true Londoner. I am certainly neither tired of London nor tired of life. If the famous saying of Dr. Johnson in 1777 needs any adjustment, it is probably to the extent that London no longer offers exclusively all that life can afford. I still find it odd that in the past six years of having my principal residence in rural West Dorset, I have possibly watched less television and have gone to more concerts, theatres, pantomimes and events, and visited more places than I did in the previous six years while I was in London, or in the six years prior to that.
I am strongly in favour of retaining the status quo for Dorset. I am no local government expert, but I am a passionate advocate of what I believe to be in the best interests of a beautiful and successful county. I speak very much as a layman. Not to put too fine a point on it, I really do believe that the recommendations that were made for the county of Dorset by the commissioners, through no fault of their own, represent a dreadful mistake. The commissioners had an almost impossible remit. But the splitting of a small to medium-sized county into four will make it hopelessly cost-ineffective and will result in a "them and us" position (rural and urban; east and west) which is wholly unwelcome—not to mention the higher cost of important county-wide services and the loss of, and difficulties for, some of the specialist services that are presently enjoyed, and to which my noble friend Lady Faithfull referred, as did the last speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady David.
The story is well known. The commissioners' draft submission recommended three unitary authorities, roughly comprising Bournemouth, Poole and rural Dorset, in what is a fairly narrow and long county. At the time the commissioners expressed reservations about a four-authority option, about basing the east-west split of rural Dorset on general arguments about orientation rather than on geography or identity. Concern was expressed about the fragmentation of this small county, where the transitional costs might never be recovered. The commissioners also took into account the view of the business community; namely, that one county-wide
676
authority, or one unitary authority, representing the integrity of the eastern conurbation and another serving the remainder of Dorset, would be best.
In the county council response to the draft recommendations, it is stated that a large number of residents and some local organisations expressed disappointment that the commissioners' household leaflet did not include the existing structure as a specific option.
The commission then undertook to ascertain the level of public support for its preferred structure of three unitary authorities, and also for an alternative structure of four unitary authorities, and to assess the wishes of the people of Christchurch and the parishes around Poole. They did so. MORI was commissioned to undertake a survey of 2,518 residents. That survey indicated that in all districts except for Bournemouth there was a higher support for no change than for either (the three or four) unitary options. It is interesting that in an exercise that has induced on the whole little but apathy on the part of those responding to inquiries as to wishes, the only significant figures relate to the plumping for the status quo, the highest percentage seeing no need for change being Christchurch at 43 per cent.
Last week I visited the headmaster of Colfox School in Bridport, in West Dorset. The school, one of the first comprehensives, is at last at the front of the queue for capital funding. It is in a dreadful state. It was built for 600 pupils. There are 900. Twenty per cent. of the classrooms are temporary huts held up against the wind by braces and warmed by headache-making paraffin heaters. It is a television producer's joy. When the winds blow at 50 to 55 miles an hour, or when the temperature drops below 65 degrees Fahrenheit, these huts must be evacuated. At last the county council has placed the £7 million rebuilding cost for the school at the top of the list. The children will get a new building which will cost the same as trying to put the present one right. The Government's annual capital guideline for the whole of Dorset local education authority in 1995–96 is £3,340,000.
If the county becomes four unitary authorities it is almost certain that Colfox school will lose this funding, as may such projects as the Weymouth relief road costing nearly £30 million—and that in one of the two counties of England with no external debt. Your Lordships will know that without external debt the council can apply all of the proceeds of its sales of surplus land and buildings to new capital projects rather than have to set aside half the proceeds to pay off debt. Furthermore, the council's capital programme is not constrained by government guidelines or the issue of permission to 'borrow from central government, all of which make a dramatic difference to the size of the council's school-building programme.
All of my children started their education in state primary schools, the youngest at an excellent one in the small rural village of Broadwindsor in West Dorset which had about 70 pupils. Rural primary schoolchildren cost roughly twice as much to educate as their urban counterparts. What will happen if Dorset's rural area is split into two of the four unitary authorities?

677
In my view, it is a racing certainty that rural primary schools will close and that, dotted about the countryside in small communities, the commotion—not least in the reorganisation of school transport already referred to—will be all-pervasive. If I may make a political point, this will come at a time that may be thoroughly inconvenient to the Government.
In my opinion, reorganisation of any long-standing and complex organisation in which many important personal relationships have been carefully nurtured over many years should he done only in cases of clear need for change. Already the exercise has put many of these relationships into difficulty. No very obvious upheavals in the county merit the disruption of a time-tested, adaptive mechanism to deal with local, supra-county and inter-county problems. Perhaps your Lordships' House provides an example of an institution that has adapted over time to need and, by any yardstick, represents a supreme piece of legislative and judicial machinery. So is the current set up in Dorset. It is not perfect. It is not so old. But it is quite clear from the consultation documents issued in this exercise that whatever option my right honourable friend the Secretary of State takes there are advantages and disadvantages in each. The present system works and the people canvassed by MORI want no change. My view is that the status quo provides a good answer to the different management requirements of the county and will preserve the delicate balances in and the delightful character of a precious part of rural England.
Even if there are examples of major changes that have taken place in Dorset since 1974 perhaps they illustrate the benefits of the status quo. Since the publication the commission's draft recommendations the Government have announced the closure of the Royal Naval Air Station at Portland in addition to the naval base. The commission has stated that Weymouth, Portland and the surrounding areas are suffering from the decline of the defence industry and that the area's future prosperity and economic development are likely to depend upon reducing its isolation. The maintenance of the status quo will allow the strategic application of capital funding for the area in a way that fragmentation into four small unitary authorities can never do.
Another major change that has taken place in Dorset in recent years is the success of the harbour facilities at Poole. The roads to the north of the harbour will be much better planned under the status quo where competing priorities for funding play less part. There are other areas where disruption and disadvantages are plain: waste disposal, minerals, library facilities, archives and wildlife matters. All are candidates for disruption, duplication, overlap and avoidable extra bureaucracy.
Generally, I am not as gloomy as noble Lords opposite, but for a combination of reasons and accidents the county of Dorset has landed up with the worst of all possible worlds. I hope that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will opt for the status quo. I am
678
sure that the local authorities there will be more cost-effective and better able to provide the services that the Dorset communities need.
5.5 p.m.
Lord Varley: My Lords, I am indebted to my noble friend Lady Farrington for initiating this debate. She made an extremely powerful case, and I support wholeheartedly what she said. Local authorities are indeed facing immense problems in providing services for their communities.
On 1st December last year I had the opportunity to promote a short debate on the standard spending assessment and area cost adjustment and the way that it is applied unfairly to the counties that form the East Midlands: Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire and Nottinghamshire. In that debate, I was supported by the noble Lords, Lord Boardman and Lord Kimball, from the Conservative Benches, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln. If anything, they were more strong in their criticism of how the standard spending assessment applied to the East Midlands than I was. But in reply to that debate, the noble Viscount, who will also reply to this debate, said:
"I hope that your Lordships will understand that the Government and my department have not closed their ears to the development of the area cost adjustment. If we see that there is a reason for it to be changed there is no reason for it not to be considered." [Official Report, 1/12/94; col. 785.]
On 3rd January of this year a deputation from the East Midlands was received by his fellow Minister, the Minister of State for Local Government, Mr. David Curry. I am pleased to hear that as a result of that deputation, a review is to be carried out about the area cost adjustment methodology and that that review will be for discussion with the local authority associations.
The evidence that money is being disproportionately allocated to the South-East and at the expense of the East Midlands has become extremely clear. I hope that the review to which the Minister has agreed will be undertaken speedily. Therefore, at least a little progress has been made on that subject.
I wish to concentrate the rest of the time at my disposal on the impact that government policies have had and will have on the services of Derbyshire County Council, and in particular the effect of the provisional grant settlement if no changes are made. Local government financial arrangements over recent years mean that in the main councils are now dependent on the Government for their funding. Some 70 per cent. of Derbyshire County Council's budget comes from government grant and the nationally distributed business rate. Only 20 per cent. comes from the local council tax, and the balance is made up from fees and charges.
The power of the Government to cap councils' budgets prevents local authorities from rescuing services by raising council tax levels beyond the limit laid down by the Government. Therefore, if the Government grant level is inadequate, or the Government make a mistake, or fail to rectify a mistake, councils cannot continue to provide good services and services will deteriorate.

679
The Government have recently announced provisional grant settlements for local councils, as referred to by my noble friend Lady Farrington, together with new capping rules. The impact on Derbyshire's budget next year is devastating. It means an increase of only one half of 1 per cent. on the existing budget, as has already been said. After taking into account inflation and other factors, it means for Derbyshire a shortfall of £28 million if it is to try to maintain services at the current level. Some may say that the majority of county councils are also limited to a 0.5 per cent. increase. But the consequences for Derbyshire are much more serious because of the previously enforced clamp down—or cut back—on services.
The Derbyshire County Council has had to cut £152 million from its budget over the past five years. Nor can it be said that Derbyshire is over-staffed or over-administered. Over the past five years, 2,360 council jobs have been shed through redundancy or early retirement. The sum of £43 million has been taken from reserves, which are now exhausted. The Derbyshire County Council employs 24 people full time per 1,000 of the population. The comparable figure for England is 30 per 1,000, so that six fewer people per 1,000 are employed by Derbyshire. Derbyshire spends 11 per cent. less on administration and support services than the average for all county councils. It is the fifth cheapest out of 34 councils which compile this kind of statistic. The average council tax paid by Derbyshire residents this year is £471, which is equal to the average for the country as a whole. As I understand it, the provisional grant settlement does not take into account the pay awards for teachers and fire fighters, which are negotiated nationally.
So to put in perspective the budget shortfall of £28 million, it is equivalent to the annual pay bill for the entire operational and support staff at County Hall; or is equivalent to the closure of 15 medium sized secondary schools.
All the services in Derbyshire have been cut back over the past five years from the vital social services to the fire and rescue services. But the real hammer blows have been on education in the county. Education accounts for 60 per cent. of the county council's overall expenditure. Over the past five years £15 million have been cut from school budgets. If the Education Committee has to take its share of the £28 million funding shortfall, another £17 million will be cut from the education budget.
It is easy to see what that would mean. It would mean a further loss of teachers, significantly higher classes, as has already been said, and a lack of maintenance on school buildings as well possibly as other economies. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, smiles at what I say. I do not think that there is anything to smile about so far as Derbyshire is concerned. I thought that in his speech he was extremely complacent and did not take into account all the other difficulties suffered by other councils throughout the country. I do not believe that his apologia for the Government was all that effective. What I find unfathomable—it is a question that the Government have not tried to answer even though they have been asked—is why Derbyshire
680
receives £248 less in grant support for every secondary school pupil compared with Hertfordshire and £274 less per pupil than Surrey. Perhaps the noble Viscount will attempt to answer that question when he comes to reply. I know that he will have a lot of points and a limited time in which to answer them but perhaps he could at least start to address himself to that particular question.
Between 1984–1985 and 1989–1990, under the grant related expenditure assessment system, Derbyshire was treated as an average county. Derbyshire had a 38 per cent. increase over that period; Hertfordshire had a 34 per cent. increase; and the county average for the country was 39 per cent. Hertfordshire is used as a comparison because in the 1980s it had a population similar to that of Derbyshire.
Following the introduction of the standard spending assessment there has been a marked deterioration in Derbyshire's grant settlement. Over the five years since the standard spending assessment arrangement was brought in, Derbyshire has received a 21 per cent. increase; Hertfordshire has received twice as much, at 42 per cent.; and the county average is about 27 per cent. Over those five years, Derbyshire's population has increased by 3.5 per cent., whereas Hertford's population has increased by only 1.3 per cent.
I hope that the noble Viscount, if he cannot answer those points today, will at least arrange for someone in his department to look at them as a matter of extreme urgency. Two weeks ago, the Minister of State for Local Government, Mr. David Curry, met a delegation from the Derbyshire County Council which was led by the Leader of the Council, Councillor Martin Doughty and the Conservative Leader of the Opposition, Councillor John Morgan-Owen. They were accompanied by representatives of business interests, chambers of commerce and the Diocesan Council for Social Responsibility in Derbyshire. I emphasise the composition of the delegation to show that it was not special pleading from the Labour Party but a genuine and sincere attempt to look again at some of the fearsome problems with which the county council is faced. Mr. Curry acknowledged that they were in a financially "tight" situation. That is perhaps the understatement of the year.
So if Derbyshire's standard spending assessment was at the average for the country, it would receive an additional £34 million in grant. Even if it were at the East Midlands' average, it would get an additional £21 million. I see that the noble Duke the Duke of Devonshire is in his place. I know that he does a tremendous amount of work for Derbyshire and Derbyshire's voluntary organisations from Chatsworth. I am sure that he knows at first hand what is taking place in the county.
This is a serious problem. I only hope that the Minister can answer some of the questions. Derbyshire has been badly treated and I hope that sooner or later those injustices will be put right.
5.17 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, this is indeed a fascinating debate. I share with other noble Lords the

681
gratitude that we must express to the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, for having initiated it in such an effective way.
We have heard that for this year there is an inadequate revenue support grant and major reductions in housing support. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said that local government is not broken. If local government is not broken, what are the Government doing trying to fix it?
It may be useful if, as the tail-end Charlie at this stage of the debate, I take a broad historical overview of the situation and consider how we might change things. The period from 1976 to 1979 was the aftermath of worldwide major economic dislocation caused by the increase in oil prices imposed by OPEC. A senior member of the then government said that the party was over. But there was at that time genuine partnership between local and national government to try to ensure that the British nation resolved the difficulties with which it was faced.
From 1979 to 1985 there was a major increase in VAT, a reduction in income tax for rich people, reductions in revenue support grant and major reductions in the provision for council housing. There was also a mass explosion of unemployment and riots in the streets. We need to look at the business of partnership. We should not just think of local government in isolation but in terms of what it does for the nation as a whole. Local government has to struggle with the problems of our society, as they directly affect it.
One way in which local government attempted to meet the difficulties was to increase the rates. In practice that was fairly logical. The rates were effectively p wealth tax. While rich people were seeing a reduction in income tax, poorer people were seeing an increase in VAT. It was logical that the extra demands on local government services engendered by economic policy should be mitigated by increases in wealth tax. It is sad, looking back on that period, that even some senior Labour politicians did not appreciate what was going on and castigated some local authorities.
In the period from 1985 to 1989 the economic situation was not so bad because we had the Lawson boom and unemployment was coming down. But local government was under attack. We had the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties. It is interesting that whenever a tier of local government votes in opposition to this Government, it seems to be sounding its death knell. We saw it with the metropolitan counties and the GLC. We are seeing it now with the shire counties which had the temerity to vote in parties in opposition to the Government.
From 1989 to 1991 we saw the end of the Lawson boom and the beginning of the second Tory recession. We saw the poll tax and again there were riots in the streets. It was not a happy period for local authorities. The period between 1991 to 1994 saw the end of the poll tax and somewhat improved revenue support grants. But there were major attacks by the Government on education. To come up to date, this year we have seen a reduction in the revenue support grant. As the noble
682
Baroness, Lady Farrington, pointed out, the revenue support grant that appears to be coming through will not provide adequately the resources needed to maintain services at their present level. The inevitable result will be reductions in service levels.
More disturbing nationally are the reductions, particularly for the elderly, in services and care in the community, and for the youngest and most vulnerable members of society through cuts in education provision. We need to be aware of the implications. One factor that enabled this country to avoid totally succumbing to the recession but to bobble along the bottom (if I can put it that way)—each year the Government talk of green shoots but they never come to fruition and we are still virtually at the bottom of the recession—was local government capital expenditure. The recession has been mitigated also by central government capital expenditure. However, we must recognise that, following the last Budget, we are seeing not only a reduction in capital expenditure on the national account—for example, the roads programme has been cut back drastically—but also a major cutback in the capital budgets for local authorities. That will produce inevitable knock-on effects in the economy. We need to recognise that those economic effects will lead to increased unemployment, the inevitable social stresses that go with it and the extra burdens consequently placed on local authorities in the provision of services. When one has a fixed level of services, an increase in the demand for those services inevitably means that the level of service goes down.
I should like to talk a little of how we should think in terms of the future and how we might develop a partnership involving central government and local government. We can work together and respect each other's ability to improve our society. The first thing we need to think about is revenue raising. We need to introduce fair rates. It is totally iniquitous to have a council tax which effectively caps the tax paid by wealthy members of our community. Their taxation is capped but there is no similar cap on the taxation burden of ordinary members of our society.
Another problem with which we have had to deal over the past few years is the schism, the dislocation, the separation, of the local community through its local authorities and the business community because of the nationalisation of the business rate. We need to recognise that there must be institutional mechanisms to link the local business community with the local population through their local authorities. The business rate levied by local authorities was a useful mechanism for ensuring that local authorities got something out of local business and in return recognised that local business was valuable to the local authorities. One of the problems at the moment is the divergence between local people represented by councillors on local authorities and the local business community. I hope that over the next few years we shall see the denationalisation of the business rate.
Finally, we need to end capping; not only capping of local revenue raising, but also of local capital expenditure. In a democracy we must trust people to elect representatives to take decisions on their behalf. If

683
those decisions are not in accord with the wishes of the people who elected the representatives, then the local people should have the right to elect other people who will do things differently.
One of the problems created by central government effectively putting caps on local government is that it takes away the freedom of the local community to make decisions on its own behalf. In seeking to improve or restore the partnership that should exist between national and local government, we must respect local government and give it the freedom to provide the services that people need locally.
5.29 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, it is inevitable at this stage of a debate that one repeats points that have already been made. I hope that that will not be a frustration to the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton. One matter which I must repeat is to thank her not only for introducing this important topic, but also for giving all of us who are currently serving councillors, as well as eminent previous councillors and council officers, the opportunity to voice some of our anxieties.
I too will take a slightly broad-brush approach and echo comments that have already been made that perhaps the greatest long-term problem for local government is that the current constraints mean that good staff and good councillors—and good potential staff and councillors—are lost to local government. The centralisation of decision making means that no real local choice is left in more and more areas. Most recently, another area of education spending has gone to a new quango, and we see more money being given by way of specific grant, which means that the local choice in those areas is limited.
The result is that local people and local representatives cannot balance priorities. To have local representatives on quangos is better than not having them there, but it is by no means sufficient. They have a very narrow area of discretion. Good government is about balance and prioritisation. There has to be an integrated service. Decisions should not be fragmented. I cannot be the only local councillor who feels that the Government have stumbled upon, or perhaps deliberately found, a regime of dividing and ruling in their relationship with local government. However, it is the inability to take overall decisions and the constraints on innovation which trouble me most.
Reference has been made to capping in the area of revenue expenditure. One of the effects of such capping is that it is impossible for the electorate to tell whether its authority is high spending or low spending. My point also applies to capital restrictions, including restrictions on borrowing. I do not condone the schemes that we saw in the 1980s for the sale and lease-back of parking meters in order to circumvent the capital constraints but it is hardly surprising that energy went into such schemes. These capital restrictions and the failure to support infrastructure have been a tragedy. Decisions are taken on an annual basis and one is always tempted to feel that spending on one part of the infrastructure is a decision that perhaps could be deferred until the
684
following year when the position might be easier. Those decisions mean that the infrastructure in the medium and longer term is bound to fail and is bound to cost more in the long run. The noble Lord, Lord Harmsworth, referred to school buildings and my noble friend Lady Thomas referred to highways. Those are two areas among many.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, referred to the single regeneration budget. I share some of her concerns with regard to the issue of accountability. Regional officers do not have regeneration as a framework within which documents are publicly available and the public can understand what the strategy is. The bidding process is relatively informal so opportunities for patronage, or at any rate a lack of transparency, are being experienced. The noble Baroness also referred to issues of social equity such as the abolition of urban programme areas for the most deprived areas and the down grading of deprivation as a criterion for funding decisions. There are criteria which are understood and are listed. Indeed, the recent announcements have spelt out the general basis on which decisions have been taken. But they overemphasise economic development and the need to achieve the input of private sector investment. That is important. We all know the value of partnership, but leverage of private sector moneys discriminates against projects which do not appeal to their sponsors. We are aware, too, of the increasing public confusion. The noble Lord, Lord Varley, drew the attention of the House to that problem in his debate on area cost adjustment in the East Midlands two or three months ago. I had intended to say that I was not proposing to whinge about the recent settlement for my own local authority, Richmond-upon-Thames. Perhaps I will indulge myself a little, although I decided to use it in rather the same way as the noble Lord, Lord Tope. My authority is an exemplar and, after all, it is the one I know best.
I am in a similar position to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. What do I tell residents in my borough? How do I explain to them that decisions will be taken about council tax because we have a high tax base and that there is a national banding system, not a regional banding system? Those who live in band D houses in Richmond are compared with those who live in band D houses in other parts of the country where house prices have a different relationship to incomes. How do I tell them about the low standard spending assessment and about the effects of the last census, which is generally recognised as having omitted elderly people, particularly very elderly people, in disproportionate numbers? In my area, where there is considerable need, we have a very elderly population. These factors have a huge effect.
How do I tell them about changes in methodology which penalise "low need" councils? The changes over merely one year are, as was said to me by my chief executive, implausible. This year we are 101st out of 109 LEAs on the additional needs index for education. Last year we were 63rd. How can we have dropped so fast? It defies belief. How do I tell them about the economic index which means that because my borough, happily, has low unemployment we are automatically

685
heavily penalised, although our real needs have not changed so much over the year? How do I tell them about the relationship between the SSA and pupils who come into our borough to be educated because their parents prefer our borough to a neighbouring borough? In our case a pupil from the next door borough who attends a Richmond school received £400 more SSA for that neighbouring borough last year than the same pupil will get for my borough this year. In Richmond's case we have more than 1,000 such pupils.
How do I talk to them about the support grant settlement per head and tell them that it has reduced by 40 per cent. over two years? The figure in my borough is £152 per head. The next lowest of all the London and metropolitan boroughs is £237 per head. The amount in most other outer London boroughs is at least two or three times as high. Finally, how do I tell them that, in order to spend at capping limits, Richmond must raise 45 per cent. of its budget locally? There is a lot to be said for being the most accountable authority in the country. But it is a little odd when, against 45 per cent. of budget, the next highest amount is 33 per cent.
In the context of what we know about the Government's attitude to local government it is not surprising that central government are so resistant to our having a power of general competence. So much of what is happening today adds up to a plea for local government to be able to take its own decisions and to do its best for its own communities. Is it not shameful that the financial constraints, the low level of tax raised locally and the inability to take our own decisions mean that the UK is probably ineligible to sign up to the charter for local self-government?
We have heard about the effect on services—on education (from the noble Baroness, Lady David, and my noble friend Lord Tope), on social services and on community care. I wish it were possible to spend a little longer on the subject of housing.
Finally, I believe that many Conservative councillors would say to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that they fear for the future. They see it as a tragedy that potential councillors and candidates question why they should do the job and wonder why they should work to central government rules. They want at least a level of job satisfaction.
The Minister was quoted on the front of the briefing by the Local Government Chronicle at the time of the announcement of the settlement as saying:
"We've all been stuffed by the Treasury".
That is an unparliamentary term, but I quote it deliberately. I hope that the Minister can convince us today that it is only the Treasury which favours local administration over local government.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest as President of the Federation of Economic Development Authorities, which is a federation of local authorities that have economic
686
development departments. That interest is, of course, much inferior to the interest of my noble friend Lady Farrington, who is chair of the ACC.
Secondly, I thank my noble friend for moving the Motion. To respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I am not a serving councillor and I have no axe to grind for any particular council.
As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said, the debate comes at an opportune time. It is some time since we had a debate on the general role of local government. It comes also at the time when the revenue support grant is being finalised. Perhaps even more importantly, it comes when the Banham commission has more or less completed its report on its recommendations. The work of the Banham commission has raised a great many interesting ideas. I do not agree with everything that the commission has proposed; nevertheless —and this is an important theme which has run through much of the debate—it raised the idea that there is something called the community and that it is important that whatever local authority is in place it should have a close relationship with the community. That is why I welcome the words of my noble friend's Motion that local authorities have problems in providing the services which their communities need. It is important that we should pay attention to the wording of the Motion.
It is clear that local authorities have problems. Those problems can be stated quite simply. Local authorities have been loaded with duties without adequate resources. The communities that they serve need the services, but there is a question as to whether the authorities are in a position to render those services in a sensible manner.
One means of solving that particular problem, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, is to establish a series of quangos. One simply ignores local authorities altogether and provides services by appointing—mainly—the wives of Conservative Members of Parliament to quangos, and pays them certain sums of money to render the services for which local authorities would otherwise be responsible. I come from Wales, and that has happened repeatedly in Wales. The Secretary of State for Wales has some 1,600 appointments in his gift. Most of them seem to go to the wives not of Welsh Conservative Members of Parliament, because there are not many, but of English Conservative Members of Parliament.
Leaving aside the democratic problem, that creates difficulties for local authorities. If the burdens on local authorities were thereby reduced one might accept that that was one way of dealing with the problem, although not necessarily a good way of dealing with it. However, I can give three examples to show that the burdens on local authorities have not been reduced.
The first example relates to housing, which was mentioned briefly by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Local authorities are responsible for housing the homeless. However, local authorities have no right and no funds to build houses. Therefore, how are local authorities, which have a responsibility for housing the homeless but no power to build houses, to fulfil that service for their communities?

687
The second example relates to education. My noble friends Lord Varley and Lady David put the problem in much starker terms than I ever could. In my noble friend's area of Derbyshire the situation is quite extraordinary. The educational needs of the community cannot be served by the local authority because, although the local authority still has responsibility, some quangos have taken certain matters out of the power of the local authority.
The third example, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lady Fisher, concerns the single regeneration budget. If it had been the case that local authorities were given the task of regenerating urban areas and inner cities, properly without fear or favour as they were in the past, instead of having to spend millions of pounds competing for the single regeneration budget, we would have accepted that local authorities were given the resources to do what they had to do. They have not. That is the problem.
My noble friend Lady Farrington, the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and my noble friend Lord Varley, referred to the problems faced by the local authorities next year in terms of the standard spending assessment and the revenue support grant which we have in front of us. Like my noble friend Lord Monkswell, I should like to stand back and consider the trend that has developed over the past few years.
Many burdens have been laid on local authorities. Almost every Bill that I have dealt with in this House—whether it was a trade and industry Bill or an environment Bill—has in some way placed a burden on local authorities. It may have specified that trading standards officers shall do this that and thus; or the local authorities will handle certain matters. Mr. Michael Howard spoke to the annual conference of the ACC in Winchester on 10th November. Under the heading "Procedure for dealing with new burdens", he said:
"I know, of course, that it is a frequent complaint in local government that whilst we in central Government are always ready to lecture you on the need to cut back expenditure and rationalise your activities, we also slip in from time to time new policies which have a real impact on local government, and which you feel have not been the subject of proper or adequate consultation. I am sympathetic to that complaint. And I want to do something about it".
What he did was to move to a more distinguished office than he held at that time—and he has done something about that! What Mr. Howard did at the time was to ensure that the amount that was made available to local authorities for the "new burdens"—the phrase used—was insufficient.
The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, referred to care in the community. We are not arguing about the policy. The Government used the mechanism of a ring-fenced special transitional grant to pass community care funding to the local authorities. That was in keeping with what Mr. Howard said in November 1992. The problem is that in recent weeks a number of local authorities—the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, referred to yet another which I had not heard cited previously—including Devonshire, Gloucestershire, Lancashire and the Isle of Wight, have all declared problems over the resourcing of community care. Gloucestershire has withdrawn services and, as a result, is being challenged through judicial review. In those circumstances, nobody
688
can say that Mr. Howard and the Government have lived up to their words in the assurance that was given to local authorities.
I shall not go through the list of the new commitments that have been given to local authorities since 1979, but it is a fairly long list. It includes important core work such as fulfilling seat belt requirements in school transport; providing additional local authority accommodation for young offenders under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994; the implementation of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994; additional checks on street lighting; continued collection of the poll tax; enforcement of the new Sunday trading rules and providing protection against counterfeiting by unscrupulous traders. All those burdens have been laid on local authorities. Although it is not possible to say that that has not been covered in the revenue support grant, from what noble Lords from all sides of the House have been saying there must be serious doubt about whether the Government have lived up to their commitment to grant sufficient resources to meet the burdens that have been placed on local authorities.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, gave what my noble friend Lord Varley described as an inadequate "apologia" for the Government in which he said that local government has not broken down. Local government may not have broken down but, as my noble friend Lady Gould and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, it is getting more and more difficult to find good people to serve as councillors and officials in local government. If you cannot get good councillors and good officials, local government will break down. So the question that the Government have to answer is quite simple: do the Government want healthy local government or not? I would understand it if the Government said that they do not want healthy local government.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said that he was "kicked out" of local government. The democratic process unfortunately worked, so we are happy to see the noble Lord among us, possibly as a result of that unfortunate electoral event. If the Government do want healthy local government, they must recognise that local authorities may well be controlled by their political opponents. They must recognise that the Labour Party or the Liberal Democrats may well control local authorities and that the control of some local authorities will be divided. It cannot be the case that because many local authorities are not controlled by the Conservative Party, the Government can say that they will claw back everything into Westminster. Subsidiarity, like charity, begins at home. That is what the argument is really about and that is the problem that the Government must face. Until they recognise that their opponents may be able to exercise positions of responsibility sensibly and constructively—in other words, until they recognise that democracy should work at all levels and not just in the House of Commons—we will never have healthy local government.
My noble friend Lady Farrington said that the relationship between local authorities and the communities that they serve is "sacrosanct". That is the word that she used—rightly, I think. Until the

689
Government recognise that very simple truth, local government (whatever its form) will never (in any understandable sense of the word) have the freedom that it really needs.
5.55 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I have listened carefully to all the concerns eloquently expressed this afternoon and I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, for giving us the opportunity to discuss these very important issues.
The Secretary of State for the Environment announced his proposals for the local authority finance settlement for England 1995–96 on 1st December. The Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland announced their proposals for spending in Wales and in Scotland on 29th November.
I think it would be helpful if I set out the key facts about what we are proposing in order to have healthy local government, which is what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, also wants. Total standard spending (TSS) is the amount that the Government consider that local authorities need to spend in aggregate to carry out their functions. TSS will rise 2 per cent. in cash terms from 1994 to 1995. Adjusting for function changes, the increase is 2.2 per cent. The TSS figure for England for 1995–96 will be £43.511 billion.
Adjusted to remove the figures for community care, as regards which the transfer of responsibilities to local government is taking place over several years—and I am glad to hear the very good report that my noble friend Lady Faithful] brings from those who have left that mental hospital in Greenwich—and the figure of £50 million allowed for local government reorganisation, the TSS for all other services is £41.623 billion, an increase over this year of 0.8 per cent.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, noted that responsibility for the provision of care in the community is being transferred to local authorities. As I have indicated, additional provision to reflect those responsibilities has been provided. It is now up to local authorities to manage those resources and to decide what priority to give to spending on those services. I shall ensure that Ministers in the Department of Health are aware of the points that the noble Baroness made.
In allocating the total sum between services, we have decided to give priority to the police and education. The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, was right when she said that the standard spending assessment is the Government's view of what revenue local authorities need to spend in order to provide a level of service which is consistent across all authorities. The system of SSAs is a fair and relatively simple means of distributing resources between authorities. This is not just the Government's view, but it is the view of the Audit Commission. In a study of the SSA system entitled Passing the Bucks published in 1993 the Audit Commission commented that the SSA system is:
"a more sophisticated system of equalising needs than any overseas system examined in this study and it is an improvement on its predecessor in many respects".
690
The methodology for calculating SSAs is the subject of much informed debate and each year we consult local authorities on the system for the coming year. We are currently considering what local authorities have told us during this year's consultation. Some 90 delegations, including a delegation from Derbyshire, came to put their views to Ministers in my department and I know that Ministers in the Home Office had separate meetings with representatives of police authorities. I had the pleasure of meeting six delegations to discuss the proposed settlement.
The noble Lord, Lord Varley, went into bat again on behalf of Derbyshire. I commend him for his tenacity. The effect of the proposals on total SSA is that two of the five authorities in the East Midlands—I told him this on a previous occasion—are at the average for all shire counties, or do better, and three are slightly below average. As I have said, the SSA system is formula-based, objective, and wholly open to scrutiny. We do not look at the system from the standpoint of what it delivers for X or Y authority; we look, in conjunction with local government, for formulae which fairly represent need. We are always ready to consider objective needs-based improvements to the system. One element of the system is the area cost adjustment about which I know the noble Lord, Lord Varley, has comments. In so far as that applies to Hertfordshire and not to Derbyshire, that of course affects the relative SSA levels of the two authorities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, gave my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment the benefit of their views on our proposals at the Consultative Council for Local Government Finance last Thursday. In addition, we received several hundred letters on the proposed settlement. All of those representations will be taken into account when the Secretary of State takes his final decisions on the settlement for 1995–96.
In its report on the system of SSAs the Audit Commission recognised that openness. The report said:
"The determination of SSAs, being wholly formula based is explicit and open to scrutiny. Overall SSAs might be classified as transparent, but not simple".
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, sounded decidedly suspicious. She pointed to a significant change in the relative score on the educational needs index for the London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames. We have no proposals to change that element of the SSA methodology for 1995–96. That suggests that conditions in Richmond-upon-Thames must have changed between the years, and that has been reflected in the SSA. I shall write to the noble Baroness on that point.
We recognise the need to keep the system of SSAs under review. We do that in consultation with the local authority associations. We have a well-established system for involving local government itself in the development of all SSAs. This year we have kept the SSA system relatively stable, except in the area of police where the creation of new police authorities and the move away from agreed establishments have

691
necessitated a new formula (and hence SSA) -driven approach to allocating resources. Substantially more work is needed on the police SSA for 1996–97.
An important assumption which we are required to make every year is what improvements in efficiency local authorities can be expected to make. Often we are told by particular authorities that they have no further scope for improved efficiency and will be forced to make cuts in services.
My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith gave us some interesting statistics, and from his long experience has indicated that the proposed cuts often do not take place, and somehow efficiency gains are found.
Last week, the Audit Commission published two reports Paying the Piper and Calling the Tune which call for better use of resources, better management of paybills, and the use of performance-based management at all levels in local authorities. The noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, quoted from Paying the Piper. I should like to quote further from the first of those reports because the commission concludes:
"Using the techniques in this report has helped many councils to achieve savings of five to ten per cent. of staff budgets without damaging services. If all councils saved five per cent of paybill, national savings of £500 million would be available".
The commission also notes that it is not for central government to impose such changes. It is for local authorities themselves to define the framework and meet the challenges of getting better use from limited resources.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, said that local authorities of course have problems; they have duties, but not enough resources. It is up to them to decide how they spend their resources. They may be limited resources but that presents them with a challenge to spend them in the best possible way.
I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the Government's position has been vindicated by an independent and responsible body like the Audit Commission at a time when local authorities themselves have been very critical of our determination that they can and must improve their performance.
The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, with his experience as leader of the London Borough of Sutton, and, perhaps more particularly, the noble Baroness, Lady David, drew attention to the problems of education. The settlement includes an increase of 1.1 per cent., as the noble Baroness said, in resources available for education services. Of course each education authority has discretion to decide how much of its total budget to spend on education and how much on other services. In education, as in other areas, authorities have scope for savings. They cannot merely roll forward past spending without scrutiny.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull also drew our attention to the difficulties of funding special educational needs. I do not try to hide the fact that there are difficulties there, as other noble Baronesses have also said. I am well aware about authorities' concerns about the threat to educational standards. The Government are committed to improving our children's
692
standard of education. The extra resources we are giving authorities will enable schools to continue to improve standards.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, indicated the problem that the Borough of Sutton was having with recoupment. The ending of recoupment has been generally welcomed by local government. I can assure the noble Lord that we shall try to remove any anomalies caused by errors in data this year. The ending of recoupment avoids the complications for authorities of collecting payments from other authorities.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, made a number of remarks about adult education. The Government are fully committed to the notion of lifelong learning. The new further education sector has clear responsibilities towards adults. At the national level we have ensured that LEAs have the resources to carry out their duties. Noble Lords have suggested that schools have suffered a history of government under-investment. That is just not true. Spending per pupil rose 52 per cent. in real terms between 1970–80 and 1992–93, and 22 per cent. on repairs and maintenance. Pupil/teacher ratios have fallen from 18.9:1 in 1979 to 17.8:1 in 1993.
We have made it clear that public sector pay increases must be met from productivity or efficiency gains. The pay review body must take account of available resources in making its recommendations. Local government has threatened large-scale redundancies among teachers for several years. It has not happened. I do not expect this year to be any worse than others.
The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, drew our attention to the housing investment programme. I must, first, tell the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who was also interested in housing, that local authorities have housing debt of more than £37 billion. The requirement therefore to set aside 75 per cent. of housing receipts represents the Government's financial judgment of how much of that should go towards reducing that debt and how much should fund new spending. Any relaxation in the set-aside rules would add to pressure on public expenditure and lead to a higher PSBR. However, HIP allocations for 1995–96 total almost £1.3 billion, despite the tough PES round. In addition, local authority housing will benefit in 1995–96 from £313 million for estate action schemes; £90 million for housing action trusts; £60 million for the cash incentive scheme to help tenants move to owner-occupation; and £30 million for the housing partnership fund, concentrating particularly on bringing empty properties back into use. Local authorities estimate that they will have available about £830 million of usable capital receipts at the beginning of the 1995–96 financial year.
The noble Lords, Lord Varley and Lord Monkswell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, complained about the imposition of capping on councils. As regards the principle of capping, we are serious about controlling public expenditure. We therefore need a system that ensures that all authorities play their part in restraint. The capping system achieves that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, made a spirited speech defending Birmingham and its regeneration projects. Birmingham bid for £5.9 million from the single regeneration budget for 1995–96; £48.9 million

693
over five years. It received approval for £3.6 million in 1995–96, coming up to the figure of £28.3 million that she quoted for the five-year period. That represented three of five parts of its project. The highest priorities were approved. The approved bids represent the highest amount for any authority in the West Midlands and the fifth highest nationally. Only projects in London, Sheffield and Bradford received more. I shall read carefully in Hansard what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. He indicated that somehow the Government should give a blank cheque to local authorities in order to help them to cope with regeneration—give them the task, give them money.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull was anxious about the provision of secure training units. The Government believe that the public should be protected from young offenders and that less secure facilities provided by local authorities would not be adequate. As my noble friend indicated, the Government have taken steps to provide new secure training units, which will be fully funded by central government.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, was anxious about local accountability. Of course, the Citizen's Charter and the charter mark scheme aim to encourage local authorities and other public bodies to put the customer first. The noble Baroness was right in saying that decisions on local services are best taken locally. Local authorities have the discretion to decide their own spending priorities in the light of local circumstances.
My noble friend Lord Harmsworth drew our attention to the commission's finding on Dorset. The commission's final report on Dorset was published on 15th December. We have stated that we shall not announce our decision until the representation period finishes on 9th February. Before taking any decisions, we shall of course take into account all representations made.
We know and understand that this is a tough set of proposals. We proposed it only after a great deal of discussion about the services that authorities have to provide and about what the country can afford. Demographic pressures, such as the pressure on education services of rising numbers of schoolchildren, and on social services and community care of the increasing number of the very elderly, were taken fully into account. We also took into account the costs of local government reorganisation and the costs of establishing the new police authorities.
But the public sector as much as the private sector cannot just add up all new pressures and expect to have that much extra to spend. It must reassess its baseline. It must ask: can we do anything differently? Is our current way of tackling a problem still the best way? All authorities must look for efficiency savings and must be prepared to re-order priorities in line with changes in local needs.
We are now taking stock of all the representations made to us during the consultation period on the provisional RSG settlement for England. We will also, of course, take into account the views expressed here
694
today. Our aim remains to achieve a rigorous settlement which will enable local government to provide the services people need if the resources are used prudently.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, in rising to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, I first thank the Minister for his reply. I shall resist the temptation to respond to his separate question of whether there is a way in which the Government could do things differently. The conventions do not allow me to respond to that.
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part. The debate has demonstrated the wealth of experience and knowledge in this House about local government. That factor is important in securing future support for local democracy. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Sport
6.16 p.m.
Lord Howellrose to call attention to the state of sport in the United Kingdom and facilities for sport in the regions; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the good health of British sport is a matter of considerable importance, which is why I believe the debate is timely and relevant. It is a privilege to propose the Motion today. The recent cries of anguish, such as those arising in football and cricket, may be understandable when we lose test matches or fail to qualify for the World Cup but they are devoid of a fundamental purpose. Until we understand and address that purpose we shall not escape from the malaise.
The fundamental purpose of sport is to enable every citizen to find pleasure and challenge in their personal lives through voluntary participation in sport and recreation. A secondary purpose—the social purpose of sport—is to enable sport to make its enormous contribution to the good health and personal relationships that are so necessary in our community life.
Governments and the governing bodies of sport must be judged against those criteria. There is much cause for concern. Success at top club level, or at national and international level, is important and morale boosting but it is not fundamental. Unless we secure the foundations of sport in schools and in the communities through clubs and local authorities we undermine our performance in international sport.
Today, far too many people who should know better are looking for panaceas to solve the problems in sport. The Prime Minister has encouraged us all by his desire to get sport back into the school curriculum. However, he has yet to address the question—publicly, anyway—of how we are to achieve that. Why are there so few qualified PE teachers and almost none coming out of the colleges?
Nor do the Government understand that their attack on local authorities and their desire to starve them of funds involves them in an attack upon the grassroots of

695
sport. Local authorities are the great providers of community and educational sports facilities. We have the Minister for Sport putting his faith in cricket academies—such as in Australia—or in centres of excellence. That is a commendable objective which can be helpful, although a cricket academy should be seen for what it is: a finishing school.
However, academies and centres of excellence are stifled at birth unless the broad base of sport is wide enough to supply a sufficient amount of talent to be taken up and developed. Most lamentably, lain Sproat, the Minister, told the Sports Council that it,
"should withdraw from the promotion of mass participation in informal recreation because these laudable aims are secondary to the pursuit of high standards of sporting achievements".
That is inexcusable heresy. Mass participation in sport and recreation should be the essence of what the Minister and the Government are about. They should concentrate upon the foundation of a sport programme and a first priority should be creating a healthy and involved citizenship.
Sir John Hall of Newcastle United believes that professionalism solves all and that his club should be divorced from any responsibility for amateurs. Ninety-nine per cent. of all footballers are amateurs. It is from their ranks that professionals emerge. No governing body of sport anywhere in the world can allow its authority to be so divided and destroyed.
The truth is that, as elsewhere in life, there are no panaceas to solve the fundamental problems which must be addressed and on which I wish to comment. However, before I do so, I should like to make one further general observation. The greatest problem for sport in this country is that no one accepts responsibility for its ethos. The spirit of sport, indeed I would suggest its very soul, is being sacrificed on the altar of commercialism. Sponsorship and television income dominate every consideration for the major sports. The minor sports are sidelined as though they have no place in the sun.
Some years ago an inquiry which I chaired produced a wide-ranging report on sports sponsorship. On page after page of that report we repeated a first principle: governing bodies of sport must govern. They must take a more fundamental view of the interests of their sport than the purely financial. Greed must not be allowed to dominate sport as it is doing because, as sport will find out, if it does not control those excesses they will be destructive.
I have consulted widely about the state of sport in our schools. The advice I have received is unanimous. All the organisations welcome, as I do, the personal interest of the Prime Minister and the involvement of Sir Ron Dearing. But they all ask the same question: where is the initiative to come from to make it all work and to provide the resources to bring it about? Is the Department for Education working to the same agenda as the Department of National Heritage? Where is the input from the organisations involved in sports —the Central Council for Physical Education, the Physical Education Association of Great Britain and Northern
696
Ireland, the English Schools Sports Association, the Sports Council and so on? We need to have that spelt out. I hope that the Minister can do so.
The Prime Minister must lay down his policy guidelines and appoint a senior Minister with the power to transcend departmental prejudices. He must also ensure the provision of adequate funding. There are matters which need addressing urgently. PE teachers, especially in primary schools, are almost non-existent. Specialist advisers, who have disappeared from our schools, must be reintroduced. In-service training is essential. The two-hour allocation for sport in the national curriculum is hopelessly inadequate. Children in inner city schools cannot even get to their playing fields and back to the school within the two hours allocated. Playing field maintenance is a must. So many pitches, particularly for cricket but also for football, are being prepared by the gang mower, which is a hazardous and dangerous procedure for schoolchildren. The voluntary involvement of school teachers must be reinforced; in many areas, it has largely been reduced. That should be done by paying expenses and by making tax concessions for travel, uniform and so on. The English Schools Sports Association must be encouraged to continue to monitor who is doing what in schools in terms of PE and sport. Partnerships must be created involving local authorities, clubs and regional sports councils.
The second foundation stone for sport is the local authorities. They provide the front-line services. Every region in the country reports massive cutbacks both in capital works and revenue expenditure. The consequence is that services are reduced. People are being priced out of sports centres, swimming baths, sports grounds and the like; and the costs of vandalism and delinquency in our society are increased. That is not a very intelligent economic prognosis.
National lottery funding will help on the capital side but already the regions are looking desperately for partners who can provide the matching funds to unlock the lottery money. Thirty five per cent. as a minimum, is a lot of money to find. Facilities have to be managed, maintained and revenue funded. Why, oh why, have the Government rejected every single piece of advice they have received in refusing to allow lottery funds to be used for suitable revenue purposes? We welcome the small concessions made in that respect for new projects but I would urge the Minister to carry out a review to discover where sport desperately needs revenue money to make sense of its facilities.
That leads me to consider the role of the regional councils of sport, so seriously misjudged by the Minister for Sport. I am sorry to say that he insulted them when he declared that,
"there should be clear sky between regional officers of the Sports Council and the local authorities who may—as a group—contain members who may themselves be applicants for lottery funds".
That is resented throughout local government. Local authority members of every political hue are among the most dedicated of public servants. They are men and women of integrity. They are just as much to be trusted with regard to making decisions about lottery funds as are the two Secretaries of State who will decide the

697
Millennium Fund applications. It is resented by local authority members of all political persuasions that they are not to be trusted while the Secretaries of State take such a prime role in making decisions as to the allocation of the £150 million for the Millennium Fund.
The regional councils for sport have been the most successful of all the initiatives taken in sport since I first became the Minister in 1964. All the progress we have made in developing regional strategies, in creating partnerships between the local authorities, sport and government has come through them. Now the Minister says they are not necessary and he will not even fund their secretariat if they wish to continue as a voluntary forum. That is civil service or ministerial thinking gone mad, probably both.
The Minister consulted widely on these plans. The noble Viscount who is replying to the debate has no personal responsibility in this affair, which is a relief to us as well as to him. However, I challenge the Government to produce a single outside authority which supports the proposal to abolish the regional councils. Every voice is against them—the regional chairmen, the local authorities and all of sport. It is a special sort of arrogance for the Minister and his civil servants who have no experience of regional sport to decide that they know better than every single body which was consulted.
It is good to know that the new chairman of the Sports Council, Mr. Rodney Walker, who does know the value of regional sports councils and has served upon them, has many misgivings about this policy. I hope that he will be listened to. Many of us believe that the appointment of Mr. Walker is good news for sport. We wish him well and congratulate the Government upon his appointment. However, it has to be said in the strongest possible terms that Ministers have to get off his back and allow him to operate as someone who knows sport and who needs as much independence as possible.
In that respect the letter sent to him by Stephen Dowell, the Secretary of State, giving him his marching orders could not be more misconceived. It gives Mr. Walker instructions to investigate at least 12 specific areas of work upon which he has to report by the end of the year. If the Sports Council undertakes that programme, it will have no time at all to direct the course of British sport.
It is eight years and four Ministers ago since Colin Moynihan announced his intention to reorganise British sport in 1987. We still do not have a permanent director of the English Sports Council nor a chairman or director for the UK Sports Council. If British sport matched the dynamism of the Department of National Heritage we should lose every contest in sight. That is the case for telling Rodney Walker to get on with it, and to keep out of his way while he does so.
What concerns me about the proposed UK Sports Council is that we also have four national sports councils. There will be an added layer of bureaucracy. Will the policy of the UK Sports Council transcend the national councils where Great Britain and United Kingdom issues are concerned? Will the UK Sports
698
Council be adequately funded or have powers to subvent from the national councils? World sport today is conducted upon the basis of British involvement. One has only to look at the work of the Olympic movement and the role of the British Olympic movement to see that. That is a reality of life. The Government have to ensure that nationalistic considerations do not frustrate British involvement in sport.
The Sports Council has to work closely with governing bodies of sport who must be seen to be the essential voluntary government of sport, and must be encouraged in their role. For example, as I indicated, in my own sport of football it is totally misdirected to believe that its professional interests can be divorced from its overall responsibilities. The Premier League clubs can very properly manage their own affairs but they have to work in partnership with the Football Association over a whole range of interests such as the development of grounds, the development of coaching, the development of talent, work with the Professional Footballers Association, and so on.
There is one other consideration that every governing body should regard as paramount, and that is to maintain the integrity of their sport and its ethos against all invasions of commercial interest and of sports agents and against the massive funds available through incentives such as European and television opportunities. These have to be seen as serving the interests of sport, not as being masters of sport as is so often the case today.
Another anxiety is the effect of the National Lottery upon the football pools and therefore upon their massive investment in improving every ground in the country through the Football Trust which I had the privilege to help inaugurate. The trust has now allocated more than £120 million in new grounds and stands. All this is in danger, and even more so is the Foundation for Sport and the Arts which also does excellent work for both sport and the arts. The Chancellor did not listen to us at the time of his previous Budget. He must do so now. I know that the noble Lords, Lord Aberdare and Lord Brabazon, hope to expand upon this matter in their speeches and they will certainly have my full support if they do so.
Sport and recreation and the arts, the leisure pursuits of millions of our citizens, should be a proper concern of government. The average citizen does not ask for too much from life—a job in order to maintain his family, a decent home, education for his children, and health care and social care throughout life. But every citizen also needs the opportunity to enjoy life to the full; and for millions of them that means through sport. That is why I believe this debate to be timely. I hope it can be repeated at regular intervals. I beg to move for Papers.
6.33 p.m.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for introducing this debate and I hope that my voice stands out as clearly as his did. I wish him iechyd da! However, I shall confine myself—as the noble Lord rather suggested—to the affairs of the Football Trust.

699
I start by declaring an interest. I have been chairman of the Football Trust since its inception in 1979 and I am paid a salary for that position. The trust was started by the pools companies—Littlewoods, Vernons and Zetters—and we are indebted to them for providing the resources which have enabled us to make what I believe is a valuable contribution to the health and welfare of football at all levels. I am particularly proud to be chairman of an organisation that has excellent and most efficient staff and where the cost of administration is only 2 per cent. of our income.
Our traditional source of income (from what is now Littlewoods' Spot-the-Ball competition) has been running at about £14 million a year and is mainly devoted to the vital matter of ground safety. Obviously, nothing is more important at sporting events than ensuring that spectators can enjoy themselves in safety and comfort.
I believe that it was largely our generous grants for the installation of closed-circuit television that have resulted in an almost complete absence of hooliganism now inside the football grounds of this country. Our income from Spot-the-Ball is also used to help the grassroots of football, providing anything from kit for junior teams of boys and girls up to improved facilities at our senior non-league clubs. I must say I often find that giving £150 to a small local YMCA or boys' club in a depressed area gives a great deal more pleasure than giving £1 million to a Premier League club.
Since 1990, following the Hillsborough disaster and the report of Lord Justice Taylor, we have also been in receipt of government money. This, I believe, is a good example of co-operation between the public and private sectors. The Government reduced the pool betting duty by 2.5 per cent., provided that the pools passed on that saving to the Football Trust. The Football Trust undertook to allocate the resulting income to implement the recommendations of the Taylor Report and also agreed to make available three-quarters of our income from Spot-the-Ball for ground safety. So far, as the noble Lord mentioned, we have allocated some £120 million to projects all round the country totalling almost £400 million. Progress at our top clubs has been very impressive and we now have the kind of first-class football stadia which allow us to look forward with confidence to hosting the European championships in 1996. I hope that when we come to look back in the year 2000 we will be able to say that Taylor truly transformed the game and that we have a wealth of excellent grounds, the envy of Europe.
However, we are only halfway through the implementation of the Taylor timetable. An enormous amount remains to be done at the clubs in the lower divisions. This is now where the needs are greatest, but where the local resources are lowest. It is essential that all this work—help for the grassroots, safety of spectators and rebuilding the grounds in line with Taylor—is allowed to continue. We must not neglect vital safety requirements through lack of resources.
However, as I hope noble Lords will realise from what I have said, our income is totally dependent on the pools, either directly from Littlewoods' Spot-the-Ball, or indirectly via the reduction in pool betting duty.
700
Unfortunately, since the start of the National Lottery our income from Littlewoods' Spot-the-Ball has declined dramatically and our income from the reduction in pool betting duty has fallen significantly week by week. If this trend continues, the future of the trust is at risk. The pools companies will naturally wish to protect the interests of their core business and their staff and they may be forced to review their commitment to the Football Trust, and indeed, as I am sure my noble friend Lord Brabazon will say later, to the Foundation for Sports and the Arts.
I have always understood the pressure on Ministers to ensure the success of the lottery. I fully appreciated the reasoning behind their decision to give the lottery an initial advantage with the exclusive right to advertise on television and radio. However, things are different now. The lottery is a runaway success. As the National Heritage Secretary said,
"No one can dispute that the National Lottery has been a huge success".
Camelot has plans to install an average of 1,000 new terminals a month. Surely it is time now to allow fair competition and to permit the pools to advertise on television and radio.
Perhaps I may suggest to the Minister that he might find support for the proposal from the Treasury. It receives only 8 per cent. in tax from the lottery, while it stands to lose 37.5 per cent. in tax from a reduction in pools betting. That might tempt the Treasury to help in this matter. In the past, in my experience Ministers at the Department of National Heritage have been kind enough to praise the efforts of the Football Trust. We have greatly appreciated their support. Surely now it is in everyone's interest to allow the pools to compete on equal terms with the lottery and to allow the Football Trust to continue to serve football.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, in the context of this timely debate, initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, I wondered whether it might be useful and of some interest, as a past president of the MCC and one time chairman of the International Cricket Conference, if I were to say something about what the authorities of our national game of cricket were doing about seeking to improve what have been rather mediocre performances by our national side.
First, I wish to say this. Although there has been, I know, much disappointment at having selected about as good a touring side as we could from those available, we have not been able to regain the Ashes and indeed have experienced one or two rather humiliating defeats by what should have been inferior sides. However, despite that, I am not as despondent about our performance potential and the state of cricket generally as might be supposed.
These things have a habit of going in cycles and although the sceptic could say that the dip in this cycle seems to be lasting rather a long time, our performance in the Third Test at Sydney against Australia in the World Series showed that we could play good cricket; and given an element of good fortune, which has so far manifestly eluded us, we are not that far behind others

701
in what is increasingly a very competitive and high performance field. In fact, over a number of Test series our national sides have taken part in some memorable, highly interesting and high class Test matches and provided their share of magnificent and entertaining cricket for the spectators. That must certainly not be forgotten.
Nor must it be forgotten that even in what might now be thought to have been a golden age in our fortunes, we have not infrequently lost matches. Indeed, historically our record against Australia has not been all that good. So the idea that we always won in the past and seldom do now would be a considerable travesty of the facts.
Having said that, we are clearly at the moment not good enough to shine and stand out in the intense competition which exists in international cricket in all the continents of the world. Our self-esteem and national pride, in a country from which, after all, the game of cricket emanated, demand that there should be no complacency whatsoever and we should do all we can to improve the situation.
To do so, the authorities have to look at the higher organisation and structure of the game throughout the country, the bringing on of young players of real talent, and the general attitude and application of those players who are prepared to make the considerable sacrifice and commitment that the modern game now demands and for which our rather comfortable and indulgent society may not be the best breeding ground. It is those factors in cricket, rather than the resources and facilities, which are the key. Resources, of course, are invaluable for capital projects. But it is the question of attitude and the bringing on of young players which are the key. It will be hard work but I believe that it can be done; and the cricket authorities have a definite plan for doing so.
Organisation itself, of course, can only do so much. But a useful study and report by my noble friend Lord Griffiths, on behalf of the MCC, has pointed the way as to how the higher organisation of the game might be streamlined and approved which would bring the professional and amateur game into closer partnership. It seems likely that the report will be accepted and implemented by the board in the near future.
Then it is the intention of the board to set up centres of excellence run by first class counties to bring on young players through talent scouts, coaching, ground staffs and youth cricket; and in that the MCC clearly has a useful supporting role with its own comprehensive coaching courses and their outmatches against a wide variety and range of schools.
Somehow we have to bring on more young home talent like Darren Gough and John Crawley. As the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, the Australians have their cricket academy, their finishing school, at which the attitudes and approach so formed will undoubtedly be very competitive indeed—perhaps excessively so. Our cricket authorities believe that similar excellence can be obtained in the more relaxed and local atmosphere of the county grounds with every encouragement from the board and from the MCC,
702
which to some extent represents the soul of the game and which still has a role to play. I hope that we are right.
Of course, it would be helpful if more cricket, as well as other team games, could be played in state schools—as we all know that aspect has fallen off alarmingly—so that children can gain the feel and flavour of team work and competition under pressure. I do not decry the greater range of more individual sporting activities now available to children which helps overcome the misery suffered by some in the past who were forced to take part in organised games for which they had absolutely no aptitude. Nor do I ignore the fact that some of the sporting functions previously carried out by schools have now been taken over by local clubs with higher standards of coaching.
However, I can remember from my old school days (far distant though they are) how much preparation for life and the challenges ahead I gained from the sports field and various sporting encounters—in my case quite as much as I ever did from my academic studies. And it is at school, perhaps particularly at primary school level, that real talent can first be spotted and allowed to flourish, and earlier enthusiasm for a particular team sport developed. It was through a large spectrum of schools that cricketers such as Denis Compton, Bill Edrich, Peter May, Colin Cowdrey and, more recently, Graham Gooch, Mike Gatting and Mike Atherton have come to the fore. Therefore, I hope that we can see more of that kind of activity without too many spurious excuses that we would somehow be encouraging elitism. However, in those schools we shall need more qualified teachers to supervise and coach.
Finally, the board has already introduced the four-day county game designed to wean players away from the bad habits of the shorter, limited-over games and to prepare them for the greater application and determination required to construct a long innings and actively to take wickets, as they would need to do in Test cricket. I share the board's confidence that that approach will soon begin to pay dividends, which will be seen in our Test performance.
There is no easy solution. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, was quite right to say that there are no panaceas. Certainly there are no general panaceas. Everyone—players, counties, schools and authorities—will have to think and work hard. No one wants to take the fun out of cricket which heroes like Denis Compton, Keith Miller, Gary Sobers and many others have given to the game. Indeed, coming right up to date, young Darren Gough has shown how refreshing it is when effective cricket can be played with joie de vivre and enjoyment.
But let us be under no illusions. International sport is a hard school and those who are spotted and brought on early will need a lot of dedication and commitment if they are to prove good enough in that company. They will also need the encouragement of us all, not least the press who so frequently take delight in putting the boot in at any lapse of form or absence of success and who can do so much to destroy morale when it is most needed. We are having our successes in the fields of golf, motor racing, athletics and rugby football, among

703
others, so the picture overall is not all that gloomy. But cricket is our national game. It would certainly be nice if the large amount of cricket which is played, I am glad to say, at village, club, league and county level could be reflected in our international success. I assure the House that the cricket authorities will take every possible step to see that it is, without, I hope, ever forgetting that at the end of the day this is a game to be enjoyed by as many people as possible and watched with enjoyment by as many people as possible.
6.51 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for giving us the opportunity today to have this important debate on sport. I have two interests in the matter: I am a keen participant myself, my own sports being sailing, golf and tobogganing. But more to the point for today's debate, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, invited me to do, I should like to say a little about the work of the Foundation for Sport and the Arts and about the problems which face it at present. I should, of course, declare an interest. I am deputy chairman of the foundation, and that is a paid interest. I hope that I have done everything I should in this House about declaring that interest.
It is a pride and a pleasure to be associated with the foundation which, as many noble Lords may know, has over the past three-and-a-half years assisted innumerable sports and arts facilities, clubs and individuals to the tune of some £218 million. That is a not an inconsiderable amount of money. I should like to congratulate the pools companies—Littlewoods, Vernons and Zetters—on their wisdom and collective foresight in establishing the foundation. I congratulate the Government on what they did to allow that to happen.
The foundation is, of course, entirely financed by donations from the stake money of pools clients. It was facilitated by an agreement between the Government, under which they reduced the rate of pool betting duty by 2.5 per cent., on condition that, for every penny so released, the pools companies added a further 2p, the resulting sums being used to establish the fund which the Foundation for Sport and the Arts enjoys. So those noble Lords who do the football pools —and I hope some are present today—will be pleased to know that for every £1.05 that they stake, 7½ goes to the Foundation for Sport and the Arts. All those 7½ps have historically added up to something more than £63 million a year, of which two-thirds goes to sport. Noble Lords should also be pleased to know that the vast majority of that reaches applicants and is not used on administration.
Despite dealing currently with some 400 applications per week—at one stage it was 700 a week—and always ensuring that qualified people verify that the work being funded has been carried out before issuing the cheque, the foundation's administrative budget is held at 2.2 per cent. of turnover. I know a certain number of organisations connected with sport which would be very envious of that ratio.
704
I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate the secretary to the trustees, Grattan Endicott—some noble Lords may have met him—and his very efficient and effective team in Liverpool on running such a tight and efficient ship. I must also pay tribute to the work, dedication and commitment of my fellow trustees who take the decisions on the applications which the foundation receives. Sir Tim Rice is our resourceful and energetic captain, as much in the committee room as he is on the cricket field. Other household names such as Christopher Chataway, Clive Lloyd and Rebecca Stephens on the sports side also give freely of their time, love and knowledge of sport and the arts.
I have visited a number of schemes which the foundation has supported. Two things have become apparent to me from this. The first is that there is a tremendous wealth of talent, enthusiasm and commitment for sport—and, of course, the arts—in our communities up and down the land. From a new pavilion for a village cricket team in Yorkshire, through the refurbishment of a yacht on the south coast used by young people at risk, to a boys' boxing club in the centre of London, the common factor is that the foundation supported the work of others. I am pleased to be able to tell the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, that a substantial part of our funds goes towards cricket and I hope that that will continue. It may possibly be something to do with the chairman of our trustees.
My colleagues and I have met the most amazing people who dedicate their lives to helping others. We have seen local clubs whose members work ceaselessly to raise money to improve their facilities. They do the work they can themselves, often to make way for new teams of young people taking part in sport. We have met people who have played their sport until they are too old to continue to do so and now commit themselves to helping others gain the enjoyment from the sport that they did.
Let me tell the House that, as ever was the case, the Jeremiahs who say that things are not what they were, that our children do not have the commitment of our parents, are wrong. They might need a little help every now and then and the foundation has been pleased to give that help. But the spirit is there, just as it always was.
That brings me to the second conclusion that I have drawn. The way in which the foundation operates as a discretionary trust is at the core of its success. My fellow trustees and I do not need to set policies or objectives for those whom we support. We respond to need. We take advice from bodies such as the Central Council of Physical Recreation, the governing bodies of sport and the Sports Council, particularly the regional sports councils. I am disturbed to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, had to say about them just now. We are grateful for their help which is invaluable to us. But, at the end of the day, the trustees —who are beholden to no one—take their own decisions, based on the advice that they receive; but, more importantly, on their own judgment of what is deserving and not on the basis of what fits some theoretical strategy drawn up by someone far removed from the activity itself.

705
I do not mean to imply criticism of others when I say that. I accept that other funding organisations are more than just that and have broader responsibilities. My point is that, because the foundation has no broader responsibilities, it funds organisations for which other funding mechanisms do not exist, or which would be inappropriate. We do not recoil from fringe or unusual activities. We do not need to be wary of precedent.
If schemes are worthy, if the people involved with them show their own commitment and effort, we will help if we can. If we believe it is right to be radical, we can be radical. This means that the foundation's money is not just new money and additional money but also money which is irreplaceable for a number of our beneficiaries.
That brings me to a matter of crucial importance to which my noble friend Lord Aberdare has already referred in terms of the Football Trust. It is the risk of the impact of the National Lottery on the turnover of the pools companies. Because the foundation's income is wholly dependent on the football pools' turnover, any reduction in that turnover results in us having less money to distribute to sport.
I can confirm what my noble friend said, that since the National Lottery began the pools' turnover has dropped steadily week after week. There has not been the sudden large drop in income that one might have expected, but there has been a steady decline which potentially is of greater concern. If this decline continues, the pools companies will be forced to reduce their costs. They will not want to reduce their jackpots, and they will wish to protect their workforce. They will be forced therefore to consider their contribution to good causes—principally the Foundation for Sport and the Arts and the Football Trust, to which my noble friend Lord Aberdare has already referred.
There are a number of steps that the Government could take to help with this problem. The pools companies clearly need to compete with the National Lottery. During the passage of the legislation to set up the lottery the Government made a number of concessions in order to allow competition, and to allow fair competition. Many noble Lords and many Members of another place argued strongly for that. But there are a number of areas where the dice are still loaded against the pools. The first of these, as has been referred to, is the prohibition on advertising on television and radio. The lottery company has spent a fortune on television and radio up to now—and not only that; it gets the benefit of some pretty good advertising from the BBC in terms of promoting the weekly draw.
I am encouraged to see an article in today's Times which states:
"TV ban on pools firms may be lifted".
Apparently, Michael Howard, the Home Secretary has won backing from Kenneth Clarke, Michael Heseltine, Michael Portillo and other Ministers for a proposal to end the prohibition, which, the pools firms say, gives an unfair promotion advantage to the lottery. I am, however, most disappointed that it appears from the article—of course I do not expect my noble friend who
706
will answer the debate to comment on this—that it is Stephen Dorrell, the National Heritage Secretary, who is, after all, responsible for sport, who is battling on behalf of the lottery to keep the ban in force. I hope that we can have an early lifting of the ban.
My time is coming to an end. There are a number of other areas where the Government could help the pools companies. One advantage is that there is very little need for any primary legislation to achieve these aims. I hope that the Government can see their way clear to acting sooner rather than later. I believe that all of us who have taken part in the debate today recognise the importance of sport and of funding for sport. If the funding of the Foundation for Sport and the Arts is to continue, it would be of great advantage to sport in this country.
7.2 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I too am grateful to my noble friend Lord Howell for initiating this particular debate. It is almost a re-run of a debate last year which I was lucky enough to initiate on a document that had been presented by the Central Council for Physical Recreation, titled A Charter for School Sport. There is no need to go over old ground. In his opening remarks, my noble friend Lord Howell hit on the main point in that particular report and of what was said in that debate as regards some of the things that need to be done.
I also compliment the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, not only on his contribution but on the role that he has played as chairman of the Football Trust. Owing to his action and that of the members in the offices concerned, the face of football in this country has been restored to what it should be. It has again become a family game—although a very expensive one if the clubs are in the premier divisions. At least people can watch professional football matches in a greater degree of comfort.
I thought that someone might have mentioned the astronomical transfer fees that are paid in football. This debate is not particularly about that, and fees may well be the private business of the clubs involved, but in the final outcome I wonder if it is for the good of the game. I heard a former distinguished international player who is now the director of a club say that because Manchester United had paid £7 million for a young centre forward, that was the value of the player. But that is to stand the argument on its head. If you put a price on your house when you come to sell it, that is not necessarily the value of the house. The value is what somebody is prepared to pay. In some respects, some of the clubs may be contributing to a false valuation at the top of the scale in football. I do not believe that in the long run that will be for the good of the game.
I was interested to hear the detailed speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. I was, however, saddened that he mentioned only one famous batsman from the north but a galaxy of talent from the south. He mentioned the captain of Lancashire, Michael Atherton. I was weaned during the war on people such as Eddie

707
Paynter of Lancashire, Maurice Leyland, and Len Hutton. They were the people who took on the Australians and beat them.
Also, I am not so pessimistic as the noble and gallant Lord about what has happened in Australia. Without being accused of whingeing, if one or two care to look at the re-runs of some of the decisions—Atherton was given out twice, as was Gooch—it can be seen that three or four batsmen certainly got the worst end of some very poor umpiring decisions. The whole innings collapsed as a result. What did me more good than anything was to see that in the Third Test the Australians were the ones who were struggling. So the picture is not all that gloomy.
While I am still talking about cricket, the noble and gallant Lord mentioned Michael Atherton and the other Lancashire player. I have here a report that was printed in the Daily Telegraph on 3rd January by the headmaster of Manchester Grammar School under the headline,
"Atherton and Crawley prove the value of cricket in schools".
The article begins:
"Manchester Grammar School headmaster Martin Stephen says there is no need for a specialist academy to make Test players".
Such players are made early on. There is a case for having a sense of excellence at the end of the process to deal with the absolutely top players. But I have no doubt that Manchester Grammar School will produce more. I hope it will, and I certainly believe that it can. That distinguished school has the facilities: it uses them well; and it obviously has someone there who is very interested in training such boys.
Let us look at what the headmaster says. He states that there are,
"a number of other schools which do exactly the same thing".
He goes on to say that all schools ought to be training that type of youngster. Such training needs to start when they are young. The money has to be put in, the facilities have to be provided, and teachers must be found who are interested enough. To repeat what I said in the debate last year, we must begin—dare I say it?—to look at whether we are prepared to pay the teachers something extra to put an effort into sport. The days are gone when people can afford to give their own time for no particular reward.
My noble friend Lord Howell used the word "ethos". One of the most debilitating aspects of sport now is that it is awash—it is absolutely saturated—with money. Professional football is an example. The tennis players at Wimbledon gain a fortune if they win a title. Snooker players now become millionaires before they are 25. It is even spilling over to affect darts players. There is plenty of money available.
I am not particularly interested in players at that stage. They have made the grade; they are all right. I am interested in the future of youngsters in the United Kingdom. Wherever they live, they should have the facilities to develop their talents. In that way I believe that we can return to the standards that we had before. Money is not necessarily the answer. Professional football in this country is richer than it has ever been. But in terms of being an international team, Britain is
708
now in the second division. We are no threat to teams such as Germany in international competition. We struggle just to keep our head above water. So money at the top end is not necessarily the answer.
I was a little saddened when I realised that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, was saying that the future of the Football Trust may be in jeopardy—that point was echoed to some degree by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon—by the onset of the National Lottery. Some people warned that that might happen. It would be a retrograde step when people have given so much of their time. As two noble Lords have already said, the jobs are paid in a way, but I know that people have given a tremendous amount of time to this issue. After all the good work that they have done, the football scene has been transformed. As the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said, there has been a move down to the lower divisions and people can go to these matches in good surroundings. I believe that to put that process in jeopardy because of the lottery must be looked at as a matter of urgency. I believe that in this case the well-known expression "a level playing field" should be particularly applied.
Earlier I read a quotation in regard to the question whether in this country youngsters could perform. I was a Member of Parliament for an area where rugby league was the prime sport. It was no secret that the kids in one of the 11 to 13-year schools near where I lived year after year won the rugby league championship of West Yorkshire for that age group. They did it because right next to that school, which was in a reasonable area, was a rugby pitch. The teachers started them on rugby league early on. I recall a case in Manchester during the period during the two world wars. A small school in a very bad slum area had the good fortune to be built next to the local swimming baths. Year after year that school won the schoolboys' swimming championship of Great Britain.
We have the kids but we need the coaches. The Central Council for Physical Recreation and everybody else say that we need to train coaches. We have to pay teachers who are prepared to do part-time coaching. I think that if we do that we shall start to move up again. But we are not giving our children the best of facilities to develop their talents as they ought to be able to do. I hope that the debate that has been triggered off by my noble friend Lord Howell will help in that way. Huge sums of money are involved. I hope that in view of all of the money that is available to be distributed in a purposeful or charitable way, the bottom of the pyramid of sport will attract the lion's share and not the top which at present is very well catered for.
7.12 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I have very great pleasure in rising to support the noble Lord, Lord Howell. I believe that he was the first Minister, and indeed the first person, in the other place to focus people's attention on the broader aspects of sport to which he himself added the expression "recreation". In a form of reverse nepotism, I should also like to thank him because he, together with his right honourable friend Peter Shore, was responsible for appointing me chairman of the

709
Greater London and South-East Council for Sport and Recreation in 1978. His successors and my right honourable friend Michael Heseltine appointed me for a further three years. I had the privilege of seeing perhaps at sixth or seventh hand the policies and attitudes of governments.
I have come to the conclusion that governments are really irrelevant, or they should be, in terms of sport. They are relevant only when things are not working properly. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, "What a good idea it is to create regional recreational strategies. You will, in effect, be responsible for the central planning of all sport and recreation in Greater London, Surrey, Sussex and Kent, so help you God." I had an executive committee of 153 and a full committee of 252 composed of the Army, Navy, the Air Force, and every planning officer and interested person throughout the land. If they were too young we had to have some old people as well. We had the most monumental bureaucracy that had ever been seen. The meetings would begin by somebody getting up and saying, "My Lord Chairman (or Mr. Chairman), on a point of order", and somebody else would get up and say, "My Lord Chairman (or Chair)". The arguments were like many that we were familiar with at local authority level.
There were two schools of thought. First, there was what might be termed the socialist thought, that the state should pay for everything. Secondly, there was the Conservative thought, that the state should pay for nothing. I hasten to add that I was not paid and I did not claim any expenses but had the privilege of going to see all kinds of sporting events that I would otherwise not have been able to see had I tried to buy my way in. It was a very interesting time. I had two mentors: Clive Jenkins and his friend Mr. Sherman. They wrote two books entitled The Collapse of Work and The Leisure Shock. They were good socialists who pointed out that there would be shorter working hours and people would have more spare time. Then a group of people said, "Look, whatever we are, we are in charge of whatever people do when they are not working or sleeping." Then people in the north east said, "We are responsible for a third of people's time." Gradually, one said that it was not a thing to be done from the centre; one had to create a new attitude. One needed co-financing and the role of government and local authorities, often in terms of such simple things as planning permission—things that did not cost anything. What does one have as a strategy? Should people go out and be forced to play games? Should they have to play games at school?
We found ourselves returning to one simple thought: everything worked well if there was a good chap doing it. I believe that we have more active sports than almost the rest of the world put together. At my last count we had about 85 with various governing bodies. We all accepted that it was a good idea to encourage people to get out and take physical exercise. However, one could not plan it.
I will give a number of examples of what caused us concern. I say "us" because there were hundreds involved in it. Why were we not any good at tennis? We went to see the people at Wimbledon. They wore
710
their ties and were very polite to us. They said, "My dear chap, it is the weather. You see, the Australians and the Americans are good at it because they have good weather and can play out of doors all the time." We asked, "But what about the Swedes?" They replied, "They have indoor facilities. It is very dark over there and they have to play indoors." Then we asked, "Why do we not have indoor facilities?" They replied, "They would not work; they would not be economic."
A few things were set up. Some indoor tennis courts were partially funded in London and went bust. Then David Lloyd started his activities and they began to work. We also wanted to know why we were not any good at cricket. We were told that nobody wanted to play cricket any more because there were too many other sports, or there was no training. Then the MCC, a cricket school and £50,000 got something going and a lot of people, who would otherwise probably not have been any good at cricket at all, had great fun.
We wanted to know why we were no good at golf. We were told that there were not enough golf courses. Somebody produced a report saying that we needed hundreds of golf courses and that most golf courses built in recent times had practically gone under. Finally, we said that perhaps there was no need to have sport and recreation. We did a few studies about the impact that success had upon an event. I had an extremely good bunch of officials from the Sports Council who were very dedicated people. They were not necessarily politically motivated. They recognised that there were limited resources because with reduced disposable income it was difficult for government and local authorities to allocate more. But when people began to close things and get rid of the playing fields of ILEA and others one started to ask why. Many property developments, which themselves went bust, took place on land which could easily have been used for recreational purposes.
Some amusing events took place. We opened the South Down Way and the Archbishop of Canterbury walked along it. But to try to persuade the ramblers to allow one to put together two footpaths and to give up something else was a major bureaucratic problem. All in all, it always came down to the individual or to the parent with a small child who was handicapped but was a jolly good swimmer. He would change his job to get up early in the morning to drive the child to a place where proper training could be given. For example, it was said that skating was finished, but then people suddenly won Olympic medals. Then Mecca and others were forced to rethink the closure of skating rinks. When we are good at something people want to do it. It is not a question of the weather. We have almost the best water skiers in the world and yet we have awful weather.
We are not bad at all sorts of activities to do with motor cars. About 80 per cent. of all racing cars today are designed or built here. When the Ryder Cup became international everybody suddenly wanted to play golf and it became economic. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that I believe a certain form of elitism is the best way to encourage people to participate. I also

711
believe that the morale-boosting effect in terms of productivity, as was shown when we won the World Cup, is very considerable.
These things are more far reaching than one realises. I treasure a few international moments when I had forgotten that we created almost every sport in the world. If it meant a pain like skiing, we made it into a pleasure. I remember sitting quietly in Jamaica when I was economic adviser to the government—I had better not say which one it was—when Mr. Bush arrived to "soften them up" because of Grenada. He wanted to talk about boycotting Cuba. The prime minister turned to me and said, "Malcolm, is it true that Boycott is going to play cricket in South Africa?"
I was trying to do something with the Indians in Calcutta. I was taken out to a cricket club for lunch. It was said to me, "England, you know, has never been the same since they got in a muddle over Gentlemen and Players. We would never have had this problem with umpires if Gentlemen were still captains. After all, when the cup was here—" (I had to think for a moment which cup he was talking about) "—you know, it was over there". I had forgotten that I was in the home of the Calcutta Cup. Outside were a cricket pitch and a rugby pitch side by side.
When I meet people in the Middle East, as I did recently in a country which should not be mentioned, they are far more concerned to know of the welfare of Manchester United and Manchester City, because that is where they were trained as engineers. People say that South Africa is back applying to be a member of the Commonwealth because of the Gleneagles Agreement.
Those are issues about which one forgets. But, all in all, the six years that I was overseas were tremendously amusing. I came back with certain conclusions: people are going to live longer and retire earlier. There is going to be a gap. You have to teach people how to look after themselves in their leisure time. That was something I had not thought about. Because I went to a private school, where we were taught to play games, I forgot that many people are too nervous to start a sport because there is no training. So we concentrated upon training. We looked at the problems of women—those who have given up a job and middle-aged women who needed activities. The work that went into all that was good and sound. But at the end of the day one cannot beat the individual enthusiast, whether he is within a local authority, the secretary of a club, a retired sportsman, or someone, like Duncan Goodhew, who used to say, "If I had another second in my best year, I would have won every championship". When you get up to the elite, you are down to microseconds.
There were people who said that facilities are required. My good friend Rod Pickering used to say, "Where there are no pole-vault pits, there will be no pole-vaulters." The Amateur Athletic Association said, "We must have indoor running facilities. We only have the old RAF hangar. We almost run out at the back and run in again at Nottingham." But, without those facilities we still held every middle distance running record for about two years. That is a strange situation. Basically,
712
we are people who respond to success and wish to emulate it. All children have their sports heroes. We need a few more local heroes.
7.23 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, with other noble Lords, I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Howell. His enthusiasm is infectious and his knowledge is of great value in this House. He certainly took me back many light-years when I was able-bodied. I did not play football but I played almost every other game, including cricket of course. I have listened tonight to people who know more than I do about all those games. They have taken me back a long way.
Those who are interested in sports for youth are frequently told that there is no money, no leaders, no premises and very little enthusiasm. But from my inquiries I have found that all those obstacles—those "ninepins"—are incorrect. Money is available. There is a government grant of £50 million to the Sports Council and there are many other methods of raising funds. Now, also, we have the lottery.
The second of those ninepins is leadership. We are indeed fortunate to have Mr. Rodney Walker as the new chairman of the Sports Council. I am sure that he can call on a great number of leaders who will help him with their expertise. We wish him well.
Premises is the third ninepin. Premises have always been a problem, especially in inner London and inner city schools. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, referred to that point. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister realises some of the present problems and referred to them at last year's Conservative Party Conference. On 14th October he said
"While we are about it, I do not want councils selling off school playing fields they may need. I want those playing fields kept and I want them used".
I wish that more adult clubs would extend the hand of friendship and invite young people to share their facilities. Unfortunately, it seems that some local authorities charge very high fees for juniors who want to take part in sport. That must be discouraged.
The fourth ninepin is enthusiasm, which is growing and taking hold at the grass roots with enormous speed (thank goodness) and enthusiasm throughout the country. The new Youth Sports Trust is full of ideas which will be put into practice in the near future. As your Lordships will know, Mr. John Beckwith is chairman of the trustees. The trust will work with the appropriate national, regional and local organisations, including the national Sports Council and the National Coaching Foundation which the trust hopes to help. We wish them all well.
The night for me is late. If, through sports of all sorts we can encourage future generations to enjoy competition, to mix as friends, to be good losers and to be potential leaders, then all the work that so many people are undertaking on their behalf will not be in vain.
7.27 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, first I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for giving us this

713
opportunity to discuss the state of sport in the United Kingdom. I listened to noble Lords who have spoken and find myself in agreement with much of what has been said. But over and above what has been said, it is clear that everyone in this Chamber appreciates that sport is beneficial for all who take part in it. It also was clear that people take part in sport for a great variety of reasons.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, talked about cricket and about choice and opportunity in cricket. The noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, spoke about the success achieved by those taking part in sports. There are many ways to enjoy sport. It fulfils a basic desire in many people to compete and to test their strength and skill in various ways, while at certain levels enjoying themselves. It is a matter not only of choice and opportunity, or a matter of fashion. It is a matter of personal taste and intention. If someone has a taste for a particular sport, ultimately he will be good at it.
The noble Lord spoke about people wanting to try certain sports. That is true but, ultimately, if they do not have the right temperament for a certain sport they will not succeed at it, no matter how fashionable it may be. I know that because when I was at primary school the only sport played was soccer. I would be the world's worst soccer player, no matter who coached me. It was not until I discovered that there was a game which allowed larger and slower people to participate—namely, rugby—that I found my own sport. The sport must be one that you find congenial. The physical ability to participate must also be considered as well as the desire to take part. Certain people are culturally geared into taking up sport. We must provide a range of opportunities for people.
That brings me to the one structure that will allow sport to flourish in this country; namely, a wide enough range of choice and opportunity which allows people to find out what they are geared toward. Only when that happens can we guarantee that we will get the best out of our sporting activities. Once that happens leisure time is used creatively and positively. It cuts down on other social problems. For instance, it is a fact that young people who become involved in sport are less likely to commit certain types of juvenile crime. There are many other benefits. A sense of community is created and certain communities relate to certain sporting activities more than others. It is not a panacea for all problems but it will help. And most importantly, provided people are correctly coached, there will be great health benefits.
When we heard the announcement of the reorganisation of the Sports Council, many people were a little worried. The "Sport for All" programme, developed with the idea of involving everybody in a sport, is vital if we are to offer choice. It may well have been, as the Sports Council informed me, that that was a declining part of their activities; but it is still important. Local authorities are supposed to pick up that particular baton and run with it. But as we heard in the last debate, local authorities are under considerable pressure from other areas. I should not like to be the
714
one who says "We will keep our sports development programme but cut down on home visits for the elderly". That is probably a very genuine case of shroud waving.
We must ensure that the Government are prepared to take on and give assistance in the field of sport. Individual sports organisations are not that well placed to do it; they cannot give overall general assistance because of their interest in their own sport. It may be said that they should invest in long-term facilities. But they must deal with what is in front of them. It is no use saying to a hockey club, a football club or a rugby club, "Invest in all these activities and you will eventually benefit the players". We are talking of a 10, 20 or 30-year programme. For instance, many people who want to run a third side on a Saturday will invest their facilities in that rather than in something for which the benefits take so long to come through that their club may not even exist when they do. The Government must think more about assisting this area and provide some funds centrally.
That brings me on to a subject raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howell; that is, providing funds from, for example, the National Lottery, and similar sources for running sports projects as opposed to merely providing capital investment. By itself capital investment is not the answer, for the simple reason that when one creates a building one rapidly finds that maintenance costs occur. It does not matter how well it is built, repairs will be needed. Anybody who has ever visited a gymnasium will have seen on at least one exercise machine a sticker which says, "Out of Use". When one thinks of the amount of equipment and so forth, one can imagine the running costs.
One aspect that comes into this area and upon which the Government are to be congratulated is the introduction of national vocational qualifications for coaching sports. They are a good idea, at least in principle. The NVQs have not had a particularly smooth passage. They have come under fire from various angles; but the idea is sound. One thing that will add to initial choice, which will provide a pool of players which can feed off into various sports, will be the availability of correct coaching. People will develop good habits and good training techniques. Many people will transfer from sport to sport. For instance, it is quite common for people to try a junior sport and transfer to another when they acquire experience.
If we can persuade the Government to more firmly back that type of activity we shall be able to continue the process of educating our population to play more sport. Also, there is no reason why people who participate in sport on a recreational basis should not receive adequate training in several types of sport. When looking at the top levels of sport we forget that many people do not concentrate on one sport. For instance, it was traditional—before winter sports expanded into the summer months and training programmes expanded into the time left over when teams were not playing preparation games—to play a summer and a winter sport. That is the price we pay for living in a temperate climate. We can play football 12 months of the year, as

715
was said earlier, whereas Sweden cannot. Possibly the rest does the players some good but perhaps I am digressing.
I conclude by making a few comments on the equality of opportunity. We have made considerable strides recently to achieve equality and indeed certain things, such as fashion, have helped. For instance, women have been allowed to partake of exercise because it has been fashionable over the past decade-and-a-half. It is a comparatively new idea. It was rare only 20 years ago. The odd keep fit class does not compare to the incredibly tough step aerobics classes that are advertised on every corner. We have increased the levels of female participation in sport. Women are trying new sports and making tremendous achievements. I am afraid that they will always be at a disadvantage when it comes to levels of performance for the simple reason that most sports were designed by men for men and most women are smaller and slower than most men.
Sport is surely about competition. Women should be given the opportunity to compete at the highest level. Records are irrelevant; it is the level of competition between two bodies which is important. Sport is about competing on a level playing field. If the Government want to look at an area where they can enhance the level of sport choice, sport for women is one important area.
Unfortunately, I have not left myself sufficient time to go into my next area, which concerns sport for the disabled. I am the vice-president of the UK Sports Association, which deals with sport for people with what used to be called mental handicaps but are now called learning disabilities. Everything that we hear about sport helping the able-bodied person is true to a much greater extent for somebody with a disability. They have often been cut off from much human experience by accident. They now have a chance to compete and feel fulfilled. They can compete on even terms with their peers, which means that they can achieve. That type of activity should be enhanced and I hope that the Government will give us a firm assurance that they will be prepared to support the British Paralympics Association and also help the teams who will be entering the Atlanta paralympics.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, this excellent debate inspired some looking back and some nostalgia, especially the excellent speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, and the recollections of my noble friend Lord Dean of the great days when the England cricket team was prepared to look north of Surrey and Essex for its great players.
I did some looking back when listening to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, especially in what he said about disability. I agree with him. I must say that he also caused me to look back on my rugby union days without nostalgia, as I looked at his shape and realised that it was the specific kind of shape I remember with pain that I have run into on the rugby field. I offer my condolences to all those that he plays against.
716
I should seriously thank my noble friend Lord Howell for providing the opportunity for this debate and, I may add, for offering this House a most powerful speech based on his unequalled knowledge and experience of sport and also his passionate concern for sport's best interests.
There are many depressing headlines in British sport today. There are all the failures in cricket at Test level, although I notice that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, was most enlightening, and my noble friend Lord Dean was almost encouraging, on the future. I hope they are right. In football, there is less encouragement—nationally in the World Cup and at club level in the European Cup. There is financial misbehaviour in soccer and rugger and personal misbehaviour, especially in relation to drugs. There is the whole seedy commercialisation, which was referred to so strongly by my noble friends Lord Howell and Lord Dean. However, I agree with my noble friend Lord Howell that those are not the aspects of our sport which should most concern us today. If we get the heart of sport right, those aspects can be remedied.
As my noble friend Lord Howell said, our national sporting life is not fundamentally measured in Olympic medals and European cups, even allowing for the interesting points made by the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, about success, with many of which I agree. Our national sporting life is determined at the grass roots of Britain, in local school sports, in local club sports, in the local authorities which provide facilities for those schools and clubs and in the governing bodies which organise those sports. So I should like to begin firmly, like my noble friend, with the philosophical base to our sporting policy.
There has evolved in recent years a clear division between the Government and ourselves. The Government are now preaching a very elitist approach. The Minister in another place has told the Sports Council that it should not be concerned with what he called mass participation but should concentrate on what is thought to be some three dozen core elite sports. That is a direct and explicit reversal of decades, including the six years during which I sat on the Sports Council, when the philosophy was basically sport for all and an expansion of the facilities, the access and the participation to the maximum number of people in the maximum number of sporting activities. I still stand by that philosophy; but that is now rejected. We now have a philosophy of the elite few sports for a few successful participants.
The Sports Council itself, following the Minister's lead, has stated that, apart from lottery distribution, it has only two priorities: young people in sport and excellence in those few core sports. We certainly do not oppose the focus on youth sports or the pursuit of excellence. But what a narrow vision; and how much is omitted from that vision! The Minister's apparent attempt at mass participation is simply not acceptable. The mass is not some low class mob. It is the body of British citizens who pay the taxes for sports facilities and constitute the whole community, including the whole sporting community. I reject the narrow spirit of

717
current government sports policy and believe that the Sports Council, in its new form when that is finally shown to us, should reject it as well.
I wish to ask a few questions in relation to the specific points raised in the debate. On school sports, which my noble friend rightly stressed, we welcome the Prime Minister's interest but we must ask what in the end will actually happen. I support entirely the six-point agenda of my noble friend Lord Howell to improve sport in schools. I ask the Minister to treat that seriously and I look forward to his response. He might also tell us when the Government's promised statement on sport in schools will emerge.
On local authorities, does the Minister recognise, as has been pointed out, that the squeeze on local authority expenditure is probably the single greatest blow currently being suffered by British sport and that it is probably bigger than the lottery distribution can hope to compensate for? Is he aware that the Sports Council recently estimated that it costs more than £100 million simply to maintain existing sports facilities at their present, not always adequate, standards? Where is the money coming from for the revenue needs of existing sports facilities and the new lottery-inspired sports facilities?
On the Sports Council itself, we have suffered at least three years of dithering and endless revision. We now welcome the prospect that we may be at the end of that long period of uncertainty. We also welcome the appointment that has been referred to and we do not oppose the broad lines on which the Government's thinking appears to be taking shape. We welcome the UK Sports Council, which is an idea we have supported for many years. I ask the Minister to tell us on what basis the elite three dozen core sports will be chosen. Does he not recognise that some of the most valuable sporting developments—"sporting" in the broadest sense but a genuine description—are outside that narrow core of conventional organised games? I have in mind the less formal sports and physical pursuits—gymnastics, dance, and areas such as that.
I must also refer to the recent report of the Public Accounts Committee on the financial management, or perhaps mismanagement, of the Sports Council. It is the most devastating denunciation I have ever read of a public body. It accuses the Sports Council of improprieties and financial misdeeds which put at risk millions of pounds of taxpayers' money. I should like to have the Minister's comments on that report.
On the crucial regional dimension, is the Minister aware of the massive outcry against the attack of his ministerial colleague in another place on the regional councils for sport and recreation? Have the Government had any second—better—thoughts on that? There have been rumblings that the Government will revise their approach to the regional councils. Will the Minister tell us whether he proposes ways to re-establish and redefine the relationship—we agree with the Government that there was some wooliness and confusion in the relationship—and to re-establish the links between the
718
regional sports councils and the regional councils for sport and recreation? The present Sports Council is asking for that.
On the lottery—I refer to it in passing—why have not the Government been more flexible in relation to the revenue needs of sport? What on earth is the point of the lottery providing a new swimming pool if there is no revenue to heat it or to provide the staff to open it?
On sports facilities more generally, I was very impressed and disturbed by what the noble Lords, Lord Aberdare and Lord Brabazon, said about the damage inflicted by the lottery on the Football Trust and on the Foundation for Sport and Arts. With my wider remit, I am concerned for the arts as well and know what excellent work the foundation has done in the whole area of sports and the arts. I shall listen with great interest to the Minister's comments on that.
As my noble friend Lord Howell said in his opening speech, sport is important not only and not mainly because it provides the excitement of the peaks of professional competition. Sport matters because it provides a more healthy society and can enhance the individual citizen's quality of life, increasing his pleasure in exercise and helping his personal character development through learning to succeed and how to handle success and failure, and improving his capacity to relate to fellow citizens, even in the ways which the noble Lord, Lord Addington, might relate to members of the opposition, and to integrate with society. That is why we care about sport. That is why the debate has been important. That is why we hope that the Minister has some positive answers to our many questions today.
7.50 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Viscount Astor): My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for the opportunity he has given us today to consider sport in this country. We can all declare an interest in sport. When I went to school my idea of sport was trying to spend half an hour in the local bookmakers. However, I found other sports which I enjoyed, and I still enjoy them, whether I am playing or watching.
Some noble Lords have focused on cricket. Therefore, I must remember when replying that it is often dangerous to swipe at the rising ball on the off stump, some of which may have been bowled at me this evening.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, paid more attention to football and to the transfer fees paid by clubs. Clubs need to be competitive. Otherwise good players will migrate and play for European clubs instead. I know that the leader of his party is pro-European but the logic of what the noble Lord said would mean that European clubs had a better chance of beating us game after game.
I must emphasise the absolute commitment on the part of the Government to the importance of sport. Sport can contribute significantly to the well-being of the nation and its citizens. The success of sportsmen and women at the national or local level can do much to generate national or local pride. We all remember the

719
notable successes. Who can forget the performance of Sally Gunnell, Linford Christie and Colin Jackson on the track, Damon Hill's heroic attempts on the grand prix circuit, or Chris Boardman's Olympic achievement in Barcelona and his triumphant wearing of the yellow jersey during last year's Tour de France?
We also remember the many long faces when England failed to qualify for last year's World Cup. The news from Australia in recent weeks has not been encouraging, although it has not stopped many of us staying up into the small hours to watch the live transmissions. That goes to show that sport has a binding and cohesive effect which it is hard to better.
What are the Government doing to ensure that sport retains a vigorous presence in our midst? First, there are our reforms of the Sports Council. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, was concerned about the regional aspects of our proposals for the reform of the Sports Council in terms of overall planning for sporting provision and in particular the distribution of the proceeds from the National Lottery. Perhaps I may therefore explain briefly why we have decided to reform the regional arrangements. Before doing so I shall briefly explain the present arrangements, which are sometimes misunderstood.
The Sports Council is a national body wholly funded by my department. It has 10 regional offices in England whose task is to deliver council policy at a regional level. There are also 10 coterminous regional councils for sport and recreation. Those bodies, set up administratively in 1976, bring together regional sport and recreation interests. Local authorities are in a guaranteed majority, but the membership includes a wide range of other interests, for example, regional governing bodies of sport. The broad task of those regional councils is to draw up strategies for regional sporting provision. The Sports Council's regional offices provide the secretariat for the regional councils. The regional councils effectively determine how the Sports Council's regional funds should be spent.
As my honourable friend the Minister for Sport explained in another place on 8th July last year, the present structural relationship between the Sports Council's regional offices and the regional councils for sport and recreation gives rise to confusion as to roles and responsibilities and to concern on grounds of financial accountability, bureaucracy and duplication. The Government have therefore announced that they intend to end the present formal linkage. There are two main reasons for doing so. The first is to clarify the respective roles of players at regional level and to ensure that the Sport Council's regional offices understand that their primary responsibility is the regional delivery of national policy.
The second reason flows from the introduction of the National Lottery. The regional offices of the Sports Council will have an important role to play in advising the Sports Council on lottery applications from the regions. Many of those applications will come forward from current partners on the regional councils for sport and recreation, including local authorities, very much in accordance with the regional strategies to which the Sports Council is currently a party.
720
In order to ensure that such applications are eligible for funding there needs to be a clear gap between the Sports Council in the regions and the regional constituency from which lottery applications will come. The Sports Council cannot be directly associated with bringing forward an application and then proceed to sit in judgment upon it. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that it is not a question of trust or lack of trust, as he suggested. The need for close working links between the Sports Council and its regional partners is not at issue, simply their manifestation. The Sports Council will continue to work closely with local authorities and other regional partners in developing its own future policies. Equally, the Sports Council will want to keep abreast of developments by the local authority sector in pursuit of its own aims and priorities.
It would not, of course, be appropriate for the Government to dictate to local authorities what arrangements might succeed the present regional councils for sport and recreation. However, I am aware of the excellent and positive lead taken by local authorities in the West Midlands in developing future arrangements. There is no reason why the reform of the regional arrangements should have any adverse impact on the quality and quantity of projects which may come forward for support from the National Lottery.
I have referred to the importance of sport as a source of national pride. The performance of our national teams is important, but we must also be well represented on the international scene. That is one of the reasons why we propose to establish a United Kingdom Sports Council alongside the English Sports Council. Both bodies will start work during the course of the next financial year.
The UK Sports Council will have among its members the chairmen of the four home country sports councils and the chairman of the British Olympic Association, together with representatives of those who must count most, the sportsmen themselves. For the first time professional sport will be represented on both the UK and the English sports councils. That reflects the crucial role which professional sportsmen have to play in representing the nation and acting as our sporting ambassadors.
The UK body will represent us on the international scene. It will seek to increase the influence of the UK in international sport and it will co-ordinate policy to bring international events to the United Kingdom. The UK council will also oversee work carried out by the home country sports councils which is of UK-wide significance. We have in mind particularly doping control, sports science, sports medicine and coaching. It will be an early task of the council to identify other possible areas of sports policy which may have application across the UK as a whole as well as areas of possible duplication and overlap which could be dealt with more effectively.
We look forward very much to making an early announcement about membership of the UK Sports Council.
The newly refocused Sports Council for England will have as one of its key roles a concern for young people and sport. For the future, Sports Council grants to

721
governing bodies will require them to prepare clear plans with specific targets for the development of their sports, from grassroots to the highest competitive levels, and including programmes for strong and effective links with schools and youth organisations. We need to make the most of the talent of our young people.
But we are doing far more to ensure that school sport is put back where it belongs, at the heart of school life. School sport, and particularly team games, are essential for many reasons. They can teach young people, as can no other activity which they experience while at school, the value of discipline, team work and team spirit. Where else do young people learn to operate within a framework of rules, to understand the concepts of sportsmanship, fair play and the lessons that can be learnt from losing as well as winning? Sport has a potential for character-building which will stand young people in good stead for the rest of their lives.
I do not wish to suggest that sport should be given to young people because, like vitamin C or castor oil, it is good for them. It is also highly enjoyable, at least for most children, and provides a source of healthy enjoyment as well as a channel for youthful high spirits, energy and aggression which can have huge benefits. It is a fact that young people today are very much less fit than their predecessors. Our culture has become increasingly sedentary, and there are many more temptations to lure young people away from the sports field or the gym.
A vital step in the process of reinvigorating the place of sport in school has already been taken. The Government have recently announced their final proposals for changing the national curriculum in physical education. In future, all 14 to 16 year-olds will play a competitive game. Team games will also be a specific requirement for younger pupils and there will be a much clearer emphasis on the importance of mini-games—that is, short versions of traditional games aimed specifically at children below the age of 11. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has also made clear that he wishes to see schools offering at least two hours of curriculum PE every week. His hope is that many schools will offer more. But even if this can be achieved, much work remains to be done.
Crucially, we want to reach the position where it is a second nature for young people to participate in some form of extra-curricular sport. The school curriculum, as we know, is heavily loaded and we cannot expect schools and our teachers to provide all the benefits we seek for our young people. I pay credit here to the thousands of teachers who give their time to ensure that pupils have these opportunities. I should like to think that we can reach a point where all teachers will do so.
However, as I said, that is not a position we can reach overnight. That is why we are asking the Sports Council to look very carefully at ways in which governing bodies can link sport in schools with wider sporting activities outside. Governing bodies, and clubs, and individuals who are already well apprised of the value of sport should look to ways to encourage young people to participate. It is in their own best interests since young people must form the seedcorn for the future and
722
it is with young people that loyalties to particular sports or teams or clubs are forged. No governing body or club with an eye to its future revenues can afford to ignore the benefits of a junior section, proper coaching and a genuinely welcoming atmosphere for younger members.
Young people grow up and leave school and it is no less important that we should continue to encourage and stimulate opportunities for participation at the grassroots end of sport. That is why this Government introduced in November 1992 the Sportsmatch sponsorship scheme which was set up to attract new commercial sponsorship and match it pound for pound. In England, Sportsmatch has approved a total of 752 applications to a value of over £6.5 million. Together with commercial sponsorship, this means that Sportsmatch has generated over £13 million of new money for grassroots sport since its inception in November 1992.
The Foundation for Sport and the Arts provides £48 million each year for sport, partly financed from a reduction in pool betting duty. The Government are very appreciative of the contribution that the pools companies have made to sport —and the arts, of course—through their support of the foundation. We have recognised the valuable addition that the foundation's work provides by agreeing to extend the reduction in pool betting duty for a further five years from this April. We hope very much that the pools companies will continue to support this important partnership venture which has done so much.
I commend the contribution of the pools companies to what is probably seen by most as our national sport, football, through their sponsorship of the Football Trust, which is chaired by my noble friend Lord Aberdare. The trust provides £35 million grant per annum for safety improvements at football clubs, with, again, a significant proportion of the funds coming from a reduction in pool betting duty. It is no small thanks to the work of the trust in disbursing grants that clubs in the Premier League and First Division of the Football League met the requirement to go all-seated by the 1994 August deadline. We look forward to continuing work in helping clubs in the lower divisions of the Football League to go all-seated or to improve the safety of their terracing by 1999.
There have been a number of references to the National Lottery which, we should remember, has now been in operation for some nine weeks. Over £129 million has been raised for good causes during that time with charities, the arts, sports, the heritage and the Millennium Fund each benefiting by £25.8 million as a result. Organisations are only now starting to submit their proposals for schemes to be funded by the lottery.
The Government are well aware of the concerns expressed by the pools companies and echoed today by my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara that their business will be adversely affected by the impact of the National Lottery and that this will have inevitable consequences for their existing generous level of support both for the Foundation for Sport and the Arts and for the Football Trust. The Government believe that spending on the National Lottery will on the whole be diverted from general expenditure, rather than from other forms of gambling. There is no evidence to show that the National Lottery has so far had a significant

723
impact on participation in the football pools. However, the Home Office is monitoring the pools industry and other parts of the gaming industry, but it is too early to tell what effect, if any, the lottery will have on other parts of the gaming market.
Another issue raised has been that of advertising for the National Lottery compared with the pools. As with all forms of commercial gambling, pools companies are not allowed to advertise on television and radio. The National Lottery, in line with existing regulations on broadcast advertising for lotteries, is able to advertise using these media because its primary purpose is to raise money for good causes. Pools companies are able to sponsor television programmes, and they derive great benefit from the results service on the main television and radio channels. That whole service is formatted for pools players. However, I recognise the strength of feeling of my noble friends and I shall ensure that the Secretary of State understands the concerns they have raised.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, asked about the PAC report on the Sports Council. It relates to activities in the commercial subsidiaries of the Sports Council trust company. Steps have been taken by the council and the department to address the weaknesses that have been identified. We shall be responding fully to the PAC's report in the normal way. We welcome the report.
The Government are not complacent about the state of sport in our country. In the manner of all good school reports, we feel that it "could do better". But we do not feel that this is necessarily a time for lamentation and wringing of hands. There is much to be proud of in our sporting heritage and many fine examples of young sportsmen who are doing their country credit today. We intend to build on this solid base by reintroducing sport to the lives of all our young people; by providing a better focus, through a restructured Sports Council, for sports administration; by providing, via the National Lottery, for the facilities that will see us and the rising generation of sportsmen and women well into the next century; and, finally, by ensuring that this country becomes again a magnet for international sporting events with facilities, sportsmanship and sporting heroes to rival the best in the world.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Howell: My Lords, perhaps I may thank everyone who has taken part in what has been an excellent debate, which has been well received by the House and long overdue. The general attitude of noble Lords has been nostalgic as well as practical. I congratulate especially the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, on her contribution, not least because she was the only noble Baroness to speak. That was the one disappointment to me. Since more than half the nation is made up of that sex, they should be well represented in debates of this kind, so we are especially grateful to her.
The noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, properly reminded us of the importance of heroes. There is nothing wrong with people worshipping heroes so long as they are the right kind of heroes. He and other noble Lords, especially the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall,
724
drew our attention to some of our heroes of yester-year. I wonder whether it is in order —I am sure I carry the whole House with me—if I mention the name of Mr. Peter May, a friend of mine, who welded his great skills over the years to a basic integrity, an example we should do well to further in all our sports at the present time. He provided pleasure and is an inspiration for all of us.
The Minister talked about the National Lottery. I am glad that the matter is to be monitored by the Home Office. There is no room for complacency. There is evidence. The Treasury must know how much tax is coming into its coffers each week from the pools, and that this is a matter of great concern to many of us. We hope that the Minister will be able to persuade his colleagues to take early action, otherwise we shall have to return to the matter.
The debate has been well balanced. It has matched philosophy with practicality: school sport and club sport on the one hand against the importance of international sport on the other. As I say, I am most appreciative of the spirit in which the debate has taken place, and beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

National Health Patient Accommodation Bill [H.L.]
8.13 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
First, I thank the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for finding the time for the Bill, those who intend to take part in the debate, and those who have assured me of their support, although they are unable to speak. I should take the opportunity also to thank the great many members of the public who have written and telephoned me supporting the Bill. They come from all parts of the country. They have all given accounts of the great distress they, their relatives and friends have suffered as a result of mixed-sex wards. Every letter has been in favour of the Bill. I have them here. There are well over 200 of them.
I have been in this place (the House of Commons or the House of Lords) for 25 years, and that is the largest number of individual letters—they are all individually written— that I have ever received, even during the abortion debates of the 1970s. I imagine that the Department of Health has also received a great many letters. I cannot possibly reply to them individually, but I acknowledge their receipt, and say how pleased I am and how useful they are.
The Bill is a simple one. It is designed to give patients throughout the UK a statutory right to be treated in single-sex wards. One would have thought that that was an unexceptional right. In addition, one would have thought that the only surprise is that the right does not already exist. The timing of the Bill's Second Reading is, coincidently of the best, coming as it does on the very day of the revised Patient's Charter. Unfortunately we were unable to see it until today so we have been unable to assimilate its import completely. However, we

725
know that it incorporates the aim of single-sex wards, but unfortunately it does not give the patients the right to be treated in such wards. The Bill seeks to do just that.
Perhaps I may quote briefly from the Patient's Charter. It says:
"Except in emergencies, you have the right to be told before you go into a hospital whether it is planned to care for you in a ward for men and women. In all cases you can expect single-sex"—
not demand—
"washing and toilet facilities. If you would prefer to be cared for in single-sex accommodation (either a single-sex ward or a `bay' area within a larger ward which offers equal privacy), your wishes will be respected wherever possible".
No right is given in today's Patient's Charter for a person to be treated in single-sex accommodation.
My interest in the subject was aroused by our late dear colleague Lady Phillips who was treated in a mixed-sex ward following an accident. She was most upset at the experience, but did not complain publicly in case any complaint was construed as a criticism of the health service or of the nursing or medical staff. That is the tone which goes right through the letters that I have received.
Fortunately, there have been people and organisations prepared to campaign for single-sex wards and to restore choice and dignity to patients in the NHS. The Royal College of Nursing has been especially concerned about mixed-sex wards, and their extension and growth. It has done marvellous work in raising public awareness and highlighting the problems attaching to them for patients and nurses.
Many of the letters that I have received have come from qualified nurses with first-hand experience of the indignity, distress, stress, suffering, and, I fear, danger which arise from the mixed-ward system. As well as the RCN, the Patients' Association, especially Dr. Patricia Wilkie, has done extensive research on mixed-sex wards, which has shown conclusively that they are not satisfactory nursing units and that the majority of patients is opposed to such wards. The College of Health has also done work on this. Again, it is in favour of the Bill. The National Federation of Women's Institutes has received many complaints, and has recorded its opposition to mixed-sex wards. I have had letters from individual women's institutes. Those organisations, working, as they have, so hard, have been fighting a hard and difficult battle, apparently without too much help until some elements of the national media decided to lend a hand. We should be grateful to them for that.
BBC "Woman's Hour", for example, has put on at least two serious programmes about mixed-sex wards, and the public's reaction was positively against them. The Daily Mail also is to be congratulated on devoting a good deal of time, energy and space to the problem. Glaring banner headlines are not always relevant to serious issues, but the headline in the Daily Mail, "Shut the wards of shame", was spot on. So, in fact, was the material that backed it up, including the host of letters from its readers opposing mixed-sex wards. The public reaction was against mixed-sex wards. It was immediate
726
and angry, as it was following the publication of another article on the subject in last week's issue of Woman's Weekly.
Without such hard campaigning, we should not have had any action by government, nor would the Bill have been before the House tonight. I wish to pay tribute to all those organisations to whom the credit is due for following the matter up.
We should ask when and why mixed-sex wards were allowed to develop. After all, before the war, when health and hospitals were meagrely financed compared with today, mixed-sex wards would have been unthinkable. Imagine any matron of a hospital allowing mixed-sex wards. I am sure that no one here tonight can imagine that. Apparently, the wards were allowed to be introduced in the 1960s and 1970s in order to make the best use of new high technology equipment. I find that reasoning quite unacceptable. There is more to nursing and medical treatment than high-tech equipment. The state of mind of the patient must be considered and an anxious patient can have his or her recovery seriously retarded by that anxiety.
Furthermore, many people who have never shared a house let alone a bedroom with a person of the opposite sex suddenly find themselves sharing bedroom accommodation in mixed-sex wards and sharing toilet and lavatory facilities without locks on doors. People of the opposite sex wander around half naked, having embarrassing treatments if not in sight certainly within sound.
The Nursing Times in a survey last year revealed some disturbing information. Perhaps I may quote one or two of its findings. I do not wish to bore the House, but the survey was so good that your Lordships should hear about it. It stated:
"Nurses who had themselves become patients found the experience of being nursed in a mixed-sex ward 'unbearable'. One nurse who had become a patient summed up the feelings of several by stating that while 'not considering herself a prude' she found the whole experience 'totally degrading"'.
It continued:
"One nurse, three weeks after having undergone a mastectomy, was readmitted as an emergency with a pulmonary embolism and found she was the only female in a six-bedded male bay. She was upset and embarrassed by these circumstances. As she states, had it not been for the fact that she was acutely aware of her need for heparinisation, she would have discharged herself".
The study stated:
"With regard to toilet facilities, 44 per cent. of wards surveyed did not designate the toilets for males or females. Patients found privacy problems also arose when they could not close toilet doors while in a wheelchair…
"Also, many patients do not appear to be informed before admission that they may be nursed on a mixed-sex ward.
"Half the nurses surveyed had received complaints about the mixed-sex setting from patients, and almost as many from relatives or friends of patients. Often, patients would talk to relatives about their misgivings over arrangements of the sexes, not wanting to cause a fuss or appear critical of the nurses".
People do not complain because they are pleased with the nursing facilities but not with the accommodation. The study continued:
"As a result of this, most complaints were informal, being verbally passed on to staff. Patients rarely wished to make their complaints formal … Arguments in favour of mixed-sex wards

727
include the fact that they reflect the normal pattern of life as the majority of the population live in this type of environment. However, as several staff in the survey stated, individuals in `normal' life choose with whom to share their bedroom and bathroom. It is particularly distressing for those who have remained single, those from religious orders or some ethnic groups, for example, to be placed in this situation".
Finally, the RCN writes:
"A single-sex environment during a period of illness and vulnerability can be restful and supportive … To find an 85 year-old woman lying in her nightdress near a man she does not know cannot be acceptable".
That survey was based upon the shoal of horror stories that I have received and I shall quote from one or two. One lady wrote:
"Some years ago, I was in hospital after an operation. The ward consisted of three females and a man in a bed by the door. He was slightly 'simple' and kept coming over to my bed, which he was convinced was his. I told him to go away but when I was talking to another patient he came over and got into my bed!".
Another lady writes:
"I would be horrified to have to be treated amongst men. I am a pensioner and have been single all my life and the thought of having my privacy violated in such a way appalls me".
I have a letter from a retired consultant who stated that, as a university lecturer in clinical medicine, he spent his professional life working for peanuts to prop up the NHS. He continues:
"My wife was a midwife, health visitor and nurse instructor. Now we are in need of care ourselves we resent the ultimate indignity of being treated like animals. Even in the old NHS, with all its shortcomings, this did not happen".
Finally, I have a letter from someone who went to the local hospital for fairly major abdominal surgery. She states:
"I received excellent medical care and extremely good food. The ward was a mixed-sex ward however which caused me both embarrassment and stress. Most of the men were recovering from prostate operations and they frequently wandered around the ward, naked from the waist down. On one occasion I was naked in the bathroom (no lock!) when a man barged in and yet another one followed me into the toilet".
Those are one or two of the hundreds of horror stories that I received about mixed-sex wards. They show exactly the flavour of what is happening in our hospitals.
It is clear that NHS patients are not being treated with the respect and consideration to which they are entitled. I fear that they are too often treated as though they are the recipients of charitable services rather than as part owners of their National Health Service. We must always remember that. We must understand that the NHS belongs to the people and that when they are patients in hospital they are entitled to have their dignity and choices respected as well as first-class nursing and medical treatment. This cannot be done unless people are given the right to be treated in single-sex wards. That is fundamental to the maintenance of patients' dignity and choice.
The new standards in the Patient's Charter will go some way towards alleviating the problem. But as the RCN points out in its briefing paper, the new standards are not legally enforceable and it therefore urges support for this Bill.
728
Indeed, at present, perhaps as many as 40 per cent. of patients are being treated in mixed-sex wards. That figure is increasing in spite of the present provisions of the Patient's Charter, which provides that there should be respect for privacy, dignity and religious and cultural beliefs.
Indeed, I received a fax this afternoon from the College of Health after it had read the new Patient's Charter. It supports my Bill and says that the new Patient's Charter does not go far enough. The fax states:
"While the new Patient's Charter… goes a long way towards accommodating patient choice, it does not go far enough".
Therefore, I believe that we need this Bill. It has become very clear indeed that the public support it. I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading this evening and that following that, it will be given a smooth passage during its remaining stages in this House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—
(Lard Stoddart of Swindon.)
8.31 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I feel that I am the first on what some may call a "women only" list. That in itself is an interesting fact and shows how strongly women feel about this matter.
I wish to speak briefly and to give my whole hearted support for the spirit of the Bill introduced so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. I understand fully the aims of the Bill; namely, to promote the dignity, privacy and choices of patients. As the noble Lord said, it is fortuitous that the Bill is being debated today as those principles are also a central feature of the new expanded Patient's Charter which has been published only today and which contains new standards in relation to the issue of mixed wards. It stresses the importance of patients' own preferences.
I have felt uneasy ever since I heard about the practice of mixed wards in hospitals. I am sure that some young people, and perhaps some older people, accept and may even welcome such a practice. But the majority of those in our hospitals are probably older and have been brought up in a different era. Mixed wards are anathema to many of them and the thought of being an in-patient in such circumstances could possibly make them miserable and, indeed, could be detrimental to their health and recovery. Some may feel that their dignity is being compromised and may long for privacy.
Colleagues have approached me on this subject and I know that that is the experience of other noble Lords too. But the one point which concerns me is that although I applaud people having choice in this matter, whenever possible, I feel that the legislative approach may be too rigid. There may be occasions, for example where people need intensive care when, because of the nature of the condition, it is essential to have a bed immediately. Even for patients admitted from the waiting lists, other factors such as the length of the wait may be extremely important. I am aware that long-established practices cannot be changed overnight. But the NHS has achieved so much in recent years, with

729
management becoming much more responsive to the wishes of patients so the public debate on this issue will no doubt be taken on board.
Therefore, although I am extremely sympathetic to the aims of the Bill and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, on bringing the matter before the House, it is important to retain some flexibility. The measures outlined in the Patient's Charter, which are the result of the Government having listened to patients' views, are the best way forward. At this stage, I do not believe that there is a need for legislation to deal with this matter.
8.35 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, for bringing this Bill before your Lordships. I hope that the noble Lord enjoys being a one-man band and I hope also that all noble Baronesses will support the Bill.
Looking back over the years since the practice of mixed wards emerged, I am now surprised that this legislation was not introduced at that time.
Some years ago, before the new National Spine Unit was built at Stoke Mandeville Hospital, and the wards for paralysed people were Nightingale wards, I went to visit a Roman Catholic nun who wished to discuss with me some problems that she had. I found her in a mixed ward placed between two footballers. The two young men shouted across her. It may have been the idea of the nursing staff to put her in that position so that the two young men would behave better. She was a quiet, uncomplaining person who no doubt believed that that was yet another cross which she had to bear.
I hope that this legislation will make the nursing staff more sensitive to the needs of patients. Wherever possible, patients should be given a choice. Hospitals can be extremely intimidating and hospital staff, when overworked and frustrated, may ignore patients' wishes and put their own wishes first.
The Government have brought out charters, including the Patient's Charter, the updated version of which has been published today. But charters are words which may or may not be adhered to Legislation is more likely to make people act on the contents.
Last year an aunt of mine in Scotland fractured her femur. The pin slipped and she was in great discomfort. She is in her nineties. One night, when there were very few night staff on duty in the hospital, a man got into her bed. She was most upset, as were her family.
I hope that the Minister will take very seriously the Bill which is before us. Hospital security is almost non-existent compared with that in many other organisations. Patients and visitors wander all over the place with no questions being asked. Some people feel most embarrassed and uneasy when placed in a hospital situation among the opposite sex, particularly when they have to share lavatories and washing facilities which are often rather inadequate. Members of both sexes may feel equally uncomfortable. It is not advisable to lock the lavatory door when patients are ill in case they become even more ill or get stuck. Therefore, any kind of privacy is a problem.
730
On Monday I told two young Australian girls who are in their twenties and visiting Britain about this Bill. They told me that they did not realise that there could be mixed wards. They were shocked and said "We hope we do not become ill in Britain".
As has been said, there is very strong support for this legislation. I did not realise how strongly people felt about this matter until I asked around. I believe that one should exclude from the legislation accident and emergency departments, intensive care units and even day wards. That could be achieved by amendment in your Lordships' House. I hope that that will satisfy the anxieties of the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe. In such instances it would be neither practical nor necessary. But for other wards, I believe that a choice is essential if there is to be peace of mind and contentment for patients.
The Royal College of Nursing has brought to our notice how upsetting it may be for someone who has been sexually abused to be placed in a mixed ward. I am glad that the Royal College of Nursing is supporting this Bill. With such a shortage of hospital beds and the really horrific stories of people not getting into hospital when seriously ill—I know the Minister knows about some of those cases—there is immense pressure on hospital staff. That is why this legislation is so important now.
If Parliament passes this Bill it will cost little in money terms but it will please many people. To move a bed around is not difficult although to provide some more lavatories and washing facilities may cost something. I can see no reason why the Government would not want to have this Bill. I hope that it goes through Parliament quickly, but that enough time will be given for hospitals to get themselves organised. Hospitals can become very factory-like with almost a conveyor belt approach. We should not forget that patients are people and personal wishes should be met whenever possible. We are only asking for human dignity to be given to very vulnerable people.
8.41 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for introducing this Bill because something like it is certainly needed—although, as the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, says, we may have to look at possible amendments later—because the distress which is caused to patients and to their relatives by the present system is considerable. As far as I could discover there is nothing in the existing legislation, past or present, which prevented the practice we are discussing from happening, but it seems to have grown up very much in the 1980s. No one has ever explained, to my satisfaction, why it has happened. I wonder whether, in her summing up this evening, the noble Baroness could explain the rationale behind it. I cannot believe that this just happened; there must be some reason for it. However, this practice has been unpopular right from the beginning.
I have been unfortunate enough to have had a number of fairly lengthy stays in hospital in earlier years. The lack of privacy in a hospital ward is always the greatest problem. It is always a difficulty for some patients.

731
Perhaps there are others who do not mind it, but I believe the majority of patients mind it very much. Sharing wards with members of the opposite sex—this applies to the male point of view and the female point of view—adds to the stress at a time when the patient is most vulnerable. I would ask the Minister not to think that because most of the speakers in tonight's debate are female it is the females who object solely to this matter. I have talked to a number of men about this matter. If one talks to them in a group they feel obliged to take a macho view and say that they do not mind one way or the other. However, if one speaks to them privately, it is quite a different story. They do not like mixed sex wards. They find that just as embarrassing and as difficult as do females.
Objections to the practice go across all age groups. The noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, suggested that it was mostly older women who objected to mixed wards but that is not so. Often young women feel vulnerable when they are put into a mixed ward, especially one which contains many older men. Objections to the practice of mixed wards go across both sexes and all age groups. As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has made clear to us, the objections are shared by many people in the profession.
I have made a point of talking to everyone I could reach on this matter since this Bill was conceived. I have found a unanimous opinion in favour of the Bill and against the idea of mixed sex wards. The growth in the practice seems to me to be symptomatic of the trend towards treating patients as units of work to be counted, rather than as people. I think that is something we should seek to reverse from this moment on. The Patient's Charter is not an answer to this problem. However, I accept that it draws attention to the problem. Like the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, I wish to quote from the Patient's Charter. It ends:
"you have the choice of accepting immediate admission or waiting for single-sex accommodation to become available".
But what choice is that? If one is in discomfort or in pain or if one has a job and one needs to return to it, that is no choice at all. One may well take the option of mixed sex wards and regret it within 24 hours. I applaud the fact that the Patient's Charter has taken this matter on board but that is not enough. Legislation may not be the answer. Perhaps there are other ways of tackling this matter. I agree with the noble Baronesses, Lady Seccombe and Lady Masham, that in certain circumstances, such as in intensive care units and perhaps in casualty wards, one may not have a choice. But why cannot one have a choice in the vast majority of wards where admissions are planned and where patients tend to be grouped according to their complaint, whatever it is? There is no reason at all why the choice which existed before 1980 should not continue to exist. I wish this Bill well and I hope that the House will give it a Second Reading.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord for bringing this Bill forward. I am sure other noble Lords as well as noble Baronesses are with us in spirit at least. I welcome the new
732
provisions in the Patient's Charter which require prospective patients to be warned—as they already are in some hospitals—that they may have to go to a mixed ward, so that they have some choice in principle. I welcome the Secretary of State's expressed preference for a patient-led rather than a cost-led regime. Nevertheless, I would argue strongly for a statutory right to be enshrined in legislation. It will be said that this limits the flexibility and the choice of the managers, but I think that can and should be solved by better planning—if the French can do it, why cannot we?—and that patients need choice more than the managers do.
It will also be said that they have that choice now, but do they? Many of them are old and confused and some are young and uncertain of themselves. All are under stress and are very vulnerable. It is only too easy for such people to be daunted when told that if they choose not to go into a mixed ward, they may have to wait for some unpredictable time. They will be anxious and fear waiting. They will be afraid to "make a fuss" or be "difficult".
We are told that mixed wards are necessary, first, because they are the only economical way to use scarce high technology and, secondly, because they create therapeutic conditions aimed at providing a "normal" environment. The first argument is, of course, valid for intensive care units with their special teams of doctors and nurses and their high-tech equipment. There is no other way to care properly for desperately ill patients needing such care. But I find the second argument amazing, except in so far as it relates to day rooms where convalescent patients may spend some time each day. But for patients needing nursing and who are ill in bed and at their most vulnerable, with their resources and resistance at their lowest ebb, I can think of nothing more terrible than to be obliged to undergo clinical procedures, examination, and answer intimate questions where they can be overheard, if not seen, by a number of strangers who may be of the other sex. No one would want this to happen in sight or hearing of members of their own family. Curtains or screens do little to achieve privacy in such situations. Beds are often very close to one another and using bedpans or commodes in such conditions is deeply embarrassing for patients whatever their sex.
There are other major factors to be considered. Misery and embarrassment, especially for people already weakened by illness, must, it seems to me, cause severe clinical stress. It must be very difficult indeed for the nurses to nurse people in this condition, and it must in turn create stress for them. It is said that many people do not complain: it is their families who do so on their behalf. I can believe it. There are many people who would be thankful to have had their operation or treatment and feel obscurely that it was not right to complain, especially with those nice nurses doing their best. But such people, according to the Patients Association—to whom I am indebted for the examples I propose to quote—only too often discharge themselves prematurely as their only way of getting home and achieving the privacy and dignity they should have been able to enjoy in hospital. That cannot be good.

733
Now let us consider the therapeutic advantage of a mixed ward as conducive to a normal environment. To quote some examples cited in letters to the Patients Association, how "normal" do noble Lords think it is for women, young or old, to be surrounded by men with catheters and colostomy bags often moving slowly and painfully the length of the ward to the lavatories, or, if they are confused, wandering about at night; or, for a man with advanced cancer to be the only man in a ward full of women; or for a shy young 17 year-old girl to be alone in a men's ward? Many people find nakedness distressing and even offensive, and we all long to be alone, private and unobserved when we are really ill. Illness is a very personal matter. It is just as embarrassing for the patients who are obliged to be privy to someone else's physical ills as for the patient himself or herself. I feel embarrassed when I stay with friends and have to go to the lavatory at night knowing that there is a loudly creaking board outside my host's bedroom door. That is bad enough. How much worse a night in a mixed ward of strangers must be.
I think that I may have said enough about the stress that this policy of mixed wards must cause—convenient though it obviously must be for managers trying to use accommodation sensibly. I know, too, that in at least some hospitals although the ward is open plan the bays afford a degree of privacy.
However, when it comes down to it, we are talking about two things: human dignity and common sense; and they go together on this occasion. The Patient's Charter states that people must be treated with sensitivity and dignity. Human dignity is one of the most important rights and it is compatible with common sense in the Bill. It does not make sense to add to stress for both patients and nurses; and it is nonsense to pretend that the conditions in a mixed ward of possibly confused patients have any connection with a "normal" environment.
To sum up, a real choice must be offered, with none of the element of subliminal blackmail: for example, "If you cannot agree to a mixed ward, it is difficult to say when you can be fitted in". I really believe that the only way to ensure that choice is to create a statutory right.
8.51 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, first, as other noble Lords have done, I thank my noble friend for introducing the Bill. It is long overdue. Like my noble friend Lady Nicol, I believe that we have allowed a situation to arise which should not have occurred. We should have been more aware of the problem some time earlier. It is also important to stress that the Bill is in no way a criticism of the nursing or hospital staff. We need to repeat that constantly.
I believe that it is easier to understand the logic underlying the introduction of mixed-sex hospital wards. It was expected to be more efficient, to make better use of staffing resources and to ensure the maximum use of expensive and specialist equipment by putting near each other patients with the same or similar complaints irrespective of sex. But when the practice started in the
734
1960s and 1970s, it was not envisaged that men and women would find themselves in adjacent beds. That is now the situation in nearly half the wards.
As my noble friend Lord Stoddart and others have said, it is not difficult to appreciate, understand and sympathise with the elderly or not so elderly man or woman who has never experienced being in a state of undress in front of a member of the opposite sex, and the embarrassment that that causes. Recently I asked a man how he felt about the issue. He said that he had not really thought about it until he recently visited an aunt in hospital and realised that she was in a state of shock. She had woken up and discovered that there was a man in the next bed. That illustrated the position clearly to me.
I note and regret that, apart from my noble friend Lord Stoddart, all the speakers in the debate are women. As my noble friend Lady Nicol said, this is not a women-only issue. However, I wondered whether men regarded the issue in the same way that I did. I took some soundings. I asked a group of men of different ages how they would feel if they were to be placed in a mixed-sex ward. Without exception they expressed horror that they might find themselves in that situation. It was clear that privacy is as important to them as it is to women, and that to be in a mixed-sex ward would cause them great embarrassment.
It is regrettable that no noble Lords felt able to speak tonight in support of the Bill. It would be interesting to have another sounding to find out why they are not present. Perhaps their embarrassment is greater than ours in discussing the issue.
I wished also to find out the views of young women. I wondered whether I was becoming older, had not kept up with modern thinking and was somehow out of fashion. I found that young women were equally as concerned about having their privacy invaded. I spoke to my hairdresser on the subject last week. Her immediate reaction was that she really would not care if she were in a mixed-sex ward. About two or three minutes later, she returned and said, "I've thought about the matter now and I don't think I would be happy about it. It may depend what I had gone in for. Certainly if I had gone in for any condition which was sexually related in any way I would feel a great deal of embarrassment". It is when people think about the consequences of the policy that they realise the real difficulties.
The multi-racial nature of Britain means that for some such close contact with a stranger of the opposite sex is against their religion, culture and teachings. We have a responsibility to respect that view. The RCN states that in mental health wards female patients, in particular those who have been sexually abused in the past, may find the close proximity of disturbed males distressing.
I appreciate that unfortunately there is no provision to cover hospitals in the Sex Discrimination Act. I sought to find out why there was no such provision in the Act. I discovered that at the time no one had contemplated that such a situation would ever occur and therefore it was not necessary to include the provision. Nevertheless, the principles within the Act relating to communal accommodation are relevant, in particular with regard to decency in terms of washing and toilet

735
facilities. Any circumstance which does not allow privacy, decency and dignity in those circumstances is in breach of the principles of the Sex Discrimination Act.
Noble Lords have referred to the revised Patient's Charter. The fact that there is reference to the issue in the charter means that the Government have acknowledged that it is a matter that has to be dealt with. However, welcome though the provisions of the Patient's Charter are, I agree with others that they do not go far enough. The provision that a patient receiving non-urgent treatment shall be informed in advance as to whether he will be accommodated in a mixed-sex ward does not assist patients in hospital for more urgent treatment. Hospitals are expected to respect the wishes wherever possible of those patients who prefer to be cared for in a single-sex ward or single-sex bay. How many unfortunate patients will be deprived of their wishes because of the phrase "wherever possible"?
I firmly believe that without legislation the Government are rightly identifying the problem but are not putting machinery in place to solve it. Although it may need amendment, the Bill should be enacted in order to satisfy the growing number of complaints and so protect the rights of the very sick and vulnerable.
8.59 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, for introducing the Bill with such courage into what is virtually a single-sex debate—and that not his. He is outnumbered nine to one by the ladies. I am glad to see that there is some minimal male support in the Chamber for him.
The noble Lord referred to Lady Phillips. I remember often visiting her in Westminster Hospital, a shimmering vision in lilac, who muttered to me sotto voce, "Too many men in here, dear".
The Government's new Patient's Charter hopes to respect, wherever possible, the wishes of patients who prefer to be cared for in a single-sex ward, or single-sex bay. The noble Lord, by this very modest Bill, is seeking to enshrine the Government's thinking in legal tablets of stone so that it cannot blow away in the light winds of inconvenience.
I support the noble Lord, as does the Royal College of Nursing. It believes that patient choice and the right to privacy are both key to maintaining an environment conducive to the recovery of health. It is also very concerned about the rising number of complaints about mixed-sex wards. Half of all wards now accommodate both sexes. According to some estimates, there are no separate washing and toilet facilities in two-thirds of these wards. In Nightingale-type wards without alcoves, men may be on one side and women opposite. In some cases, male and female patients are even being placed in adjacent beds. As my noble friend Lady Park said most movingly, patients in hospital are already having to bear pain and illness, while at the same time having to adjust to a non-home environment. To have to face also the loss of personal privacy can be the last straw. Loss of privacy may be particularly upsetting to elderly people who are confused.
736
Most of the people whose opinions I have canvassed on the matter and who are strongly in favour of privacy are ladies. However, I should say that my husband—who is neither elderly nor confused, and although he sits in the Peeresses' Box he is not a Lady—says that he would not feel comfortable in a hospital ward surrounded by a lot of strange ladies. Many noble Lords whom I have asked agree with my husband.
The original meaning of "hospital", which comes from old French or low Latin, was a place to entertain guests. Later it extended to mean a school for children or a place to house the sick or the elderly. Now, it usually means a place where people go to be cared for and to get well. To revert to the original meaning, the patients there are all guests, made welcome and tended by the dedicated staff of doctors and nurses. But even the most dedicated of healers cannot make someone well who turns his face to the wall. Personal choice and personal privacy are both vital factors for a patient's recovery.
9.3 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I also wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and to welcome his introduction of the Bill to provide a right to single-sex accommodation for National Health Service patients. His introduction was complete and covered all the aspects and speakers since then have added to the knowledge that we have all gained of what people feel on the subject. There is no doubt that the Government are also aware of it, or they would not have introduced a revised Patient's Charter. But a revised Patient's Charter is not enough, we are all agreed. It is not adequate because it does not give the patient any legal right not to be cared for in a mixed-sex ward. The standards set out in the charter—welcome though they are—are not legally binding.
It was long ago in the 1960s and 1970s that mixed-sex wards were first introduced into the National Health Service. It was done at that time for one reason: to make the best use of high technology equipment, particularly in intensive care units. However, even at that time the intention was to have separate alcoves for men and women. We have heard from all the speakers this evening that now almost half the wards accommodate both sexes without separate facilities for washing or separate toilet facilities for men and women.
We must put ourselves in the position of an ordinary person going into hospital and being put in a mixed-sex ward. We are vocal enough, if we do not like it, to create a rumpus until someone moved us to a ward in which we would like to stay. The majority of people who have to make use of the health service and who go to general practitioners have a fear of offending anyone to do with the health service. Even in discussing the problem with their own GP they are not vocal. They accept what is handed to them, but they suffer in the process. I believe that we need a Bill to give them a statutory right. Then perhaps patients will have the courage to ask for what they want. We in this House are vocal, the majority of people are not.

737
As to the use of mixed-sex wards for mental health patients and the elderly, it is defended on the grounds that it helps to provide a more normal lifestyle. How many of us in normal life look forward to sharing our bedroom with a complete stranger? Is that normal life? Of course it is not. There is no excuse for introducing that system in mental health hospitals or in dealing with the elderly. As has already been mentioned by other speakers, many female patients particularly in mental health wards, may have suffered sexual abuse and are frightened of seeing disturbed males walking about, sharing their ward with them.
We realise that there are perhaps occasions, such as emergencies, when the mixed-sex ward has to be used. But it should be a purpose-built unit where there are proper divisions between the male and the female sexes. We accept that. Under the Bill that would be perfectly acceptable. Where a patient, perhaps through an emergency, has to be put into a mixed-sex ward, but subsequently feels uncomfortable, it is essential that the patient should be found a bed in a single-sex ward within 24 hours.
I do not think that anybody who has listened to this debate will have any doubts about the strong feeling that exists all round the country on this matter. I agree with all the former speakers who paid tribute to that gallant gentleman, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, who initiated this debate. It is rather interesting to note that the previous debate had only one noble Baroness speaking in it. Here we have only one noble Lord speaking. But that is not because the feeling is less strong among men. I know that from my own personal experience. When my husband was taken into hospital having fallen from his horse, he was immediately concerned about the fact that he was in a mixed-sex ward. But he was vocal, and within a few hours he had been moved to the right accommodation.
Whatever standards are advised in the revised Patient's Charter, they are welcomed. We approve of them. But they are no good unless they are backed by a statutory right. We welcome the Bill.
9.10 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on introducing this Bill. With his customary clarity and great force, he has highlighted an issue which is clearly of great concern to many patients, to their relatives and to those who work in the health service. I am particularly pleased that my noble friend tonight deploys his formidable forensic skills to develop an argument with which I can strongly sympathise. As he knows, that has not always been the case when we have debated health policy in this House.
As everybody who has spoken this evening has recorded, the history of the development of mixed-sex wards is very unclear. What is clear is that at no stage, so far as I can discover, was a general NHS policy decision taken to extend the practice indiscriminately; and I could discover no one in the professional, medical or nursing organisations who seems officially to have encouraged and sanctioned the widespread use of mixed-sex accommodation. There were no national
738
consultations and no discussions with professional bodies about this destruction on a rather casual basis of people's privacy. The only record that the RCN could find for me of the history of its attitude to the issue, going back several years, was that 15 years ago the Nursing Mirror had reported:
"There is little doubt that mixed wards have multiplied without a great deal of public awareness or official vigilance".
As we have heard, that situation has gone on and on. It has been exacerbated, I am sure, in the past few years by reductions in the overall number of beds and competition between trust managers to maximise so-called "patient throughput". Bed management has become an end in itself rather than good care for the patients in those beds.
I must say that I was very surprised to learn that now half of all wards accommodate both sexes, and I am particularly disturbed to learn that in two-thirds of these wards there are no separate toilet or washing facilities. I understand that in some large cities, and particularly in London, that percentage is even higher. In view of those facts it is not surprising that, as my noble friend Lord Stoddart recorded, in its recent survey the Nursing Times found that half the nurses who had worked in mixed-sex wards reported strong complaints about accommodation.
We have heard tonight from every speaker powerful evidence of how distressing many people—particularly, as has been said, elderly patients—find this situation. As my noble friend Lord Stoddart and others who have spoken described, people who are physically ill usually feel frightened and vulnerable as well. Personally, I agree with those who said that it applies to all age groups and not just to the elderly.
It must be obvious that anyone who is in hospital to be treated, to be made better, needs reassurance and a sense of security. They should not be asked to suffer from further assaults on what is already a fragile system. However skilful medical and nursing care may be, it can well be undermined if a patient is made anxious and upset by being in a mixed-sex ward. I am particularly alarmed by the accounts of people who have discharged themselves early because they just cannot stand another night on a ward. Such cases may well contribute to the serious growth in emergency readmissions to hospital in the past year.
As many noble Lords have described, there are a few circumstances—such as emergencies and intensive care units—where mixed-sex accommodation can be legitimate for therapeutic reasons. I agree with those who have said that as my noble friend's Bill progresses there may well need to be amendments to take account of those exceptions. But for most instances and for most patients there seems to be absolutely no clinical argument for continuing this system. We have certainly heard none tonight. Instead, we have heard that as well as being medically irrelevant, mixed-sex wards breach the fundamental NHS principle that patients must be treated with dignity and respect. In spite of all the recent policy emphasis on patient choice, hospitals are clearly not responding sympathetically to the wishes of

739
individuals. As my noble friend Lady Nicol so graphically put it, patients are becoming units of work to be counted and are not being treated as people.
Many noble Lords have commented on the fact that the Government have today launched the revised Patient's Charter. It has been launched with great fanfare and no little expense. The revised charter includes references to information and choice about single-sex wards and, very importantly, sets better standards for washing and toilet facilities. It would be very foolish not to view the publication as a step forward. I see it as a considerable victory for those like my noble friend Lord Stoddart and others who have campaigned on this issue.
I am sure that when she comes to reply the Minister will say that the problem is now solved. But, as all the other contributors to this debate have said, with the notable exception of the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, the question is whether the charter goes far enough and whether it will stick. The Secretary of State has already been reported as saying that she will not accept excuses from those local trusts that do not conform to the new guidelines. However, with nearly 500 independent hospital trusts and very little upward accountability under the new devolved health service, how can she possibly know? What sanctions can be applied when local chief executives, who are competing with their neighbours and facing resource pressures, simply do not implement national guidelines? It is these concerns that drive my noble friend's Bill for statutory rights.
I also hope that we can nurture an effective consumers' movement in the NHS. Several speakers tonight have explained precisely why patients have been inhibited, both by gratitude and fear, from insisting on their rights and complaining. Personally, I believe that that can change. I have been encouraged by my personal experience with two groups of patients: women who are using maternity services and people with HIV disease. Both groups of NHS users have been effective in influencing services, particularly in making them more humane and responsive to their individual needs. After all, we are constantly told that the new NHS is importing commercial methods and standards. Although I deplore a great deal of this, there is no reason why we cannot have the good as well as the bad of the commercial system. If patients can be persuaded to treat the health service like a service industry they will naturally expect and insist on high standards of personal care in all things, ranging from good food to single-sex accommodation. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Stoddart will not approve of this example, but it is precisely that kind of consumer pressure that I wish to encourage in the health service that has led to smoking being banned on airlines, to extended opening hours for banks and—dare I say it—to longer shopping hours.
We must all work to create a strong consumer voice in the NHS. Obviously, this will take time. I believe that in the short term practice can also be effectively influenced through the local contract system. Every health purchasing authority or commissioning agency—whatever you call it—has received a huge number of complaints about mixed-sex wards. Through their local
740
contracting/purchasing plans they can change how their local providers, the hospitals, operate. For example, I draw your Lordships' attention to the recent prospectus of so-called commissioning intentions published by the Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster Health Authority in central London. It states:
"The Agency is aware of the long-standing unpopularity of mixed sex wards … The Agency wishes to work with its local hospitals to improve this situation over time but"—
and this is the immediate action to be taken—
"for 1995/96 [the agency] no longer wishes to contract for general medical services, for care of the elderly, or for acute and continuing care psychiatric services which do not have a single sex bay policy—with single rooms available on the ward to make this policy work well operationally".
In other words, it will not buy those services if patient single-sex accommodation is not offered. In the past few days I have spoken to purchasing directors and managers in other parts of the country. I understand that directing hospital management in that way through contractual conditions is becoming more and more common. It seems to me that it must lead fairly rapidly to widespread changes in practice.
In conclusion, I again congratulate most warmly my noble friend Lord Stoddart for introducing the Bill. As I said earlier, he has succeeded in focusing attention on a system which is generally unpopular and has often undermined the high standards of the health service. I do not believe that it is too fanciful to suggest that if my noble friend and other campaigners had not taken up this issue, we might well not have seen today's action by the Department of Health. But through today's U-turn on different sex wards, the Government have acknowledged that the situation deserves urgent national attention.
Like other noble Lords, I welcome the revised Patient's Charter, but I hope that, when the Minister replies, she will not insist that its publication alone is enough to protect the rights of vulnerable patients.
9.20 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, for bringing the Bill before the House and thank him for the opportunity he has given us to debate an issue which we recognise is causing much public concern. If noble Lords will allow a personal note, as a convent girl steeped in modesty, I have to say that I entirely agree with the aims of the noble Lord's Bill. I can assure him that the Government welcome this debate to improve further the quality of service offered in the National Health Service.
Noble Lords will know that mixed-sex accommodation is not a new idea. As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said, it has been widely used for the past 30 years. The flexible use of beds has played a part in reducing waiting times for admission. In the past five years average waiting times have almost halved. The flexible use of beds has also enabled the establishment of specialised wards, such as for gastro-enterology and cardiology, which enhance the quality of clinical care given by concentrating specialist skills.

741
Mixed accommodation has not been at the whim or fancy of the Government. In 1978, the Royal College of Nursing issued guidelines which recognised that in some circumstances mixed-sex wards could have a positive and therapeutic value. Two years ago, in 1992, the Audit Commission's report Lying in Wait advised that it was more important and more clinically effective for patients to be treated in single specialty wards than in single-sex wards.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, mentioned psychiatric wards which have mixed accommodation. I feel that the noble Baroness will agree that it is acceptable during the day and evening to have both sexes in the same ward and that it can benefit patients as part of their rehabilitation. But we agree with her that privacy at night must be respected. That is also true of wards for people with learning difficulties and for people whose home is in the hospital and where a more homely atmosphere is sought. But as long-stay wards for people with such conditions are being phased out it is less of an issue and, thankfully, more and more live in ordinary homes in ordinary streets in cities, towns and villages like the majority of the population. That is some of the rationale sought by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol.
The Royal College of Nursing revised its guidelines in 1993 because the previous guidelines were, in its words, "being too widely interpreted". It is clear from recent complaints that many patients, women in particular, as has been highlighted tonight, object to being placed without warning in a bed next to a patient of the opposite sex and having to share wash and bathroom facilities. Although clinical considerations are paramount, health authorities are already expected, as a general principle, to provide accommodation for men and women in such a way as to preserve the dignity of the individual patient, to prevent embarrassment and at all times to ensure acceptable standards of privacy.
The Government are at one with your Lordships' House in agreeing that acceptable standards of privacy must be maintained. But we have a problem in defining "a ward". There are many designs. For instance, there are Nightingale wards which were designed in Victorian times for different needs. People suffering from diseases such as TB at a time when there were no antibiotics languished in hospital for months or even years. Unadapted Nightingale wards, with no separate bathroom, toilets and washing facilities and with beds separated by flimsy curtains, do not give people the protection, the privacy and the dignity they can reasonably expect. I can reassure my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth that in our view such wards are only suitable for single-sex use and should not generally be used for both men and women. Fortunately, few remain and those that do have either been adapted or are simply being swept away and replaced by new hospital schemes. No Nightingale ward has been built since 1948 and once the remaining long-stay institutions close, only a handful will remain.
In many hospitals staff cherish old traditions and ward names are among them. But in modern wards—and here I do not mean Nightingale wards—there are no serried
742
ranks of beds. There are bays, side rooms, places for one, two, four or six people. The name may be the same for this complex of accommodation but the lay-out provides for flexible use and gives the privacy and dignity we are determined to provide. There is opportunity to offer companionship or privacy, mixed-sex—as a few prefer—or single-sex. We should not be rigid or judgmental about people's preferences but should try to offer them what they want. Nor should we under-estimate the benefits of people requiring the same specialist treatment being grouped together. So, although this accommodation is defined as a mixed-sex ward, it achieves what your Lordships seek with discreet and private accommodation.
I hold in my hand the advice to the Secretary of State on health accommodation for mixed-sex use, produced by the NHS Estates. It shows ways of adapting all types of wards which allow for the separation of the sexes. If we were more sophisticated in this Chamber I should like an overhead projector to enable me to show what they look like. Unfortunately, that sophistication is not open to us and I have therefore placed the book in the Library.
As my noble friend Lady Seccombe and the noble Baronesses, Lady Masham and Lady Nicol, highlighted, there is other accommodation, such as that for intensive care, which it would be impractical to separate and where patients are too ill to be aware of their surroundings. There are children's wards. At what age should they be segregated? Some teenagers are gregarious and like to be together. Occasionally a husband and wife are in hospital together and would prefer to share a room rather than be separated—a situation which occurred when the IRA bombed the Grand Hotel in Brighton.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, the Bill would not take away that choice; it would give them a choice still.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, perhaps I can continue and then it will become clear. There are wards which, in extraordinary circumstances, such as when a major accident occurs, may have to be pressed into use for several days to cope with the disaster victims, requiring other patients to be moved. How could a hospital be forced to provide separate accommodation in those circumstances? In exceptional circumstances, through floods, fires and epidemics within the hospital, staff may have to move patients against their wishes. They are not fanciful situations but occur from time to time in hospitals throughout the land. If this Bill is enacted staff would be breaking the law and we would be placing them in an impossible situation.
The Bill would not only prove difficult to implement in emergencies; it would run counter to many positive developments in clinical care which are becoming routine; for example, the welcome trend towards day surgery where patients are admitted for hours rather than days. That is popular with both staff and patients and could be affected by applying the proposed rule rigidly to recovery areas. So could the use of observation wards and accident and emergency departments.

743
As my noble friend Lady Seccombe clearly pointed out, to have a law with countless caveats to cope with seen and unforeseen circumstances would be wrong. My noble friend Lady Strange advocates legal tablets of stone. But there are severe disadvantages in rigidity and inflexibility. So, while the aims of the Bill are welcomed, the Government do not believe that legislation is the answer.
The Patient's Charter has always made clear that a patient's privacy, dignity, religious and cultural beliefs should be respected. Today, as has been said, the Secretary of State for Health launched a new charter for England. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that groups such as the Patients' Association, the College of Health, the Women's Institute, and others, played an important role in placing this issue on the agenda.
In the course of producing the new Patient's Charter we undertook extensive consultation with patients' groups and the new standard in the charter is concrete evidence of the Government's desire to listen and to act on the views put to us. In the new charter we are strengthening our original national standard on privacy and dignity by introducing a new right and a new national standard. The charter states:
"Except in emergencies, you have a right to be told before you go into hospital whether it is planned to care for you in a ward for men or women. In all cases, you can expect single-sex washing and toilet facilities".
That point was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. The charter continues:
"If you would prefer to be cared for in single-sex accommodation (either a single-sex ward or 'bay' area within a larger ward which offers equal privacy) your wishes will be respected whenever possible. There may be some cases, particularly emergencies, where a hospital cannot provide single-sex accommodation. This is most likely to arise if you need to be looked after by a specialist nurse in an intensive care ward or in an observation unit. It is also possible that single-sex accommodation may not be available at the time proposed for your admission. If this is the case, you have the choice of accepting the immediate admission or of waiting for single-sex accommodation to become available".
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, should not under-estimate the Patient's Charter. It will make a real difference. First, it will make the NHS look at how well it communicates with its patients. Does the admission letter say whether people will be in mixed-sex accommodation? If so, does it explain how privacy and dignity will be safeguarded? Does it offer the patient the opportunity to talk over his or her concerns before admission? The new right to prior notification will ensure that all these issues are addressed. It will also make trusts examine the lay-out of their accommodation and consider what modifications are needed and how it can be better managed. Separate washing and toilet facilities will have to be provided. Health authorities through their contracts will ensure that the requirements of the charter are rigorously monitored and met and the NHS Executive will continue to keep a close eye on its implementation.
I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that many patients are very wary of criticising professional staff. But they should not feel hesitant in making their views known, in particular to the named
744
nurse who is responsible for their care. The nurse should be in a position to offer reassurance and explain what will be done to protect their privacy. The charter is helping to create an NHS which is flexible and responsive to individual needs. Patients should not be afraid to put it to the test.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, and other Members of your Lordships' House, made the point that this is not just a women's issue. I agree with that. The issue is not just one in which women are interested. I should like to emphasise that the new right and standard in the charter applies to all patients, irrespective of gender and age.
Our experience of the original charter has shown that our aims can be implemented successfully without primary legislation. There has been no need for legislation to achieve goals on waiting times. Half of all admissions to hospital are immediate. But, since the original charter was launched, of those admitted from waiting lists almost half are now admitted within five weeks, and nearly three-quarters within three months. In September 1991, almost 44,000 patients were waiting over two years for treatment. Today there are virtually none. We have delivered on the 18-month waiting time guarantee for hip, knee and cataract operations. Nine out of 10 patients are now seen within 30 minutes of their appointment times. Nine out of 10 people are assessed in accident and emergency departments within five minutes.
Your Lordships will be aware that primary legislation does not always guarantee delivery of services. For example, for many years we have had legislation on the employment of disabled people, but its targets have never been achieved. The task of achieving change in the NHS often has to come through commitment of staff and better management. As a former regional chairman, I was involved in the original charter. I can assure your Lordships that it was embraced by the NHS. Huge strides have been made in every hospital and community trust to implement it, as our figures show.
Since my right honourable friend first raised this issue of mixed-sex wards in October last year, the debate has gathered momentum. Throughout we have listened, just as we did when people were most anxious about waiting times. We responded then, and we intend to respond now. We shall monitor the new charter standards very closely indeed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, endorsed the view that patients are being considered as units of work to be counted and not to be treated as people. I strongly refute that. Doctors, nurses and sensitive managers give a quality service, and a personal service, taking immense care to consider the individual needs of people who are

745
at their most vulnerable. I am sure that as a member of a health authority the noble Baroness will ensure that her contracts will deliver a quality service.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt briefly to say that that is precisely why I spoke in some detail about the contracts.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, then I am sure that the noble Baroness will recognise that the present system delivers the goods and that legislation is not necessary.
The noble Baroness was sceptical about the Patient's Charter, as was the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, who suggested that the charter will not be effective and that the words "wherever possible" will be used as an excuse. We have to be realistic about the implementation of the charter. The speed at which each NHS trust can act will depend on precise local circumstances. Some will be able to move faster than others. But there should be no doubt that the charter will give the green light to activity throughout the country to achieve the standard. Health authority purchasers will not accept "wherever possible" as an excuse for lack of action. Their response will be to press trusts to form plans and make headway.
The Government oppose the Bill on the grounds that it is unnecessary, but we share the anxieties which have prompted it. What the noble Lord's Bill highlights is as unacceptable to the Government as it is to him. We have to do even better. I have no doubt that we shall fulfil the demands of the Bill even more quickly than the noble Lord expects. But it would be wrong to saddle the service with a Bill which is unnecessary and which would impede the provision of quality clinical care, shackle management, introduce rigidity and work against the NHS as a whole.
This new Patient's Charter undertaking on single-sex wards will be fulfilled. It is important to this Government—and to a convent girl. I believe that, on all sides of the House, we are totally committed; and, without a law, we shall deliver.
9.37 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I should like to thank all those noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I am conscious that I am the only man to have taken part, but I have been content and honoured to share the debate with the noble Baronesses who have spoken. However, despite my respect and liking for them, I would not want to share a hospital ward with them!
It has been a good debate. The subject has been thoroughly aired, and I thank all those who contributed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, felt that this was an old person's issue. I can assure her that it is not. It is an issue which affects and troubles a complete cross-section of the population—young, old, male and female—as we have heard from so many other speakers this evening. Although the Bill may need tidying up, I believe that we need it and that we should allow it to proceed into Committee.
746
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, spoke about the Roman Catholic nun who was placed between two male footballers. That example underlines the problems which face us and emphasises the need for something rather stronger than the Patient's Charter. The noble Baroness also made the very reasonable and true point that Britain is virtually unique in imposing this system on National Health Service patients. The Government need to consider that point and their attitude towards the Bill.
My noble friend Lady Nicol said that there was nothing in past or present legislation to prevent this state of affairs arising. That is an important point. Why has there not been any legislation on this? Why were patients not considered when the existing legislation was drawn up? My noble friend also made the relevant point that patients are being treated as units of work rather than as patients. We must ensure that people are again treated as people—as patients who require proper care and to be treated with dignity.
The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, said that patients needed choice more than managers. That is absolutely right. The National Health Service is not for managers; it is for patients. Managers ought to be reminded of that, wherever they need reminding, and of the fact that their job is to provide for their patients. The noble Baroness also made the relevant point that what we want—and what we will get only under this Bill—is real choice, not "subliminal blackmail". I loved that phrase.
My noble friend Lady Gould emphasised the fact that the Bill constitutes no criticism of nursing and hospital staff. I want to echo that, because everybody who has written to me has referred in glowing terms to the nursing and medical staff who hold the nation's liking, love and respect. I am glad that my noble friend emphasised that. I am also glad that she referred to the multi-racial nature of our country. That is an important point. Indeed, a number of Jewish organisations have written to me to support the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Strange, succinctly stated that all that we are trying to do is to enshrine government thinking into legislation. That is precisely what we are trying to do. In fact, we are trying to help the Government to be more effective.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, emphasised the vulnerability of ordinary people and their fear of causing offence, particularly when they are in a weak position. If they have legislation to back them, they will feel better able and more confident about making complaints, where complaints are justified.
I am pleased that my noble friend Lady Jay and I are on the same side tonight. We are on the same side most of the time. It just so happens that we sometimes cross each other on matters relating to AIDS and Sunday opening. As I said, I am glad that we are on the same side tonight and I thank her for her contribution. I am glad that my noble friend raised the point that there seems to have been no national policy or consultation with professional or patient organisations about this matter. The practice seems to

747
have grown up without anybody knowing about it or taking proper action to prevent what has become a national scandal.
Finally, the Minister, who is a convent girl and understands the issue even better than I do, says that we do not need legislation. I want to re-emphasise that despite the existing charter—presumably the one we had yesterday but not today—and the paragraphs contained in it requiring patients to be treated with dignity, mixed-sex wards are growing and not diminishing. That is why we need legislation. I am glad to hear that Nightingale wards are to be used as single-sex wards only—I hope that that will happen, because it is not happening at the moment—and that mixed-sex wards will be phased out gradually.
748
Even where there are bays it is important that both sexes are enabled to have privacy. There can still be embarrassing situations when men and women are being nursed in adjacent bays. Again, that has to be treated carefully. There are of course—I understand this—situations where perhaps single-sex accommodation cannot be provided. Those will be few and far between, and can be dealt with. I am sorry that the Government oppose the Bill. Despite that, I hope that the House will give it a Second Reading and that we can go on to further stages.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes before ten o'clock.

  EC COHESION FUND COMMITMENTS AND PAYMENTS
  Lord Bruce Donington
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they will state to the nearest £1,000,000 the allocation, in terms of commitments and payments respectively, of funds from the European Community Cohesion Fund for the years 1993 and 1994 to each recipient member state.

  The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Earl Ferrers)
  The information requested is in the following table:

  £ million

  1993

  1994

  Commitments

  Payments

  Commitments

  Payments

  Republic of Ireland

  111

  53

  130

  67

  Greece

  219

  116

  257

  122

  Spain

  671

  329

  789

  328

  Portugal

  222

  73

  259

  192

  Source: European Commission

  MATURE STUDENTS: WITHDRAWAL OF ALLOWANCE
  Baroness David
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  How many mature students will be affected by the Finance Bill proposal to cut the £1,000 supplement available to students aged 29 and over who have previously earned £12,000 per annum, and how many students are affected by the cut in supplement for 26, 27 and 28 year-olds.

  Lord Lucas
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education has estimated that about 15,000 new students aged 26 or over will be affected by the withdrawal of the older students' allowance when the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations 1994 come into force for the 1995/96 academic year. It is not possible to break this figure down by the ages of affected students.

  VOLUNTARY UNEMPLOYMENT
  Earl Russell
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether, in cases in which workers leave a job when offered a change of contract involving worse terms and conditions, they will not be treated as voluntarily unemployed.

  Lord Inglewood
  When people leave employment because their employers want to impose on them, other than by general agreement, a change in the terms and conditions of their employment which makes them substantially less favourable than before, the employment may have been brought to an end because of a breach of contract by the employer. In these WA 40
  circumstances we would not consider the person to have left employment voluntarily.

  Where an alteration does not amount to a breach of contract, the person may have left voluntarily, but the imposition of the new conditions may provide just cause for leaving.

  This information is contained in the Adjudication Officers' Guide, which is available in the Library.

  ACTIVELY SEEKING WORK OBLIGATION
  Earl Russell
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they will undertake that the refusal of a job paying commission only will not be used to cast doubt on whether the claimant is actively seeking work.

  Lord Inglewood
  If claimants fail to apply for, or refuse the offer of, any job that has been properly notified to them, they can be disqualified for receiving unemployment benefit unless they show good cause for the refusal. The circumstances of any refusal are carefully considered when deciding whether claimants have fulfilled their obligation to seek work actively and this applies to jobs paying commission only as to other jobs.

  STATUTORY SICK PAY
  Earl Russell
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they will commission research to establish whether there is any statistical correlation between claims for Statutory Sick Pay and dismissal.

  The Minster of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish)
  We will be commissioning a survey this year to assess the impact on employers and employees of the April 1994 changes to the Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) scheme. The survey will explore the impact on employers; recruitment and retention policies and on their monitoring and control of sickness absence. In addition, the Contributions Agency will continue to monitor the operation of the scheme to ensure that employers are properly complying with their obligations to pay SSP.

  WAR PENSIONERS: FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
  Lord Cullen of Ashbourne
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether, in view of their policy of care in the community, they will give discretion to the War Pensions Board to assist war pensioners financially when they are living in their own homes.

  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish
  Financial assistance to war pensioners living in their homes is already available. In addition to the maximum tax-free War Disablement Pension, currently £98.90 a week, there are tax-free allowances which severely disabled war pensioners may claim to assist with the cost of coping with their disabilities.
  WA 41
  The allowances, and their current rates are as follows:-

  £ week

  Unemployability Supplement

  personal allowance

  61.10

  Invalidity Allowance

  maximum

  12.15

  Constant Attendance Allowance

  maximum

  74.80

  Exceptionally Severe Disability Allowance

  —

  37.40

  Comforts Allowance

  maximum

  16.00

  Age Allowance

  maximum

  20.40

  Mobility Supplement

  —

  35.55

  A single, severely disabled war pensioner could, therefore, receive currently a maximum war pension of £356.30 a week. In addition he might be entitled to a Clothing Allowance of up to £126 year. A House Adaptation Grant of up to £750 may also be payable towards the cost of adapting the home of a severely disabled war pensioner.

  BST IN MILK
  Lord Beaumont of Whitley
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What tests they intend carrying out on BST (bovine somatotropin) milk and for what purposes.

  The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe)
  BST is a natural hormone produced naturally by cows and is present in all cow's milk. On the basis of the scientific evidence and advice currently available, BST in milk poses no hazard to human health. In those circumstances the Government has no plans to carry out any tests on BST milk.

  ANIMAL MEDICINES: PROVISIONAL MARKETING AUTHORISATION SCHEME
  The Countess of Mar
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they will ensure that the recently introduced Provisional Approval Schedule for Animal Medicines can be used to introduce to the United Kingdom other animal medicines already licensed elsewhere in the European Union.

  Earl Howe
  On the assumption that the noble Countess is referring to the Provisional Marketing Authorisation arrangements which came into operation on 8 September 1994, I can confirm that the scheme can be used for this purpose. Indeed, two of the three authorisations so far issued under the scheme relate to products already licensed under national arrangements in at least one other member state of the European Union.

  ANIMAL MEDICINES IMPORT FROM EU
  The Countess of Mar
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they will confirm that, as from 1st January 1995, veterinary surgeons and farmers may import for their own use (on prescription, or in their own herds and flocks) animal medicines which are already licensed for use elsewhere in the European Union.

  Earl Howe
  Not in all circumstances. Many factors affect the import and use of veterinary medicinal products from other member states. For example, no person, including a veterinary surgeon, may import a product for supply to another person (or for administration to another person's animals) unless the product has a marketing authorisation valid in the UK. For one-off supplies by a veterinary surgeon to a client, in response to a particular need, a special treatment authorisation may be available.

  Anyone may import a product other than a vaccine from another EEA Member State and administer it to a companion animal (as distinct from a food-producing animal) which he or she owns, provided the product has a marketing authorisation in that originating member state. Equally, anyone may import a vaccine which has been reviewed, or newly licensed since 1993, in accordance with Community law and administer it to animals which he or she owns, provided it does not contain any pathogen controlled under animal health law and does not interfere with any animal health programme in the UK. The import and administration of products in other circumstances requires authorisation.

  A guidance note explaining these arrangements in more detail is being prepared. I will ensure that it is placed in the Library of the House, and that the noble Countess is sent a copy.

  SHEEP SCAB TREATMENTS: RESEARCH
  The Countess of Mar
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What research and development is being carried out in the United Kingdom into alternative treatments for sheep scab; what types of compounds are involved, and how much work is being carried out in the public sector.

  Earl Howe
  There are three ongoing research and development projects being funded by MAFF into alternative treatments for sheep scab, including immunological and non-chemical control. The forecast costs for 1995/96 for these projects is £198,000. I have no information on any research and development being carried out by the veterinary pharmaceutical industry, which is a matter for the commercial judgment of the individual companies concerned.

  COUNCIL TAX IN LONDON AND ESSEX
  Lord Braine of Wheatley
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they will publish in the Official Report, a consolidated table showing the council tax payable per household in each band group, taking into account the transitional relief for each London borough and council in Essex in 1993–94 and 1994–95, and whether they will give the party in control of each council.

  The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Viscount Ullswater)
  Information on transitional relief by council tax band is not available centrally.

  The estimated average council tax payable per dwelling in 1993–94 and in 1994–95 in each council tax

  1993/94 Average Council Taxes Payable per Dwelling in each Band

  Band A £

  Band B £

  Band C £

  Band D £

  Band E £

  Band F £

  Band G £

  Band H £

  1993/94 £

  Local authority

  Political control at end of December 1994

  Transitional Relief per Dwelling

  City of London

  Oth

  —

  256

  283

  298

  391

  484

  562

  726

  38

  Camden

  Lab

  402

  453

  526

  605

  751

  899

  1,059

  1,316

  16

  Greenwich

  Lab

  458

  535

  634

  721

  885

  1,062

  1,226

  1,442

  133

  Hackney

  Lab

  360

  437

  530

  612

  782

  945

  1,082

  1,231

  6

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  Lab

  306

  361

  411

  468

  587

  708

  826

  1,015

  58

  Islington

  Lab

  463

  446

  514

  605

  756

  917

  1,086

  1,292

  37

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Con

  285

  316

  370

  411

  501

  595

  680

  861

  107

  Lambeth

  Noc

  387

  447

  518

  586

  723

  864

  1,005

  1,211

  19

  Lewisham

  Lab

  282

  343

  407

  472

  585

  698

  799

  955

  20

  Southwark

  Lab

  343

  407

  485

  560

  687

  784

  957

  1,145

  77

  Tower Hamlets

  Lab

  319

  350

  425

  473

  582

  651

  733

  856

  20

  Wandsworth

  Con

  255

  298

  352

  404

  502

  602

  704

  838

  291

  Westminster

  Con

  158

  186

  216

  250

  300

  348

  391

  469

  96

  Barking and Dagenham

  Lab

  287

  353

  413

  475

  581

  699

  903

  378

  6

  Barnet

  Noc

  291

  353

  422

  493

  618

  743

  862

  1,029

  38

  Bexley

  Noc

  298

  344

  412

  482

  594

  715

  821

  951

  10

  Brent

  Noc

  373

  413

  471

  553

  676

  809

  933

  1,080

  9

  Bromley

  Con

  293

  321

  389

  462

  582

  697

  813

  969

  50

  Croydon

  Lab

  295

  329

  398

  471

  587

  705

  817

  968

  30

  Ealing

  Lab

  329

  388

  448

  518

  632

  761

  885

  1,051

  17

  Enfield

  Lab

  337

  395

  470

  543

  669

  807

  937

  1,124

  17

  Haringey

  Lab

  416

  484

  571

  665

  822

  986

  1,147

  1,363

  21

  Harrow

  Noc

  294

  345

  423

  510

  627

  750

  869

  1,055

  21

  Havering

  Noc

  305

  359

  436

  502

  618

  739

  852

  961

  11

  Hillingdon

  Lab

  323

  351

  417

  492

  604

  718

  841

  1,000

  15

  Hounslow

  Lab

  382

  437

  502

  576

  703

  834

  961

  1,180

  31

  Kingston upon Thames

  LDem

  303

  333

  398

  473

  595

  711

  833

  989

  30

  Merton

  Lab

  306

  345

  406

  466

  568

  674

  788

  958

  32

  WA 44
  band for each London borough, and for each council in Essex, is given in the tables below. These figures are based on information provided by authorities as at December 1993 for 1993–94 figures, and as at June 1994 for 1994–95 figures. No allowance is made in these estimates for the effect of transitional relief or council tax benefit.

  The political control of each council at the end of December 1994 is also given in the table below.

  The estimated average amount of council tax transitional relief granted per dwelling, across all bands, in 1993–94 and 1994–95 for each London borough, and for each council in Essex, is also given in the tables below. These figures are based on information provided by authorities as at December 1993 and March 1994 for 1993–94 figures, and as at June 1994 and September 1994 for 1994–95 figures.
  WA 45

  1993/94 Average Council Taxes Payable per Dwelling in each Band

  Band A £

  Band B £

  Band C £

  Band D £

  Band E £

  Band F £

  Band G £

  Band H £

  1993/94 £

  Local authority

  Political control at end of December 1994

  Transitional Relief per Dwelling

  Newham

  Lab

  326

  392

  483

  556

  682

  800

  904

  1,078

  1

  Redbridge

  Noc

  290

  339

  412

  486

  599

  723

  824

  858

  15

  Richmond upon Thames

  LDem

  328

  379

  429

  491

  609

  728

  856

  1,038

  78

  Sutton

  LDem

  307

  344

  405

  482

  601

  717

  828

  953

  15

  Waltham Forest

  Noc

  343

  392

  471

  546

  674

  804

  925

  1,011

  7

  Basildon

  Noc

  377

  469

  545

  619

  771

  919

  1,056

  1,239

  20

  Braintree

  Noc

  294

  372

  433

  493

  609

  729

  831

  960

  13

  Brentwood

  LDem

  271

  328

  390

  463

  577

  691

  800

  953

  40

  Castle Point

  Con

  345

  422

  499

  574

  709

  845

  978

  1,109

  7

  Chelmsford

  Noc

  309

  365

  455

  512

  632

  754

  866

  994

  20

  Colchester

  LDem

  301

  376

  440

  498

  619

  740

  843

  997

  12

  Epping Forest

  Noc

  306

  351

  424

  493

  610

  726

  847

  1,009

  31

  Harlow

  Lab

  436

  490

  599

  687

  847

  1,000

  1,161

  1,208

  9

  Maldon

  Noc

  276

  354

  421

  482

  598

  716

  827

  928

  22

  Rochford

  LDem

  284

  344

  417

  481

  598

  708

  820

  944

  11

  Southend-on-Sea

  Noc

  288

  356

  415

  472

  584

  707

  806

  974

  11

  Tendring

  Noc

  284

  363

  423

  486

  606

  718

  803

  662

  10

  Thurrock

  Lab

  319

  389

  456

  520

  635

  764

  868

  971

  7

  Uttlesford

  Con

  293

  349

  431

  497

  609

  726

  846

  999

  41

  Amounts shown in columns 2 to 9 make no allowance for transitional relief and council tax benefit.

  1994/95 Average Council Taxes Payable per Dwelling in each Brand

  Band A

  Band B

  Band C

  Band D

  Band E

  Band F

  Band G

  Band H

  1994/95

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Local authority

  Political control at end of December 1994

  Transitional Relief per Dwelling

  City of London

  Oth

  —

  254

  290

  312

  396

  476

  558

  709

  5

  Camden

  Lab

  351

  415

  484

  560

  690

  827

  974

  1,207

  4

  Greenwich

  Lab

  369

  432

  510

  579

  714

  858

  990

  1,154

  63

  Hackney

  Lab

  337

  426

  510

  589

  743

  895

  1,028

  1,131

  2

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  Lab

  288

  345

  394

  449

  565

  680

  796

  977

  20

  Islington

  Lab

  425

  415

  476

  562

  700

  853

  1,008

  1,198

  14

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Con

  280

  311

  367

  409

  500

  593

  679

  861

  44

  Lambeth

  Noc

  370

  423

  491

  557

  695

  824

  964

  1,050

  7

  Lewisham

  Lab

  304

  370

  440

  511

  633

  755

  866

  1,030

  5

  Southwark

  Lab

  313

  371

  442

  510

  624

  720

  875

  1,051

  24

  Tower Hamlets

  Lab

  321

  349

  423

  473

  582

  662

  733

  855

  4

  Wandsworth

  Con

  198

  230

  272

  310

  386

  464

  542

  645

  192

  Westminster

  Con

  129

  155

  179

  207

  248

  287

  323

  389

  26

  Barking and Dagenham

  Lab

  293

  361

  421

  482

  590

  708

  861

  481

  1

  Barnet

  Noc

  297

  365

  436

  510

  640

  770

  894

  1,068

  9

  Bexley

  Noc

  295

  340

  407

  476

  588

  708

  813

  903

  2

  Brent

  Noc

  299

  332

  380

  447

  548

  654

  755

  865

  1

  WA 46 WA 47

  1994/95 Average Council Taxes Payable per Dwelling in each Band

  Band A £

  Band B £

  Band C £

  Band D £

  Band E £

  Band F £

  Band G £

  Band H £

  1994/95 £

  Local Authority

  Political control at end of December 1994

  Transitional Relief per Dwelling

  Bromley

  Con

  257

  296

  359

  427

  539

  645

  752

  897

  13

  Croydon

  Lab

  300

  336

  407

  482

  601

  722

  837

  981

  7

  Ealing

  Lab

  277

  324

  373

  429

  524

  630

  734

  862

  3

  Enfield

  Lab

  328

  386

  460

  533

  658

  793

  922

  1,101

  3

  Haringey

  Lab

  396

  457

  540

  628

  775

  932

  1,085

  1,286

  7

  Harrow

  Noc

  308

  347

  421

  508

  624

  744

  864

  1,050

  3

  Havering

  Noc

  282

  332

  403

  464

  571

  682

  790

  892

  2

  Hillingdon

  Lab

  332

  363

  431

  509

  627

  746

  872

  1,020

  3

  Hounslow

  Lab

  364

  415

  478

  551

  672

  799

  920

  1,124

  9

  Kingston upon Thames LDem

  LDem

  318

  346

  414

  490

  615

  734

  861

  1,016

  7

  Merton

  Lab

  301

  343

  404

  464

  566

  674

  783

  956

  9

  Newham

  Lab

  328

  391

  480

  553

  678

  788

  860

  693

  0

  Redbridge

  Noc

  281

  327

  398

  471

  581

  702

  799

  823

  2

  Richmond upon Thames

  LDem

  360

  410

  466

  535

  665

  798

  937

  1,135

  26

  Sutton

  LDem

  328

  361

  422

  501

  625

  746

  858

  979

  2

  Waltham Forest

  Noc

  344

  398

  474

  548

  675

  804

  912

  895

  1

  Basildon

  Noc

  354

  439

  510

  581

  719

  860

  989

  1,168

  7

  Braintree

  Noc

  303

  386

  451

  513

  633

  757

  863

  990

  3

  Brentwood

  LDem

  285

  343

  410

  483

  601

  719

  836

  989

  9

  Castle Point

  Con

  335

  411

  486

  560

  691

  824

  956

  1,085

  1

  Chelmsford

  Noc

  311

  368

  449

  516

  639

  761

  873

  1,009

  5

  Colchester

  LDem

  302

  376

  442

  502

  623

  745

  848

  986

  3

  Epping Forest

  Noc

  283

  327

  396

  460

  569

  676

  793

  940

  7

  Harlow

  Lab

  409

  477

  584

  669

  823

  980

  1,130

  1,110

  3

  Maldon

  Noc

  279

  356

  426

  489

  608

  724

  840

  934

  5

  Rochford

  LDem

  289

  352

  431

  499

  618

  732

  849

  973

  2

  Southend-on-Sea Noc

  Noc

  296

  366

  427

  486

  602

  731

  829

  896

  2

  Tendring

  Noc

  285

  368

  427

  491

  613

  726

  814

  652

  2

  Thurrock

  Lab

  322

  391

  458

  524

  640

  767

  871

  972

  2

  Uttlesford

  Con

  302

  360

  446

  515

  630

  752

  876

  1,034

  12

  Amounts shown in columns 2 to 9 make no allowance for transitional relief and council tax benefit.

  TIMBER LABELLING
  Lord Beaumont of Whitley
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What is their policy towards the Austrian initiative at the October meeting of the EU Environment Ministers on an efficient and practicable multilateral system for the certification of wood.
  WA 48
  The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie)
  The Austrian Government's paper provides a detailed and comprehensive discussion of the options for timber labelling. It will be a helpful source of information on the subject.