Sitting of 28 February 1996

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

  Chief Inspector of Schools (Annual Report)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Burns.]
  9.34 am
  Mr. David Lidington: I am grateful for this opportunity to introduce a debate on the annual report of Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools.
  There is no more an important task for policy makers and education professionals than to drive up the standards of education enjoyed by our children. It is both a moral and a practical challenge: moral, because it is plain wrong that a child who gets only one chance of education should not be stretched and tested to the limits of his or her God-given talents, and practical, because in the 21st century our children will need a better grasp of language, number and scientific principle than ever before if they as individuals or our country as a nation are to prosper.
  I welcome Mr. Woodhead's report and the 4,250 individual inspections on which its conclusions are based. The creation of the Office for Standards in Education and the introduction of a programme of regular school inspections increasingly appears to be one of the most important of the Government's many education reforms. Before the reforms, the average primary school could expect to be inspected roughly once every 200 years. Now each school can expect to be inspected roughly ever four years. I applaud the vigour and independence of spirit with which Mr. Woodhead and his team approached their responsibilities.
  I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the chief inspector finds much to praise about British schools. There is a long list of outstanding schools in all parts of the country.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend accept that we in Lancaster have been exceedingly fortunate—as opposed to Lancashire, which is unfortunate—in that we struggled and kept our grammar schools? The result is that our primary schools never went what I would call mushy. They all had to aim at the 11-plus, and they were all good. One school—a village school—had 12 applicants for the 11-plus, of whom 11 passed and one was educationally sub-normal. That is probably one of the reasons why we have had such excellent results from school inspections in my constituency.
  Mr. Lidington: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who, as always, is a doughty exponent of the virtues of
  798
  Lancaster. As I come from a Buckinghamshire constituency, I very much share her views on selection, and am grateful that Conservative-controlled Buckinghamshire county council was able to fight successfully against the efforts of the noble Baroness Williams to impose comprehensive education on our county, despite the objections of the majority of parents.
  The long list of schools to which I referred includes four in my constituency. I was delighted to write to Sir Henry Floyd school, Aylesbury grammar school, St. John's combined school in Lacey Green and Great Missenden Church of England combined school to congratulate the head teachers and all their staff on their achievement. I hope that the teaching profession will see in the list of schools published by the chief inspector a tribute to the dedication and hard work of head teachers and their staff over the previous years—
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: And parents and children.
  Mr. Lidington: And parents and children, too, as my hon. Friend rightly reminds me.
  The chief inspector also pays tribute to two schools—one in Durham and the other in Derbyshire—which had previously been described as failing, but which are now noted by inspectors to be well on the mend. That is another illustration of the way in which the system of inspection, to discover faults so that remedies can be set in hand, is working to the benefit of all children.
  Mr. Woodhead says that
  "Standards of pupil achievement and teaching are satisfactory or better in the majority of schools",
  and that
  "teachers are meeting National Curriculum requirements more confidently".
  He also points out that there are nearly three times as many exceptionally good teachers as poor teachers in our schools.
  I dwell on those positive remarks at some length, because I feel that the headlines in some newspapers that accompanied the publication of the report did not do justice to the praise that Mr. Woodhead rightly gave to particular schools and to the education system in general.
  The quality of education depends crucially on teachers. No profession has a higher responsibility, and there is no nobler vocation. So I hope that the teaching profession will reject the rather glib view that the inspector's report is in some way an attack on teachers' professionalism. It is not; it is a challenge to them as professionals to reflect critically on what they do, and to learn not from Whitehall edicts, but from the best practice and the outstanding achievements of their fellow professionals in our schools, for the shortcomings that Mr. Woodhead describes are serious and need to be remedied.
  Perhaps the inspector's critique can be summarised by saying that we are too tolerant of mediocrity and that our expectations of what pupils are capable of achieving in school are still far too low. The report concludes that standards need to be raised in about half our primary schools and in about 40 per cent. of our secondary schools. About 10 per cent. of the schools inspected had serious weaknesses.

  799
  The predictable excuses and protestations have been made—such as, that all we need do is chuck some extra money at the problem, that parents do not support schools or the authority of teachers any more, or that the problems of a difficult catchment area overwhelm the best endeavours of teachers.
  I am prepared to acknowledge that those are all relevant points, and have some merit. But they avoid the central question: why can we identify schools of similar size, with similar budgets, similar catchment areas and the same sort of parents, some of which achieve the highest standards, while others fail dismally in the duty that they owe to pupils and parents?
  In that regard, the inspector's report backs up the findings of the Select Committee on Education—and, frankly, the anecdotal evidence from our constituencies that we can all bring to the debate. Time and again, the report returns to the central issues of the leadership of the head teacher and the quality of classroom teaching.
  On page 9 of the report, Mr. Woodhead says:
  "Some schools serving extremely deprived areas achieve very good standards. This is because they are invariably led by men and women of exceptional ability."
  He tells us that such a school
  "believes in the possibility of success and takes responsibility for its failures"
  when they happen. Unsurprisingly, he concludes that
  "The most successful primary schools place great emphasis on initial literacy, expect all their children to learn to read and to learn quickly, and approach teaching generally in a structured and diagnostic way."
  That is Mr. Woodhead's critique. What is now to be done? It is not a simple matter of passing new laws; we need a constructive partnership between the teaching profession and the Government to set right that which is wrong. I shall deal first with what I consider to be the responsibilities of the teaching profession.
  The inspection evidence shows that in seven out of 10 lessons described by the inspectors as good, whole-class teaching figured strongly. Ofsted's work bears out the conclusions of other studies, notably that of the so-called three wise men, which was published in 1992, that excessive reliance on group work fritters away precious teaching and learning time. We need a better balance between whole-class, group and individual work.
  We also need better planning of lessons, especially in primary schools. In one telling criticism, the inspector says that only half of primary schools have really planned how to use their teaching time to maximum effect. We must continue to question the fashion for mixed-ability teaching that took hold in the 1960s. Judging by my visits to schools in my constituency, I suspect that some commentators exaggerate the extent to which mixed-ability teaching ever became universal. Setting and streaming have always continued in some schools, and I believe that they are now growing in popularity among teachers again.
  I draw the attention of the House to paragraph 166 of the report, which points out that in primary schools
  "grouping by ability for maths and English is common and"—
  this is the key phrase—
  "often results in a better match of work and in higher standards."
  800
  There is much there upon which the teaching profession can usefully reflect.
  The Government, too, have a tremendous responsibility. Their motto could be, "So much done, so much more to be done." They have introduced the national curriculum, national testing, regular inspections, teacher appraisal and freedom of information, through prospectuses, annual reports, test results and inspectors' reports. They have also held firmly to the principle that greater diversity in our education system will help to drive up standards, whether that is achieved through grant-maintained schools, city technology colleges, specialist magnet schools or, where it is wanted, formal processes of selection.
  It is worth remembering that almost all those Government initiatives during the 1980s were bitterly opposed not only by the Labour party, but by its allies—in this debate, its absentee allies—from the Liberal Democrat party. It is a great shame that the Liberal Democrats, who frequently preach to us about their concern for quality in education, cannot be bothered to send a representative into the Chamber for a debate on the annual report of the chief inspector of schools.
  What further issues should the Government now tackle? First, a real problem is caused by the minority of teachers who provide poor teaching in the classroom. The inspector concludes that the performance of a small minority of teachers is consistently weak, yet it is rare for action to be taken to deal with the problem.
  I do not have an instant answer. I do not know whether we need a change in the law or simply better guidance and training for heads and governors on how to deal with the problem. Governors in my constituency tell me that it is almost impossible to sack a teacher on grounds of incompetence, even when that individual has been given chance after chance, yet has consistently failed to deliver adequate standards of teaching.
  I repeat that such criticisms apply only to what the inspector describes as a small minority of teachers. None the less, it cannot be in the interests of children, nor can it be good for the reputation of the teaching profession, for that state of affairs to be allowed to continue and for that small minority of consistently poor performers to go on teaching classes in our schools.
  Secondly, the Government need to focus on teacher training. I welcome the review of in-service training set in hand by the Teacher Training Agency. The Government and relevant agencies need to take a rigorous approach both to initial teacher training and to INSET, to tackle the specific weaknesses revealed by the inspectors' reports.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I am sorry to be so greedy as to want two interventions, but again I am incredibly lucky in Lancaster, because University College of St. Martins, which used to be a teacher training college and is now a fully fledged college, has always kept to the old standards and turns out students whom I see practising in schools and who are welcome in any school in the country.
  Mr. Lidington: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Again, what she says of Lancaster is true of Buckinghamshire. Her constituents will note how she again champions their achievements.

  801
  I applaud the doughty battle waged by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to gain a greater share of the Government's cake for education in the forthcoming financial year. The teaching profession and all people concerned about education should know that they have a fine champion in my right hon. Friend. Paragraph 230 of the inspector's report makes some interesting comments. It states:
  "Few schools spend more than they should, but nearly two-fifths should be making better use of their resources … In about four schools in ten value for money is reduced because significant aspects of their work are not sufficiently cost-effective".
  Whatever the arguments in any year about the total sum available for education, I hope that we can agree that we need to find ways in which to encourage a rigorous approach to value for money in individual schools, to ensure that available resources—however big the sum, it will always be finite—are used to the greatest effect.
  I ask the Government to think forward and perhaps to reconsider their stand up to now on the disparity between the funding of the primary and secondary sectors. In his report, the chief inspector calls many times for primary schools in particular to do much more in terms of better planning of lessons and of in-service training, to equip primary school teachers—who tend to be generalists—with a firm grasp of subject knowledge, which the national curriculum requires them to have and which they did not require during initial teacher training. One of the problems with that historic disparity is that it inevitably means that primary schools have a less flexible timetable and less staff time available to meet those demands by the chief inspector to tackle the deficiencies in in-service training and in lesson planning.
  In local education authorities of all political colours, less money is given per pupil to primary schools than to secondary schools. I understand why Ministers, not just in this Government, but in previous Governments, have always believed that it is up to the local education authority to decide how much should go to primary and secondary schools respectively and that, if the LEA changes the balance, the standard spending assessment provision will follow that choice. The strength of the chief inspector's critique and the importance of the issue are such that I ask the Government to revisit that question.
  Mr. David Porter: Before my hon. Friend leaves the question of the disparity of funding between primary and secondary schools, will he consider the problem raised by middle schools, which exist in his constituency and in mine? A middle school may be deemed secondary, but it may have many primary pupils. The disparity of funding problem is often compounded by the wide range of age groupings in a school. That has not been dealt with by either the Government or local education authorities.
  Mr. Lidington: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. Although the systems in his constituency and mine are not the same, I have encountered comparable problems in considering budget allocations for schools in Buckinghamshire.
  As more schools become grant-maintained, the Government will have to revisit the issue in any case and take a view, at least in relation to the grant-maintained sector, about the proper sum per pupil to be spent on primary as against secondary schools. That issue may be
  802
  dealt with through tilting grants for education support and training or other specific grants from the Department more towards primary than secondary education.
  I have not time to dwell at length on two other problems, but they are important. One is pupil referral units. Both the chief inspector in his report and a separate study on pupil referral units by Ofsted concludes that they are failing badly in their task. Obviously, that causes concern and I hope that the Government and the education agencies will act to deal with that.
  The second problem is the under-achievement of boys at all levels of our education system, from the early key stages to GCSE. In the past couple of decades, much thought and energy has rightly gone into finding ways in which to provide equal opportunities for girls. I am becoming increasingly concerned that boys seem to be lagging behind girls at all levels of compulsory education. That is especially worrying in a world where unskilled men are most likely to end up as long-term unemployed.
  My conclusion is that improving standards in schools should be one of the main priorities of any Government, and that that requires a partnership between the Government and the teaching profession. The chief inspector's report shows that serious problems still afflict our education system. Pupils are still not achieving as much as they are capable of, but, at the same time, the inspectors signal that much good is being achieved by teachers and that those achievements show us the way forward to improve the opportunities and standards of achievement for everyone.
  9.57 am
  Mr. Graham Riddick: We all owe my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) a great debt, because he has raised an extremely important issue. I find it surprising that so few Opposition Members are present. Of course, an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman is here, along with the Labour Whip, but the normal pattern of Wednesday morning debates is that hon. Members on both sides of House speak. Obviously, Conservative Members are pleased to have more opportunities to speak, but it is interesting that no other Back-Bench Labour Member is prepared to speak on this important issue. It may just be that Labour Members are totally confused by their party's education policies and would not know what to say.
  The good news, as stated by the chief inspector in the Office for Standards in Education report, is that
  "Standards of pupil achievement and teaching are satisfactory or better in the majority of schools".
  The bad news, however, is that
  "it is evident that overall standards of pupil achievement need to be raised in about half of primary and two-fifths of secondary schools. The most successful secondary schools achieve GCSE results twice as good as others in similar socio-economic circumstances and six times better than those achieved by the least successful in less favoured areas … there are still too many schools which are failing to give their pupils a satisfactory education."
  My hon. Friend mentioned teaching methods, which are an important aspect of the debate, and to a certain extent the report concentrates on them. It states:
  "Teaching methodology needs to be improved in nearly half of primary schools and in a little more than one-third of secondary schools … About seven-tenths of good lessons involve, for example, a balance of whole class teaching and group work."

  803
  That is significant because, over the past two or three decades, there has been concentration on what people often refer to as "trendy" teaching methods that have been introduced as part of the comprehensive ideal. I was astonished to read in my newspapers this morning that the Labour party now says that comprehensive schools are a disaster. That is how the newspapers portray the speech that was made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett).
  Ms Estelle Morris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Riddick: I shall be happy to give way to the hon. Lady if she wishes to tell us that the hon. Member for Brightside did not say that.
  Ms Morris: My hon. Friend did not say that, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the speech that was made last night by my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Education and Employment. In that speech, he praised comprehensive schools, but made it clear that a change of name on the school gate was not enough to raise standards. He said that although comprehensive schools achieved a great deal, we must strive more and aim even higher to bring high standards of education to all our children. The words used by the hon. Gentleman do a terrible injustice to last night's speech by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Riddick: It is plain that the hon. Member for Brightside needs to express himself more clearly, because just about every newspaper has interpreted his speech as an attack on comprehensive schools and mixed-ability classes.
  The comprehensive system has been imposed throughout the country by the Labour party over the past two or three decades. It did that, first, when it was in government in the 1960s and 1970s and, secondly, while it was in control of local education authorities. That system has betrayed hundreds of thousands of young people in the past two or three decades, and many of those who have been betrayed are in the most unfortunate circumstances—living in poor, rundown inner-city areas. The policies were imposed throughout the 1980s and 1990s by Labour LEAs, including the one in Sheffield, in the hon. Member for Brightside's area. Someone once told me that, when the hon. Gentleman was the leader of Sheffield council, he was one of those arguing against school uniforms in Sheffield schools. If the hon. Gentleman has changed his views, that is all to the good. However, the solutions that Labour proposes do not amount to much.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris) has just confirmed that Labour wants to tinker with comprehensive schools. We hear much sweet, reassuring rhetoric, but in practice Labour's policies are fairly meaningless. It is interesting that the Secondary Heads Association refers to Labour's education policies as "naive, vague and unconvincing". It also referred to them as
  "simplistic, bland statements with little research or policy ideas. There is no sign of how the policies will be paid for."
  804
  That is a fairly damning criticism of Labour's education policies by the people who count, that is, head teachers.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury said, a good head teacher who provides real leadership is crucial. Too many practitioners in education are inculcated with the comprehensive ideal. They have been sold the idea that schools are there to deliver egalitarianism. The truth is that the comprehensive system was introduced by Labour administrations as part of their social engineering approach, to try to make us all more equal in society. Of course it has not worked but, sadly, in the process many young people have been damaged.
  I recently read an article by a head teacher of a good school. It was published in the wake of the Harriet Harman affair, and we all know what happened there. His argument in favour of comprehensive schools was that they were not divisive, but he put no education argument whatever, and that is regrettable.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Gentleman might care to tell the House about the inspector's report.
  Mr. Riddick: I am happy to return to that report, which reflects the success, in some instances, of the Government's education reforms. Those can be summed up in three words—choice, diversity and standards. We have taken steps to drive up standards. We introduced the national curriculum and formal tests in schools, and Mr. Woodhead refers to those policies in his report.
  The disappointing results of English and mathematics tests for 11-year-olds, which were published last month, clearly demonstrate that more work needs to be done on those fronts. I hope that, as with secondary schools, the test results achieved by primary schools will be made public.
  One of the surest ways to drive up standards is to give parents more choice and more say in the schools to which they can send their children. To exercise that choice, parents want more information about local schools. Therefore, since 1979 Conservative Governments have changed the law, to make it more difficult for LEAs to veto parents' choices. We have also introduced measures to allow the publication of examination results by schools. The introduction of nursery vouchers is a radical, further step in extending parental choice.
  The recent Audit Commission report into nursery education revealed that 46 per cent. of the mothers who had been surveyed were not happy with the places that they had for their four-year-olds. Vouchers will give parents a much greater feeling of involvement in the education process and will allow them to exercise real choice about nursery places for their children.
  Mr. Matthew Banks: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point about choice. Does he agree that it illustrates the fundamental difference between the various political parties, in that only the Conservative party is prepared to give parents more choice? Are not the other parties trying to take choice away?
  Mr. Riddick: My hon. Friend is right. We introduced city technology colleges and grant-maintained schools, and we have maintained existing grammar schools.

  805
  We have attempted to increase diversity in the system but, as far as I can see, in practice, Labour policies would stifle that diversity, and that would be detrimental to education.
  I come to another aspect of the Ofsted report—religious education. That is an important issue, and in his report Mr. Woodhead states:
  "Provision for RE varies widely from school to school. Pupils achieve well in RE in about two-fifths of primary and nearly half of secondary schools. Standards require considerable improvement, however, in about one-sixth of primary schools and at least one-fifth of secondary schools."
  That is a rather sad state of affairs.
  Last year, Dr. Nicholas Tate, the chief executive of the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority, expressed his deep concern about religious education when he said:
  "the key problem is a failure to take the subject seriously and a blinkered view of the world which dismisses anything to do with religion as relics from the infancy of mankind, unworthy of serious study … even in terms of basic knowledge we appear to be far advanced in becoming a religiously illiterate society."
  Baroness Cox in another place revealed that a recent Gallup poll found that 49 per cent. of 16 to 24-year-olds had no idea what Good Friday commemorated and 79 per cent. did not know what happened on Palm Sunday. That is very sad, and we ought to be taking more steps to try to improve matters.
  I suggest that the problem is that religious education is something of a mishmash. My local authority, Kirklees, recently published its guide to RE for its schools. I would not for a moment want to criticise that document; much thought and effort clearly went into its production and it basically follows the statutory guidelines on RE.
  At key stage 1, children have to study Christianity plus one other faith; at key stage 2, Christianity plus two other faiths; and at key stages 3 and 4 Christianity plus five other faiths. The law says that Christianity should be the predominant religion taught in schools. If I were to criticise the document, I would say that that predominance of Christianity does not come through. We need to consider the matter more closely. Children should learn about Christianity and the Bible, especially in the early years. It is not realistic to suggest that young children should learn about other faiths. Learning about other faiths should come later, in key stages 3 and 4.
  There is an interesting debate going on in the Muslim community. Muslims want their children to be taught predominantly Islam in RE classes, and they have a very strong case. In The Daily Telegraph recently, Mr. Mukadam, who is one of those fighting for predominantly Islam RE teaching in the Birmingham area, said:
  "Mr. Mogra"—
  who is the teacher—
  "teaches our RE from an Islamic perspective. A multi-faith lesson is a confusing mishmash offering nothing to promote spiritual or moral development.
  Multi-faith lessons are more of a secular approach teaching that all religions are equal. We believe that Islam is the true religion. That is what our children are taught at home and it is only natural that the teaching is continued at school".
  It seems unrealistic, and frankly not right, to try to force Muslims to adopt the Christian faith. Muslim parents are therefore perfectly entitled to expect that their children learn predominantly about Islam at school. I would argue that case.
  806
  I would also argue the other side of the coin, that much greater emphasis should be placed on Christianity in the majority of schools where most pupils are not from a different religious background. Muslims should have more teaching of Islam in their classes and Christianity should be emphasised more in all other pupils' RE classes.
  This has been a useful and timely debate. Mr. Woodhead and Ofsted are doing a very good job. They are trying to improve standards, and I wish them well in their efforts. I especially wish the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), well in his efforts. I know that Ministers are absolutely determined to give parents more choice, drive up standards and create more diversity in education. Having listened over recent years to what Labour education spokesmen have had to say, I believe that it is apparent that parents can trust only Ministers in a Conservative Government to give them choice and diversity and to drive up standards.
  10.15 am
  Mr. David Porter: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on two counts—first, on securing this debate and, secondly, on representing a constituency in the only Conservative-controlled shire county in the land.
  The Office for Standards in Education has played a key part in the necessary changes that have had to be made in our education system during the past 15 or more years. No one owes this country a living and no one owes an individual in it a living. That is the economic reality of life today that we have had to learn over the past 15 years. Ensuring that schools and children reach certain standards is self-evidently a basic necessity and Ofsted has begun to deliver that.
  I am glad that there is no longer a debate about whether there should be an Ofsted or an equivalent to inspect schools as Ofsted does. There was certainly criticism and some uncertainty about the idea at the outset, and even now there is no doubt that much stress is put on teachers in advance of an inspection, which Chris Woodhead has described as a "neurotic" reaction. That is not an overstatement in some instances and needs to be taken account of. Many of the teachers I have talked to in my constituency feel that, with hindsight, the inspection was worth it but that there was tremendous strain in the long run-up to it. They and the head teachers often complain about the excessive bureaucracy involved in preparing for the Ofsted inspection, which is quite expensive and time consuming, and the purpose of which they do not always appreciate. That could be addressed in future reports.
  Some schools in my north Suffolk constituency have had some excellent results—a real vindication of schools, teachers and Ofsted. The critical reports are also a vindication of Ofsted and the four-yearly inspection system. None the less, the system could be improved. The very style of the inspector's report suggests that the process is evolutionary and open to development.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) said, the Secondary Heads Association has suggested that head teachers and their schools should have a direct input in the inspection process if secondary school standards are to improve. Its new document, which is based on the "sometimes traumatic" introduction of the new inspection system, says that the present round of

  807
  inspections are about accountability rather than school development. Instead, it proposes a twin-track approach of external inspections running alongside a continuing process of school self-review and evaluation. Both have a place, but school evaluations need to dovetail with external inspection, not replace it.
  The association also criticised the standards of some of the inspection teams and said that there are sometimes conflicts of interest when, for example, local authority teams inspect schools in their own area. There is also concern about the percentage of teams that are comprised of local education authority people who win the contracts. Although there are uneven standards of expertise, it will—perhaps—settle down as the process moves forward.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does not it seem especially unfortunate that a local authority team should inspect a grammar school that the authority had consistently tried to close?
  Mr. Porter: That is certainly one of the unfortunate consequences of so many home-grown teams. Unfortunately, I have had no such experience in my area as it has no grammar schools.
  Will the Department reconsider the system for the four-yearly visits? The whole school inspection was vital at the beginning and I accept that, in a primary school, a generation of children and perhaps several staff will have moved on within four years, but once the original whole school inspection has been carried out, the next inspection—four years later—could be devoted to particular weaknesses that were highlighted in the previous inspection. In addition, or instead, it could concentrate on particular issues that reflect current concern, such as numeracy, reading, science or whatever.
  It has been suggested—in the jargon—that Ofsted inspections are hit-and-run affairs. It has been made quite clear that, after an inspection, a school must respond with an action plan designed to improve standards. The chief inspector says that there are clear signs that the processes of inspection and action planning are helping schools to improve teaching methods. However, they need further development. They should be followed up in a much more structured way to take account of feedback on the initial report from teachers and parents, who often read the reports with concern. There needs to be more direct input from teachers at the time of the inspection. The whole process needs to be seen as a professional development tool, in the same way as teacher appraisal. It also needs to be seen as a tool for developing the professional expertise of heads and deputy heads.
  The Government intend to promote various ways in which the inspections can be better targeted—which I welcome—and which need emphasising at this stage. Inspectors will report examples of excellent or very poor teaching to the head. That is welcome, but it needs to be followed up to ensure that action has been taken to correct the teaching or to spread the examples of good practice around the school.
  I expect that the Government will say that inspectors will pay special attention to weak schools and make return visits. Often, however, a particular department or area, not the whole school, is weak. That could slip through the net under the present system.
  808
  We take a great deal of notice of what parents and governors say, but we sometimes forget that many of our secondary school pupils are quite able to articulate what is happening in the classroom. Their views should be taken into account. I refer not only to sixth formers but to younger children, who also have a view. The children are the experts in the education system, yet the present inspection system does not take account of their views.
  The changes of the past 10 years have put an incredible amount of stress and pressure on teachers, other staff, governors, local education authorities, parents and children, but the point is that the changes have been necessary because the world has changed. Further reforms are needed because the world does not stand still. There is no such thing as a vacuum in education. Currently, however, there is a need for a period of consolidation and less change. The report is a step towards a balance between consolidation and further reform.
  10.22 am
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) for initiating the debate, which is further evidence that education rides high in the political debate and that, at long last, that debate is very much on Conservative terms. For too long, despair has prevailed about our failure as a nation to provide excellent education for all. The best in British education is among the best education in the world—there can be no doubt about that. Grammar schools have survived in Kent and Buckinghamshire and they figure among the very best in the recently published league tables. It is significant that, time and again, grammar schools are at the top of the range.
  Mr. Lidington: I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that among the outstanding schools listed by the chief inspector is Holmer Green upper school in Buckinghamshire—a secondary modern, in the old parlance. That shows how, in a well-managed system, not only grammar schools but non-selective schools can achieve high standards through good teaching and sound leadership.
  Mr. Arnold: Indeed. There are similar examples in Kent. Well over half of our education is of a high quality, which shows that both grammar and many other schools are succeeding, but we should be concerned about the fact that some 30 per cent. of our youngsters leave education inadequately trained for the modern world. We must ask why that happens—and the answer is social engineering.
  Mr. Matthew Banks: My hon. Friend is touching on a point mentioned by our hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter). I want to highlight another point about grammar schools, which our hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) touched on. More than a decade ago, I was the chairman of the Wirral schools committee. Although I now have nothing to do with that authority, in the run-up to the 1979 general election, the overwhelming majority of parents—irrespective of their political persuasion—were keen to keep the remaining grammar schools. I am sure it was the same in other areas. It was only because a Conservative Government were elected in 1979 that parents were given the option of sending their children to grammar schools.
  Mr. Arnold: That is right; indeed, the same was true in Kent. It has kept its grammar schools and success has ensued.
  As I was saying, 30 per cent. of our youngsters are being let down, to the detriment of the country, because of social engineering in schools—in the structure of schools and in the teaching methods employed in them. Unfortunately, the teaching establishment has made unfashionable the teaching approach taken in the past—for example, the basic principles that pupils should face the front and that there should be whole-class teaching. There needs to be a properly structured and diagnostic education system in the classroom.
  We seem to have turned our backs on the very basics such as the three Rs. Surely we should be educating our youngsters through the proper teaching of phonetics and through whole-class reading. Those practices have been highly successful in the past and we should return to them. Reading and writing are important.
  With arithmetic, we should revert to teaching through the use of exercises. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made an announcement on the use of calculators. Although they are marvellous—we all use them—too many young people fail to understand magnitudes in maths. If they press the wrong button, they still think that the answer is correct—whereas if they had a concept of magnitude, they would realise that the answer could not possibly be correct. It is rather like the old computer adage: garbage in, garbage out. If they put the wrong data into the calculator, they will get the wrong result. We are not giving our youngsters the necessary sense of magnitude to ensure that they recognise when the answer is wrong.
  There is a weird insistence on small groups in the classroom. When we go into primary schools, we see children grouped around tables, which inevitably means that a proportion of them have their backs to the teacher. We all know that the little darlings will follow their own interests and misbehave if given half a chance. Insisting on small groups is expecting teachers to be like jugglers, keeping many plates rotating in the air. They are so busy doing that that they are unable to carry out their teaching effectively.
  We all know that thousands of excellent teachers cope with those conditions and operate small groups in classrooms—I have seen many of them in my own constituency—but the fact is that that practice loads the dice against many teachers, who cannot cope with it. Too many of our youngsters idle their way through school, which is the cause of the 30 per cent. or so of youngsters who come out of schools ill educated.
  The current situation has come about not least through teacher training and the impositions on teachers of local education authority inspectors. Over the years, I have heard of far too many teachers who very effectively applied old-fashioned methods of teaching being told by local education authority inspectors to desist from using them. Ultimately, teachers are human, and they will put their career high on their scale of priorities and change to a system that they do not believe in but accept because they are required to do so by the education authorities.
  Extraordinary teaching methods and structure have been imposed on the teaching profession by the very Labour-controlled local education authorities that have been guided by the usual fashionable whims of the
  810
  left-wing establishment. We all know that, in the past, such authorities latched on to comprehensive education out of a particularly illiterate understanding of the meaning or use of the word comprehensive in that context. For educationists, comprehensive education was meant to provide the widest possible range of education in one establishment. We all accept that there are terrible problems in trying to do that. The Labour party latched on to the idea that it would be socially comprehensive to put all children into the same schools, as that was good for its ideology.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Except for their own children.
  Mr. Arnold: Yes. It is not good enough for their children, but it is good enough for their constituents' children. The result has been that too many schools have been unable to cope with the burden, imposed on them, of providing a wonderful education across the full range of subjects for a full range of children, regardless of their aptitude. I am glad to see that the Labour party is at last waking up to the fact that that is not the way to deliver education to young people.
  Last night, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) made a speech. He was wearing sackcloth and ashes for the way in which the Labour party has, for many years, tried to impose its education policies through local authorities. It is interesting to note that he said:
  "Our commitment to comprehensive education cannot be a commitment to continued mediocrity, to sameness or to tolerance of failure."
  Who has imposed those very attributes? Labour-controlled education authorities and the Labour approach to education and teaching.
  The Labour party has come out with another document, called "Excellence for Everyone". Does not that sound marvellous?
  Mr. Greg Pope: What does that have to do with the report?
  Mr. Arnold: The report is essential to education precisely because of the failures brought about by Labour party education policy, pushed through local education authorities. If the hon. Gentleman cannot see the connection, he needs to go back to school.
  Let us talk about people who are in school. What has been the Secondary Heads Association's response to the latest Labour party education policy report? Its response states:
  "The document is an uncomfortable mixture of the naive and messianic and the commendable theme of a crusade loses its impact in a welter of mini-crusades and objectives, many of which, though presented as such, are far from new".
  So much for the Labour party in relation to that matter.
  Today, we are debating the inspection of our schools, which is highlighting the problems and the way ahead. I find it very encouraging that the Government have introduced the national curriculum, because—despite the vicissitudes caused by loads of paper and problems that the enthusiasm of the education establishment has created—it has laid down what our youngsters should achieve at different ages. It has been laid down in the face

  811
  of carping, negative criticism from the Labour party all the way down the line. We have now started testing, which is highlighting the performance of pupils and schools. That policy also was introduced in the face of the votes and opposition of the Labour party.
  We are receiving the results of those policies, and it is now up to parents and teachers in the schools that educate their children to improve standards. The inspectorate is vital in that process because its reports on schools give parents, teachers and, of course, governors the detail of the qualities and successes of a school—and the aspects that require considerable improvement.
  This debate is very encouraging. We are talking about the quality of education, opportunities for youngsters and choice for parents, which are the very heart of Conservative education policy. The debate is now on our field and on our terms. I see the Labour party crawling on to our field to discuss education. May it learn—but we will remain in government to push through the reforms.
  10.35 am
  Ms Estelle Morris: First, I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on securing this debate. It is an excellent idea to have a debate on the report of the chief inspector of schools. It is, to some extent, worth considering making such a debate an annual event because there are too few occasions on which we can consider education in its broadest sense. In future years, it may be a debate that can take place in the Government's time so that we do not have to trust to an hon. Member's good luck in securing a place in the ballot.
  I also congratulate the hon. Member for Aylesbury on the way in which he presented his arguments. They were measured, gave due recognition to our school system's achievements and recognised some of the areas in which improvement is needed. Unlike some of his colleagues, he introduced the debate in a manner which generally opened the discussion rather than trying to score political points.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Morris: Not at the moment; I have just started. I shall be happy to give way when I have made some progress.
  Other Conservative Members did not follow the good example set by the hon. Member for Aylesbury.
  Mr. Arnold: The hon. Lady said that this is an extremely important debate, and she referred to the fact that four Conservative Back Benchers spoke in the debate. If education is so important to the Labour party, can she explain why not one Labour Back Bencher has attended this debate, let alone spoken in it?
  Ms Morris: We will hear no lectures from Conservative Members on the importance of education. I am responsible for what I do in the House. I am here and I am about to answer this debate. I am not responsible for other hon. Members, on either side the House, or for how they choose to spend their parliamentary time.
  812
  The hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) made some very interesting points about the school inspection process, and I found myself agreeing with a great many of them. I should like to pick out one or two things that he said. He gave a depiction of the situation in his constituency, in which staff in schools experience almost a neurosis as the inspection starts. That is certainly one of the problems with the inspection being a one-off look—a snapshot view—of how a school is doing at a particular time. I have been to schools where the staff say that they hold up projects or develop them only to a certain extent so that they are at their best during the week of inspection. It cannot be helpful if schools and the education service regard the inspection process with that attitude.
  One way round that problem would be to reach a situation in which the one-off inspection by a team of outside inspectors is just one item in the on-going process of school inspection and self-evaluation. I think that we can get rid of that neurosis if schools expect that advisers will occasionally come in—to be friends, to give support or to give criticism—and that someone from outside the local authority will give an outsider's view to check standards. Like the hon. Member for Waveney, I hope that that approach to school inspection is something that can evolve, and that we can get rid of many schools' defensive posture.
  Before moving on to the report, I should like to make two or three further points about the inspection process. Inevitably, we must deal with the information as it is presented in the chief inspector's report, but the raw data on assessment tests do not give the whole picture. One of the dilemmas is that we are dealing with a set of results based on student achievement at seven and another set of results for students at 11. Under the present system, no one appears to know what is happening in between. We must move to a system of setting year-on-year targets for every child in every school. We must measure at the end of the year whether children have reached the standard that they could reasonably have been expected to reach and whether the school has helped the children to reach those standards. The one-off look and the one-off collection of raw data at seven, 11,13 and 16 do not give sufficiently high-quality information—
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Morris: Not again. It was bad enough last time.
  We are not getting the right information to enable us to make reasonable judgments about the progress of individuals or the progress of schools.
  It is a matter of concern that primary schools will not be inspected every four years. In an answer to a recent parliamentary question, it was revealed that £12.8 million is being taken out of the Ofsted budget for 1995–96. That will mean only that fewer schools are inspected than should be. If inspection is as important as people have said today, it is important that Ofsted is given the resources it needs to carry out the inspections that it and the Government feel appropriate.
  I recognise the achievement of many pupils in the school system. The inspector says that the successes this year are many and real. He also says that there are twice as many really excellent teachers as there are poor teachers; that is the case. I congratulate not only the schools mentioned in the introduction to the report,

  813
  but the schools that have also reached high standards, but which have not been inspected this year. They sometimes feel aggrieved because they have been left out of the list.
  I join the hon. Member for Aylesbury in putting on record my congratulations to Brookside special school in Derbyshire and Crook primary school in County Durham. They were considered to be failing schools and faced quite inexcusable press publicity about their situation. The determination, skill and energy that the schools have put in to turn round the position is a tribute to the teachers, governors, parents, pupils and communities that they serve.
  Many young people are making real progress, not only in academic terms, but in community activities, sport and cultural activities. Many of the schools listed at the beginning of the report are mentioned not necessarily for academic achievement, but for achievement in the wider area of things that we expect schools to give our children.
  The big problem that comes through in the report is one that has always plagued the British education system. The report talks about unacceptably wide variations in school performance. For all the achievement and for all the youngsters who go forward with confidence, qualifications and the surety that they have something to contribute to society—doors are opening for them and opportunities beckon—there are too many students who are not getting that chance and who are not able to reach their expected level of attainment.
  Some 30 per cent. of A-level students fail to complete their course; that is not a statistic mentioned in the chief inspector's report. Some 5 per cent.—one in 20—of our youngsters leave school with no GCSEs, although they are often bright children who could achieve more. There was a decline in English and mathematics results at GCSE last year. One fifth of pupils are below expected standards at the age of seven, rising to one half of pupils being below expected levels in English and mathematics at the age of 11. If that continues, we shall not reach the national targets that we as a nation have set ourselves and we shall not raise the standards of all our children.
  We have a decision to make. Either we can choose to be what we have always been as a nation—giving opportunity and resources to a few and trusting the future of our country to the skills of a few—or we can set about raising standards for everybody and trying to achieve a high-skill, high-wage economy in which the future of the nation rests not in a few, but in the strengths and skills of all. We have never had an education system that has tried to do that. Historically, we gave opportunities only to the rich and to males. More recently, we gave opportunities to children who passed the 11-plus. In the past 17 years, we have seen the havoc wreaked by differential funding and by the failure to address the problems of schools that under-achieve. That is the challenge for this country and that is the challenge for all the partners in education. We must not rest on the achievements of a few. The Prime Minister was right when he said that we have always done well by 15 per cent. of our young people. The challenge is to do better by the 85 per cent. of people who have always been failed.
  I now turn to a few specific areas of concern that have been raised in the report. There are many, but there is neither time nor opportunity for me to go through them all. It is of concern that children in inner-city schools are under-achieving. I taught for 18 years in an inner-city
  814
  school before I came to the House, so I am always conscious that there is just as much under-achievement in the middle-class suburbs and in the comfortable areas, and by the children of the more affluent which is masked because those children get reasonably good results.
  We must have a means of measuring progress so that we can identify both achievement and under-achievement. Achievement is about making progress from where people start; it is not necessarily about how many children gain five A to C grades at 16. The chief inspector says that in areas of urban disadvantage, there is more chance of children achieving less, more chance of under-achieving and more chance of the community and teachers having lower expectations of young people. That is true. If there is one kernel that teachers have to take from the report, it is that we must have an end to low expectations. Teachers and many others understand why some children find it difficult to succeed. The task must be to address the barriers to success rather than accepting them as causes of under-achievement.
  One sentence in the report is crucial. The inspector says:
  "Some schools allow their necessary and understandable preoccupation with pastoral care to distract attention from teaching focused on achievement."
  That is right. Teachers are trained to teach and that is what they should be doing. Every minute that is not spent teaching a child, no matter how rich or how poor, no matter how able or how much in need of special support, is a minute taken away from raising standards.
  However, what do teachers do when children turn up at school who suffer from the most horrific home situations, such as overcrowded housing, abuse, ill-health caused by poverty, a lack of confidence or a lack of any one showing an interest in them? I am not pretending for a minute that that happens in the majority of areas. However, those are the children who are coming through the gates of some of our schools. Many teachers feel that they must address those issues before they can address the teaching. I ask the Minister to recognise that standards in education will be raised only if we address the wider areas of Government policy so that children can come to school in the morning ready to learn, which will enable teachers to be ready to teach.
  I now look forward. The myth about which we have heard today that, somehow, things were better in the old days when there was selection makes me wonder where some hon. Members were 20 or 30 years ago. The expansion in higher education, which is welcome, has happened on the back of the comprehensive system. The children who have gone through that system and who have not been labelled failures at 11 are now going into higher education. My parents' generation and Conservative Members' parents and grandparents' generation were just as able as hon. Members who have had a university education, were just as bright and could have made just as much contribution, but they were in a system that labelled them failures at 11 and they were never given a chance. I do not know what the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) means by social engineering. Comprehensive education gives opportunity to the many and prevents doors from being closed.
  It is clear what the way forward must be. It must involve top-quality nursery provision, properly resourced schools, raising the morale of the teaching profession,

  815
  restoring schemes such as reading recovery schemes and reducing class sizes. It is, indeed, the biggest task that faces our nation. The word "partnership" was used earlier. What a shame it is that we have not had that for the past 17 years.
  10.49 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Robin Squire): I will not be able to cover all of the matters raised by my hon. Friends in the 11 minutes available to me, but I am grateful to all of those who have taken part. The debate was kicked off by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), who gave his customary excellent speech on the subject. He was nobly, trenchantly and intelligently supported by my hon. Friends the Members for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick), for Waveney (Mr. Porter) and for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), and there were incisive interjections from my hon. Friends the Members for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) and for Southport (Mr. Banks). It was a tremendous achievement.
  I shall take up two points made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris). First, I shall certainly consider her suggestion that we provide a debate in Government time on the chief inspector's report, if only—as my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham said—to ensure the attendance of Opposition Back Benchers. Secondly, she implied that the Government have reduced Ofsted's budget. She knows—although the House may not fully be aware of it—that because of good budgeting, Ofsted has advised us that it will not be able to spend its full budget this year. The Government were advised in time, and we have made the appropriate adjustments and increased the budgets appropriately for the ensuing years.
  I shall refer to the other main points of the debate as time allows. First, I wish to pay tribute to the work done by Ofsted in raising education standards. The chief inspector's annual report is one of the key education documents produced during the year. It provides a thorough review of the state of the nation's schools, and shows both success and failure in the classroom. It is based on evidence from actual inspection reports, and therefore has an authority that is difficult to challenge.
  A number of key points in the report have been raised this morning. In particular, the report provides evidence that all types of school can achieve excellence. More than 200 successful schools were picked out for special commendation, some of which—as has been made clear—are in the constituencies of my hon. Friends. The schools range from inner-city primaries to shire county secondary schools. The report records that the majority of schools have satisfactory or better standards of pupil achievement and teaching, and adds that there is generally good behaviour in all but a few schools and a growing confidence among teachers about meeting national curriculum requirements. These are the positive points, and the teachers in the schools concerned deserve our warmest congratulations.
  The report does not seek to disguise the fact that there are still areas that require major improvement. These include the need to raise standards of pupil achievement in half of our primary schools and two fifths of our
  816
  secondary schools, and the need to improve standards of teaching—one lesson in five remains unsatisfactory. The report has given clear messages about what needs to be done, and the Government have already put a wide range of measures into effect to secure improvement. I shall spend a few moments on those.
  The inspection system introduced by the Government means that schools are now inspected on a regular basis. Some 6,000 schools have already been inspected. All have had reports published and all have had to draw up action plans which have addressed any areas of weakness identified in the inspection report. That is crucial information in helping schools to improve, and is the sort of independent expert analysis that schools did not routinely receive in the past.
  The report observes that there are already clear indications that the process of inspection and action planning is helping schools to improve their teaching methods. We know that inspecting all schools is a massive undertaking, but it is one that we are determined to achieve. Ofsted has taken decisive action through the recruitment of a large group of additional inspectors to ensure that the four-year inspection target is met.
  For our part, the Government have introduced the new post-inspection grant for education support and training to help schools with their action plans after inspection. The grant enables LEAs to target help on schools with serious weaknesses. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney helpfully raised the subject of the nature of future inspections. We are considering carefully how we should proceed once the current initial cycle of inspections has been completed. More than half of all secondary schools have already been inspected and all schools will have been inspected by July 1998. Now is a good time to take stock and to consider what our permanent inspection arrangements should be.
  There is already a fair degree of consensus that any new arrangements should ensure that all schools are regularly inspected, but perhaps with more targeting towards schools with serious weaknesses. The Secretary of State and the chief inspector are giving thought to the matter, and we hope to announce further details on our thinking by Easter.
  The key to high achievement is good teaching, and the report makes it clear that while there are many excellent teachers, there are still a small minority whose performance is consistently weak. This problem must be tackled. We in the Government can help, but ultimately only the school itself can secure a lasting improvement. Some hon. Members already know that, from April, Ofsted inspectors will be working to a new and more sharply focused inspection framework that is the product of extensive consultation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney said, from the same date, the inspectors will be reporting to the head when they find examples of excellent or very poor teaching. That will not diminish the role of the head and senior staff, but should be a valuable management tool. It will also provide useful feedback to the teacher concerned.
  On the wider front, the Teacher Training Agency is also actively involved and is working to improve the quality of initial teacher training by drawing on inspection reports from Ofsted that are also now being published. It has also undertaken work to target in-service training priorities—for example, subject knowledge at key stage 2; improving behaviour; and discipline and school leadership.

  817
  In recognition of the very important role of head teachers—this is highlighted by the report—the TTA is working to establish a new national professional qualification for aspiring head teachers that will set a rigorous national standard for headships. The qualification will be in addition to the head teachers' Headlamp training scheme that is already well under way.
  The chief inspector's report shows that there is a need to tackle mediocre and poor standards of literacy in many schools. It recommends that schools should review the quality and consistency of teaching to set and achieve higher targets. Similarly, there is much that could be done to improve the progress and attainment of pupils in terms of number work. It is because we share the chief inspector's wish to see such an improvement that we have announced the establishment of up to 20 literacy and numeracy centres, aimed particularly at improving teaching in primary schools. There are also new rules for training primary teachers, with at least 50 hours to be spent on training in the teaching of reading and 50 hours on arithmetic.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury made several comments, and in particular highlighted what he saw as the difficulty of dismissing bad teachers. No one denies that in schools, as elsewhere, there can be difficulties in dismissing inadequate staff. I must stress that teachers have the same rights under employment protection law as any other employee but, because of our legislation on the local management of schools, any well-run school now has powers to take the necessary action either to improve performance where a teacher has been identified as being currently deficient, or, if necessary, to dismiss.
  I await clarification from the Opposition of their recent comments about hastening the process. It seems at first sight, however, that their proposals will lead either to the weakening of the employment position of teachers—which seems unlikely—or to the Opposition in some way
  818
  taking back the powers that we have given to school governors. I would personally deplore either of those options.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury also referred to primary and secondary funding but, with precisely two minutes remaining to me, he will not expect me to go into that subject at great length. He will know that powers do lie with LEAs to vary their local management of schools schemes, and to ensure that greater assistance is given by those schemes to primary schools relative to secondary schools on the per-pupil funding basis.
  In conclusion, I have outlined some of the steps that the Government have taken to improve school performance. Many of our other measures—such as the national curriculum, assessment and testing, local management and the publication of performance tables—are already well in place. Indeed, we have recently announced our plan to publish next spring school performance tables showing the 1996 national curriculum assessment results for 11-year-olds.
  We in government can do only so much. We cannot ultimately impose improvement on a school; that must come from within it. We know that schools can improve. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury and the hon. Member for Yardley said, two former failing schools—Brookside special school and Crook primary school—have improved so significantly that the chief inspector singled them out for specific commendation. Six schools, including those two, have come off special measures because the inspectorate recognises that they are delivering good-quality education. They and other schools throughout the country show what can be done with good teaching, effective leadership and strong support. Those qualities, more than Government exhortation—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must move to the next debate.

  Bridgewater Four
  11 am
  Mr. Dennis Turner: I am glad to initiate this debate, which will be the first time that this distressing case has been fully discussed in the House.
  The tragic and outrageous murder of newspaper boy Carl Bridgewater, whose parents and family deserve our sympathy, has been shrouded in controversy since November 1979 when four men were convicted for the killing. Vincent Hickey and James Robinson went down for life for the murder and Michael Hickey was also convicted of murder and detained during Her Majesty's pleasure. Pat Molloy got 12 years for manslaughter.
  Six weeks after the convictions, a man called Hubert Spencer shot his friend Hubert Wilks through the head in the farm next door to the one where the murder was committed. It emerged at once that Spencer had been an early police suspect for the Bridgewater murder, that he knew Yew Tree farm—where the murder had been committed—had coveted antiques there such as those that were stolen during the robbery and had access to shotguns. It also emerged that a blue Vauxhall Viva, driven by a man in uniform, was seen going into the farm an hour and a half before the murder. Intensive police inquiries throughout the midlands could establish only one owner of a blue Vauxhall Viva who wore a uniform—Hubert Spencer.
  The convicted men consistently pleaded their innocence and a huge array of evidence has been uncovered to challenge the slender case that was made against them at their trial. Replying recently to questions in the House, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), who I am pleased to see in his seat, referred twice to the numerous police inquiries into the case since 1981. He said that the latest batches of new evidence
  "have been thoroughly examined—extremely thoroughly examined". —[Official Report, 15 February 1996; Vol. 271, c. 1126.]
  He asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) whether he recognised the thoroughness of the police investigations that had been carried out.
  Hon. Members who are worried about the case recognise the thoroughness of the police investigations and the inordinate length of time that they have taken but, as we have discovered recently, thoroughness is not always the same as fairness. There is a great deal to suggest that the recent investigation into the case by Merseyside police, though intensely thorough, has not been fair to the convicted men and their families.
  Most of the recent new evidence submitted to the Home Office by the men's lawyers has dealt with the confessions of Pat Molloy, which are the kernel of the case. He was arrested on 8 December 1978. He was held at Wombourne police station and refused access to friends, family and lawyers. On 10 December, he signed a confession that he was upstairs at Yew Tree farm when the murder was committed. The confession named the other three men as the boy's killers.
  Molloy was refused access to a lawyer for another eight days, until 18 December. The moment that he saw a lawyer on that day, and ever since, he insisted that he had
  820
  never been at the farm, that his confession was wholly false and that he had signed it out of fear of the police and for revenge against the Hickeys, who, he was led to believe, had implicated him in the crime. At his trial, however, acting on legal advice, he did not give evidence and did not deny his confession. Though he pleaded not guilty and denied that he was at the farm, his lawyers asked the jury to conclude that if it thought that he had been at the farm, he was guilty not of murder but only of being an accomplice.
  That tortuous defence, and Molloy's failure to give evidence, was the turning point in the trial. He was convicted of manslaughter and the other three of murder. Almost immediately after his conviction, he submitted an appeal. He regretted his silence at the trial and insisted again that he had never been at the farm. He said that his confession had been beaten out of him by police officers, whom he identified. He set out the details of his beatings in a series of memoranda to the Court of Appeal and in conversations and letters to his sister, to his son, to Jimmy Robinson's then girlfriend Carol Bradbury and to Ann Whelan, the mother of Michael Hickey, who had visited him. In July 1981, before he could get to the Court of Appeal, he died of a heart attack in Gartree prison.
  The new evidence submitted by Molloy's family lawyers in 1993 provides powerful—some would say overwhelming—evidence in support of Molloy's story. For instance, the lawyers had proved 14 separate visits to his cell at Wombourne by police officers connected with the inquiry. The records show no recorded interviews during any of those visits.
  The Home Office asked Merseyside to interview the police officers concerned. Those officers do not dispute—they cannot really since it is on record—that they went to Molloy's cell on all the occasions alleged. They do not dispute that there were no recorded interviews. By way of explanation, they claim that they were inquiring after his welfare, checking that he was properly fed and so on. That is all accepted by the police investigators. Is it credible that the police at Wombourne should have shown such assiduous concern for a man who had just signed a confession to one of the worst murders ever known in the area?
  A more credible explanation for the 14 missing interviews may be that the officers were searching desperately but unsuccessfully for a single shred of evidence to corroborate Molloy's confession. On 14 December, in desperation, officers from another force took Molloy to Yew Tree farm. It was plain to them that he did not recognise the place where only three months earlier he had allegedly taken part in the killing of the young boy.
  The plain fact is that over 17 years not a single piece of evidence has been found to corroborate Molloy's confession. The likelihood that the 14 mystery visits were inspired by an anxious determination to authenticate what the officers rightly feared might be an entirely false confession is not even considered by the investigation's police officers, who simply took the word of the Wombourne police on trust.
  Here is another example. The police investigation attempted to uncover a number of occasions on which Molloy is said to have confessed to police and prison officers after the trial. Each of those alleged confessions is highly dubious. One, provided by a prison officer at

  821
  Winson Green, is flatly contradicted by prison records, but the Merseyside police blamed the records rather than the officer. Moreover, the list of alleged confessions has been submitted as hard evidence without the other side of the story ever being considered. Molloy's son Nick, Ann Whelan, and Molloy's sister Frances—all of whom can testify to Molloy's strenuous denials of his confession right up to the day before he died—were never interviewed by the Merseyside police. One side of the story is set out at great length; the other is not even investigated.
  There are many other examples. When overwhelming linguistic evidence proved that Molloy's confession interviews could not have been taken down verbatim, as the trial was told, the police investigators promptly switched the goal posts and claimed that the confession had been taken down in response to "trigger notes".
  A man called Mike Chamberlain stated on television in the summer of 1993 that his friend the late Detective Constable Perkins—the police officer who had taken Molloy's confession—told him clearly that he intended to
  "extract a confession out of Molloy".
  Chamberlain is dismissed by the Merseyside investigation on the basis of a statement that he made a year earlier that he did not want to speak to the police.
  At the appeal hearing, much was made of the fact that Spencer had not had access to a gun at the time of the murder; yet, when the police investigators discovered that he had been sold a shotgun in the summer before the murder, they dismissed it as irrelevant. There is powerful evidence that yet more misleading statements were made by the only substantial witness against Jimmy Robinson—Mervyn Ritter, a man already exposed in the courts as a pathological liar. That, too, seems to have been dismissed too easily by the investigation.
  It is simply not good enough for the Home Secretary to take it on himself to dismiss all that new evidence solely on the basis of a private police inquiry. That is at the heart of the argument for reopening the case in public. The Home Secretary cannot and should not usurp the role of the courts by deciding himself about controversial evidence that has been tested only by police officers in secret, not by discovery of documents and cross-examination in open court. If, as many believe, a terrible injustice has been done to those men, each year that passes compounds that injustice. Each year brings new evidence, all of it exonerating the men and none of it implicating them.
  In 1993, Tim O'Malley, who had been foreman of the jury at the 1979 trial, came forward. He had, he said, been convinced of the men's guilt at the trial, but was now even more convinced of their innocence. What plainer proof can there be that a verdict is unsafe than such a statement from the jury foreman, made at some risk to himself? Surely the honourable and open thing to do is to send the case back to the Court of Appeal.
  11.14 am
  Mr. Roy Hattersley: I shall speak only briefly about the case that was set out so clearly, and in so much detail, by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner).
  In one way or another, I have been involved with the case for the past 14 years—initially because Ann Whelan, Michael Hickey's mother, was a constituent of mine and
  822
  visited my advice bureau. I pay tribute to the dogged determination with which she has argued her son's case for the past 15 years, but I confess that, when she first spoke to me, I was sceptical about her son's innocence. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) will confirm that it has never been my way to assume automatically that cases that he regards as miscarriages of justice are miscarriages of justice. He would say that I had come late to the defence of the Birmingham Six and the Guildford bombers, as they were once wrongly described.
  My natural instinct when I first met Mrs. Whelan was to assume that mothers are inclined to believe that sons are innocent. At the time, her son was on the roof of the prison in which he was incarcerated, and I believed then that there was more emotion than evidence to her case. Over the years, however, I have become utterly convinced that the case that she made then was right. Week after week, month after month, additional evidence has been supplied to support that case.
  Looking back, I now realise that the case began with the basic ingredient for a miscarriage of justice. Locally, there was a sense of absolute outrage—which was proper and understandable—that a newspaper boy doing his rounds in the morning, wholly unconcerned with what was going on, should stumble on robbers and be shot dead. In my experience, such outrage—fuelled by the newspapers, which say that someone must be convicted and that the case must be speedily resolved—puts pressure on police, which in itself is likely to produce the wrong result. I have no doubt that it was that sense of outrage that began the whole process.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East pointed out, the entire case rests on Molloy's evidence. I do not want to repeat my hon. Friend's account of how that evidence was obtained, but there is little doubt that Molloy believed—I make no allegation that he was told—that, if he incriminated the men who were eventually convicted of the murder, he would escape on a lesser charge. That is speculation; but it is a fact that, had the events occurred 10 years later, Molloy's evidence would have been discounted, because it was wholly inconsistent with the rules laid down by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
  Molloy was kept for 10 days without proper assistance from a lawyer, and, for much of that time, without any support from his family. The records of his evidence are inadequate by any standards. The pattern continues. After the conviction, when it was known that appeals were likely and that Molloy had recanted—he had announced that he had been wrong to incriminate the other three men—14 visits were made to his cell. They were not recorded in diaries as they should have been, and the conversations that took place in the cell were also not recorded, as would now be required for evidence to be acceptable to the courts. That pattern of what would now be regarded as malpractice characterised the entire process, not simply of obtaining the conviction, but of ensuring that public outrage at the conviction, and the formal appeal, should not have the result that I consider justice to have required.
  Two weeks ago, at Question Time, I referred to the strange incident of the bicycle. Although it is a small incident in the overall saga, it is indicative of the sort of procedures that were used. I knew about the bicycle because, during one of her visits to my constituency

  823
  surgery, Mrs. Whelan had told me that she had heard that there were fingerprints on it, about which we were not being told the full story. The bicycle was exhibited in court, but not much was said about it, although it was standing there in front of the jury. The bicycle was then left in the jury room. The jury, no doubt, felt emotionally involved because it was the bicycle of the innocent paper boy who had pedalled off in the morning and who had met his death when he was shot by robbers at the farm. The jury felt emotionally disturbed by the presence of the boy's bicycle as they considered their verdict.
  We now know that there were fingerprints on the bicycle, but we do not know whose they were. We know that the fingerprints were not those of Michael Hickey or the men who were eventually convicted of the murder, but they were never identified. Over 10 years ago, on the suggestion of Mrs. Whelan, I asked the then Home Secretary about the fingerprints and he gave me an answer that I can describe only as evasive. He said that he knew nothing of them and referred me to the local police. The local police gave me an answer that was equally uninformative. It was not until months afterwards that we discovered that another person had been present at the crime scene—the fingerprints proved it, but that evidence was not provided during the trial.
  When I asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), about this the other day, he said that the defence counsel had known this before the appeal. The defence counsel certainly did not know it at the time of the trial. Indeed, the principal counsel, now a High Court judge, has said publicly that had he known it at the time of the trial, he would have asked for the scene of crime officer to be called in evidence and he would have cross-examined him about the possibility of other persons being there. That is just one example, but I could give many more—and I am sure that my hon. Friends will give many more.
  I conclude by making one simple point. Michael Hickey had many misfortunes: the misfortune that he was implicated in a crime about which there were proper feelings of outrage; the misfortune that the police were determined to find someone to convict; the misfortune that a man—Molloy—believed it was to his advantage to incriminate others to receive a lighter sentence; the misfortune that the evidence of that man, which was recanted, was not available to the appeal because he died of a heart attack; and the misfortune that he appealed two or three years too early.
  I do not mean that Michael Hickey's mother and those who supported him were over-enthusiastic; I mean that he went to appeal at a time when the Court of Appeal was taking the hardest possible line on these matters. I believe that had the appeal taken place in the new circumstances—when a different attitude and a different Lord Chief Justice prevail—a different result would have been obtained. For those reasons and because of the dubiety that covers so much of the evidence, I am sure that the Home Secretary should resubmit the case to the court. I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell us that that course has not entirely been ruled out.
  I do not always understand the arcane language of the law, but as I understand the Home Secretary's response, he has said that he has not quite made up his mind not to
  824
  do it; he has nearly made up his mind not to do it, but there is still a chink of hope that he might do it. I hope that that chink of hope can be extended. I am absolutely certain that, sooner or later, as has been the case in other examples of the miscarriage of justice, Michael Hickey will come out of prison. It will be righted sooner or later. It will be a tragedy if he is allowed to stay in prison unjustly for any longer than is necessary. There must be an immediate submission to the Court of Appeal.
  11.23 am
  Mr. Matthew Banks: It is pleasing to see that a number of hon. Members have a particular interest in the case. I do not wish to go into the minutiae of it. I agree with a number of the points that have been made by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner). One of the concerns that I have was expressed in an article in The Guardian in June 1993. I refer to the remarks attributed to Mr. Tim O'Malley, who was the foreman of the jury at Stafford Crown court.
  I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) is in this place this morning.
  Mr. William Cash: I welcome this debate and I pay tribute to the extremely careful analysis that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner). I believe that this matter should be reviewed and referred to the Court of Appeal.
  Mr. Banks: The murder of Carl Bridgewater has unleashed a multitude of theories, conspiracies, scapegoats and excuses over the last 17 or so years—most of which have been eagerly recounted by hon. Members. Before I deal with the unsatisfactory story of the incarceration of the four convicted, let me make it clear that the first thought of many of us—particularly hon. Members on Government Benches—is for the victim and his family. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), said:
  "I hope that all hon. Members will also bear in mind the appalling time that the family of young Carl Bridgewater have had. They have suffered terribly, and the continuing publicity and time involved in considering representations are causing them even more suffering."—[Official Report, 15 February 1996; Vol. 271, c. 1132.]
  If Carl had been spared his ordeal at Yew Tree farm in 1978, he would be just a few years younger than I am now. Nothing will ever compensate his family for his loss. What will always make me and others feel a little more whole, a bit more secure, is the knowledge that the real murderers are behind bars and that they are being punished as severely as society will allow. What must be causing untold distress to Carl's family is not so much the seeming uncertainty that surrounds the four convictions, but the continuing publicity that is accorded to the death of their boy. Paul Foot, who has been eulogised many times, said in his book "Murder at the Farm":
  "Each time the case got any publicity, they said, the suffering of that awful September came back to haunt them. Whoever did the murder was to them of small significance compared to the fact that their son was gone."
  Between 1981 and 1987, there were four secret police inquiries into new evidence, which have cast doubt on those convictions. In 1987, the then Home Secretary,

  825
  my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), referred the case to the Court of Appeal. The appeal lasted nine weeks through 1988 and 1989 and was dismissed. In February 1993, the then Home Secretary, the current Chancellor of the Exchequer, turned down leave for appeal by the three men on the ground that the new evidence presented to him did not cast doubt on the convictions. New evidence has been presented to the Home Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), and as the Home Office press release of 7 December 1995 put it:
  "The Home Secretary has not decided whether to refer the case to the Court of Appeal, although at present he is minded not to do so."
  As someone who takes a slightly different line on this matter from Labour Members, I, too, am appalled at the length of time it is taking for the case to be fully closed. It seems to me that it will never go away.
  The point I want to make about the convictions must be prefaced by my belief that, of course, if the men's convictions are found to be unsafe, they should be freed. No one, no matter how unsavoury, should be locked away for any longer than they deserve. I say "longer than they deserve" because it is a fact that we are not yet dealing with victims when we talk about Patrick Molloy, Vincent Hickey, Michael Hickey or Jimmy Robinson. I am sure that their families have been badly affected by their long incarceration, especially Molloy's family because he died while in prison. However, the only victims in this case, as I understand it, are Carl Bridgewater and his family.
  Many aspects of the case are unsatisfactory. In my view, the rooftop protests of Michael Hickey and Jimmy Robinson suggest that there is a strong grievance inside these men. The excruciating investigation into this case carried out by Paul Foot, Ann Whelan, Michael Hickey's mother, and others has cast a suspicion that the Home Secretary and the courts could throw out this case 100 times and the defence would still come back for more.
  Ms Jean Corston: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there was never a shred of forensic evidence linking Michael Hickey or any of the others to the crime? Indeed, the only evidence against Michael Hickey was another prisoner saying that while Mr. Hickey was in the shower, he had confessed to the crime. The prisoner's confession was later retracted. The Court of Appeal decided not to take into account the evidence of the prisoner who had put forward the fabricated confession, which means that there has never been any evidence to link Michael Hickey with the crime.
  Mr. Banks: The hon. Lady will know that Mr. O'Malley's comments in the report from The Guardian to which I referred, were followed by those of Dr. Eric Shepherd, a forensic psychologist commissioned as part of the Government inquiry into the convictions. The report said that he
  "concluded that Mr. Molloy's crucial confession was unreliable."
  Yet, when people are reminded that both Molloy and Vincent Hickey originally confessed—Hickey in an attempt to "save his own skin", to use Foot's words, from the Chapel farm robbery charge and Molloy because he received a better deal than the others—that Molloy was a convicted robber and that Hickey and Robinson were likewise hoodlums, it is palpably nonsense to describe
  826
  them as anything other than shady and callous criminals who may well have received a lot more than their come-uppance.
  I read through some of the press cuttings of the case. I was perplexed to see the unjust captivity of John McCarthy compared with the ordeal of the three men in prison by Jill Morrell. If those men are set free by the courts, I shall see the validity of the comparison a little more clearly.
  In another press cutting—somehow speaking during his rooftop protest in 1993—Jimmy Robinson spoke to John Mullin of The Guardian. Describing his situation on the roof of Gartree prison with his fellow protester—another convicted murderer—he said:
  "The cold is the worst. Then boredom. We read magazines and old newspapers they send us up. We keep each other company. We tell each other about our lives. We tell each other jokes. We're both good liars, you know."
  He may well be; the other two may well be too.
  My arbitrary quotation of Robinson is symptomatic of the case in its entirety. There have been so many statements, retractions, accusations and so forth that the case goes on like some horrible soap opera, with the original crime almost hidden by the quagmire of investigation into the so-called Bridgewater Four. It would be more sensitive to call them the Yew Tree Four, but that is just my mind set.
  My speech is not necessarily intended to be a contribution to the continuing investigation, but I hope that it reminds people of the true victims in the case. Those who genuinely want a possible miscarriage of justice righted are to be admired. While failings in a criminal justice system must be corrected, I am not so sure about my feelings towards those who possibly see the case as an opportunity to attack the system as a whole—although I am not suggesting that right hon. and hon. Members have done so today—or towards those who forget the feelings of the loved ones, who do not want to see the circumstances surrounding their son Carl's death staring at them in every newspaper from now until who knows when.
  11.32 am
  Mr. Chris Mullin: I endorse what the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) said about the family of Carl Bridgewater. All of us who have been involved in cases of miscarriage of justice understand the terrible effect that the case dragging on unresolved year after year must have on the families of the victims. It is as much in their interests as in the interests of the men who, I believe, have been wrongly convicted that we bring the situation to an end.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) on his good fortune in obtaining this debate and on the clear way in which he set out the issues. I am glad that it is clear that the case, like the other celebrated miscarriages of justice, is beginning to attract support from both sides of the House. I have never felt that concern about miscarriages of justice should be confined to one side. I have always dealt with the issues and looked at them from the point of view of justice rather than from any party political perspective, and I will continue to do so. In all the great alleged miscarriages of justice, I have taken heart from

  827
  and worked happily with Conservative Members who have come to the same conclusions as I have. I look forward to doing so in this case.
  This is the greatest unresolved miscarriage of justice. I am genuinely puzzled that Ministers so stubbornly refuse to face up to what has obviously gone wrong. I do not know of any other case in which the foreman of the original jury has publicly stated that he does not believe that the men would have been convicted if the jury had known then what we know today. That statement is wholly unprecedented. Since one of the judgments that the Court of Appeal has to make when deciding whether to quash a conviction is to decide what the effect of new evidence would be on the jury, the evidence of the foreman of the original jury is something to which great weight ought to be given.
  When the Guildford and Birmingham cases collapsed, we were assured that lessons had been learnt and that there would be no repetition of the scandals of the late 1980s and early 1990s. For a while, that seemed to be the case. Yet here we are, going round the same old track again, with endless police investigations that lead nowhere and cost enormous amounts of public money and crucial information that should have been disclosed at the trial having to be prised out of Ministers and officials line by line.
  Five years after the royal commission on criminal justice was set up, there is still no sign—or not much sign—of the establishment of the independent review authority for which we legislated last year. If ever there were a case that ought to be dealt with swiftly by the review authority, the Bridgewater case is it. The post of chairman was advertised last September and interviews took place last December, but a chairman has not yet been appointed. I do not believe that the authority is likely to be set up until at least the back end of this year, and I cannot understand the long delay.
  Mention has been made of the confession of Patrick Molloy, which is central to the case—it hinges on his confession, which was extracted in extraordinary circumstances. Perhaps I should qualify that by saying that they were not all that extraordinary, compared with the way in which the West Midlands police went about their business at the time. Certainly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, no court today would uphold a conviction based on a confession obtained in those extraordinary circumstances.
  I notice that the confession was taken by Detective Constable Perkins of the West Midlands serious crime squad, who is one of the most complained about officers in one of the most complained about forces in the country. I notice, too, another familiar name—that of Detective Sergeant Hornby, who was peripherally involved with the case. He is probably the most complained about officer in the most complained about force in the country. I have the advantage of having seen his disciplinary record, which was disclosed at the Birmingham pub bombings trial, in which he played a part.
  I am looking forward with great interest to the day when the discipline record of DC Perkins will have to be disclosed, to find out what other allegations of a similar nature have been made about that man, as I know that
  828
  there are quite a lot. While we are on the subject, I wonder where that discipline file has got to. I should have thought that it was relevant, considering his central role in the case. If his credibility is so relevant, I should have thought that that file ought by now to have been disclosed and I hope that the Minister will tell us what plans he has for doing so.
  It is strongly my view that no court today would allow a confession obtained in such circumstances to stand. I am puzzled as to why Ministers are still clinging to the wreckage.
  On fingerprints, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook referred, the fact that two unidentified fingerprints were found on the bicycle belonging to Carl Bridgewater has emerged recently, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East said. I raised that matter with the Minister on 15 February, and I think that he gave me a misleading answer. He said that the existence of the fingerprints had been disclosed in 1988—that is only nine years after they were known to the prosecution—whereas the truth is that all the defence was told in 1988 was that two unidentified fingerprints had been found at the farm; not quite the same thing.
  It was not revealed until 1994 that the prints had been on the bike, which was picked up by one of those responsible for this terrible deed and thrown into a pigsty. No one should be under any doubt about the significance of those fingerprints, because the police were not. They took the matter seriously at that time and records show that they contacted 34 police forces in an attempt to discover who had left the fingerprints. The police lost interest in the fingerprints only when they had charged the four men, against whom there was no forensic evidence and of whose fingerprints there was no sign at the farm.
  I invite the Minister to correct the false impression that he gave me on 15 February and to confirm that the existence of fingerprints on the bike were not disclosed until 1994, 16 years after they were known to the prosecuting counsel, Mr. Igor Judge. So much, incidentally, for the contention in the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill, which we debated only yesterday, that we can rely on the Crown to disclose all relevant material to the defence.
  I wish to repeat a point made by others the other day, but which has not yet been made today. As I understand it, it is not the job of Ministers to evaluate the new evidence—though, God knows, there is enough of it. Ministers have to decide only whether new evidence of sufficient significance has emerged to warrant a referral to the Court of Appeal. In this case, that is manifestly so.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook made an important point. It is no good the Minister telling us that much of the new evidence was considered by the Court of Appeal in 1988 and 1989. The defendants had the bad luck to be referred to the Court of Appeal while it was still under old management. I have no doubt that there would be a different result today if the case were to be referred.
  To give an idea of the extraordinary nature of the 1989 appeal judgment, one need only consider the passage about the witness, Mr. Mervyn Ritter. The gist of that passage was that the judges accepted that Mr. Mervyn Ritter was a pathological liar, but on that occasion they

  829
  believed that he could be relied on as a witness of the truth. It is hard to deal rationally with people who think along those lines, but I must restrain myself. I draw that passage to the attention of the House only as a sample of the quality of the thinking of the Court of Appeal under old management. I am confident that that would not happen again today.
  The hon. Member for Southport referred to the long rooftop protest made by some of the defendants. They were on the roof of Gartree prison for 89 days in 1983, during one of the coldest winters of this century. I realise that that is not evidence, but I wish to point out to the Minister as gently as possible that the fact that someone who is arguing his innocence is prepared to endure discomfort of that magnitude is surely evidence that he feels a sense of grievance. I do not believe that someone who was trying to con us would sit for 89 days on the roof of a prison in one of the coldest winters of this century. He would not have done that if he did not feel that he was the victim of a miscarriage of justice. But I can see that the Minister is looking puzzled. The other evidence is strong enough and there is no need to dwell on such esoteric points. If the Minister is not convinced by it, he should forget it.
  This case will not go away. If Ministers decline to refer it, it will be one of the first cases to fall on the desk of the criminal cases review authority when eventually it is set up.
  All 17 of the people whom I said were innocent in my maiden speech in 1987–18, including Judith Ward, whose innocence I first drew to the attention of the House in July 1988—have had their convictions quashed and are walking the streets with compensation in their pockets. With that in mind, I can tell the Minister that I am confident that these three men will walk out of the front door of the Old Bailey with their convictions quashed, too. For the sake of everyone, not least the family of Carl Bridgewater, let us get it over with.
  11.44 am
  Dr. Lynne Jones: I am privileged to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who has been so active in campaigning against miscarriages of justice long before it was fashionable to do so.
  One common thread running through the many recent miscarriages of justice is that many of those falsely convicted had some criminal background that led the police, under pressure to secure convictions, to presume guilt and then to cut corners in their investigation. The Bridgewater Four is another such case. There is no doubt that Vincent Hickey, Michael Hickey, Jimmy Robinson and Pat Molloy all had criminal backgrounds, but it was the unscrupulous behaviour of Vincent Hickey that led to disaster for all four.
  In late 1977, Vincent Hickey, who had a long history of petty crime, was involved with three others in deception and robbery at a house in Rickmansworth. Evidence was left behind that allowed them to be traced. On arrest in February 1978, Hickey quickly realised that the game was up and offered a deal. He would give the police the names of his accomplices if he was charged only with deception, not robbery. The result was that Vincent Hickey received only a two-year suspended sentence, while his cousin Reg Hickey—who later gave
  830
  evidence, subsequently retracted, that Vincent knew the area around Yew Tree farm—got four years in prison. The enormous value of grassing was not lost on Vincent Hickey.
  On 24 November 1978—the day that Vincent Hickey was in court for the Rickmansworth job—Michael Hickey, another cousin, took part in an armed robbery at Tesco in Northfield in Birmingham. His accomplice was James Robinson, whom Michael had met at the Dog and Partridge pub in Selly Oak a month earlier, but several weeks after the cold-blooded killing of Carl Bridgewater on 19 September 1978.
  Robinson later joined both Vincent and Michael Hickey in an armed robbery at Chapel farm, another isolated farm like Yew Tree farm. That coincidence did not go unnoticed by the press. Chapel farm is about an hour's drive from the site of Carl's murder. During the robbery, their car was seen and traced to Vincent's girlfriend. Vincent then went to the police with his fateful plan to escape a lengthy prison sentence by pretending to have knowledge of the murder at Yew Tree farm. In fact, his only information was gleaned from a television reconstruction of the murder. We should remember that the Hickeys had not come into contact with Robinson until after the Carl Bridgewater murder.
  I give that background because it must be known that those of us who are convinced of the innocence of the Bridgewater Four are under no illusions as to the previous history of the men. Once Vincent Hickey had implicated Michael Hickey and Robinson, Molloy was drawn in because of his association as a partner in crime of Robinson's, although it is clear that he was never involved in any violent crime.
  Until Vincent Hickey volunteered the other three men's names, nothing in the three-month investigation into the Carl Bridgewater case had led the police to suspect that any of the others might have had anything to do with the murder. But in four days, the men were interviewed 36 times and held in solitary confinement for the rest of the time. As has been said already this morning, the procedures that we take for granted today were not in place then.
  Molloy, who at first protested his innocence, was denied access to a lawyer for 10 days. During that time, he signed a statement confessing that he was present at the murder. An account of his interrogation is given in the book by Jill Morrell and it describes violent action by Detective Constable Perkins, who broke Molloy's teeth
  "while his mate held me in his arms and repeatedly asked me to sign a statement saying I was at the farm upstairs, robbing it."
  Molloy also describes how he was left all night and how his meals were "liberally doused in salt". He was not given anything to drink and eventually had to cup his hands in the lavatory basin and flush it to get water to drink. He ends:
  "I signed (the statement) out of revenge on the others and out of fear of more beatings and ill treatment … I never thought for one moment that it would be believed."
  As soon as Molloy had access to a lawyer, he stated that his confession was false, that it had been dictated to him by police officers and that he had never been to Yew Tree farm.
  Following Molloy's confession, Vincent Hickey suddenly realised that he was in deep trouble and admitted that he had invented his story to get off the Chapel farm robbery. He denied that he had ever been to Yew Tree farm, but it was too late; the fate of the four was sealed.

  831
  During the trial, Vincent Hickey was directed by the judge not to mention the robbery at Chapel farm, which meant that he had no credible answer to the question, "Why did you shop Robinson and incriminate yourself in this horrible murder?" As has already been said, apart from Molloy's confession, the evidence against the men was extremely flimsy. There has never been any forensic evidence against them. Michael Hickey and Robinson strenuously denied any part in the murder from first to last. Despite the inconsistencies and contradictions of Molloy's confession and the lack of any corroborating evidence, all four were charged with murder.
  The men's lawyers were unaware that, until the Chapel farm robbery, Hubert Spencer had been a suspect for the murder. He was a local ambulance driver with a gun licence and an interest in antiques—antiques were stolen at Yew Tree farm. He drove a blue Vauxhall Viva of the type seen by witnesses on the afternoon of Carl's murder. He knew Yew Tree farm inside out and was a past neighbour of Carl Bridgewater, who would have recognised him.
  In December 1979, one month after the four men were sentenced for the murder of Carl Bridgewater, Hubert Spencer murdered his close friend, farmer Hubert Wilks, in a similar manner to the killing of Carl Bridgewater. It is thought that the two men had been discussing the Bridgewater case shortly before the murder. Spencer claimed that he had blanked out and did not know why he had killed his friend. Although convicted of that murder, Hubert Spencer is now a free man.
  One interesting aspect of the case, particularly in view of the news at the weekend that officers of West Midlands police are alleged to have offered inducements to get prisoners to confess to crimes in order to improve the clear-up rate, is the use made by the prosecution in the Bridgewater case of evidence from prisoners. What little evidence there was against the four relied heavily on allegations about the accused by witnesses from Winson Green prison, where the Hickeys and Robinson were remanded for 10 months. The court even accepted evidence against Molloy, who was not at Winson Green prison at the time.
  Mervyn Ritter was transferred from Leicester prison to Winson Green soon after Michael Hickey joined Vincent Hickey and Jimmy Robinson there. He was not a category A top-security prisoner and so was kept separately from the three men. However, on 31 March, because of what he described as internal problems, he was suddenly and mysteriously moved on to landing D3, the landing confined exclusively to top-security prisoners. He subsequently testified that Robinson and Michael Hickey were always laughing their heads off and that Robinson had confessed to killing Carl Bridgewater, but adding that it was an accident.
  As has already been said, at the 1988–89 appeal, Mervyn Ritter was proven to be a pathological liar, but the appeal judges ruled him to be a witness of truth in the Bridgewater case. Following the appeal hearing, new evidence, which is included in that currently being considered by the Home Secretary, was submitted in the form of a statement from a former prison officer, who said that, on hearing that the Bridgewater appeal had failed, Ritter said:
  "My Christ, they actually believe me."
  832
  A leaked Home Office document, written in 1991 by William Miller of DC3 division, states:
  "Ritter's assistance to the authorities has been quite extraordinary … Ritter enjoyed rather more privileges than the general run of ordinarily trusted … prisoners".
  A similar story surrounds the evidence given by Brian Sinton, who was serving his first prison sentence for petty crime. Oddly, he also found himself close to one of the high-security prisoners in Winson Green—Michael Hickey. In contravention of prison rules, Sinton was taken for a shower with him. According to Sinton, Michael Hickey incriminated himself during the conversation in the showers. Immediately after that, Sinton was dispatched to another prison and was released after serving just 11 months of his 18-month sentence, despite having breached his original suspended sentence. His story that Michael Hickey had referred to the child crying was thrown into doubt by evidence from the pathologist, Dr. Benjamin Davis, who had concluded that Carl was not crying when he was shot. In fact, all the evidence pointed to the fact that Carl had not cried at all and the circumstance of his death suggested that he had known his killer. Carl would not have known any of the men convicted of his murder, but he did know Hubert Spencer.
  The appeal was eventually lost. The only evidence remaining was the behaviour of Vincent Hickey following the Chapel farm robbery. The judges ruled that as the alibi evidence showed that Michael had been with Vincent all afternoon and they judged Vincent to be guilty, then Michael must be guilty, too. We must remember that that was at a time when the judiciary was reluctant to admit to major miscarriages of justice, especially when they rested on police evidence. It was the time of Lord Denning's "appalling vista" statement, at the unsuccessful appeal of the Birmingham Six.
  Soon afterwards, further evidence was being submitted to the Home Office. It included evidence from forensic psychologist, Dr. Eric Shepherd, who had been commissioned by Merseyside police to examine defence experts' findings that there was only a one in a million chance that Molloy had confessed in the manner reported by the police. When he agreed with the defence findings, the police promptly commissioned new experts.
  The trial jury foreman, Tim O'Malley, also wrote to the Home Secretary, stating that Molloy's confession had been crucial to the jury's verdict on the three men. The then Home Secretary decided that the case should not go back to the Court of Appeal, and Dr. Shepherd subsequently wrote to him expressing his strong view that DC Perkins had committed perjury. He did not receive a reply. The men's lawyers discovered that none of the language experts had even been interviewed by the police. They asked the Home Office why they had discounted Dr. Shepherd's findings. The Home Office said that there were other experts who supported the prosecution's case, but would not name them.
  During all that time, the men claimed their innocence. We have already heard about Michael Hickey's rooftop protest, lasting 89 days. As a convicted child killer, he had initially faced considerable hostility from fellow prisoners, but his endurance was possible only as a result of their later support. They became convinced of his innocence.
  All that is emotional stuff. Their past criminal record went against the four and their subsequent behaviour in protesting their innocence convinced many of the

  833
  truthfulness of their story. I am sure that the Minister will say that we must look at the evidence and deal in facts. It is a pity that the prosecution did not do so.
  Since 1993, more evidence has been disclosed. Fourteen police interviews with Molloy were not disclosed at the trial and subsequent appeals. Every officer of every rank who interviewed Molloy was involved in substantial breaches of the then current judges rules governing the treatment of suspects, or withheld evidence at the trial. Pat Molloy's custody records have been uncovered. They show major contradictions between custody officer entries and detective interview schedules. They show that he was interviewed on at least 15 occasions without legal representation after a solicitor had been instructed and that he was interviewed without a solicitor at least seven times after he was charged.
  The Home Secretary has been considering the latest submissions since 1993. In June 1994, further undisclosed evidence emerged of the fingerprints found on Carl Bridgewater's bicycle, which someone, presumably the killer or the killer's accomplice, had thrown into the pigsty at Yew Tree farm. Carl's bicycle had been put on show in the court room and had also been placed in the jury room. We all know the emotional response that that was designed to achieve. It is disgraceful that, although the police and the prosecution knew that fingerprints on the bicycle matched none of those of the four men, that information was not disclosed to the defence until quite recently.
  The Home Office has been considering all the new evidence for more than two and a half years. It is clearly of a nature not to be dismissed lightly. The Minister says that the Home Office's inquiries have been thorough; it was said that the whole case was thoroughly examined in the Court of Appeal in 1988–89, but that has subsequently been proven not to be the case.
  It is interesting to note that the first two police inquiries were carried out by Manchester police, and that only when John Stalker announced his intention to supervise the third inquiry was it switched to Merseyside police. I wonder why. Leaked documents from C3 show the unreliability of police witnesses. C3's William Miller wrote in 1991 of DC Perkins, who took Molloy's confession:
  "He maintained in evidence he had written Molloy's statement at Molloy's dictation … whether he could be said to have perjured himself appears to be a very fine point."
  Miller's document confirms that
  "Perkins was disciplined for making false and untruthful records".
  Regrettably, the disciplinary aspects are merely the tip of a somewhat polluted iceberg.
  Is the Minister prepared to release the record of DC Perkins to hon. Members, now that he has died? We are now asked to believe that the police have been able to give satisfactory explanations for the discrepancies in their original evidence and in the custody records, revealed in the new evidence.
  In the Home Secretary's recent press release, in which he said that he was not minded to refer the case back to the Court of Appeal, he mentioned evidence that allegedly implicates Vincent Hickey and Pat Molloy in the murder. In a written parliamentary question, I asked the Home Secretary about the nature of that information. The reply that I received was:
  "The … information is confidential. The letter"—
  834
  the letter to the men's lawyer—
  "makes clear that in reaching his provisional conclusions my right hon. and learned Friend has placed no reliance on that information."—[Official Report, 19 February 1996; Vol. 272, c. 6.]
  We must ask, therefore, why the Home Secretary decided to put the detail of the mysterious new evidence in the press release. That is what the press focused on when they looked at the case. Yet he says that there was no reliance on that information and that it was irrelevant. If it was irrelevant, why mention it?
  Every time that this case comes up, it must be agony for the parents of Carl Bridgewater. Our heart goes out to them. While the obvious miscarriage of justice continues to be ignored, the case will be raised time and again. Surely it must be time to refer the matter back to the Court of Appeal. Then all the new evidence can be examined in open court and not behind closed doors.
  12.2 pm
  Mr. Alun Michael: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) on obtaining the debate and bringing this important matter before the House. He set out the facts and the issues that need to be considered afresh in detail and with great clarity, as did the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks).
  The House does not have to reach a conclusion on the evidence; nor does the Home Secretary. We simply have to consider whether there is a real danger that there has been a miscarriage of justice. The Home Secretary has the power to do more than express doubts and fears. He can send the case back to the Court of Appeal. He should do so now after 17 years in which more and more doubt has grown over the safety of the court's decision.
  I make a more general point about miscarriages of justice. The House decided only last night to change the law on disclosure to reduce the burden of paperwork on the police and increase the chances of convicting the guilty. We supported that measure, which we shall seek to improve in Committee. Hon. Members on both sides of the House warned of the need to get the balance right to ensure that the innocent are protected and that alleged miscarriages are corrected. The case that we are discussing demonstrates the need for such care and balance.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) rightly referred to the dogged determination of Ann Whelan. It is worrying that there still has not been a proper review of her case after so many years. Many right hon. and hon. Members who, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook, may have had doubts about the strength of her case, are now convinced after her representations that that is necessary.
  The cases with which my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) has been associated demonstrated overwhelmingly that some alleged miscarriages are indeed real, and leave an innocent person or persons incarcerated for long periods, their lives ruined beyond repair. It is worrying that the criminal justice system is held in such low regard by the public—because villains walk free and the innocent are sometimes convicted. That is why the Labour party called for a body to investigate miscarriages of justice as long ago as 1991, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook was shadow Home Secretary.

  835
  The royal commission, which was set up to examine miscarriages of justice, recommended the urgent establishment of such a body. The Government eventually introduced a Bill to establish a criminal cases review body. We supported that Bill but expressed concern that it was weaker than what Labour or the royal commission had urged. We also expressed concern that the Government had been slow to introduce the Bill and that it was likely that they would be slow in establishing such a body. Why, oh why are the Government so slow in getting it established and operational? Why, oh why has the Home Secretary not got on with the job so that the new body can deal with the backlog of serious cases in which a grave miscarriage of justice is alleged? I do not suggest for a moment that all the alleged miscarriages will be found to be miscarriages when properly investigated, even when they are considered by the court, but there are enough serious cases in which there is serious doubt for the work of such a body to be urgent.
  Many right hon. and hon. Members expressed the frustration of looking at a constituency case and becoming uneasily aware of serious grounds for concern. We do not easily reach that view. The case of my constituent, Michael O'Brien, is one of many that have come to my attention. Many cases, after we have heard the arguments, do not leave us with that sense of deep unease. The Michael O'Brien case leaves me feeling deeply uneasy. In those rare cases, there is nothing that we can do. If one has the consistency of purpose of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South, one might be able to touch a small number of cases. There are, however, a number of serious cases about which hon. Members will be concerned but about which nothing can be done until that body is established and takes on the responsibility that the House has agreed that it should have in investigating alleged miscarriages of justice. We cannot as Members of Parliament set out to investigate those cases. We are not detectives. We do not have the resources. We can ask questions and then receive straight answers from the Home Secretary that get us no further forward. It is a matter of deep concern. It is a scandal that, three years after the royal commission report stated the obvious, that body has still not been established.
  The royal commission's recommendation should not have been a surprise. It was set up because it was blatantly obvious that something needed to be done, that a body must be established and that other changes in the law and in the administration of justice were required. The delay in establishing the criminal cases review body is a scandal. It is a sad demonstration of the ineffectiveness of the House. It is a sad reflection on the Government's commitment on justice and it leaves a cloud over the criminal justice system.
  Each of those points applies with equal strength to the case of the Bridgewater Four. It is outrageous to delay a reference back to the Court of Appeal given the facts and the underlying doubts that were set out in detail by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook, my hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton, South-East, and for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) and particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South. In fairness, I should
  836
  say that my hon. Friend is not, as is sometimes alleged, soft on crime. Indeed, he is one of the Members of Parliament who is quickest to be tough on crime—but he is also tough for justice. It is only fair to place that balance in his character on the record. That is what everybody is appealing for. It is asked not that we be soft, or assume that cases should go to appeal and be dismissed, but that justice should be done, and should be seen to be done.
  We heard a powerful and persuasive speech by the hon. Member for Southport, who was given a strong explicit endorsement by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). It would be wise for the Minister to listen to what has been said in the debate.
  Hansard is full of questions and speeches by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who have examined the case and become disturbed by what they have learnt—often having started with the sort of scepticism that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook and I have described. The questions that have been asked over recent months make it clear how many Members on both sides of the House are now convinced that something needs to be done.
  The establishment of the Criminal Cases Review Commission will end the Home Secretary's involvement with alleged miscarriages of justice, because the commission will be able to refer cases directly to the Court of Appeal.
  I know that the Minister will not be able to give way to us today; in his brief is 20 minutes' worth of closely argued text, and doubtless he has been sent here to hold the line. I appreciate that he has little room for manoeuvre. I simply ask him to take back to the Home Secretary the clear message that the issue will not go away. Sooner or later the case will be reviewed by the Court of Appeal.
  Neither the Home Secretary nor the House need prejudge the decision of the court, but it does Parliament and the Home Secretary no credit to delay justice. For God's sake let justice be done, and be seen to be done, by referring the case to the Court of Appeal now.
  12.11 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): I congratulate the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) on his choice of topic. I am here not, as has just been suggested, merely to hold the line, but to set out the background to the case and explain the way in which it has been dealt with up to this point.
  It is right that miscarriages of justice, and the possibility of miscarriages of justice, should be a matter of the highest public concern. Such concern for justice is one of the hallmarks of a civilised democracy. Our criminal justice system, at all its stages, must work so as to protect the innocent while properly punishing the guilty.
  The Government have been responsible for a series of major reforms to the criminal justice process, up to and including the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill now before Parliament. In the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 we introduced the most important and far-reaching

  837
  change of recent times to the procedures for reviewing criminal cases in the last resort. Work is well under way to establish the new Criminal Cases Review Commission, which several right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned. We intend the commission to start its work later this year.
  Until then, the responsibility for considering cases of last resort rests with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, as it has done with Secretaries of State since the turn of the century. It is a responsibility which all Secretaries of State, and their officials, have taken most seriously. The liberty of the citizen is at stake. So is justice, and the security of the public.
  Cases such as the one highlighted by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East can sometimes become the subject of intense and impassioned lobbying and campaigning by people who no doubt sincerely believe in the innocence of those convicted. The task of Secretaries of State, however, is not about deciding or believing in guilt or innocence. Their task is to reach a judgment on all the available evidence, and to decide whether the case should go back to the Court of Appeal.
  Certainly, Secretaries of State must listen and pay attention to those who campaign and argue with such feeling. But at the end of the day the decision in each case must be taken calmly, objectively, in the light of all the evidence. The same principles and the same careful judgment must be applied to each and every case, whether or not it is one known to the wider public, and regardless of the degree of clamour or otherwise that may surround it.
  The criteria that successive Secretaries of State have applied in considering cases are well known. There must normally be some new evidence, or other consideration of substance, touching the safety of the conviction. New, in this case, means not previously put before the courts or available to be put before the courts. Those criteria do not fetter the overall discretion, and exceptional cases have been referred outside the criteria.
  The general thrust found expression in a slightly different way, by Lord Justice Simon-Brown in the divisional court judgment in Hickey and others. He said that the question to be asked was:
  "could the new material reasonably cause the Court of Appeal to regard the verdict as unsafe?"
  In applying those criteria to the case before him, the Secretary of State is bound to look at the evidence in the case as a whole, and to consider the weight and cogency of any new matters in relation to the overall picture. I have heard it argued, in relation to this case and perhaps to others, that the Secretary of State should immediately send any case in which there is credible new evidence straight to the Court of Appeal.
  That is quite mistaken. It is also plainly absurd, because if that happened there would be no purpose in having a role for the Secretary of State, or for the new commission. Every convicted person could simply take his or her evidence straight back to the Court of Appeal, which would become clogged with hopeless cases.
  Of course the threshold applied by the Secretary of State in deciding whether to refer a case to the Court of Appeal is lower than that which would be applied by the court itself when deciding whether to allow an appeal.
  838
  But the Secretary of State is entitled to take a view of the weight and cogency of matters placed before him, in the light of the overall picture. Indeed, it is his duty to do so.
  In relation to the particular case on which this debate has focused, there is a long and involved history of reviews and investigations spanning the 17 years since the convictions of the four defendants. It has sometimes been suggested—indeed, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and others suggested so again today—that simply because there have been so many investigations, the case should be referred again to the courts. That is false logic.
  Successive Secretaries of State have been determined in the interests of fairness to have all the new matters put before them fully and properly investigated, however slight or implausible some of these matters may have appeared at first sight. If we investigated only matters bound to lead to a reference to the Court of Appeal, we should quite rightly be criticised for dealing with cases superficially, and for seeking justice on the cheap.
  At this point I would like to pay tribute, as I have done before, to the quality of the investigation work carried out in the case, especially by the Merseyside police in the two most recent inquiries. Those inquiries have been exceptionally rigorous and exhaustive. Every lead has been followed. Witnesses have been interviewed and re-interviewed. The most painstaking research has been carried out. Considering the time that has elapsed since the events of the case, that is a formidable achievement.
  We are fortunate that such expertise and energies have been applied to the illumination of this case—work that is by no means untypical of the quality of police work in other miscarriage investigations. Parliament was wise to ensure that such skills and expertise will also be available in future to the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
  The comprehensive and meticulous nature of these inquiries can be judged from the substantial volume of statements and other material that has been disclosed to the solicitors for the four men, in accordance with the divisional court judgment in ex parte Hickey and others. That was an important judgment. It acknowledged that there had to be a balance in matters of disclosure, and that in some circumstances it would be right for material to be kept confidential. I assure hon. Members that we have gone out of our way in the present case to see that the interests of fairness are met, by providing all the material that is, in our judgment, relevant to the provisional conclusions that we have reached.
  As we announced on 7 December, our provisional conclusion, having given the most careful consideration to all the material in the case, and having applied the criteria that I explained earlier, is that the case should not be referred back to the Court of Appeal. We have set out our reasoning in detail and provided the supporting material. On Monday afternoon this week we received a 34-page submission from the solicitors acting for those who were convicted. I understand that that is only a partial response and that the solicitors intend to make further submissions at an unspecified later date. We shall of course consider most carefully the points that have been put to us.
  On our provisional conclusions and the response from the solicitors, I do not want to anticipate or prejudge our final consideration, but I propose to set out the evidence on which our provisional conclusions are based and, where possible, to respond to some of the points that hon.

  839
  Members have made. If there are points that I cannot immediately answer or if we run out of time, I will ensure that those points are taken into account before a final decision is taken.
  As I explained earlier, the Secretary of State's task is to consider any new matters in the context of the evidence, old or new, as a whole. That includes of course evidence that formed the prosecution case at trial and that has not been set aside by the Court of Appeal. In the present case, much of the evidence was examined by the Court of Appeal in 1989, following a reference of the case by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd). The appeal hearing was, at the time, unprecedented in its length—hon. Members have referred to it—and the court's judgment ran to 216 pages. Clearly, any fresh consideration of the case must have regard to the existing evidence and to any view that the Court of Appeal may have taken about that evidence on a previous occasion.
  Recent representations in the case have focused largely on the case against Patrick Molloy, but there is separate evidence against each of the four convicted men. Against James Robinson there is the evidence of Mervyn Ritter, Helen Johnston, James Dundas-Ure, Patricia Copus and Peter Bryant. There was also direct evidence identifying Mr. Robinson at the crime scene and evidence of association between Mr. Robinson and the others, evidence of his possession of a gun, and evidence of his reaction when police officers asked him about the gun.
  In 1989, the Court of Appeal found Mr. Ritter's evidence in the case to be worthy of belief, despite its acceptance of his reputation as a confidence trickster and a liar. The court found nothing inherently unreliable in Helen Johnston's evidence and nothing in what it had heard to cast doubt on the verdict in so far as it depended on Mr. Dundas-Ure's evidence. It found nothing to justify rejection of Peter Bryant's evidence or to cast doubt on the reliance that the jury may have placed on the evidence of Miss Stagg, a schoolteacher who identified Mr. Robinson as having been at the crime scene at the material time. The court concluded that the case against James Robinson was and remained strong and convincing.
  Mr. Bruce Grocott: What weight does the Minister give to what my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), with all his experience of these matters, has described as the unique position where the jury foreman at the original trial is saying that a serious miscarriage of justice has taken place?
  Mr. Kirkhope: It is a matter not of the amount of weight that I give to that, but of the Appeal Court's reconsideration in 1989. It placed no reliance on that—certainly not in the terms that the hon. Gentleman suggests.
  Since then, we have been asked to consider fresh allegations purporting to cast doubt on the credibility of one of the witnesses, Mr. Ritter, to whom hon. Members have referred. On investigation, those allegations have been found to be largely groundless. Our provisional conclusion is that they provide no reason to think that the Court of Appeal would give Mr. Ritter's evidence any less credence than it did in 1989. As I have said, there was other evidence against Mr. Robinson.
  840
  In interviews with the police, Vincent Hickey made detailed admissions—which he later retracted—about his involvement in the burglary at Yew Tree farm. The whole of those interviews were adduced at the 1988–89 appeal hearing. The court was unable to accept the claim that Vincent was or might have been trading false information for immunity from prosecution for another robbery. The Court of Appeal described the evidence against Vincent Hickey as overwhelming. No fresh matters have since been raised that go directly to the evidence against Vincent Hickey.
  In 1989, when examining the evidence against Michael Hickey, the Court of Appeal made it clear that it placed no reliance on evidence given at trial by Brian Sinton or Reginald Hickey. Considering the totality of evidence, however, from Michael Lee, Detective Constable Massey, Detective Sergeant Williams, Dennis Eaton, Peter Bryant, prison officer Kelly and Mervyn Ritter, the evidence of association and the evidence of Michael Hickey's access to vehicles of the type observed at the crime scene, the court concluded that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that Michael Hickey left the Dog and Partridge public house in company with his cousin Vincent and that thereafter he was at the scene of the burglary of Yew Tree farm. No fresh matters have been raised that go directly to the evidence against Michael Hickey, except for the allegations about Mr. Ritter that I have just dealt with and that hon. Members have referred to.
  As has already been said, the fourth defendant, Patrick Molloy, died in prison in 1981 while his application for leave to appeal was pending. His conviction was not referred with the others to the Court of Appeal in 1989 because, at the time, it was thought that the law did not permit an appeal by a deceased person. Since then, in the case of Giuseppe Conlon, it has been established that such an appeal can be heard by means only of a Secretary of State reference.
  The evidence against Mr. Molloy at his trial consisted of his admissions at different times to police officers and prison officers. He signed a confession statement, known as exhibit 54. In his proof of evidence, Mr. Molloy recorded not only that he was the author of exhibit 54, but that, in his view, the statements of detective officers Perkins, Leeke, Watson, Wood, Scott and Wys were a correct account of what he had said in interviews with them.
  Representations have alleged that Mr. Molloy's admissions while in police custody were made under duress, were fabricated, or both. One of the officers who interviewed Mr. Molloy, the late Detective Constable Perkins, was disciplined for his part in falsifying evidence in a later case. Language analysts have expressed doubts about whether Molloy's reported admissions were in his own words. There are allegations that Mr. Molloy was assaulted and that records of interviews with him were not disclosed to the defence.
  In recent years, in a number of appeals and references to the Court of Appeal, alleged malpractice by police officers has been the main issue. Some of those appeals and references have resulted in convictions being quashed. Mindful of that background, we have examined with particular care the fresh representations made in relation to Mr. Molloy's treatment by police officers and his admissions to them. The inquiries made on our behalf in relation to those points have been exceptionally thorough and detailed. In our provisional conclusions,

  841
  we have sought to explain as fully and clearly as possible what those inquiries have revealed and how they have been taken into account.
  The fact that one officer, the late Detective Constable Perkins, was disciplined for falsifying evidence in another case cannot be a ground for referring this case to the Court of Appeal. There would have to be other evidence that, on its own or taken with the evidence of Detective Constable Perkins' later misconduct, casts doubt on the safety of the conviction. We have considered carefully the allegations of ill treatment, but we have found little evidence to support them. The allegation that Mr. Molloy had his teeth broken—to which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) referred—is not borne out by prison medical records and is directly contradicted by a photograph of Mr. Molloy taken on 18 December 1978, eight days after he signed his confession statement, which shows him smiling with his teeth intact. That was discovered during the recent thorough investigation in 1993–95. Our provisional conclusion is that there is no basis in those allegations for referring the case to the Court of Appeal.
  The opinions of the language analysts were considered during the previous review of the case by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). Substantial doubts exist about the methodology and overall validity of some of those analyses, and some of the opinions submitted were based on a misconception of the way in which interviews and statements were noted and written up. The suggestion that Mr. Molloy could not have said certain things attributed to him is directly contradicted by what he said about the making of exhibit 54 and the accuracy of the statements in his proof of evidence. None the less, the further submission delivered to us two days ago asks us to reconsider matters relating to Mr. Molloy's confession statement and the interviews immediately leading to that statement. We will reconsider those matters with the utmost care.
  It is alleged that there was a failure to disclose records of interviews with Mr. Molloy because, at times, the custody record of his detention refers to visits by police officers for which there is no corresponding statement. No undisclosed interview records have been found,
  842
  however, and there is nothing in any other evidence—for example, in Mr. Molloy's discussions with his solicitor—to suggest that any such interviews took place.
  The inquiries made on our behalf have sought to establish, as fully as possible, bearing in mind the passage of 17 years, what actually happened. The picture that emerges is of a provincial police station unused to the level of activity associated with a murder inquiry, in which the accuracy of records suffered. The term "interview" was very likely applied generically to any contact between an officer and a prisoner—as the natural meaning of the word permits—and there is no reason to suppose that, on every occasion, questioning took place that should have been recorded. If there were any evidence of undisclosed interviews, that would require grave consideration, but I repeat that there is no such evidence and it is our provisional conclusion that nothing in that aspect of the representations would justify a reference to the Court of Appeal.
  The evidence in Mr. Molloy's case as a whole contains, on the one hand, the allegations about ill treatment, fabrication and undisclosed statements, none of which appears to be supported. On the other hand, there is the confession which was signed by Mr. Molloy; his confirmation to his solicitor that the statements by police officers were accurate about what he had said to them; his subsequent spontaneous admissions to other police officers and prison officers; and the evidence of Helen Johnston, who overheard Mr. Molloy say to Mr. Robinson:
  "whatever you do, whatever you say, say the gun went off accidentally".
  In addition, the recent inquiries have led to a number of other witnesses coming forward with evidence of admissions that Mr. Molloy continued to make about his part in the raid on Yew Tree farm right up to the day before his death two and a half years after he was charged. We have approached such evidence with caution, discounting some which lacks credibility but taking due account, along with all the other evidence, of those statements that do have credibility. Our provisional conclusion has been made clear. Other matters have been raised with us—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes):
  Order. We must move to the next topic.

  Trans-European Network
  12.30 pm
  Mr. Robert Hicks: I trust that the Minister will forgive me for reminding him of a little piece of recent political history relating to the south-west. Before the 1970 general election, the Conservative party produced a west country manifesto. It contained three principal commitments, one of which was to develop and upgrade the A38 trunk road link between the west country and the rest of the country. Many of us felt that that manifesto was very effective.
  Of those colleagues who are still in the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) was re-elected on that occasion, and my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) was elected for the first time. I mention that to emphasise to the Minister the necessity for the south-west, because of its peripheral position, to have excellent transport links not only with the rest of the United Kingdom but with Europe.
  In the intervening 25 years, the transport infrastructure has been significantly improved. The road network has been developed, and, as you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is possible to drive from Saltash in my constituency to London or Glasgow without, in theory, changing gear. Our air links have likewise been strengthened and consolidated. To complete the transport infrastructure, it is now right to concentrate on improving and upgrading our rail links, especially as the channel tunnel is now in operation.
  In any debate of this kind, one cannot avoid reference to the fragility of the economy of the far south-west. We are going through a period of readjustment following the reduction in our defence requirements. The recognition of our current economic situation is made manifest by the fact that much of Devon and Cornwall is classified as eligible for European regional aid. In a national context, many parts of the region have assisted area status or rural development area status.
  Business and the population as a whole are determined to reverse the downward economic trend, and there are many encouraging signs. It almost goes without saying that to maintain the region's competitive advantage, our transport system must be developed.
  Following a commitment in the Maastricht treaty, the European Union is shortly to witness an exciting phase in the development of the transport network throughout the Union. Proposals are being put in place for a trans-European network. As I understand the current position—no doubt the Minister will confirm it when he responds—the European Commission is at present preparing to submit to the Council of Ministers proposals that will form the basis of the first generation of trans-European network classifications.
  At present, the Bristol-Plymouth-Penzance rail route is not included. Brittany, which has a similar geographical position and a similar economy to those of Devon and Cornwall, already has a TGV link to Brest and Paris. The European Parliament has agreed that the Bristol-Plymouth-Penzance link should be added to the list.
  Within Devon and Cornwall, there is unanimity of opinion among business organisations such as the West Country development corporation and Devon and Cornwall International, our inward investment agency,
  844
  as well as among individual companies and local authorities, that the region should not lose out and thus be placed at a disadvantage in relation to other UK and European regions in attracting inward investment.
  To try to persuade the Minister to change his mind on this issue, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter led an all-party delegation to see the Minister in November. On that occasion, the Minister played a politically straight bat that Geoffrey Boycott and—dare I say it because it gives away my age—Trevor Bailey would have been proud of in their prime.
  The situation cannot be allowed to continue. I am quietly confident that the Government are now prepared to review the position and to be more positive about this requirement. I do not wish to sound patronising when I say that the Minister has an appreciation of the political sensitivities of this issue in our region. That characteristic was not necessarily shared by all his predecessors.
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I entirely approve of my hon. Friend's case—as, I think, do all our west country colleagues. Does my hon. Friend agree that closely tied up with the issue is the upgrading of the A38, and that, had his plans and mine for a key-route designation, a bluish tinge, for the A38 been adopted, it would have made a great difference and would have fitted in well with the plan that he is outlining for our railway system? That is part of the debate as well.
  Mr. Hicks: I entirely share that view. I was about to say that, a couple of years ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) and I went to see the Minister's predecessor. I mentioned that because, as my hon. Friend said, the issues are linked. We suggested to the Minister who was at that time responsible for roads that there should be an upgrading of the designation of the A38 trunk road between Exeter and Plymouth. It is disturbing and ludicrous that Plymouth, the sub-region's natural growth point, should not be directly linked or adjacent to our motorway network.
  We gave the Minister's predecessor an opportunity to go down in history as the Minister who introduced the concept of key routes—that is to say, the A classified trunk roads (M) designation. His name would have appeared as part of the legend on all road maps of the United Kingdom. Although it would not have cost the Government anything, he failed to respond to our suggestion. I am hopeful that the current Minister will be more positive.
  I have two modest requests on behalf of my native west country. First, Her Majesty's Government, through my hon. Friend the Minister, should today give a clear statement of intent that the Bristol-Plymouth-Penzance rail link will be incorporated into the trans-European network. That is crucial, because any potential inward investor, whether from another part of the United Kingdom or Japan, the United States or wherever, must see from a map of the UK that our regional rail link has the same designation—in other words, the line is the same colour on the map—as those linking south Wales, the north-east or Scotland with London and the European mainland.
  My second request is that my hon. Friend will ensure that the necessary funds are made available for a feasibility study in the very near future to consider the upgrading of our rail link. Both those requirements are essential.
  Mr. David Harris: Does my hon. Friend agree that the second request is the more crucial, especially to my constituency, which is literally at the end of the line? Unless detailed work is done now on what is required to upgrade the railway right down to Penzance, it will never be done.
  Mr. Hicks: I certainly understand my hon. Friend's sentiments, but I would not like to differentiate in any way between the relative importance of the two requests. The colour of that line, that statement of intent on the map, is crucial to inward investment, especially from overseas.
  Both the requirements are essential if the south-west economy is not to be placed at a disadvantage compared to other United Kingdom and European regions. Furthermore, by agreeing to my two requests, the Minister will be sending a positive message to the south-west that the Government have listened to our arguments and are prepared to help.
  12.41 pm
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I congratulate the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Hicks) on the way in which he has presented his case. I am also grateful to him for allowing me a couple of minutes to support his argument from the Opposition Benches. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the case that he has made this morning, which we also put to the Minister in the deputation, enjoys the support of every party and all parts of the west country. We all believe it to be absolutely critical to the future well-being and economic health of our region.
  I pay tribute especially to the effort that the Western Morning News has put into the campaign over recent weeks. It has recognised the campaign's validity and importance, and entirely supported all our efforts. I should also put on record the effort made by our Member of the European Parliament, Robin Teverson. He has kept the issue alive in the European Parliament over several weeks.
  As my parliamentary neighbour the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall has emphasised, there are no obstacles on the other side of the water in the way of achieving what he, I and all of us want. Not only has the European Parliament reasserted the importance of identifying the route as part of the trans-European network for high-speed purposes, but the Commission—I have the Commission's opinion—has endorsed that view. There is no obstacle in Brussels to what we are trying to achieve. The only obstacle would appear to be here, in Whitehall.
  I know from what the Minister told us on that splendid cricketing occasion to which the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall referred what arguments he will put in this debate. He will say, "Ah, but the campaign only amounts to a wish list." That is precisely the point. If every other part of the European Union in comparable circumstances—perhaps on the periphery of the Union—is able to identify itself as being on the international wish list for improvement of its main transport arteries and we are not, by definition, the fact that we are left out is as important to us as their inclusion is to them. That exclusion will be taken as a sign—not only to those who are already investing in our region but to those who might intend to—that we are economic and transport second-class citizens.
  846
  The second point that I know the Minister will make, as he did when the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) led us in deputation, is that it is up to Railtrack to take the initiative. As a result of conversations with Railtrack, I do not think that it agrees with that analysis. Railtrack says that, if every other part of the EU is identifying routes by means of a TEN designation and the Bristol-Plymouth-Penzance route is not being designated, and if other routes in other parts of the United Kingdom are being designated and the BPP route is not, it would find it extremely difficult to take any initiative in our region. The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall is absolutely right to say that the colour of the line on the map is significant to everyone concerned. It is not just symbolic—it is a clear signal.
  Railtrack will clearly have to prioritise its efforts. Given its investment time scale, it is extremely important to give it a clear indication of where that investment should be prioritised. That is why I absolutely endorse the second point made by the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall about the need for funding a feasibility study.
  I am delighted that you are in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that you cannot indicate your support, but I believe that your heart is with us on the issue. We are all in this together.
  12.45 pm
  The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): It is indeed appropriate that you are presiding over our deliberations, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Hicks) on securing the debate. I recognise the great importance of good transport infrastructure, whether by road or rail, for the economic regeneration of Cornwall and other parts of the west country, and the importance of the area attracting the necessary inward investment in order to provide the job opportunities that we want.
  The importance of those issues is underlined by the presence of so many of my hon. Friends who represent the south-west—my hon. Friends the Members for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam), for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe), for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) and for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope).
  The draft trans-European network proposal was considered by the Transport Council in June 1995, and has been considered twice since then by the European Parliament. The European Parliament concluded its Second Reading in December. Among the amendments it proposed were a number to the maps, including the recategorisation of the Bristol-Plymouth-Penzance route from a conventional to a high-speed rail route. It is important to recognise that the route is on the rail trans-European network, but as a conventional route, not a high-speed one. Those and other European Parliament amendments will be considered by the EC's Conciliation Committee, which is expected to meet for the first time in about two weeks.
  We secured as much coverage of UK routes on the network maps as seemed reasonable in the context of overall European coverage. I am pleased to say that that includes the London to Taunton via Westbury and Waterloo to Exeter lines, as well as the Bristol-Penzance line. The draft TEN network therefore fully recognises the importance of links to the west country.

  847
  The draft rail network maps distinguish between high-speed and conventional routes. The draft guidelines, at draft article 9, provide criteria for the inclusion of rail routes as high-speed routes. They are as follows:
  "The high speed rail network shall comprise:
  Specially built high-speed lines equipped for speeds generally equal to or greater than 250 kmph"—
  which I believe is 155 mph—
  "in current or new technology.
  Specially adapted high-speed lines equipped for speeds of the order of 200 kmph"—
  or 125 mph.
  "Lines specially adapted for high speed of a specific nature by virtue of topographical relief or town planning constraints where speed must be adapted to each case."
  The Department has relied upon advice from British Rail and Railtrack on the categorisation of routes for the United Kingdom map. That advice has been informed by existing line speeds and investment priorities. I must tell the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) that the map is not a wish list; it must represent current realities or future plans. Accordingly, the UK routes that are shown as high speed are the east coast main line, the west coast main line and some of its connecting links, the proposed channel tunnel rail link, and the Great Western line from London to Cardiff.
  Mr. Tyler: Will any of the links to the west coast main line take the TEN into the wilds of western Scotland?
  Mr. Watts: From memory, I cannot recollect whether the links go into the wilds of western Scotland, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman. I prefer not to rely on my failing memory.
  Services on the east coast main line already reach speeds in excess of those stipulated for the greater part of the route, so it is represented as "upgraded high speed". The channel tunnel rail link will be capable of speeds of up to 186 mph, and is therefore shown as a planned high-speed TEN route. Proposals for upgrading the west coast main line are being advanced, and the line is therefore shown as a planned upgraded high-speed line, although final decisions have yet to be taken on the future speed capability of the route.
  Since the start of discussions on TENs, British Rail and Railtrack have advised the Department that the UK rail TEN should show the line from London to Bristol and
  848
  Cardiff as planned high speed because—in common with the east coast main line—the greater part of that longer route satisfies the criteria. All other UK rail routes represented on the rail TEN are shown in the draft rail TENs map as conventional routes. I am informed that the Bristol-Penzance line has a maximum speed capability, on parts of it, of 110 mph, and therefore does not fall within the criteria.
  The rail TEN, in common with the other transport TENs, is indicative, and does not place any financial or other commitments on member states to complete or upgrade existing rail infrastructure. In other words, the existence of any route on the rail TEN—whether high-speed or conventional—does not compel the UK to bring forward any specific investment projects. However, infrastructure investment projects proposed by member states on routes represented on the rail TENs maps, of whatever classification, will be eligible, in principle, for assistance from the Commission's TENs budget.
  The UK rail map agreed at the June 1995 Transport Council includes all the major links to the south-west of England, albeit as conventional routes, so projects on those routes would be eligible, in principle, for EC funding. I must emphasise that TENs funding for any project is limited to 10 per cent. of the total project costs, and that the overall TENs budget is comparatively small.
  I do not know whether it was a compliment or a criticism when my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cornwall drew comparisons with my skill at cricket—I certainly have no such skill. However, I assure him that, even when I appear to be playing with a very straight bat, I listen to what people tell me, and take appropriate action afterwards.
  I have been impressed by representations from my hon. Friend and many other hon. Friends that the case for upgrading should be examined. I have therefore recommended, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has approved, a bid for TENs funding towards a feasibility study, which will consider investment options on the Great Western lines for both passenger and freight traffic. I hope that my hon. Friends will accept that that is a positive step—much more positive than simply getting out a marker pen and changing the colour of a line on a map. It is a positive step towards securing the improved rail infrastructure to which they aspire.
  I want briefly to deal with some of the comments about roads. I was intrigued by the notion of key routes. I just wonder what they will be called if I deliver them.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes):Order. We now move on to the next debate.

  Bristol Royal Infirmary (Cancer Treatment)
  12.54 pm
  Ms Dawn Primarolo: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the difficulties and the appalling situation that has developed in Bristol as a result of the Government's policy. In this short debate I want to cover what is happening with oncology services in Bristol, why it is happening and the consequences for patients. I also want to deal with Government policy in respect of the Caiman committee recommendations and the conflict between those and the funding package that the Government put together and give to Avon health authority. I then want to make three suggestions on how to deal with the crisis.
  On 15 February, in an article under the heading, "Cash blow to cancer ward", the Western Daily Press said that dying cancer patients were being denied the radiotherapy that they needed and that they were being turned away from the oncology centre. That day, the Minister of State was in Bristol and when questioned about the crisis he said that it was a little local difficulty—a temporary financial difficulty that would be sorted out by the local health authority. I shall want to return to those comments.
  I was home in Bristol by Thursday evening and was able to see the Bristol Evening Post, which carried harrowing interviews with family members of patients who are dying from cancer and who have been turned away from the centre. One incident that I especially remember related to a mother speaking of her 37-year-old daughter who has ovarian cancer and who was turned away from the radiotherapy centre. Her mother found her at home, on her haunches, reeling with pain and without proper pain relief. She was in desperate need of a bed in the oncology centre, but she was told by the centre that its beds were closed because of a financial crisis and therefore she could not be admitted.
  We are supposed to have a national health service. We are supposed to be able to provide members of our community, wherever they live, with the same treatment and access to treatment. Yet in Bristol patients are being denied treatment simply because of where they live.
  Ms Jean Corston: No doubt my hon. Friend, like me, will have received letters from constituents who are intimately and directly concerned with the cash crisis. I have received letters this week and one in particular was very moving. It refers to the fact that the unit in question is the main cancer centre for the south-west of England and it states:
  "My colleague's wife has this week had her pain relieving treatment delayed due to the lack of money and is unaware of when she will actually receive this treatment. It is appalling and immoral that this can be allowed to happen.
  This is an indiscriminate and debilitating disease that can affect anyone in my family and yours at any time! The thought of having to stand by and watch one of my family in excruciating pain when there are the facilities there, quite frankly appals me."
  Ms Primarolo: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. I, too, have received many letters from family members. I know that the staff at the oncology centre in Bristol are under tremendous pressure and stress because of the appalling situation in which they find
  850
  themselves and the distress being caused to the patients whom they are there to assist. I shall return to the problem of the pressure that the staff are under.
  The Bristol Evening Post editorial, on 22 February, sums up very well the problems in Bristol—although the funding crisis is not unique to Bristol. Specialist facilities across the country are experiencing similar difficulties as we move towards the end of the financial year. The editorial said:
  "Terminally-ill cancer sufferers are being turned away from treatment at the Bristol Oncology Centre; beds usually used for seriously ill children stand idle in Southmead Hospital".
  The other hospital in the city announced a few days later that it would close a quarter of its acute paediatric beds because of a cash crisis. We have a national shortage of acute paediatric beds, and yet a health authority is being forced to close a quarter of its beds. The editorial continues:
  "if ever there was evidence of a National Health Service in crisis we have it here and now in our area.
  What we are experiencing, in the most dramatic fashion, is the 11-month health service. In other words: don't fall seriously ill in March.
  It appears as though cash-limit budgets were set and those figures are being reached before the end of the financial year—so the work stops.
  Everyone in the health service is desperate to provide the best possible care for those with the greatest need.
  It is impossible, however, not to use emotive words when the dying and seriously ill children are so clearly victims.
  Lack of funding, top-heavy management and bungling bureaucracy are all blamed.
  In what other area of service or business would you simply cease production if budgetary limits had been reached early?"
  I can think of none. In the health service, that practice is particularly repugnant.
  The staff at the Bristol oncology centre have been working overtime without being paid. They are totally dedicated to providing that service, and they are distraught that one of the five radiotherapy machines has been decommissioned and that staff members are being required to go elsewhere. They are desperate that the treatment—which they know will relieve pain, assist patients and is available in the hospital—is being denied. The NHS is failing people in their time of need.
  A general practitioner wrote to me, on behalf of many of her colleagues, to express how appalled they were at the prospect of terminally ill patients being denied proper pain relief and being sent back into the community without proper support. For those GPs, that practice exemplifies how appalling are the reforms that the Government have introduced into the health service, converting planning and strategic decisions into rationing and competing management priorities.
  The background to the problems in Bristol and its oncology centre is basically an increase in the number of patients who need treatment. There are three main reasons for the increase. First, people are living longer. We should celebrate that, but the incidence of cancers is of course also greater. Secondly, there is greater opportunity to treat people more effectively with new technologies, particularly new drugs. Those new treatments were not previously available for, for example, patients with breast cancer or bowel cancer. Thirdly, because the Bristol oncology centre is a regional centre, it receives more

  851
  referrals to its expert facilities. That is a result of the Caiman committee report on cancer, which was endorsed by the Government, which recommended that people should be treated at the appropriate centre as quickly as possible with the most effective treatment.
  The financial crisis in Bristol has been building up during the past four years, and it is not temporary. Despite extra money from Avon health authority, it still finds itself with a £500,000 overspend. The discussion about whether terminally ill patients should receive pain-relieving treatment is only the beginning of the debate. The current budget cannot be balanced without discussions on further rationing.
  The discussion in Bristol and Avon is now about limiting the number of patients, because the allocated money can pay for only X number of patients to have access to the facilities and, once that number has been reached, no one else will be treated in Bristol. Where will those people go? Who will treat them, and at what additional cost, to them—in terms of a decline in life style and life opportunities—to their families, probably to the health authority and inevitably to the Government?
  We are faced with the proposition that a regional centre in Bristol, which is funded by money from Somerset, Dorset and Gloucester—because it treats patients from those places—and from Avon, will be able to treat patients from Somerset, Dorset and Gloucester because their health authorities have more money and will be able to pay, while patients from Avon who have more serious cancers will be turned away simply because of geography. How is that a national health service? Is that an equitable distribution of resources? How will Conservative Members who represent seats in Avon explain to their constituents why they cannot have treatment, while someone down the road in Somerset, Gloucester or Dorset will be able to?
  Avon health authority has said that no more finances are available and that the cupboard is bare. It cannot help the oncology centre. The authority has had a meagre increase in its budget for next year, and it has competing demands. It would have to consider cutting services for orthopaedic patients, children or kidney patients to maintain cancer services. That is not acceptable, and we will not tolerate it.
  The authority said that it may have to look for alternative treatments that are not as successful or turn people away. That is more work for district nurses, more work for GPs and more work for the families, who are left with family members who need more support and who are in desperate pain, with a declining quality of life.
  I asked the oncology centre in Bristol to tell me how much treatment costs, because we must look very carefully at the fixed and the variable costs of treatment. People there told me that a palliative course of treatment for pain relief costs, on average, £500 per patient, while it is £1,000 per patient for a curative course of radiotherapy treatment. Are the Government seriously suggesting that a person's dignity and quality of life are not worth £500 and are not worth finding the extra money? I sincerely hope not. From the letters that I have received from Avon health authority and the trust, and from the discussions that are going on in Bristol, it is clear that we could have further and severe rationing in the service.
  852
  That takes me to the proposals of the Caiman committee report and the conflicts that arise from it. The report is excellent, and lays out clearly how cancer services should be provided and co-ordinated to include GPs, community hospitals, small district hospitals and tertiary referral centres such as Bristol. I wish to quote a few examples from the summary of the report's recommendations and action points. The summary says:
  "All cancer patients should have access to a uniformly high standard of care."
  The Government have endorsed that recommendation, and I agree with it. There should be a bracket afterwards, however, saying "(except for Bristol)" as that quality of service is not being provided in the area.
  The summary continues:
  "The needs of patients and their carers should be the primary concern of purchasers, planners and professionals involved in cancer services."
  Those needs are the primary concern of the health authority and of those providing the services, but not of the Government who hold the purse-strings. Despite endorsing the recommendations in the Caiman report, they are not providing the money that is needed to support the centres.
  The summary continues:
  "Cancer Centres and Cancer Units should be established to provide an integrated network of cancer care. Effective communications between components, including communication between Cancer Centres are vital."
  That is exactly the strategy that the Bristol oncology centre has pursued. Its services are linked with the Royal United hospital at Bath and with Weston-super-Mare, where consultants are based. Yet the centre is being penalised and not rewarded, and staff face the appalling prospect of having to explain to patients why they cannot have the treatment that they need.
  The summary states:
  "There should be a clear understanding of appropriate referral and follow up patterns between General Practitioners, Cancer Units and Cancer Centres."
  That is exactly what the Bristol oncology centre has done. The summary adds:
  "Radiotherapy should normally be provided in a Cancer Centre".
  That is what the Bristol oncology centre is. The summary continues:

  "In exceptional geographical circumstances it may be necessary to continue to provide radiotherapy in Cancer Units closely linked to Cancer Centres".
  Exactly that type of network has been built up around the Bristol oncology centre.
  "Palliative care and symptom control should be available at all stages of a patient's illness."
  That is exactly what is being denied the people of Bristol.
  Those recommendations were followed up by a circular from the NHS executive dated 21 April 1995 which stated that the Secretary of State accepted the report's recommendations and welcomed the aim of delivering a uniformly high level of cancer care based on a network of expertise. Has the Secretary of State forgotten where Bristol is? Has he forgotten that the word "uniformly" means that people everywhere should have the same access? It is a desperate state of affairs.

  853
  At the heart of the matter is the unfair and unscrupulous way in which the Government manipulate funding to local health authorities, and it is to that subject that I will turn in my closing remarks. Money is not allocated to health authorities on the basis of equity. The weighted capitation formula, which allocates money to Bristol, is mediated by the market forces factor, which removes from Bristol and Avon £25 million of resources.
  The Government remove that money—having decided that we do not need it—and give it to other areas. They came up with the incredible formula by dividing the country into four zones—zone one is inner London, zone two is outer London, zone three is the rest of the south-east and zone four is the rest of England, including Avon. This year, the Department of Health rejigged the weightings for zone four, but it was purely a cosmetic exercise and exactly the same relationship exists.
  In a letter from M. A. Harris of the NHS executive finance and performance directorate to my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley) dated 5 July 1995, my hon. Friend was told that the staff pay index—or market forces factor—will continue to operate. The Government assume that average wage costs in the first three zones are above the national average—although that bears no resemblance to actual wage costs in those zones—and therefore authorities in those zones need more money. The Government find that money by cutting the budgets of all the health authorities in zone four by 6.5 per cent.
  The problem is that the average wage in Avon is above the national average, not below it. We are therefore in the perverse position that East Sussex—whose average wage costs are considerably below the national average—gets more money for its services than Avon, where the costs are above the national average. On the figures for the current financial year, had Avon not been cheated of that 6.5 per cent., we would have had an extra £25 million to spend in the Bristol and Avon area. If that had been the case, the oncology centre would not have a financial crisis and Southmead would not have to close its paediatric centre. We would not be facing the end of the welfare benefits advice that is currently given, and there would not be a cut in preventive health care strategies. There would be no cuts in physiotherapy, and patients would not be told to wait six to nine months for urgent physiotherapy. Instead, we would be seeing a development of these services. Before anybody talks about bureaucracy in Avon health authority, I shall put on record that it has one of the lowest levels of administrative costs in the entire country. It is an efficient and effective health authority.
  I want to know what the Minister is going to do about the problem. First, will he today make emergency funds available from the Department of Health—as has been done in cases in London—to help the oncology service in Bristol through its current problem? Secondly, will he institute a departmental inquiry into why the current situation arose? Why has the Government's strategy for cancer treatment, as exemplified by the Caiman committee report, been undercut and destroyed by the current policy of the Government on allocating funds? I would also like to ask for an emergency review of the market forces factor. If health authorities are to receive extra funding on the basis of wage costs, they should do so on actual wage costs—not some mythical figure that discriminates against other health authorities.
  854
  The professional workers—the nurses, doctors and support staff—in the Bristol oncology unit should have the last word on behalf of the patients. They recently wrote to the chief executive of Bristol royal infirmary
  "to make it clear that we also share the view that it is impossible to save significant amounts of money by service reduction in this financial year, it is also impossible equitably to restrict the service offered to the population of Avon Health in future years … We feel that the service that we provide is a normal standard oncology service provided by any regional centre"
  and it cannot be cut further. The letter continues:
  "We are seriously concerned about the present situation and the future of the care that we are able to offer to our patients, including the provision of new developments in oncology, but as clinicians, we feel that we should continue to offer the current standard of care. To acquiesce in a reduction of standard would be professionally unacceptable".
  They will not choose—and nor should the Government—who is entitled to have treatment and who is not.
  1.20 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Horam): I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the debate launched by the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) and I congratulate her on raising a serious subject. I know that she takes a keen interest in health service provision in Bristol, especially that affecting the United Bristol Healthcare NHS trust. The hon. Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) also spoke briefly. My right hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope) and my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) have both approached me about the matter and are extremely concerned.
  In the short time available for me to respond, I should briefly put the debate into context. The demand for cancer treatment has risen over the years for several reasons. People live longer and cancer incidence increases as people age, so the number of patients with cancer is also rising. As the hon. Member for Bristol, South said, the range of options available for treating patients has also risen as chemotherapy drugs have improved. Technological developments in radiotherapy mean that treatments can be more highly targeted and much more effective.
  None the less, cancer places a heavy burden on society and the national health service. The bald statistics are appalling. One in three people will develop cancer and one in four will die from it. To speak of cancer as a single disease is unhelpful because it is a range of diseases that affect different parts of the body in different ways. Cancer's multiple sites and the complexity of its treatment and care pose a major challenge for the NHS.
  That the NHS has responded, and continues to respond, well to the challenge cannot be disputed. There has, of course, been substantial investment in research over the years into new forms of treatment and care for cancer. Surgical and radiotherapy techniques have improved in recent years, bringing benefits to patients and there have been dramatic improvements in the management of some of the less common cancers, such as childhood leukaemia. With some cancers, new drug treatments have brought about modest but significant cure rates—perhaps most dramatically with testicular cancer, which now has a 90 to 95 per cent. cure rate. There have also been

  855
  significant advances in the palliation of symptoms, especially pain control, so improving the quality of life of people who have to live daily with the disease.
  As the hon. Member for Bristol, South knows, "The Health of the Nation" strategy, which was launched in 1992, set national objectives and targets in five key areas, including cancer. After coronary heart disease, cancers are the most common cause of death in England and accounted for one in four deaths in 1991.
  To further emphasise our commitment to improved cancer services, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, on 24 May 1995, after wide consultation, unveiled a strategic framework for the development of cancer services based on the report, "A Policy Framework for Commissioning Cancer Services", to which the hon. Member for Bristol, South referred at some length. The report recommended that cancer services be organised at three levels: primary care, which is regarded as the focus of cancer care; cancer units, created in local hospitals; and cancer centres, situated in larger hospitals which will treat the less common cancers and support cancer units by providing services, including radiotherapy, not available in smaller hospitals.
  I am glad to say that detailed guidance for health authorities will be issued shortly by the Department of Health on the implementation of the cancer strategic framework, building on the substantial work already in hand in the NHS. That will include recent evidence, where available, on the benefits of specialisation in cancer sites.
  Simultaneously, to support work that is being taken forward regionally, the NHS executive has commissioned work to prepare evidence-based guidance in a rolling programme of work starting with the commoner cancers. That work is being done by a sub-group of the Department of Health's clinical outcomes group. The sub-group is multidisciplinary and chaired by the professor of cancer studies at Leeds university.
  Palliative care is equally important in many respects. Since 1990–91, we have provided specific extra funding for specialist palliative care services. By 1994–95, that funding had increased sixfold, from £8 million to £48 million, the last year in which it was separately identified; it is now built into health authorities' allocations.
  I appreciate the concern of the hon. Member for Bristol, South about the Bristol oncology centre. I am sure that all hon. Members agree that it is an acknowledged centre of excellence in oncology and cancer. Over the years, clinical audit and clinical trials have been carried out so that treatment protocols are highly defined to be the best for the patient and the most efficient available. The centre holds the renowned ISO 9002 international award.
  The number of treatments carried out at the centre has increased dramatically in recent months. Since 1993–94, radiotherapy treatments have increased by almost 25 per cent, and chemotherapy treatments rose by 47 per cent. in the period to Christmas last year compared with the same period in 1994. Avon referrals to the centre averaged 159 per month in the eight months to December last year. In January this year, that figure rose to 203. Inevitably, the pressure caused by increasing demand brings problems.
  856
  I am pleased to note that in March 1996, a new information resource room will open at the oncology centre. It will provide patients and their families with much-needed information about treatment, self-help groups and welfare benefits. I am sure that all hon. Members welcome that.
  Resources are finite and can never be otherwise. Unfortunately, we shall never have sufficient money to do all that we would like to in a perfect way. Nevertheless, there is no question of Avon patients who require palliative care being refused treatment. Patients who are not treated at the centre receive palliative care in the community through their GPs, district nurses or at St. Peter's hospice, with appropriate support and advice from the palliative care team at the oncology centre. I accept that that is not ideal in many cases.
  I shall now reply to the points made by the hon. Member for Bristol, South. I am assured by the trust and Avon health authority that intensive discussions on funding are continuing. My hon. Friend the Minister for Health mentioned that in the remarks that she said that he had made. I have asked South and West regional health authority to monitor closely the discussions between the trust and the health authority and report back to me personally about their nature and outcome. I am sure that all hon. Members will be pleased to hear that. We will monitor them closely and hope to achieve a reasonable outcome to those continuing discussions.
  Finally, in the last two minutes, I come to financing.
  Mrs. Audrey Wise: About time.
  Mr. Horam: I have mentioned it already and said that we consider the matter daily. It is being monitored closely and the outcome of the discussions will be reported to me directly. I do not see how I could say any more than that on the issue.
  On funding, the hon. Member for Bristol, South did not mention that Avon Health's planned allocation for next year is £337.3 million, a cash increase of £10.6 million, a substantial increase, and an increase in real terms.
  Ms Primarolo indicated dissent.
  Mr. Horam: It is a substantial increase; £10.6 million is a substantial increase by any reckoning, on what is already a very large figure.
  Moreover, contrary to the impression that the hon. Lady sought—at length—to give, according to our methods of calculation Avon is ahead of its target: it is receiving more than it is strictly entitled to receive. In such circumstances, the "market factor" is irrelevant. As for the allocation of money, any sensible Department—such as ours—will always keep the position under review. If sensible evidence suggests that we should alter it, we shall seek to do so.
  Ms Primarolo: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Horam: Not now. I want to make my point very forcefully.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. No more points can be made now; we must move to the next debate.
  Ms Primarolo: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister said that Avon had received an increase of £10.6 million. On 2 February, he wrote to me saying that—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but the hon. Lady is not raising a point of order; she is raising a point of debate, which cannot be dealt with as a point of order. We must now move to the next debate.

  Casinos, Bingo and Sunday Dancing
  1.30 pm
  Mr. David Atkinson: Let me begin by declaring a non-interest. I have no interest in gambling. I have never bet or played bingo, and I am one of the 6 million people left in the country who have yet to play the national lottery. Only an occasional premium bond win keeps me going.
  I do, however, declare a constituency interest. Although Bournemouth is one of our most successful tourist resorts, it needs to keep abreast of the competition and respond to the demands of visitors if it is to continue to succeed. That is also in the national interest, as it would enable the country to retain its place in the league table of countries visited by tourists. Sadly, however, it is not currently managing to do so: although the number of tourists continues to rise, our share in that hugely increasing world market is slipping as more and more countries open up to tourists at affordable prices.
  Great Britain plc can no longer afford to operate restrictive practices and archaic laws in response to attitudes that are neither popular nor necessary. That applies no less to its leisure and entertainments industry than to any other. Three aspects to be found in my constituency supply the main argument in favour of deregulation: casinos, bingo clubs and public dancing.
  I planned today's debate some weeks ago. I presume—as I am not a betting man, I did not even compute the odds—that it is pure chance that my striking lucky in the ballot coincided not only with the opening of Martin Scorsese's new film "Casino", but, more important, with the publication yesterday of the Department's consultation paper on casinos and bingo clubs. As that Green Paper correctly anticipated much of what I intended to say today, I have had to revise my speech somewhat.
  Let me explain what led me to choose this topic. I had represented my constituency for more than 10 years before I ventured into one of its casinos—the Bournemouth casino club at the Royal Bath hotel. I note from the most recent edition of The Sunday Times that, until recently, my hon. Friend the Minister exhibited the same reticence.
  Although, as I have stressed, this is not my scene, I was impressed by the quality of the establishment, the dining facilities for members, and the quiet professionalism that was evident in the conduct of the games. Today it is known as the Grosvenor; it is one of three casinos in Bournemouth. Last month, I visited the most recently established, the Stakis Regency casino, and was equally impressed—not least by the surveillance and security systems that had been introduced to detect cheating and fraud.
  On both those occasions, I was appalled by the pettiness of the restrictions placed on casinos. Those restrictions clearly prevent them from realising their commercial potential. Not only are they unable to respond to the obvious change in public attitudes to such places of entertainment in recent years; they cannot make the contribution that they could otherwise make to the local economy and jobs, as well as to the Exchequer. We continue to deny ourselves that contribution as long as we turn away customers from both home and abroad by maintaining the current restrictions.

  859
  Any reasonably open-minded person would surely agree that some of those restrictions are now unnecessary. The most obvious is the 48-hour rule. Under the present law, no one can enter a casino for the first time—except as the guest of a member—without a "cooling-off' period of 48 hours. Any prospective customer must complete a membership form on the premises, and then wait two days before being admitted to game. In practical terms, that makes it impossible to play on a weekend away. It also means that the country is turning away foreign tourists and business men in droves.
  Such restrictions apply in no other country where gaming is legal. They are unquestionably a drag on Britain's foreign earnings, and on employment in the casino industry. When a player has joined one casino, he cannot enter another without repeating the whole peculiar process, even if he is already eligible to play in another casino owned by the same company. Why should British casinos—while remaining clubs—not be allowed to judge for themselves whether a potential customer is acceptable for registration on completion of the required application forms, and admit that customer without delay?
  There is also a ban on advertising of any kind, apart from limited information outside the casino itself. Even listings in trade and telephone directories are prohibited other than for recruitment purposes. Casinos cannot even advertise in British Airways' High Life magazine. The Stakis hotel in my constituency cannot even advertise in its brochure the fact that a casino is attached to it.
  I accept that there is a case against wholesale deregulation—allowing, for instance, broadcast advertising. Surely, however, it is reasonable to publish information about casinos—perhaps in a prescribed form—in tourist magazines, classified advertisements in regional newspapers and directories such as Yellow Pages and notices at United Kingdom points of entry and in hotels. At present, many foreign visitors are unaware that casinos exist in Britain, while the short-stay business man who finds one for the first time is then confronted with the 48-hour rule.
  Casinos are allowed just two jackpot gaming machines, as are local golf clubs. The stake permitted is 20p, and the maximum prize is £250. Given those controls, there is certainly no risk of Las Vegas-style gambling—slot machines are the biggest earner per square foot in America—coming to the United Kingdom.
  Casino customers are not allowed to pay by credit card or a direct debit card such as Switch. That cannot be realistic today. Are we seriously encouraging people to carry around large amounts of cash? If modern payment methods such as charge and credit cards were an acceptable currency in casinos, not only would less cash be required, but the probability that cheques will be supplanted in the not too distant future would be pre-empted. Gaming would also be made easier for foreign tourists.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Atkinson: I would rather not. My time is limited, and I want to give my hon. Friend the Minister enough time in which to reply.
  860
  Those are the principal reforms that have been suggested to the Minister by the British Casino Association. They would bring the British industry into line with other countries, and, I suspect, with British public opinion. I do not want to pre-empt my hon. Friend's response, in which he will doubtless refer to the proposals in yesterday's Green Paper. I give a warm welcome to those initiatives, especially the proposal to extend permitted drinking beyond midnight and the proposal to allow casinos in 13 new towns. However, I hope that my hon. Friend will agree to more.
  I express reservations on three of the proposals. First, I refer to the reduction in the waiting period for new members to play from 48 hours to 24 hours. The casino industry will be disappointed that a waiting period will still apply to people who want to go into a casino. Is there not a case for a hotel with a casino attached—particularly those as prestigious as the Royal Bath hotel and the Stakis hotel in Bournemouth—to offer immediate membership to its residents? Will my hon. Friend confirm whether, with postal applications now proposed, those residents who make their reservations in advance could be given automatic membership if they so wish, and therefore be able to play immediately?
  Secondly, the Green Paper justifies the continued prohibition of live entertainment to prevent the stimulation of demand for casino gambling—this rule applies even to the extent of prohibiting a pianist. I find this argument unconvincing and rather pathetic, and I hope that my hon. Friend will think again.
  Thirdly, I regret the negative thinking towards resort casinos that are regarded in the Green Paper as impractical for this country because it is geographically small and densely populated. This approach, if pursued by the Government, will undoubtedly lead to what I feared in my opening remarks: Britain will continue to miss valuable opportunities for inward investment in favour of other countries with which we are in stiff competition.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of current American-Arab interests in establishing a multi-billion dollar casino, leisure and entertainment complex in this country. This would provide a massive and permanent boost to the economy of the area in which it would be located. The name of the consortium concerned is E-GATE, which is distinct from any similar rumours linked with the New York property magnate, Donald Trump. It would be a tragedy if we were to scare off this kind of investment, just as we did when Disney originally showed an interest in establishing EuroDisney here, before it was bribed to Paris, to be followed by Universal Studios.
  Britain cannot afford to lose that sort of business, which would create new jobs and enhance tourism. We should not let it go to Europe just because it involves casinos. Gone are the days of organised crime, which justified the Gaming Act 1968. Even Las Vegas is cleaning up its act in response to demands for family-related entertainment, which Disney so successfully pioneered.
  I turn now from big spenders to bingo players. There is no doubt of the continuing pleasure that this softest form of gaming provides to a great many of my constituents and to visitors to Bournemouth, as it does within a lively sociable environment at modern venues all over the country. Long gone are the days of old ladies in hairnets, looking like Ena Sharpies and Minnie Caldwell, playing on seaside piers for tacky prizes.

  861
  In November 1994, the levels of bingo admission and spending were increasing, but today—with the introduction of the national lottery and the abundance of scratchcards—the industry is in decline, with 56 clubs having closed and with the loss of over 1,500 jobs. That is why the Bingo Association of Great Britain is disappointed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not reduce bingo duty as he did with the general betting duty and the pools duty in his last Budget. Its members are now urging the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department to come forward with reforms that will end the petty rules that restrict the activities of bingo and its customers.
  For example, I refer to the 24-hour rule—the period between joining a club and being eligible to play; the restrictions that prevent clubs from advertising their social facilities and their prize money in the press, on radio or on television; and the regulations that determine the timing of games, the amount that operators can charge and the number of jackpot machines allowed—only two. The Bingo Association is seeking other changes, such as the end to the limit of added prize money, the extension of a bingo licence to three years, and the introduction of new games.
  I am delighted that the Government have responded positively to these demands in their Green Paper—the industry has also responded positively. There are only three points that I want to pursue with my hon. Friend.
  First, no reference is made in the Green Paper to enabling rollovers, to which—in view of the national lottery's experience—there can no longer be any objection. Secondly, while technically there appears to be no limit on the number of amusement-with-prizes machines—that is, fruit machines—the experience is that the licensing authorities behave otherwise. Will my hon. Friend clarify the rules on this point, and perhaps consider issuing clear guidelines for licensing authorities? Thirdly, surely the rule that fruit machines and jackpot machines cannot be mixed is unnecessarily restrictive.
  I conclude with a plea on behalf of the nightclub industry to allow public dancing on Sundays. I corresponded with my hon. Friend in this regard last month in response to the representations I had received from the Zoo and Cage discotheque in my constituency. It expressed disappointment that the Deregulation Committee of the House of Lords recommended against allowing public dancing on a Sunday.
  With respect, on which planet do their Lordships live? I can understand that some of them may not wish to go dancing in public on a Sunday, or at any other time, but surely they can accept that others do. There can no longer be any justification to maintain a law that is 200 years old and that has already been changed to allow drinking, gambling, sporting events and shopping on Sundays.
  It seems extraordinary that pubs today can open their doors to trade on Sunday evenings, but nightclubs cannot. The Scots—who appear to me to be more Sunday-fearing than the English—have allowed public dancing on Sundays for almost 20 years. Why should the English be treated any differently? Of course, Sunday opening would remain subject to a local licence, and after consultation with the local neighbourhood to ensure its protection from nuisance and noise.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will respond positively to all three of the appeals that I am making to him today, and will continue the excellent work of the Government
  862
  to eliminate all unnecessary restrictions, regulations and red tape in the way of people enjoying themselves according to their own judgment instead of that of others.
  1.46 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): I welcome the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) in introducing this debate. I listened with great interest to what he had to say. We have had many discussions on this theme. The fact that this debate is taking place today is timely, and I congratulate him on the work that he has done on behalf of his constituents in this area. I am glad of the opportunity to inform hon. Members of the proposals we wish to bring forward to relax unnecessary restrictions on gaming establishments.
  Yesterday, we published our long-awaited consultation paper on these matters. I regard this as an important initiative, so much so that I have sent a copy to every Member of Parliament. Not every hon. Member has a casino in his constituency, but many have bingo clubs. In any case, I suspect that there will be widespread interest in the proposals for additional casinos, with 13 new permitted areas around the country, including places such as Croydon and Peterborough.
  I shall explain the background to the consultation paper. We have heard much about the national lottery—which has had an impact on other forms of gambling—but we are not introducing these measures as a knee-jerk reaction to it. This exercise has been developed as part of the Government's deregulation initiative, and each proposal has been considered carefully on its own merits. I acknowledge that it has been long in coming, but it was important to consider carefully a balanced package for reform that would remove unnecessary restrictions on the industry and on the consumer while ensuring that necessary protections remain in force.
  Although I am the first to commend the casino and bingo industries for their high standards and professionalism, we should remember that they are not just like any other business, and that there is a need for certain restrictions in the public interest.
  We must keep out any criminal involvement and money laundering. Even bingo, which I agree with my hon. Friend is very much at the softer end of the gambling spectrum and provides harmless pleasure to thousands of people, has to remain subject to some controls. Without those controls, players could be exploited and fraud become rife.
  Within the framework of controls, however, I entirely agree that there is scope for removal of restrictions that no longer have a place in the 1990s. In my view, our proposals reflect a rather different view of gambling from that which existed in the 1960s, when the Gaming Act 1968 was passed. It is not altogether surprising that the 1968 Act represents a cautious approach to gaming. After all, the 1960s had seen an explosion of casinos in this country, with, unfortunately, the involvement of crime and other unacceptable developments. Something had to be done quickly, and that something was the 1968 Act. It produced an immediate cleaning-up of the gaming scene.
  Given that background, it is not altogether surprising that the message that appears to emerge from the Act's many pages is that gaming is a rather undesirable pastime, which should be restricted as far as is reasonably possible.

  863
  Our approach in the consultation document has been rather different. It has been to start from the point of view that people should be free to game if that is what they wish to do, and that restrictions should be applied only if they serve one of three essential purposes: that they prevent the encouragement of crime, public disorder or nuisance; that they ensure that punters get a fair deal and are made fully aware of what they are letting themselves in for when they game; and that they discourage socially damaging excesses.
  My hon. Friend referred to some of the proposals. For the sake of completeness, I should like briefly to outline them. Following the consultation period, which ends on 31 May, we hope to lay a series of deregulation orders, with careful scrutiny by the appropriate Committees.
  We propose to introduce secondary legislation to allow casinos in 13 new locations. The additional areas proposed are Croydon, Dartford, Gloucester, Folkestone, Hastings, Ipswich, Morecambe, Oxford, Peterborough, Redbridge, Slough, Swindon and Weymouth. A reduction in the 48-hour waiting time for membership of a casino to 24 hours, together with provision for postal applications and group membership is also involved, as well as a new regime for gaming machines, with increased numbers and higher stakes and pay-outs; an extension to liquor licensing hours; and allowing the advertising of the location of casinos in directories and guides. Yes, that will be allowed, if required, appropriate and requested, even in High Life magazine, to which my hon. Friend referred. We also intend to permit payment by debit card.
  The proposals on bingo are: an end to the requirement that bingo establishments operate as members' clubs with a 24-hour waiting period for membership; abolition of the demand criterion for the granting of licences; removal of restrictions on added prize money and on frequency and prizes in multiple bingo, the national game; payment by debit card; extension of bingo licences from one year to three years, to which my hon. Friend referred; and removal of the remaining restrictions on print advertising.
  I must comment on some of the more important aspects. First, on advertising, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the restrictions on bingo advertising are unnecessary. From our standpoint now, it is clear that the Bingo Act 1992 did not go far enough. The approach taken then was, perhaps, understandable, in that we hesitated to go from a complete ban to complete freedom. But it is clear that we do not need the restrictions, and I hope that one of the first measures to be produced following the consultation will remove restrictions on the advertising of bingo.
  I should point out that I am also contemplating lifting the ban on broadcast advertising of bingo. I accept that that may stimulate some debate, but the national lottery and the football pools are already advertised on television. How far should we extend that to other forms of commercial gambling? We have taken a cautious approach to that powerful medium. There are concerns about the messages that we are sending out, particularly in respect of the young. Our view is that the harder forms of gambling should not have access to the broadcast media, however. Indeed, I understand that neither the casino nor the betting industry is looking for such freedom.
  864
  On casino advertising, I entirely agree that reform is overdue. We cannot continue with a complete ban on advertising of any sort. We should allow casinos to give out information about location, and so on.
  My hon. Friend questioned our plans for the 48-hour rule for casinos. It is easy to mock the 24-hour waiting period for bingo membership, or to challenge the 48-hour period for casinos. However, the matter is not as straightforward as it might first appear.
  We certainly agree that there is no social policy need to retain a waiting period before someone can play bingo, which is why we are suggesting that it should be removed. But that could have consequences for the way in which bingo clubs are run in respect of such matters as club status, liquor licences and gaming machines. The industry will obviously have to consider the implications carefully when it responds to us and to our consultation document.
  We think it right that casinos should continue as clubs, and not become gaming houses open to the public in the same way as nightclubs. I recognise that no other country has a waiting period, but it should be borne in mind that the framework for casino gaming is very different in this country. Most other jurisdictions have casinos only in resort areas. Here, there are casinos in every major city, providing a facility for local residents. If we were to remove restrictions on membership, allow unlimited advertising and slot machines with massive pay-outs, we could see a boom in hard gambling in this country and a commensurate increase in problem gambling. We are not in that game.
  I do understand the concerns of casinos, however, especially those in London, which cater primarily for tourists. We have proposed sensible relaxations in the rule, which would make it easier for casinos to admit tourists, while maintaining their status as clubs. I am the first to recognise the importance of the tourist industry to this country, to my hon. Friend's constituency, to London and to other parts of the nation.
  I am glad that my hon. Friend asked me about the proposal to allow postal applications for casino membership, because the importance of that proposal should not be overlooked. We envisage that the 24-hour waiting period will commence from receipt of a postal application, whether from abroad or within this country. Given that clubs will need a little time to make checks and process the applications, that will mean that the 24-hour waiting period will not be a hindrance when the postal application route is used.
  My hon. Friend referred to resort casinos. Great Britain is unusual in having an extensive network of 119 casinos covering all the main population centres, which is many more than in most other countries. Resort casinos would be very different. They would need heavy advertising, free access by the public instead of club status, and much more intensive regulation. They are more suitable for countries that have only a small number of casinos each serving a large region.
  We do not think that the two types of casino could easily co-exist within a geographically small and densely populated area such as Great Britain. We think it better to concentrate on updating and improving the existing regulatory approach, which has been so successful, and has resulted in a gaming industry that, we are proud to say, is crime-free.

  865
  My hon. Friend also referred to live entertainment in casinos. The objectives of the prohibition on live entertainment are to prevent casinos from stimulating demand for their facilities in that way and to prevent other premises, such as nightclubs, from offering gaming facilities as an incidental feature. We looked into that prohibition, but concluded that its objectives were still valuable in maintaining the effective regulation of the industry. I assure my hon. Friend, however, that I will certainly bear in mind his comments on that aspect when I consider the responses to the consultation paper.
  We have allowed three months for consultation. After that, we hope to introduce a series of deregulation orders, as I said, for scrutiny by the Deregulation Committees. Although I cannot be specific on the timetable, I intend to ensure that that takes place as quickly as possible. Certainly the removal of bingo and betting advertising restrictions is high on the agenda.
  My hon. Friend also mentioned the law on Sunday dancing. The existing law prevents operators from charging admission and from serving alcohol beyond the normal permitted hours on Sundays. In June 1995, a draft measure was put before the Deregulation Committees of both Houses. The Committees took the view that there had been insufficient time for consultation. They had other concerns about the extent to which the requirements
  866
  for retention of necessary protection had been met. The Select Committee on the Scrutiny of Delegated Powers, in another place, also concluded that Sunday dancing was not an appropriate subject for deregulation.
  The Government have taken note of those views, and especially of the view that amending the law on Sunday dancing is not suitable for the deregulation order procedure. If that route is not available, the reform could be brought about only by means of primary legislation. In the Government's view, that change would be suitable for a private Member's Bill, but I am afraid to say that no hon. Member has so far elected to take up the subject.
  The Government remain committed to the principle behind the reforms, which would achieve an important loosening of centrally prescribed controls over the way in which individuals choose to spend their leisure time. We shall continue to seek a suitable opportunity for legislation. We believe that the process that we have undertaken is important. We look forward to the responses to our document, and I look forward to the responses that I am sure my hon. Friend will be making. Once more, I congratulate him on raising this subject.
  It being Two o 'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o 'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND

    Inward Investment
    Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the level of inward investment into Scotland in 1995–96. [15784]
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the latest figures on inward investment to Scotland. [15794]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): Scotland continues to be a magnet for inward investment. In the current financial year, we expect an additional £1 billion or thereabouts of inward investment.
    Mr. Evans: As a Welshman representing an English constituency and asking about Scottish affairs, I believe in the welfare of the Union and in inward investment for Scotland. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we were to introduce the job-destroying social chapter and the minimum wage, that would be damaging to Scotland? Does he also agree that the final slap and insult to the people of Scotland would be the introduction of a tartan tax which would cost every Scottish family £6 a week?
    Mr. Forsyth: Labour's proposals for a European jobs tax by joining the social chapter and for a minimum wage would be bad news for inward investment in Wales and Scotland, but the tartan tax in Scotland would give Wales an enormous advantage in attracting inward investment.
    Mr. Bruce: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what would happen to business investment in Scotland if local authorities were able to set business rates? Rather than being pegged at around the rate of inflation—3 per cent.—as they are now, would not they go up to 30 per cent., which is the rate that many local authorities have threatened to introduce? That would be an additional tartan tax, because if income tax were put up by 3p in the pound, it would be logical to put up corporation tax by the same amount. [Interruption.] Opposition Members do not care about the jobs of Scottish workers.
    Mr. Forsyth: From memory, the Government have committed something like £0.5 billion to achieve a uniform business rate in Scotland to remove the competitive disadvantage that Scotland had. I agree with my hon. Friend that the Labour party's proposals, which were published this week—to allow local authorities to raid the Scottish business community to meet its funding proposals—would be a disaster for Scotland's businesses. It would make Scotland less attractive to inward investors and destroy jobs and businesses in Scotland. I hope that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) will take the first opportunity to distance himself from that ridiculous proposal, which flies in the face of all the advice that we have had from the Scottish business community.
    Mr. Norman Hogg: How does the Secretary of State reconcile what he has just said with his proposals to
    868
    destroy Scottish local government as an effective mechanism which provides the infrastructure on which inward investment is built? He is setting financial limits on local government in a way that will destroy its ability to provide the base for inward investment.
    Mr. Forsyth: No, that is not the case. Local authorities in Scotland are getting grant that is nearly 45 per cent. more per head than it is in England, and 21 per cent. higher per head than it is in Wales. It is a generous settlement, and it is more than local authorities would be entitled to under the Barnett formula to which the hon. Member for Hamilton has committed himself as the basis for funding Scottish local government and other services in the Scottish block. I found an extra £26.5 million over and above the formula consequences for local government in Scotland. If the hon. Gentleman were fair minded, he would recognise that. As he is fair minded, I am sure that he does.
    Mr. Canavan: While I welcome inward investment, does the Secretary of State admit that the number of jobs created by it is not enough to replace the jobs lost through companies closing down or leaving Scotland? Bearing it in mind that the Government are always quick to take the credit when companies come to Scotland, but not so quick to take responsibility when companies threaten to leave, will the Secretary of State applaud the Cummins work force who yesterday voted overwhelmingly to fight the proposed closure of the Shotts factory? Will the Secretary of State follow that excellent example by intervening and trying to use every means at his disposal to save the 700 jobs?
    Mr. Forsyth: Yes, Madam Speaker.
    Mr. Nicholls: I must remind my right hon. Friend that, when one examines Government inward investment in Scotland and the subsidy for the tourism industry as represented by subsidy for the English and Scottish tourist boards, one sees that Scotland receives from the Government about 16 times as much subsidy as England. If we combine that with the fact that the Scottish Office is now subsidising sewerage charges for people in Scotland, from a west country perspective it looks a pretty poor do. Is not it time that we started to spend money on people who used to vote for us at the expense of those who never would?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, but he is quite wrong about what he described as a subsidy for water and sewerage. It is a simple transfer from local government. As my hon. Friend knows, water has not been privatised in Scotland and we have no intention of privatising water in Scotland. Because it has not been privatised, it is necessary for the taxpayer to meet the costs which in England are met by the private sector.
    Mr. Salmond: Nothing can do as much damage to the Secretary of State for Scotland as Tory Back Benchers. Is the Secretary of State aware that, in a conversation with a senior executive connected with inward investment in Scotland, I was told that, over the past 10 years, only one firm out of hundreds had expressed any concern about constitutional change in Scotland, but that up to one third of those hundreds of companies had expressed concern

    869
    about the Government's hostile attitude to the European Union? As the biggest little Englander in the Cabinet, does the Secretary of State acknowledge that his hostile attitudes towards Europe are a real threat to inward investment in Scotland and to thousands of Scottish jobs?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am not hostile to Europe, but I am hostile to the sort of Europe that the hon. Gentleman would like to see, which would add to business costs and drive out inward investment. The hon. Gentleman pretends to be a nationalist who wants Scotland to have a greater say over its affairs, yet his policy on Europe would transfer power to Brussels where the people would be unable to have a proper say.
    Mr. Stephen: How can I justify to my constituents in Sussex the fact that central Government spend so much more on local authority services in Scotland than in England?
    Mr. Forsyth: The allocations for Scottish local government are a matter for the Secretary of State and the priorities have to be set within the Scottish Office block. The Scottish Office block has provided for a generous allocation towards local government, in part reflecting the changes that local government is undergoing as a result of reorganisation.
    My hon. Friend asked about the additional benefits that Scotland enjoys under the Scottish Office block, which mean that public expenditure by local authorities in Scotland is getting on for one third higher per head than it is in England. That relationship would undoubtedly be undermined if a Scottish Parliament with tax-raising powers was established, because that would mean for the hon. Member for Hamilton a reduced number of Scottish Members of Parliament—according to the Liberal Democrats—and no Scottish Office presence in Cabinet, to decide the allocation. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor pointed out in the Grand Committee, that would undoubtedly result in Scotland being disadvantaged and the difference between expenditure in England and Scotland being narrowed. That is the price that Opposition Members are prepared to make the Scottish people pay for their Scottish Parliament.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Secretary of State accept that the success of inward investment depends on the skill and confidence of the Scottish people? If, by a combination of skill and confidence, Scotland triumphs at Murrayfield on Saturday, will that not do much more for inward investment than any of the Government's policies?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am sure that, when Scotland triumphs at Murrayfield on Saturday, we shall at last have found something on which all parties in the House can agree in so far as they represent Scottish constituencies.
    On skills, the hon. and learned Gentleman will recognise that Scottish Enterprise has taken a 7.5 per cent. reduction in its budget but remains determined to deliver the same output in terms of training. That is the money that we have made available as extra money to local government. The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot have it both ways: criticising both the settlement for local government and the reduction in Scottish Enterprise funding, as he did when it was announced.
    Mr. George Robertson: Will the Secretary of State accept that the Labour party welcomes inward investors
    870
    to Scotland and that the next Labour Government, who most inward investors assume will be taking power in the next 15 months, will also warmly welcome inward investment to Scotland? Just in case he starts to believe his own propaganda, will he listen to the words of Professor Neil Hood, the former director of Locate in Scotland, who said that he did not think that any inward investment would be frightened off by the current proposals for devolution? Surely that alone shows the bogus and empty nature of the propaganda that continues to be thrown by Conservative Members.
    Mr. Forsyth: I do more than listen to his words. I have met him and discussed his ideas, and I think that the hon. Gentleman is not on such strong ground as he believes. If the hon. Gentleman is seriously arguing that an extra 10 per cent. on income tax in Scotland and additional costs on employing people will not put Scotland at a disadvantage compared with Wales and the north-east of England, he is not living in the real world.
    Let us take as an example financial services, which are an important employer in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman is saying that savings income for pensioners would be taxed at 15 per cent. more in Scotland than in England. Savings institutions depend on savings income, and the hon. Gentleman's proposals for a tartan tax do not threaten just inward investment, but established industries such as the financial services sector, because they add to their costs and make them less competitive.

    Local Authority Budgets
    Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will meet the leaders of (a) Glasgow and (b) other local authorities to discuss their budgets. [15785]
    Mr. Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends meeting the leader of Glasgow city council to discuss its 1996–97 budget. [15786]
    Mr. Robert Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has had on the finances of the new unitary local authorities. [15793]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Kynoch): Over the past two days, I have met many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) with a delegation from Glasgow and a delegation led by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). I am always pleased to meet delegations led by hon. Members.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Will the Minister tell us, following that meeting, whether the people of Glasgow will continue to face cuts of £1.3 million every week? Does he think it acceptable that they face a council tax increase of 36 per cent? If, to judge from the Secretary of State's remarks earlier, he really thinks that the settlement is fair, why are people paying more and getting far less?
    Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Lady does not—unfortunately—understand the figures for Glasgow. Within its capping limit, Glasgow could increase expenditure by some 4.93 per cent. from the notional budget provided by Strathclyde regional council for the former district. The hon. Lady might like also

    871
    to contemplate whether she can justify the £500,000 that was spent on the centenary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress. I should have thought that the people of Glasgow would rather that it was spent on services for themselves.
    Mr. Watson: If the Minister had any sense of contrition, he would not have the nerve to show his face in the House because, although his predecessors told us that the reorganisation of local authorities in Scotland would cost about £30 million, we find that the real figure is more than £400 million. I would not mind that if the Scottish Office would pick up the bill, but it will not—the people of Scotland are being asked to do that.
    On the specific question about Glasgow, will the Minister apologise to the hundreds of local authority workers in the city who are likely to lose their jobs and to the thousands of people who are likely to have their services cut, including the 113 members of the ethnic community project at the Dixon centre in my constituency? Why should such people have to suffer and pay for the incompetence and deception of the Minister and the Government?
    Mr. Kynoch: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the funding given to Glasgow by central Government is 82 per cent. higher per head of population than the average south of the border? If he devoted more attention to recognising the excess that we give local government in Scotland and addressed the fact that he and his hon. Friends are calling for the ridiculous sum of £395 million on top of that for local government, perhaps he would be able to tell us where he expects us to take the money from. Does he, like the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), want us to take it from the health budget?
    Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister calm down before he does his health some serious damage? [Interruption.] I know that I should be encouraging him.
    Having heard this morning the powerful case put by Councillor Margaret Smith, the convener-elect, Douglas Patterson, the chief executive, and Gordon Edwards, the finance director—all from Aberdeen city council—does the hon. Gentleman now understand the serious difficulties for local authorities? Does he accept that his figures are wrong and that the people of Aberdeen will suffer severely from a cut of £26.5 million? Does he realise that such a cut will affect every citizen and every sector in the city, not least the private sector, which benefits greatly from local authority spending? Will the Minister calm down now, consider the problem seriously and produce a more realistic settlement?
    Mr. Kynoch: If I am not perfectly calm it is because I am incensed at the proposal by the hon. Member for Dundee, East that we should take money from health, because we believe in making real increases in the health budget.
    The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North did indeed bring me a delegation from Aberdeen city this morning. I listened carefully to what they all said, and I commend the city for the moves by which it is clearly trying to bring its budget within the capping limits. The hon. Gentleman should be more honest in recognising, as the chief executive did, the situation that Aberdeen city inherited
    872
    from Grampian region—savings were not made over the past few years, and reserves were eaten up. That inheritance has been passed to Aberdeen city, and the city must lie in the bed that the former region made for it.
    Mr. Stewart: Will my hon. Friend pay serious attention to the sensible views of people such as Bailie John Young, who said that Glasgow had been overspending for years? Does he agree with many of my constituents, who are seriously concerned about the fact that the Labour group that runs East Renfrewshire—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Just wait for it. Does my hon. Friend share our concern about the fact that, under the mismatch agreement, the Labour group has passed over £5.6 million of East Renfrewshire's money to the City of Glasgow?
    Mr. Kynoch: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The skewing that occurred in the past is becoming apparent because of the grant-aided expenditure allocation for the new areas. Bailie John Young was in a delegation brought to me by the hon. Member for Springburn this morning, and he agreed with me that some of the excesses of the past had caused Glasgow's present problems. However, I hope that, in the short time still available, the councillors of the new Glasgow city council will recognise the need to look afresh at the way in which they deliver services and ensure that the greatest efficiency is achieved so that they can make the savings that will enable them to set a sensible council tax increase for the people of Glasgow.
    Mr. Gallie: My hon. Friend will be aware that housing forms a fairly significant part of local authority spending in Glasgow. In addition, central Government supply considerable funds through Scottish Homes for expenditure in Glasgow. Is he aware of the £8 million that Scottish Homes has pledged to spend on ethnic housing in Glasgow? Is that not wrong? Should not such money be spread across the population, irrespective of colour, religion or creed?
    Mr. Kynoch: I hear what my hon. Friend says. I understand that the decision was taken by Scottish Homes and it is a decision for it to take.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: From his meeting this morning, the Minister will know that the new Dundee city council, despite making savage cuts to meet the capping level set by him, still faces introducing a council tax increase of 24 to 30 per cent. This morning, he could not tell us what else it could do. Can he tell us this afternoon?
    Mr. Kynoch: As the hon. Gentleman knows, Conservative councillor Neil Powrie, who was quoted in the newspapers recently, has pointed the finger at the Labour council in Dundee—as did Bailie John Young in Glasgow—by saying that many of the council's problems have been brought about by years of ignoring the need for efficiency savings and delivery improvement.
    Mr. Wallace: I am sure that the Minister has considered the prospective council tax increases in authorities throughout Scotland. Has he noticed that, despite bitter resentment about cuts, the proposed increases in the islands authorities are between 3 and 5 per cent. compared with an average increase of

    873
    15 per cent. in Scottish mainland councils? Is it not clear that a large part, if not all, of the difference is attributable to what is increasingly called the Forsyth reorganisation tax?
    Mr. Kynoch: That is hard on Shetland and Orkney islands councils, to which I am sure the hon. Gentleman is referring. In a tight public expenditure round, those councils have dealt with the problems sensibly.
    Mr. Wallace: They did not have reorganisation.
    Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman keeps shouting that those councils did not have reorganisation. Reorganisation—taking two councils and merging them into one—has brought potential benefits to other councils. It should produce savings, which the hon. Gentleman has seen in the islands councils that he represents. I hope that he will be big enough to commend them for seemingly managing things much more efficiently than many other councils.
    Mr. Michael J. Martin: I thank the Minister for receiving a delegation today. He referred to the old councils. He must recognise that he and his colleagues set up the new councils and that a reorganised new council should not be burdened with the debts of the old one.
    The Minister should be even-handed when he talks about the STUC conference, because Glasgow, I understand, gave £100,000 to the Tory party when it held its conference there.
    Mr. Kynoch: On that last point, I am reliably informed that the figure is slightly lower, although I have no confirmation of that. Some £40,000 is the figure that has just been whispered in my ear.
    On inheritance from old councils, I am not aware that the Government have suddenly introduced local government. They have been adamant that they want to streamline it and to make two tiers become one. In the past, Labour councillors have supposedly been accountable to the electorate. If they have, through total abuse, taken the matter into their own hands, used up reserves and handed a poisoned chalice to their successors, they, and not the Government, should be held accountable to the electorate.
    Mr. George Robertson: Is the Minister not aware of the genuine outrage and anger that exists all over Scotland at the Government-imposed service cuts or that the 40,000 people who marched through the streets of Edinburgh last Saturday showed that no one in Scotland believes the jiggery-pokery with figures that the Government are indulging in? Is it not a fact that, by reducing by more than £500 million central Government support to local authorities over the next three years, he will be responsible for putting the equivalent of 4p on the standard rate of income tax of all taxpayers in Scotland? Will not everyone in Scotland conclude that, under the Tories, people pay more and get less?
    Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman does not accept the fact that, this year, we have put an extra £148 million into local government. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman has come clean in the past few days about what he would do
    874
    with local government. He would lift capping, which means that council tax would go up even further. He would remove the uniform business rate from central Government and put it back with local authorities, thereby increasing costs for businesses, reducing their competitiveness and removing a level playing field. He would increase expenditure in local government. He has called for an extra £395 million for local government, but he has not said where it should come from. If the hon. Gentleman aspires ever to hold office, he should do his sums first and tell us where in the Scottish Office block we should find extra funding for local government on top of the significant increase that it has had.

    Tree Planting
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action is being taken to increase planting of native broadleaf trees. [15787]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): We provide a wide range of advice and grants to encourage the planting of broadleaf trees and fully support initiatives such as the millennium forest and the national forest. As a result, the area of new broadleaf woodlands created each year has increased fifteenfold over the past 10 years.
    Mr. Pawsey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful response. Does he recall the number of trees that were lost in Great Britain partly because of the hedgerow clearances of 20 to 30 years ago and partly because of Dutch elm disease? Will he redouble his efforts and consider a new initiative? I am thinking especially of a tree-planting year. For example, 1973 was the year of the tree. Will he consider the introduction of a similar campaign so that we may replace some of the trees that have been lost over the years?
    Mr. Robertson: I remember the Plant a Tree '73 campaign because I was in my second year at secondary school. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has pledged full support for an initiative to create a millennium forest in Scotland. The first tree in the £11.5 million first phase of the project, which will eventually result in millions of trees of various species taking root across the country, was planted by my right hon. Friend at Castlebrae community high school at Craigmillar in Edinburgh with the help of local schoolchildren. The initial phase consists of 45 different woodland projects from Orkney to the Borders, with half the cost being met by the Millennium Commission using national lottery funds.
    Mr. Galbraith: Surely the Minister realises that the type of tree that is planted is not the only forestry issue. Of much greater importance is access to the land. What can he do to ensure that, for the foreseeable future, guaranteed access to afforested land will be maintained?
    Mr. Robertson: My noble Friend the Earl of Lindsay, who is the Minister responsible for these matters, has been widening access throughout Scotland, and every effort is being made to secure agreements that guarantee access for the public on foot. Following the forestry review, the Forestry Commission has been encouraging local

    875
    authorities to respond positively to its open access agreements, allowing them more time to consider the agreements and offering to meet their reasonable legal costs.
    Mr. Lord: Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that, while broadleaf trees add considerably to the countryside environment, they do not add a great deal to our forestry industries? The conifer has been much maligned in recent years, perhaps unfairly. The backbone of any successful forestry industry in Britain is the conifer. Will the Minister do all that he can to disabuse people of the belief that one can have a forestry industry based on hardwoods and try to get more conifers planted?
    Mr. Robertson: Grants for new conifer planting were increased by nearly 30 per cent. on arable and improved land, and we expect the increased grants to give a major boost to conifer planting which, as my hon. Friend says, is important for investors in the wood-processing industry. There was an encouraging increase of almost 3,000 hectares in new conifer planting last year to about 9,000 hectares, 8,000 of which were in Scotland.
    Mr. David Marshall: Does the Minister accept that, as a result of Government policy on tree planting and other issues, the people of Glasgow feel that the Government have simply abandoned the city? Will he accept an invitation from Glasgow Members to spend a day touring the city to see for himself the problems that are caused by the twin evils of unemployment and poverty? If he comes, he will see the hundreds of acres of derelict land which can be improved only by tree planting, be they broadleaf or conifer.
    Mr. Robertson: Yes.

    European Grants
    Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total value of grants that Scotland has received from the European regional development fund since the fund's inception. [15788]
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: Since 1975, £1.6 billion.
    Sir David Knox: How does that compare with figures for other European countries?
    Mr. Forsyth: There is a wide range—[HON. MEMBERS: "He does not know."] I do know. It is about 10 times as much as Denmark and considerably less than Spain.
    Mr. Kirkwood: May I ask the Secretary of State an easier supplementary question? Will he acknowledge the concern in south-east Scotland about on-going job losses in the textile industry? Does he welcome the local authority's initiative to set up a working party to try to stem the flow of job losses? Will he undertake to use his influence and that of his officials to make best use of the ERDF and objective b funding so that the local authority's efforts to try to sustain and promote knitwear jobs in the Borders are developed and promoted with vigour?
    Mr. Forsyth: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have already done so, partly because of the representations that
    876
    he has made. I have asked Scottish Enterprise to look at the matter. He is right to point out the difficulties in the textile industry. We are considering carefully the European scheme called RETEX with a view to providing increased support. I agree that the Borders area has considerable scope for inward investment. It is often suggested that unemployment in the Borders is such that the area should not be a priority. I do not agree with that view. Many people are having to commute out of the Borders to find work. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary responsible for industry is very much aware of the particular difficulties in the textile industry. I am sure that he and Scottish Enterprise will have moved things forward since I last raised the matter. As the hon. Gentleman has raised it, I shall certainly try to arrange a discussion soon to find out what progress has been made.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the United Kingdom pays much more into Europe in taxation than we get back? Therefore, whatever we receive from the European Union is United Kingdom money coming back. I would describe it as laundered and devalued.
    Mr. Forsyth: I was agreeing with my hon. Friend up to his last phrase. It is certainly true that we are net contributors to the Community. There is no such thing as European money. It is our money coming back to us under a variety of schemes for which I have to make public expenditure provision in the Scottish Office block. It does not come from nowhere. We have to make provision for it in the Scottish Office block and, as such, it is given priority alongside other expenditure on health, education and so on. So my hon. Friend is right in that respect.
    The money also comes back on the basis that it represents additional expenditure. In that respect, I think that my hon. Friend will join me in recognising the good work that has been done under various European social fund and ERDF schemes in helping to make Scotland competitive and helping communities—especially fragile communities—meet the needs of competitiveness and put in place the infrastructure services that they need to improve the quality of life for their local people.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Will the Minister address the problems in areas that do not have access to European funding because they are not included in his Department's map of assisted areas? He will be aware that my constituency has just suffered 252 job losses at Lothian Electric Machines in Haddington because of the actions of IBM in that part of the world. He must surely recognise the urgent need to create new job opportunities in areas such as East Lothian. Will the Scottish Office review assisted areas boundaries?
    Mr. Forsyth: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, such matters have to be agreed. Scotland receives a very generous allocation. As the answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Sir D. Knox) made clear, we receive a very substantial share of ERDF funds, for example, compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. I remind the hon. Gentleman that unemployment in Scotland has been below the UK average for almost four years. Having said that, I shall certainly look at the problems in his constituency as a result of IBM's decisions and ask

    877
    Scottish Enterprise to see whether further assistance can be provided. I cannot offer any prospect of redrawing the map, or getting agreement in Brussels for so doing given the good deal that we have at the present time.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Bearing in mind my right hon. Friend's answer to our hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Sir D. Knox), does he agree that one problem is that the Commission constantly insists on spreading the propaganda that it is the Commission's money going to various places across the United Kingdom, not least Scotland?
    Will my right hon. Friend undertake to ensure that no European flag appears on projects that have received any of that money? If that suggestion is beyond the pale, perhaps he will ensure that the Union Jack—whose size should be in direct proportion to the amount of money coming from the British taxpayer—is flown next to any European flag.
    Mr. Forsyth: I do not know whether my hon. Friend would allow me to substitute the saltire for the Union Jack. It used to be the case that the Commission was rather anxious—and would often make it a condition of support—that the European flag was flown to acknowledge the involvement of the Community. That is not something that the Government do when we provide support. I shall certainly bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind. I am always happy to fly the flag whenever there is an opportunity to do so.

    Hospital Trusts
    Mr. Connarty: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next meet the health service executive for Scotland to discuss standards of service in hospital trusts. [15789]
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I have regular contact with officials of the national health service management executive. It is for health boards to monitor standards of service in hospitals through their contracts with trusts.
    Mr. Connarty: Can we now expect an improvement in the standard of service at the Falkirk royal infirmary, with an end to the unsavoury political relationship between the Secretary of State and the chairman of the Forth Valley health board with the welcome and timeous resignation of the chairman, Mrs. Iris Isbister? As the Secretary of State has arranged to kill off the messenger, can there now be a different message and an end to the bias against Falkirk royal infirmary, whose services have been centralised in Stirling, despite the recommendation in 1988 that centralisation should be in Falkirk?
    Will the Minister start to act like a Minister responsible for health and arrange for the children's ward at Falkirk royal infirmary to be re-opened at least until the conclusions of the acute services review in 1997? Or will he look for somebody else's skirts to hide behind now that Mrs. Isbister has gone?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman's comments are uncharacteristically petty. Mrs. Isbister has been a thoroughly dedicated chairman,
    878
    representing the best interests of the whole of the Forth Valley area. She has reduced waiting times and improved services. I want to make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that paediatric staff are available at Falkirk royal infirmary on a 24-hour basis and are able to give a clinical evaluation and to stabilise children's conditions.
    What has happened is that three paediatric consultants have retired, resulting in a temporary centralisation of services. The preferred option will be announced by the health board in due course, through consultation, and the matter will then come back to me for a decision. Throughout, the best interests of the children will be the paramount consideration.
    The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind medical concerns. The British Paediatric Association said that
    "no consultant paediatrician should have to provide on-call cover for more than one acute paediatric unit."
    The hon. Gentleman supports centralisation, but he wants it at a certain hospital. I have already told him that there is a temporary solution and that the final recommendation will come to me for a decision, after consultation.
    Mr. Stewart: Does my hon. Friend agree that since 1979 the number of doctors and nurses in the national health service in Scotland has increased substantially? Is not that meaningful and is my hon. Friend in a position to give the figures to the House?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Since 1979, the number of hospital doctors has risen by 1,100. Indeed, the number of doctors has increased every year. There are also 7,000 more whole-time equivalent nurses, which has resulted in an improvement in care. We want waiting times to be reduced even further and we are determined to work to that end.
    Dr. Godman: When the Minister's officials meet representatives of the executive, I hope that they will discuss the issue of the treatment that has been meted out to patients who have suffered because of clinical misjudgment or neglect. May I remind him that there are still women in the Inverclyde area who are seeking legal redress for the disgraceful treatment they received some years ago, as a direct result of the cervical smear programme scandal? Why does that relatively small number of women still have to suffer the indignity and humiliation of that interminably long legal process before they receive reasonable compensation? Why does not he do something about it?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I cannot comment on a legal action once it is under consideration. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we have instituted a new complaints procedure that should ensure that the patients—it is a small minority—who have legitimate complaints are dealt with quickly and effectively and that they can take the matter further if they do not receive a satisfactory response.

    Industry
    Sir Hector Monro: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the

    879
    Confederation of British Industry in Scotland in respect of (a) new investment in industry and (b) expansion of existing industry in Scotland. [15790]
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: On the last occasion that I met with the CBI, we discussed a range of issues.
    Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the continual running down of Scotland and the Scottish economy by the Labour party does nothing to help our country? Does he further agree that the fact that ICI is investing £60 million in Dumfries and that Pinney' s is investing £6 million in Annan shows that the time is right for investment, and that those companies see that our economy is sound?
    Mr. Forsyth: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. I am delighted by Id's investment in Dumfries, which is very good news for the future, and by the investment and export achievements of businesses in Scotland. We are now exporting more per head than Japan, and about 40 per cent. more per head than the rest of the United Kingdom. Our manufacturing output and exports are up. That is a great success story, and yet Opposition Members talk about the decline of our manufacturing base and the run down of Scotland's economy. Scotland is a success story because of the success of our policies, and it is high time that Opposition Members admitted it.
    Mr. McKelvey: When the Secretary of State spoke with the CBI, did he have the opportunity to describe the success of the all-party Scotch whisky group, which is headed by the Secretary of State, when it made representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to cut the price of Scotch whisky, only to learn that the manufacturers have increased the price of Scotch whisky and wiped out that opportunity of a price reduction?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman does a great deal on behalf of the Scotch whisky industry in Scotland, which is an important exporter with exports worth about £2 billion. He is right to point out that there has been a price increase, which has, more or less, had the effect of taking out the advantage of the reduction in duty provided by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor—who was the first Chancellor in 100 years to reduce the duty on whisky.
    In his Budget speech, the Chancellor pointed out the importance of the tax level to the Scotch whisky industry and to its competitiveness in export markets. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that there has been a price increase in the domestic market, but the advantage and importance of the reduction of duty for the competitiveness of Scotch whisky in export markets remains. All has not been lost by the price increase. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman shares with Conservative Members the regret that we will have to pay more for our whisky in the domestic market than seemed to be the case after my right hon. and learned Friend made his reduction in duty.
    Mrs. Adams: When the Secretary of State is talking about inward investment in Scotland, would he care to tell my constituents why, since his Government came to power, we have lost 85 per cent. of our manufacturing
    880
    jobs in the Paisley postcode area—that figure was provided by the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart)—and why the Government have never put a special economic initiative into Renfrewshire, which has suffered death by a thousand cuts from the loss of jobs in the manufacturing industry?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Lady proves the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). She is focusing on particular areas of difficulty, which is understandable, while not acknowledging the spectacular success in Scotland as a whole. If the hon. Lady would like to see the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch), he would, I am sure, be delighted to talk to her about the possibility—[HON. MEMBERS: "A waste of time."] If the hon. Lady's attitude is that it would be a waste of time, she may recognise why Opposition Members are not aware of the spectacular successes that have been achieved by local enterprise companies throughout Scotland, not least in Renfrewshire, by getting out there, selling their areas and bringing in jobs. The hon. Lady should play a part in that.
    Mr. McFall: When the Secretary of State next meets the CBI, will he discuss issues affecting industry, such as local government reorganisation? Is he concerned by this week's Fraser of Allander report which states that 15,000 local authority jobs could be lost in the short term? His belated attempts to save 700 jobs at Cummins, welcome as they are, will be dwarfed 20 times over by the job losses. Does he not realise that the name of Forsyth will be indelibly linked with the painful cuts and savage job losses being experienced by every community in Scotland?
    Mr. Forsyth: People in local government deserve rather better than Opposition spokesmen who go round the country talking as the hon. Gentleman does. If he and his party are prepared to put up more money for local government and to commit themselves to that, they should say so. They should not go round the country pretending that they would provide money when they are not prepared to put up taxes and when they abstained in the vote on our tax cuts. When Labour Members are asked where the money would come from, they sit, if I may coin a phrase, like limpets on the Front Bench.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the latest percentage figures for unemployment in Scotland; and what is the average for the EU. [15792]
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: Unemployment in Scotland is about 1.5 per cent. lower than the European average.
    Mr. Coombs: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that non-wage labour costs in Scotland are 50 per cent. lower than those in France and Spain? Has he also noticed that in those two countries, unemployment is between 50 per cent. and 300 per cent. higher than it is in Scotland? Does he imagine that companies such as Chunghwa Picture

    881
    Tubes would have brought 3,300 jobs to Lanarkshire if the social chapter and the national minimum wage were imposed on Scotland as they are on France and Spain?
    Mr. Forsyth: I quote a socialist, Jacques Delors, who said that Scotland and Britain would be a paradise for inward investment if we were allowed to opt out of the social chapter. Out of the mouth of a socialist, we have confirmation that the socialist policies of the social chapter, the minimum wage and the tartan tax, to which Opposition Members—I mean Members of all Opposition parties, not just the Labour party—are committed would indeed destroy inward investment.
    My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the fact that the countries which follow those socialist policies have a poorer record on job creation and on the proportion of the work force in employment than this country. The price of the Opposition's policies will be paid in lost jobs by the people of Scotland if the Opposition are ever given an opportunity to put their policies into practice in central Government.
    Mr. Donohoe: Just when will the Secretary of State concede that the only tartan tax there has ever been in Scotland was the poll tax, for which he was responsible?
    Mr. Forsyth: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the poll tax or community charge was introduced in Scotland a year ahead of its introduction in England. Labour Members campaigned strongly against that, arguing that it was an outrage that Scotland should have to pay a tax ahead of England. Yet the same Labour Members propose that Scotland should have to pay a tax year after year after year—a tartan tax and a tax on Scotland's jobs. That is Labour policy. Labour Members are now going round saying that the Conservative party is telling lies about the tartan tax.
    Labour's partner in the constitutional convention, the leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown)—[HON. MEMBERS: "The Liberal Democrat party."] I should have said, the leader of the Liberal Democrats. He was on Scottish television only last Sunday committing himself to spending the tartan tax. Here we have it. One group of the partners denies that the tartan tax exists while the other group in the constitutional convention is busily spending the money even before a Scottish Parliament has been set up. A tartan tax would be a disaster for jobs in Scotland and the hon. Gentleman is right to point out how unfair it would be.
    Mr. John Carlisle: This is the first time in 17 years as a Member of Parliament that I have attended Scottish Question Time, and it has been pretty depressing to hear the whingeing and whining from Opposition Members who are constantly asking for money and disparaging the excellent work of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. May I tell my right hon. Friend that as a representative of a small company that is trying increase the number of jobs in our part of Scotland, we will continue our efforts despite the attitudes and policies espoused by the Opposition?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's commitment to creating jobs in Scotland. If he comes to Scottish Question Time regularly, he will find that it is something of an acquired taste.
    Mr. McAvoy: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that one of the big disincentives to creating employment
    882
    in my constituency is the chromium waste sites throughout Cambuslang and Rutherglen? He has referred to Scottish Enterprise. Could he explain to my constituents who will pay for the clearance of those sites, bearing in mind the so-called voluntary 7 per cent. cut in Scottish Enterprise's funds?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that a reduction in Scottish Enterprise's budget means that the scope for additional expenditure is clearly limited. My complaint is not with the hon. Gentleman, but with his Front-Bench colleagues who attack us for reducing the Scottish Enterprise budget by 7.5 per cent., when Scottish Enterprise is prepared to maintain all services and outputs within that budget.
    Mr. Connarty: It has cut the training budgets.
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman says that Scottish Enterprise has cut the training budgets, but it is to maintain the levels of training. That is the kind of attitude that we want to see.
    Mr. Connarty: That is impossible.
    Mr. Forsyth: It is not impossible—it is about operating an efficient public service, and that is what Scottish Enterprise is doing. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) cannot argue for more money for local government—we have given local government £26.5 million extra, money which came from Scottish Enterprise—while complaining about a reduction in Scottish Enterprise's budget. He is complaining about priorities and, in this case, the money has gone to local government. On his particular point about dealing with land pollution, I will be happy to discuss that with Scottish Enterprise and I will write to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. McAllion: Does the Secretary of State understand that unemployment in Scotland is set to increase next year by a minimum of 4,500 as a direct result of the cuts that he is imposing on Scottish local government? He seems determined to destroy those jobs, as well as the many thousands of other jobs that depend upon locally provided services in Scotland. How can he come to the Dispatch Box and pose as the defender of employment in Scotland, when the truth is that he is the destroyer of jobs in Scotland? He is not so much the Secretary of State for Scotland as the Secretary of State for continuing and rising mass unemployment in Scotland.
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman got his knuckles rapped for suggesting that the £395 million of extra expenditure that he wants to go to local government could come from the health service. If we were to take £395 million out of the health service budget, some 15,000 nurses and doctors would be made redundant in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman must get it into his head that the role of local government is to provide services, and not to provide employment. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that taking £395 million out of the Scottish Office budget would not result in job losses, he is living in a dream world. The hon. Gentleman must recognise that efficient local government is part of competitiveness, and competitiveness is essential to job creation in Scotland.

    Special Education
    Mrs. Ray Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to ensure continued funding for centres offering special education opportunities to children after local government reorganisation. [15795]
    Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Each new council will take over the existing statutory duty to secure adequate and efficient provision of school education and will, like their predecessors, have substantial resources available for all aspects of that education.
    Mrs. Michie: Is the Minister aware that a real threat hangs over the educational residential outdoor centres in my constituency, particularly Achnamara, Castle Toward and Caol Ruadh? If they close, 60 more jobs will be lost in Argyll and underprivileged, deprived children with special needs from Glasgow, Lanark, Renfrew and Ayrshire will not have access to such places. Will he give an undertaking that those excellent centres will not be sacrificed on the altar of so-called cost efficiency savings?
    Mr. Robertson: We announced arrangements for the transfer of property from the existing local authorities to the new councils last September. There is no reason why a smooth transfer of the ownership of the outdoor centres should not go ahead. If the hon. Lady has any cause for real concern or particular problems that she would like to discuss with me, my door is open to her. The Property Commission has been established to resolve any disputes. Where authorities value the facilities provided, I do not see why new authorities could not or would not make the appropriate arrangements to share them. I am sure that they will want to ensure that children from their areas have the widest opportunity to participate in the stimulating environment that such centres have provided and, I believe, will continue to provide.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Will my hon. Friend confirm that there are some 300,000 surplus places in schools in Scotland? If so, is there not substantial room for reorganisation to provide a better service at a better price?
    Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is right to point out that the Accounts Commission identified some 300,000 surplus school places in Scotland. It qualified that by saying that once geographic, denominational and other factors were considered, the figure would be lower. However, there is substantial scope for serious rationalisation of school places in Scotland. I hope that the new authorities that will come into force on 1 April will take the opportunity to consider the issue sensibly and realistically while at all times involving the parents of the children concerned.
    Mr. Macdonald: Is the Minister aware of the concern that the special provision for Gaelic-medium education may be affected by local government reorganisation? When will the Government respond to the report of Her Majesty's inspectorate on Gaelic-medium education that came out two years ago? Will he undertake that payments under the specific grants scheme will continue to be made after reorganisation and into the foreseeable future?
    Mr. Robertson: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are wholly committed to Gaelic
    884
    education. I have had a series of meetings, as has my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland who is responsible for Gaelic language issues, with interested groups over the past few months. We are considering the HMI report on the future of Gaelic education and I hope to be able to announce positive recommendations in the near future. I can confirm that the specific grant for Gaelic education will continue and that next year it will be £1.9 million.
    Mrs. Liddell: Will the Minister reconsider his reply to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) because he has addressed only part of the problem? A significant problem for Scotland's new local authorities will arise from the provision of pre-five special needs education. The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy figures for provision of special needs places suggest that it costs £16,214 to provide a pre-five place for a child with special needs; the nursery voucher is for £1,100. Who is to pay the difference: is it to be the parent or the local council? Will he explain why on 25 November, officials of South Lanarkshire council were told by Scottish Office officials that the private sector would not be expected to make pre-five special needs provision because it would be too costly and that local authorities would have to provide for those needs? Is the local council tax payer being asked to subsidise that vital service to protect private sector profits?
    Mr. Robertson: The hon. Lady should not write her questions before she comes into the Chamber. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) was talking about not special educational needs but the future of outdoor centres in her constituency. The hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) should know that the same funding mechanism for children with special educational needs will apply after 1 April. Where the fulfilment of their statutory duties to children with special educational needs requires the involvement of particular support services, the new authorities will be well placed to arrange it.

    Residential Homes
    Ms Rachel Squire: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on registration and inspection procedures for nursing and residential homes. [15798]
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: A project is under way to produce national standards for the inspection and registration of nursing homes to assist health boards in the discharge of their statutory responsibilities. A Scottish Office working group is also reviewing registration and inspection procedures for residential homes, and will be reporting shortly.
    Ms Squire: What specific action does the Minister intend, and what additional resources will he provide, to ensure that vigorous and effective inspection procedures have been established by 1 April, when the new councils come into effect? Will he encourage all councils and, indeed, health boards to follow Fife's example, and establish joint inspection units dealing with both residential and nursing homes?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Scottish Office and health board general managers working groups are

    885
    considering the possibility of joint registration of establishments. We give guidance to local authorities, including guidance to enable them to fulfil responsibilities. As for resources, I am glad to report that more than £65 million has been allocated for spending on residential and nursing homes in 1996–97, and that an additional £39.5 million will be added to the DSS transfer to local authorities for the continuation of community care
    886
    responsibilities. The total is expected to be around £300 million, most of which is expected to be spent on the residential sector.
    Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: Order. Points of order are dealt with after statements.

Millennium Exhibition
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement to the House about the millennium exhibition.
The Millennium Commission, of which I am chairman, announced this morning its preference to hold an exhibition, based on the theme of time, on the Greenwich peninsula in the year 2000. Following consultation, the commission announced last year its aspirations for a national exhibition to provide the focus for the celebrations of the year 2000. The commission believed that there should be a single shared experience for the whole nation as we move into the 21st century, and that we should celebrate our achievements, abilities and potential as a nation.
The commission, with only grant-giving powers, needed to identify a location and an organisation capable of producing an event that would meet the commission's aspirations and justify the expenditure of lottery money. The commission therefore conducted two separate competitive processes, to identify the potential site and the potential operator. In January, it announced that it had decided not to proceed with the Derby or Stratford sites, and that it had asked Imagination Group Ltd. to develop further its proposals for the exhibition, to enable the commission to make a fully informed choice between the two remaining sites—the national exhibition centre and the Greenwich peninsula. Today's announcement by the commission takes the process closer to a firm commitment to finance an exhibition.
The commission was impressed by the NEC's potential: it was at the heart of the country, was well networked and had a sound operational track record. The strength of local support and the dedication and commitment of the team greatly impressed the commission; I pay tribute to that. The commission decided, however, that Greenwich offered the greatest potential as the site for an exhibition that would meet the commission's aspirations, allowing more people to see a more exciting presentation of the exhibition theme based on time. The chosen site is on the prime meridian, and the Imagination proposals for Greenwich feature "The Circle of Time", adding a potential dramatic landmark.
Moreover, the Greenwich peninsula could enable the commission to deliver a substantial legacy by regenerating an important part of south London through a potential permanent entertainment and leisure development, together with residential and retail space. It could also stimulate the further regeneration of the remaining British Gas landholding on the peninsula. That would represent excellent value for grant.
I stress that the celebration will not be confined to Greenwich; there will be a nationwide programme. The programme organisation will begin later this year. In 1997, we will see the development of a series of regional centres to shape the content of the exhibition. Artistic, scientific, historical and sporting components will be incorporated into the millennium exhibition. In 2000, each region will own a week in the millennium exhibition programme and will deliver its vision of the new millennium. The exhibition will be presented in 12 themed pavilions, each focusing on a different
888
interpretation of time—such as "Action Time" and "Past Time"—with parallel entertainment, education and activity programmes.
The commission is inviting Sir Peter Levene to examine the work completed to date and the work that Imagination, British Gas and English Partnerships are undertaking, and to provide advice to the commission by its May meeting as to whether a sound and commercially viable proposal is deliverable. If so, the commission expects to confirm the grant, partnership funding, planning and other implementational issues by September. British Gas will now proceed with site decontamination and preparation works on the Greenwich peninsula.
For the first time, the commission has made public its financial commitment to the exhibition—in principle, it is willing to commit up to £200 million in lottery grant to the exhibition, and the remaining capital and operating costs will be raised from other sources. The commission stressed that the exhibition depends on the private sector to deliver its full potential. The commission will need to be fully satisfied of the viability of the whole project, including the firm commitment of private sector support, before confirming its grant decision.
The exhibition is the single most significant event to be funded by the national lottery. The lottery is already helping to regenerate the cultural fabric of the country, providing financial assistance to projects that develop social cohesion by bringing people together to participate in sport, the arts and heritage projects. It is changing the landscape for community involvement.
With a project of this scale, it is inevitable that there will be implications for Government. In order to ensure that the Government's participation is well planned and co-ordinated, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has today announced that he has asked my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister to convene a ministerial group that will have the task of overseeing the Government's role and taking forward the necessary planning of any Government involvement in this event.
This unique opportunity to stage the millennium exhibition would not be possible without the contribution from the national lottery, which has already brought benefits to people across the country. It provides the means by which the dreams and aspirations of the people can find their realisation. Future generations will look back on the millennium exhibition as the time and the place when the United Kingdom showed the world just what we can achieve, working together as a nation to leave a truly lasting legacy for the future.
Dr. John Cunningham: The right hon. Lady has made an important statement about one of the largest projects that we shall see in Britain over the coming years. She and her fellow commissioners had the unenviable task of deciding between the merits of excellent proposals from competing cities. There are natural and understandable disappointments as a result of the decision, particularly in Birmingham and throughout the west midlands.
A decision has at last been taken—after a somewhat extended and perhaps even byzantine process—during which time those hoping to host the exhibition could not discuss their proposals with those hoping to operate it, and vice versa. I am sure that hon. Members would like to know why that convoluted process was introduced.

889
Today the right hon. Lady has made it clear to hon. Members that there is still no certainty that a viable project has emerged. It might be described as a chronicle of wasted time. However, many people share the view that Greenwich is an appropriate choice for the home of the exhibition, as the meridian has been used as the basis of international time reckoning for over 100 years.
May I make it clear to the Secretary of State that we recognise the huge potential of the millennium exhibition, not simply for Greenwich or even London, but nationally and internationally? It will be of key importance for Britain and for our economy, directly through tourism and, indirectly as a shop window for Britain, especially as Britain's and London's cultural, creative and innovative industries will have an opportunity to develop further there.
Which Ministers and Government Departments will be represented on the proposed ministerial group that the right hon. Lady mentioned? What co-ordination will take place between those Departments? What will be the relationship of that group with the Millennium Commission? Is the group taking charge of the project rather than the commission? If so, that makes it a political matter, when the purpose of the commission was to establish a non-party political approach to what was being proposed. Is not it, to say the least, curious that the Deputy Prime Minister is to chair that ministerial group, rather than the right hon. Lady? What is the explanation for that?
I must express our best wishes to Councillor Len Duval, his team in Greenwich and Greenwich Millennium Trust, on their success in winning this project. How will the Government respond to the trust's proposal that a guarantee should be given that the Jubilee line will be operational at the time of the exhibition, that a river boat service from central London to Greenwich will be provided and that there will be a connection between Greenwich and the British Rail network, perhaps by the construction of a tramway system?
Is not the proposal that the millennium exhibition site be a car-free zone very appropriate in the circumstances? But is not it essential that those public transport infrastructure developments are completed and operational in time? If that is not so, is not the right hon. Lady's claim that this will be a truly national exhibition likely not to be fulfilled as we would all wish it to be?
Can the right hon. Lady tell us more about the proposed regional centres, which will be part of the exhibition? Where will they be located, when will the sites be identified and what process will be used to decide on them? How long does she plan the exhibition to last?
What thought has been given to the potential long-term gains for Greenwich, London and the nation of such huge investments? Half a billion pounds in total—some people estimate even more—will perhaps be invested in the project. Surely we must construct buildings of quality, which will stand the test of time, as this country did in 1851 in south Kensington and again in 1951 with the Royal Festival hall. It does not create much confidence in the decisions that have been announced today, when we are curiously left uncertain as to whether the Government can ensure that the proposals will actually come into being.
Mrs. Bottomley: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his overall recognition of the complexity and difficulty of
890
the decision that has been taken and of the special role that Greenwich can play, not only nationally but internationally. It was a difficult decision, but it was the commission's ultimate view that Greenwich offered the opportunity to leave a landmark development on that significant Thames-side site, provided a great impetus for the regeneration of the derelict site on that peninsula and offered the potential to create new economic opportunities for a depressed area. Like the right hon. Gentleman, we believe that the potential for tourism is important, not only nationally—15 million visitors are expected—but internationally.
Further details of the proposals are yet to be announced. I shall have to leave many of the precise elements to Imagination to announce itself in due course. One of the strong themes of the concept is the regional component, and different parts of the country will participate and contribute their own elements to the exhibition.
I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's reference to the 1851 and 1951 exhibitions. We want our millennium exhibition and festival to exceed even those. The right hon. Gentleman asked about the ministerial group, details of which are set out in an answer from the Prime Minister this afternoon. It includes Ministers from the different countries of the United Kingdom and the Secretaries of State for the Environment, for Transport and for the Home Department. The intention is to co-ordinate support for the millennium exhibition, including questions of planning, transport, and crowd control and security.
Inevitably at times, with such an enormous project, it will be necessary to co-ordinate with the Government. We have set that in hand, but the Millennium Commission, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, is independent. It benefits from the contribution of a member who is the nominee of the Leader of the Opposition and, undoubtedly, the care and the rigour with which the decisions have been scrutinised by the commission cannot be overstated. I pay special tribute to the chairman of the festival committee, Simon Jenkins, who has taken an inordinate amount of care, time and trouble—with the rest of the festival committee—to reach the point at which we could announce the decision.
Mr. John Biffen: As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is in the market for another job, may I suggest that he be directed to establish a millennium-free zone, to which all those may repair who do not want to be deafened and drenched by millennium mania in the next two or three years?
Mrs. Bottomley: I hate to fall out so strongly with such a respected and revered Member of the House, but I believe that the millennium is an important moment for the nation, because we have proud traditions and a great future also. Our nation should take the opportunity to celebrate our achievements, abilities and potential. I believe that the celebration will be a unifying event and greatly enjoyed by all.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Of course, it is right that there should be millennium celebrations up and down the land, but my colleagues and I wish to welcome the announcement that Greenwich has been chosen. It is the obvious and best site, and it will provide the most exciting opportunity for a lasting celebration for the local, regional and national good.

891
Can the Secretary of State confirm that we shall use the opportunity afforded by the announcement to ensure that the whole of the Thames, from Battersea and Vauxhall down to Greenwich, becomes Europe's leading arts, recreational and cultural centre? Can we ensure that the exhibition is truly a people's exhibition that all people can afford to visit?
Finally, it is an irony that the Government's greatest exhibitionist has been chosen to run the exhibition.
Mrs. Bottomley: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his recognition of the wonderful site for the exhibition. I think that it will be a great success, not only nationally but internationally. Many people endorse his vision of the Thames, and the national lottery gives us an opportunity to invest in many environmental improvements and projects of artistic excellence along the Thames. It is exciting to see that wonderful river being improved and restored and people taking opportunities to benefit from it. The hon. Gentleman is probably aware that some of the concepts involved in the festival at Greenwich will use the Thames as it should be used, which is as a means of transport.
Mr. Peter Brooke: Given the high precedent set in 1851 and 1951, I sympathise with my right hon. Friend on the challenge with which the commission was faced. I congratulate the commission on the thoroughness and imagination of the consideration that led to the decision. I hope that the architecture will be worthy of the traditions of Inigo Jones and Sir Christopher Wren, so that the whole nation can unite behind making the exhibition a worthy successor to its great predecessors.
Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my right hon. Friend, whose diligence and foresight did much to set in place the work of the Millennium Commission and the ideas that it has initiated. I was slightly alarmed when I was passed his first document as chairman of the Millennium Commission, as it reminded the readers that the last millennium was presided over by Ethelred the Unready. We hope to be better prepared than that.
I take to heart my right hon. Friend's comments about architecture. I believe that the millennium should be a moment for recognising the past and celebrating the future. Good design in the buildings that are part of the exhibition and in all those buildings funded by the national lottery should be one of the key criteria.
Mr. Nick Raynsford: I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and for the decision that the millennium festival and exhibition should be located on the meridian line in Greenwich, which is the most natural place to celebrate the millennium in Britain. The decision will be warmly welcomed in an area that has suffered disproportionately from industrial decline and unemployment, because of the regeneration capacity and the scope for creating up to 10,000 new jobs. I put it to the right hon. Lady that a great deal of work will need to be done over the next three and a half years on a tight time scale, and I urge her to ensure that the Millennium Commission and the Government give their full support
892
to all those in Greenwich who will be working flat out in the months and years ahead, to ensure that the exhibition is truly worthy of its predecessors in 1851 and 1951.
Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman is right to identify the amount of work that remains to be done in order to bring this site of enormous potential into full life. The legacy of the river walks and the leisure, entertainment, residential and retail opportunities is formidable, but it will be a major task, with a tight timetable. I am confident that, with the good will of all the parties involved, we can achieve it.
Mr. John Butcher: When my right hon. Friend said that the millennium should be
"a single shared experience for the whole nation"
does not that invite us to allow the nation, through a free vote in the House, to express an opinion on the two sites, closely contested as the decision was? I have no idea whether the people of Scotland, Wales or the north would prefer to go to London rather than Birmingham, but at least let there be a free vote after a short debate to look at the options.
Having spoken to some of the people in the design industry and some of the technologists who will be involved in the project, I can tell my right hon. Friend that there is already a fear that, if too much of the money available is spent on infrastructure and buildings, we may end up with a slightly tattier exhibition inside them than would be the case at the more cost-effective site in the midlands.
Mrs. Bottomley: I am not convinced that a vote in the House would be the most appropriate way of making the decision, although I would dare wager with my hon. Friend that, if hon. Members had to make a decision, they would all favour their own constituency and, following that, they would probably say that the capital city was as good a place as any in which to have the festival. That is simply a humble matter of conjecture. In a speech 18 months ago, the Prime Minister referred to the Millennium Commission's work and said:
"Never have so many advised so few about so much. And it will get worse. But since the Commission is a fiercely independent body, and will remain so, I do not regard myself as in any way disqualified from adding to their burden."
He was referring to matters other than where the site of the millennium festival should be, but his words were indeed prophetic.
Mr. John Maxton: Is the Secretary of State aware that there will be considerable dismay in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland at the total failure to recognise that there are nations within the United Kingdom as well as regions? Is she further aware that the vast majority of my constituents will be unable to go to the exhibition in Greenwich, even though I welcome the fact that there will be an exhibition there? Why on earth did we not have a multi-site exhibition at several of the major cities, including, of course, Glasgow?
Mrs. Bottomley: As the hon. Gentleman sees the plans unfold in the year ahead, I think that he will be reassured by the extent to which all parts of the country will be involved in the millennium exhibition and festival.

893
With regard to different projects in various parts of the country, I am reminded that only recently there was a major Millennium Commission announcement for Hampden park. I seem to remember that, last Friday, Cardiff Arms park heard that it was to receive £46 million. Indeed, all parts of the country are benefiting, and the Millennium Commission has announced a number of substantial projects in all parts of the country, not only in the capital city.
Mr. Toby Jessel: Is my right hon,Friend aware that there is no point in having a capital city unless it is treated as such? Is she further aware that the National Heritage Select Committee recently took evidence from the British Tourist Authority, that the great majority of potential foreign visitors want to come to London? That being so, the decision that has been made will result in more visitors coming to Britain, which will benefit the economy as a whole.
Mrs. Bottomley: It is my view that we should be proud of our capital city. It is a cultural, commercial and communications centre of very high quality, and the millennium festival will add greatly to the opportunities.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the correct title under statute of English Partnerships, which has been bought into this, is the Urban Regeneration Agency, which is funded by £190 million a year of Government money? Will she tell us at what point and on what date urban regeneration became a key factor in the millennium exhibition? If it was a key factor, no one in the midlands would ever have bid for what in effect is a green-field site at the national exhibition centre. It naturally follows, therefore, either that the rules were misunderstood in the midlands or that they changed after the exercise began.
Will the Secretary of State further confirm, as she has not yet done so, that Imagination will be the operator at Greenwich, because at no time did it ever give details of the millennium exhibition at the Greenwich site out of choice? It did so only after Birmingham's bid, which was seen to be superior to the other operator, had been seen behind closed doors. It tried to transpose what it had done for the NEC to Greenwich. Will Imagination be the operator at Greenwich?
Mrs. Bottomley: First, to deal with English Partnerships, its work is to promote the reclamation and development of vacant, derelict and contaminated land throughout England, to stimulate local enterprise, create jobs and improve the environment. It acts primarily as an enabler, working in partnership with other bodies involved in urban regeneration. It is believed that its involvement in the scheme at Greenwich will enable the work to be completed in time for the millennium. The commission always took the view that the legacy from the exhibition was important. There are legacies of various kinds, but a legacy involving major regeneration and restoring the river walkways was one that captured the imagination of the commission.
Of course, Birmingham was not the only other site. My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) was a vigorous champion of the Derby proposal. The site is magnificent, but the commission took the view that it was not possible to bring it forward to the
894
short short-list. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) has been a formidable champion of the NEC case and of the significance of the west midlands. The commission was aware of the great excitement and the pressure from people in various parts of the country to favour their particular sites.
Mr. Rooker: You changed the rules.
Mrs. Bottomley: Throughout, the commission has acted openly, fairly, and swiftly in making a decision that it felt was right for the nation as we celebrate the new millennium.
Sir Norman Fowler: Is the Secretary of State aware that there will inevitably be great disappointment in Birmingham about the decision, but that that is as nothing compared with the anger that will be felt at the manner in which the decision was made, the latest example of which was raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker)? How does she explain why the corporation of London was briefed and allowed to announce the decision last Friday, when all other information of any kind was being refused point blank to the rival bidder? Is there any conceivable way in which Birmingham and the NEC could have won the so-called contest?
Mrs. Bottomley: I shall answer my right hon. Friend's last question first. Undoubtedly, the NEC might well have won the contest. It is well known to all of us as Ministers; it is accessible, provides an excellent service and is extremely popular. I can speak warmly of the constructive and co-operative approach of the team there. The decision was very finely balanced, but for reasons that I have set out, the commission's view is that the right place to hold the festival is Greenwich.
As for information becoming public, I am a mere novice in this place and in politics in general, compared with my right hon. Friend, and he will know how, with the best will in the world and the most careful preparation, information that one greatly wishes to remain confidential sometimes hits the public domain in advance. That is a source of great regret. However, the exhibition is an extremely complex matter and many different interests are involved. My right hon. Friend will know that keeping matters confidential is difficult enough even within Government, and I think that when one is taking forward plans involving so many different bodies, it is understandable how the information was released, much though I deplore the fact.
Mr. David Clelland: Is the Secretary of State aware that one region that has not benefited from millennium funds is the northern region? One element of the exhibition that she described could be provided by the International Centre for Life, proposed by Tyne and Wear development corporation and supported by Newcastle university and Newcastle city council. That is the most innovative, futuristic and imaginative scheme yet put to the Millennium Commission, yet it has been inexplicably deferred. Will the Secretary of State look into that?
Mrs. Bottomley: I am aware of the project that the hon. Gentleman describes, because many of those involved in it were associates of mine in a previous job. It sounds an

895
exciting project, but it must be well established, with funding properly settled, and several other issues must be resolved first. I must correct the hon. Gentleman about millennium funding, because Tyneside, for example, has received £5.7 million for the Smith's park regeneration project. I was in Newcastle only the other day, and I marvelled not only at the investment in the area and the regeneration taking place there, but at how much of that now revolves round arts, sports, heritage and the other cultural activities to which the lottery has made the most formidable contribution.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the mantle of Prince Albert is to sit easily on the shoulders of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, it is important, first, that the buildings that house the exhibition are of pre-eminent quality and, secondly, that the exhibition is not dominated by gimmicks, but is a reflection of the best that this country has produced and can produce? Does she agree that the whole thing will be a total mockery unless the Royal Naval college at Greenwich is properly reprieved and remains a public building and institution through the next millennium?
Mrs. Bottomley: Far be it from me to deflect from the formidable contribution for which we hope from the Deputy Prime Minister, but his role as a member of the Millennium Commission is probably at least as significant as his role as chairman of the ministerial group. This is a highly complex, important project. Vast sums of money and a tight timetable will be involved and it is important to be able to streamline the relations with different Departments. The question of building design is given careful consideration, and the chief architectural adviser at the Department of National Heritage will shortly meet all the different lottery distribution bodies to discuss their measures, to ensure that the buildings constructed as a result of the national lottery are of high-quality design.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: How is it that this Government and previous Tory Governments always seem to make of any issue to do with the arts and the heritage—and we have only got to ask people who work in those areas—either a minor farce or a major tragedy? How does this arise time after time in this area? More specifically, would the right hon. Lady be prepared to receive representations from some of her colleagues as to an excellent project that is being thought up, which will be an illuminated statue trail all the way from the National gallery to the Tate gallery?
Mrs. Bottomley rose—
Mr. Faulds: A brief answer, please.
Mrs. Bottomley: It takes one to know one. The only major tragedy, of course, would be if the Labour party were ever in power. It seems to want only to cap the prizes and to increase the lottery's operating costs, which would mean that we would be unable to invest in these great opportunities. The hon. Gentleman refers to a statue trail, which is one of many exciting initiatives presented for lottery funding. I would be extremely sympathetic to
896
it, but I am merely the humble chairman of the Millennium Commission, which is served by a group of independent-minded, wilful human beings who do not follow a three-line Whip from their chairman.
Mr. Michael Jopling: Does the Secretary of State understand that many people in the north of England will not share in the grumpy noises that have been made on the Back Benches and that they will look forward to visiting the exhibition? They would much prefer to visit it in London than in Birmingham, which they think of as a place that people go through on the way to London. They will think it especially appropriate for the exhibition to be in London, remembering that 90 per cent. of lottery awards so far have been awarded to places outside London.
Will the Secretary of State give particular attention to the problem of Cumbria, which sits uneasily between the northern and north-west regions, to ensure that, when the regional role arises in 1997 and 2000, Cumbria has a special place, bearing in mind the magnificent future that it has?
Mrs. Bottomley: Although my right hon. Friend expressed sentiments with which I think many hon. Members would agree, perhaps he was unduly harsh about the joys of Birmingham. I think I made it clear that there were many strengths in Birmingham's bid, and it is certainly a magnificent city. I shall certainly bear in mind my right hon. Friend's comments about Cumbria. As we reach the first anniversary of the distribution of lottery awards, all the distributing bodies wish to be sure that every part of the country has benefited. It is remarkable that, although awards have been made for under a year, already 5,121 awards totalling £1,225 million have been made. That is a remarkable success story in a short time.
Mr. Roger Godsiff: Does the Minister acknowledge that the whole bidding process has been an absolute charade? Will she confirm that the decision about London was taken some time ago and that the excuses that have been trotted out about Birmingham and the other cities are merely to fit that decision? Will she explain the position of Imagination? Which site does it favour, bearing it in mind that it worked on the Birmingham bid and has now been brought into the London one? Were the bidding rules changed? Birmingham complied exactly with the time scale, but can the Minister explain why London was given additional weeks to put together its proposals?
Mrs. Bottomley: The commission has sought throughout to be absolutely fair and even-handed. It set a timetable that it knew was tight, but there was always the potential to ask for further information, to satisfy itself on additional points as it made progress. Imagination is a most exciting concept, involving "The Circle of Time" and the participation of all parts of the country. In its original presentation to the festival committee and the commission, it had worked up proposals for all the different sites that are involved. When the commission first saw the Imagination proposals, "The Circle of Time" plans had been worked out for the Greenwich peninsula.
Mr. Richard Tracey: I am sure that my right hon. Friend would agree that the decision is a

897
considerable tribute to the beneficial effects of the national lottery which, of course, was introduced by a Conservative Government. Will she go beyond the statement on the success of Greenwich and consider the frankly overdue enhancement of many of the benefits along the great River Thames? They include Bankside, the plans for the beautiful Battersea park by Wandsworth council, and the plans for further along the river by my own borough, the royal borough of Kingston upon Thames. That is all good news for London, which we should look at as a whole.
Mrs. Bottomley: It is indeed good news for London, and I note that a news release from London First today states:
"This is a unique opportunity to regenerate a major part of London and will provide a lasting legacy for the generations to come. As importantly, it will act as a springboard for London to lead the world into the next millennium."
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Secretary of State agree that there are three other sites close to the chosen exhibition site, which could house associated activities? They are the Meridian site in West Ham, which is less than a mile away; the royal docks, which are 500 yd from the site; and, pre-eminently, Greenwich town. Will she answer the question of her hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) and assure us that the premises of the Royal Naval college will be available during that period? Finally, because Greenwich is a measurement not only of time but of longitude 0 deg, will the right hon. Lady and her groups take suggestions about enlarging the millennium concept into the international and global spheres?
Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman reminds me of some of the other sites involved, especially the Stratford site, which has enormous potential and where I have no doubt that considerable development will take place. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) and the hon. Gentleman for omitting to mention the Royal Naval college—a magnificent Sir Christopher Wren building. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is leading efforts to find a viable future purpose for that truly magnificent building. The hon. Gentleman is probably aware that we are proposing that it should become a UNESCO world heritage site. He will therefore understand to what extent my Department is involved in ensuring that that wonderful heritage is not only safeguarded but properly and fully used.
Mr. Peter Viggers: Following that point directly, is my right hon. Friend aware that the Select Committee considering the Armed Forces Bill is tasked among other things with considering granting our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence the right to issue a 150-year lease for Greenwich hospital? Does she agree that her announcement should cause one to look more imaginatively at the whole Greenwich site, and perhaps consider joining the national maritime museum site and Greenwich hospital?
Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend makes an exciting and interesting proposal. That site, on which was built a
898
palace that became a hospital and is now a college, needs to find a new and practical purpose. I believe strongly that heritage should not be fossilised but used, visited and treasured. It is perhaps the most remarkable site in the country. If the plans for the festival involving the use of water transport make progress, very many more people will have the opportunity to see the site from the water as well as visiting it on foot. I shall pass on my hon. Friend's other suggestions to those who are more involved in the detail of the festival.
Mr. Terry Davis: If Greenwich and London were such natural and obvious choices, why was a competition held in the first place? Is the right hon. Lady aware that the fact that she could hardly keep her face straight when she read the statement will be taken as conclusive evidence that the competition was a farce from beginning to end?
Mrs. Bottomley: Of course, the hon. Gentleman is entitled to his opinion. I can say only that the Millennium Commission was extremely diligent about having a competition for the site and a separate debate about the operator. Fifty-seven potential sites were offered to host the festival, and four potential operators came forward. It was a very difficult decision. The hon. Gentleman sees an expression of delight on my face because very many hours of deliberation and debate have for the time being reached a conclusion. It is the right decision, and it will lead to a great deal of fulfilment and opportunity for the people of this country.
Mr. James Pawsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that her announcement will be greeted with great disappointment in Birmingham and the west midlands? Birmingham is the nation's second city and a great deal more than simply an industrial or scientific centre. It has a growing reputation for culture. My right hon. Friend's announcement will do nothing to encourage Birmingham. Other hon. Members have said that people travel through Birmingham on the way to London. That is one reason why the exhibition should have been given to Birmingham. It would have established an alternative centre. My right hon. Friend should understand that there is life outside London.
Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is exactly right. I have here a list of 50 different lottery awards that have gone to the Birmingham area. Two are very substantial—one to the Ikon gallery and one to the City of Birmingham symphony orchestra. It is a very exciting and vibrant city, with a very good university. There is a great deal of activity. Although I regret that it has not on this occasion won the opportunity to stage the millennium festival, I am aware that it has submitted another very substantial millennium bid, for which it hopes it will receive tens of millions of pounds, for one of the flagship regeneration projects.
Mr. John Austin-Walker: In welcoming the commission's decision on what I see as the obvious site on the prime meridian in Greenwich, I also welcome the announcement that, although Greenwich will be the focus of celebrations, there will be regional and local celebrations also. Does the right hon. Lady share my view that not only should it be an opportunity for fun and

899
enjoyment, but there should be a lasting legacy, and the Greenwich site provides that opportunity in terms of sustainable development and economic regeneration? Will she impress upon the Deputy Prime Minister, who is to chair the committee, the importance of sustainable development, of the tramlink, of the use of the river for public transport and of the regeneration of the arsenal site and its heritage proposals?
Mrs. Bottomley: I will. It was precisely the elements that the hon. Gentleman identified that persuaded the commission—difficult though the decision was—that the Greenwich site was the right place to have the festival. It will be a shared national experience, bringing together the successes of the past and our aspirations for the future, to provide hope and inspiration for us all as we enter the next millennium.
Madam Speaker: Thank you. We now move to the statement by the Prime Minister.

Northern Ireland
4.21 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With your permission, Madam Speaker, I will make a statement on the Anglo-Irish summit earlier today and its implications for the peace process in Northern Ireland.
The Taoiseach and I met in Downing street this afternoon and agreed a way forward set out in our communique, copies of which I hope by now will have been placed in the Library of the House. Let me summarise the main points of the approach.
First, both Governments condemn unreservedly the IRA abandonment of the ceasefire and subsequent acts of terrorism, and call for the immediate and unequivocal restoration of that ceasefire. Secondly, we have confirmed that the two Governments will have no ministerial dialogue with Sinn Fein until the ceasefire is restored.
Thirdly, we and the Irish Government will conduct further intense consultations with the parties between now and mid-March. After that, this Government will bring forward for consideration by this House appropriate legislation for the elective process and we will take other decisions necessary for the peace process to take place. As the communiqué makes clear, the Irish Government can support an elective process that is broadly acceptable.
Fourthly, both Governments reaffirm their commitment to all-party negotiations with a comprehensive agenda. These will be convened on 10 June, following a broadly acceptable elective process. Whether those negotiations will include Sinn Fein will depend on whether the ceasefire has been restored. Fifthly, we have agreed that, at the beginning of the negotiations, in order to build confidence, all participants, including Sinn Fein if the ceasefire has been restored, will need to make clear their total and absolute commitment to the principles of democracy and non-violence set out in the Mitchell report, and to address also at the beginning of the negotiations Senator Mitchell's proposals on decommissioning of weapons.
I believe that these agreements and commitments represent a balanced approach, to which I hope all the parties in Northern Ireland will feel able to subscribe. No one will find in there all that he may have asked for; equally, no one need fear that his basic interests and requirements are being overlooked.
The approach that the Taoiseach and I agreed marks out a clear route to all-party negotiations. We believe that this route is viable and direct. That is why we have set a firm date by which the negotiations will be launched. There is still the detail to be filled in, and some important issues to be settled. That is the purpose of the intensive consultations due to start next week and last until mid-March. But we now have the framework and a time scale to address and to decide these matters.
We are ready to meet all the parties in whatever format best suits them, but I repeat that there can be no dialogue between Ministers and Sinn Fein until the ceasefire is unequivocally restored. That, I must tell the House, is the position of the Irish Government as well.
The issues still to be settled include, first, the nature of the electoral system to be used in the elective process. There are strong views for and against different systems. Although the decision is for us, the British Government,

901
we first intend to explore and test all the options in discussions with the parties before coming to our decision on what seems most broadly acceptable. The second issue is the nature and role of an elected body that will come out of the elections. Again, there are strongly held views, although many believe that such a body has a role to play as a forum for peace. The third issue is the format, structure and agenda of the negotiations themselves.
We have been discussing these issues intensively with the Northern Ireland parties and with the Irish Government for some time. I should have liked to be in a position to announce agreement on these issues and to be able to publish detailed proposals today. There are, however, still gaps to be filled in.
If I judge that it would be helpful, I may put forward to the parties, and perhaps publish, specific written proposals during the consultations. At the end of that period, the two Governments will review the outcome. Whether or not final agreement on all issues can be reached during that period, let me make it clear that, at the end of it, the Government will put forward to the House legislative proposals for elections in Northern Ireland. Decisions on the other outstanding arrangements will also be announced.
These decisions will be taken on the basis of a judgment of what is most likely to be broadly acceptable to the parties and to the people of Northern Ireland. We have decided to act in this way to make it clear that the process cannot be held up further if, in the end, there is still a complete lack of agreement.
We are taking these decisions upon ourselves—together, where appropriate, with the Irish Government—because we do not believe that the overwhelming desire of the people of Northern Ireland for lasting peace will brook further delay. We are ready to fulfil our responsibilities.
There is one other aspect of the communiqué that I should bring to the attention of the House—the suggestion that there could be referendums in Northern Ireland and in the Irish Republic. These could be held on the same day as the proposed election in Northern Ireland. The aim would be to give the people of Northern Ireland the opportunity to speak clearly about their own commitment to peaceful democratic methods and rejection of violence.
The Government will consider further with the parties whether such a referendum would be valuable or not. There is clearly room for debate about what the question or questions should be in such a referendum, but we will listen to the views of the parties, and make our own views clear at the end of the consultation period.
Meanwhile, let there be no doubt on three points. The first is that there is no place whatsoever for violence or the threat of violence in the peace process or in the negotiations themselves. Those who advocate violence, or who do not dissociate themselves clearly from its use or the threat of its use by others, cannot expect others to go on sitting at the negotiating table with them.
Senator Mitchell's report sets out clear principles on democracy and non-violence, makes clear the priority to be attached to the decommissioning of illegal weapons, and makes proposals on how that can be tackled. These issues, however difficult, cannot be dodged. They will be on the table at the beginning of negotiations. If it becomes clear that any party is not committed to these principles
902
and this approach, either at the beginning of negotiations or subsequently, in our view there will be no place for them at the negotiating table.
The second point is that there has never been any justification for terrorism or violence in Northern Ireland. These proposals and the firm commitment to all-party negotiations by a fixed date will remove any lingering thread of obfuscation and pretence about that.
The third point is that the battle against terrorism is being intensified. Co-operation between the British and the Irish Governments has never been better than it is at the moment. We will hunt down those responsible for the bombings and killings, and maintain security at whatever level is necessary to protect the citizens of this country as they go about their daily business. The people of this country and of the Irish Republic have made clearer than ever before their demand for an end to violence. That demand must now be met, and the people have the right to expect the violence to stop for good.
The search for peace has been much complicated by the resumption of terrorism on 9 February; but the Government said that we would not be deflected from our efforts, and we have not been. I am grateful for the support for our efforts that we have received from all parts of the House and across all parties. We and the Irish Government are united in our determination to stamp out terrorism and to bring a lasting peace. With the support of this House, I believe that we will succeed. But I must warn the House that the road ahead may yet be long and stony. The men of violence will not give up lightly. Among them are people who do not truly want peace as we in this House understand it.
As we go through the process leading to the negotiations, and as we take the difficult decisions that lie ahead, concerns will be raised from this or that side, and this or that interest. We will take account of all views, but we will not be deflected from our central objective, because the men, women and children of Great Britain and Northern Ireland demand no less of us. Their lives and their futures must be our first concern. I commend to the House this approach to negotiations and, ultimately, to a lasting and comprehensive peace.
Mr. Tony Blair: May I welcome the statement, and the determination to try to put the peace process back on track? That is greatly to the credit of both the British and Irish Governments, and all the democratic parties in Northern Ireland. If, two weeks ago, optimism seemed somewhat incredible and hope completely out of place, at least today—although it is far too soon for optimism—there is some sense of renewed hope.
The statement has had to be put together quickly, and I wish to understand correctly two questions arising from it. First, how do we move forward to negotiations for a long-term settlement for Northern Ireland? Secondly, what are the essential minimum conditions before Sinn Fein will be allowed to participate?
On the first point, am I right in saying that the Prime Minister has now set 10 June as a firm date for all-party negotiations, and that multilateral consultations will begin almost immediately? If the consultations provide an agreement for a broadly acceptable elective process, do we then move straight to 10 June? If there is no agreement between the parties on a broadly acceptable elective process, will the Government bring forward their own

903
plans on the basis of what they think is broadly acceptable? I simply ask the obvious question—what if it is not possible to reach a broadly acceptable process by either route?
Am I right in saying that the Prime Minister said that the Government essentially will listen to what the parties say on the subject of a referendum during the process, and will not give their own views until the end of that process?
The Prime Minister indicated assent.
Mr. Blair: On the legislation for the elections, I should say on behalf of the Opposition that, provided, of course, it is broadly acceptable to both communities, we will obviously facilitate the legislation and co-operate in getting it through the House.
Does the Prime Minister agree that, in a sense, we now have an agreement to have discussions to agree on a way forward, with at least the principle of an elective process being agreed—that is an achievement—if not the mechanism? Does he agree that we have such an agreement—rather than an agreement on the way forward itself—which at least maintains the momentum? Does he further agree that it will require not a compromise of basic principles, but give and take on the part of all parties if the consultations are to work?
On the second point—the position of Sinn Fein in relation to the process—I think that everybody wants the process to move forward. But the flow of democracy should not be stemmed simply because the IRA has chosen to revert to violence. Everyone would prefer Sinn Fein to be in the peace process provided it is genuinely committed to peace. Does the Prime Minister agree that it cannot, and will not, be allowed to drive the process—to seek to guide by violence what it cannot achieve through persuasion?
The bombings of past weeks were atrocities utterly without regard for human life. I want to be clear that we have understood the basis on which Sinn Fein may enter at any stage of the proceedings. Is it to be allowed to participate in the multilateral discussions if it calls a ceasefire? On the all-party negotiations, is it that, before it gains admission to the full-blown negotiations, it must accept the Mitchell six principles or is it rather that at the beginning of the negotiations to which it is to be given access, it must accept the six principles and address decommissioning as set out in Mitchell? We must be clear about that. It is also clear that, if there is any reversion whatever, or any threat of reversion, to violence during the course of negotiations, it goes out altogether. The Prime Minister said that it must address Mitchell on decommissioning; perhaps he could say a word or two about that.
Is it not right once again to repeat from this House that, now that all democratic parties in Northern Ireland and in the Republic—that is the important point—have agreed that the status of Northern Ireland will not change without the consent of the people, there can be no remote, residual justification, even on its own terms, for the IRA continuing any form of violence?
I acknowledge, as the Prime Minister does, that the road to peace is going to be tough. He has taken risks so far; the Irish Government have; all parties have. We have
904
supported them over the peace process. We will continue to do so. It is the people who want peace—not at any price, not by giving in to violence, but they want peace so that the genuine debate about the future of Northern Ireland can be resolved by democratic means.
Over the past few weeks, lives have been lost, and I do not think that people will easily forget that—nor should they. If it should happen that a ceasefire is called again and restored immediately—as it must and should be—I hope that what the Prime Minister has outlined today, even in its most tentative stages, can offer the chance of building that peaceful future for all the people in Northern Ireland.
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I will try to meet the particular points that he raised.
Tenth of June is intended as a firm date for the start of negotiations. Multilateral negotiations between the parties will begin on the elective process on Monday. We will begin to discuss that on Monday. I hope that we are going to reach an agreement on a broadly acceptable elective process. If we reach agreement on that, we will bring forward that agreement for legislation.
If, as the right hon. Gentleman says, despite intensive negotiations, I am unable to reach agreement with the political parties on an elective process, I will make a judgment as to what I think is the best elective process and I will bring that proposition before the House of Commons and invite it to support that proposition. That is not comfortable. I do not wish to be in that position, but neither do I wish agreement on a mechanism to get us into all-party talks and to set up a possible future development to be held up by this dispute over the nature of elections.
I hope to reach agreement, but, if I cannot reach agreement, I shall bring forward what I think to be the best option, and I will invite the House of Commons to support me on that option, and the House will make its own judgment about whether it should. That is what I propose to do. I shall first, of course, have significant extra consultations.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the best way forward is with Sinn Fein as an inclusive part of the talks. Of course that is right but not, as he said about another aspect, at any price. The ceasefire has to be restored, and on the same terms that we had in August 1994. That is fairly clear, and it is set out clearly also in the joint communiqué.
Sinn Fein's entry to the all-party talks and how they will be structured was a point to which the right hon. Gentleman turned, and it is vital. Let me try to set it out.
First, for there to be any proposition enabling Sinn Fein to take part, there needs to be a ceasefire of the nature to which I just referred. After the elective process, in which there will be elections to the proposed forum, we anticipate that the party leaders of those elected would nominate from the forum members who would then act as their individual negotiating teams. The negotiating teams would meet. The first item in the negotiations would be the Mitchell principles in their wider aspect, including the points that need to be dealt with on decommissioning. That would be the lead item in the negotiations, which would begin on 10 June.

905
The right hon. Gentleman also raised a crucial point: what would be the position if violence were to restart after the negotiations had begun? I think that that has both a practical answer and the answer that the House would demand. The practical answer is that it would not be feasible for the other parties to negotiate with any party were violence to return: by that violence, that party would have voluntarily excluded itself from the negotiations. I believe that that would have the united support of all right hon. and hon. Members.
Therefore, the choice is with Sinn Fein. It must decide whether it remains an inclusive part of the negotiating process. I very much hope that it will put itself in a position to take part, and will keep itself in a position to take part, in the negotiations.
Let me reiterate what the right hon. Gentleman said about the status of Northern Ireland. I remind the House of the triple lock to which I have referred in the past, one part of which is that, at the conclusion of the all-party negotiations—on the presumption that there is an agreement at the end of those negotiations—that agreement, emerging from the all-party negotiations with the constitutional parties, would be put to a referendum of the people of Northern Ireland. Only thereafter would it be brought to the House.
The triple lock exists in the agreement among the parties to the negotiations—constitutional parties above all—in the agreement of the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum, and, on the back of those two agreements, in legislation brought before Parliament for its agreement. That is what we have referred to as the triple lock. It is to guarantee that the consent principle for Northern Ireland, which is widely accepted by almost every party and is self-evidently the will of the House, can be sure to have been met to the satisfaction of the people of Northern Ireland.
Mr. David Trimble: It is now a month since the last statement on Northern Ireland—a month lost because of the opposition of the Irish Government and other parties to the democratic process.
I welcome the statement's reaffirmation of the need for Sinn Fein-IRA to commit itself to exclusively peaceful means. Does the Prime Minister agree that, in practice, that will be more difficult to achieve following the bombs in London? It cannot be made easier for Sinn Fein-IRA; otherwise, it will have gained from its terrorism. Consequently, we agree that establishing and honouring such a commitment to peaceful means by Sinn Fein-IRA must be the priority—the first item to be addressed and resolved.
Does the Prime Minister realise that, until that item can be resolved, we shall find it impossible to meet Sinn Fein face to face? Does he agree that, in this context, the idea of proximity talks could be useful? Does he accept that there can be no question of Sinn Fein's progressing beyond that first item on the agenda until the other parties are satisfied about the quality of its commitment to peaceful means?
Does the Prime Minister accept that the Mitchell proposals for decommissioning require legislative action in the British and Irish Parliaments, and that that must be done by both Parliaments before 10 June? Otherwise, there will be a serious problem.
906
Finally, we have grave reservations about the use of referendums, particularly any referendum that might give the false impression that the relevant political unit is the island of Ireland.
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments, and I agree with him entirely: every day lost in this process, while there is uncertainty, is a tragedy. The impact of the renewed campaign of mindless violence in the last month is not only a disgrace, but makes it harder for those who seek peace to find a way in which it can be viably achieved. The hon. Gentleman is quite right in what he had to say about exclusively peaceful means, and equally right to state that it now makes it more difficult to persuade people that anyone is genuine in their intentions as a result of what has happened over the past few days.
The establishment of and the commitment to peace must be met and resolved. The Mitchell report sets out a way forward, and we believe that all concerned should be able to agree. It is not entirely easy for everyone, but I think it will be possible for everyone to agree to proceed in that way.
The issues to which the hon. Gentleman referred will be on the agenda at the beginning of the negotiations and will have to be addressed seriously by all concerned—including Sinn Fein, if the violence has ended and if it is in the negotiations. We will be urging all the parties to address the agreed agenda in that positive spirit so that the comprehensive negotiations can go forward successfully. The issues relating to decommissioning cannot be dodged or swept aside—they are of critical importance, as Senator Mitchell has said, and as all hon. Members understand.
The hon. Gentleman touched on the issue of legislative action in both Parliaments on matters related to a series of technical matters, including armaments. The hon. Gentleman is right: we would need to bring legislation before this House, and it is probable—subject to an examination of the law in the Republic—that the Irish Government would need to bring legislation before their Parliament as well. If that is necessary, it will be done, and it is being pursued. That should not provide an impediment to progress.
Mr. Seamus Mallon: Harsh words have been spoken across the Floor of the House recently, so it gives me pleasure to commend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach for their tenacity in bringing forward these deliberations; I should like that comment to go on the record in the spirit in which it is given. The statement is important because it is a declaration of intent by the political process that our problems will be solved in one way, and one way only: through peaceful, democratic means.
Does the Prime Minister agree that, in effect, this is a moment of truth for all paramilitary, terrorist groupings in Northern Ireland, who will have to make a choice whether they will join in creating that peace or will isolate themselves in standing against the express wishes of the Irish people who want that peace so desperately?
The Prime Minister has said that the only reason for an elective process, which he knows we oppose, is to go directly and immediately into all-party negotiations.
Will the Prime Minister give an assurance in this House today that this process will not be allowed—or that the two Governments will not allow it—to be used by any

907
party or parties as a reason for engaging on another pub crawl of preconditions? Will he give an assurance that those who enter into this process are duty-bound to begin those negotiations and to continue them through until they either end successfully or they have reached their time limit, which the Prime Minister has not yet spoken about?
Will the Prime Minister assure the House that, when he sets out the timetable, as he has done here, no vetoes will be exercisable within this process, and that no preconditions will be used to prevent negotiations from moving to a successful conclusion?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. The House is occasionally familiar with harsh words, and occasionally with generous words, and, at the outset of his remarks, the hon. Gentleman exemplified the latter.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the paramilitaries must make a choice. The road to political respectability for those in Sinn Fein is set out here, if they have the courage and the will to take it, but the choice must be theirs. If they take that road, if there is a comprehensive ceasefire, if they enter into the negotiations in the way set out by the Mitchell committee, the road to full-scale political respectability is open for Sinn Fein as a newly democratic party, but the choice is theirs and only they can make that choice. I can provide the opportunity, but I cannot compel them to take it. I very much hope that they will, but the choice is for them.
As far as the process is concerned, the fundamental purpose of what I had to say this afternoon was precisely to set a firm date for the negotiations to begin. On that firm date, I hope that we will find all parties prepared, in whatever fashion, to take part in those negotiations and to carry them forward.
I do not want any party to put a roadblock in front of the negotiations—not the hon. Gentleman's or any other party—but I cannot compel parties to do something. I can set out the circumstances and encourage them to take options but I do not literally have the power to compel them to negotiate. I can set out the way and the circumstances in which they can, try to remove the impediments that each party feels lie in the way of negotiating, and encourage them to negotiate, and all that I will do. As a result, I hope that we will be able not only to enter negotiations, but to carry them properly and fully forward to a conclusion.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: The Prime Minister must know how widely this statement will be welcomed, not just in the House but throughout the country, and in Ireland as well. The Government and others have had to compromise on it. That was the right and the courageous thing to do, and I commend the Government and the other parties for doing so.
I greatly welcome the fact that a firm date has been set. The two Governments are entirely right to insist that no one shall have a veto over that process. Those who will not relinquish violence cannot take part in those talks, but they cannot stop them happening, either. We would all much prefer Sinn Fein to be on board, but on board or overboard, it cannot stop the process continuing.
I have three brief questions to put to the Prime Minister. First, he is right to say that, if agreement cannot be reached on the context of the elections, the Government
908
must bring their own proposals to the House. Will he confirm that, in doing so, the thing that will weigh most heavily in his mind is not what the Government may prefer—the Government are likely to be neutral on this—but what will command the widest support for those elections?
Secondly, given the time frame in which the elections must be carried out, with a result by 10 June, will the Prime Minister confirm that it is most likely that the existing system of the single transferable vote is the only one that can conform to that time frame?
Thirdly, will the Prime Minister address the all-party negotiations on 10 June, because the question put to him by the leader of the Labour party is absolutely relevant here? The Prime Minister said that adherence to the six principles of Mitchell will be the first item on the agenda. Will he confirm that it will not be possible for parties simply to hold up progress at those negotiations, if it is clear that they do not intend to adhere to those six principles?
In his statement, the right hon. Gentleman said:
"If it becomes clear that any party is not committed to these principles and this approach, either at the beginning of negotiations or subsequently, in our view there will be no place for them at the negotiating table."
He said that that was his Government's view; will he also confirm that it is the Irish Government's view?
The Prime Minister: Yes, I can confirm that last point: it is the view of the Irish Government as well. Let me make it quite clear, because the same point emerged from two separate observations that the right hon. Gentleman made.
If Sinn Fein drops violence and meets the same commitments as the other parties, it can continue in the negotiations—there is no difficulty with that. If it continues with violence, it will not stop the negotiations continuing after 10 June; they will continue without Sinn Fein. If violence were to reactivate after the negotiations had begun, equally, the negotiations would continue.
The democratic process will continue, and we are not in the mood to let it be derailed by those who do not subscribe to it. That is our opinion, and I believe that it is also the opinion of the Irish Government, as the right hon. Gentleman asked.
As I say, 10 June is the date for the negotiations to begin. It follows that the election must precede that date by a few days, but probably not by all that long. We are looking to determine the time scale exactly. In purely parliamentary terms, it is necessary to take account of the length of the Easter recess in terms of bringing negotiations forward.
Self-evidently, with that tight time scale, I would much prefer a consensus on the system to be used. Were there not to be a consensus, the normal rules of the House might impede the rapid passage of whatever legislation I proposed for the establishment of the elective process. I do not yet know the precise time scales, and they are being examined.
Clearly, the single transferable vote would be the speediest option, but it may not be the only one that would fall within the time scale. That it is the speediest is probably true, but that it may not be the only one is probably true as well.
Mr. Peter Robinson: I welcome the commitment that the Prime Minister has expressed to an

909
elective process, not least because that proposal was put to him several years ago by my party. I also welcome the fact that the Prime Minister has been able to persuade others who were against that process to come round to supporting it. May I also express a willingness, on behalf of my party, to take part in the intensive consultations, which he mentioned, especially to determine the means by which such negotiations shall take place?
Will the Prime Minister recognise that my party, like the Ulster Unionist party, would be prepared to negotiate only with legitimate political parties? Will the Prime Minister review the remarks he made earlier, when he said that he hoped that the ceasefire could be re-established on the same basis as before? Surely that is precisely what we do not want. We want a permanent ceasefire, not a temporary, tactical cessation of violence.
The Prime Minister: I had in mind the same basis as before, but this time without the word being broken as it was before. I think the basis on which the ceasefire was promised before was acceptable. What went wrong was that that promise was blatantly broken by the bombs. I wish to make it clear that a temporary and convenient ceasefire for a short period is not being suggested.
I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman had to say about the elective process. I confirm that the Democratic Unionist party suggested that proposition some time ago, as did the Ulster Unionist party. I am also grateful to hear that the hon. Gentleman will take part in the intensive consultations on the means of the election. I hope that, as a result of those consultations, we will be able to reach a situation that will enable us to bring forward, with agreement, the legislation on the nature of the election not later than the moment that we return from the Easter recess, and, if possible, even earlier.
Mr. Robert McCartney: Will the Prime Minister confirm, for the benefit of those hon. Members and the public in the present complex situation, that in no circumstances will Sinn Fein be admitted to substantive negotiations unless it conforms to two prior requirements: first, that it acknowledges the fundamental democratic procedure of consent; secondly, that it accepts the Mitchell principles? Both those considerations have already received the endorsement of constitutional nationalists.
Will the Prime Minister confirm that the present peace process is based essentially on a ceasefire controlled entirely by terrorists and not by politicians? Will he explain how, following any renewal of such terrorism or any cessation of the present terrorism which is then renewed, he will deal with the enforcement of democratic procedures?
The Prime Minister: Since the terrorism recommenced, we have reviewed the security provisions with great care. The hon. and learned Gentleman will know from the evidence seen with his own eyes in his constituency of some of the measures that have been taken. He will also know that it would not be appropriate for me to discuss at the Dispatch Box some of the measures that have been taken.
I can tell the hon. and learned Gentleman and the House that we have looked in the greatest detail at what needs to be done to protect the normal democratic way of life
910
of people in Northern Ireland as a result of the renewal of terrorism. Were there to be a ceasefire, and were it to be broken again in the hypothesis advanced by the hon. and learned Gentleman, again we would re-examine whatever further needed to be done. If more needed to be done on any occasion, it would be in our minds to take the action that we judged was right to deal with it. That has been our position for many years.
I believe that, for a long time, the terrorists operated on the basis that, if they continued with their terror, the time would come when one British Government or another would tire of the cost and effort of policing and having the Army in Northern Ireland, and would bow to their demands. After 25 years, they learned that that was not the case, and, were the terrorism to continue for another 25 years, it would not be the case. That is the strongest assurance on that point that I can give the hon. and learned Gentleman or anyone else.
On the earlier part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question, the Mitchell principles embrace implicitly the points that he had in mind, and they will be dealt with at the outset of the negotiations.
Mr. Terry Dicks: Since it seems to me that the terrorists have been able to bomb themselves into the peace process thus far, can my right hon. Friend assure me, from his discussions today, that, no matter what they do in the future, it will stop there? The likes of Adams, McGuinness and Kelly are all terrorists. I do not accept the distinction between Sinn Fein and the IRA—they are all the same evil people. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that those people will not be contacting officials in this Government, and will not be contacting him or any other Ministers?
The Prime Minister: They cannot bomb themselves into the peace process. They have certainly bombed themselves out of the peace process, and they will keep themselves out of that process if they continue to use bombs. I have made it clear that the process will continue without them if there is a campaign of violence. The announcement that I have made today is in line with the discussions that we have had and the announcements that I have made to the House in the past before the campaign of violence recommenced.
What would have been a success for the bombers would be if we had been driven off the route down which we were going as a result of the return to bombing, and we expressly have not been. They are expressly on notice that the process is on track and continuing. They have an option to take part in that process, and they have the certainty that, if they do not put themselves in a circumstance in which they can take part, the process will continue without them. They can bomb themselves out of the process: they cannot bomb themselves into it.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I join in the congratulations to the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach on what they have achieved today. I congratulate the Prime Minister particularly on the sternness of his approach in ensuring that, if the parties cannot agree on a system of elections, the Government will impose a system upon them in order to ensure that they proceed.
What consideration has the Prime Minister given to the idea of a referendum? A referendum throughout the whole of Ireland would be of the utmost importance, because it

911
would knock away the spurious theology of Sinn Fein that it owes its spurious legitimacy to the fact that it claims descent from the last time that there were democratic elections throughout the whole of Ireland. If the people of Ireland as a whole spoke in a referendum, that would remove the last vestiges of strange legitimacy that Sinn Fein can claim.
The Prime Minister: I do not propose to impose a system of elections on anyone. I will lay before the House what I believe is the right system, and I will invite the House to support me. I emphasise that I will need the support of the House, and I may need that support where there is no unanimity among the parties. I will bring forward a proposition for the House to consider.
I must tell the House that I can be concerned only with a referendum held in Northern Ireland. The Irish Government may decide to hold a parallel referendum in the south, but my responsibility would be for a referendum in the north. We are looking at whether that would be appropriate, and, if so, what the question might be. It clearly has to be a relevant question and one where there would be some net advantage in placing it before the people, most obviously on the date of the elections themselves.
I can think of a number of examples of what the question might be, and other hon. Members will have their own views. We will discuss it with the political parties. I am not yet convinced that that is the route down which we will go, but I am prepared to go down that route if there seems to be a will for it, and some advantage to be gained from it.
Mr. David Wilshire: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his refusal to be bombed out of calling elections. What more can he say to the House to persuade me that the rest of the communiqué is not selling out to the men of violence? Can my right hon. Friend confirm that I am right to judge, after considering the communique, that we have yet again changed our stance on the requirements for decommissioning?
On the triple lock, can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether Sinn Fein-IRA accepted the right of the people of Northern Ireland to settle their own future, because I have never heard Sinn Fein-IRA say so? If it will not, is that not a reason why it should not be allowed into the talks?
The Prime Minister: If my hon. Friend will look again at the communique, I do not think that he will sustain the charge that we have changed our stance. Our view on the matter has been clear cut. I do not think that it is correct for my hon. Friend to suggest that the Government are selling out to anyone, let alone the men of violence. It seems an odd way of selling out to someone to make it absolutely clear to them that, unless they give up their present pattern, they will be excluded from the talks, but that the talks will continue among the democratic political parties, and that their exclusion will be because of their actions in the weeks and months ahead.
Let me tell my hon. Friend and everybody else that I am anxious to try to create a circumstance in which there can generally be an agreement that will prevent the
912
campaigns of violence and bloodshed that we have seen for so long. It is true that I could stay in a trench and set up a hundred good reasons for doing nothing. I believe that, were I to do that, my successors would be standing here in 50 years' time in the same trench.
It is for that reason that we have compromised on some issues in the past, and it is right to do so. There are issues upon which we cannot compromise. There are issues held dearly by every hon. Member upon which we cannot compromise, and we will not do so, because it would not be right and because the House would not permit us to do so. However, there are areas where compromise is appropriate in the interests of the outcome that we are seeking.
There are matters on which I have compromised and others have done the same. I am inviting others to take quite hard decisions also, and I hope that a combination of compromise and those hard decisions taken by people who have previously expressed views in a forceful way will enable us to reach a solution.
Mr. David Winnick: Is it not essential for the British and Irish Governments to work closely together? Is it not unfortunate that some hon. Members take a different view about that?
On terrorist violence, did the Prime Minister notice the massive demonstrations against violence last weekend in the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland? Apart from elections in the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland, do not those demonstrations show that the IRA does not speak with the authority of the Irish people, and that it is nonsense for some people outside the House to make a comparison with the middle east or elsewhere? The IRA is a minority within a minority within a minority, and it is a pity that the British and Irish Governments do not make that clear in the United States and many other places abroad.
The Prime Minister: I agree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, which are certainly correct. The terrorists are a minority within a minority. They do not represent a majority view in any part of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, and the Irish Government have expressed the same distaste for their campaign of terror that we have expressed repeatedly in the House.
We put an enormous amount of effort, in the United States and elsewhere, into making plain the majority view about the terrorists. Members of a number of democratic parties—certainly members of the Ulster Unionist party, members of the Ulster Democratic Unionist party and members of the British Government—have all been to the United States in the very recent past on more than one occasion to set before the opinion formers and the public in the United States what the majority view is in the United Kingdom about the activities of the IRA. I think that that is beginning to make some progress, and I hope that it will continue. I believe that the same attitude will be taken by members of the Irish Government as well.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Thank you, Prime Minister. We shall now move on.

BILLS PRESENTED
  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (RESIDUAL LIABILITIES)
  Mr. Secretary Dorrell, supported by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Gummer, Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew, Mr. Secretary Forsyth, Mr. Secretary Hague and Mr. John Horam, presented (under Standing Order No. 48 (Procedure upon Bills whose main object is to create a charge upon the public revenue)) a Bill to make provision with respect to the transfer of liabilities of certain National Health Service bodies in the event of their ceasing to exist: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 67.]
  LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT
  Secretary Sir George Young, supported by Mr. Secretary Lang, Mr. Secretary Gummer and Mr. Steve Norris, presented a Bill to extend, and facilitate the exercise of, the powers of London Regional Transport to enter into and carry out agreements; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 68.]
  REGISTRATION OF DOMICILIARY CARE AGENCIES
  Mr. David Hinchliffe, supported by Ms Rachel Squire, Ms Liz Lynne, Ms Dawn Primarolo, Ms Tessa Jowell, Rev. Martin Smyth, Mr. Roger Sims, Mr. Andrew Rowe, Mr. Malcolm Wicks, Mr. Ian McCartney, Mr. John Gunnell and Mr. Kevin Hughes, presented a Bill to make provision for the registration of domiciliary care agencies; to make provisions consequential thereon; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 10 May and to be printed. [Bill 69.]

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(4) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  CIVIL AVIATION
  That the Civil Aviation Act (Investigation of Accidents) Regulations 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 76) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING
  That the Merchant Shipping (Distress Signals and Prevention of Collisions) Regulations 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 75) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Ottaway.]
  Question agreed to.

Government of Wales
5.11 pm
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the improvement of democracy in Wales; to establish a legislative Parliament elected by proportional representation in Wales; to secure a direct role for Wales in the institutions of the European Union; and for connected purposes.
As I follow what was a momentous statement, which we all hope will signify progress in Northern Ireland, I might say that if there had been a flexible approach 100 years ago, when the troubles of Ireland were so high on the political agenda, we might not today be faced with the difficulties in the six counties of the north of Ireland.
I introduce my Bill with mixed feelings. I feel satisfaction that I have been given time to introduce it, and, of course, satisfaction because of the importance of the issue, particularly as this is the 22nd anniversary of my election to the House, on 28 February 1974, and the closest opportunity to St. David's day. We had a Labour Government then, and it is a matter of great regret that they did not succeed in putting into operation a meaningful assembly or parliament for Wales and for Scotland.
I also feel some frustration. When I was first elected, I expected that a parliament for Wales would be set up fairly quickly. The recommendations of the Kilbrandon report in 1973 gave a certain credence to that. It will be 17 years ago this St. David's day that the ill-fated referendum on Labour's previous abortive effort on the matter took place. Had we established a powerful parliament for Wales in 1979, Wales would have avoided the worst excesses of the Thatcher decade. We have had four Secretaries of State for Wales since then—I am glad that the present Secretary of State is in his place to hear the debate—who have not represented Welsh constituencies. That has been an ignominy for Wales, and it could have been avoided.
Had we had a parliament for Wales in 1979, we would have avoided the disastrous policies of that decade: the poll tax; the cack-handed local government reorganisation that we are going through at the moment; water privatisation; the decimation of the national health service, particularly the dental service; and the creation of a two-tier education system in Wales, which we most certainly do not want.
For the past 17 years, Wales has been governed on the basis of the priorities of south-east England, not the priorities of the people of Wales. We have been governed by a Tory regime which was not elected by the people of Wales. Never in any election from 1868 onwards have the Conservatives held a majority of seats in Wales. Indeed, in some elections, they have not held any. Yet we have had Tory policies, for which we did not vote, thrust upon us. Recent examples of legislation forced on Wales include the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 and the Welsh Language Act 1993, which were dealt with by Committees of the House that were dominated by Conservatives from English constituencies, who did not know the background to the issues and did not have to live with the consequence of the legislation.
The very reason for having a Secretary of State for Wales in the Cabinet has been undermined in recent years. He should be the authentic voice of Wales, articulating

915
the hopes of Wales as a nation, spelling out our fears, speaking up for our aspirations and our trepidations. Instead, we have a Secretary of State—whatever his abilities—who has never lived in Wales, has never faced the Welsh electorate in a general election and whose party was overwhelmingly rejected at the polls in Wales. Rather than an advocate for Wales, we have a salesman travelling the length and breadth of Wales as an apologist on behalf of the Cabinet.
We are governed in an outmoded colonial fashion, and it is high time that that came to an end. Furthermore, there is a total absence of Welsh representation in Brussels when the Council of Ministers discusses vital issues such as agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for England attends those discussions. The Secretary of State for Wales has never been there. Vital issues such as milk quotas and the sheepmeat regime are now determined in Brussels rather than in the House.
Likewise, Welsh industry and commerce has missed out by not having a voice in Brussels to get regional policies that suit our needs. We can compare the position in Wales with the successful deals that Ireland has succeeded in getting from the European Union, and the 6 per cent. growth rate that Ireland has obtained as a result. In terms of the accountability of the Welsh Office and its 80 quangos, the answerability of the Executive and the £7 billion budget of the Welsh Office, the formulation of legislation to meet Welsh needs and values, the voice of Wales in the Cabinet or the direct links between Wales and the European Union, the truth is that the present system of government has broken down and is not serving Wales. We do not have any meaningful democracy at the all-Wales level.
My Bill is a modest attempt to put that right. It would set up a directly elected democratic parliament for Wales. The lower chamber would consist of 100 Members elected by proportional representation, and the upper chamber would consist of two representatives from each of the unitary authorities in Wales. It would have full legislative power for all Welsh Office functions, including education, employment, housing, health, transport, arts, environment and agriculture. If I cannot carry certain Labour Members with me on the proportional representation part of my argument, I remind them that that is their proposal for a parliament for Scotland in due course.
The parliament would have control of the civil service, which is currently answerable to the Welsh Office. It would have full legislative responsibilities for all functions undertaken by the quangos in order to overcome the way in which the Tory Government succeed in getting their writs to run in system of patronage, which is not acceptable to the people of Wales. The parliament would be funded initially by the current block grant plus some £25 million for administrative costs, but we hope that within three years there would be a Welsh Treasury Department, which would collect all the taxes arising from Wales.
The Bill does not present Plaid Cymru's ultimate aim of full self-government within Europe. We accept that we cannot go in one jump from the status quo of no national democracy to full independence, but we believe that, after five years of the government that we propose in the Bill, the people of Wales should be allowed, if they so wish,
916
the opportunity to decide by referendum on moving to self-government. However, that is not the proposal in the Bill. Under the Bill, there are functions that are not currently devolved to the Welsh Office and that should remain at Westminster: defence, foreign affairs, social security and certain trade matters.
The Secretary of State for Wales would remain, as, of course, would the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, under the Government's proposals for an elected legislative assembly for Northern Ireland. Incidentally, it is instructive that the Tories are prepared to yield such an assembly to Northern Ireland in the wake of the bombs and the bullets, but for those of us in Wales, who have pursued our politics through constitutional and democratic means, it appears that the Conservatives have nothing but a closed door.
If the Tories are consistent, they will accept my modest proposal. So will the Labour party, because it proposes a similar model for Scotland. If it is good enough for Scotland to have a law-making parliament, it is good enough for Wales too, and we demand that we should have one. The Liberal party, too, should support the idea because it at least pays lip service to the concept of an elected parliament or assembly for both Scotland and Wales.
I appeal to Members in all parts of the House to support the Bill. It would provide for a new partnership between the peoples of these islands, and bring an end to the monolithic centralism of Westminster's legislative dictatorship by allowing Wales to decide democratically for itself on all aspects of domestic policy. The Bill would give the people of Wales responsibility, opportunity, democracy and hope. I commend it to the House.
5.19 pm
Mr. Walter Sweeney: I oppose the Bill. What we have heard from the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) is the politics of socialism and defeatism, which we are so used to hearing from the Opposition, who love to run Wales down. It is clear from what the hon. Gentleman said that Plaid Cymru remains committed to turning Wales into a republic, although there is no significant support for such a proposal in Wales.
The results of the 1992 general election in Wales show that Plaid Cymru mustered only 154,439 out of the 1,748,796 votes cast. That was a mere 8.8 per cent.—less than one third of the number of votes cast for the Conservatives, and less, even, than the number cast for the Liberals, who managed to win only one seat.
Even that very poor result for Plaid Cymru fails to reflect the lack of interest in nationalism in many parts of Wales. In Vale of Glamorgan, for example, Plaid Cymru only in a very small part of Wales does that party represent the views of a substantial proportion of the Welsh electorate. Despite that poor mandate, Plaid Cymru has learnt nothing from the ballot box. It would still sacrifice the political and economic interests of Wales, which are best served by it remaining part of the United Kingdom.
Like Labour, Plaid Cymru wants more public spending, higher taxes and the centralisation of power, but it sets out its plans in the hope of concealing the full extent of the damage that it would do. The most damaging aspect of the party's policies is the plan to set up a Welsh

917
republic. At its conference at the end of October 1993, delegates overwhelmingly endorsed proposals to establish an independent Welsh republic. So the House will not be fooled by talk of a staged process. Clearly, the long-term objective of Plaid CyMru is to make Wales a republic within the European Community and the Commonwealth.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon can claim at least one merit for his speech; he was consistent. Unfortunately, he was consistently wrong. Most of the people of Wales do not want a Welsh republic. They realise, rightly, that the break-up of the United Kingdom would be bad for every part of it—bad for England, for Scotland, for Northern Ireland and for Wales.
Wales is an important part of the United Kingdom. The cross-fertilisation of ideas and the pooling of resources between the different countries that make up the United Kingdom strengthen us all. Wales is far stronger as part of the United Kingdom than it would be on its own.
The people of Wales are fairly represented at Westminster, especially as the average electorate in Welsh constituencies is significantly smaller than that in English ones. The people of Wales enjoy all the constitutional advantages enjoyed by UK citizens living in England, including the right to be defended by the British armed forces against external aggression.
In addition, we have our own Secretary of State for Wales, who has a strong voice in the Cabinet and at Westminster. Partly because of the way in which successive Secretaries of State for Wales have lobbied on our behalf, we enjoy a significant advantage over England in the amount of central Government financial support that we receive.
Even after the expected increase in council tax bills, we in Wales will still pay considerably less than our counterparts in England. I am sorry to have to spell that out, because right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent English constituencies may believe it unfair, especially now that, after 17 years of Conservative Government, the Welsh economy is doing so well.
We have benefited from massive inward investment, thanks in part to the Government's refusal to accept the social chapter. The social costs of labour are considerably lower in the United Kingdom than in our major European rivals, giving businesses in Wales a big advantage. The success of the Government's economic policies and of the Welsh Office in attracting investment to Wales has led to steady reductions in unemployment in Wales, which now, for the first time since records began, is down to the UK average.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon claims that his proposals are gradualist. In this week's edition of The House magazine, he has stated, as he did today, that
"The first stage Parliament for Wales will have two chambers."
He also wrote:
"The lower chamber will consist of 100 members … with 20 added members"
but today he said that the lower chamber would have 100 members—two for each of the 40 constituencies, with 20 added. Whatever the exact figures are, such a parliament would be expensive.
Given the statistics that I have already revealed about Plaid CyMru's poor electoral performance, it is understandable that the hon. Gentleman should favour
918
proportional representation. However, nothing could justify having 100 or 120 Members of Parliament for a country the size of Wales. A good case can be made for the proposition that there are already too many Members of Parliament at Westminster. The suggested 100 Members would be far too many for Wales, and would add considerably to the cost of such a parliament.
I note that both Welsh and English would be official languages of the new parliament, which would waste more money. If the proceedings were televised, the many people in Wales who cannot speak Welsh would be unable to understand the debates without subtitles.
The hon. Gentleman proposed a second chamber with two elected representatives from each local authority in Wales. That seems to me a recipe for muddle and waste. Furthermore, the proposal that the new parliament would take over all the present functions of the Secretary of State for Wales and of the quangos would deprive Wales of a voice in the Cabinet, and would cost a substantial sum.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned £25 million as an additional subsidy from the Westminster Parliament. What would English Members say if they were invited to fork out £25 million to run an unwanted Welsh Government? Even worse, the new parliament's legislative capacity would drive a massive wedge between Wales and England. That would grow worse as the two legal systems diverged, creating discrepancies and anomalies across the boundary between the two countries, which would become a border.
The hon. Gentleman envisages that, for the first two years, the new parliament in Wales would receive a block grant based on the amount currently allocated for the transferred functions, plus the £25 million that I have already mentioned. How unfair and how unrealistic that Wales should expect to receive that huge subsidy for going its own way and setting up a parliament that even the people of Wales do not want.
The hon. Gentleman said that the proposed parliament would have direct links with the European Union, which would weaken the negotiating position of the United Kingdom as a whole. He envisages that, during his proposed first stage, Wales would still send Members of Parliament to the House of Commons, but that they would be able to vote only on aspects of policy that had not been transferred to the Welsh Parliament. That might deal with the so-called West Lothian question, but it would mean that all Members representing Welsh constituencies would be semi-neutered part-timers, who would enjoy little respect or influence at Westminster.
The hon. Gentleman said that, after five years, the interim parliament would have the right to seek full self-government for Wales, and to take over the subjects previously reserved for Westminster, with a constitutional referendum as a so-called safeguard to protect the wishes of the people of Wales.
It is easy to see Plaid CyMru's not very well hidden agenda. It wants to neuter Welsh Members of Parliament at Westminster and then say, "We don't need them. Let's have a referendum and get rid of them." With respect, I must point out that we have already had a referendum in Wales, and it showed clearly that the people of Wales did not want devolution. When the implications of costs and of loss of influence at Westminster and in Brussels are taken into account, Plaid CyMru's views will be found to be just as irrelevant to the wishes of Wales as they were in 1992.

919
It would be wrong of me to conclude my speech opposing the Bill without stressing that the halfway house proposed by the Labour party is equally repugnant to me as a Conservative and a Unionist. As so often in the past, the Labour party is papering over its deep divisions on this issue to come up with a proposal—any proposal—designed to create the illusion of a workable policy. Labour's concessions to nationalism would imperil the United Kingdom's survival and should be rejected—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House divided: Ayes 20, Noes 73.

Division No. 62]

[5.30 pm

AYES

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Rendel, David

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Salmond, Alex

Canavan, Dennis

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Cunningham, Roseanna

Tyler, Paul

Dafis, Cynog

Wallace, James

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Wigley, Dafydd

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Lynne, Ms Liz

Mr. Andrew Welsh and Mr. Elfyn Llwyd.

Marek, Dr John

NOES

Alexander, Richard

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Barnes, Harry

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Body, Sir Richard

920

Booth, Hartley

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Brazier, Julian

Mills, Iain

Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

Neubert, Sir Michael

Butcher, John

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Patnick, Sir Irvine

Cash, William

Pawsey, James

Day, Stephen

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Riddick, Graham

Dover, Den

Shaw, David (Dover)

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

Dunn, Bob

Skinner, Dennis

Fabricant, Michael

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Forman, Nigel

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Stern, Michael

Gale, Roger

Stewart, Allan

Gallie, Phil

Sumberg, David

Gill, Christopher

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Gorst, Sir John

Thomason, Roy

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Grylls, Sir Michael

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Tracey, Richard

Hargreaves, Andrew

Twinn, Dr Ian

Harris, David

Viggers, Peter

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Hawksley, Warren

Whitney, Ray

Hayes, Jerry

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Wilkinson, John

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Jessel, Toby

Yeo, Tim

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Tellers for the Noes:

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Mr. Walter Sweeney and Mr. Michael Stephen.

Mans, Keith

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day

  Local Government Finance (Scotland)
  5.40 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Kynoch): I beg to move,
  That the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 1996, dated 12th February 1996, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th February, be approved.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I
  understand that with this, it will be convenient to discuss the following motions:
  That the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Notional Amounts Report 1996 (House of Commons Paper No. 145), which was laid before this House on 24th January, be approved.
  That the Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1996, dated 12th February 1996, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th February, be approved.
  We have precisely one hour and 20 minutes for this debate. I appeal to Front-Bench and Back-Bench Members to make speeches that are shorter than those that they had planned. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Kynoch: I applaud the sense of humour of Opposition Back Benchers.
  The motions relating to the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order and the Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order state that they have not yet been considered by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. The Select Committee considered the original orders that were laid on 14 February at its meeting on Tuesday 20 February. Unfortunately, due to a mistake in the coming into force date, the instruments were withdrawn and were re-laid yesterday. The Select Committee will reconsider the amended orders at a future sitting, although I stress that their substance has not changed at all. I apologise to the House for any inconvenience that that may have caused and I am grateful to the members of the Select Committee for their assistance in this matter.
  This is the annual opportunity for the House to debate local government finance. The debate takes place against the background of an unprecedented level of consultation and discussion about the settlement for the year ahead. In addition to the normal statutory consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, I held a briefing in the House a week ago which was attended by many right hon. and hon. Members. During the past 24 hours, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I held a series of meetings with hon. Members from all parts of the House and with council representatives. I look forward to a lively and, I hope, informed debate.
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Kynoch: Because of the time, I should like to proceed and until I reach the substance of figures I will not give way.
  I propose to speak briefly about the detail of each of the two orders and the report. The purpose of the Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order is explained in detail in
  922
  the report which accompanies the order, but the position is relatively straightforward and I do not think that I need say much about the order. Under the so-called AEF—aggregate external finance—guarantee, the revenue support grant that is payable to local authorities for each of the years 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93 is adjusted either up or down in the light of any variation between their estimated and their actual level of non-domestic rate income. The order deals only with the two later years. We have agreed with COSLA that there is no need for any further adjustments of RSG in respect of 1990–91.
  The objective of the guarantee, which was fully discussed and agreed with COSLA, is to ensure that each authority receives the combined amount of revenue support grant and non-domestic rate income that they were promised when they were first notified of their settlement for the year in question. At that stage my Department made an estimate of the non-domestic rate income that each authority would receive. The guarantee arrangement has been necessary because of the difficulty of estimating non-domestic rate income with any degree of accuracy—mainly because of appeals against valuation which take some time to resolve.
  The order makes a further adjustment to the levels of RSG that are payable for each of the two years that are still covered by the guarantee in the light of returns that local authorities submitted to the Scottish Office last autumn of their actual rate income for the years in question. Because of the effect of successful appeals against 1990 valuations, in general there has been a reduction in rate income compared with previous estimates. Therefore, the order provides for the payment of extra RSG totalling just over £15 million to compensate for this reduction in rate income. Nearly £5.5 million of that amount relates to 1991–92 and the remaining £9.6 million relates to 1992–93. The total adjustment of just over £15 million is much reduced from that which was made 12 months ago, reflecting the fact that, as time passes, the non-domestic rate income for those years has tended to settle down.
  I should make it clear that the figure of £15 million is net. Although most authorities will receive extra RSG, a few will receive less. That is because, against the general trend, their rate income has increased compared with previous estimates. Because we are dealing with the years 1991–92 and 1992–93, the RSG adjustments obviously relate to existing local authorities. Subject to the House approving the order, the adjustments will be made at the beginning of the new financial year and will obviously be taken into account in the closure of the accounts of the authorities concerned.
  The House may wonder why the AEF guarantee related only to the three years from 1990–91 to 1992–93 and not to subsequent years. The answer is that, since the introduction of the arrangements for the pooling of business rate income from 1993–94, it has been possible to deal with fluctuations in the level of rate income administratively. However, exactly the same principle applies, namely, that local authorities do not lose out if the actual rate income is below the estimated amount.
  I shall now turn to the notional amounts report. The report's purpose is to specify for each of the 21 new mainland councils an amount that will be their base line for considering any capping action this year. My right hon. Friend has power to cap an authority either when he considers that its budget is excessive in absolute terms or

  923
  when there has been an excessive increase in its budget compared with that for the previous year. In practice, the second of these powers—the power to control the year-on-year increase in spending—has been the basis of the capping regimes north and south of the border in recent years.
  Obviously, the new mainland councils do not have actual budgets for 1995–96. However, the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994 made provision for my right hon. Friend to specify in a report to the House the amount for each new council which, in his opinion, should be used as a basis for comparison for capping purposes. That is the report which is under debate. In effect, it specifies notional 1995–96 budget figures for each of the new councils. It is important to stress that those figures have not been plucked out of the air in St. Andrew's house.
  Mr. Ernie Ross: Oh yes they have.
  Mr. Kynoch: They have not. They are the product of a great deal of consultation with and co-operation from COSLA and local authorities, especially the 10 disaggregating authorities. The overriding objective in producing the figures has been to ensure that they reflect as accurately as possible the planned level of expenditure in the current year by the old councils in each of the new council areas. In other words, it is the actual level of planned expenditure that the new councils will inherit from their predecessors. For councils in the aggregating areas, that was done by adding together the 1995–96 budgets of the relative regional and district councils. In the other areas it was, where appropriate, necessary for the old councils to disaggregate their 1995–96 budgets among the new council areas.
  The disaggregation exercise was carried out in accordance with a set of detailed principles which are in annex 2 to the report. Those principles were fully discussed with and agreed by COSLA and the relevant local authorities. I pay tribute to the thorough and professional way in which each of the 10 disaggregating authorities has carried out the exercise of apportioning its 1995–96 budget to the new council areas.
  Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: Does the Minister accept that the cash increase between this year's notional budget and next year's budget for Scotland as a whole is roughly 1 per cent? In particular, does he accept that the increase for Edinburgh is 1 per cent. and not the 2.66 per cent. that he mentioned when I met him this morning, which includes community care transfers, the cost of local government reorganisation and other disregards? The key figure is 1 per cent. in cash terms, which is a massive real terms cut.
  Mr. Kynoch: I do not accept that. I went through the argument with the hon. Gentleman this morning and I do not propose to go through the detail again because of time constraints.
  Inevitably, there have been some local disagreements about the figures, but the Scottish Office has been in no position to second-guess the apportionments made by the disaggregating authorities. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) wants to intervene, I will happily give way to him.
  924
  The amount shown in annex 1 to the report for each of the new councils is a pretty true indication of what the outgoing councils plan to spend in each of the new council areas during the current financial year. Consequently, the amounts are a fair base line for the 1996–97 capping regime.
  The Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 1996 represents the final stage of the local government finance settlement, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State first announced on 28 November. I gave the House details of the settlement last week when replying to an Adjournment debate initiated by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin), but it is appropriate to repeat the figures.
  The settlement provides for Government-supported expenditure to be set at a level of £6.168 billion. That is an increase of £136.9 million—or 2.3 per cent.—on the current year's figure after adjusting for transfers of responsibility between central and local government, so that a like-for-like comparison with the current year's settlement can be made. Hon. Members who attended the briefing session that I arranged last week will recall that Government-supported expenditure comprises provision for debt servicing costs and services. The provision for services is known as grant-aided expenditure.
  The settlement also provides for aggregate external finance to be set at a level of just less than £5.369 billion. That is an increase of £148 million—or 2.9 per cent.—on the current year. That increase is £26.5 million more than the Barnett formula consequences of the English local government settlement. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State could have quite reasonably allocated that £26.5 million to other Scottish expenditure programmes, but instead it has been used to increase the local government settlement.
  The AEF total comprises three elements. First, a little more than £417 million is estimated for specific grants. The great bulk of that figure is for a specific police grant. Secondly, the total includes the amount that is being distributed to local authorities from the non-domestic rate income pool, which totals a little more than £1.313 billion. Thirdly, the AEF total includes revenue support grant totalling nearly £3.639 billion.
  The report that accompanies the order provides a very detailed explanation of its purpose, but it may be helpful to the House if I briefly summarise the position. The first and by far the main purpose of the order is to distribute the second and third components of the AEF total—non-domestic rate income and revenue support grant, to which I have just referred—among the 32 councils. Subject to the House approving the order, those amounts, which total nearly £4.952 billion, will be paid to the councils during next year.
  The order does not deal with the distribution of the provision for specific grants. That is paid out in the light of claims during the year from councils. In distributing non-domestic rate income and revenue support grant, however, we make as good an estimate as we can of what each council will receive in specific grants.
  The AEF total has been distributed among councils using exactly the same methodology as in previous years. That methodology is well understood and accepted by COSLA. There are two main stages to the distribution. The first stage is to equalise for differences in councils' need to incur expenditure as measured by their grant-aided

  925
  expenditure assessments. Those assessments are determined using the client group system that was first introduced in 1985 and is kept under regular review by the distribution committee comprising representatives from the Scottish Office and COSLA. A total of £1.863 billion is being distributed to equalise for differences in councils' GAE assessments.
  The second stage is to equalise for differences in councils' tax base and consequently their ability to raise income locally from the council tax. A council with a low tax base obviously receives more AEF support than one with a high tax base. A total of £3.465 billion is distributed under that stage in proportion to the number of band D-equivalent properties in each council area.
  The second purpose of the order is to make a number of relatively minor changes to the 1995–96 AEF figures. First, the order increases by relatively small amounts the level of AEF payable to two local authorities—Kirkcaldy district council and East Kilbride district council, both of which have taken on additional housing benefit responsibilities.
  The order also transfers £162,000 of AEF for 1995–96 from East Kilbride district council to Eastwood district council. That corrects an error in the population data used in the original 1995–96 distribution for those two councils, stemming from the transfer of the Busby area from East Kilbride to Eastwood.
  The order redetermines the level of AEF for all the existing authorities, to take account of an increase in the City of Aberdeen district council's share of the support for loan and leasing charges. COSLA has been fully consulted and has agreed all the changes in the 1995–96 AEF distribution.
  The final purpose of the order is to redetermine the levels of AEF for 1993–94 and 1994–95 taking into account changes in the council tax base of each existing authority. Those changes arise because of, for example, successful appeals by householders regarding the tax band of their property.
  I should add that for 1994–95 only, the order also increases by £2,000 the level of AEF payable to the Western Isles islands council.
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Now that the Minister has had the opportunity to go through Glasgow council's books in detail, does he think that a 36 per cent. increase in council tax is acceptable? Does he understand why that 36 per cent. increase is necessary unless he takes action?
  Mr. Kynoch: For a start, I have not had a chance to go through Glasgow council's complete figures. Despite meeting Glasgow council members this morning, I have yet to hear a proper explanation of why, with a notional budget of about £800.1 million and a capping limit of £839.5 million—an increase in funding of about 4.93 per cent. that the council could spend and remain within its capping limit—they are talking about cuts. At this stage, they are talking about the budget being 13.4 per cent. up on the notional budget.
  I have explained how notional budgets were prepared. They were prepared by the disaggregation of Strathclyde regional council's regional budget to the Glasgow area. We then added the district budget, and obviously transfers of responsibility were taken into account. The new
  926
  Glasgow city council is at the moment talking about a budget increase—clearly it has not yet set a budget, so I urge it to set a responsible budget—of 13.4 per cent. When one takes it into account that all wage increases should be funded from within by efficiency improvements and so on, as in the public sector, that 13.4 per cent. represents an enormous increase, given that inflation is running at less than 3 per cent. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) should go back and ask the councillors of Glasgow rather than me why they are proposing a budget that is almost five times the rate of inflation.
  Mrs. Fyfe rose—
  Mr. Kynoch: I will not give way again to the hon. Lady.
  Mr. Phil Gallie: Considering the way in which the agreement has been reached by the disaggregation of budgets, have my constituents not been disadvantaged to the benefit of Glasgow?
  Mr. Kynoch: That is not quite correct. The transition scheme proposed by COSLA and accepted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and me has made it possible for my hon. Friend's council to benefit during the transition this year. It will get one third of the mismatch benefit. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that in the past Glasgow has benefited from some of the GAE that perhaps rightly should have been allocated to my hon. Friend's area. My hon. Friend makes a valid point. In past years, Glasgow has enjoyed a heavier level of expenditure than the GAE formula justified. Clearly, that decision was taken by the councillors of Strathclyde and it is something with which Glasgow is now having to deal.
  Mrs. Fyfe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that it was inadvertent, but the Minister misled the House. Glasgow council can explain, line by line, exactly what it is doing, but the Minister—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady might like to rephrase what she is saying.
  Mrs. Fyfe: Perhaps you did not hear me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I did use the word "inadvertent". Nevertheless, the Minister misled—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is making a debating point; it is not a matter for the Chair.
  Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Member for Maryhill should debate these issues with the councillors of Glasgow city council and ask them to explain why their projected budget is so much above the notional budget prepared by the outgoing councils.
  The changes to which I referred in relation to redetermining the level—
  Mr. Michael Connarty: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. At our meeting last night he hung on to notional budgets like a drowning man—it was the only thing he had to keep him afloat. Does he accept that, for example, a wage war for teachers would

  927
  cost Falkirk £2.4 million just to keep its teachers? Is he saying tonight that in—his words—the interests of efficiency savings, the council should cut the number of teachers and reduce education in Falkirk, so that it can keep within the notional budget that he is demanding it meets? Is the Minister even listening?
  Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman referred to a teachers' settlement. I am not aware of the teachers having even started, let alone completed negotiations. The hon. Gentleman must be patient. The points I made about notional budgets are valid. I explained to the House how the budgets were prepared.
  As I was saying, the changes to which I have referred in relation to redetermining the levels of AEF for 1993–94 and 1994–95 arise, for example, because of successful appeals by householders regarding the tax band their property should be in. I should add that for 1994–95 only, the order also increases by £2,000 the level of AEF payable to the Western Isles islands council. That is an increase in the amount being paid to the council to enable it to subsidise the costs of internal air travel, following the introduction of the air passenger tax in 1994.
  I should make it clear to the House that COSLA has been consulted about the two orders and the report under consideration, but has made no comment on the detail of them. Despite the reaction from the Opposition parties and from COSLA, there is no doubt that Scottish local authority current expenditure was treated very generously in the 1995 public expenditure survey. AEF has been increased by £26.5 million more than the formula consequences of the English settlement and is no less than 43 per cent. per head of population higher than the level for English authorities and 21 per cent. higher than the level for Welsh authorities.
  Spending provision for Scottish authorities is 30 per cent. higher per head of population than the provision for English authorities and 22 per cent. higher than the provision for Welsh authorities. It is no wonder that local authorities in both England and Wales are envious of the level of funding for Scottish local government.
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Kynoch: Opposition Members have been complaining about the time that I am taking, but I have tried to give way to hon. Members. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to speak later.
  The Opposition and COSLA argue that a further £395 million should be provided for Scottish authorities, but we have yet to hear which other programmes in the Scottish Office block should be cut to provide that extra funding. It is senseless to argue for extra money on top of the significant increase that we have made and at a time of tight public expenditure—and unless Opposition Members can say where that money should come from.
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Kynoch: No, I shall not give way as I want to leave sufficient opportunity for Back-Bench Members to participate in the debate.
  928
  It has also been argued that extra help should be provided to particular councils, but we have yet to hear which councils should receive less in order to provide more for others. We have yet to hear why virtually all of the new councils claim that they need to increase spending by well over 10 per cent. next year when inflation is below 3 per cent. and likely to go even lower during the next 12 months.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Rubbish.
  Mr. Kynoch: I hear the hon. Gentleman, but the difference between my party and his party is that mine actually recognises that we must control expenditure because it is taxpayers' funds that we are using. To give 3 per cent. extra funding to local government at a time when others are taking cuts is a more than reasonable settlement.
  I should like to think that during the debate the House will receive answers from the Opposition to the three questions I posed. If the questions are not answered, any criticism of the settlement will be entirely hollow. The truth is that Scottish local government is very generously funded and I commend the two orders and the notional amounts report to the House.
  6.5 pm
  Mr. George Robertson: This is a scandalously short time to debate something so critical to Scottish local government. It is disgraceful that the debate is being squashed into such a short time. Another disgraceful aspect of the debate is that the Secretary of State was not at the Dispatch Box. Three weeks ago, the Secretary of State for Wales presented the revenue support grant orders for Wales. Before that, the Secretary of State for the Environment did so for England. Last year, the then Secretary of State for Scotland stood at the Dispatch Box and defended his position—but not this Secretary of State today. He did not even do so at Scottish questions this afternoon. He sidelines the issue because he knows how embarrassing it is for him. It brings to mind that old Glasgow expression, "We want the engineer, not the sweat rag."
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): When will the hon. Gentleman treat the House seriously? He knows that the debate has been squeezed because my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a statement on Northern Ireland. He also knows that we will have a debate in Scotland on Monday, in the Grand Committee, when I will be happy to open the debate and the hon. Gentleman will have another opportunity to speak. Why does not he address the issues instead of making silly points?
  Mr. Robertson: If there was a world competition for silly points, the right hon. Gentleman would win. I do not deny that the Northern Ireland statement was important, but the Government determine the business before the House and the amount of time we have for this debate is inadequate. It is the right hon. Gentleman who does not take the House seriously. This is the third major debate on Scotland since Christmas. One was on the effects of the winter, on a motion for the Adjournment on a Wednesday morning. It was the junior Minister who attended that debate. Then there was a debate on the

  929
  privatisation of water, but the Secretary of State was absent. This is the third debate, but still he was not at the Dispatch Box answering for what is happening—
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman really does take the biscuit. He is criticising me for not answering an Adjournment debate on a Wednesday morning—something traditionally done by a junior Minister—when he did not attend the Grand Committee to debate law and order and other serious issues. He boasts about winding up a debate on water privatisation as it affects England. I confine my activities to looking to Scotland's interests in Scotland. It is the hon. Gentleman who, at every opportunity, has run away from debates on Scottish issues in the Grand Committee. If he wants an opportunity to debate today's subject with me, he will get it on Monday.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us return to local government finance now, please.
  Mr. Robertson: That is what we hoped to hear the Secretary of State speaking about, but he did not even speak about it at Scottish questions today. There is genuine anger and outrage in Scotland about what is happening to local authorities. Some 40,000 people were on the streets of Edinburgh over the weekend to make their point known. They expect someone who claims to be Scotland's man in the capital to give an explanation, rather than to have the sandbagging performance of a junior Minister who just repeats the same script, irrespective of the facts.
  Mr. Kynoch rose—
  Mr. Robertson: Come on, the Minister took 22 minutes.
  Mr. Kynoch: If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about the facts that I quoted during the debate, will he once and for all tell the House where he would find the £395 million and how much he would give to local government should he ever be in power?
  Mr. Robertson: Although he is only a very junior member, the Minister is currently in the Government. If he will tell me where they found £1.5 billion of public money to waste on railway privatisation, I will tell him where we will find money for vital front-line services.
  The problem with this debate is quite simple: it is whether we can ever again believe Ministers in this Government. It was demonstrated on Monday, after the Scott report, that one Minister misled the House on 37 occasions on a vital—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What on earth has this to do with local government finance in Scotland?
  Mr. Robertson: Mr. Deputy Speaker, it has everything to do with it because, this evening, we have to believe the Minister. It goes to the root—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It does not go to the root of anything. Let us keep to the debate that is before us—local government finance, Scotland.
  Mr. Robertson: Mr. Deputy Speaker, Scottish Office Ministers expect to be believed about the revenue support
  930
  grant order. They spew out figures, like some demented bingo machine, but no one believes them in Scotland, nor should they be believed. Believing that Scottish Office Ministers are telling the truth about local government finance amounts to calling Councillor John Young, the Tory leader of Glasgow city council, a liar. He was in London today to make a case to the Government about the problems that have been inflicted on Glasgow by Tory Ministers, and he is not a liar.
  To accept that Ministers are telling us the truth about local government finance would mean making a liar out of Councillor Tom Hogg, the Conservative leader on the new Borders council, who was quoted in The Scotsman on 31 January as
  "expressing his disgust at a package of 30 education spending cuts forced on the authority by Scottish Office expenditure limits."
  Councillor Hogg, who said that he could not change the mind of the Secretary of State, is not a liar.
  To accept that the junior Minister, the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch), is being truthful today means saying that Tory, Labour, Liberal and SNP councillors all over Scotland have invented a crisis.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of Parliament for a long time—
  Mr. James Wallace: He never said anything like—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to be called this evening, he must listen. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) might like to withdraw what he has just said. There was a double negative on "is it truthful" or words to that effect—[Interruption.] Order. The Chair rules on these matters.
  Mr. Robertson: Absolutely, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I am simply saying that we have two sets of people to believe—the Minister or a set of councillors from all parties, including the Conservative party. If Ministers are telling the truth, those people are inventing a crisis in Scotland. I do not believe that they are inventing a crisis. We would have to believe that those councillors are conspiring to cut schools, homes and community centres and to increase council tax by five times the rate of inflation. We would have to believe that they are doing all that simply to embarrass the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  Is anyone expected to believe that all that pain, all those threatened jobs and all the agonised judgments of Solomon that have been made in almost every council before next Tuesday are, in Sir Michael Hirst's words, simply to force the Government "on to the defensive"? The fact is that we do not believe—
  Mr. Allan Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Robertson: I genuinely want to spare some time for other hon. Members in this debate, but I have already given way twice to a highly intemperate and very excitable Secretary of State. Ministers in this damaged and discredited Government may have great difficulty in separating truth from untruth, but the Scottish people do not have that difficulty. They know that, whatever

  931
  propaganda, spin or mirrors are used on the manipulated figures, there is a crisis in local government, that the 23rd Tory tax increase will go on to their council tax bills and that they will have to pay more to get less.
  During the next three years, central Government will take another £500 million out of local government. On council tax, that is the equivalent of 4p on the standard rate of income tax, and the local taxpayers will have to stump up that cash. This year, every independent expert agrees that a crisis has been induced by the Government in Scottish local government. In Scotland on Sunday, Claire Monaghan, one of the most respected experts in Scottish local government and academic life, from Strathclyde university, was asked about the Government's figures. She said:
  "In real terms there has undoubtedly been a decline."
  When she was asked whom to blame, she said:
  "Central Government. Not just the current administration but those in office throughout the 1980s."
  What does Prof. Arthur Midwinter, whom the Government are prone to quote often, say about the Government's views on local government? He said:
  "The present crisis results from the cumulative effect of the Government's squeeze on spending, and assumptions about the cost of local government reorganisation …
  The Conservatives present themselves as the party of sound finance, but their record in local government is one of fiscal incompetence."
  Those are the words of Prof. Midwinter, not of representatives of Labour-controlled local authorities.
  How dare this gang of Ministers peddle the distortion that there is no problem and that councils have much more money to spend? The Government cannot tell the difference between truth and untruth and have completely lost the ability to distinguish between propaganda and fact. Last week, Sir Michael Hirst sent a letter out asking people to spy on local councils throughout Scotland. In his briefing, he said:
  "Every council will have the scope for an increase of at least 2 per cent. in its budget and most 2.5 per cent."
  That is a fantasy, rivalled only by the famous words, "The guidelines have not been changed."
  Tory propaganda says that Government support to local authorities is to be increased next year by £148 million, but the truth—the whole truth—is completely different. Councils must operate on real cuts in financing and not on the rich manure of propaganda. The Secretary of State said that there is £148 million extra this year—but there are some deductions. The first deduction is caused by inflation, which is now rising at 2.9 per cent. So, even on the Government's own figures, there is no real increase at all. We must then deduct the £39 million of transfers from the Department of Social Security, and then all the new priority needs that have been imposed on councils. Finally, and most important of all, we must deduct the huge cost of the botched local government reorganisation that was forced on Scotland.
  Ministers say that the reorganisation will save £30 million a year. The reality is that it will cost £200 million in next year, and another £200 million in the next two years. That is a reorganisation tax of £200 million, and there is nothing to show for it. That is why the
  932
  Government's statistics are misleading—they are designed to mislead the public. That is why, when the Secretary of State cries "more money", he means less money. That is why, when the blame lies with him and his Ministers, he passes the buck and blames local councils for the damage that will be done.
  Instead of 2 per cent. increases in budgets, as they were promised, people will see schools closing, community centres shutting, old folks' homes closing, charges going up and social services being stretched. Community facilities are now at a premium. The stark reality behind the propaganda, which has been paid for by our rates and taxes, is that we pay more and get much less.
  Of course Ministers ask us—they have to ask us—where they are going to find the extra money. I tell them: do not ask where the money is coming from but ask where it has gone to. They have always found money for their own pet schemes and obsessions, never mind the money spent on a botched reorganisation. What about the money that was spent on Health Care International and poured down the drain? What about the hundreds of millions of pounds that have been squandered on rail privatisation and on NHS bureaucracy? What about the billions of pounds that were wasted and squandered on the poll tax—the Secretary of State's brainchild?
  It is funny how the Government can find £9 million for the assisted places scheme to prop up the private school sector in Scotland while cash is short for front-line services, such as schools and social services. They can find £30 million for a nursery voucher scheme which nobody in Scotland wants, while quality local government nurseries are savaged by the cuts. Only a couple of weeks ago, the Government found £89 million for the water quangos and managed to reschedule—
  Mr. Kynoch: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Robertson: No. The Minister can answer at the end of the debate.
  Mr. Kynoch: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Robertson: I am not giving way; there is not enough time. The Minister will be able to answer in his winding-up speech. I assume that he wants time to wind up; perhaps he would like to give another plausible explanation.
  Some £700 million was wiped off the capital debt of the new water quangos. The Government can always find cash for their dogma, for their political playthings and for their waste, but they plead poverty when it comes to the vital services on which whole communities depend.
  This year's settlement for local government in Scotland is a disgrace and a sad start for the new councils, which the Government wished on Scotland but could not capture for their own party. The people of Scotland are being punished for the lamentable political failure of the Conservative party last year. That is an act of cynical betrayal which will not be forgiven by the people of Scotland.
  It is not too late for the Government to redeem themselves, and it is not too late for them to look again at the truth and the misery behind the partial and selective use of the figures with which they play. It is not too late for Ministers, who sit giggling and laughing on the Front

  933
  Bench while people outside face the cuts that they will impose, to watch the trail of misery for which they are responsible, to recognise the damage that they have done and to change. It is not too late for the Government to change their mind and they should start doing so tonight.
  6.21 pm
  Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) asked where the money had gone. My speech is about social work and in particular about funding for care in the community. I hope that I shall go some way towards answering some of the questions.
  I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to seek an explanation of the cost models that have been created by social work departments throughout Scotland. Social work departments control almost every avenue of inquiry and make it extremely difficult for meaningful data, such as their expenditure arrangements, to leave their control. How do they spend the money allocated?
  My understanding is that social work throughout Scotland received a real increase in 1994–95 of more than 44 per cent.; the amount went up from £110 million to £158.3 million in Department of Social Security transfer moneys. Over and above that, the health boards are making almost £40 million a year available to local authorities. Did the social work departments, through their policies, influence how the money was spent? How have they been monitored? Can they demonstrate due economy and efficiency in their use of financial resources? Do they abuse their power?
  A Tayside region social work committee meeting on 23 November 1995 considered a report on community care implementation. At that meeting, the director of social work sought council approval for a joint venture agreement with the Church of Scotland—incidentally, in my constituency. Ostensibly, the venture concerned the provision of dementia care.
  It should be noted that the director, Mr. Bates, had previously put it to the social work committee, in item 3 from report No. 1550/95, that the regional authority should turn down the opportunity to purchase dementia care services from the private sector at costs beginning at only £195 per week. Mr. Bates stated that the £195 gross was
  "not financially advantageous to the council."
  The council accepted Mr. Bates's recommendation and turned down the £195 per week option.
  In appendix 1 of report No. 1554/95, Mr. Bates states that the running costs for the joint venture agreement option are £423 per week per place provided. He also advises that the cost does not include any element of capital cost. In paragraph 2 of item 2, he says:
  "In recognition of this background the Church of Scotland and the Social Work department have been working jointly on the refurbishment of Belmont Castle Residential Home for Older People"—
  in my constituency—
  "in a project whose capital costs have been fully met by the church."
  It appears, however, that Mr. Bates may have failed to identify to the members of the social work committee the fact that the Belmont Castle home appears to belong to Dundee city council, which has leased it to the Church of
  934
  Scotland. Furthermore, the money for the refurbishment came from the taxpayer via a grant from Scottish Homes, at an apparent cost of about £60,000 per bed.
  In making his submission, Mr. Bates would seem to be ignoring his own advice. He stated in the press on 30 November 1995:
  "The fact of the matter is that we are now involved in quite extensive rationing of a number of the services we provide in Tayside … the fact of the matter is that we cannot spend pound notes that we have not got."
  Furthermore—[Interruption.] Hon. Members will enjoy the rest of this. Mr. Bates states that
  "it was my decision to introduce rationing … and that means making tough choices."
  Consequently, Mr. Bates is responsible for and should be held accountable for the following. The joint venture project was not put to the social work committee until the capital work had been done.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks to the order. I hope that he will do that very quickly.
  Mr. Walker: I thank you for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My remarks relate directly to the order because the claim being made throughout Scotland, by Mr. Bates and others, is that the order is inadequate. He claims that he cannot fund the project he has in hand. I have to look at the projects he has in hand so that we can assess whether his claim in genuine.
  The joint venture project was not put to the social work committee until the capital work had been more or less completed. That is a serious point, because if the funding came from Scottish Homes, as it appears to have done, there would have been a requirement for an endorsement by Tayside regional council before the funds could be approved by Scottish Homes.
  How can Mr. Bates possibly justify recommending the joint venture option with the Church of Scotland as it costs 216 per cent. more per bed to support than the option he could purchase from the open market? The joint venture project provides only eight registered beds and 20 unregistered beds in the form of tenancies. I suggest that that is a manoeuvre, creating an unregistered environment for people who have definite care needs and who will deteriorate.
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Walker: I will not give way because of the time restriction.
  I have reams of evidence of other matters to do with Tayside region social work department which affect my constituency. Because of that—
  Mr. Welsh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It appears that the hon. Gentleman is addressing specific points to Mr. Peter Bates. If the hon. Gentleman had bothered to turn up at the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs this morning, he could have put those points directly

  935
  to Mr. Bates, who has been in the Palace of Westminster today to give evidence. The hon. Gentleman was not there. Perhaps he should get in touch with Mr. Bates.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is an interesting point of information, but it is not a matter for the Chair.
  Mr. Walker: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is fairly obvious that Opposition Members do not want to know how and where the money was spent, despite what the hon. Member for Hamilton said.
  I understand that there have been failures to use funds wisely in Argyll and Bute and in Fife, and I shall send my right hon. and hon. Friends a detailed dossier on the matter. In Tayside, the Perth and Kinross care manager service is having problems because it claims that the funding allocated by the orders will be inadequate. Yet the Association of Nursing Homes in Tayside, an organisation advising the Perth and Kinross care manager service, took minutes at a meeting—I will not bore the House with the details of the minutes, but I do have them—at which the care managers said that they were not bothered about the law or about accountability because the regional council's social work department had the power to do what it thought was right, regardless of the law or of financial constraints.
  We are debating the matters tonight against a background of misinformation that is based largely on notional budgets and on the gross mismanagement by social work departments—particularly in Tayside—of community care. That failure is impacting on the most vulnerable people, who are least able to fight their case. Historically, social work has always demonstrated that its organisational culture is closed and defensive, and its bureaucratic and fragmented decision-making structure enables it largely to disregard operational outcomes. That state of affairs remains unchallenged because no effective avenue of accountability exists. I hope that the orders and the new councils will provide that avenue of accountability. It should not be forgotten that social work was the lead agency responsible for the Cleveland, Rochdale, Ayrshire and Orkney debacles concerning the forced removal of children from their homes.
  The key manoeuvre that social work departments employ to avoid accountability is their collective case management approach, which advocates the virtues of multidisciplinary contributions and collective responsibility. That means that it is almost impossible for an individual social work representative to be made accountable for his actions. The real issues facing us tonight are the notional budgets set by the new councils and the basis on which they were set, how moneys were spent in the past and how moneys in the present budget are to be allocated. I welcome the opportunity to have those matters properly addressed.
  6.32 pm
  Mr. Norman Hogg: The hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) will forgive me if I do not follow what he said, but, in common with most of humanity, I do not have a clue what he was talking about.
  I should begin by drawing attention to the fact that I have a registered interest. I have attended debates on this subject for many years, and I must tell the Secretary of
  936
  State that this is the worst settlement that I can remember. It will certainly undermine local authority services, it is below the rate of inflation, and it will cost jobs.
  In addition, the settlement will cut across the very plans that the Government have for local government, such as devolved school government, school transport safety, care in the community and the pressures on local authorities resulting from our aging population. The very things that the Government want to do will be undermined by the way in which they have dealt with the revenue support grant.
  I want to speak about jobs this evening. The Secretary of State told the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities that he wants local government costs to match those in England, and indeed he drew a comparison with England at Question Time today.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: Just for the record, I told COSLA nothing of the sort. I have heard a rumour that COSLA left the meeting and said that, but I pointed out that the grant was 44 per cent. higher per head than in England, and that expenditure in Scotland was 30 per cent higher. At no stage have I said that expenditure should be brought down to English levels. Had I thought that, I would not have fought so hard for a block that provides for 30 per cent. more expenditure per head in Scotland.
  Mr. Hogg: I hear what the Secretary of State says, but the implications of what he said to COSLA and what he said in the House this afternoon are absolutely clear. He cannot escape the fact that he has been drawing comparisons with England. We have a different education system from England, and we have higher standards on class sizes. The right hon. Gentleman will accept that he constantly says that education is one of his priorities, but the truth is that he is not willing to provide the means for education.
  We should not seek to emulate England in education. England's staffing figures provide a dubious comparison with those of Scotland, because there are more grant-maintained schools in England. [Interruption.] The Minister responsible for education, housing and fisheries, who is trying to make sedentary interventions from the Treasury Bench, has failed to persuade Scottish parents to adopt the opting-out system. We all remember his brave speeches at Christmas, but he has failed to deliver the policy objective of the Secretary of State.
  The fact that there are more contracted-out functions in the English education system means that staffing figures are distorted. In any event, we have every right to assert our separate education system. Indeed, we have a constitutional right to a different education system, and it is the duty of the Secretary of State for Scotland to defend that. But he is not doing so with the revenue support grant, because he is financially undermining the education system.
  Mrs. Fyfe: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hogg: I am sorry, but I have been asked by, among others, Mr. Deputy Speaker—for whom I have great respect—not to take up too much time, and I know that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), the Scottish spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, is hoping to speak.

  937
  The Secretary of State inherited the local government reorganisation, and I do not blame him for that reorganisation. I blame the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), who was the architect of a system that is costing the council tax payer and the British taxpayer a great deal of money. Its structure is most unsuitable to the delivery of services in Scotland, and the shambolic situation that now exists is directly his responsibility.
  The reorganisation was forced on an unwilling Scotland, and the result is that 4,500 employees—and probably more—will leave local government this year. More jobs will be lost because of the phasing of vacancies and temporary posts. These people are not bureaucrats—they work in front-line jobs, and include teachers, social work staff, library staff and so on.
  Some 600 senior officers—persons employed in senior official jobs earning £42,000 or more—will be leaving local government. The new councils have streamlined their management structures, and have done their best to make new provisions. But the loss of experienced staff should worry the Secretary of State, and that is a part of the inheritance that has been handed to him by the hon. Member for Eastwood.
  The Tories have created an enormous explosion in the number of bureaucrats in the health service, so they are not in a position to lecture local government administrators and management. That is impudence on the part of the Government, but they constantly denigrate local government and its officers, and they constantly say that local government is top-heavy with officials. The Government are deliberately curbing local government expenditure for reasons of which we are all very well aware.
  We all know the objective of the cuts. The Secretary of State wants to be able to tell his Cabinet colleagues that he is making cuts to support the creation of a cut in direct taxation later in the year. That is all for the sake of trying to save the day for the Tory party before the next general election.
  Thanks to the hon. Member for Eastwood and the Government, an attempt is being made to force uniformity of management and services on us. That is very different from what is required by local government. We have a diverse system of local government, thanks to the structure that has been introduced. The authorities are diverse in size. It is not possible to create similar management structures in every case. The Government are doing their usual trick of trying to impose centralism on everything.
  The Scottish people, their councillors and those who work in local government day after day know that the Government's day is over. There is no doubt about it. There is no authority for what the Government do in Scotland. That is not the mandate argument of which we have heard so much over the years, but simply a fact.
  In the elections to the new unitary authorities in April last year, the Government were heavily defeated. There are no Tory councillors to speak of in Scotland, and they do not control any authorities. The Government have no right to do what they are doing. We know that the Tory ranks are broken. Not a single Minister on the Treasury Bench tonight will serve in the next Parliament.
  6.41 pm
  Sir Hector Monro: On a night when we have heard the tremendous news of the order for three new frigates from Yarrow in Glasgow, we ought to be full of good cheer instead of listening to the moaning and groaning of the Opposition, led by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson).
  Local authority finance is an annual ritual. It is always the same, whatever Government are in power. In 1964–70 and 1974–79, there were equally contentious local government finance settlements. I was a councillor for 15 years, and I knew each year that we would face difficult decisions on reducing the budgets that we might like to set, to bring prudent housekeeping to the local authority.
  The attitude of Opposition Members is that everything is always cut, cut, cut. We are really dealing with reductions in the budgets that local authorities would like to set if they had carte blanche. Those are the cuts we are talking about, not cuts by Government. The Government have been very reasonable in giving authorities an increase of 2.88 per cent. against 2.9 per cent. inflation. By and large, spending should about equate to what was spent last year, allowing for inflation.
  The only major change this year is reorganisation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has built in additional money for the transition. He rightly expects some financial savings from reorganisation. When we consider that, in my area, five councils have been reduced to one, we would expect a reduction in the administrative costs of the local authority, especially when aggregate external finance this year is virtually the same as last year. There is only a £500,000 difference in £152 million of grant from the Government.
  The Opposition are not putting sufficient pressure on their local authorities to trim their budgets to what any prudent housekeeper would spend. [Interruption.] That is a statement of fact. Over the past 10 years, local authorities have increased their expenditure in real terms by 20 per cent. They have increased expenditure in real terms year by year. Until we get a balance far nearer to what is fair and prudent, we will have the same problem every year with local government finance.
  We must consider the overall position. Roughly the same population requires the same services each year, yet, out of the blue, local authorities want to increase their expenditure far above the rate of inflation. Of course one would like to have marginal increases to improve services, housing and all the other aspects of local authority expenditure, but nothing like the 10, 20, 30, or 40 per cent. figures that are being thrown around the Chamber.
  We have to consider the comparison between Scotland and England and Wales. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear the position that he took with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. There is no question of bringing down expenditure to the level of England, but it is right to point out to councillors in Scotland that Government-supported expenditure in Scotland is 30 per cent. higher than in England, 22 per cent. higher than in Wales, and 70 per cent. higher in respect of capital expenditure. Those are facts. We are spending far more than we ought in Scotland on providing the services that we all want.
  This is a difficult year, as the transition is made from the old authorities to the new. Now that we have achieved the changes, let us go forward with some positive

  939
  thoughts, rather than all the negatives that are being thrown out by the Opposition. We want the new streamlined councils to work, to be more economical in their use of financial resources, to provide the services we want, and to develop the housing and social aspects of their duties.
  All in all, we want positive development and not the continual moaning of the Opposition that it is not possible to achieve anything. Of course it is possible to achieve things. I bet that, when council taxes are set, they will be much less than the figures bandied about in the Chamber tonight.
  6.46 pm
  Mr. James Wallace: I was astounded to hear the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) say that we are talking about mythical cuts to wish lists. When schools close, real schools are involved; when staff are laid off, real people lose their jobs. The cuts are real, and they will be laid at the door of the Conservative Government.
  It may well be that local authorities wish to spend more on repair and maintenance of school buildings. When there is a £500 million backlog of school building repair and maintenance work, it is not unreasonable that they should wish our children to be taught in decent surroundings. That may be a cut to a wish, but it has real effects on the young people who have to study in those buildings.
  This debate takes place against a background of cuts in services, proposed increases in council tax and staffing reductions. Although the Minister has been trotting out the same line week after week and it has been clearly shown that his figures are a gloss, he has no new song to sing.
  The Minister says that a £148 million increase has been given to local authorities. Of that, £40 million is the cost of reorganisation. When the Secretary of State and the Minister say that they have managed to get £26.5 million more than the equivalent under the Barnett formula that applies to local government in England, it ignores the fact that that sum is £13.5 million less than they say is necessary for local government reorganisation. There has been no local government reorganisation in England and Wales except for two or three councils in England. Some £39.5 million is being transferred from social security to care in the community. They want a £44 million increase for the police, a £13 million increase for fire services and £500,000 for the district courts. If we add all that up, we are left with £11 million for everything else. The Government are supposed to be keen on education. If we assume that education spending represents half the overall budget, they have provided an extra £5 million for the whole of Scotland.
  Mrs. Fyfe: Is it not incredible that, today of all days, the Government should announce an increase of £2.12 million, or 17 per cent., for the assisted places scheme, when council education is deteriorating across Scotland?
  Mr. Wallace: The people of Scotland will note that a substantial sum is being given to a relatively small number of pupils, when the vast majority are suffering from education cuts.
  940
  In the highlands and islands, both the chief constable and the chief firemaster believe that even the amount that the Government think should be spent will not provide adequate services. The Government blame local authorities, but the people of Scotland have seen through that. The Government have blamed the outgoing authorities for spending reserves, although those authorities have often been encouraged to do so—and, in any event, that would be an explanation of, rather than a solution to, the problems faced by the new authorities.
  The Minister did not deal properly with the point that I raised at Question Time. I salute the islands authorities for managing to control council tax increases. In some cases, they merely kept pace with inflation; the Western Isles increase was only 5 per cent. Many cuts in services or increases in charges have been made, affecting care centres in the islands. Unlike mainland Scotland, however, the islands have not had to contend with reorganisation. That is the cause of a substantial proportion of the council tax increases—£40 million, we hear.
  According to the explanatory and financial memorandum to the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill, enacted in 1994, the transitional costs were expected to be between £120 million and £196 million, and would be offset by on-going savings of between £22 million and £66 million per annum. I accept that not all the transitional costs will be incurred in the first year, but I think it fair to say that they will be front-loaded in the first year. The savings will come later. Even on the basis of the figures given by the Government at the time they published the Bill, £40 million is wholly inadequate to meet local authorities' costs.
  I suspect that, privately, the Secretary of State is furious with his predecessor, who persuaded the Treasury—not that it probably needed much persuasion; no doubt it clapped its hands in glee—that the changes in Scottish local government could be funded from the block grant. That defied history: I do not think that savings have ever been possible in a local government change.
  The Secretary of State challenges the Opposition parties to say where savings can be made in the block grant. At the weekend, he said in a speech at Banchory, quoted in the Aberdeen Press and Journal,
  "Councils are undoubtedly feeling the strain of reorganising themselves".
  They did not want the reorganisation; it was forced on them. Having obliged councils to undergo reorganisation, the Government should do what they did following the debacles of the poll tax and the revaluation of 1985.
  The Government should go to the Treasury and secure an amount that will allow local authorities to meet reorganisation costs and save the Scottish people from the service cuts and council tax increases that will otherwise be inevitable. The Government are imposing more cuts and more taxes in a vain attempt—a last desperate throw of the die—to cling to office.
  6.53 pm
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: I have just four minutes in which to speak. I shall do so as briefly as I can, so that others can speak as well. I do not wish to speak briefly, however; there is much to be said.
  The debate may be an annual ritual, but this one is different. In the past, there has been much talk of cuts, but these cuts are for real, and will affect local authorities

  941
  in the future. Cuts that began in 1976, under Denis Healey, have now run their course, but, as I have said, these cuts are for real, and once they have been implemented there will be no going back on them. The Government's 2.6 per cent. increase for local authorities is really only a 1 per cent. increase; given inflation, it represents a cut. We shall end up with the worst of all possible worlds. The council tax will inevitably rise, as will local charges, and services will be reduced.
  Even a financially prudent authority such as Angus could not remain within the Government's cap—even with a standstill budget. The Government propose to take £9 million out of its local economy, which will increase unemployment, reduce services and affect local businesses. The policy on capital receipts and capital from revenue, which has halved the amount that the authority would otherwise receive, will inevitably have that result, which will be mirrored throughout the country.
  Central Government now dominate local authorities, which are not allowed to set their own budgets or determine their policies according to local need. Central Government determine their priorities for them. The Secretary of State has told them which core services will be given more resources; within a fixed budget, that means cuts in every other service.
  There is no new money for the police, fire services, education or any other service. The Government have financed those services by taking 4.9 per cent. out of every other service budget. That means that every other council service budget will be cut not just by the Secretary of State's 4.39 per cent., but by an additional 3 per cent. for inflation. The real cuts amount to some 7.39 per cent.
  The Government's way of running local authorities is to force the departments dealing with social work, libraries, roads, infrastructure and other services to cut 7.39 per cent. from their budgets. All that is deliberate, calculated Conservative Government policy. Central Government have set capping and revenue levels, and determined revenue spending patterns and priorities. They have set capital levels, capital-from-revenue levels and end use of capital-from-sales revenues. Central Government now run local authorities: there is no longer an independent local democratic service. The Government have a cheek to claim that they are giving local authorities more power.
  Central Government now rigidly fix the total amount of local authority revenue, and thereby local services. Every unnecessary school closure, every unnecesary rent rise, every unnecessary increased charge—all the inevitable consequences of the order that we are discussing—will stand firmly at the door of the Conservative party. This is not a budget for Scotland's democratic local authorities; it belongs to the Conservative party.
  The Conservatives can run now, but they cannot for ever hide from the electorate. They will surely get their come-uppance when the people of Scotland have the chance to judge them.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I call the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.
  Mr. John Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  6.58 pm
  Mr. Kynoch: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Settle down. The Minister does not need the leave of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "He does."] Order. I have ruled that he does not.
  Mr. Kynoch: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the few seconds that I have left—
  Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that it does not arise from my earlier decision. If it does, there is no point in the hon. Gentleman's raising it.
  Mr. Foulkes: A number of my hon. Friends representing certain parts of the country have not had an opportunity to speak. The Minister took 25 minutes to introduce the debate. Is it not unfair for him to be allowed to reply? He will not actually reply; he will make party political points, as he did at the outset. I urge you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to call one of my hon. Friends.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. I have already ruled that the Minister does not need the leave of the House.
  Mr. Kynoch: We have heard nothing constructive from the Opposition. That is typical. None of them has recognised that an extra £148 million has been put into local government, and that Scottish local government is being given significantly more than the rest of the United Kingdom. They are trying to shield their local councillors, who are spending and spending taxpayers' money.
  All we have heard from the Opposition parties was outlined earlier in the week. It is clear that they want to increase taxation. They want to do away with compulsory competitive tendering and remove capping. They want to remove the uniform business rate from central Government and take it back to local government—and local businesses know what that will mean: increased costs. However, it is consistent with everything that Labour Members have said.
  I posed the following questions to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson): where would he find the funding? How would he find the funding? What would the funding be under Labour? He has not answered those questions. I commend the order to the House.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 284, Noes 252.

  Division No. 63]

  [6.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Ashby, David

  Alexander, Richard

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Baldry, Tony

  Amess, David

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Batiste, Spencer

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bellingham, Henry

  943

  Bendall, Vivian

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  French, Douglas

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Gale, Roger

  Body, Sir Richard

  Gallie, Phil

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Booth, Hartley

  Garnier, Edward

  Boswell, Tim

  Gill, Christopher

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Bowis, John

  Gorst, Sir John

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Brazier, Julian

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Burns, Simon

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Burt, Alistair

  Hannam, Sir John

  Butcher, John

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Butler, Peter

  Harris, David

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hawksley, Warren

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hayes, Jerry

  Cash, William

  Heald, Oliver

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Hendry, Charles

  Churchill, Mr

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Clappison, James

  Hicks, Robert

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Horam, John

  Colvin, Michael

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Congdon, David

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Conway, Derek

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Hunter, Andrew

  Couchman, James

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Cran, James

  Jack, Michael

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

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Jessel, Toby

  Day, Stephen

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Devlin, Tim

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dicks, Terry

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Dover, Den

  Key, Robert

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Dunn, Bob

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Knapman, Roger

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Elletson, Harold

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

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Knox, Sir David

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Legg, Barry

  Evennett, David

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Faber, David

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lidington, David

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lord, Michael

  Forman, Nigel

  Luff, Peter

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Forth, Eric

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  MacKay, Andrew

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  944

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Madel, Sir David

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Malone, Gerald

  Soames, Nicholas

  Mans, Keith

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Marland, Paul

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Marlow, Tony

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Spring, Richard

  Mates, Michael

  Sproat, Iain

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Merchant, Piers

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mills, Iain

  Stephen, Michael

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Stem, Michael

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Stewart, Allan

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Sumberg, David

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Sweeney, Walter

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Sykes, John

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Thomason, Roy

  Norris, Steve

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Page, Richard

  Thurnham, Peter

  Paice, James

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Tracey, Richard

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Tredinnick, David

  Pawsey, James

  Trend, Michael

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Pickles, Eric

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Viggers, Peter

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Walden, George

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Wallace, James

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Waller, Gary

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Richards, Rod

  Waterson, Nigel

  Riddick, Graham

  Wells, Bowen

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Whitney, Ray

  Robathan, Andrew

  Whittingdale, John

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Wilkinson, John

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Willetts, David

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Wilshire, David

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Sackville, Tom

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Wolfson, Mark

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Wood, Timothy

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Yeo, Tim

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Mr. Michael Bates and Mr. Gary Streeter.

  Sims, Roger

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Ainger, Nick

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Allen, Graham

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Betts, Clive

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Blunkett, David

  Ashton, Joe

  Boateng, Paul

  Austin-Walker, John

  Bradley, Keith

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Barnes, Harry

  Battle, John

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Bayley, Hugh

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

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  945

  Burden, Richard

  Harvey, Nick

  Byers, Stephen

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Caborn, Richard

  Henderson, Doug

  Callaghan, Jim

  Heppell, John

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Hodge, Margaret

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Cann, Jamie

  Home Robertson, John

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hood, Jimmy

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

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

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Clelland, David

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hoyle, Doug

  Coffey, Ann

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Connarty, Michael

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hutton, John

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Illsley, Eric

  Corbett, Robin

  Ingram, Adam

  Corston, Jean

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jamieson, David

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Janner, Greville

  Cunningham, Roseanna

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Darling, Alistair

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jowell, Tessa

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

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

  Keen, Alan

  Denham, John

  Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)

  Dewar, Donald

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dixon, Don

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dobson, Frank

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Litherland, Robert

  Dowd, Jim

  Livingstone, Ken

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Eastham, Ken

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Etherington, Bill

  McAllion, John

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Macdonald, Calum

  Fatchett, Derek

  McFall, John

  Faulds, Andrew

  McKelvey, William

  Fisher, Mark

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Flynn, Paul

  McLeish, Henry

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McMaster, Gordon

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Foulkes, George

  MacShane, Denis

  Fyfe, Maria

  McWilliam, John

  Galbraith, Sam

  Madden, Max

  Galloway, George

  Mahon, Alice

  Gapes, Mike

  Marek, Dr John

  Garrett, John

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  George, Bruce

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Martlew, Eric

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Maxton, John

  Godsiff, Roger

  Meacher, Michael

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Michael, Alun

  Gordon, Mildred

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Milburn, Alan

  Grocott, Bruce

  Miller, Andrew

  Gunnell, John

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hain, Peter

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hall, Mike

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Hanson, David

  Morley, Elliot

  Hardy, Peter

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  946

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin

  Mullin, Chris

  Snape, Peter

  Murphy, Paul

  Soley, Clive

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Spearing, Nigel

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Spellar, John

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Olner, Bill

  Stevenson, George

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Stott, Roger

  Parry, Robert

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Pearson, Ian

  Straw, Jack

  Pike, Peter L

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Pope, Greg

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Timms, Stephen

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Tipping, Paddy

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Touhig, Don

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Trickett, Jon

  Randall, Stuart

  Turner, Dennis

  Raynsford, Nick

  Tyler, Paul

  Reid, Dr John

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Rendel, David

  Wallace, James

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Watson, Mike

  Rooney, Terry

  Welsh, Andrew

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Rowlands, Ted

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Salmond, Alex

  Wilson, Brian

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Winnick, David

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wise, Audrey

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Worthington, Tony

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Wray, Jimmy

  Short, Clare

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Simpson, Alan

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones and Mr. Joe Benton.

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 1996, dated 12th February 1996, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th February, be approved.
  Resolved,
  That the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Notional Amounts Report 1996 (House of Commons Paper No. 145), which was laid before this House on 24th January, be approved.
  That the Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1996, dated 12th February 1996, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th February, be approved.—[Mr. Knapman.]
  Mr.Robert G. Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Doubtless you will have seen on the tapes that the divorce of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and Diana, Princess of Wales has been formally announced, which will be greeted with great sadness in this House and by our constituents. I wonder whether you have had a request from the Government for a statement on that matter. It is important and we should hear the facts in this House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have received no such request. It is not a matter for me.

  Housing (Scotland)
  7.14 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): I beg to move,
  That the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.
  I understand that with this, it will be convenient to discuss the following motion:
  That the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Variation Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.
  As the House knows, this is the annual opportunity for us to debate the Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Orders. Traditionally, the debate provides an opportunity to consider, not only the detail of the orders, but wider issues relating to housing and housing finance. I propose to speak briefly to the orders and make some general comments on matters relevant to them. In that way, I hope that the debate can move forward.
  I start with the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Variation Order 1996. As was the case last year, a variation order is necessary because of a reduction in the pool rate of interest used to estimate local authorities' loan charges. It is accepted practice for Ministers to propose a variation order in those circumstances. That will reduce slightly the total housing support grant payable in 1995–96, from £23.3 million to £23 million.
  For most authorities, the reduction in grant will be marginal. The reduction should not cause too many difficulties for authorities, as the lower level of interest charges should be reflected in lower loan charge expenditure within authorities' housing revenue accounts.
  The draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1996 provides that the total level of housing support grant payable to Scottish local authorities in 1996–97 will be £19.4 million. Grant for mainstream council housing will be paid to four authorities—Aberdeenshire, Highland, Shetland and Western Isles. Broadly speaking, the grant represents the amount that the authorities need to avoid a deficit on their housing revenue accounts. The assumptions used in calculating the amount of grant are explained in detail in the report that accompanies the order.
  As in previous years, the Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order includes an element—the hostels portion—that helps meet part of the running costs of local authority hostels for the homeless. Hostels grant of £3.1 million will be paid to 21 authorities throughout Scotland and will help to support more than 2,300 places for homeless persons, particularly those who are roofless.
  The general portion of housing support grant has declined steadily since the early 1980s, in line with the Government's policy of moving away from indiscriminate subsidies, such as HSG, and targeting resources towards tenants most in need, through the housing benefit system. Very few Scottish authorities now need the financial support of HSG to balance their housing accounts.
  Individual tenants have not been forgotten, however. Help for them is made available through housing benefit. In 1994–95, council house tenants in Scotland who were unable to afford the full cost of their housing received
  948
  rent rebates totalling almost £620 million. Housing benefit is better able to help those in real need than an indiscriminate subsidy such as HSG.
  In 1996–97, the housing element of HSG will reduce to £16.4 million, from £19.3 million in 1995–96. There are two main reasons for the reduction. First, as interest rates continue to fall, housing loan charges are expected to increase only marginally in 1995–96. Secondly, local government reorganisation, with the merger of a number of smaller councils, has the effect of reducing the need for grant.
  On the assumptions used in the 1996–97 grant calculations, the estimate of management and maintenance expenditure is based on an assumed average spending level of £771 per house, which represents a 3 per cent. increase on the current year—an increase that is more than the current rate of inflation.
  If some local authorities want to provide a higher level of service and spend more on management and maintenance, that is their decision. For the purpose of HSG formula, the assumed average standard rent for next year has also been increased by 3 per cent., to £38.60 per week. That is not a forecast, a guideline or a recommendation; it is an assumption used for the grant calculation. Over the years, the actual rents charged by councils have varied from that sum according to decisions made locally about planned levels of housing income and expenditure. In the current year, the average local authority rent in Scotland is £28.78, well below levels in England, where the average is £38.31. How much to charge in rent is a matter for local decision, but once again the taxpayer cannot be expected to fund an increase in HSG to compensate.
  At this point, I should draw the attention of the House to the question of contributions from the general fund. Such contributions represent a subsidy from council tax payers to council house tenants. Such a subsidy, like HSG itself, is indiscriminate, in that it benefits all tenants regardless of personal circumstances. It is also unnecessary because tenants who are unable to meet the cost of their housing receive assistance through housing benefit. As has been the case in recent years, therefore, the Housing Revenue Account General Fund Contribution Limits (Scotland) Order 1996, which was laid on 31 January, prevents authorities from budgeting to make general fund contributions to the housing revenue account next year.
  Mr. Michael Connarty: The Minister seems not to apply the logic that is implied in the ability to apply for tenancies in the public sector. Anyone from the private sector—who may have lived in private sector housing all his life—can make an application to a housing authority, regardless of where he lives. The Minister seems to be saying that there is no contribution from the local council tax-paying population towards that service. He is saying on the one hand—and I agree with him—that everyone can apply for housing in the public sector should they need it, but on the other hand that there is no need to make a contribution locally. People whom I have spoken to are willing to make a contribution, but the Government seem to be restricting people's wishes to contribute to general housing from their council tax.
  Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman seems to forget, however, that, since we prevented transfers from taking

  949
  place, local authority rents in Scotland have risen, on average, by only 3.5 per cent. Therefore, the problem that he identified—if we do not allow transfers, rents will somehow rise way above the rate of inflation—has not happened. Perhaps I have missed his point.
  Mr. Connarty: I was talking about the people in the non-rent paying sector who pay council tax. They wish to contribute—and have never objected to contributing—to local authority housing because they and their children have the right to apply for it, should they wish to do so. The Government appear to be ghettoising public housing by cutting off general support given by people who do not currently live in council housing.
  Mr. Robertson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that that method of achieving his aim is totally indiscriminate and does not target money on those most in need.
  Mr. Jimmy Wray: I seek clarification from the Minister. He said that rents have increased by only 3.5 per cent. Although the average rent is £28.80 a week, the assumed standard rent is evaluated at £38.80 a week.
  Mr. Robertson: We assumed a 3 per cent. increase in rents. That is not a guideline or a recommendation; it is an assumption on which we have based the grant formula. In practice last year, rents in Scotland rose by only 3.5 per cent.
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: The Minister will be aware that, last year, Glasgow's rents went up by 6.2 per cent.—well above the rate of inflation—yet the associated services have decreased over the years.
  Mr. Robertson: The hon. Lady should take that up with her local council. If she is concerned about rent increases of 6.5 per cent., which is 3 per cent. more than the rate of inflation, does she agree that a rent deal of a maximum of 1.5 per cent. more than the retail prices index for five years is a good one? Does she also agree that a rent deal of a maximum of 1 per cent. more than the RPI for the next 30 years is even better? Those are examples of the deals that have been done by tenants who have been transferred from public sector housing—local authority housing or Scottish Homes—to housing associations. If the hon. Lady wants such a deal for her constituents, will she help me to persuade the new Glasgow council to seek the necessary finance and mechanism for a large-scale transfer, with rent deals such as the ones that I have just described? Will she join me to obtain such a deal for her constituents?
  Mrs. Fyfe: Glasgow tenants now pay almost the entire cost of public sector housing, because it has been years since there was any contribution from the general fund. The increase in rents in Scotland, since 1979, is 483 per cent. Is that fair to tenants? Instead of the Minister talking about deals on stock that cannot be let, it would be much more relevant for him to talk about people's real housing needs.
  Mr. Robertson: I repeat: does the hon. Lady want the sort of deal that I have described for her
  950
  constituents? Will she join me in seeking to persuade the new city council to make such a deal? I shall gladly try to persuade the council to make such a deal, so that we do not have to have debates about rent rises that are twice or three times the rate of inflation. The hon. Lady seems to forget that we have funded investment in Glasgow's housing next year by almost 22 per cent. more per house than the Scottish average. If she wishes to complain about what the new Glasgow council does with the money, she probably has more influence over that than I have.
  Mr. Phil Gallie: I seek information about the level of housing benefit support for tenants in Glasgow. Has my hon. Friend any idea of what proportion of tenants in Glasgow public housing are on housing benefit? How much is the taxpayer paying for that?
  Mr. Robertson: I shall come to that subject later, but I can tell my hon. Friend that, of all Scottish council tenants, some 72 per cent. are on housing benefit and are therefore protected—if not wholly, at least in part—from many of the indiscriminate rent rises that we have seen. I understand that the figure for Glasgow is higher than 72 per cent.
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Specifically on the point about the number of people who are exempt from paying full rent, does not the Minister realise that the 20 per cent. or so who pay full rent include widows and people with small occupational pensions? Many of those people have been loyal council tenants for many years, and they were promised by Margaret Thatcher in 1979 that she would not penalise them for having widows' pensions or occupational pensions. But they have been penalised, and housing support can go some way to keeping rents at reasonable levels for those people and preventing general resentment from building up against Government policy.
  Mr. Robertson: I take it from the hon. Gentleman's comments that he is supportive of our move away, over the past decade, from the indiscriminate subsidy of housing support to the targeting of assistance through the housing benefit system.
  I remind the House that the grant decisions reflected in the order will have only a minimal effect on local authority rent levels. Only Aberdeenshire, Highland, Shetland and Western Isles will receive housing support grant for their mainstream council housing. The impact will be outweighed by each authority's decisions on such matters as management and maintenance spending. For the other 28 councils, the rent levels are entirely a matter for local decision. Decisions on HSG, in that respect, are irrelevant. Each council must decide for itself what level of rent is appropriate in the light of local circumstances and defend that decision to its tenants.
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: Angus council has the second lowest rents in Scotland and a good record of low rents. How can the Minister justify a rent increase for every Angus rent payer of £2.75 a week to pay for his capital receipts policy?
  Mr. Robertson: The decision taken by Angus council is a amatter for the council itself. How can the hon.

  951
  Gentleman, as someone who has been a provost of a housing authority, justify the spiralling debts of local authorities for housing? An extra £1 billion since 1987 has increased the figure to £3.9 billion. The Government have brought in receipt rules with a request for 25 per cent. this year and 50 per cent. next year, because—given the increase in council house sales—it is surely unacceptable that fewer council tenants are paying greater debt charges. That cannot be allowed to continue.
  Mr. Welsh: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Robertson: I must make progress. The hon. Gentleman will get a chance to make his speech.
  Predicting the overall average rent increase across Scotland for 1996–97 is difficult, especially as some of the new councils may wish to rationalise the different rent structures that they have inherited. However, I understand that a number of councils have proposed rent increases well above inflation. I remind the House that, last year, councils were able to hold rent increases to an average of 3.5 per cent. This year, they seem to be taking a different course, which they will have to justify to their tenants. I note, for example, that the new Highland council has decided to increase rents by about 9 per cent., or £2.96 a week on average. One press report suggested that the council blamed the Government for the increase. However, the report went on to point out that only one third of the increase was due to a reduction in HSG. I calculate that only 67p of the increase can be attributed to that cause. By far the largest part of the increase was due to decisions taken by the new council.
  Where an authority does not receive HSG, it is even more the case that the decisions on rents have nothing to do with the Government and everything to do with decisions of local councillors. I have no quarrel with the idea that local authorities should decide rent levels in the light of local circumstances, but I believe that they should accept responsibility for the decisions and not seek to pass the blame elsewhere.
  Mr. James Wallace: Perhaps the Minister can satisfy my curiosity. In annex C, where the apportionment is given for each authority, Orkney islands council has been omitted. One would have thought that even if the balance was nil, it should have been there. Is there a special reason why Orkney, of all the councils in Scotland, is not mentioned?
  Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman will understand if I say that I am sure that during the debate I shall receive inspiration on that matter.
  Interestingly, former public sector tenants whose homes have been transferred to new landlords often find themselves protected from such annual fluctuations in their rent, because they have received guarantees about future rent rises as part of the transfer process.
  The Government's proposals for housing support grant next year are fair and reasonable. It is a package that balances the interests of tenants, council tax payers and national taxpayers, and I have no hesitation in commending the orders to the House.
  7.31 pm
  Mr. John McAllion: The debate is, uniquely, about council housing since housing support grant payments go only to councils. That means that it is not to the Minister's liking, which was obvious from the way in which he read the brief from his civil servants. The Minister is on record as expressing his distaste for council housing. I have a photocopy of a recent magazine article which is headed by an unattractive picture of the Minister. However, to be fair to the magazine, it is difficult to get an attractive picture of this Minister. In the article, the Minister makes clear his attitude to council housing, for which he is responsible. He says:
  "I want to see them"—
  that is councils—
  "get out of the business of being landlords, out of the day to day management of the housing stock".
  He wants councils in Scotland out of the housing picture completely.
  Even the Minister, with all his arrogance, realises that that is a tall order. The magazine article points out that
  "he will have to break the bonds which tie 35 per cent. of the population to public sector housing."
  In the article, the Minister says:
  "We are quite a bit away from what I am describing. We have a major cultural problem and a major exercise to persuade local authorities and tenants that this is the way forward."
  I fear that the Minister is using the word "persuade" in the same way as the Mafia. In other words, councils and council tenants will be made an offer that they cannot refuse and, in part, that is what we are seeing in the order.
  We have it straight from the horse's mouth. It does not matter what elected local councils, or council tenants, might think or want, the Minister and the Government have already made up their minds about what those council tenants will get, and they will not get council housing because it will not be on offer. That comes poorly from a Minister who, in the article to which I have already referred, talks about his vision for the future of housing in Scotland and says that he wants greater diversity and choice. It seems that people can have greater diversity and choice as long as they do not choose the tenure of which the Minister does not approve. There is no future for council housing as long as he is the Minister.
  Tragically, the Minister's prejudice will impact upon hundreds of thousands of ordinary families in Scotland, partly because of the order. Council housing is by far the largest part of the social rented sector in Scotland. We hear a great deal from Ministers about the 300,000 council tenants who chose to buy their council house under the right-to-buy legislation. We never hear anything about the 600,000 council tenants who have remained in the council sector as council tenants. They are the forgotten Scots under the Government's housing regime. They will be let down by the order and will suffer because of the Government's and the Minister's prejudice and their dislike for council housing.
  I shall explain some of the ways in which those 600,000 Scots will suffer. The order sets housing support grant for Scotland next year at £19.4 million. That is just under £3 million or 13 per cent. lower than the planned level for the current year. It is just under £5 million or 20 per cent. lower than the level that the Government gave last year. It represents yet another cut, another twist in an

  953
  on-going downward spiral—the steady withdrawal of Government support for council housing in Scotland over the past 15 years.
  Fifteen years ago, £228 million was given to Scottish councils in housing support grant. Next year, it will be just £19.4 million and, as the Minister said, only four out of 32 local authorities will qualify for it. In cash terms, councils are now receiving 8.5 per cent. of what they were receiving from the Government 15 years ago. In real terms, they are receiving significantly less than that.
  The Minister and his hon. Friends will no doubt say that that is a good thing and that, as a matter of policy, the Government are deliberately withdrawing housing support grant from tenants in Scotland. Well, okay, but what about those who have to pay council rents? The Minister made many statements about council rents, but he did not tell the House that average council rents in Scotland have increased by six times since the early 1980s. That is way above the rate of inflation and way above the increases in incomes of the people who live in those houses. In 1979–80, the average council rent in Scotland was £4.92 a week. Today the average is £28.68 a week. Next year, because of the order, it will increase by up to another 5 per cent., again way above the rate of inflation.
  The Minister said that the order will have no significant impact on council rents in Scotland next year. The absence of housing support grant in the order will have a significant impact on council rents next year. Because the Government and the Minister are withdrawing housing support grant from councils, council rents will increase next year, and the Minister should accept his responsibility directly.
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: I have asked the House to approve a housing support grant order of over £19 million. If the hon. Gentleman were in my position, what would be the housing support grant level that he would be asking the House to approve?
  Mr. McAllion: We are dealing with what the Minister is proposing. If he wants to find out how much the order would be under a Labour Government, let him and his hon. Friends call a general election now, and they will find out in a short time.
  Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman suggested that it would take a general election to find out what a Labour Government would do. The Labour party has said that it will not increase taxation or take more out of the pockets of the taxpayer. So a Labour Government could not increase housing support.
  Mr. McAllion: There was a rumour about two weeks ago—I was contacted by the press—that the Secretary of State was thinking of inviting me and my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) to look at all the books to see what resources are available. The Secretary of State has never made good that offer. They know that if we were allowed to see where all the money is tucked away for the tax cuts that the Government hope to use to get re-elected, the cat would be out of the bag. If we could see where the money was, we could perhaps say what we would do with it.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): The phrase "a look at the books" is absurd. The
  954
  Scottish Office block is published and is available to the hon. Gentleman. It sets out where the expenditure will come from. Surely it is fair to ask the hon. Gentleman whether, if he were in government, he would increase the level of support provided for council tenants and from where the money would come. Why can he not answer?
  Mr. McAllion: The Secretary of State knows very well that the size of the Scottish Office budget is determined by Cabinet decisions on public spending generally. The Cabinet, of which the Secretary of State is a member, has found £1.5 billion to waste on rail privatisation and billions of pounds over the past few years to waste on council tax and other schemes. Where did that money come from? It came from Government decisions taken by the Secretary of State and his right hon. and hon. Friends. If they cannot stand up and take responsibility for those decisions, they should not be there, and most of Scotland agrees with me that it is time that they were not there.
  The Minister said that there need not be rent increases in Scotland next year, but we know for a fact that, across Scotland, in Renfrew, Dundee, Edinburgh and Highland, rents will increase significantly as a result of the Government's policies. As always, the Minister blames the councils, and, as always, he is wrong, because the blame lies fairly and squarely with him and his Government, who, over the past 15 years, have waged ideological warfare against the council sector. It was not the councils but the Government who slashed capital allocations to councils in Scotland. It was not the councils but the Government who abolished general fund contributions. It was not the councils but the Government who all but abolished housing support grant and forced councils to put rents up year on year, thereby forcing council tenants to rely on housing benefit and forcing them into a poverty trap, from which thousands of ordinary Scots can no longer escape.
  This is the Government who rail against the social chapter and the national minimum wage, who are evangelical about workers pricing themselves into low-paid jobs, who force rent increases on hundreds of thousands of low-paid Scots who cannot possibly afford to pay. Yet the Minister has the effrontery to boast this evening about £650 million of housing benefit being allocated to Scottish tenants. He is creating a poverty trap from which low-paid Scots cannot escape. He is making council tenants in Scotland dependent on handouts, because he is forcing on them rent levels that are well beyond the means of ordinary people to pay.
  We should not be surprised by any of that, because the Minister has already made clear his intention to finish with council housing for good in the longer term. It is now official that the final solution has been fixed by the Government, and that, in a Tory future, there will be no more council housing. All the signs are there, because as well as the slow strangulation of housing support grant in the order, we now have the ruling on capital receipts. Next year, 25 per cent. is to be used to redeem debt that councils have accumulated on their housing revenue account. The following year, 50 per cent. is to be used for the same purpose.
  In those two years, some £300 million will be cut from investment in council housing in Scotland. All of that will happen at the same time as Scottish Homes, the Government's national agency, begins its second national house condition survey. God knows, the first one painted

  955
  a bleak enough picture for Scottish housing: 95,000 houses in Scotland were below the tolerable standard; 267,000 houses were affected by dampness; 580,000 required urgent repairs; and an outstanding repairs bill of £3.7 billion.
  Most decent observers would have expected that a Government who commissioned such a survey and received such a devastating analysis of the crisis facing Scottish housing would have made housing one of their top political priorities—not this Government. They did exactly the opposite. They launched a holy war against housing in Scotland, particularly public sector housing. In all the talk of Government priorities recently, not one Scottish Office Minister can be found who will say that housing is a priority for the Government, because even these Ministers balk at something so blatantly untrue. So they cut the housing budget. They cut the budget for Scottish Homes. They steal the capital receipts from councils' investment programmes. They force rent rises on council tenants. They make the people pay. All of that at a time of crisis in Scottish housing.
  Most hon. Members present will have received a briefing from Shelter, which says:
  "Few can remember a more damaging round of cuts"
  than that introduced by the Minister. In cash terms, it is a cut of 17 per cent. this year. In real terms, it is a cut of 19 per cent. The figure that Shelter uses is £148 million, which, by happy coincidence, is the figure that the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch), quoted in our first debate as the increase for council spending in Scotland. I hope that those figures are not linked.
  The Government will have to account for their record on housing when they face the people of Scotland, who will not forget the Government's callous, indifferent and cold attitude to the homeless in Scotland and to the people who are trapped on waiting lists. Ministers might say, "Let the homeless suffer, because they do not have a vote." They might say, "Let those who are trapped on council waiting lists wait." That is the import of their policies. Ministers might judge that those people do not vote for them or the Conservative party, but I warn Ministers that there are others in Scotland who can vote, who detest their callousness, their lack of concern and their reneging on any commitment to the most vulnerable in Scottish society. When they vote, they will remember the Minister's track record on housing. I am sure that the people of Aberdeen, South will lead the rest of the people in Scotland in ensuring that neither the Minister nor any of his colleagues will be in government after the election.
  7.44 pm
  Mr. Allan Stewart: It is always a great pleasure to listen to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), who has the merit of being an honest socialist—a fairly unusual position for a Member on the Opposition Benches these days. What was most interesting about his speech was that he completely failed to answer the perfectly reasonable questions that were put to him by my hon. Friend the Minister, by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie).
  Of course, nobody suggests that an Opposition are able to put precise figures on their policies to the last million pounds, but, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State
  956
  told the hon. Gentleman, the Scottish block figures are perfectly well known. They are published. The hon. Gentleman refused to deny that a Labour Government would abolish all support to council housing in Scotland.
  Mr. McAllion: Nobody asked me to.
  Mr. Stewart: I am asking the hon. Gentleman now. What is the figure?
  Mr. McAllion: I cannot understand how the hon. Gentleman can think that I refused to answer that question when it was never asked of me in the first place. I can tell him that a Labour Government will ensure that all tenures in Scotland are treated fairly and that the resources are distributed fairly across all tenures. It is for people, not Governments, to choose the tenure that they want. Labour will go back to the old system, which was far preferable to the way in which the zealots on the Government Front Bench operate.
  Mr. Stewart: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he will give me the figure within £50 million.
  Mr. McAllion: If the Secretary of State for Scotland were to invite me into the Scottish Office and to the Cabinet Office to see all the Government's books, I would be glad to give the hon. Gentleman the exact figure.
  Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is wriggling now. All the Scottish Office block figures are published. They are on the record. The hon. Gentleman's problem is that he is subject to the Dunfermline doctrine: that Labour Front-Bench spokesmen are entitled to say anything that they want but must never quote a figure. That means that there is never a real commitment to anything at all.
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Stewart: No.
  The speech of the hon. Member for Dundee, East was completely meaningless, unless he can say, within a margin, how the Labour party would back its objectives with taxpayers' money. That is what every council tenant in Scotland should learn from the hon. Gentleman's speech tonight.
  My hon. Friend the Minister talked about the variation order, which is, of course, a technical matter, and about the hostel element in housing support grant. The House would accept the justification for general taxpayer support to local authority expenditure on hostels, because people move across boundaries. I thought that my hon. Friend made an extremely good case for voting against the order, because he said that it is a random and indiscriminate subsidy, which it is. He said that money out of the general portion is received by Aberdeenshire, Shetland, Western Isles and Highland. Why should I vote for a transfer of resources from the good people of Eastwood to those authorities? I cannot think of any good reason for doing so. I hope that the Labour party will divide the House. If they win the vote, the grant will be abolished. So much the better.

  957
  Government policies on housing should be developed by moving faster from using taxpayers' money for current expenditure—that is what the grant does—to concentrating on capital expenditure. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister not to be dismayed if the Labour party divides the House and he loses the vote, thus abolishing the Scottish housing support grant. He will then have a lot of money in hand, which he will be able to spend on capital projects.
  Mrs. Fyfe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Stewart: I am about to finish, and I know that other hon. Members want to join in the debate.
  Apart from the hostel element, there are serious reasons for asking why the grant exists at all, and why the money should not be removed from the recipient councils and put towards capital expenditure, to improve the standard of the housing stock in which Scottish council tenants live.
  7.50 pm
  Mr. Jimmy Wray: It is some time since we started our debates today, and I have been in the Chamber since we discussed the revenue account. I am sorry that I was not called in that debate, because a lot of political chicanery concerning facts and figures was going on. It was also hard to understand all the positions that various Ministers took up in the newspapers beforehand.
  However, in this debate I can speak with some authority, because I was brought up in the Gorbals. There were 10 in our family, and several of them died from tuberculosis at early ages—at four, at 20 and at 33. Other people in the family died early because of the later effects of such conditions. So we know all about bad housing.
  I can answer the question that the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) asked, because I am not a member of new Labour. I am still old Labour. I am red-blooded and I fight for the people when I see an injustice. I spent 30 years dealing with housing complaints every Saturday, and I have probably found houses for more people than has anyone on the Government Benches. People used to say that they had prayed to St. Anthony and he had got them a house—but actually it was me.
  I understand why my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) would not give a figure, because obviously he does not know the figure. I can give the Government a figure. I can tell them that if we wiped out the Scottish housing debt, that would improve things.
  One of the reasons why we introduced the housing support grant was to clear out bad housing in Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East is right about the money, because 15 years ago we had £228 million, plus £100 million from the general fund contribution, whereas in 1996 all we have is £19.4 million, including the general fund contribution. Every year, the Minister says that any local authority in Scotland can apply if it is finding difficulty, but several have done so and every one was rejected. The Government should wind up the GFC, because they are not really interested in it.
  The only way in which the people of Scotland will get any justice is by getting rid of that lot. They are the last of the Mohicans; they have drained the boxes of every
  958
  penny that they could find and they all, to a man and to a woman, obey the Secretary of State for Scotland. But he will be off the card when the general election comes, along with the rest of the Scottish Ministers. Possibly the only one to survive will be Lord James himself—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes):Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will remember the tradition here that we address other Members by using their constituencies.
  Mr. Wray: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  I must remind the Government that 25 years ago we were clearing out the slums of Glasgow—the worst slums in Europe, where people were living 600 and 700 to the acre, in rat-infested houses owned by private landlords. Tuberculosis was rampant, and people were dying of poverty. Past Tory Governments acknowledged that poverty but allowed it to continue, because their support came from the private landlords who were charging the poor people in Glasgow, in the rest of Scotland and throughout Britain extortionate rents.
  Today we are in the same position. We have a golden opportunity to look after the people of Glasgow and the rest of Scotland. In Glasgow, there are 23,297 dwellings below a tolerable standard, and 7,000 houses lying empty. In 1992, Glasgow city council received 5,673 applications from homeless people; in 1993–94, the figure rose to 13,200. That shows the extent of the problem and the Government's failure to tackle it.
  We hear a lot about what is happening in Scotland, but those things are certainly not happening in Glasgow. In some of the constituencies with the worst housing, people suffer from high infant mortality rates, rat infestation and decaying housing unfit for human habitation.
  The Secretary of State had a golden opportunity to increase the housing support grant and give Glasgow a chance to do something about poverty. Yet what figures has the Scottish Office produced? Since 1991, £22 million has been cut from the housing support grant, which represents a cut of 95 per cent. By 1995–96, there will have been a total cut of 99 per cent.
  The Scottish Office works on a national figure calculated on the basis of rents 10 per cent. higher than rents really are. That means a direct cut for local authorities in Scotland. Rents are deemed to be £38.48, although the average is only £28.68. That is a damned disgrace, a fraud and a lie to the Scottish people, and it should not be tolerated.
  The Secretary of State said that he was expecting rent increases of more than 5 per cent. Why would he expect that when increases are really running at only 3 per cent? When the Secretary of State put the cap on and Glasgow council asked for its inflation rate of 3 per cent., according to the right hon. Gentleman the gross domestic product deflator showed an increase of 2.75 per cent., yet he allowed it only a 1 per cent. increase. Now he wonders why the council is in its present state. He will draw upon himself the wrath of the Glasgow people with that increase, and the wrath of the people of Dundee will be turned on him too. Those are the two councils that will suffer the most.
  I thought that housing support grant was intended to get rid of bad housing in Glasgow and to keep rents down, but Government policy is to ring-fence housing so that it is

  959
  funded by the people who pay the rent. Housing usually represents the largest single expenditure for individuals and families on low incomes. Earlier this century, Governments realised that, and adopted policies to provide decent housing for everyone, regardless of their income.
  Those policies were successful, and, in 1977, the National Consumer Council found that people on low incomes often received better value for money than others, mostly because of good-quality subsidised housing run by councils. People in private rented accommodation suffered to some extent because Rachman-type landlords were exploiting tenants and not spending any money on their houses. As councillors we were running about trying to get the sanitary inspectors to issue disrepair notices against them.
  Now we come to the sad story of when the Government took over in 1979. The election of the Tories changed the situation completely. Their policies totally altered the role of public sector rented housing. The changes involved minimising public involvement and, as in other sectors, giving way to market forces.
  The main thrust of the Government's proposals was as follows. Ownership was to be extended and Government expenditure reduced and targeted more effectively. Local authority responsibility was to be decreased by increasing private ownership and transferring homes to housing associations, such as Scottish Homes, with the support of a majority of the tenants. The Government were taking housing out of local authority control, even though local authorities could probably have done something about the problem of slum dwellings.
  As well as those United Kingdom-wide plans, specific legislation for Scotland was introduced. Scotland, with its history of low ownership and a large number of council houses, was seen as having plenty of potential. Legislation included the Housing Act 1980 and the Housing and Planning Act 1986. Those Acts were supposed to benefit the poor. They introduced the right-to-buy scheme. We all know about negative equity and that thousands of houses have been repossessed after the Government's Thatcherite policy failed and exploited the poor. With interest rates of 6 per cent. they bought houses with possibly 70 per cent. discounts and ended up two years later paying 18 per cent. interest charges.
  That is the sort of Government that we have. They do not care about what happens and then they run around telling us what they are doing for the people. Every Labour Member knows the problems because every Saturday we see such people coming into our surgery, poverty-stricken and in ill health because the Government do not care. Compassion comes only from Labour Members.
  Those Acts were supposed to benefit the poor. They introduced the right-to-buy scheme, which allowed tenants to buy their houses at market value minus a discount, based on the length of occupancy. They moved subsidies from buildings to households to help people most in need and to shield the poor. The decline in council housing and the increase in private sector dwellings and housing associations was meant to increase the choice of accommodation available.
  What happened? The policy of increasing home ownership has been a success in terms of numbers, with an increase of 450,000 in new owners, but the prospect of
  960
  home ownership has been unrealistic for people on low incomes; even with discounts of up to 70 per cent. on the market value, the prices were beyond their means.
  The Government then committed the cardinal sin—this bright Cabinet introduced deregulation. In 1989, the Tories deregulated private rents. Since then, housing benefits for private tenants have increased from £1 billion to £5.5 billion—an increase of 300 per cent. The planned total in 1997–98 is £7.4 billion. That shows exactly what the Government are about, how they have changed the policy around, how they are putting the burden on the taxpayer, how they are getting at the poor and how housing benefits are clearing up debts. That is the only way in which they are working. The increase in such housing, benefits, is due mostly, to massively, increased rents—public money going straight into private landlords' pockets.
  I have taken many hours in the Chamber to express my constituents' views. They are the same as the views that they expressed in 1987 when I was first elected to the House. The problems are the same in housing, in education and in any other service that is being provided. The minute that Labour Members see something worth while being done that helps the poor, the Government start to cut. They are cutting and cutting and continue to cut.
  I do not want to talk for much longer because other hon. Members want to do so. The people of Scotland and of Glasgow are not kidded by the Government. After the general election, they will be out on their ear because of the way in which they have treated the people of Scotland for 16 years.
  Mr. Wallace: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point that I raised with the Minister in his speech probably has more significance than I thought at the time. We are debating the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order. It states that, under the terms of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, the order shall not be made until a draft has been laid before the House, with a report of the considerations leading to the order's provisions, and until that has been approved by a resolution of the House.
  The definition of a report is found in section 192(3) of that Act, which states that the report should
  "contain a table showing in respect of each local authority, for the year in question—

  (a) the estimated amount of grant payable to that local authority; or

  (b) if no amount of grant is so payable, that fact."

  This purported report is informative, but does not meet the statutory requirement because Orkney islands council is omitted from it. It is an interesting document, but has no legal status. Even if approved by the House, the draft order will not therefore satisfy statute in giving the Secretary of State the power to make housing support grant payments.
  I am concerned because the other half of my constituency—covered by the Shetland islands council—is due to receive about £3.9 million. I would hate to find that the Secretary of State could not legally pay that money. Can you rule, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether we are debating a competent order, and whether, if we proceed to make a resolution, it will carry no legal weight? Does the Minister intend to introduce a draft order with a report that meets the statutory requirement?
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that I can rule on this matter now. There may be a flaw, but that is not for the occupants of the Chair to determine. The only matter for them is whether the motion is in order, and it is. The Minister must answer any points about flaws in the order that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) detects.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I think that the Minister wishes to comment.
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I can confirm that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) is right that Orkney islands council has been omitted from the order. It is a printing error that does not affect the order's validity.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Is it a short point of order?
  Mr. Kirkwood: It is short, but important. When we consider the parent legislation under which the order and the report are being discussed, the case that has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) is incontrovertibly true. The exchanges that are taking place are able to be considered by the courts. Some people would have a locus in taking out an interdict if the order went through in this clearly defective state.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have made the point clearly that it is not a matter on which the occupant of the Chair can rule. It may be a matter for debate and for answer by the Minister, but that is as far as it can be taken by the occupant of the Chair tonight.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for that ruling. I understand that it is not a matter for the occupant of the Chair—that is clear—but it is a matter for people who might suffer as a result of the House passing a defective order.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Kirkwood: There is a time limit.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am aware of that. I have already said that I can deal only with points of order that are relevant to the occupant of the Chair.
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The order that has been laid before the House is correct and we are voting on the amounts of housing support grant to be paid.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has made it clear that he is concerned not with that point, but with the report. Again, that is not a matter for me. The debate is short and it should now continue.
  8.7 pm
  Mr. Phil Gallie: Having listened with great interest to the points of order, I should like to return to the speech by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray). After his speech, there cannot be a dry eye in the House. I respect his views. He is totally honest. Unlike perhaps many of the people who purport to support the Labour party these days, he sticks to his traditional beliefs. He has forgotten many things that have happened in Glasgow in recent years. In the 1950s and 1960s, when Conservative Governments were in power, money was poured into local government and housing in Glasgow. That raised standards considerably. Since Margaret Thatcher was elected as Prime Minister, massive improvements have taken place in Glasgow through repairs and improvement grants. Money went into Glasgow and uplifted it in a way that could never have been dreamt of by the people with whom the hon. Member for Provan served on councils in years gone by.
  The hon. Gentleman said that if the Labour party were in power, it could provide £4 billion to write off the council housing debt. That is nine times the annual amount of the tartan tax that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) would impose on us should he ever get his hands on the reins of power. At least the hon. Member for Provan has been honest about the figure.
  I never fail to be impressed by the honesty that flows from the tongue of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion). However, I do not go along with his opinions and occasionally his facts are wrong, but he always believes in what he says. Perhaps some Opposition Members should take note of that.
  In one or two areas, there have been massive changes in recent times. The greatest of those changes has been the way in which people are given the means for adequate housing through housing benefit. That benefit currently injects some £620 million a year into local authority housing.
  Mr. Bill Walker: While my hon. Friend is addressing the issue of housing benefit, will he remind the House that if councils had put up their rents to economic levels to allow for maintenance, much if not all of the rents would have been paid through housing benefit to those who were eligible and money could have gone straight into the housing coffers? Mismanagement by socialist or nationalist authorities has led to this situation.
  Mr. Gallie: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I shall give him a good example of that. Kyle and Carrick district council has put up its rents, but at the same time it has invested massively in its housing stock, upgrading it to such an extent that I defy any hon. Member to say that in his constituency he has better local authority housing.
  The predecessor of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) was David Lambie, a guy for whom I have every respect. He was a tremendous constituency Member, but he was totally misguided on this issue. Through their council links over the years, he and his family depressed rents in the Saltcoats area and other parts of north Ayrshire and reduced the quality of housing. At the same time, he had the audacity to come to the House and earn a good salary while living in one of the council

  963
  houses that he was attempting to protect. Nowadays that would not be allowed, because housing benefit recognises the ability to pay. That is fair.
  Mr. Wray rose—
  Mr. Brian H. Donohoe rose—
  Mr. Gallie: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Provan.
  Mr. Wray: The one thing that the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) has established is that there are at least two honest men in the House. Will he be truthful and say whether he agrees that a local authority such as that in Glasgow should stop receiving housing support grants?
  Mr. Gallie: Yes, I have no difficulty in agreeing to that, provided that there is a means to back tenants who need support, and housing benefit does just that. It is provided by central taxpayers and does not place the burden on other council house residents. It simply spreads the burden and that is fair and right.
  Mr. Donohoe: The hon. Gentleman lives in an unreal world. He has lived all his days in the leafy suburbs of either West Kilbride or Ayr: he has never lived in the middle of a slum area. That is part of the problem that he faces in debating housing allocation. I do not represent Saltcoats, but I know that the housing stock there is among the best in Cunninghame and always has been. That is all down to the good management of the old Saltcoats town council.
  Mr. Gallie: For a start, the hon. Gentleman's facts are all wrong. I came from an area in Fife that was not known for its leafy suburbs. I lived in a public sector house: my family certainly did not own it. As usual, the hon. Gentleman is way off beam. He is also wrong about housing stock in Saltcoats. I was on Cunninghame district council from 1980 to 1984 and at that time the worst housing stock in Cunninghame was in Saltcoats. He should retract every word that he has said about that, and when he speaks in future he should make sure that he has the facts and not a load of rubbish, which is what he has just spoken.
  I should like to deal with some other issues. I welcome the extra injection of cash into council hostel facilities. That is important, particularly for young homeless people. It is not right to put them out into the housing estates and leave them unattended. Hostel facilities are ideal and I commend the Minister for finding the extra cash for them. The Government have also found additional cash for Scottish Homes, but I have a complaint because I learnt recently that Scottish Homes plans to inject into Glasgow some £8 million for so-called ethnic housing. I am not a racist. Housing must be available as and when it is needed and it must be allocated by fair means and be available to all our citizens irrespective of creed or culture or anything else. I question the Government about the correctness of Scottish Homes taking that line and ask whether it is right under the terms of the Race Relations Act 1976.
  Mr. Bill Walker: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Gallie: No. I have already given way and other hon. Members wish to speak.
  964
  I will leave the matter with the Government. The hon. Member for Falkirk, West said that his council tenants were prepared to provide additional funding for housing. Perhaps that is right, but all my constituents are prepared to do that through the general taxation system. That brings us back to the housing benefit system, which I think is correct but which the hon. Gentleman does not seem to accept.
  Mr. Connarty: I am the hon. Member for Falkirk, East, not Falkirk, West. I did not say that council tenants were willing to do what the hon. Gentleman suggests: I said the opposite. I said that people such as the hon. Gentleman and I who live in the private sector were quite willing until they were stopped by the Government, to contribute some of their council tax, which at that time was rates, to the housing account for bricks and mortar. That was because they and their children, should they ever need it, had the right to apply for council housing. The Government have excluded that and I accuse them of trying to ghettoise council housing, because that is their ideology.
  Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman is totally off beam. Many of my constituents and many of the people whom I represented when I was a councillor greatly resented having to pay through the rating system for the provision of housing for others. Many of those people found it difficult to meet their own housing needs, but that was not recognised through the rating system. Now through the general taxation system, through income tax—perhaps a tax that recognises the ability to pay—everyone shares the burden for the provision of such housing. I would have thought that the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) would have applauded and welcomed that. I do not understand the issue that he raised.
  Mr. Bill Walker: Will my hon. Friend comment on the Scottish Homes rural initiative, under which the scheme in Spittalfield in my constituency was opened by my hon. Friend the Minister? The initiative is giving people houses at a price that they can afford and creating schemes of which people will be proud because they will own their houses. Those who cannot afford to buy houses rent the others available. It is a superb scheme.
  Mr. Gallie: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend.
  I should like to refer to the benefits that the right-to-buy policy has brought. Not only have individuals become owners and taken pride in their ownership, but they have injected cash into the properties that they have purchased. They have upgraded properties and areas and made life better for themselves and those around them. Surely everyone should commend that.
  The Government's policy on housing is all about devolution—to people who want to buy and people who want to manage their own housing affairs through housing associations. That, too, is a commendable policy and I cannot understand why the hon. Member for Dundee, East seemed to condemn it.
  8.20 pm
  Mrs. Ray Michie: I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) did not manage to have the

  965
  order withdrawn, because it would have been nice to see Scottish Office Ministers being sent back to the drawing board.
  The annual debate on the housing support grant never seems to change. Once again the level of support is down. This year the total in real terms spent on housing will be 19 per cent. less than last year. In 1979, if we can think back to then, £164 million was spent. In 1995–96, the grant dropped to £22 million, and in the next financial year it will be £19.4 million. Only the four councils that we have heard about will receive money out of the general portion. Others will receive it from the hostel portion. Under the latter category, my constituency will receive about £80,000. Will the Minister confirm what the City of Glasgow receives in hostel provision?
  With the principal source of new council housing investment—capital receipts—being reduced by 25 per cent. this year and 50 per cent. next year to go towards debt repayment, there is no doubt that rents will have to go up. In Argyll and Bute that is certainly the case as it tries to keep up with ever-growing repair and maintenance work in an area where incomes are low, job losses have been announced in each of the past three weeks, and the costs of living and transport are high.
  The number of dwellings below tolerable standard will not be reduced either. In 1995, according to Scottish Office figures—I think that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) also mentioned the fact—90,000 homes in Scotland were below tolerable standard. In a rural area such as Argyll and Bute, more than 7,000 homes are below tolerable standard—a mere reduction of 204 houses since last year. That is a disgrace in a country such as ours.
  Shelter has called for a rough sleepers initiative in Scotland similar to the one introduced to tackle the problem in London, on which the Government spent £182 million. Will the Minister consider it? The number of homeless people continues to shame our civilised country.
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: May I explain that we have not taken forward a rough sleepers initiative because we are in the process of undertaking research into the prevalence of rooflessness in Scotland? My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I expect to consider the results in the middle of the year. We will be looking at four urban areas plus other areas throughout Scotland. We will be bringing policies forward based on fact and not speculation once we have the results of the research that we have commissioned.
  Mrs. Michie: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer and pleased to hear that policies will be brought forward. I hope that those policies will be matched by the requisite resources.
  Council house sales are always expected to raise more money than is realistically possible. Of course the sum will be reduced because of the new rules on the repayment of debt. Certainly in my area most of the saleable council houses have already gone and people do not want to buy those that are left. The Government want to sell council housing stock to housing associations regardless of tenants' views simply so that they can enter agreements with the private sector.
  Councils should be able to approach the private sector and form partnerships. That fact that they are not doing that is surely an indication of how much the Government
  966
  dislike local government. It is sad because local authorities and their agencies can do so much more in building stable communities. They can encourage tenants associations to take an interest in planning and management of their housing and the environment.
  The funding crisis is going to pose huge difficulties for frail elderly people, those with special needs and children of 16, 17 and 18 years old who come out of care homes and need to be housed in the community. They will need help and often continued support, which councils will have to face under the present funding constraints.
  I understand from Scottish Office statements that there are not only plans for a real terms cut of 20 per cent. in council housing budgets, but plans to cut the Scottish Homes budget next year by about £50 million. Will the Minister confirm that? Indeed, there have been continuous cuts in the Scottish Homes budget, which was the great white hope when it was established. The budget has been cut from £135.2 million in 1991 to £107 million.
  I want to bring to the attention of the Minister the recent severe cold weather and ask for his support. Much damage was done to housing in Scotland in that period. According to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, at least 119,000 houses were adversely affected. In Argyll and Bute more than 1,000 houses suffered—many from loss of heating, not least because people dare not switch on the heating due to the extra cost.
  I should like to draw to the attention of the Minister how in my constituency the present system of cold weather payments has been shown to be a complete nonsense. Over the area as a whole, temperatures fell below zero for seven consecutive days. Daytime temperatures varied from as low as minus 15 deg C to minus 18 deg C during the day and fell even lower at night.
  Areas north of Taynuilt and up into Wester Ross suffered similar drops in temperature, yet because they are linked by their postcode to the trigger station on Tiree, they received no assistance. As the Minister knows, Tiree sits out in the Gulf stream. Perhaps that is why the Government chose it. It recorded temperature swings of between minus 5 per cent. and plus 4 per cent. over the same seven-day period. However, there was a wind chill factor of minus 11 per cent., so it suffered severe disadvantage—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but I am not clear how the point she is making relates to the order under consideration.
  Mrs. Michie: My point relates to housing and the order deals with housing and resources for housing. In particular, I am referring to those houses damaged during the severe weather in Scotland. I asked the Secretary of State for Social Security if he would consider—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but the hon. Lady is not dealing with the main issue of the order. I must ask her to deal with that and also to bear it in mind that this is a short debate and several other hon. Members are waiting to speak on the order.
  Mrs. Michie: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall adhere to what you say. Perhaps the Minister has got the message. I hope that he will carefully consider the matters that I have raised tonight.
  8.31 pm
  Mr. David Marshall: In the housing support grant order, as in the revenue support grant order, the city of Glasgow seems to have been singled out for vindictive treatment. How else can the Government explain a settlement that gives the least resources to the city with the greatest need? The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) referred to Glasgow in the 1950s and 1960s. It was the highly selective policy of overspill of people and jobs to other parts of Scotland that caused many of the problems that the city faces today. Any money being spent in the city is a way of society repaying its debts.
  I had hoped to speak in our earlier debate on the revenue support grant. Unfortunately, what should have been a debate lasting more than three hours became a debate that lasted just one hour and 20 minutes—wholly inadequate for such an important subject. Several of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members were unable to participate.
  There is to be a massive cut of almost £30 million in capital funding for housing in Glasgow. That is an extremely serious blow to the city—even more so when taken with the revenue grant figure, because the capping level means that Glasgow has to make cuts of £68 million. If we deduct the £25 million that the city finds from various sources, that leaves £43 million to be found from cuts in services and increased charges—a cut of almost £1 million a week or £117,808.21 every day of the year. How can Glasgow tackle the evils of unemployment, poverty and poor housing with such a settlement?
  Because of the housing capital cuts, 300 people could lose their jobs in the city's housing department. Already, 700 council employees have taken redundancy. With enforced compulsory redundancies, the figure for job losses could rise to 2,000. That shows the scale of the problem that the city faces.
  The proposed council tax increase of 36 per cent. means that band D council tax payers will face an increase of £243—from £676 to £919. In addition, council house rents have had to be increased by an average of £3.94 a week. The combined rent and council tax increases will mean more and more misery for many citizens, especially those caught in the poverty trap whose income is just above the qualifying level to obtain any benefits.
  As if the housing support grant order were not bad enough, Glasgow had the misfortune to suffer horrendous damage to its housing stock in the severe weather over the new year. I dealt with that matter fully in an Adjournment debate on 17 January. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), for meeting Glasgow Members of Parliament recently to discuss the severe weather problems and capital allocations. It was a much more constructive meeting than we had expected. Nevertheless, Glasgow is still faced with the same problem.
  The latest figures for the cost of the winter emergency are £9.1 million for the reinstatement work in respect of the housing revenue account. To fund that, the council will have to delay capital expenditure of £2.3 million on heating, windows and roofing projects. Day-to-day repairs, at an estimated cost of £2.8 million, will be displaced by frost emergency work, resulting in an increase in outstanding repairs of 10,000. There will also
  968
  be a potential deficit in the housing revenue account for 1996–97 of £2.9 million. I understand that the Minister has now received the relevant information from Glasgow city council. I hope that he will soon be in a position to respond positively.
  On the vexed question of housing support grant, has the Minister yet reconsidered the differences between the Government's capital receipts targets and the council's predicted outturn figures? I want to put the figures to him again. On right-to-buy sales, the Government expectation is an income of £20.872 million. The council prediction is £13.5 million. On stock transfers, the figures are £3.871 million and nothing, and on land sales they are £3 million and £500,000 respectively. That is a total Government expectation of £27.918 million against a council prediction of £14 million—a shortfall of almost £14 million.
  As has already been said, the Government's receipts targets are based on a pattern of house sales and Scottish Homes stock transfer activity in 1994–95 rather than 1995–96, when there was a drop in the number of house sales inquiries and take-up and acceptance rates of 35 and 58 per cent. respectively. Most of the houses that people want to buy have already been bought, so the sales of council houses will slump in the coming year. Indeed, to be quite frank, in many cases the stock that is left is not worth buying. Scottish Homes in Glasgow does not expect to have any funding to effect further acquisitions.
  A much more realistic target for the council would be a reduction of the receipts targets to £500,000 for land sales and stock transfers combined and to £13.5 million for the right to buy. In addition, there should be a commensurate increase in borrowing consent to ensure that the council is able to meet its legal commitments. Finally, by reducing borrowing consent there will be a serious risk to public-private partnerships such as the Glasgow energy and urban regeneration initiatives.
  The Minister is insisting that the target for voluntary transfers—which are really compulsory transfers—of 1 per cent. of the total remaining housing stock must be reached in the next financial year. For Glasgow, that means that almost 1,100 houses must be transferred to new landlords—but who? Is there to be a return to Rachmanism, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) asked? Scottish Homes cannot fund housing associations to take on those houses, so who will be the landlords? The same applies to land sales. Will speculators move in and buy up land so that when the Glasgow Development Agency, Scottish Homes, Greater Glasgow health board or Glasgow city council want to buy the land back to develop it, they will have to pay extortionately high prices? That is not sense; it is nonsense and it is also counter-productive.
  I appeal to the Secretary of State not simply to abandon local government but to show some compassion and concern for those who most need the essential services that local government provides. If the Secretary of State for Wales can find an additional £15 million to ensure that no council has to increase its council tax by more than 25 per cent., why cannot the Secretary of State for Scotland do the same?
  Mr. Connarty: I am interested in the points that my hon. Friend is developing. Glasgow will have a problem similar to that of other authorities that have built large

  969
  multi-storey blocks of flats, with perhaps 85 flats in each block. The cost of refurbishment can be up to £1.6 million per block. It appears that the Government are not taking into account in their calculations the costs of allowing the blocks to deteriorate further. Surely Glasgow will have a massive problem. I know that 11 blocks in Falkirk district require massive investment. Will the Government tell us where the money will come from to refurbish those blocks?
  Mr. Marshall: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The money is there; what is not there is the will to make it available. If the Government can find £30 million for HCI, £69 million to cap water bills, £600 million to write off water quango debts and more than £1 billion for the waste of the rail privatisation shambles, they can find some money to help local authorities and to help the people of Scotland.
  8.39 pm
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: We have had a useful debate and in the short time that is left, I will try to respond to as many points as possible. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) questioned the validity of the report. The legal advice we have received is that the omission of Orkney is a technical error in the draft report which will be corrected when the report is finalised after the debate. The error does not affect the validity of the order.
  The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) asked about hostel grants to Glasgow. The hostel grant covers the deficit between the cost of operating hostels and the income received. It can, and does, vary from year to year. In 1995–96, Glasgow received £125,000 and in 1996–97, it would have received £92,000, but the figure was reduced because of an overpayment in an earlier year. The subsidy system is based on making an estimate for the year ahead. If the deficit turns out to be less than estimated, the payment is adjusted in a later year's order. That is why the Glasgow grant is less next year; that is purely a technical effect of the system.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) asked about housing benefit in Glasgow. I understand that around 82 per cent. of Glasgow tenants are in receipt of housing benefit. Last year, £156 million was paid to Glasgow tenants in rent rebates. My hon. Friend also referred to Scottish Homes and the £8 million grant for ethnic housing in Glasgow. I understand what my hon. Friend was saying, but I point out that it is a matter for Scottish Homes and he should take it up with the chairman or the chief executive.
  The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) talked about housing support grant levels and the general fund contributions. I estimate that the cost of implementing an HSG subsidy regime using actual average rents and actual expenditure, as proposed in the brief to which the hon. Gentleman referred, would be £93 million, which is £73 million more than planned. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he would allow council tax levels to rise to accommodate that figure? He is not willing to catch my eye, which makes me think that he was saying one thing when he was standing and another once he was sitting. Is he saying that he would allow council tax levels to rise to meet that £93 million?
  Mr. McAllion: If the hon. Gentleman could find the money that has been wasted on assisted places, on the nursery voucher scheme and on rail privatisation, I could certainly find money to support council housing.
  Mr. Robertson: That is £6 million. What happens to the other £87 million? Throughout the hon. Gentleman's speech, he called for more money to be spent and for more resources to be ploughed in. He says that the Government are waging a holy war against council housing. That is a strange accusation to level at a Minister who was brought up in a council house and whose parents still live in a council house. The hon. Gentleman would not say how many more resources he would be willing to commit. Will he do the decent and honourable thing by informing the House how much more, if he were standing in my place tonight, the order would give? Until he tells us how much, he can have no credibility.
  Mr. McAllion: The Minister will have no credibility as long as he wastes money on nursery voucher schemes that nobody in Scotland wants, as long as he wastes money on assisted places schemes, as long as he wastes money on rail privatisation and as long as he wastes money in many other areas of public expenditure. He should get his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to argue in the Cabinet for more public investment. Everyone in Scotland and the United Kingdom knows that the Government are planning tax cuts as an election bribe. That is where we would get the money to fund public services.
  Mr. Robertson: So parents all over Scotland are to take it that nursery vouchers are a waste of money and that increasing nursery provision is a waste of money. I ask the hon. Gentleman the same question. How much more would he ask the House to approve tonight? He cannot bleat and rant about a lack of resources if he will not say by how much he believes we are underfunding. The hon. Gentleman must answer the question.
  Mr. McAllion: I have told the Minister about billions of pounds of public expenditure that he has wasted. We would redirect that money towards public resources. If the hon. Gentleman really wants to find out the figure, I repeat my challenge to him and his right hon. and hon. Friends. If they want to know—
  It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [22 February].
  The House divided: Ayes 244, Noes 190.

  Division No. 64]

  [8.45 pm

  AYES

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Alexander, Richard

  Baldry, Tony

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Amess, David

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Batiste, Spencer

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bellingham, Henry

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  971

  Booth, Hartley

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Boswell, Tim

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Bowis, John

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Brazier, Julian

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Hannam, Sir John

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Harris, David

  Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Burns, Simon

  Hayes, Jerry

  Burt, Alistair

  Heald, Oliver

  Butcher, John

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Butler, Peter

  Hendry, Charles

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Horam, John

  Cash, William

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Churchill, Mr

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Clappison, James

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensboume)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hunter, Andrew

  Congdon, David

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Conway, Derek

  Jack, Michael

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Jessel, Toby

  Couchman, James

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Cran, James

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

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

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Knapman, Roger

  Day, Stephen

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Devlin, Tim

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Dicks, Terry

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

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Knox, Sir David

  Dover, Den

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Dunn, Bob

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Legg, Barry

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Elletson, Harold

  Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Lidington, David

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lord, Michael

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Luff, Peter

  Evennett, David

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Faber, David

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fabricant, Michael

  MacKay, Andrew

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fishburn, Dudley

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Forman, Nigel

  Madel, Sir David

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Forth, Eric

  Malone, Gerald

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Mans, Keith

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Marland, Paul

  Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Marlow, Tony

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  French, Douglas

  Mates, Michael

  Gale, Roger

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Gallie, Phil

  Merchant, Piers

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Mills, Iain

  Garnier, Edward

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Gill, Christopher

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Gorst, Sir John

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  972

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Stephen, Michael

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Stem, Michael

  Norris, Steve

  Stewart, Allan

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Streeter, Gary

  Page, Richard

  Sweeney, Walter

  Paice, James

  Sykes, John

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Thomason, Roy

  Pawsey, James

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Pickles, Eric

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Trend, Michael

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Richards, Rod

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Riddick, Graham

  Viggers, Peter

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Walden, George

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Waller, Gary

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Watts, John

  Wells, Bowen

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Whitney, Ray

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Whittingdale, John

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Willetts, David

  Sims, Roger

  Wilshire, David

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Wolfson, Mark

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Wood, Timothy

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Yeo, Tim

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Spring, Richard

  Sproat, Iain

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Mr. Michael Bates and Mr. Richard Ottaway.

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Coffey, Ann

  Ainger, Nick

  Cohen, Harry

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Connarty, Michael

  Allen, Graham

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Corston, Jean

  Ashton, Joe

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Austin-Walker, John

  Dafis, Cynog

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Barnes, Harry

  Davidson, Ian

  Battle, John

  Darling, Alistair

  Bayley, Hugh

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

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

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Denham, John

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Dewar, Donald

  Benton, Joe

  Dobson, Frank

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Betts, Clive

  Dowd, Jim

  Bradley, Keith

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Eastham, Ken

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

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Burden, Richard

  Fatchett, Derek

  Byers, Stephen

  Faulds, Andrew

  Callaghan, Jim

  Flynn, Paul

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Foulkes, George

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Fyfe, Maria

  Canavan, Dennis

  Galbraith, Sam

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Galloway, George

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Gapes, Mike

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  George, Bruce

  Clelland, David

  Gerrard, Neil

  973

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Godsiff, Roger

  Mullin, Chris

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Murphy, Paul

  Gordon, Mildred

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Grocott, Bruce

  Olner, Bill

  Hall, Mike

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hanson, David

  Pearson, Ian

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Pike, Peter L

  Heppell, John

  Pope, Greg

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbemauld)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Home Robertson, John

  Radice, Giles

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Raynsford, Nick

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

  Reid, Dr John

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Rendel, David

  Hoyle, Doug

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Rooney, Terry

  Hutton, John

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Illsley, Eric

  Rowlands, Ted

  Ingram, Adam

  Ruddock, Joan

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Salmond, Alex

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Jamieson, David

  Short, Clare

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Simpson, Alan

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Jowell, Tessa

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)

  Snape, Peter

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Soley, Clive

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Spearing, Nigel

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Spellar, John

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Stevenson, George

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Stott, Roger

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  McAllion, John

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  McFall, John

  Timms, Stephen

  McKelvey, William

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Touhig, Don

  McLeish, Henry

  Turner, Dennis

  McMaster, Gordon

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  McWilliam, John

  Wallace, James

  Madden, Max

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Mahon, Alice

  Wareing, Robert N

  Marek, Dr John

  Watson, Mike

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Martlew, Eric

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Maxton, John

  Winnick, David

  Meale, Alan

  Wise, Audrey

  Michael, Alun

  Worthington, Tony

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Milburn, Alan

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Mr. Malcolm Chisholm and Ms Janet Anderson.

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.
  MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the remaining Question required to be put at that hour.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Variation Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

  DEREGULATION
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14A (Consideration of draft deregulation orders),

  SCHOOLS
  That the draft Deregulation (Length of the School Day) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 15th January, be approved.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
  Question agreed to.

  NOISE BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  8.57 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): I beg to move,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Noise Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable under any other Act.
  The Bill creates a new offence in respect of noise emitted from dwellings at night that exceeds a permitted level as measured by an approved device.
  Question put and agreed to.

  PRISONERS' EARNINGS BILL [WAYS AND MEANS]
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Prisoners' Earnings Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment into the Consolidated Fund of amounts deducted from or levied on prisoners' earnings.-[Dr. Liam Fox.]

  Roads (East Sussex)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
  8.58 pm
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: I am delighted to have the opportunity of initiating this debate.
  There have been substantial cuts in the roads programme in recent years—a fact that is often lost on the anti-roads lobby. Even with an integrated transport policy, there is a need for sensible and necessary road schemes that improve the environment and support economic activity.
  An excellent example is the A22 new route into Eastbourne, which has attracted some £25 million of Government funding. That is extremely welcome, and I was delighted to be present at the opening on 12 January of the first phase of the road. My hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads will be interested to know that there was not a protester, a tree house or a tunnel in sight at the opening, because the road is welcomed by the entire local community.
  The existing A22 brings a large flow of traffic, especially in the summer, through residential areas in my constituency into the centre of the town. That is dangerous and causes pollution for residents. It gives them a problem in getting out of their front drives. My constituents in Willingdon and Ratton, and especially in King's drive, will benefit from a significantly enhanced quality of life as a result of the road scheme.
  The new route from Dittons to Seaside diverts traffic away from those residential areas and opens up access to business and industrial areas, and to the Sovereign Harbour marina development. Even better, the road crosses marshy land that is of little use for any other purpose. I pay tribute to Mr. Bob Wilkins, the county engineer, and his team, who have done so much work on the project. I look forward to the opening of the final phase in about two and a half years' time.
  Another excellent example is the Polegate bypass. That will be of enormous environmental benefit to my constituents in Polegate, which is a major road bottleneck, especially during rush hours. A wall of stationary traffic often divides Polegate in two—traffic that does not want to be there in the first place. The fumes and other effects are especially bad in the summer months. The project has been sought after for many a long year. It is essential that the road should be finished in time for the completion of the new A22, or £25 million will have been spent on a road that leads nowhere.
  The Polegate bypass is included in the list of schemes to be carried out under a design, build, finance and operate, or DBFO, scheme. That is welcome. I am grateful for the help and support of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) in pushing for an early start date on the Polegate bypass.
  I believe that DBFO concessions normally involve core requirements to ensure timely delivery of new construction schemes. This scheme is fairly straightforward, and has cleared all its statutory planning procedures. There is nothing standing in its way from that point of view. The compulsory purchase order for the scheme expires on 28 September this year. As I
  976
  understand it, provided that notices to treat are served on landowners before that date, the statutory procedures will not have to be repeated. It would be beyond bearing if that did not happen in the relevant time scale, and we had to start the statutory procedures again.
  The third scheme involves the A27 between Lewes and Polegate, and is the last vital piece in the local roads structure. The road is dualled west of Lewes, but is single-track between Lewes and Polegate. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes has lobbied long and hard for that development, and I have been happy to add my voice to his since I came into the House. Together, we brought a high-powered delegation to meet the Minister only last November to push the case for the A27.
  The scheme has the support of the county council, Eastbourne borough council and Wealden district council. Only yesterday, East Sussex county council, in full session, reconfirmed its all-party support for the new A27. All significant business and industrial organisations support the scheme under the umbrella of the A27 Support Group, ably and energetically chaired by Michael Barrett. All told, it represents some 5,000 businesses in the area, with the active participation of the Eastbourne Business Partnership.
  That widespread support is not surprising. First, there is the question of safety. The road is dangerous. Sussex police have recorded 141 accidents involving injury, resulting in 267 casualties; there were seven fatalities, 63 serious injuries and 197 slight injuries on the stretch to which I have referred during the five years to December 1993. Traffic flows are very heavy on the A27, which carries more than 22,000 vehicles a day. That is well within the ordinary and accepted parameters in respect of traffic flows for dual carriageways.
  I am particularly indebted to Mr. Brian Stoodley, a leading local surgeon at Eastbourne district general hospital, who has taken an interest in the issue. Along with his colleagues, he has to deal all too often with the practical and unpleasant consequences of the design of the road.
  On the subject of safety—as well as the efficient use of the road—it is worth pointing out that, according to one survey, in a distance of approximately 10 miles there are some 110 points of access to, or egress from, the existing road. No wonder it is both dangerous and slow.
  I believe that sensible road projects of this kind have considerable environmental advantages. We are indebted to Saab, the Swedish car manufacturer, whose research has shown that a car covering a distance of 10 m, with its engine idling, in a queue of traffic—that is so often the position on the A27—will emit 57 times as many hydrocarbons and 60 times as much carbon monoxide as a car passing at 30 mph.
  Not only has the south-east not done as well as other parts of the country in the lottery of road building in terms of motorways and dual carriageways; within the general picture of deprivation, East Sussex has done extremely badly, even in comparison with West Sussex. West Sussex has 48.53 miles of county roads, as opposed to 9.13 miles in East Sussex; West Sussex has 40.71 miles of trunk roads, compared with only 13.91 in East Sussex. Those are pretty depressing statistics.
  One of the main reasons for the project is the impact on business. The current poor communications have a major impact on the holiday and conference trades. A number

  977
  of large conferences and seminars originally destined for my constituency have gone elsewhere, because of the time that it takes to get there and back. That is serious, in a town in which some 6,000 jobs and more than £100 million in revenue depend on tourism and related business each year.
  I have received a mass of letters—some of which the Minister has seen—from local businesses of every description. Let me give just three serious recent examples. Only a few weeks ago, it was announced that Rhone-Poulenc-Rorer, the pharmaceuticals giant whose northern European headquarters are currently in Eastbourne, is to relocate to somewhere nearer the M25. More than 100 jobs may be affected. It gives as one of its reasons the inadequate road structure in the area.
  Another example is a company called T. Cox and Son Ltd., which has been in Eastbourne for 99 years. As its director, Mr. Richard Piper, points out in a letter to the A27 support group,
  "it is extremely sad that in our centenary year, in 1996, we will be re-locating to Tonbridge."
  The company employs more than 70 staff. Mr. Piper goes on to say:
  "We have been obliged to make the decision to re-locate because we can no longer effect a timely and efficient distribution to our customers from our Eastbourne premises."
  In conclusion, he says:
  "Eastbourne has so much going for it but I fear that its economic survival is being strangled because it is virtually detached by road from the rest of the country."
  Another company, ADM, recently calculated that it spends £150,000 a year in additional wage and fuel bills because of the slow road structures in the area. Mr. Nik Askaroff, the managing director, said in a recent letter:
  "it is not our intention to put any more investment into Eastbourne until we see some positive action as regards the roads and the help for industry. To this end we have just opened a 7,000 sq. ft. unit in Basildon with 25 jobs which have been lost to Eastbourne."
  That is good news for Basildon, but bad news for my constituency.
  Hon. Members may ask whether many people oppose the road scheme. As I have already said, it is the official policy of the large local authorities in the area that the road scheme should go ahead, and business organisations and other organisations are solidly in favour of it. However, a recent transport policy document put out by the East Sussex group of Liberal Democrats was stridently anti-road in its theme—it is clear that they do not support it.
  One of the authors of the policy document is Councillor Norman Baker, who has a long record of opposition to the scheme. He is also the chairman of the county council economic development committee. His views on this issue are perhaps coloured by his personal interests—which I hasten to add have been declared in the usual statutory way—because the proposed route passes close to his home. As chairman of the committee, he is speaking totally at odds with the policy of his county council, reiterated as recently as yesterday.
  The other authors of the pamphlet are the Liberal Democrats' parliamentary candidates for Hastings and Rye and for Eastbourne. The document talks about "providing local improvements" only on the A27. In my view, dualling is the key—nothing else matters. This document flies in the face of overwhelming local opinion
  978
  and of mounting evidence of job losses. It is hardly surprising that the recently leaked Liberal Democrat policy document, "Towards 1996", describes their image as "anti-road barmies".
  There are people who oppose the road because they have homes, often second homes, along the proposed route. There is also the usual group of anti-road protesters who are well organised and well funded—some of whom move around the country from one project to the other and often have little knowledge of or interest in my constituency and local needs.
  This programme was retained in the Government's road building programme in the budget. It was also included in a list of schemes for smaller-scale improvements. I urge the Minister for Railways and Roads to recognise that nothing less than dualling will do with respect to the A27. Let the design work on the scheme proceed, taking into account all reasonable objections on environmental grounds, so that my constituents and those who live nearby can have a vital road link that is built in harmony with the countryside.
  9.13 pm
  The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) for raising this topic this evening. It is refreshing to have heard from him a balanced account of the importance that roads can have—an account grounded in the real needs of a community, its people and businesses.
  On our plans for the road network in East Sussex and the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend, we must balance transport benefits against their environmental cost. An equally important concern is the balance between the number of good transport investments that we are called on to support and their affordability.
  Frankly, we cannot afford to support anything like the number of good, worthwhile projects available, if we are to continue to control our expenditure. Our review of the motorway and trunk road programme announced in November sought to ensure that we were committed to the most effective overall programme achievable, in the light of the resources available to Government in the next few years.
  Before talking about individual road schemes, it may be worth saying something about roads for the county as a whole. My hon. Friend will recognise that East Sussex is served by a trunk road box. The M25, although not in East Sussex itself, provides for strategic east-west movements to the north of the county. It is also, of course, the point of access to the strategic motorway network as a whole.
  To the south of the county is the A27/A259 south coast trunk route. The importance of that link to the economies of Brighton, Eastbourne, Hastings and other towns is not disputed, and there is little that I would want to add to what my hon. Friend has already said about the importance of those links. The trunk road network is extended south of the A27 by the A26 to Newhaven.
  The M25 and the south coast trunk route are linked by two trunk roads to the west and east of the county—the A23 to Brighton and the A21 to Hastings.
  We have proposals in the future programme for all those roads except the A26. We announced last year our intention to widen the busiest section of the M25—the section between the M3 and the M40—to five and six-lane dual carriageway.

  979
  For the A23, we still have one scheme in our long-term programme, but we have in fact already implemented most of our proposals for the A23, with a programme of schemes costing about £85 million. Regular users of the A23 will be well acquainted with the improvements that have been achieved on the route in the past five years.
  On the A21, I was pleased to be able to announce in the November review that two schemes would form part of a package to be built under the private finance initiative. Those are the Tonbridge to Pembury improvement and the much-needed, long-awaited Lamberhurst bypass.
  Again, those schemes are not in East Sussex—they are in Kent—but they are on the Hastings link to the M25, and that is a key reason why we have sought to ensure that those improvements are provided as soon as possible. They will be built under what we call design, build, finance and operate arrangements—DBFO for short—in which a single contractor finances and constructs road improvements. He then maintains and operates the road for a 30-year period.
  The DBFO package for Kent and East Sussex does, of course, extend beyond the A21; it includes the construction of the A27 Polegate bypass in my hon. Friend's constituency, and he has asked about timing.
  The Highways Agency is aiming to award a contract for the project in the 1997–98 financial year. Construction should start shortly after the contract is awarded. All DBFO contracts have an incentive for the contractor to get on with construction as early as he possibly can. As I explained to my hon. Friend in my recent letter, the agency is aware that the compulsory purchase order for the Polegate bypass expires in September. It will therefore serve notices to treat before the expiry date. That is sufficient to ensure that the order is valid and that the statutory procedures will not need to be repeated.
  On the proposed Lewes to Polegate improvement, my hon. Friends the Members for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) and for Eastbourne came to see me about this scheme in November and made the case for its importance. The A27 between Lewes and Polegate is a single carriageway with poor alignment. It is common to see long queues trailing behind slow-moving vehicles and even farm traffic. Conditions of that sort inevitably lead to the sort of safety problems that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne explained, and to unpredictable journey times.
  I have also received strong representations from people who are uneasy about the effect of the published scheme. I would add that the total cost of the proposed scheme was estimated at about £82 million, making it one of the most expensive schemes in the programme. Given that those difficulties exist, we need to be very clear that we
  980
  are striking the right balance between the need for improvements, environmental protection and overall cost. For that reason, I have asked the Highways Agency to review the scheme to see what the effects of smaller-scale improvements would be.
  I am reluctant to anticipate the outcome of the review. In particular, my hon. Friend asked about a continuing commitment to dualling. Without anticipating the results of the review, there is a strong prima facie case for providing a dual carriageway for most, and indeed probably all, of that section of road. But we must have a look at the detail before we can make a firm decision.
  If there were an option for single carriageway for some or all of the route, I would want to know the answers to various questions. What would it cost? What would it achieve? What would be the additional cost of a dualling option? What extra benefits would dualling realise? What is the difference in the environmental impact? Those are exactly the type of questions on which I am looking to the agency for advice.
  I would add now that, since the existing scheme covers more than 10 miles of road, there may also be phasing options that are worth considering, which might make the scheme more affordable. But I do not want to prejudge the outcome of the review. For tonight, I wish to assure my hon. Friend that we do not intend to walk away from the problem.
  I have confined my response to trunk roads, but before closing I must acknowledge my hon. Friend's words about the A22 improvement, which we have funded through the transport supplementary grant at a cost of more than £30 million. I agree that that was a much-needed scheme for Eastbourne, with real economic benefits, and I am grateful that my hon. Friend has mentioned it tonight.
  The overall message that I wish to give my hon. Friend to take to his constituents is that I understand the concerns about roads in Sussex. I could not do otherwise, given the continual pressure to which I am subjected—in a most welcome way—by my hon. Friends the Members for Eastbourne and for Lewes. I understand the frustration that people must feel that we are unable to do more, more quickly. The decision to include the A27 scheme in DBFO was taken because that is the quickest way that we can deliver the benefits of that scheme, which are, of course, also related to the benefits from the A22 improvement.
  We have tried to take account of the needs in our review and in the difficult choices that we have had to make in recent months. I hope that, as the programme unfolds, we will be able to deliver the sort of road infrastructure that industry in the area desperately needs, and to provide the environmental benefits and congestion relief that will be of great benefit to my hon. Friend's residential constituents.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Nine o'clock.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Kenya
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent report he has received on the current human rights situation; what assessment he has made of the electoral process; and if he will make a statement about the current political situation in Kenya. [17830]

  Mr. Hanley
  We receive reports from a variety of sources about human rights in Kenya. We have some concerns about the political situation and certain aspects of the electoral process. We draw these to the attention of the Kenyan authorities during our regular contacts. The UK is making a positive contribution to Kenya's development as an emerging democracy.

  Uganda
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the Government have made to the Ugandan Government about the necessity of free and fair elections, with particular reference to the need to allow political parties to conduct electoral campaigns. [17602]

  Mr. Hanley
  We have made it clear to President Museveni and his Government, to representatives of Ugandan political parties and to the Ugandan public through the local media the importance that we attach to the holding of free and fair elections, consistent with Uganda's new constitution.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will itemise the United Kingdom bilateral aid to Uganda in the last year for which figures are available. [17600]

  Mr. Hanley
  Total UK bilateral aid to Uganda in 1994–95 was £36.2 million, of which programme aid accounted for £20 million. The main sectors of support from our project aid were good government, over £4 million, power, over £3 million, and, health and population, over £2 million.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will itemise European Union aid to Uganda in the last year for which figures are available. [17601]

  Mr. Hanley
  The European Union disbursed over 55 million ecu in 1994, the last year for which figures are available. Over 44 million ecu was disbursed under the European development fund—EDF VI and EDF VII—and focused on infrastructure, health, income generation and small enterprises. Nearly 11 million ecu was made available from Stabex funds.
  526
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the funding of the Ugandan elections. [17599]

  Mr. Hanley
  Donors have been asked by the Government of Uganda to support the forthcoming presidential and parliamentary elections. We and other donors are considering this request in the light of progress in putting into place arrangements which will ensure that the elections are conducted freely and fairly.

  Police Training
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries have received Overseas Development Administration funding to finance police training in the United Kingdom since 1990. [16943]

  Mr. Hanley
  The countries that received ODA financing of police training in the UK in 1994 and 1995 or who were expected to receive such support in 1995 are as follows;

  1994

  Anguilla

  Bangladesh

  Botswana

  British Virgin Islands

  Cayman Islands

  Czech Republic

  Grenada

  Guyana

  India

  Indonesia

  Lesotho

  Mauritius

  Namibia

  Nigeria

  Oman

  Papua New Guinea

  Poland

  St. Lucia

  St. Helena

  St. Kitts

  Sierra Leone

  Sri Lanka

  Surinam

  Tonga

  Uganda

  Vanuatu

  1995

  Bangladesh

  Barbados

  Bosnia

  Botswana

  Brazil

  BVI

  Cayman Islands

  Czech Republic

  Ethiopia

  Fiji

  Hungary

  527

  India

  Indonesia

  Jordan

  Kenya

  Lebanon

  Lesotho

  Madagascar

  Mauritius

  Montserrat

  Nepal

  Nigeria

  Papua New Guinea

  Philippines

  Poland

  Romania

  Russia

  Sierra Leone

  South Africa

  Sri Lanka

  St. Vincent

  Swaziland

  Thailand

  Uganda

  Ukraine

  We have not collated this information for earlier years and it would involve a disproportionate expense to collect it now.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many United Kingdom police(a) training consultants and (b) technical co-operation officers have been sent to Indonesia since 1990; and what was the cost of their visits. [16942]

  Mr. Hanley
  Under the police management training project, five police training consultants have visited Indonesia. The cost between 1990–91 and 1994–95 was £584,000. No technical co-operation officers were sent.

  Multilateral Aid
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of the multilateral overseas development budget has been directed through(a) the European Union and (b) each of the UN multilateral agencies in each year between 1992 and 1995. [16396]

  Mr. Hanley
  In 1994–95 54 per cent. of ODA's multilateral contributions were directed through the European Community programme, and 9 per cent. through UN agencies. More detailed information is set out in table 8 of "British Aid Statistics", 1990–91 to 1994–95, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Country Strategy Papers
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what provision he plans to make for input by UN agencies to the Overseas Development Administration's country strategy papers. [16404]

  Mr. Hanley
  In drawing up country strategy papers, ODA consults outside bodies including UN agencies where appropriate. The nature and level of this 528
  consultation will depend upon the context in which the aid programme is operating in a particular country and the overall strategy being considered.

  In turn, we also encourage UN agencies to consult us and other donors on their country strategies.

  Pakistan (Afghan Refugees)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what food aid has been given by the United Kingdom Government from the European Union food surplus to help the Government of Pakistan feed Afghan refugees now living in Pakistan; and if he will make a statement. [17159]

  Mr. Hanley
  No food aid is being provided for Afghans who have settled in Pakistan, but 5,000 tonnes of wheat have been given to Afghanistan this financial year and a further 5,000 tonnes are expected next year.

  UK food aid is not provided as a means of disposing of EU food surpluses, which in any case scarcely exists any longer.

  Mr. Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effects of the European Community—technical aid to the commonwealth of independent states project in 1996 on retraining activities in the Russian Federation. [16909]

  Mr. Hanley
  The European Commission, which manages TACIS, undertook in 1995 a mid-term assessment of its project for retraining discharged military officers in the Russian Federation. The current project is expected to end in December 1996, when a full independent evaluation of its achievements is planned, before proposals are put forward on any further EC support for retraining.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Refugees (Yugoslavia)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what representations he has received concerning the safety of refugees in the United Kingdom returning to the states of the former Yugoslavia; and if he will make a statement; [17386]

  (2) if he will make a statement concerning the future status of refugees from the former Yugoslavia. [17385]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Applications for refugee status in the United Kingdom will continue to be carefully considered on their individual merits and in the light of the circumstances of the case and conditions in the country of origin. We have received no recent representations specifically on the safety of returns to the former Yugoslavia, but we and other Governments are in close touch with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees on this subject.

  Death Certificates
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance has been given to coroners as to the recording of employment status on death certificates. [17251]
  529
  Mr. Sackville
  Death certification is a matter for the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. I understand that guidance on how to record the occupation of the deceased person is contained in notes supplied by the OPCS to coroners to assist them in providing registrars of death with the registration particulars required.

  Rape Offences
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 6 February,Official Report, column 112 (1) what is the definition of the term substantive as used in his answer in respect of the rape offences; [17111]

  (2) which constabularies and on how many occasions issued cautions in respect of the offence of substantive rape and attempted rape in the periods January to March 1994 and from April to December 1994; [17112]

  (3) when he will be able to give the comparable figures for the cautions issued in 1995. [17110]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 27 February 1996]: Offences of "substantive" rape as quoted in the answer of 6 February refer to all offences of rape under section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 other than attempted rape, where rape is as defined in section 142(2) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and an attempt in any act that is more than merely preparatory to the intended commission of the crime but not the crime itself.

  Provisional summary information on cautioning in England and Wales in 1995 will be available in the summer of 1996. Final data, including detailed information by offence and police force area, will be available in late autumn 1996.

  Information on which police forces issued cautions for offences of substantive rape and attempted rape in 1994 is shown in the following table.

  Number of persons cautioned for substantive rape and attempted rape in (a) January to March 1994 and (b) April to December 1994 by police force area.

  Police force area

  Number cautioned

  January to March 1994 Substantive rape

  Bedfordshire

  1

  Cambridgeshire

  1

  Hertfordshire

  1

  Gloucestershire

  2

  Metropolitan Police

  1

  Wiltshire

  1

  April to December 1994 Substantive rape

  Cambridgeshire

  1

  Devon and Cornwall

  1

  Staffordshire

  2

  West Midlands

  1

  Dyfed and Powys

  1

  Attempted rape

  West Midlands

  1

  Docklands Bombing (Fire Appliances)
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many appliances attended the site of the docklands bombing on 10 February; what time the first appliance arrived and what time the last appliance left; and from which stations the appliances were drawn; [17028]

  (2) how many appliances attended the scene of the docklands bombing on 12 February; what time the first appliance arrived; and from which stations the appliances were drawn; [17030]

  (3) how many appliances attended the site of the docklands bombing on 11 February; what time the first appliance arrived and what time the last appliance left; and from which stations the appliances were drawn. [17029]

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answers 26 February 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to her on 26 February, Official Report, column 412.

  Fire Services
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents the fire brigades of(a) Clwyd and (b) Gwynedd attended in (i) 1980, (ii) 1994 and (iii) 1995. [17329]

  Mr. Sackville
  The available information is given in the following table. Data for 1994 are provisional and are not available for 1995.

  Incidents attended by local authority fire brigades in (a) Clwyd and (b) Gwynedd in (i) 1980 and (ii) 1994

  Year

  (a) Clwyd

  (b) Gwynedd

  19801

  4,087

  2,382

  19942

  7,102

  3,887

  1 Includes estimates for periods of industrial action when data were not recorded.

  2 Provisional data which include special services attended between April 1994 and March 1995.

  Police Forces (Capital Assets)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will lift the restrictions currently placed on(a) United Kingdom police forces and (b) the North Wales police preventing them from utilising as they deem fit the 75 per cent. of reserved receipts arising from the sale of capital assets; and if he will make a statement. [17325]

  Mr. MacLean
  The legislation and regulations governing the use of capital receipts by local and police authorities in England and Wales are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Wales.

  The proportion of capital receipts required to be set aside for debt redemption by police authorities is contained within the Local Authorities (Capital Finance) Regulations 1990, as amended. The Government keep these regulations under review.

  Body Belts
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the policy of the Metropolitan police towards the body belt of the type involved in the death of Joy Gardner; how that policy has changed since this incident; and if he will make a statement. [17340]

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand that, following the recommendations of the joint Home Office-police review of removal procedures in immigration cases involving the police, the Metropolitan police intend that a belt with handcuffs should be used only exceptionally and in strictly controlled conditions, taking into account the advice of a qualified medical practitioner in each case.

  Police Escorts (Abnormal Loads)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many abnormal loads were notified to police authorities for escorted access in the United Kingdom since 1 January 1994. [17152]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Programme Development Unit
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what date he expects to announce his decision on the outcome of the second round of funding for local projects considered by the programme development unit of his Department. [16718]

  Mr. Howard
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to her on 15 February,Official Report, column 706.

  Departmental Officials (Interests)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the officials in his Department who have declared a current interest; what requirements are placed on officials to declare relevant interests; in what form records of such declarations are kept; and if he will establish a central register of officials' interest. [16882]

  Mr. Howard
  Standing guidance to staff requires that anyone who is faced with a conflict of interest must declare that interest to senior management so that the latter can determine how best to proceed. Staff who disclose relevant interests do so on the understanding that the declaration, like all employment matters, is confidential between them and their employer. No comprehensive central record of declarations of interests or holdings is kept in my Department and I have no plans to establish such a register.

  International Terrorists
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the(a) incidents and (b) potential incidents involving international terrorists in (i) England, (ii) Wales, (iii) Scotland and (iv) Northern
  Ireland in each of the last 10 years. [16037]

  Mr. Howard
  The list covers known terrorism believed to have international links, occurring in England and Scotland in the last 10 years. There have also been 22 terrorist-type incidents associated with opposition to Salman Rushdie, not necessarily of foreign origin. There 532
  have been no international terrorist incidents in Wales and Northern Ireland during this period. Information on those involved in international terrorist incidents and potential incidents could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  (a) Incidents of international terrorism February 1986-February 1996

  Date

  Location

  Incidents

  (i) England

  17 April 86

  Heathrow airport

  Bomb

  24 April 1986

  British Airways office, London

  Bomb

  19 August 1986

  Kensington Video Co., London

  Bomb—one fatality

  10 Novmber 1986

  Shoebury Road, East Ham

  Bomb

  14 Novmber 1986

  Burges Road, East Ham

  Bomb

  9 July 1987

  ANC offices London

  Kidnapping

  18 July 1987

  Kensington High Street, London

  Car Bomb

  22 July 1987

  Al Qal as newspaper office, Ives Street, Chelsea

  Shooting—one fatality

  2 October 1987

  Chalk farm Estate, Wembley

  Shooting—two fatalities

  11 Novmber 1987

  High School Southall

  Shooting—three fatalities

  6 January 1988

  Notting Hill Gate, London

  Poisoning one—fatality

  25 March 1988

  Air France office London

  Occupation

  14 April 1988

  Carlton Boiling, Yorkshire

  Bomb

  12 September 1988

  Paddington, London

  Shooting

  16 January 1989

  Israeli Embassy, London

  Postal booby trap

  22 February 1989

  El Al TWA office, London

  Bomb

  3 August 1989

  Beverley House Hotel, London

  Terrorist killed by own bomb

  18 August 1989

  Indonesian Embassy, London

  Bomb

  18 Novmber 1989

  Belgrave Square, London

  Car bomb

  13 March 1992

  Turkish Airlines office, London

  Bomb

  13 March 1992

  Heathrow Airport

  Bomb

  11 July 1992

  Islamic Centre, Nelson, Lancs

  Postal bomb

  18 December 1992

  Burgess Road, London

  Postal bomb

  29 October 1993

  Turkish Airlines office. London

  Petrol bomb

  533

  (a) Incidents of international terrorism February 1986–February 1996

  Date

  Location

  Incidents

  4 Novmber 1993

  Turkish Embassy, London

  Petrol bomb

  4 November 1993

  Turkish Airlines office, London

  Petrol bomb

  4 November 1993

  London Islamic Turkish Association

  Petrol bomb

  4 November 1993

  British Telecom office, London (Wrongly identified as TC Zjraat Bank)

  Bricks and petrol bomb thrown

  4 November 1993

  Sabana Turkish Bank, London

  Petrol bomb

  26 July 1993

  Israeli Embassy, London

  Car bomb

  27 July 1994

  Balfour House, London

  Car bomb

  March 1995

  Turkish bank, London

  Paint thrown and hoax bomb planted

  March 1995

  Turkish Airlines office, London

  Paint thrown and hoax bomb planted

  April 1995

  Turkish bank, London

  Petrol bomb

  April 1995

  Turkish travel agent, London

  Petrol bomb

  20 June 1995

  Turkish Chamber of Commerce, London

  Occupation

  24 July 1995

  Turkish Cultural offices, London

  Occupation

  (iii) Scotland

  20 October 1988

  Glen Road, Kilcady

  Shooting

  21 December 1988

  Lockerbie

  Bombing of Pan Am flight 103

DEFENCE

  Marine Services Organisation
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the market testing of the Marine Services Organisation has been completed; and if he will make a statement. [18425]

  Mr. Soames
  Final proposals for the management of marine services support to the Department were received on 18 December 1995 from an in-house bid team drawn from the Royal Maritime Auxiliary Service and from two private sector interests; a Denholm-SERCO consortium and the Ocean Group. These bids were evaluated accordingly to a pre-defined and publicised methodology.

  Based on the results of this evaluation, it is intended to award the management of the moorings and buoys task and the naval armaments freighting task to the in-house bid team, the RMAS. The operation of the ports task— under which services are provided to the three main naval bases—will be awarded under a five-year contract to
  534
  Denholm-SERCO. This latter award followed the elimination of the in-house team for reasons of non-compliance with the management requirements of the task. RMAS personnel currently employed on ports activities will have the option of transferring to Denholm-SERCO under the terms of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. Existing RMAS vessels required by Denholm-SERCO will be leased to the company under commercial charter terms. The vesting date for the new management arrangements is currently scheduled for 8 July 1996.

  All the proposals received envisaged a significant reduction in the number of vessels and posts required to undertake the tasks. The selected bids will entail a total reduction of some 500 posts—approximately 45 per cent. of the current work force—as well as some 35 per cent. fewer vessels. Consultation with the TU side on the TUPE implications of this decision and on any redundancy arrangements necessary will take place in the normal way.

  The MOD will benefit from the efficiencies which the market test will introduce into all the current marine service activities. It is envisaged that the Department will save some £105 million over 10 years as a result of the measures announced today.

  Elizabeth Barracks, Pirbright
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what decision he has made about the future occupancy of Elizabeth barracks, Pirbright. [18426]

  Mr. Soames
  As announced by my right hon. Friend the then Minister of State for the Armed Forces on 5 July 1994,Official Report, column 173, it had been intended to move the Gurkha battalion based at Church Crookham to Elizabeth barracks, Pirbright at the end of 1996. We have revised this plan in the light of the decision to replace one of the three Foot Guard battalions currently engaged on public duties by a line infantry battalion, so as to enable the Foot Guards battalion to increase the proportion of its effort employed on training for its operational roles.

  The Foot Guards battalion concerned will continue to provide reinforcements for public duties on a surge basis, and it is therefore our intention that it should be based at Elizabeth barracks, Pirbright where it can fulfil this role and undertake effective operational training. The Gurkhas will move instead to Sir John Moore barracks at Shorncliffe in early 1999. Sir John Moore barracks will be modernised during the intervening period. We are confident that these moves make the most efficient use of the Army's resources, including the defence estate, and meet its operational priorities in the most effective way.

  Type 23 Frigates
  Mr. Coe
  To ask the Secretary of State for defence if he will make a statement about the type 23 frigate order. [18427]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I am pleased to announce that an order will be placed shortly with Yarrow Shipbuilders Ltd. for a further batch of three type 23 frigates to enter service with the Royal Navy around the turn of the century.
  535
  We received bids from two shipyards: Yarrow Shipbuilders Ltd. and Vosper Thornycroft (UK) Ltd. Both companies submitted high-quality tenders, reflecting their longstanding and world-renowned expertise in the construction of modern warships. The prices offered by Yarrow Shipbuilders, however, were significantly lower.

  Our decision has been reached on the basis of best value for money for the taxpayer. It does not in any way reflect adversely on the capabilities of Vosper Thornycroft as a builder of warships; indeed, it remains one of the foremost warshipbuilders in the world.

  At the same time, however, the order reflects great credit on Yarrows, and will be good news for jobs not only in the Clyde area but for other communities throughout the UK who will benefit from subcontracts for weapons and other systems for the ships. The total value of this work will approach £400 million.

  Isle of Wight (Expenditure)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total expenditure by his Department on the Isle of Wight in 1994–95 broken down by category. [16775]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, there are no MOD establishments or employees, service or civilian, on the Isle of Wight. Sixteen defence contractors on the island received payments direct from MOD, totalling some £32 million in 1994–95; details of payments to individual firms are commercially confidential. Payments by defence prime contractors to their subcontractors are not included in the figure.

  Mr. Ian McDonald
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the present duties of Mr. Ian McDonald, former head of the defence export sales section. [17799]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Mr. McDonald remains the head of the defence export services secretariat. The division provides the secretariat function for the Defence export services Organisation and is the focus for export licensing within my Department.

  Defence Establishments (Security)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures his Department takes to ensure that the security of Army camps and other MoD establishments against terrorist attack is fully taken into account when local authorities consider planning proposals in the near vicinity to such establishments. [17509]

  Mr. Soames
  It is not our practice to discuss security measures. However, all measures deemed necessary take into account the local threat and are kept under constant review by establishments.

  Where proposed developments require planning permission, local authorities are obliged by planning guidance to consult all adjoining landowners in both the private and public sector. Local authorities are also required to consult my Department about proposed
  536
  developments near certain essential defence establishments and installations—that is, airfields, explosive establishments and technical (radar/radio) sites.

  Business Appointment Rules
  Mr. Keen
  To ask the Secretary of state for Defence what procedures his Department follows to ensure that an individual applicant does not take up the appointment stated in a failed application made under the business appointment rules. [17668]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Where a condition is imposed on a business appointment application, both the applicant and the prospective employer are informed in writing and it is made clear that the employment should not be taken up before the duration of the condition has lapsed.

  Sri Lanka (Arms Sales)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of state for Defence what is his current policy on the sale of(a) aircraft and (b) other armaments to Sri Lanka; and if he will make a statement. [17558]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  It is the Government's policy to support the sale of British defence equipment overseas where this is compatible with our political, strategic and security interests. All licence applications for the export of defence equipment are considered on a case-by-case basis in the light of established criteria, including the international guidelines to which we are committed.

  Central Ammunition Depot, Longtown
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what payments were made to which companies for the storage of ammunition at the central ammunition depot at Longtown from 7 to 16 June 1988. [17700]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Army stores its own ammunition and does not pay contractors; therefore, no payments were made to companies for the storage of ammunition at the central ammunition depot, Longtown between 7 and 16 June 1988.

  Seconded Staff
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in how many cases since 13 May 1985 company staff seconded to the Defence Export Services Organisation continued to have their salary and allowances paid by the original company; and what written guidelines to cover this situation have been issued. [17798]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Nine staff have been seconded to DESO under MOD's interchange programme since May 1985.

  Inward secondees remain the employees of their parent company. As such, the company continues to be responsible for payment of salary, pension contributions, company medical plan payments, earnings-related national insurance contribution, etcetera, in accordance with company rules. As part of the formal agreement between MOD and the company, the Department reimburses salary and other costs at the rate equivalent to the civil service grade held by the secondee.
  537
  Guidance on the payment of secondees into the civil service has been issued in the civil service management code. This states that, subject to general rules on pay— pay levels, etcetera, and the appointment of secondees, the actual secondment terms are a matter for negotiation between the receiving organisation, the sending employer and the secondee.

  Land Mines (Bosnia)
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the country of origin of the land mines which have been responsible for the death or injury of British soldiers in Bosnia. [17667]

  Mr. Soames
  Complete information is not available. Where it has been possible to recover and examine fragments, however, the mines concerned were identified as having been manufactured in the former Yugoslavia.

  Army Tanks
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many tanks the Army possessed in(a) 1979 and (b) 1996. [17758]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  At 1 January 1979, the Army possessed 870 main battle tanks, of which 620 were deployed in operational units, and at 1 January 1996, 470 main battle tanks, of which 350 were deployed in operational units.

  Medical Services Review
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library the submissions received from the Department of Health, the NHS executive, NHS trusts and health authorities in relation to(a) the defence medical services review in "Options for Change" and (b) the "Front Line First" review in the period 1 January 1994 until 17 October 1994. [17762]

  Mr. Soames
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  RAF Aircraft
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many front-line aircraft the RAF possessed in(a) 1979 and (b) 1996. [17757]

  Mr. Soames
  The number of operational, excluding training and communications, RAF aircraft at 31 March 1979 was 628. The corresponding figure for 31 March 1996 is planned to be 512.

  Railhead Transfer Equipment
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if railhead transfer equipment was deployed in the gulf war with the DROPS—demountable rack offloading and pick-up system—logistic supply chain; and if he will make a statement. [17761]

  Mr. Soames
  Railhead transfer equipment was not deployed in the Gulf because the tractor units on which it was mounted were not designed to operate in the desert conditions of the Gulf.
  538
  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the deployment of the Arbau-Klaus railhead transfer equipment to Bosnia; and how trains transporting British equipment unload their cargo before that deployment. [17759]

  Mr. Soames
  There is no requirement for the Arbau-Klaus railhead transfer equipment to be deployed to Bosnia. The unloading of cargo is currently undertaken by whichever mechanical handling system is available at each station or siding.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if Arbau-Klaus railhead transfer equipment is capable of unloading DROPS flatracks. [17760]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Yes. The Arbau-Klaus railhead transfer equipment fully meets the specification to handle the DROPS flatracks.

  Destroyers
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many destroyers the Royal Navy possessed in(a) 1979 and (b) 1996. [17755]

  Mr. Soames
  On 1 April 1979 12 destroyers were in service with the Royal Navy, the same number as today.

  Exercise Purple Star
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list his Department's vessels which will take part in the sea exercise Purple Star with the American navy, when the exercise will take place, and if he will make a statement. [17763]

  Mr. Soames
  Exercise Purple Star will take place, with the United States Navy, off the eastern seaboard of the United States from late April to mid-May. It is not our normal practice to give details in advance of the composition of groups of ships taking part in exercises. The UK will, however, be making a sizeable contribution in terms of ships, aircraft and personnel.

  Personnel Statistics
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the strength of the(a) Army manpower, (b) RAF manpower and (c) Royal Navy manpower in (i) 1979 and (ii) 1996. [17756]

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is contained in "TSP1—Tri-Service Personnel Statistics—Strengths, Intake and Outflow of UK Regular Forces", a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Radar
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the choice of a radar system for his Department's replacement maritime patrol aircraft. [17671]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The responses to the invitation to tender for a replacement maritime patrol aircraft are currently being assessed by my Department. The selection of particular subcontractors for subsystems is a matter for the bidders themselves.

  Spartan Vehicles
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when Spartan vehicles will be converted from petrol to diesel engines; and if he will make a statement. [17672]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  As part of the enhancement programme for the combat vehicle reconnaissance (tracked)—CVR(T)—family of vehicles, which includes Spartan, studies have been undertaken into the feasibility of replacing existing petrol engines with diesel. Further work is currently in progress, which should allow a decision on whether to proceed to be made this summer. If it is decided to proceed, the first diesel engines are expected to enter service in 1998, with production complete by 2000–01.

  Advanced Rifle Grenades
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent contracts he has signed for the purchase of advanced rifle grenades. [17663]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  A contract was signed on 22 December 1995 to purchase rifle grenades from TAAS Israel Industries.

  Maritime Patrol Aircraft
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many replacement maritime patrol aircraft his Department plans to purchase. [17674]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The number of replacement maritime patrol aircraft to be purchased is currently under examination in the context of our assessment of responses to the invitation to tender. At present, no decision has been taken.

  American Contracts
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total value of the contracts placed with American companies in the last two years. [17675]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The total value and number of contracts placed with American companies over the last two years are as follows:

  Number

  Value (£)

  1994

  270

  153,965,050

  1995

  296

  1,602,086,486

  Totals

  566

  1,756,051,536

  Royal Marines Reserve
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will update his answer of 15 March 1995,Official Report, column 638, in respect of the roles and future strength of Royal Marines Reserve. [17831]

  Mr. Soames
  The role and tasking, and therefore the strength, of the Royal Marines Reserve are kept under review so as to ensure that they reflect our operational requirements. Any future changes would of course be subject to consultation in the usual way.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Passes
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what procedures exist governing the issue of House of Commons passes to foreign nationals; and if he will make a statement. [17856]

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  A House of Commons photographic pass may be issued to a foreign national provided the appropriate application is signed by the sponsoring Member and security clearance has been obtained.

  Members' Interests
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chairman of the Committee on Standards and Privileges when he expects the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to provide guidelines to hon. Members in respect of the declaration of interest on parliamentary questions and motions. [17231]

  Mr. Newton
  Following recommendations to the House contained in paragraphs 55 to 60 of the first report of the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life of Session 1994–95, HC 637, the House agreed, with effect from the beginning of Session 1995–96, to extend the rules about declaring interests to cover the giving of written notices. Accordingly, on 23 October last, the Table Office issued a guidance note to Members on the application of the amended rules. Members were advised that if they had doubts about whether a declaration of interest was appropriate they should consult the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

  Walter Somers (Trade and Industry Committee)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he has anything to add to his oral answer to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) of 25 May 1993,Official Report, column 750, on the briefing of witnesses from Walter Somers before the Trade and Industry Committee. [15999]

  Mr. Newton
  The inquiry to which I referred has been completed, and the report was published on 15 February.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when he first consulted other Cabinet Ministers about the contents of the report of the Scott inquiry; and where and when such discussions took place and with whom. [16519]

  Mr. Newton
  It is not the practice to give details of ministerial meetings.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many(a) oral and (b) written parliamentary questions have appeared on the Order Paper in each of the last 30 years.
  541
  Mr. Newton
  The information requested is in the following table:

  House of Commons parliamentary questions

  Session

  Orals total

  Written total

  1964–65

  10,878

  8,270

  1965–661

  4,332

  3,646

  1966–672

  17,014

  16,951

  1967–68

  11,309

  13,601

  1968–69

  10,721

  12,743

  1969–701

  7,914

  9,546

  1970–712

  13,646

  20,300

  1971–72

  11,108

  17,486

  1972–73

  7,781

  17,950

  1973–741

  2,363

  6,387

  1974–1

  3,783

  11,753

  1974–75

  9,215

  27,843

  1975–76

  9,081

  33,239

  1976–771

  6,463

  25,076

  1977–78

  9,046

  28,739

  1978–791

  4,699

  13,152

  1979–802

  12,453

  39,112

  1980–81

  8,175

  22,688

  1981–82

  8,991

  23,439

  1982–831

  6,125

  17,095

  1983–842

  13,386

  40,119

  1984–85

  14,800

  31,523

  1985–86

  18,139

  31,808

  1986–871

  12,766

  21,331

  1987–882

  24,940

  47,726

  1988–89

  23,932

  39,540

  1989–90

  24,687

  41,358

  1990–91

  4,821

  32,843

  1991–921

  2,383

  16,050

  1992–932

  7,134

  56,550

  1993–94

  4,559

  41,051

  1994–95

  4,903

  44,924

  1 Unusually short session.

  2 Unusually long session.

  From 1972–73 Members were limited to one oral question per Minister. Priority written questions were introduced in the 1972–73 Session.

TREASURY

  Tax Allowances
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the savings for each of the next five financial years if(a) the additional value of tax allowances for (i) single and (ii) married pensioners was frozen at the current rate and (b) the allowance was frozen and remained in force only for current pensioners. [15196]

  Mr. Jack
  An indication of the effects of reducing the additional value of age-related personal allowances and of denying age-related allowances to those who are currently aged below 65 is given in the table. The figures are set at 1996–97 levels and, as an illustrative assumption, the increases in the retail prices index is taken to be 2¼ per cent. for the first year and 2 per cent. in subsequent years. The full-year cost of the age-related component of personal allowances is estimated to be about £960 million at 1996–97 income levels.
  542

  Estimated full year yields

  (£ million)

  Year after the change

  Age allowance frozen at current rate

  Age allowance frozen and available only for those aged over 65 in year 0

  1

  70

  140

  2

  140

  260

  3

  200

  380

  4

  260

  500

  5

  330

  620

  Departmental Sickness Cover
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what procedures are followed by his Department to ensure that when employees fall ill, their functions are fulfilled by other officials. [16197]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 20 February 1996]: When staff are absent from work through illness, any urgent work will be carried out by colleagues within the team. Where it appears that a member of staff will be absent for a prolonged period, the line manager either rearranges the day-to-day work of the team to cover the duties of the absent officer, or puts in a temporary replacement depending on the functions involved.

  Reinvestment Relief
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many decisions by local inspectors of taxes on qualifying companies for reinvestment relief have been disallowed by senior tax inspectors; and if he will list those companies that have been declared as not qualifying for reinvestment relief. [17136]

  Mr. Jack
  Normally, if Inland Revenue has accepted a claim for tax relief, it will not be withdrawn in respect of that particular claim. It is investors, not companies, that qualify for reinvestment relief.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many taxpayers have had their reinvestment relief disallowed to date. [17138]

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  VAT (Sanitary Protection Products)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has had in relation to the imposition of VAT at 17.5 per cent., on sanitary protection products for women; what response he has made; what action he is taking; what was the yield of the tax on these products in each of the last three years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [16347]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 27 February 1996]: Because VAT is intended to be a broad-based tax on consumer expenditure generally, sanitary protection products for women have been taxed at the standard rate

  543
  from the outset. The revenue yield is approximately £35 million a year. Around 160 representations for tax relief have been received since April 1995.

  Since the last Labour Government agreed with other EU member states in 1977 that the UK would not extend the scope of its existing zero-rates, there is no possibility now of zero-rating these products.

  Mortgage Endowment Policies
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what research his Department has evaluated from the major sellers of mortgage endowment policies in respect of estimates of shortfalls of individual policies to meet mortgage commitments. [17476]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 27 February 1996]: The Treasury has carried out no such research. If individual policy holders have concerns, they should review their policy with the issuer of their mortgage endowment policy.

  Landfill Tax
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) who will define the types of waste which qualify for the £2 rate as inert or inactive waste under the proposed landfill tax; and by what mechanisms disputes over the definitions will be resolved; [16918]

  (2) if he will list the types of waste described under the waste classification scheme which will qualify as inert or inactive waste under the proposed landfill tax. [16917]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 27 February 1996]: Customs and Excise recently carried out a consultation exercise on the scope of the lower rate of landfill tax, which ended on 31 January. The consultation exercise was carried out on a proposal to link the lower rate of tax to wastes listed in category 1 of the proposed UK waste classification scheme, on which the Department of the Environment consulted at the same time.

  I expect to receive a report shortly following an analysis by Customs and Excise in consultation with other interested Government Departments. An announcement of the outcome will be made in due course. A list of the wastes that will qualify for the lower rate of landfill tax will be set out in a Treasury order, which will be laid before the House in the summer.

  On disputes, the current Finance Bill provides for reviews, and appeals to an independent tribunal by tax payers against decisions by customs relating to tax liability.

  Income Tax (Pensioners)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many pensioner households paid income tax in Wales at the latest available date. [17587]

  Mr. Jack
  Income tax is calculated on the basis of individuals. There are around 500,000 individuals in Wales aged 65 years or over. According to the 1993–94 survey of personal incomes, 130,000 or 26 per cent. of these are taxpayers.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Ministerial Accountability
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to paragraph K8.1 of the Scott report relating to ministerial accountability, what additional measures he proposes to ensure his Department's compliance with paragraph 27 of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers". [17302]

  The Attorney-General
  [holding answer 26 February 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the speech made by my hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 26 February, Official Report, columns 589–606.

  Confiscation Unit
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Attorney-General how many full-time staff there are in the confiscation unit of the Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland. 117147]

  The Attorney-General
  The Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland has no separate confiscation unit. Two lawyers on the director's staff are nominated to deal with confiscation as part of their duties.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to strengthen the arrangements for means-testing applicants for legal aid. [18424]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Lord Chancellor has today laid before Parliament regulations which will:

  (a) provide those assessing the means of applicants for legal aid with a discretionary power to include in the means assessment the assets of friends, relatives and children where these appear to be providing a significant material advantage to the applicant;

  (b) place a limit of £100,000 on the amount of equity value in a house that is ignored in the legal aid means assessment. The regulations also limit the maximum amount of mortgage that can be offset against the equity value of a house to £100,000 and limit the amount of mortgage repayment allowable against income to the amount due on a £100,000 mortgage.

  These regulations will come into effect for applications for legal aid made on or after 1 June 1996.

  Both these measures are being taken as a result of the consultation exercise on legal aid for the "apparently wealthy" which was undertaken in 1995.

  Also as a result of the consultation exercise, the Lord Chancellor announced last year that he intended that a special investigations unit should be established to handle legal aid means assessments where the applicant's financial circumstances are exceptionally complex. He invited the Legal Aid Board to advise him on the feasibility of establishing such a unit.

  The Legal Aid Board has now submitted its report and I have placed a copy in the library. The Lord Chancellor has accepted the central recommendations in the report

  545
  and has invited the Legal Aid Board to take the necessary steps to ensure that the special investigations unit is fully operational as soon as possible.

  The special investigations unit will build on the prototype of such a unit set up by the Benefits Agency in its legal aid assessment office at Preston in June 1995. This unit is already investigating certain cases.

  Initially, the unit will deal with applications for civil legal aid, but it will be extended as soon as possible to cover both civil and criminal legal aid. Referrals to the unit will be made, in civil cases, by the Legal Aid Board or the existing staff of the legal aid assessment office and, in criminal cases, by the court or court clerk. They will be invited to refer cases to the unit when:

  (a) they are of the opinion that the means information provided merits further investigation, verification or expect evaluation by the special investigations unit, and

  (b) one or more of the following appears to apply:

  (i) the applicant or partner has assets overseas;

  (ii) the applicant or partner has access to assets or income apparently owned by others;

  (iii) the applicant or partner has a wealthy life style, such as an expensive car, house or jewellery, or is able to indulge in significant foreign travel;

  (iv) the applicant or partner has interests in a business with substantial assets;

  (v) the applicant or partner has other complex personal financial affairs, which may include persona insolvency or having assets subject to a mareva injunction or an asset freezing order;

  (vi) legal claims of significant value are being pursued by or against the applicant or partner;

  (vii) the applicant or partner is reputed to have significant income or assets;

  (viii) the applicant or partner has re-arranged his or her financial affairs so that he or she now apparently qualifies for legal aid.

  The unit will be headed by a qualified accountant and will be empowered to seek outside expert assistance when this seems appropriate.

  The Government are fully committed to ensuring that legal aid is granted only to those who are entitled, under the regulations, to receive it, and believe that the establishment, and further development, of the special investigations unit is an important step in meeting that commitment.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he first consulted other Cabinet Ministers about the contents of the report of the Scott inquiry; where and when such discussions took place; and with whom. [16638]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  It is not the practice to give details of ministerial meetings.

  Ministerial Accountability
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to paragraph K8.1 of the Scott report relating to ministerial accountability, what additional measures he proposes to ensure his Department's compliance with paragraph 27 of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers." [17303]
  546
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  I refer the hon. Member to the speech made by my hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 26 February,Official Report, columns 589–604.

PRIME MINISTER

  Scott Inquiry
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Prime Minister if information communicated by the United Nations special commission to the International Atomic Energy Agency by Her Majesty's Government on British companies which supplied materials relevant to Iraqi programmes to acquire weapons of mass destruction, was communicated to the Scott inquiry in its entirety. [17321]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answers 26 February 1996]: Yes, insofar as it related to the period covered by the inquiry's terms of reference.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he received from Ministers at the time he established the Scott inquiry in respect of(a) the remit and (b) the format of the inquiry. [17701]

  The Prime Minister
  My discussions with Ministers are private.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will place in the Library a copy of the Iraq note referred to on page 439 of the Scott report; [17702]

  (2) if he will now place in the Library a copy of the information note prepared by his private secretary on 3 December 1990. [17786]

  The Prime Minister
  This document was submitted as evidence to Sir Richard Scott's inquiry. I understand that Sir Richard Scott proposes to publish as soon as possible any documents which he considers relevant to his report, consistent with his procedures.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister what response he plans to make to the representations made by the secretary of the Scott inquiry concerning the nature of statements by various Ministers following the press conference held by Sir Richard Scott on 15 February. [17777]

  The Prime Minister
  A reply has been sent to the secretary of the inquiry's letter on this matter. As the inquiry's letter has been widely quoted and reproduced in the media, this reply was made public.

  The inquiry wrote again subsequently making it clear that Sir Richard's view applied to any summary of his report, whether by Government, Opposition or the media.

  Mr. Kirk wood
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place copies of ministerial and departmental responses to the first draft of Sir Richard Scott's report of the inquiry into the sale of arms to Iraq in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [17819]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 27 February 1996]: Departments' closing statements to the Scott inquiry have already been published in part B of volume V of the Scott inquiry report. I understand that Sir Richard Scott proposes to publish as soon as possible documents that he considers relevant to his report, consistent with

  547
  his procedures. However, paragraph B3.ll of the report records that, in the interests of fairness, Sir Richard does not propose to publish comments submitted by witnesses on the draft report.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list all the people who received copies of the Scott report in advance of the official publication date; and if he will make a statement. [17818]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 17 February 1996]: The following Ministers received advance copies of Sir Richard Scott's report: the Prime Minister; the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary; the President of the Board of Trade; the Chief Secretary to the Treasury; the Secretary of State for Defence and the Attorney-General.

  In addition, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, the Paymaster General and the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, had access to the report prior to publication, in accordance with the terms laid down by the Scott inquiry.

  A small number of civil servants in the main Departments concerned also received advance copies.

  Iraq (Defence-related Exports)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Prime Minister when he first learned of the 1988 amendments to the 1985 Howe guidelines into defence-related exports to Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [17821]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 27 February 1996]: The first time I learned that a change in the guidelines had been considered in 1988 was in a minute from my private secretary dated 13 November 1992.

  Mr. Omar al Hassan
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions in 1994 he met Mr. Omar al Hassan; and if he will make a statement. [17853]

  The Prime Minister
  As far as I am aware, once, at a speaking engagement.

  Millennium Exhibition
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Prime Minister what part he envisages that Government will play in relation to the millennium exhibition; and if he will make a statement. [18342]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government very much welcome the announcement by the Millennium Commission of its decision to stage a national millennium exhibition in Greenwich. This visionary and exciting scheme will enable the whole nation to mark this significant event in a wholly appropriate way. It should also encourage large numbers of overseas visitors to join in our national celebrations during the millennium year.
  548
  Arrangements for the millennium exhibition are the responsibility of the independent Millennium Commission. The exhibition will be funded by the Commission from its share of national lottery proceeds and from private sector contributions. Given its scale, the event will, raise many issues to which the Government have to respond.

  In order to ensure that the Government's participation in this significant national event is well planned and co-ordinated, I have asked the First Secretary of State and Deputy Prime Minister to convene a ministerial group with the following terms of reference:
  "to oversee the Government's role in relation to the Millennium Festival and to take forward any necessary planning of the Government's involvement in this event."

  In addition to the chairman, members of the group will be as follows:

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  Secretary of State for the Environment

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Secretary of State for National Heritage

  Lord Privy Seal

  Secretary of State for Transport

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Other Ministers will be invited to attend for items in which they have a departmental interest.

  The Government will do all they can to assist the Millennium Commission to ensure that the millennium festival is an outstanding successful national event.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to meet Mr. C. H. Tung, Mr. Rong Yiren, Mr. David Choy, Mr. Tsui Tsin-tong, Mr. George Cardona and Mr. Algy Cluff during his forthcoming visit to Hong Kong. [17864]

  The Prime Minister
  I hope to meet a broad range of business men, politicians and other opinion formers.

HEALTH

  GPs' Expenditure
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will announce the conclusions of the joint review of monitoring and forecasting of general practitioners' expenditure. [17802]

  Mr. Malone
  There is no such review.

  Medium Secure Units
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in which regions the five privately owned medium secure registered mental nursing homes visited by the mental Health Act Commission are situated; and what are their names and locations. [16784]
  549
  Mr. Bowis
  The Mental Health Act Commission sixth biennial report 1993 to 1995 refers to visits to the following five private and charitable medium secure registered nursing homes:

  Hospital

  Region

  Stockton Hall Hospital, The Village, Stockton on the Forest, Yorkshire YO3 9UN

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Llanarth Court Hospital, Llanarth, Raglan, Gwent NP5 2YD

  Wales

  St. John's House Hospital, Lion Road, Palgrave, Diss, Norfolk IP22 1BA

  Anglia and Oxford

  Kneesworth House Hospital, Bassingbourne cum Kneesworth, Royston, Hertfordshire SG8 5JP

  Anglia and Oxford

  St. Andrew's Hospital, Billing Road, Northampton NN1 5DG

  Anglia and Oxford

  Ministerial Accountability
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to paragraph K8.1 of the Scott report relating to ministerial accountability, what additional measures he proposes to ensure his Department's compliance with paragraph 27 of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers". [17310]

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 26 February 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the speech made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 26 February, Official Report, columns 589–604.

  Hospital Closures
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals have closed by region in each of the last five years. [18059]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department does not routinely collect information on hospital closures. Information is available centrally only on proposals to close or change the use of health service facilities which are referred to Ministers for a decision following objections from a community health council. A list of such closures for the period January 1992 to December 1995 is available in the Library, and is updated quarterly.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review the hospital closure programme. [18060]

  Mr. Horam
  The Government do not have a hospital closure programme. Decisions on closing, opening, or significantly changing the use of hospital facilities are for local management.

  MRSA
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will name the non-national health service hospitals which have reported methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus infections; [17088]
  550
  (2) how monitoring of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus infection in private hospitals, residential and nursing home care is conducted; and what protection from expulsion and exclusion from such facilities is available to clients; [17089]

  (3) what number of United Kingdom hospitals have been infected with methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus; what percentage this is of all United Kingdom hospitals; and what mechanism is available to advise the public of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus outbreaks; [17084]

  (4) how many persons are known to have been infected, within NHS hospitals, by methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus; and what was the total number of persons infected in the last 12 months for which figures are available; [17085]

  (5) if he will name the hospitals in England and Wales which have recorded cases of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus and the number of cases at each hospital. [17086]

  Mr. Horam
  The public health laboratory service maintains aggregate data on MRSA as part of its national surveillance of communicable disease and infection, compiled from requests submitted by hospitals—both NHS and private—and from the community for the typing of isolates. These aggregate data do not identify individual hospitals or patients.

  Information about an outbreak of MRSA will be provided, as required, by the hospital's "Outbreak Control Group".

  MRSA is an uncommon cause of infection in the community. However, we shall shortly be issuing guidance on MRSA and infection control in general to the managers of residential and nursing homes and their registration officers.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department has issued on avoidance of cross contamination of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus in NHS patients. [17087]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) on 22 January,Official Report, columns 16–17.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department is currently undertaking into the incidence of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus; and how many strains have been detected. [17083]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) on 22 January,Official Report, columns 15–16. The public health laboratory service has described 16 strains of epidemic methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths in the last 12 months for which figures are available resulted from methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus infection. [17092]
  551
  Mr. Horam
  In 1994, the latest year for which figures are available, there were a total of 102 deaths from staphylococcal infection, of which eight resulted from methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus.

  Mental Health Challenge Fund
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what priority will be given to bids for mental health challenge fund applications by those authorities that are over target according to the weighted capitation allocation formula [17753]

  Mr. Bowis
  Bids from over target health authorities will be given the highest priority.

  Capitation Targets
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the percentage capitation target according to the weighted capitation allocation formula of each health authority in England. [17752]

  Mr. Horam
  A table showing planned 1996–97 health authority distance from targets in percentage terms will be placed in the Library.

  Vinney Green Secure Unit
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will institute an inquiry into allegations of bribery at Vinney Green secure unit, Mangotsfield, Avon. [17847]

  Mr. Bowis
  I am not aware of any allegations of bribery involving staff or residents at Vinney Green secure unit.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Ministerial Accountability
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to paragraph K8.1 of the Scott report relating to ministerial accountability, what additional measures she proposes to ensure her Department's compliance with paragraph 27 of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers". [17312]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 26 February 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the speech made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 26 February, Official Report, columns 589–604.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Marketing Awareness Programme
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the religious breakdown of employees in the marketing awareness programme. [14054]
  552
  Mr. Ancram
  The Local Enterprise Development Unit does not monitor the religious affiliation of individuals participating in the marketing awareness programme as they are involved as representatives of the company. The monitoring of the religious composition of companies is a matter for the Fair Employment Commission.

  Sinn Fein
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations have been made to the United States Government regarding visa applications from Sinn Fein members to travel to the United States since 9 February. [16349]

  Mr. Ancram
  A decision on applications for visas to visit the United States is a matter for the US Government. We have informed the US Government of the changed circumstances of our contacts with Sinn Fein as a result of the breakdown in the IRA ceasefire.

  £1 Coin
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 1 February,Official Report, column 792, what factors led him not to submit his decision on the choice of a Celtic torc and a Celtic cross as symbols representative of Northern Ireland on the new £1 coin, to his Department's policy appraisal and fair treatment guidelines. [16745]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  The PAFT guidelines apply to the formulation of policy and delivery of services to the public. They would not normally be applied in the case of a consultation on the design of coins, where decisions are made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In any event, the consultation of the new £1 coin preceded the issue of the PAFT guidelines.

  Ulster Dialect Dictionary
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will set out the costs to date of the Ulster dialect dictionary project at the Ulster folk and transport museum in terms of(a) staff and (b) computer systems; if he will make a statement on the future of this project; and what plans he has for the future of the equipment and the archives in the event of discontinuance. [16747]

  Mr. Ancram
  The costs to date of staff have been £171,712, whilst the computer system has cost £37,745.

  It is planned that the dictionary will be available to all schools for the 1996–97 school year. The database and equipment will be retained by the Ulster folk and transport museum. Future development will be a matter in the first instance for the museum.

  Terrorist Bombs
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has received as to the controls on sale or distribution of ingredients for the manufacture of terrorist bombs, and their equivalent, in the Irish Republic; and what assessment each jurisdiction has made as to their adequacy. [16746]
  553
  Sir John Wheeler
  The principal and most common ingredient used by terrorists in Northern Ireland to make bombs has been ammonium nitrate-based agricultural fertiliser. The Explosives Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1972 prohibit fertilisers containing more than 79 per cent. ammonium nitrate by weight except under licence issued by the Secretary of State. Broadly equivalent legislation applies in the Irish Republic.

  As with all counter-terrorist legislation in Northern Ireland, the 1972 regulations are kept under review to ensure that they are appropriate to the prevailing situation and can be effectively enforced.

  Departmental Officials (Interests)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the officials in his Department who have declared a current interest; what requirements are placed on officials to declare relevant interests; in what form records of such declarations are kept; and if he will establish a central register of officials' interests. [16887]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Details of current interests declared by officials of the various Northern Ireland civil service departments are held on that individual's personal file. A central list of such interests is not held and to obtain this information from personal files would incur disproportionate costs.

  Civil servants faced with a conflict of interest must declare their interest to senior management so that senior management can determine how best to proceed. This requirement is set out in the respective management codes of the home civil service and the Northern Ireland civil service covering pay and conditions.

  Staff who disclose relevant interests do so on the understanding that the declaration, like all employment matters, is confidential between them and their employer.

  As NICS departmental circumstances are so different I would not propose to establish a central register of officials' interests. Officials will continue to register such interests within their own Department, as necessary.

  Divorce Law
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will estimate the costs of the research the Government have commissioned into divorce law in Northern Ireland; and if he will indicate the names of the people and the bodies involved. [17114]

  Sir John Wheeler
  It is estimated that the cost of the research project on divorce law in Northern Ireland will be in the region of £35,000. The research team consisted of the following members.

  Mr. Ciaran White, Lecturer in Law, School of Public Policy, Economics and Law, University of Ulster at Jordanstown.

  Ms Monica McWilliams, Senior Lecturer, School of Social Community Sciences.

  Ms Claire Archbold, Lecturer in Law at The Queen's University of Belfast.

  Dr. Brendan Murtagh, School of Social and Community Science, University of Ulster at Magee.

  Mrs. Pat McKee, Senior Computing Officers, School of Public Policy, Economics and Law, University of Ulster at Jordanstown.

  Law Commission
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will ask the Law Commission in future to consult with his Department on every new project with a view to having its research and consultation include Northern Ireland. [17116]

  Sir John Wheeler
  I regret that I am unable to do so. The Law Commission's remit under the Law Commission Act 1965 specifically excludes any law which the Northern Ireland Assembly could have power to amend.

  We are however committed to ensuring that the law of Northern Ireland is kept under review. The independent civil law reform function is carried out by the Law Reform Advisory Committee for Northern Ireland set up by the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) in 1989 in response to representations from the Law Society of Northern Ireland for an independent element in the law reform process. The committee consists mainly of senior lawyers and senior members of the judiciary and is chaired by a Lord Justice of Appeal. Its remit is to keep the civil law of Northern Ireland under review and make recommendations for its reform to my right hon. and learned Friend. As part of its working methods the committee counts widely with local interested bodies and has regular contact with the Law Commission on matters of mutual interest.

  The Northern Ireland Office also maintains regular contact with the Law Commission and initiates parallel consultation in appropriate instances where the law under consideration is similar to that in Northern Ireland. We arranged last year for its consultation paper on hearsay and related matters to be circulated in Northern Ireland.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the Northern Ireland Instruments relating to domestic violence; and what consideration he has given to incorporating Northern Ireland into the Family Law Bill. [17118]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Northern Ireland statutory instruments relating to domestic violence are as follows:

  Domestic Proceedings (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 (NI.5)

  Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (NI.2)

  Matrimonial and Family Proceedings (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (NI.4)

  Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 (NI.15)

  Rent (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 (NI.20)

  Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (NI.26)

  Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (NI.12).

  The Government, after careful consideration, have taken the decision that the Family Law Bill should not extend to Northern Ireland. With regard to the reasons for not extending the divorce provisions in part II of the Bill, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I give him on 23 November 1995, Official Report, columns 301–02.

  As to part III of the Bill—that is, the matrimonial homes and domestic violence provisions—the Government take the view that since there are a number of aspects of the law of Northern Ireland which vary from

  555
  that of England and Wales extension of this part of the Bill is undesirable. It is also the case that direct extension would create considerable drafting difficulties. The resulting complexity of the Bill would have the effect of making the legislation more difficult to use for those seeking its protection.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in what circumstances the Housing Executive has power to ascertain the name of the ultimate beneficial private landlord whose tenant is being paid housing benefit; and for what reasons these powers are not routinely used. [17117]

  Mr. Moss
  The information obtained by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive in respect of all claims from private tenants for housing benefit includes the name and address of the estate agent, if appropriate and the owner. The estate agent or owner is also required to complete and sign a certificate giving his name and address as well as that of the claimant.

  Investors' Visits
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many visits have been made to each council area by(a) investors seeking a site for manufacturing industry and (b) investors seeking a site for service or retail facilities, in which his Department or the Industrial Development Board were involved; and in what order the council areas were visited in each case for each of the last three years; [15769]

  (2) what was the number of visits made to each parliamentary constituency in Belfast by investors seeking a site for (a) manufacturing industry and (b) service or retailing facilities, in which his Department or the IDB were involved; and in what order the constituencies were visited in each of the last three years. [15768]

  Mr. Ancram
  The information requested is not available and could be provided only at a disproportionate costs. However, visits made to Northern Ireland district council areas by potential investors in the last three years are detailed in the table.

  Visits to Northern Ireland by potential investors

  District council

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Antrim

  26

  31

  17

  Ards

  4

  2

  3

  Armagh

  0

  0

  1

  Ballymena

  3

  8

  5

  Ballymoney

  0

  1

  2

  Banbridge

  0

  1

  3

  Belfast

  102

  106

  155

  Carrlok

  7

  9

  8

  Castlereagh

  6

  1

  3

  Coleraine

  8

  1

  5

  Cookstown

  2

  1

  10

  Craigavon

  6

  4

  13

  Derry

  18

  14

  151

  Down

  1

  5

  8

  Dungannon

  11

  7

  7

  Fermanagh

  5

  1

  4

  Lame

  4

  4

  2

  Limavady

  2

  4

  1

  Lisburn

  7

  15

  22

  Magherafelt

  1

  3

  2

  556

  Visits to Northern Ireland by potential investors

  District council

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Moyle

  2

  1

  0

  Newry and Mourne

  8

  5

  28

  Newtownabbey

  25

  18

  19

  North Down

  6

  6

  8

  Omagh

  1

  2

  1

  Strabane

  0

  2

  3

  Total

  255

  252

  343

  1 Includes four visits managed by Londonderry Development Office (DOE).

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Cuba
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from organisations(a) within and (b) outside the United Kingdom concerning the treatment and condition of pensioners in Cuba; and what discussions he has held on these matters. [17201]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  None, other than letters just received from the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) and for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) to which separate replies will be sent.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of(a) Her Majesty's Government and (b) the EU on the blockade on Cuba. [17203]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We consider the US embargo against Cuba to be primarily a matter for the two Governments concerned. We do, however, protest strongly and frequently to the Americans about the extra-territorial aspects of the embargo and are lobbying hard against the draft legislation currently before Congress which seeks to tighten the embargo.

  There is no common EU policy on the embargo.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with(a) the United Nations and (b) the United States of America regarding the blockade on Cuba. [17202]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We have traditionally abstained at the UN General Assembly on the Cuban-tabled resolution against the US embargo. This is because we think it is primarily a bilateral matter and that the UNGA is not the correct forum in which it should be discussed.

  I refer the hon. Member to my previous answer.

  EDS Ltd.
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those contracts his Department currently holds with EDS, indicating for each the(a) date of inception, (b) value and (c) duration. [17446]

  Mr. Hanley
  We currently have only one contract with EDS, awarded on 2 February 1996 at the value of £11,950 and expiring in March 1996.
  557

  United Nations
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the United Kingdom's annual contribution to the United Nations' regular budget in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [17523]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The UK's annual contribution to the United Nation's regular budget in each of the last five years was as follows:

  1991: $44,775,548 (£25,598,167)

  1992: $49,437,6754 (£28,260,694)

  1993: $51,229,662 (£33,820,091)

  1994: $51,067,778 (£34,755,641)

  1995: $57,589,390 (£36,414,616)

  The UK continues to pay its assessed contributions to the UN promptly and in full and encourages others to do likewise.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Vietnamese boat people are currently detained in Hong Kong. [17658]

  Mr. Hanley
  On 23 February 1996, there were 19,499 Vietnamese in detention in Hong Kong.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Vietnamese boat people have been deported from Hong Kong in each of the last three years. [17659]

  Mr. Hanley
  The breakdown of Vietnamese who have returned to Vietnam from Hong Kong since 1993 is as follows:

  Voluntary repatriation

  Orderly repatriation

  Deportation

  1993

  12,301

  375

  75

  1994

  5,581

  242

  116

  1995

  1,668

  858

  112

  19961

  552

  218

  14

  1 To 23 February.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions in the past 12 months the Governor of Hong Kong invited(a) Mr. C. H. Tung, (b) Mr. Rong Yiren, (c) Mr. DavidChoy, (d) Mr. Tsui Tsin-tong, (e) Mr. George Cardona and (f) Mr. Algy Cluff to (i) receptions, (ii) lunches and (iii) dinners. [17865]

  Mr. Hanley
  The Governor has naturally met some of these people on a number of occasions in the course of his official duties.

  EU Foreign and Security Policy
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he intends to table at the 1996 intergovernmental conference to make the European pillar of common foreign and security policy more effective; and if he will make a statement. [17779]
  558
  Mr. David Davis
  We have already made a number of proposals for improving the effectiveness of the common foreign and security policy including ways of strengthening the roles of the Political Committee and Council secretariat. Our proposals were sent to the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee on 7 June 1995. Our approach to making CFSP more effective will be set out in more detail on the forthcoming White Paper on the intergovernmental conference.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of allegations that the United Kingdom breached its obligations in regard to article II of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in trade with Iraq since 1979. [17699]

  Mr. David Davis
  Article II of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty confers obligations on non-nuclear weapon states party to the treaty not to obtain or manufacture nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or seek or receive any assistance in their manufacture. The United Kingdom is a nuclear-weapon state and the obligations under article II of the treaty are therefore not directly relevant.

  Chechnya
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Chechnya; and what plans he has to visit the country. [17526]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We do not maintain relations with Chechnya, which is recognised internationally as part of the Russian Federation. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has no plans to visit Chechnya.

  Former Yugoslavia (Refugees)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the safety of refugees in the United Kingdom returning to the states of the former Yugoslavia; and if he will make a statement. [17384]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We closely monitor the security situation in the former Yugoslavia.

  We share the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' view that returns should take place in conditions of safety. As well as making our own assessments, we are in close touch with the UNHCR who has undertaken to provide information on the security, political, economic and social situation prevailing in the area to which return is planned.

  East Timor
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans the Government have to raise the issue of human rights and self-determination for East Timor during the forthcoming Europe-Asia summit in Bangkok; and if he will make a statement. [17764]
  559
  Mr. Hanley
  We regularly raise our concerns about East Timor and human rights with Indonesian Ministers. We are still waiting for confirmation of whether time will permit an opportunity for bilateral discussion with Indonesia during the Asia-Europe meeting in Bangkok.

  Hussein Kamel
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration was given to prosecuting Hussein Kamel as a war criminal. [17873]

  Mr. Hanley
  None. There is no war crimes tribunal at the United Nations for Iraqi war criminals.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the reasons for Hussein Kamel's return to Iraq. [17875]

  Mr. Hanley
  We do not know why Hussein Kamel decided to return to Iraq. Reports that he was killed on 23 February show that his decision was ill-conceived and that he fatally underestimated the brutality of Saddam Hussein.

  Omar al Hassan
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has had from Mr. Omar al Hassan; and if he will make a statement. [17854]

  Mr. Hanley
  Officials from this Department have had occasional contact with Dr. al Hassan, in his capacity as director of the Gulf Centre for Strategic Studies.

TRANSPORT

  Rail Privatisation
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much money will be paid by the British Railways Board, subsidiaries of the British Railways Board, and other Government-owned railway companies in subscriptions to the Association of Train Operating Companies in(a) the current financial year and (b) the next financial year. [16982]

  Mr. Watts
  Subscriptions paid to the Association of Train Operating Companies will amount to £1.129 million this financial year and £1.220 million next financial year.

  Departmental Officials (Interests)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the officials in his Department who have declared a current interest; what requirements are placed on officials to declare relevant interests; in what form records of such declarations are kept; and if he will establish a central register of officials' interests. [16879]

  Mr. Norris
  In accordance with service-wide rules, the Department's staff handbook requires staff to declare to line managers any business or financial interests which they or immediate members of their families hold, which they would be able to further as a result of their official position. Staff must then follow any departmental instructions regarding the retention, disposal, or 560
  management of such interests. However, it is not departmental policy to disclose information given in confidence by staff.

  Copies of written declarations and subsequent advice from line managers are retained on the individuals' personal files. This arrangement works satisfactorily but the need for a central register will be kept under review.

  Ministerial Accountability
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to paragraph K8.1 of the Scott report relating to ministerial accountability, what additional measures he proposes to ensure his Department's compliance with paragraph 27 of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers". [17319]

  Sir George Young
  I refer the hon. Member to the speech made by my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, on 26 February,Official Report, columns 589–604.

  Seat Belts
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what (1) action he intends to take to ensure that the manufacturers of the Ford Fiesta cars registered G or H recall all the cars with defective seat belt mechanisms; and if he will make a statement; [17398]

  (2) what action he intends to take concerning allegations of defective seat belts on Ford Fiesta cars registered G or H; [17400]

  (3) what representations he has received concerning defects on seat belts on Ford Fiesta carts registered G or H; [17401]

  (4) what investigations the Vehicle Certification Agency has carried out to ensure that the seatbelts of Ford Fiesta cars registered G and H function efficiently and correctly; [17396]

  (5) what proposals he is considering to include an examination of the inertia reel of seat belts in the Ministry of Transport test. [17393]

  Mr. Norris
  The Department's Vehicle Inspectorate has received a small number of reports of seat belts failing to work correctly in Ford Fiesta cars. All have come from the Driving Standards Agency and relate to cars which have been used on driving tests. This is currently being investigated in conjunction with the vehicle manufacturer. It would be premature to decide on a course of action until the Vehicle Inspectorate's investigations are complete.

  I hope that the matter will be resolved quickly.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many cases of injuries to driving examiners have resulted from defects in seat belts on the car on which the test is taking palace for each year since 1988; if he will name the make, model and year of manufacture; and what measures he proposes to take to protect such examiners. [17392]

  Mr. Norris
  The circumstances surrounding injuries to examiners on test were not recorded in this sort of detail in the past. The Driving Standards Agency is aware of nine cases of injuries to driving examiners on test which
  561
  were allegedly attributable to defects with seat belts in 1994, and seven during 1995. The agency's new accident reporting system, introduced this month, will provide for more detailed recording and analysis.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he intends to take to protect driving examiners conducting driving tests in G or H registered Ford Fiesta cars. [17398]

  Mr. Norris
  In addition to instructions to examiners about avoiding injuries on driving tests, and the new accident reporting system being implemented this month, the Driving Standards Agency will be reporting to the Vehicle Inspectorate information which indicates a potential fault in a vehicle component.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many cases of injuries to driving examiners have resulted from defects on seat belts on ford Fiesta cars registered G or H. [17399]

  Mr. Norris
  The Driving Standards Agency's records show that, since mid-1994, there have been six cases which were attributed to alleged defects in seat belts on those vehicles.

  Emergency Towing
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a copy of the emergency towing study team report. [17805]

  Mr. Norris
  The report will be published shortly and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Bus Working Group
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the membership of the bus working group; who attended its last meeting; and which organisations they represent. [17139]

  Mr. Norris
  Under my chairmanship, the bus working group comprises representatives form the Confederation of Passenger Transport, the Joint Local Authority Associations and the National Federation of Bus Users. Officials from the Department of Transport and the Scottish and Welsh Offices also attend. In addition to me and officials, the following attended the most recent meeting of the group, held on 20 November:

  Local authority representatives

  Councillor M. Dowd—Association of Metropolitan Authorities

  Councillor M. Ingram—Public Transport Consortium of Non Metropolitan Counties

  Councillor M. Nash—Association of County Councils

  Councillor B. White—Association of District Councils

  Mr. B. Dobbs—Association of County Councils

  Mr. J. Carr—Association of Metropolitan Authorities

  Mr. G. Ball—Association of Metropolitan Authorities

  Mr. R. Bristow—Association of County Councils

  Mr. V. Christie—Association of District Councils

  Mr. W. Tyson—Association of Metropolitan Authorities

  Mr. S. Lockley—Convention of Scottish Local Authorities

  Mr. A. Elmer—Association of Metropolitan Authorities

  Confederation of Passenger Transport

  Mrs. V. Palmer

  Mr. E Hesketh

  562

  Mr. T. Smallwood

  Mr. D. Flower

  National Federation of Bus Users

  Dr. C. Cahm

  Mr. J. Cartledge

  Jubilee Line Extension
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what penalties will be exacted from contractors building the Jubilee line extension by London Underground Ltd. in the case of late completion. [17741]

  Mr. Norris
  The details of any such penalties are a matter for London Underground Ltd. In assessing such penalties, LUL will take into account any mitigating factors.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is London Underground's current estimate of the delay in completing the Jubilee line extension. [17742]

  Mr. Norris
  London Underground is still aiming for the extension to be completed in early 1998, as planned.

  Central Railway
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 20 February,Official Report, column 128, what matters were discussed with Central Railway when he met it on 17 January. [17167]

  Mr. Watts
  The meeting discussed applications by Central Railway plc for directions by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State under rule 12 of the Transport and Works (Applications and Objections Procedure) Rules 1992 granting absolute, partial or conditional waivers from compliance with certain rules. The company subsequently decided to withdraw these applications and to re-submit them in a modified form. We have given no assurance that any rule 12 directions will be given in respect of any fresh waiver applications.

  Royal Train
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people are employed on a(a) full-time and (b) part-time basis to run, clean, maintain and service the royal train. [17791]

  Mr. Watts
  Eleven full-time and four part-time staff are employed to run, clean, maintain and service the royal train. Other staff employed by Rail Express Systems Ltd., Railtrack plc and other companies, undertake work related to the royal train as part of their normal duties, as and when needed. For example, certain administrative staff plan individual journeys and train crews are allocated on a train-by-train basis.

  Rail Passenger Fare Revenue
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was at constant prices the declared revenue from passenger fares of the train operating companies already franchised and currently offered for franchising in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95. [17168]
  563
  Mr. Watts
  The information requested is contained in following the table:

  £ million

  Train operating company

  Passenger revenue (at 1995 prices) year ended:

  31 March 1994

  31 March 1995

  Anglia Railways Train Services Ltd.

  32.0

  34.0

  Cardiff Railway Company Ltd.

  6.7

  5.7

  Gatwick Express Ltd.

  28.0

  27.0

  Great Western Trains Company Ltd.

  160.0

  151.0

  InterCity East Coast Ltd.

  223.0

  206.0

  LTS Rail Ltd.

  54.0

  51.0

  Midland Main Line Ltd.

  60.0

  59.0

  Network SouthCentral Ltd.

  162.0

  157.0

  ScotRail

  92.0

  86.0

  South Wales and West Railway Ltd.

  40.0

  40.0

  South West Trains Ltd.

  227.0

  230.0

  Thames Trains

  40.0

  46.0

  The Chiltern Railway Company Ltd.

  15.0

  22.0

  The South Eastern Train Ltd.

  211.0

  215.0

  Borga Incident
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the report of the marine accident investigation branch into the grounding of the Borga off St. Anne's head in October 1995; and if he will make a statement. [17807]

  Mr. Norris
  A report will be published by the marine accident investigation branch.

  Sea Empress Incident
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the reports he received from(a) the port authorities, (b) his inspectors and (c) Her Majesty's Coastguard about the Sea Empress vessel; and if he will make a statement. [17662]

  Mr. Norris
  No reports have been received from port authorities. MAIB inspectors have made three informal reports to Ministers on general matters related to their investigation. The Coastguard Agency has made numerous reports to Ministers on the incident, in writing, orally and via a video conferencing facility.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what have been the total payments made to date by his Department to the channel tunnel rail link project team. [17249]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 27 February 1996]: Union Railways is the Government-owned company which has developed the channel tunnel rail link project. Union Railways has spent £471 million on the project to date.

  Ms Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) consultants and (b) other employees are currently employed by the channel tunnel rail link project teams. [17248]
  564
  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 27 February 1996]: As at 9 February 1996, Union Railways retained 166 individual consultants and 470 other employees.

  Ms Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the total payments made to date by his Department to(a) consultants, (b) outside organisations and (c) individuals for work on the channel tunnel rail link scheme indicating the name of the body involved and the services provided. [17247]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 27 February 1996]: The information relates to work on the route announced by the then Secretary of State in October 1991. My Department has made use of the consultants listed in table 1. The total expenditure on these consultants amounts to approximately £8.75 million excluding VAT but including expenses. Some expenditure has been incurred in addition to this for legal advice on the implications of the project for railway privatisation, but this is ascribed to the privatisation programme and not to the rail link. Details of payments to individual firms are commercially confidential. No payments have been made by the Department to organisations or individuals not listed in the table except for Union Railways, expenditure by whom is the subject of a separate answer given today to the hon. Member.

  Table 1: Consultants retained by Department of Transport in respect of Channel Tunnel Rail Link project

  Consultant

  Services

  Samuel Montagu1

  Financial advice

  WS Atkins1

  Technical advice

  Grandfields1

  Conferencing services

  Hill Samuel

  Financial advice

  Touche Ross

  Accountancy services

  McKenna and Co

  Legal advice

  G Maunsell and Partners

  Technical advice

  Tony Ham Insurance Brokers

  Insurance advice

  Richard Ellis

  Property advice

  Sherwoods

  Parliamentary agent Parliamentary (includes Parliamentary Counsel)

  Mr. J. Hawkshaw

  Negotiating services

  1 Denotes consultants no longer retained.

  Tug Provision
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on emergency tug provision in the western approaches. [17861]

  Mr. Norris
  The emergency towing study carried out for the Coastguard Agency last year stated that there are tugs at a number of ports in the south-west and in south and west Wales, including Falmouth, Fowey, Milford Haven, Port Talbot and Avonmouth. The Coastguard Agency continues to keep the supply of emergency tugs under review. In deciding future deployment, we will take into account experience of the Government-funded provision of tugs at Dover and Stornoway this winter and of liaison arrangements with tug operation. Any relevant findings of the investigations into the Sea Empress incident will also be taken into account.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when his Department will respond to the report on tug provision around the UK coast which it received in June 1995. [17860]
  565
  Mr. Norris
  Having taken account of the report and other available information, the Coastguard Agency announced on 25 October 1995 that emergency tugs would be stationed at Dover and at Stornoway for six months from 1 November 1995.

  Oil Tanker Shipping Lanes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to review oil tanker shipping lanes around the United Kingdom coastline and in United Kingdom waters; and if he will make a statement. [16812]

  Mr. Norris
  The Marine Safety Agency has undertaken maritime traffic surveys using mobile radar. We shall continue to consider the effectiveness of existing ship routeing and reporting measures, and the need for any new measures, in the light of those surveys.

  Single European Currency
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 14 February,Official Report, column 574, when he expects to assess the impact of a single European currency on freight and passenger transport to and from the continent. [16969]

  Mr. Watts
  The United Kingdom will agree to take part in a single currency only if it is in our national interest to do so, given the circumstances at the time. A full assessment of the benefits and disadvantages will be carried out nearer the time, before the decision is made.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Regional Supply Network
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 12 February,Official Report, columns 404–405, if he will publish the quarterly monitoring reports obtained from each regional supply network and the national totals. [15686]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 20 February 1996]: Reports based on the monitoring information collected from regional supply network offices will be made available on a quarterly basis. The first of these reports will be placed in the Library of the House in June 1996 and quarterly thereafter. The first report will supply information for the first year of regional supply network operation and for business link operations in the 1995–96 financial year. The performance of an individual regional supply office is a commercial matter for that office and information about individual offices will, therefore, not be included in the report.

  Naval Sonar Equipment Exports
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what goods have been exported under the export licence for naval sonar equipment approved at an interdepartmental meeting on 28 June 1988. [16312]

  Mr. Lang
  The application approved at the IDC on 28 June 1988 was an arms working party application inquiring about the supply of 360 degree naval sonar to Iraq. The approval given to that application simply indicated that, should the company submit an export 566
  licence application, it was likely that it would be granted. It did not give the company authority to export these goods.

  Iraq
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the amount of the Export Credits Guarantee Department's exposure in trade with Iraq(a) at the beginning of December 1988 and (b) at the end of December 1989; and what was the largest sum this Export Credits Guarantee Department exposure reached. [16654]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 22 February 1996]: ECGD estimated its maximum potential exposure on Iraq at £900 million at the end of 1988 and at £1,150 million at the end of 1989.

  ECGD's highest estimate of its maximum potential exposure on Iraq was £1,260 million in September 1986.

  Maximum potential exposure is calculated on the assumption of full utilisation of credit facilities, but taking into account repayments. Current exposure is £652 million. The difference is accounted for by a mixture of repayments since 1989, together with facilities not being fully utilised.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what have been the costs of the Scott inquiry in respect of(a) press and communications, (b) legal aid bills, (c) printing and publications, (d) administration and (e) telephone bills. [17048]

  Mr. Lang
  The information is as follows:

  (a) The cost of press and communications in respect of the Scott inquiry is not readily quantifiable. Sir Richard Scott has had a full time press officer allocated to his team, and various officers of departmental press offices have been involved as the normal course of their duties required. The cost of purchasing copies of Sir Richard Scott's report for the media was £18,000.

  (b) As far as I am aware, no individual received legal aid in connection with their appearance as a witness to the Scott inquiry. The total amount paid by Government in legal advice for witnesses to the inquiry to date is £1,210,000.

  (c) HMSO normally bears the costs of printing, publishing and distributing all parliamentary publications, with the overall aim of recovering these from sales revenue. However, in this case, and at the request of Sir Richard Scott, my Department has agreed to pay a subsidy in the region of £85,000 so that the cover price can be contained at a level which ensures that the report is as accessible as possible to the general public.

  (d) The administration costs of Sir Richard Scott's inquiry team to date amount to £153,000. This includes the cost of office machinery and computers as well as stationery, typing etc. but does not include salary costs of the staff in the inquiry team.

  (e) Records are not kept in such a way as to quantify the size of the telephone bills relating to the Scott inquiry.

  Bank of Credit and Commerce International
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects the creditors of BCCI will receive their payments. [17348]
  567
  Mr. Oppenheim
  The payment of the first dividend remains subject to the resolution of court proceedings in Luxembourg and the Cayman islands. The liquidators hope to be able to make such a payment by the summer of this year.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the current level of fees paid to the solicitors to the liquidators of BCCI. [17347]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The fees paid to solicitors by the English liquidators of BCCI in the year to 15 January 1996, the fourth year of the liquidation, totalled approximately £5.2 million.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the current level of fees paid to the liquidators of BCCI Touche Ross. [17346]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Total fees authorised for the English liquidators for the year to 15 January 1996, the fourth year of the liquidation, amounted to £9.4 million.

  Textile Industry
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many people were employed in the textile industry making colour woven fabric in each year since 1987. [17794]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Information on the number employed in the textile industry making colour woven fabric is not available. Information on employment in the textile weaving industry is available for 1991 and 1993 when 14,000 and 13,200 people respectively were employed in the industry in Great Britain.

  Invest in Britain Bureau
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many inward investment projects have settled in England as a result of guidance given by the Invest in Britain Bureau over the past three years; and if he will make a statement. [17729]

  Mr. Eggar
  Although the IBB can offer guidance to potential investors, the final decision on where to invest rests solely with the company. The following table shows numbers of projects that have located in England over the last three financial years, where the Invest in Britain Bureau has had a significant involvement.

  Year

  Number of England projects

  1992–93

  38

  1993–94

  63

  1994–95

  56

  Export Controls
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what priority he accords to foreign policy objectives in establishing export controls. [17362]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 26 February 1996]: The Government attach considerable importance to their foreign policy objectives in establishing export controls.

  Fan Clubs
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recourse is open to people who do not receive advertised services from fan clubs to which they have paid money. [17550]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  People who do not receive services for which they have paid have recourse under civil law for breach of contract. They could take legal advice on how to take the matter forward from their local citizen's advice bureau or law centre or a solicitor. Their local authority trading standards department may also be able to intervene if an offence has been committed under legislation which it is responsible for enforcing.

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to license fan clubs. [17549]

  Mr. Taylor
  I have no plans to do so.

  EC Funding
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the EC rules for designating a region in a member state for the purposes of(a) objectives 1, 2 and 3 funding and (b) other structural funding; and if each individual member can unilaterally designate (a) an offshore island and (b) other small areas as a region to enable it to qualify for funding. [17135]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The criteria for eligibility for objective 1 grants from the EC structural funds are set out in article 8 of Council regulation (EEC) 2052/88 as amended by Council regulation (EEC) 2081/93—OJL 193, 31.7.93. The criteria and procedures for designation for eligibility for objective 2 grants are set out in article 9.

  Eligibility for objective 3 grants is not defined geographically.

  The objective 1 areas are listed in an annex to the regulation, and are therefore decided by the Council. Objective 2 areas are decided by the Commission following proposals from the member states. Member states cannot designate areas unilaterally.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what responsibilities the Coal Authority has to meet the cost of keeping Markham Main and the other Coal Investment collieries on a care and maintenance basis until a new licensee is found; [17175]

  (2) what plans the Coal Authority has to invite new licensees to tender for Markham Main and other Coal Investment collieries. [17176]

  Mr. Page
  This is a matter for the Coal Authority.

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what equipment not classified as military but having military applications is currently being exported from the United Kingdom to Indonesia; and if he will take steps to halt such supplies or orders. [17226]
  569
  Mr. Oppenheim
  There is a vast range of manufactured products capable of military use, only a small proportion of which are licensable.

  In respect of licensable goods, it has been the practice of successive Governments not to reveal details of export licenses or applications for export licenses.

  Official Receivers
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the contracting-out exercise of the case administration functions of official receivers, begun by the Insolvency Service in July 1993, has now been completed; and if he will make a statement. [18035]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Government announced in October 1994 that, following the completion of pre-feasibility and feasibility studies, it was their intention to pursue, subject to parliamentary approval of the appropriate primary and secondary legislation, the preferred option identified by the then consultants ie the contracting out of insolvency casework by official receivers immediately on the making of the insolvency order.

  Advertisements for potential bidders were placed in May 1995 and resulted in the receipt of 149 expressions of interest. One hundred and thirty-six passed through to the next stage and were sent the requirements scoping document. Ninety-one organisations went on to submit initial proposals, 34 of which were selected to participate in negotiations with the Insolvency Service. Following these negotiations, a further sift was carried out and an invitation to tender was issued to six organisations—two managed service providers and four insolvency practitioner-accountants—and formal tenders were received from all six at the beginning of December. Three—Capita Managed Services Ltd., ITnet Ltd. and Larking Gowen—were identified as possibly being able to offer value for money and a final series of discussions were held with them.

  The three bids were subjected to stringent technical and financial evaluation and were considered by the Agency Steering Board, particularly the independent, private sector members.

  The aim of the contracting-out process is to ensure that people receive the best service for the most reasonable price whether it is provided by the public or private sector. In this instance, having considered very carefully the evaluation of the bids and the advice of the steering board, I have concluded on these grounds that the case administration functions of official receivers should not be contracted out.

  I congratulate the service and its staff on the service's performance in recent years during which its unit costs have been substantially reduced while its investigative role has been enhanced. This exercise has confirmed the value of money of the service's operation for the taxpayer and I look to it to continue to deliver improvements in the future.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he intends to make the decision regarding the contracting out of the work of the official receiver; and when this decision will be announced to the House. [17468]
  570
  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 27 February 1996]: As I informed the House in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), having carefully considered the technical and financial evaluation of the bids and the recommendation of the Agency Steering Board, I have concluded that the case administration functions should not be contracted out and the work should remain with official receivers.

  Mrs. Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what involvement Dr. Alan Kemp has had in the contracting out of the work of the official receiver. [17466]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 27 February 1996]: Dr. Kemp had no involvement in the contracting out exercise undertaken by the Insolvency Service.

  Arrangements were introduced to ensure that any papers concerning this matter which were sent to the then President of the Board of Trade were withheld from Dr. Kemp.

  Mrs. Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many bidders for the work of the Insolvency Service who have been rejected have had insolvency experience; [17471]

  (2) how many bidders for the work of the Insolvency Service who are still being considered have insolvency experience. [17470]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 27 February 1996]: Of the six tenders received for the work of official receivers, four were submitted by insolvency practitioner-accountancy firms and two by managed service providers.

  However, as I informed the House in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), having carefully considered the technical and financial evaluation of the bids and the recommendation of the Agency Steering Board, I have concluded that the case administration functions should not be contracted out and the work should remain with official receivers.

  Public Interest Disclosure Bill
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many responses his Department has received on(a) the Public Interest Disclosure Bill and (b) the Whistleblower Protection Bill; in each case how many (i) were in support of each Bill and (ii) indicated that each Bill would pose an undue burden on business; and if he will list those organisations which did not respond in confidence. [17535]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Up to 26 February, my Department has received 34 letters, all supporting the Public Interest Disclosure Bill. Of these, 29 were from individuals, two from general secretaries of trade unions and three from national organisations. No letters were received by my Department about the Whistleblower Protection Bill.

  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consultations his Department has undertaken on the Public Interest Disclosure Bill. [17536]

  Mr. Taylor
  No public consultation has been undertaken by my Department on the Public Interest Disclosure Bill.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was(a) the number of applications that have been made for regional selective assistance, (b) the number approved, (c) the total financial value of the approved applications and (d) the average time taken to process and approve the applications in the last three years for which figures are available in each United Kingdom assisted area. [16978]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  In the period 1 April 1992 to 31 March 1995 the figures for Great Britain were:

  Assisted area

  Number of applications received

  Number of applications approved

  Value of applications approved (£ million)

  Average processing time (working days)

  East

  75

  47

  3.0

  30

  East Midlands

  202

  111

  11.2

  56

  London

  60

  44

  3.1

  42

  Merseyside

  404

  267

  46.4

  52

  North East

  829

  635

  95.8

  25

  North West

  893

  740

  66.7

  39

  South East

  96

  72

  5.1

  41

  South West

  320

  230

  32.8

  50

  West Midlands

  892

  635

  68.7

  25

  York and Humberside

  615

  440

  53.4

  35

  Scotland

  860

  719

  333.1

  32

  Wales

  721

  583

  236.7

  40

  Single European Currency
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 19 February,Official Report, column 42, when he intends to make a precise judgment on the impact of a single European currency on United Kingdom trade. [16970]
  572
  Mr. Oppenheim
  The United Kingdom will agree to take part in a single currency only if it is in our national interest to do so, given the circumstances at the time. A full assessment of the benefits and disadvantages will be carried out nearer the time, before the decision is made.

  Water Companies
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much water plcs have spent in takeovers or mergers with(a) electricity companies and (b) other companies. [17477]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  This information is not known to my right hon. Friend.

  Merseyside
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much European regional development fund funding has been allocated to Merseyside since it acquired objective 1 status; what percentage has so far been spent; and if he will make a statement. [15545]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Under the Merseyside objective 1 programme, the amount of European regional development fund allocated for 1994 and 1995 is £104 million. The amount of ERDF claims paid to date is £13.6 million.

  The first ERDF projects under objective 1 were approved in late 1994. Given this, and the lead time for large capital projects, the profile of grant payments was expected to be low for the early part of the programme. One hundred and forty-one projects now have full approval to spend and claim grant, and recipients are being encouraged to take them forward promptly.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Kirk wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many written parliamentary questions were passed for answer to executive agencies and non-governmental departments in each of the last five years; and if she will make a statement. [14993]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is a matter of public record, but could be extracted in the form requested only at disproportionate cost.

  Compulsory Sex Education
  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what scope exists for Ofsted to examine whether compulsory sex education under the Education Act 1993 adheres to the requirements of sections 28 and 29 of the Local Government Act 1993. [16752]

  Mr. Paice
  I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986—as inserted by section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988. Section 2A applies to the activities of local authorities and not to individual schools. It is not legislation with which school sex education must comply and is not therefore included within the scope of Ofsted's inspections of schools.

  Unskilled Home Workers
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she will publish the results of the research carried out on behalf of her Department into unskilled home workers, referred to by the Under-Secretary of State for Consumer Affairs in his oral statement of 26 January,Official Report, column 585. [17394]

  Mr. Forth
  The research results will be published on behalf of the Department for Education and Employment by HMSO. Publication of the report, entitled "Homeworkers in Britain", is scheduled for Thursday 4 April 1996.

  Roots and Wings Monitoring Scheme
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people at school in(a) Coventry and (b) the west midlands are involved in the roots and wings monitoring scheme; and what proposals she has to encourage the development of the scheme in Coventry. [17121]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This information is not held centrally. The Government continue to encourage the development of effective links between business and education, which can help young people reach their highest potential and meet employers' needs for a well-qualified and motivated work force. Activities at local level are normally co-ordinated through education business partnerships involving senior representatives from employers, education and the local community.

  Schools (Management and Administration Costs)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer of 16 February,Official Report, column 735, if she will give the management and administration cost per pupil in each local education authority in England. [17134]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following table provides the information requested, for the financial year 1995–96.

  LEA

  £

  Avon

  63

  Barking and Dagenham

  73

  Barnet

  48

  Barnsley

  14

  Bedfordshire

  39

  Berkshire

  37

  Bexley

  55

  Birmingham

  50

  Bolton

  28

  Bradford

  33

  Brent

  78

  Bromley

  63

  Buckinghamshire

  77

  Bury

  46

  Calderdale

  41

  Cambridgeshire

  33

  Camden

  113

  Cheshire

  29

  Cleveland

  54

  Cornwall

  29

  Corporation of London

  352

  Coventry

  39

  Croydon

  35

  Cumbria

  27

  Derbyshire

  25

  Devon

  33

  Doncaster

  42

  Dorset

  48

  Dudley

  25

  Durham

  39

  Ealing

  65

  East Sussex

  26

  Enfield

  57

  Essex

  40

  Gateshead

  47

  Gloucestershire

  49

  Greenwich

  93

  Hackney

  87

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  52

  Hampshire

  47

  Haringey

  49

  Harrow

  64

  Havering

  38

  Hereford and Worcester

  30

  Hertfordshire

  17

  Hillingdon

  96

  Hounslow

  47

  Humberside

  57

  Isle of Wight

  32

  Isle of Scilly

  95

  Islington

  79

  Kensington and Chelsea

  133

  Kent

  81

  Kingston

  61

  Kirklees

  46

  Knowsley

  23

  Lambeth

  160

  Lancashire

  35

  Leeds

  28

  575

  LEA

  £

  Leicestershire

  42

  Lewisham

  67

  Lincolnshire

  39

  Liverpool

  52

  Manchester

  49

  Merton

  42

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  59

  Newham

  51

  Norfolk

  18

  North Tyneside

  35

  North Yorkshire

  37

  Northamptonshire

  28

  Northumberland

  41

  Nottinghamshire

  43

  Oldham

  44

  Oxfordshire

  28

  Redbridge

  60

  Richmond

  33

  Rochdale

  39

  Rotherham

  64

  Salford

  59

  Sandwell

  35

  Sefton

  74

  Sheffield

  42

  Shropshire

  37

  Solihull

  11

  Somerset

  18

  South Tyneside

  34

  Southwark

  82

  St. Helens

  49

  Staffordshire

  20

  Stockport

  32

  Suffolk

  27

  Sunderland

  40

  Surrey

  51

  Sutton

  74

  Tameside

  32

  Tower Hamlets

  51

  Trafford

  37

  Wakefield

  35

  Walsall

  40

  Waltham Forest

  54

  Wandsworth

  125

  Warwickshire

  43

  West Sussex

  42

  Westminster

  108

  Wigan

  29

  Wiltshire

  31

  Wirral

  30

  Wolverhampton

  30

  1. The figures have been calculated by dividing planned expenditure on management and adminsitration, as recorded in each LEA's LMS budget statement for 1995–96, by pupil numbers from the same source.

  2. The amount per pupil is rounded to the nearest pound.

  Ministerial Accountability
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to paragraph K8.1 of the Scott report relating to ministerial accountability, what additional measures she proposes to ensure her Department's compliance with paragraph 27 of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers". [17307]

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 26 February 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the speech made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, on 26 February, Official Report, columns 589–604.

  Capita Managed Services Ltd.
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance has been given to Capita Managed Services Ltd. to(a) ensure and (b) monitor a fair and equitable allocation of nursery education places. [17218]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  No such guidance has been given. Capita Managed Services has no role in the allocation of nursery places.

  Access to Work Scheme
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list for(a) each of the constituent nations of the United Kingdom and (b) the United Kingdom in constant prices the amount of Government expenditure allocated for 1994–95, 1995–96 and that anticipated for 1996–97 for the access to work scheme, indicating in each case the percentage year on year change. [17556]

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

  Letter from Mike Fogden to Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, dated 28 February 1996:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about expenditure allocated to Access to Work for 1994/95, 1995/96 and 1996/97.

  Access to Work began in June 1994. The annex gives the initial allocation for Access to Work for England. Scotland and Wales for the period requested. In 1995/96, as in 1994/95, we will spend more than the allocation. The total allocation is for Great Britain as the Access to Work programme does not extend to Northern Ireland.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Access to Work initial allocation (£ million) at 1994–95 prices

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  England

  12.4

  10.8

  10.7

  Percentage change

  —

  -13 per cent.

  -1 per cent.

  Scotland

  1.2

  1.3

  0.9

  Percentage change

  —

  +8 per cent.

  - 31 per cent.

  Wales

  1.0

  0.9

  0.6

  Percentage change

  —

  -10 per cent.

  -33 per cent.

  GB total

  14.6

  13.0

  12.2

  Percentage change

  —

  -11 per cent.

  -6 per cent.

  1. Access to Work began on 6 June 1994. The 1994–95 figure includes expenditure on previous special schemes.

  2. The calculations have been made using Treasury GDP deflators:

  3.25 per cent. for 1994–95 to 1995–96 and 2.5 per cent. For 1995–96 to 1996–97.

  Jobcentres
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list(a) the number and (b) the location of jobcentres which are currently operational in Wales[17735]

  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service
  577
  Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mike Fogden to Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones, dated 28 February 1996:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the number and location of Jobcentres in Wales.

  There are 102 Jobcentres in Wales and I attach a list showing their locations for your information.

  I hope this is helpful.

  District

  Job centre location

  North West Wales

  Amlwch

  Bangor

  Barmouth

  Beaumaris

  Blaenau Ffestiniog

  Caernarfon

  Dolgellau

  Holyhead

  Llangefni

  Penygroes

  Porthmadog

  Pwllheli

  North Wales Coast

  Colwyn Bay

  Conwy

  Denbig

  hLlandudno

  Llanrwst

  Prestatyn

  Rhyl

  North East Wales

  Buckley

  Cefn Mawr

  Flint

  Holywell

  Llangollen

  Mold

  Shotton

  Wrexham

  Powys

  Brecon

  Llandrindod

  Wells

  Newtown

  Welshpool

  Caephilly and Heads of the Valleys

  Abergavenny

  Abertillery

  Bargoed

  Blackwood

  Brynmawr

  Caerphilly

  Ebbw Vale

  Merthyr Tydfil

  Newbridge

  Pontlottyn

  Risca

  Tredegar

  Treharris

  Ystrad

  Mynach

  Newport, Torfaen and Monmouth

  Blaenavon

  Cladicot

  Chepstow

  Cwmbran

  Monmouth

  Newport

  Pontypool

  578

  District

  Job centre location

  South Glamorgan

  Barry

  Cardiff Caradog House

  Cardiff Westgate Street

  Cardiff Friary

  Cardiff Gabalfa

  Cardiff Coptic House

  Cardiff Ely

  Cardiff Llanrumney

  Llantwit

  Major

  Penarth

  Bridgend and Glamorgan Valleys

  Aberdare

  Bridgend

  Ferndale

  Llantrisant

  Maesteg

  Mountain Ash

  Pontypridd

  Porth

  Porthcawl

  Pyle

  Tonypandy

  Tonyrefail

  Treorchy

  Outer Swansea

  Ammanford

  Cymmer

  Garnant

  Glynneath

  Kidwelly

  Llandeilo

  Llanelli

  Neath

  Pontardawe

  Port Talbot

  Tumble

  Ystradgynlais

  Inner Swansea

  Gorseinon

  Morriston

  Pontardulais

  Swansea

  West Wales

  Aberystwyth

  Carmarthen

  Cardigan

  Fishguard

  Haverfordwest

  Lampeter

  Llandysul

  Machynlleth

  Milford Haven

  Pembroke Dock

  Tenby

  Total number of offices

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans her Department has to establish further jobcentres in Wales in areas of high unemployment. [17720]

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

  Letter from Mike Fogden to Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones, dated 28 February 1996:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about what plans there are to establish further Jobcentres in Wales in areas of high unemployment.
  579
  The Employment Service (ES) is, through its integration programme, creating a national network of around 1100 new style Jobcentres which will bring Jobcentres and Benefit Offices together under one roof to provide a one stop employment service to help people back to work.

  The new ES Jobcentres provide an improved service to clients, giving them easier access to the full range of services.

  The integration programme in Wales has been completed providing 102 one stop Jobcentres to help unemployed people back into employment.

  There are no plans at present to increase the number of Jobcentres in Wales. However, the provision and location of Jobcentre services are subject to regular review.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Part Course Fees Reimbursement Scheme
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what funding changes are planned for the European Union part course fees reimbursement scheme administered by the British Council; what are the reasons for such changes; and what is the current level of funding for the European Union part course fees reimbursement scheme administered by the British Council. [17665]

  Mr. Forth
  The EC part course fees reimbursement scheme is a voluntary initiative by the UK Government which we have decided to discontinue. At a time of public expenditure constraint and many competing claims for funding, we are concerned to concentrate resources on our prime objectives, including participation in higher education by British students. The estimate of expenditure on the scheme in the current financial year is £1.389 million, including administration costs. The financial year 1996–97 will be the final full year of the scheme.

  School Buildings
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will provide a comparative table of quantities, measurements, ratios or other mathematical requirements contained in the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1981 as amended by subsequent regulations now extant together with those relating to the same features as set out in the draft regulations laid on 22 February, showing in each case the changes in figures and percentages, and for each case where figures do not occur in both parts the reasons for their omission or inclusion. [17812]

  Mrs. Gillan
  [holding answer 27 February 1996]: Both sets of regulations are available in the Library. Where figures which appear in one set of regulations are omitted

  Total expenditure on furniture

  1991–92

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  11995–96 £

  ES Head Office

  913,000

  694,000

  737,000

  483,000

  1,154,000

  ES Regional Network (totals for all Regions including Jcs and UBOs

  23,573,000

  11,924,000

  17,788,000

  9,064,000

  4,213,000

  Former EDHQ

  1,911,282

  2,624,585

  1,468,493

  1,543,268

  196,609

  Former DfE HQ

  4,820,007

  197,000

  111,000

  82,500

  139,500

  DfEE totals

  31,217,289

  15,439,585

  20,104,493

  11,172,768

  5,703,109

  1 To January 1996.

  580
  in the other, the reasons are explained in the documents which went out for public consultation on 14 August 1995, which are also available in the Library.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many and which consultees favoured the reduction or elimination of quantifiable standards in the draft school building regulations which she laid before the House on 22 February. [17815]

  Mrs. Gillan
  [holding answer 27 February 1996]: The listed consultees favoured the reduction or elimination of one or more quantifiable standards in the draft version of the Education (School Premises) Regulations which went out to consultation in August 1995.

  Local Education Authorities

  Doncaster

  East Sussex

  Houslow

  Lancashire

  Lincolnshire

  North Yorkshire

  Oxfordshire

  Stockport

  Wandsworth

  Warwickshire

  Wiltshire

  National organisations

  Association of County Councils

  Royal Institute of British Architects

  Churches and religious bodies

  Agency for Jewish Education

  Diocese of Arundel and Brighton Free Churches Federal Council

  Schools

  Highfield Junior School, Bromley

  Lady Manners School, Bakewell

  Furniture
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will itemise expenditure on furniture for(a) jobcentres, (b) unemployment benefit offices and (c) departmental offices between 1991–92 and 1995–96. [15885]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  We are not able to disaggregate the costs between jobcentres and unemployment benefit offices. However, the following list is a breakdown of the available information on furniture expenditure for the Department for Education and Employment.
  581

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on proposals to use the private finance initiative in the activities of new providers for funded early years' education; and if she will make a statement on the role to be played in administering education by sources of the private finance initiative. [17872]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend expects projects under the private finance initiative to make an increasing contribution to the capital needs of the education sector, including the provision of early years' education. The Government's voucher scheme for nursery education creates an identifiable source of revenue which should prove attractive to the private sector. Phase 1 of the voucher scheme will highlight opportunities to potential providers.

  PFI gives the public sector the opportunity to benefit from the application of private sector expertise and resources in developing innovative solutions for capital projects and services, thereby ensuring improved management of public projects and best value for money for public resources.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list for each of the education authority areas participating in her voucher scheme for early years education(a) the number qualified nursery school teachers in post, (b) the number of qualified nursery school assistants or nurses in post and
  (c) the number of persons holding qualifications of the Pre-school Learning Alliance. [17868]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The available information is shown in the following table:

  Full-time equivalent numbers of teachers and nursery assistants employed in maintained nursery schools and nursery classes in maintained primary schools: January 1995.

  Teachers

  Nursery Assistants

  LEA

  Total

  of which qualified

  Total

  of which qualified

  Kensington and Chelsea

  39

  39

  44

  30

  Wandsworth

  72

  68

  85

  77

  Westminster

  41

  39

  45

  36

  Norfolk

  29

  20

  26

  26

  Qualified nursery assistants are those holding the NNEB Certificate (or equivalent) not employed as qualified teachers.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list(a) the estimated number of five-year-olds eligible, (b) the number of places already available through existing providers, by category, (c) the additional number of places expected from existing or new providers by category and (d) the deficit or surplus of places at the latest convenient date, for each of the local education authority areas participating in phase I of the early age voucher scheme. [17870]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Children aged five will hold nursery education vouchers only where they become five in the term before compulsory school age. Data on these children are not held separately.

  Lay Inspectors
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many lay inspectors who have received a distant learning package and no training have undertaken inspections. [17878]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This is a matter for Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools, who heads the Office for Standards in Education. I have asked Mr. Chris Woodhead to write to the hon. Member.

WALES

  Official Engagements
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many official engagements he carried out in Wales in 1995. [15760]

  Mr. Hague
  After my appointment in July, I carried out over 100 official engagements in Wales in 1995.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to meet(a) the Confederation of British Industry and (b) the Trades Union Congress to discuss manufacturing industry; and if he will make a statement. [16208]

  Mr. Hague
  I met the CBI (Wales) on 4 December 1995 and the Wales TUC on 17 October. A range of issues were discussed, including some with relevance to manufacturing industry.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which are subject to(a) investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner, (b) scrutiny by the Audit Commission, (c) scrutiny by the National Audit Office, (d) statutory provisions for open Government, (e) performance indicators and (f) provisions under the citizens charter. [16026]

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) The Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales, the Arts Council of Wales, the Cardiff Bay development corporation, the Countryside Council for Wales, the Development Board for Rural Wales. Housing for Wales, the Land Authority for Wales, the Residuary Body for Wales, the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales, the Sports Council for Wales, the Wales tourist board, the Welsh Language Board, and the agricultural wages committees are all open to the scrutiny of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.

  (b) The Audit Commissioner is the external auditor of the Residuary Body for Wales.

  (c) The Comptroller and Auditor General is the external auditor of all Welsh executive NDPBs except the RB, Wales Youth Agency, HfW, and CBDC, to whose books and papers he nevertheless has access (a) under the National Audit Act 1983 for the purpose of carrying out examinations on value for money, and (b) by agreement, for the purpose of examining questions of regularity and propriety.

  (d) All are encouraged to adopt procedures under the code of access to government information.

  583
  (e) All identify, publish and report against key performance measures in their annual reports other than the Higher and Further Education Funding Councils for Wales which give details in their corporate plans which are also published.

  (f) All are subject to the provisions of the citizen's charter.

  Overseas Companies (Employment)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people are employed by companies from(a) Japan, (b) the European Union and (c) the United States of America in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [16508]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The number of people currently employed by Japanese-owned manufacturing companies in Wales is 13,147; for European Union manufacturing companies, the figure is 19,487; and, for United States-owned manufacturing companies, the figure is 30,439. Wales has an excellent inward investment record which complements the part played by indigenous companies in the economic well-being of the country.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people are employed by overseas-owned manufacturing companies in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [16509]

  Mr. Jones
  Some 70,670 people are employed by overseas-owned manufacturing companies in Wales. These are valuable jobs provided by some of the biggest companies in the world. Their contribution to the Welsh economy is enormous and I am keen to see that contribution increased even further.

  RAF Valley
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assistance his Department is giving to maintain training for employees at RAF Valley. [16628]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In the light of decisions relating to the maintenance work at RAF Valley, the Welsh Office is prepared to help the North West Wales training and enterprise council with the cost of training local people to take up employment opportunities that might arise. An additional £75,000 has already been allocated to the council as a contribution towards the cost of taking forward the development of training programmes.

  South-East Wales Ambulance Trust
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what severance package was agreed by South-East Wales ambulance trust for(a) its ex-chairman and (b) its ex-chief executive; and if these packages were submitted to the Welsh Office for approval. [16334]

  Mr. Richards
  The ex-chairman and ex-chief executive resigned voluntarily. The chairman did not receive a financial settlement. Any financial settlement agreed following the resignation of the chief executive is a matter for the trust and the individual concerned. The Department was consulted on the terms agreed between the trust and the ex-chief executive. The details are confidential but open to audit.

  Grant-Maintained Schools Foundation
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what funding the Welsh Office provides for each Grant-Maintained Schools Foundation office in Wales; and who is the accounting officer for the foundation. [16335]

  Mr. Richards
  Funding provided by the Welsh Office enables the Grant-Maintained Schools Foundation to maintain an office in Swansea. Details of the payments made to date were given in my answer of 22 January to the hon. Member for Islwyn, (Mr. Touhig), at column 97.

  The accounting officer for the foundation is its director, Mr. Andrew Turner.

  Ministerial Accountability
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to paragraph K8.1 of the Scott report relating to ministerial accountability, what additional measures he proposes to ensure his Department's compliance with paragraph 27 of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers". [17301]

  Mr. Hague
  [holding answer 26 February 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the speech made by my hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, on 26 February, Official Report, columns 589–604.

  European Currency
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his oral answer on 19 February,Official Report, column 4, when he expects to assess the particular interests of Wales in respect of the introduction of a single European currency. [16968]

  Mr. Hague
  The United Kingdom will agree to take part in a single currency only if it is in our interest to do so, given the circumstances at the time. A full assessment of the benefits and disadvantages will be carried out nearer the time, before the decision is made.

  Labour Statistics
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the numbers of people in(a) full-time and (b) part-time employment in Wales in (i) April 1979 and (ii) April 1995. [17356]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on the numbers in full-time and part-time employment in Wales is not available for April 1979. However, information from the 1978 census of employment on full-time and part-time employees—excluding the self-employed—is published in appendix iv of the 1986 edition of "Welsh Economic Trends". The number of full-time and part-time employees in 1995, based on the Central Statistical Office's quarterly employment estimates is published in table 1.5 of the February 1996 edition of "Labour Market Trends". Copies of these publications are available in the Library.

  Weekly Earnings
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are average weekly earnings(a) overall and (b) in manufacturing. [17360]
  585
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Average gross weekly earnings of full-time employees in Wales, at April 1995, were £301.3 overall and £317.2 in manufacturing, based on information from the new earnings survey.

  Patients Charter
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the cost to public funds of the latest publication of the patients charter. [17585]

  Mr. Hague
  The cost of publishing the 1996 edition of the patients charter was £32,370—equivalent to about 13p per copy.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to the guarantees contained in the new patients charter for Wales booklet, if he will specify the circumstances in which exceptions to the six months maximum waiting time will not be regarded as breaches of the patients charter. [17586]

  Mr. Hague
  The six month target for a first out-patient appointment is a standard and not a guarantee. It forms part of a total waiting time guarantee covering the period between GP referral to hospital and admission for treatment. The circumstances under which a waiting time in excess of the guarantees would not count as a breach are described in "Total Waiting Times: Operational Guidance", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Medical Priority Dispatch Systems
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairmen of the Welsh ambulance trusts concerning the introduction of medical priority dispatch systems. [17589]

  Mr. Hague
  None. The possible use of medical priority despatch systems is being examined alongside the current review of ambulance performance standards.

  Treatment Centres
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are conditions for acceptance for treatment at the treatment centres for cataracts, orthopaedics and general surgery; and at the latest available date how many patients in each health authority area are deemed as qualifying under those conditions. [17584]

  Mr. Hague
  The key requirement for referral to the three treatment centres are that the patient has been assessed as in need of the operation by his local consultant, has no clinical contra-indication and, for cataract procedures and hip or knee replacements, has been on an in-patient waiting list for a minimum of four months.

  The number of patients estimated by health authorities as eligible under the waiting time criterion for each treatment centre procedure, as at 30 June 1995, is as follows:

  Hernias/varicose

  District health authority

  Cataracts

  veins

  Hips1

  Knees1

  North Wales

  584

  606

  179

  245

  Dyfed Powys

  381

  254

  327

  139

  Gwent

  1,033

  546

  219

  187

  586

  Hernias/varicose

  District health authority

  Cataracts

  veins

  Hips1

  Knees1

  Bro Taf

  330

  635

  79

  69

  Morgannwg

  677

  467

  125

  89

  Wales

  3,005

  2,508

  929

  729

  1 Hips and knee replacement figures include those for joint revisions.

  Geriatric Long-Stay Beds
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many patients occupied geriatric long-stay beds in NHS hospitals in(a) 1971, (b) 1976, (c) 1981, (d) 1986 and (e) 1991 and in each of the last three years. [17588]

  Mr. Hague
  Information is collected centrally on the basis of the number of in-patient cases treated in the specialty of geriatric medicine and, therefore, no split between long-stay and acute patients is available. The number of in-patient cases is given in the following table.

  Number of in-patient cases treated in the specialty of geriatric medicine

  Number

  1971

  11,153

  1976

  17,840

  1981

  23,776

  1986–87

  37,634

  1991–92

  47,219

  1992–93

  50,255

  1993–94

  51,666

  1994–95

  48,577

  Pembrokeshire Cliffs
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to complete the designation of the Pembrokeshire cliffs candidate special protection area. [17862]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Castlemartin coast in Pembrokeshire was classified as a special protection area under the wild birds directive on 12 January 1996. Consultation has taken place on the proposed Ramsey and St. David's coast SPA and responses are being considered. The Limestone sea cliffs side in south-west Wales was submitted to the European Commission in June 1995 for consideration as a candidate special area of conservation under the habitats directive. The Pembrokeshire islands candidate SSC has yet to be submitted to the Commission. A decision will be taken when all the points arising from last year's public consultation have been fully considered.

  Sea Empress
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what monitoring of the seabird population he is proposing as a result of the Sea Empress oil spill. [17863]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Countryside Council for Wales is conducting a study of the entire marine environment to monitor the effects of the Sea Empress oil spill. Monitoring of seabird populations is an important element of the study which will involve liaison with all of the interested agencies in the area. This will form part
  587
  of a comprehensive environmental monitoring and assessment programme for which my right hon. Friend has provided £250,000.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Cattle (Tuberculosis)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what levels of compensation were paid to farmers with cattle affected with TB in each of the last five years; and what would have been paid if the level of compensation was set at(a) 100 per cent. and (b) 120 per cent. [16241]

  Mrs. Browning
  The total of compensation paid to farmers in England with cattle affected by TB is as follows:

  Year

  Compensation £

  1990–91

  371,173

  1991–92

  557,987

  1992–93

  1,030,340

  1993–94

  1,928,000

  1994–95

  1,329,936

  For 1994–95 it is estimated that compensation would have increased by (a) £826,280 and (b) £1,257,523 respectively if the level had been at (a) 100 per cent. and (b) 120 per cent. of the value of the animals. Comparable figures cannot be established, except at disproportionate cost, for earlier years.

  Food Content
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the research into food products being conducted by York university, with particular reference to fruit pastilles. [16318]

  Mrs. Browning
  The research project is part of the LINK food processing sciences research programme. LINK projects are jointly funded by industry and Government. The academic contribution to this project is provided by York university and the Cranfield institute of technology with a consortium of food companies providing the industrial contribution. Half of the resources for the project are provided by the industrial consortium with the remainder coming from Government. The project is directed at developing a fundamental understanding of the behaviour of mixtures of biopolymers, such as protein and starch. Fruit pastilles are a convenient and simple model system for use in part of the study.

  British Beef (Ban)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had during the last month with the German Government as to the existing ban on the import of British beef; and if he will make a statement. [16322]
  588
  Mrs. Browning
  I deeply regret the action taken by some German lander in banning the import of British beef. This clearly breaches Germany's EC obligations and is an unacceptable restriction on British trade.

  My right hon. Friend wrote to the German Agriculture and Health Ministers earlier this month to protest against the bans and to seek an assurance that urgent action is being taken to ensure compliance by the lander with the Community rules on trade in beef. My right hon. Friend also wrote to Commissioner Fischler about this matter and discussed it with him on 20 February. The Commission has started the process necessary to commence infringement proceedings against Germany.

  Abattoir Industry
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on capacity in the abattoir industry; what plans he has to reduce that capacity; and by what means and under what authority he intends to take forward such plans. [16655]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 22 February 1996]: The Meat and Livestock Commission estimates that basic slaughtering capacity in Great Britain is already some 45 per cent. in excess of our current slaughter requirements and that the situation is getting worse. It is generally recognised that this has been the major cause of serious under-investment, low profitability and poor competitiveness over the last decade.

  The Government have no plans to reduce abattoir capacity and believe that it is for the meat and livestock industry to determine for itself what are the needs of the market-place and how they should best be met. The Agriculture Act 1967 gives the MLC the power to prepare a development scheme to deal with excess capacity in the industry. The MLC is currently consulting the meat and livestock industry on such a scheme. My right hon. Friend is required by the Act to consider any development scheme put to him by the MLC, together with objections to it, before deciding whether to put it to Parliament for approval.

  Departmental Officials (Interests)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the officials in his Department who have declared a current interest; what requirements are placed on officials to declare relevant interests; in what form records of such declarations are kept; and if he will establish a central register of officials' interests. [16891]

  Mr. Boswell
  A number of officials in the Department have declared their outside interests in accordance with departmental requirements. As with all employment matters, individuals' details are a confidential matter between them and their employer.

  The departmental requirements are that staff must seek approval before becoming associated with any kind of private business interest which is related to the work of the Department, including holding shares which represent more than 10 per cent. of the issued share capital in any

  589
  agricultural, food or fishery businesses or in any other businesses directly related to the area in which they work.

  A central record of declarations is kept in accordance with the Department's records management procedures.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) confirmed and (b) unconfirmed cases of BSE there were in each week in October, November and December 1995. [16791]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 26 February 1996]: The number of suspected BSE cases placed under restriction and subsequently confirmed or not confirmed as having BSE in the last 13 weeks of 1995 are as follows:

  Date (week ending)

  Restricted

  BSE confirmed

  Not BSE

  6 October 95

  280

  204

  46

  13 October 1995

  284

  212

  40

  20 October 1995

  263

  184

  54

  27 October 1995

  280

  197

  45

  03 November 1995

  341

  237

  59

  10 November 1995

  347

  250

  46

  17 November 1995

  390

  251

  60

  24 November 1995

  380

  220

  70

  01 December 1995

  330

  213

  45

  08 December 1995

  359

  207

  66

  15 December 1995

  313

  164

  56

  22 December 1995

  382

  149

  65

  29 December 1995

  179

  68

  22

  The remaining balance consists of animals:

  (i) which have not been slaughtered and where restrictions have been lifted, that is, no longer BSE suspects;

  (ii) which are still under restriction as BSE suspects but which have not yet been slaughtered; and

  (iii) which have been slaughtered but for which the results of histopathological examination to confirm BSE are still pending.

  Isle of Wight (Expenditure)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total expenditure by the Forestry Commission on the Isle of Wight in 1994–95 broken down by category. [16778]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Forestry Commission spent some £29,000 on grants to woodland owners and £130,000 on managing its own woodlands.

  Cereal Prices
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the average price of(a) wheat, (b) barley and (c) oats per ton in (i) the year preceding the introduction of set-aside and (ii) in each year since. [17150]

  Mr. Baldry
  The cereals marketing year 1 July 1992 to 30 June 1993 saw the marketing of the last—i.e. 1992—harvest prior to the introduction of compulsory set-aside. The average realised price for wheat, barley and oats produced in the UK and marketed during 1992–93 and subsequent years has been as follows:590

  Year1

  Average realised price (£ per tonne)

  Wheat

  Barley

  Oats

  1992–93

  129

  126

  128

  1993–94

  107

  110

  117

  1994–95

  113

  116

  98

  1 July to June.

  Source:

  MAFF.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what forecasts his Department(a) made and (b) evaluated of the prices for (i) barley, (ii) oats and (iii) wheat following the introduction of set-aside. [17151]

  Mr. Baldry
  The introduction of compulsory set-aside was linked to cuts in EU cereal support prices of around 35 per cent.—in ecu terms—over the three-year period 1993–94 to 1995–96. These cuts were expected to result in a broadly comparable fall in market prices. Average prices did indeed fall significantly between 1992–93 and 1993–94 but various external factors, including a rise in world market prices for cereals, meant that this initial fall was not sustained.

  Egg and Poultry Producers
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many egg and poultry producers there(a) were in 1986 and (b) are currently. [17178]

  Mr. Baldry
  Estimates for England from the June 1987 agricultural and Horticultural census—the earliest date for which figures are readily available—and the June 1995 agricultural and horticultural census are shown in the table.

  Holding size groups (number of birds)

  110,000

  10,000:100,000

  100,000 and over

  Total

  1987

  Number of Producers of eggs and poultry of which:

  34,776

  1,545

  234

  36,555

  only producing hen eggs for eating1

  14,986

  568

  54

  15,608

  only producing other poultry2

  6,560

  827

  163

  7,550

  producing both eggs and poultry3

  13,230

  150

  17

  13,397

  1985

  Number of Producers of eggs and poultry of which:

  25,165

  1,229

  239

  26,633

  only producing hen eggs for eating1

  8,559

  363

  57

  8,979

  only producing other poultry2

  5,986

  788

  172

  6,946

  591

  Holding size groups (number of birds)

  1: <10,000

  10,000: <100,000

  100,000 and over

  Total

  producing both eggs and poultry3

  10,620

  78

  10

  10,708

  All figures exclude Turkeys.

  1 only producing hens eggs for eating covers those holdings returning under the census questions headed 'Hens and pullets kept mainly for producing eggs', but no other poultry questions.

  2 only producing other poultry covers those holdings returning under the census poultry questions other than those headed 'Hens and pullets kept mainly for producing eggs for eating'.

  3 producing both eggs and poultry covers those holdings returning under the census questions headed 'Hens and pullets kept mainly for producing eggs for eating' while also returning any other poultry questions.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  to ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Agriculture Council held in Brussels on 26 February; and if he will make a statement. [18475]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Council had a first discussion on the 1996 farm price proposals. The United Kingdom regretted that the Commission had not taken this opportunity to propose a move towards the more market orientated CAP which its recent report had recognised was inevitable for the longer term. In particular, the UK regretted the failure to address the over-compensation of the arable sector which resulted from high Community and world market prices for cereals and unchanged area payments.

  The Council also discussed Commission proposals on the use of hormones and so-called beta agonists in livestock farming. Most member states remain opposed to any use of hormones and, with few limited exceptions, beta agonists. The UK stressed the desirability of avoiding the adoption of a policy which would run serious risks of adverse judgments in the World Trade Organisation. However, this approach was supported only by Spain and the Netherlands. The President announced that he expected to take final decisions at the next meeting in March.

  The Commissioner outlined his proposals to improve the welfare of calves used for veal production. The UK welcomed the proposal but criticised the proposed 12-year transitional period as being much too long.

  Arable Area Payments
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he has taken to strengthen his Department's regional organisation following the delays experienced in 1995 in payments under the arable area payments scheme. [18476]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  With the aim of avoiding any such delays on this or other schemes, and despite a general reduction in the Ministry's running costs budget of over 5 per cent., the regional organisation, which makes such payments, will benefit from an increased level of provision for the financial year 1996–97 compared with the current. Various improvement in IT and in management procedures are also in train.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Ministerial Accountability
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, pursuant to paragraph K8.1 of the Scott report relating to ministerial accountability, what additional measures he proposes to ensure his Department's compliance with paragraph 27 of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers". [17314]

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 126 February 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the speech made by my hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, on 26 February, Official Report, columns 589–604.

  EDS Ltd.
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list those contracts his Department currently holds with EDS indicating for each the(a) date of inception, (b) value and (c) duration.

  Mr. Newton
  The Privy Council Office has no contracts with EDS Scicon.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make available to the members of the Intelligence and Security Services Committee Sir Richard Scott's further recommendation in section K7.7 which has been submitted to the Government but not made publicly available. [16950]

  Mr. Freeman
  Yes.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he intends to take in the light of Sir Richard Scott's recommendation in section K8.13 to amend paragraph 27 of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers"; and if he will make a statement. [16948]

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government are considering what further measures may need to be taken in the light of this and other findings of the Scott report and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will consider in due course whether such measures require amendments to "Questions of Procedure for Ministers".

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what assessment he has made of Sir Richard Scott's conclusion in section G13.113 and 115 that Ministers should inform the court if they have views on disclosure; and if he will make a statement; [17369]

  (2) what assessment he has made of Sir Richard Scott's conclusions in section G18.107 that it is a waste of public time and money to place the issue of disclosure in respect of trivial documents before the trial judge; and if he will make a statement. [17367]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  Following the House of Lords judgment in ex parte Wiley—1994—Ministers can make voluntary disclosure of documents if they conclude that this is in the overall public interest.
  593
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of Sir Richard Scott's conclusion in section G18.66 that the Attorney-General's advice was without any sound legal foundation; and if he will make a statement. [17371]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  The Government are entirely satisfied that the Attorney-General's advice was soundly based in law. A copy of the Government's response to the Scott report on public interest immunity is in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the conclusions he reached in page 114 of the oral evidence he gave to Sir Richard Scott on 28 February 1994 relating to disclosure of documents; and what assessment he has made of Sir Richard Scott's conclusions set out in section G of his report relating to this matter. [17366]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  The Attorney-General and prosecuting counsel in the Matrix Churchill case had advised that it was for the trial judge to decide on disclosure of the documents covered by my public interest immunity certificate. The trial judge, Judge Smedley, subsequently ordered disclosure as I had expected him to.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of Sir Richard Scott's conclusion in G13.106 that the brief to Mr. Moses and the Attorney-General's submissions to Judge Smedley were inconsistent with his views as outlined in oral evidence given on 28 February 1994; and if he will make a statement. [17370]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I am satisfied that Judge Smedley dealt with the PII certificate which I signed in precisely the way in which the Attorney-General had advised me he would. Judge Smedley looked at the documents covered by my PII certificate and decided which should be disclosed.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of Sir Richard Scott's conclusion in section G18.104 that the class claims made in the Matrix-Churchill trial; and if he will make a statement. [17368]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  The PII class claims in the Matrix Churchill trial were held by the trial judge to have been properly made. The application of PII class claims in criminal cases has since been confirmed by the higher courts.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of Sir Richard Scott's conclusion in section G18–60 that the Government are entitled to authorise the disclosure of their confidential or secret documents; and if he will make a statement. [17372]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  Following the House of Lords judgment in ex parte Wiley—1994—Ministers can make voluntary disclosure of documents if they conclude that this is in the overall public interest. It has always been for Ministers to decide whether disclosure for purposes other than legal proceedings is in the public interest.

  Ministerial Accountability
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to paragraph K8.1 of the Scott report relating to ministerial accountability, what additional measures he proposes to ensure his Department's compliance with paragraph 27 of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers". [17315]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the speech made by my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, on 26 February,Official Report, columns 589–604.

SCOTLAND

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to meet the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss local government finance. [15799]

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss local government funding. [15809]

  Mr. Kynoch
  I will be meeting COSLA on 28 June.

  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss Scottish local government; and if he will make a statement. [15814]

  Mr. Kynoch
  On 26 January. At the meeting, the convention representatives argued that the 1996–97 local government finance settlement was inadequate and have since put a figure of £395 million on the alleged shortfall in funding. The settlement already provides for an increase of £148 million or 2.9 per cent. in the level of aggregate external finance which is £26.5 million more than the formula consequences of the English settlement and the convention were asked to say which other Scottish expenditure programmes should be further reduced in order to increase the level of the local government settlement, but declined to express any view on this.

  Fire Services
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what sums were made available in(a) 1995–96 and (b) 1996–97 to local authorities for fire services in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [15800]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Grant-aided expenditure for the fire service in Scotland was set at £134.4 million in 1995–96 and has been set at £147.4 million for 1996–97—an increase of nearly 10 per cent. It is up to local authorities to decide whether to spend at, below or above GAE on any particular service.

  Scottish Economy
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet with representatives of Scottish Enterprise to discuss trends in the Scottish economy; and if he will make a statement. [15801]
  595
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Ministers meet Scottish Enterprise regularly to discuss a range of issues.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the prospects for the Scottish economy. [15815]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The prospects for the Scottish economy remain excellent. The latest CBI survey reports that Scottish manufacturers are more optimistic about business conditions, on average, than elsewhere in the UK. Recent independent forecasts of the Scottish economy predict high levels of GDP growth both this year and next. This is very encouraging.

  City of Glasgow Council
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will meet the new City of Glasgow council to discuss its budget. [15802]

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to meet the City of Glasgow council to discuss the city's finances. [15816]

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet the leaders of the City of Glasgow and South Lanarkshire unitary councils to discuss the financial positions of those councils. [15820]

  Mr. Kynoch
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Members for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) and for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes).

  Tourism
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement concerning tourism in Scotland. [15803]

  Mr. Kynoch
  I believe that 1995 will prove to have been a very successful year for Scottish tourism, which is a major contributor to the Scottish economy.

  Policing
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet Scotland's chief constables; and what aspects of policing he expects to discuss. [15804]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend met chief constables on 20 January and also attended the Prime Minister's reception at No. 10 in honour of the police on 7 February.

  Teachers' Pay Settlement
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the impact of the teachers' pay settlement and projected increases in retail prices index on the provision of education services by(a) Edinburgh city and (b) Scottish councils in 1996–97. [15806]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The teachers pay settlement in Scotland is a matter for the Scottish Joint Negotiating Committee and negotiations have not yet started.

  Afforestation
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Forestry Commission's plans for afforestation in the next year. [15807]

  Mr. Kynoch
  As detailed in the Government's expenditure plans published last year, the Forestry Commission has provision to grant aid and carry out 22,250 hectares of new planting and 16,000 hectares of restocking in 1996–97.

  Health Boards
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet the chairmen of Scottish health boards to discuss finance. [15808]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I shall next be meeting health board chairmen on 1 March, when I expect to discuss a range of NHS issues.

  Drugs
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent consultations he has had with ministerial colleagues about implementation of "Drugs in Scotland: Meeting the Challenge"; and if he will make a statement. [15811]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend and I have regular contacts with ministerial colleagues about various aspects of drug misuse in Scotland, including the implementation of the valuable recommendations in that report where we have made very significant progress. Our new all-party drugs campaign in Scotland will build on, and complement, the success we have already achieved in the implementation of the report.

  Smoking
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to make legal aid available to those allegedly suffering from smoking-related illnesses who are taking legal action against tobacco companies. [15812]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The granting of civil legal aid is a matter for the Scottish Legal Aid Board.

  Single-tier Authorities
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on the method of calculation of the financial settlement to the new single-tier authorities. [15813]

  Mr. Kynoch
  We have received a number of representations regarding the distribution of the 1996–97 settlement. The distribution is on the basis agreed by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

  Scottish Parliament
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the effect of a Scottish Parliament on economic growth and job creation. [15817]
  597
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It is widely accepted by the business community throughout Scotland that a Scottish Parliament with tax-raising powers would have a detrimental effect on economic growth and job creation.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to ensure that Scottish Office Ministers regularly attend meetings of the EC Council of Ministers. [15818]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Scottish Office Ministers attend Council meetings as part of the UK delegation as and when matters relevant to my responsibilities are discussed. I also attend Cabinet Committee meetings to discuss UK policy on European Union issues. This enables me to ensure that any specific Scottish points are considered within the context of overall UK policy and to decide which Council meetings require ministerial attendance.

  Electoral Roll
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average number on the electoral roll of each Scottish parliamentary constituency. [15819]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Based on the 1995 electoral register, the number is 55,022.

  University of the Highlands and Islands
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his statement at the Scottish Grand Committee of 5 February in Inverness,Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, column 28, what further discussions he has held into the possibility of the establishment of a university of the highlands and islands; and if he will make a statement. [15821]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  My right hon. Friend plans to meet the chairman of Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Sir Graham Hill, an academic adviser to the university of highlands and islands project, to discuss this and other matters. Officials have met with the director of the university of the highlands and islands project and representatives of colleges in the highlands and islands for a preliminary discussion.

  Crime
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many crimes were committed(a) in 1979 and (b) in the last year for which figures are available. [15822]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The number of crimes recorded by the police in Scotland was 346,680 in 1979 and 527,064 in 1994.

  Failing Schools
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what policies he is pursuing in respect of failing schools in Scotland. [15823]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Examples of the policies we are following to raise standards and improve quality include:

  inspection by HM inspectors of schools with appropriate and systematic follow-up;

  598

  the requirement on all schools to draw up school development plans; and

  the publication of extensive information for parents on schools' performance.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many students are currently in higher education and at what cost; what was the number in 1979 and at what cost in 1995–96 prices; and if he will make a statement. [15797]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  There are nearly twice as many students in higher education since we took office and funding provided by the Government has gone up by £160 million to £400 million.

  Prisons
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration is being given to allowing prison staff to bid for the management contract to run any future private finance initiative prison. [15805]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is an option which my right hon. Friend has not ruled out.

  Glenochil Prison Riot Trial
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he intends to take in response to statements made by the advocate depute at the Glenochil prison riot trial in respect of the quality of evidence given by prison officers. [15722]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The subject of the question relates to matters undertaken by the Scottish Prison Service. I have asked its chief executive, Mr. E. W. Frizzell, to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Mr. John McFall, dated 28 February 1996:

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your Question about the comments made by the Advocate Depute at the Glenochil Prison riot trial.

  We are considering jointly with the Crown Office what lessons might be learned from this particular trial. Within the SPS, we are also reviewing the guidance given to prison staff on recording details of incidents and on preparing to be a witness in court.

  Grants
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what tests are applied to business plans submitted to him or his agencies by private companies or others requesting grants or other public money to establish whether such support represents value for money. [16271]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The appraisal process for any application for grant or other public funds will depend on the particular programme or scheme under which such an application is made. The tests applied will vary according to the purpose of the programme or scheme concerned, but value for money will normally be a key criterion.

  Prison Transfers
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is the policy of the Prison Service in relation to applications for prison transfers to prisons in the country of origin of the applicant; [16234]
  599
  (2) if he will approve outstanding prison transfer applications for Irish prisoners wishing to return to prisons in (a) Northern Ireland and (b) the Republic of Ireland; [16235]

  (3) how many applications for prison transfers from prisons in Scotland to (a) Northern Ireland, (b) the Republic of Ireland and (c) elsewhere, are currently under consideration; and in each category how many applications have been (i) approved and (ii) denied in each of the past 10 years. [16236]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 21 February 1996]: The subject of the question relates to matters undertaken by the Scottish Prison Service. I have asked its chief executive, Mr. E. W. Frizzell, to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Mr. Seamus Mallon, dated 28 February 1996:

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your 3 questions about the transfer of prisoners.

  There is statutory provision for the transfer of prisoners from one United Kingdom jurisdiction to another in certain circumstances, should the individual prisoner request it. The factors taken into account include the prisoner's domestic circumstances, place of domicile prior to conviction and length of sentence left to serve. Both jurisdictions must agree to the transfer. Revised criteria for inter-United Kingdom transfers were announced in the Official Report dated 23 November 1992, Columns 476–477. For prisoners seeking repatriation, applications are considered under the provisions of the Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Prisoners.

  The information on the number of prisoners who applied for transfer to Northern Ireland and elsewhere in the past 10 years is as follows:

  Northern Ireland

  Elsewhere

  Agreed

  Refused

  Agreed

  Refused

  1985

  2

  2

  not available

  not available

  1986

  1

  —

  not available

  not available

  1987

  1

  3

  not available

  not available

  1988

  2

  1

  51

  not available

  1989

  —

  1

  56

  not available

  1990

  2

  2

  44

  not available

  1991

  1

  1

  27

  not available

  1992

  3

  2

  62

  50

  1993

  5

  —

  51

  73

  1994

  —

  1

  47

  22

  1995

  2

  1

  31

  16

  At 23 February there were 2 outstanding applications for Northern Ireland, none for the Republic of Ireland and 29 for elsewhere. They will be determined on their individual merits.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Lord Advocate will meet Libyan lawyers concerned with the destruction of Pan American flight 103 over Lockerbie. [16061]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has no plans to do so.

  Water Authorities
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what have been the remuneration levels which can be claimed by the members of the boards of each of the East, West and North of Scotland water authorities;600
  and how much time the members of the boards of these organisations are expected to spend on water authority duties in respect of these levels of remuneration. [17576]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The chairmen of the North and West of Scotland water authorities are paid £40,000 per annum and expected to devote approximately two and a half days per week; the chairman of the East of Scotland water authority is paid £24,000 per annum and expected to devote approximately one and a half days per week. The members of each of the three water authorities are paid £6,000 per annum for a minimum of two to three days per month, and the chief executives £80,000 per annum for full-time employment.

  Additionally, the chief executives are eligible to receive a performance-related bonus which is limited to a maximum of 10 per cent. of salary in the first year rising to a maximum of 20 per cent. in subsequent years.

  Monofilament Nets
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what increase in fishing efforts he estimates will take place after the lifting of the ban on the use of large mesh monofilament nets by Scottish boats. [17606]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  No substantial increase in effort is anticipated.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland for which target species he expects Scottish boats to set large mesh monofilament nets when their use becomes legal; and in what ways this will be monitored. [17608]

  Mr. Robertson
  Fishermen are expected to target large flat fish, such as brill, turbot and various rays, as well as anglerfish, if Parliament approves the use of these nets in Scottish waters. Catches will be monitored in the same way as catches made with other static net gear.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what monitoring will take place in respect of the impact of large mesh monofilament nets on marine birds species when the ban on their use by Scottish boats is lifted. [17610]

  Mr. Robertson
  The nets, which fishermen are expected to use as bottom set tangle nets, are unlikely to pose a threat to these species. Their operation will be kept under review nonetheless.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) in what circumstances he will close areas to monofilament nets; [17612]

  (2) if he will bring forward measures to restrict the use of large mesh monofilament nets by Scottish boats, in areas where they could cause problems of entanglement of wildlife before lifting the ban on their use. [17607]

  Mr. Robertson
  Once approved by Parliament, fishermen are expected to operate these nets as bottom set tangle nets which pose no additional threat to wildlife. The selective use of such nets by area is not proposed. Their operation will be kept under review nonetheless.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what efforts he will be making to ensure that bycatch of marine wildlife in fishing gear is(a) prevented or (b) minimised; [17605]
  601
  (2) if he will introduce a monitoring scheme to assess the impact upon marine wildlife when the ban on the use of large mesh monofilament nets by Scottish boats is lifted. [17611]

  Mr. Robertson
  The Government apply arrangements under the agreement on conservation of small cetaceans of the Baltic and North seas and have no plans to introduce additional measures.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the voluntary reporting scheme of marine mammal bycatch to assess the impact of large mesh monofilament nets. [17609]

  Mr. Robertson
  The Government are satisfied that large mesh monofilament nets, if approved by Parliament for use in Scottish waters, pose no greater threat than similar sized nets made from other synthetic materials. The effectiveness of the scheme is kept under review and additional scientific research has been commissioned to aid that process.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the consultation he has conducted regarding the use of large mesh monofilament nets. [17613]

  Mr. Robertson
  I am satisfied that all those with a direct interest in this matter were consulted fully.

  Student Awards Agency
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the annual report and accounts of the Student Awards Agency for Scotland for 1994–95 and the agency's key targets for 1995–96. [18325]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have today arranged for copies of the agency's annual report and accounts to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  I have set the following key performance targets for the Student Awards Agency for Scotland for 1995–96:

  Service

  To process 75 per cent. of applications within 28 days of receipt.

  To respond to 95 per cent. of general correspondence within 15 working days of receipt.

  To respond to all Chief Executive and Ministerial correspondence within 15 working days of receipt.

  To answer all complaints within 14 calendar days of receipt.

  Agency Management

  Average unit cost to process each successful application—(based on current costs) target £35.

  Efficiency gains—3.79 per cent.

  The chief executive will be directly responsible to me for ensuring that these targets are achieved and full details will be published in the agency's annual report and accounts.

  Beaufort's Dyke
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will announce details of further survey work at Beaufort's dyke. [18326]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The Government have arranged for the marine laboratory, Aberdeen to undertake further surveys of Beaufort's dyke and the surrounding area. The principal objective of this work, which will be undertaken in May and July, will be to map the densities and distribution of any dumped munitions, particularly those located outwith the Beaufort's dyke explosives disposal site.

  The survey work will encompass:

  an area to the north, including the territory to be covered by the proposed electricity interconnector;

  the area to the east between the deep trench and the Scottish coastline;

  and an area to the south and east up to and including the natural gas pipeline between Scotland and the Republic of Ireland.

  The final limits of the investigation will be determined by the distribution and densities of dumped munitions. A map of the areas to be covered by the survey has been placed in the House Library.

  The MLA investigations will utilise its research vessel's hull-mounted transducer interfaced to RoxAnn©, high resolution side-scan sonar, towed sledge, ROV-mounted and drop frame—suspended from the survey vessel—underwater television systems, and a magnetometer, or pulse induction or resistivity system. A boomer system may also be used to investigate sub-surface sea bed sediments.

  Sea bed sediment and fish and shellfish samples will again be collected, particularly from those areas which were not sampled earlier, to confirm whether dumped munitions have had an effect on the quality of the marine environment or commercially exploited species.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are his plans for the proposed expansion of the assisted places scheme in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [18327]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The assisted places scheme has been an important element in the Government's policies to extend choice in Scottish education, and to raise quality and standards. It provides the opportunity for parents to choose the education which they think best suits the needs of their children, regardless of their financial circumstances. Since the scheme was introduced in 1981, it has helped over 11,000 children to attend independent schools in Scotland who would not otherwise have had the opportunity.

  My right hon. Friend's announcement on 13 October 1995 of plans for a phased doubling of the present annual target of 3,000 assisted places in Scotland has received a very positive response from parents and schools. This clearly confirms the success of the scheme and the benefits to be derived from it. In line with our expansion plans, my right hon. Friend is making provision to increase the number of pupils who benefit in 1996–97 to around 3,500 and this will include for the first time pupils of primary school age. Fifty-three schools across Scotland

  603
  will participate in the scheme. It is possible that one or more additional schools may become eligible to participate later in 1996–97. Some £12.48 million will be available for fee remission in the 1996–97 school session, almost 17 per cent. more than was made available for the 1995–96 session.

  The increased resources being made available for the 1996–97 school session mark the first phase of expansion of the scheme, and will ensure its growing contribution to excellence and diversity in Scottish education. My right hon. Friend will also be drawing up proposals in consultation with the Scottish Council of Independent Schools and others for the future development and expansion of the scheme.

  My right hon. Friend announced in December 1995 that assistance will now be extended to pupils undertaking primary education at participating secondary schools with integrated primary departments. The minimum age for assistance, previously 10 years of age, will therefore be lowered to five years of age from the start of the 1996–97 session.

  My right hon. Friend proposes in due course to lay regulations before the House providing for progressive parental contributions for the 1996–97 school session for one pupil assisted under the assisted places scheme. As in previous years, we shall be seeking to ensure that about half of all pupils receiving an assisted place should receive full remission of their fees. Accordingly, parents earning less than £9,873 a year will not have to pay anything towards fees. The regulations will provide for the following contributions in relation to family income:

  Part of relevant income to which the specified percentage applies

  Parental contribution (percentage)

  That part (if any) which exceeds £9,707 but does not exceed £10,555

  9

  That part (if any) which exceeds £10,555 but does not exceed £11,417

  12

  That part (if any) which exceeds £11,417 but does not exceed £13,127

  15

  That part (if any) which exceeds £13,127 but does not exceed £15,760

  21

  That part (if any) which exceeds £15,760 but does not exceed £19,194

  24

  That part (if any) which exceeds £19,194

  33

  The relevant income scale is open-ended, but the remission can, of course, be given only where the parental contribution is less than the school tuition fee.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency (DNA Testing)
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many of the DNA tests performed for the Child Support Agency have been(a) positive (b) negative. [14958]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Miss Ann Chant. She will write to the hon. Member.
  604
  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 27 February 1996:

  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about DNA testing under Child Support Agency arrangements.

  The discounted DNA scheme was introduced in July 1995. This provided alleged absent parents with a means of resolving a paternity dispute without the need to go to court.

  In the period July 1995 to 25 January 1996 the paternity of 500 children has been the subject of completed DNA tests. Positive results were obtained for 433 of the children (86.6%). The alleged absent parent tested was excluded from being the father in 67 instances. (13.4%).

  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the cost of DNA tests available via the CSA: and in how many cases DNA testing has been used before a paternity case has been referred to court. [12807]

  Mr. Mitchell
  [pursuant to his reply, 1 February 1996, c. 987–91]I am advised that Ann Chant, the chief executive of the Child Support Agency, is writing again to clarify her reply of 1 February. I am arranging for a copy of the letter to be placed in the Library with the additional information.

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Mr. Malcolm Wicks, dated 27 February 1996:

  I am writing to you pursuant to my letter of 1 February 1996. This was in response to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about DNA tests. I believe there is a need to clearly set out the make up of the 904 DNA tests I referred to.

  Up to the end of November 1995 some 352 cases had been referred for discounted DNA testing. In addition 552 cases were subject to a DNA test as a result of Court direction.

  A discounted DNA test comes about as a result of an alleged absent parent availing himself of the option to go for a DNA test either as a result of responding to a suggestion from the Agency or requesting a test himself. As before, I am not aware that any of these cases have been referred for Court action.

  The only other means of a DNA test arising is as a result of Court direction. This would be after an initial Court hearing.

  I hope this information is helpful.

  Contributions Agency (Wales)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consultations he has had with the Welsh Consumer Council and other voluntary bodies concerning the proposed reorganisation of the Contributions Agency's field operations in Wales and the closure of the dedicated caller area at Cardiff; and if he will make a statement. [17822]

  Mr. Heald
  The administration of the Contributions Agency is a matter for Mrs. Faith Boardman, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Faith Boardman to Mr. Rhodri Morgan, dated 28 February 1996:

  As Chief Executive of the Contributions Agency, I have responsibility for answering questions about operational matters relating to the Agency.

  I have been asked to reply to your enquiry regarding consultations on the proposed re-organisation of the Contributions Agency field operations in Wales and the closure of the caller area in Cardiff.

  The Contributions Agency has embarked upon a process of consultation with all external customers. The Regional Manager for Wales and Severnside Region has written to all local businesses and

  605
  organisations, providing information on the proposed changes and seeking comment. I understand that the Welsh Consumer Council were omitted from the initial consultation, however I am assured that this is being immediately rectified. Please accept my apologies for this oversight.

  The proposed closure of the caller facility at Gabalfa, Cardiff is a feature of that consultation process, and a final decision will not be taken until the consultation process is completed.

  I hope you find this response helpful, if you require anything further please let me know.

  Reduced Earnings Allowance
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the money to be saved in a full year by moving(a) in total and (b) in each region reduced earnings allowance recipients on to retirement allowance. [10119]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  [holding answer 19 January 1996]: The table gives the estimate of the savings from transferring most over pensionable age reduced earnings allowance recipients to retirement allowance in 1996–97 in line with the proposed change announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in November 1995. Recipients of REA who had retired before 10 April 1989 would not be affected by the proposed change.

  Region

  Estimates of net savings £ million

  ENGLAND

  Northern

  4

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2

  East Midlands

  1

  East Anglia

  —

  South East

  3

  South Western

  1

  West Midlands

  2

  North Western

  3

  SCOTLAND

  2

  WALES

  2

  OVERSEAS

  —

  Total (Great Britain and overseas)

  20

  1. Estimates are for the 1996–97 financial year and are at cash prices.

  2. "—" denotes a saving of less than £0.5 million.

  3. Estimates are rounded to the nearest £1 million, except the total savings which are rounded to the nearest £5 million. Estimates are not accurate to this degree.

  4. Any additional income related benefit expenditure has been offset against the savings.

  5. Regional breakdown based on former Social Security administrative regions.

  Access Committee
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will publish the results of the report of the working party that is reviewing the Access Committee's future; [13902]

  (2) what are his plans for the continued funding of the Access Committee; [13903]

  (3) if he will make a statement about the future of the Access Committee for England. [13901]

  Mr. Burt
  My colleagues and I in the Departments of Health and of the Environment are considering the working party's report which has only recently been 606
  completed. The members of the working party were drawn from this Department and the Departments of Health and of the Environment. We shall announce our decisions on the committee's future in due course. The report is an internal document and will not be published.

  Agencies (Disciplinary Action)
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many employees of(a) the Benefits Agency and (b) the Contributions Agency have faced dismissal or other disciplinary action for the improper use of confidential information since 1993; and what steps these agencies are taking to minimise the misuse of confidential information. [15755]

  Mr. Burt
  Two employees of the Benefits Agency and one from the Contributions Agency have been dismissed for the improper use of confidential information since 1993. Disciplinary action has been taken against a further five employees of the Benefits Agency. These figures do not include possible incidents of staff being disciplined, including dismissal, for the improper use of confidential information arising out of unauthorised access to the agencies' computer systems. The statistics for unauthorised access to computer systems do not include information about whether the unauthorised access resulted in the improper use of confidential information.

  Access to computer systems is limited to the minimum possible to enable staff to carry out their duties and security check and audit trail functionality systems are in place to investigate suspected unauthorised access. In addition, information to staff through personnel codes, letters from the agencies' chief executives and a recent leaflet and poster campaign underline the importance of security of information and the seriousness with which unauthorised access to computer systems is viewed.

  Departmental Officials (Interests)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the officials in his Department who have declared a current interest; what requirements are placed on officials to declare relevant interests; in what form records of such declarations are kept; and if he will establish a central register of officials' interests. [16886]

  Mr. Burt
  Under the rules set out in the civil service management code, staff must report any interest, whether business, financial, paid or unpaid, which might conflict with their work in the Department. They must also seek permission before undertaking any outside activity which may result in a conflict of interest. When a member of staff reports an interest or seeks permission to undertake and outside activity, a local record is kept. Any such details are treated as confidential. No central records are held and we have no plans to introduce a central register.

  Ministerial Accountability
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to paragraph K8.1 of the Scott report relating to ministerial accountability, what additional measures he proposes to ensure his Department's compliance with paragraph 27 of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers". [17317]
  607
  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 26 February 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the speech made by right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 26 February, Official Report, columns 589–604.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners in Wales are in receipt of attendance allowance; and if he will list the figures for each(a) local authority and (b) health authority area. [17580]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Estimate of number of pensioners receiving attendance allowance in Wales at 30 November 1995

  Health authority area

  Number

  Clwyd

  12,100

  Gwent

  11,200

  Gwynedd

  5,300

  Mid Glamorgan

  16,500

  Powys

  3,200

  South Glamorgan

  9,500

  West Glamorgan

  14,700

  Dyfed

  10,000

  Total

  82,400

  Notes:

  1. Figures are provisional and subject to change.

  2. Figures do not sum due to roundings.

  Source:

  DSS (Analytical Services Division) 5 per cent. data sample.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners are in receipt of invalid care allowance in Wales at the latest available date as a result of their responsibility for caring for(a) spouses, (b) parents, (c) adult children with mental or physical handicap and (d) any combination of (a) (b) and (c).[17582]

  Mr. Burt
  The information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has of the numbers in receipt of(a) war widow's pension and (b) war pension in Wales at the latest available date. [17583]

  Mr. Heald
  It is estimated that as at 31 March 1995, the latest date for which information is readily available, there were 2,756 war widows and 16,271 war disablement pensioners receiving payment in Wales.

ENVIRONMENT

  EU Funding, Merseyside
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much European regional development fund funding has been allocated to Merseyside since it acquired objective 1 status; what percentage has so far been spent; and if he will make a statement. [15545]
  608
  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Merseyside objective 1 programme has an allocation of £380 million, at current exchange rates, to be committed over the period 1994 to 1999; £51 million—14 per cent. of total ERDF funding—has so far been offered to 147 approved projects. Many of the approved projects are large-scale capital schemes that have expenditure profiles spread over the life of the programme. The projects have so far received £14.5 million in grant payments, broadly in line with their expected rate of spend. This represents 28 per cent. of funding committed. A further £158 million—42 per cent. of total ERDF funding—of ERDF grant towards 142 projects with similar spend profiles is under active consideration by the secretariat. New applications for funding will be invited over the first half of this year on a rolling basis.

  Household Waste Recycling, Greater Manchester
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to encourage recycling of household waste in the Greater Manchester area. [17056]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Government's overall policy aim for achieving more sustainable waste management is to increase the proportion of waste managed by the options towards the top of the waste hierarchy, including waste minimisation and recycling. Specific measures to encourage recycling of household waste are set out in the White Paper "Making Waste Work: A strategy for sustainable waste management in England and Wales" which was published in December.

  Provision of local recycling facilities is a matter for local authorities and the private and voluntary sectors. As an aid to this process, we have recently invited bids from local authorities for a further £10 million of supplementary credit approval resources for capital investment during 1996–97 in recycling projects. More generally, our initiative on producer responsibility for packaging waste will play a key role in developing local infrastructure and encouraging higher rates of recycling, together with other factors, such as the rising costs of waste disposal, including the proposed landfill tax, and improved markets for secondary raw materials.

  Water Leakage Reduction Targets
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has undertaken with Ofwat on the establishment of published leakage reduction targets for water companies. [17044]

  Mr. Clappison
  Ofwat, the National Rivers Authority and my Department are continuing discussions with the water industry about plans to reduce leakage as part of the review of water resource arrangements announced by my right hon. Friend on 1 September.

  Planning Appeals
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current waiting time for planning appeals for each local authority. [17065]
  609
  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information requested for each local authority is not available. The current average waiting time for all planning appeals in England is: (i) written representations—16 weeks; (ii) hearings—35 weeks; (iii) inquiries—40 weeks.

  Out-of-town Retail Developments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many times in each year since 1979 he has called in out-of-town retail developments. [17068]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  There is no information available for out-of-town retail development, or for retailing generally, back to 1979, but for the past six years the number of retail applications called in were:

  1990: One

  1991: 21 of which 10 were covered by one inquiry and eight others were covered by three inquiries

  1992: 9

  1993: 10

  1994: 34 of which nine were covered by two inquiries

  1995: 44 of which 21 are covered by three inquiries.

  These figures include "twin-track" applications—multiple applications for different proposals for the same site, and applications for overlapping sites. Most of these were for out-of-centre locations.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to remove capping from local authorities in the Greater Manchester area. [17090]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment restated his provisional capping intentions on 31 January. The criteria and capping limit are necessarily provisional and he will announce his decisions on capping once authorities have set their budgets.

  Housing Starts
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total number of(a) council and (b) private housing starts in England in 1995. [16719]

  Mr. Clappison
  Provisional estimates for 1995 show that around 137,000 new dwellings were started in England during 1995: of these, private enterprise builders started 110,900, housing associations about 25,600 and local authorities some 600.

  While these figures cover newly built accommodation, housing associations and local authorities have also provided additional social lettings by the rehabilitation of existing properties and through various home incentive schemes.

  Cemfuel Burning
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution's variation notice concerning the burning of cemfuel by Castle Cement at Clitheroe cancels previous authorisations and variations. [16721]
  610
  Mr. Clappison
  The variation notice issued by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to Castle Cement at Clitheroe on 23 January 1996 replaced all the conditions in the original authorisation and previous variations.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution authorisation allowing the burning of cemfuel by Castle Cement at Clitheroe is due for automatic review. [16722]

  Mr. Clappison
  Authorisations issued by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution under part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 are reviewed not less frequently than once in every four years. The authorization issued to Castle Cement at Clitheroe was reviewed prior to the issue of a variation notice on 23 January 1996. The next review is thus due by January 2000.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment for what reasons the variation in the authorisation by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution allowing the burning of cemfuel by Castle Cement has not been classified as a substantial variation. [16723]

  Mr. Clappison
  The authorisation issued to Castle Cement in 1993 allowed the burning of cemfuel. The recent variation to this authorisation was issued to set additional controls on the use of cemfuel and limits on the releases to air. Although this did not constitute a substantial change, public and statutory consultations were carried out as required for a substantial change.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the inclusion of pesticides in cemfuel was authorised. [16724]

  Mr. Clappison
  Pesticides are not permitted to be included in cemfuel. The varied authorisation includes a requirement to carry on the process in the manner described in the application and the application contains a specific exclusion for pesticides.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what constituent parts of cemfuel are now allowed which were prohibited under the authorization which applied prior to 23 January. [16725]

  Mr. Clappison
  There are no constituent parts of cemfuel now allowed which were prohibited prior to 23 January.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what limits on particulates and other residues deriving from the burnings of cemfuel apply to Castle Cement at Clitheroe; what limits apply at other similar sites; and what factors underlie disparities between these figures. [16759]

  Mr. Clappison
  Limits set by an authorisation are always site specific, being governed by the fundamental legislative requirement for an operator to use BATNEEC—best available techniques not entailing excessive cost. Differences between sites are therefore to be expected.
  611
  Castle Cement, Clitheroe—particulate limit = 90mg/m3.

  This represents a tightening of the previous limit of 100mg/m3 and is considered to be achievable based on experience to date. The company is also required to submit proposals for reducing the level of particulates released to air to that expected of a new plant.

  Castle Cement, Ketton—particulate limits of 90 mg/m3 (kiln 7) and 50mg/m3 (kiln 8).

  With effect from July 1996, kiln 7 will be required to achieve a limit of 50mg/m3. Kiln 8 is a very modern kiln which experience has shown to be able to meet the new plant standard. Kiln 7 is under going a major upgrade to increase its capacity. It is therefor being required to meet the new plant standard as required by chief inspector's guidance note IPR3/1. These limits are completely independent of the use of cemfuel and would have been required whatever the fuel.

  Rugby Cement, Barrington—particulate limit = 120mg/m3

  This limit will be reviewed following upgrading of the electrostatic precipitators and a limit of 45mg/m3 is effective from 1 April 1998.

  According to chief inspector's guidance note IPR3/1, 1 April 1998 is the date when operators are expected to be able to achieve new plant standards.

  The limits required of a new incinerator have been applied at all three sites in respect of dioxins and furans, cadmium and thallium, mercury and group III metals.

  Lanehead Quarry
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment has been made of the environmental impact of the depth of the Lanehead Quarry. [16726]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I understand that the local minerals planning authority, Lancaster county council, is currently in negotiation with the operators of this quarry in relation to updating its operational and restoration conditions. Any assessment of the environmental impact of the depth of the quarry is, therefore, a matter for the county council.

  Planing Inquiries
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many planning inquiries are awaiting determination by(a) inspectors and (b) local authorities. [17091]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Following local inquiries, 73 planning appeals in England are currently awaiting decision by inspectors, and 41 planning appeals and 42 called in planning applications are awaiting decision by my right hon. Friend following receipt of the inspector's report.

  Sainsbury, Islington
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment for what reasons he called in the application by Sainsbury plc for a retail outlet on Holloway road, Islington. [17069]
  612
  Sir Paul Beresford
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment called in the application so that he could consider the issues it raises. Among the matters appearing likely to be relevant to his consideration are the effects of the development on the vitality and viability of the nearby Nags Head centre, the effects of the development on the character and amenities of the area, the likely effects of the development on the traffic movements on the nearby road network and the loss of land for industrial development.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each year since 1979 the number of times he has exercised his planning call-in powers; and on how many occasions he has overturned the inspector's decision. [17067]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The number of planning applications in England called in since the financial year 1986–87 is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1986–87

  152

  1987–88

  113

  1988–89

  117

  1989–90

  103

  1990–91

  132

  1991–92

  140

  1992–93

  101

  1993–94

  99

  1994–95

  1167

  1 30 of these cases relate to a single site in Devonport and a further 15 arose in Cornwall. Where the local authorities went against national planning guidance.

  Since 1 April 1994, the Secretary of State has determined called-in applications against the inspector's recommendation on 11 occasions.

  Information for earlier years could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Isle of Wight (Expenditure)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total expenditure and loan sanction by his Department on the Isle of Wight in 1994–95 broken down by category. [16771]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The table sets out (i) expenditure by my Department on grants to local authorities; and (ii) credit approvals and borrowing approvals issued to local authorities and local councils on the Isle of Wight in 1994–95.

  £ million

  Isle of Wight County Council

  Medina

  South Wight

  (i) Grants1

  Revenue Support Grant (RSG)

  36.160

  3.398

  2.648

  Council Tax Transitional Reduction Grant2

  —

  0.096

  0.102

  Housing Specified Capital Grant (SCG)

  —

  0.541

  04.03

  Bellwin scheme

  —

  —

  0.042

  Totals

  36.160

  4.035

  3.195

  613

  £ million

  Isle of Wight County Council

  Medina

  South Wight

  (ii) Credit Approvals and borrowing approvals

  Basic Credit Approvals (BCA)

  4.528

  0.583

  0.322

  Supplementary Credit Approval (SCA)

  1.517

  30.541

  30.403

  Reorganisation (SCA)

  1.744

  0.277

  0.166

  Parish borrowing approval4

  —

  —

  0.025

  Totals

  7.789

  1.401

  0.916

  Overall total

  43.949

  5.436

  4.111

  1 Does not include business rate income.

  2 Paid in 1994–95, adjusted downwards to reflect actual spend in 1995–96.

  3 Supplementary Credit Approval (SCA) cover for Specified Capital Grant (SCG)

  4 Borrowing approval issued to Shanklin and Sandown town councils, whose areas were within that of South Wight borough council.

  Green Environment, Greater Manchester
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the work of his Department in relation to promoting a green environment in the Greater Manchester area. [17058]

  Mr. Clappison
  My Department helps to promote a green environment, both nationally and locally, through its various policies and initiatives. In Greater Manchester, the Government office for the north-west, and organisations supported by my Department, such as the Mersey Basin Campaign, Groundwork and the Red Rose forest initiative are all carrying out work to enhance the environment.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list each local authority in receipt of grant aid under the single regeneration budget and its predecessors together with the sums they received as a cumulative total and for each year since 1979. [17071]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The total amounts received by local authorities in grant aid each year since 1989–90, under the programmes which now form the single regeneration budget, are as follows.

  £

  1989–90

  309,032,000

  1990–91

  325,942,000

  1991–92

  326,896,000

  1992–93

  387,985,000

  1993–94

  511,880,000

  1994–95

  405,312,000

  1995–961

  734,085,000

  1 Forecast.

  The 1995–96 forecast total includes grant payments from the single regeneration budget challenge fund to local partnerships, where a local authority is the nominated accountable body for the partnership. Local
  614
  authorities may also be receiving grant indirectly where they are members of such partnerships, but are not the accountable bodies.

  A breakdown of the totals by each recipient local authority, with information for earlier years than 1989–90, could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Cemfuel Burning
  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to what extent Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution authorisation for the burning of cemfuel in cement kilns complies with the application of the proposed EU directive on hazardous waste. [16908]

  Mr. Clappison
  Maximum thermal substitution has been restricted to 40 per cent. as per article 3(3) and the cemfuel has been specified as per article 3(4) of the directive. Emission limits have been set as required by the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the chief inspector's guidance notes. As long as cemfuel remains defined as waste, all relevant provisions of the directive will apply from the date defined in the directive.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research he has evaluated alleging that burning(a) tyres, (b) sewage sludge and (c) polychlorinated biphenyls in cement kilns is safe. [16727]

  Mr. Clappison
  The criteria used by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution in determining the safe use of a waste fuel in cement kilns is to require the operator to undertake trials and to prove that such burning will not result in adverse environmental effects. One plant has carried out such trials with burning of tyre chips and proved that there was no adverse effect on the environment. There have been no trials on the burning of sewage sludge or PCBs.

  Housing, Greater Manchester
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to develop a housing strategy for the Greater Manchester area. [17039]

  Mr. Clappison
  None. It is for individual local authorities to draw up housing strategies for their areas in consultation with all interested parties.

  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further measures he plans to control houses in multiple occupation in the Greater Manchester area. [17057]

  Mr. Clappison
  Further measures to control houses in multiple occupation are contained in the Housing Bill, which is currently being considered in Committee. The measures in the Bill will, when enacted, apply to Greater Manchester as elsewhere in England and Wales.

  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide a breakdown of the number of people who were accepted as homeless in the Greater Manchester area over the last 10 years by(a) sex and (b) age group; and if he will make a statement. [17038]
  615
  Mr. Clappison
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the successful bids under round one of the single regeneration budget by region and value of grant. [17070]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information requested was placed in the Library of the House and circulated to hon. Members on 6 December 1994. I have sent further copies to the hon. Member.

  Mobile Homes
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimates he has made of the number of people living in mobile homes that are connected to mains electricity. [16760]

  Mr. Clappison
  This information is given in paragraph 197 of the report "Mobile Homes Survey", DOE 1992, copies of which were placed in the House of Commons Library at the time of publication.

  Local Plans
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many and which local authorities have not adopted local plans. [17064]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, requires all non-metropolitan district councils in England to prepare a local plan for the whole of their area. These area-wide plans will replace any local plans that may have previously been prepared for part or parts of an authority's area. On 30 September 1995, 214 out of the 295 non-metropolitan authorities had not yet adopted their district-wide local plan. The authorities are as follows. Those marked2 were fully covered by part-area local plans; those marked 1 were partly covered by local plans.

  Adur

  Allerdale1

  Alnwick2

  Ashfield2

  Ashford1

  Aylesbury Vale2

  Basildon2

  Basingstoke and Deane2

  Bassetlaw

  Berwick-upon-Tweed2

  Beverley2

  Blaby2

  Blackburn2

  Blackpool2

  Blyth Valley2

  Bolsover2

  Boothferry2

  Boston2

  Bournemouth1

  Bracknell Forest2

  Breckland

  Brighton1

  Bristol2

  616

  Broadland2

  Bromsgrove2

  Cambridge2

  Cannock Chase2

  Canterbury2

  Caradon2

  Carlisle1

  Carrick2

  Castle Morpeth2

  Castle Point

  Charnwood2

  Chelmsford2

  Cherwell1

  Chester1

  Chester-Le-Street2

  Chesterfield1

  Chiltern1

  Chorley2

  Christchurch2

  Cleethorpes2

  Colchester1

  Congleton2

  Copeland2

  Corby

  Cotswold2

  Craven

  Crewe and Nantwich2

  Darlington2

  Daventry

  Derby2

  Derbyshire Dales2

  Derwentside2

  Dover2

  East Cambridgeshire1

  East Devon2

  East Dorset (Wimborne)2

  East Northamptonshire

  East Staffordshire

  East Yorkshire2

  Eastbourne2

  Eastleigh2

  Eden

  Ellesmere Port and Neston1

  Epping Forest1

  Epsom and Ewell1

  Fareham1

  Forest Heath

  Forest of Dean2

  Glanford2

  Gloucester2

  Great Grimsby2

  Great Yarmouth2

  Halton

  Hambleton1

  Harborough2

  Harrogate2

  Hastings1

  Havant1

  617

  High Peak2

  Hinckley and Bosworth2

  Holderness

  Horsham2

  Hove1

  Huntingdonshire2

  Hyndburn2

  Ipswich2

  Kennet2

  Kerrier2

  Kings Lynn and West Norfolk

  Kingston upon Hull

  Lancaster2

  Langbaurgh-on-Tees

  Leominster2

  Lewes2

  Lichfield2

  Lincoln2

  Luton1

  Macclesfield1

  Maidstone1

  Malvern Hills2

  Mansfield2

  Melton2

  Mendip1

  Mid Devon2

  Mid Suffolk2

  Mid Sussex2

  Middlesbrough

  Mole Valley1

  New Forest2

  Newark and Sherwood2

  North Cornwall

  North Devon2

  North Dorset2

  North East Derbyshire2

  North Kesteven

  North Norfolk

  North West Leicestershire1

  Northampton

  Northavon1

  Norwich

  Nottingham1

  Oadby and Wigston1

  Oswestry2

  Oxford2

  Pendle

  Penwith2

  Peterborough

  Poole2

  Portsmouth2

  Preston1

  Purbeck2

  Reading2

  Redditch2

  Restormel2

  Ribble Valley2

  Richmondshire

  618

  Rother2

  Rushcliffe1

  Rutland2

  Ryedale2

  Salisbury2

  Scarborough1

  Scunthorpe2

  Sedgefield2

  Sedgemoor1

  Selby2

  Sevenoaks1

  Shepway2

  Shrewsbury and Atcham1

  South Bedfordshire2

  South Derbyshire

  South Hams1

  South Herefordshire2

  South Holland2

  South Lakeland1

  South Norfolk2

  South Northamptonshire

  South Oxfordshire2

  South Ribble2

  South Somerset (Yeovil)1

  South Staffordshire2

  Southampton

  St. Edmundsbury

  Stafford2

  Staffordshire Moorlands2

  Stockton-on-Tees

  Stratford-on-Avon2

  Stroud

  Swale2

  Tandridge1

  Taunton Deane2

  Teesdale2

  Teignbridge2

  Tendring

  Test Valley2

  Tewkesbury2

  Thamesdown2

  Thanet2

  The Wrekin1

  Thurrock2

  Tonbridge and Mailing1

  Torbay1

  Tunbridge Wells2

  Tynedale2

  Vale of White Horse2

  Wansdyke2

  Warrington2

  Waveney2

  Wealden2

  Wear Valley2

  Wellingborough2

  West Devon2

  West Dorset2

  West Lancashire2

  619

  West Lindsey2

  West Oxfordshire2

  West Somerset2

  West Wiltshire2

  Weymouth and Portland2

  Winchester1

  Windsor and Maidenhead2

  Wokingham1

  Woodspring1

  Worcester2

  Wychavon2

  Wyre1

  Wyre Forest2

  York

  Derelict Land
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what moneys are available from his Department for the restoration of land which is the subject of industrial dereliction in the Greater Manchester area. [17059]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  In 1994–95, English Partnerships contributed finance under its investment fund of £12.369 million to local authority land reclamation schemes in the Greater Manchester area. In addition, it contributed £8.173 million of finance to regeneration projects carried out in partnership with private sector companies.

  The Department's challenge fund and city challenger programme also contribute to schemes that include the reclamation of derelict land in Greater Manchester.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on local government spending in the Greater Manchester area. [17040]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  No. Decisions on local government spending are a matter for the authorities concerned.

  Local Authority Guidance
  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance has been issued to local authorities on the implementation of sections 28 and 29 of the Local Government Act 1988; and what revisions have been made to that guidance. [16753]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  We have issued no guidance to local authorities on these provisions of the Local Government Act 1988.

  Industrial Asthma
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many cases of industrial asthma have been recorded in the past 10 years; and how many cases of industrial asthma where the sensitiser was flour have been recorded since the milling and handling of flour became recognised as a cause of industrial asthma. [16897]
  620
  Sir Paul Beresford
  The table shows the number of new cases of assessed disablement from occupational asthma from prescribed agents under the industrial injuries scheme in Great Britain. The first complete year of record is 1983.

  Year

  Total new cases

  Cases due to flour and grain dust

  1983

  183

  54

  1984

  137

  32

  1985

  166

  54

  1986

  166

  46

  1987

  220

  50

  1988

  222

  40

  1989

  220

  43

  1990

  216

  55

  1991

  293

  64

  1992

  553

  60

  1993

  510

  66

  1994

  506

  59

  No provisional estimates for 1995 is yet available as the data are still being collated and checked by the Department of Social Security.

  Inland Waterways
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what exemptions for measurement of speed and distance in kilometres are included in United Kingdom regulations concerned with inland waterways; and what indications of such exemptions were included in information circulars used in related consultative procedures. [16730]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The regulations apply to all waterways except those used for sea transport, where units of measurement are laid down in international conventions or agreements.

  My Department has advised inland navigation authorities accordingly.

  EDS Ltd.
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those contracts his Department currently holds with EDS Ltd. indicating for each the(a) date of inception, (b) value and (c) duration. [17445]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department currently holds the following contracts with Electronic Data Systems:

  Date of Inception

  Value £ thousand

  Duration

  October 1992

  358

  3.5 years

  March 1995

  30

  1 year

  December 1995

  6

  8 months

  Ministerial Accountability
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to paragraph K8.1 of the Scott report relating to ministerial accountability, what additional measures he proposes to ensure his Department's compliance with paragraph 27 of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers". [17308]
  621
  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 26 February 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the speech made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, on 26 February, Official Report, columns 589–604.

  High-voltage Power Cables
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what reports he has received about the effect of proximity to high-voltage power cables on the value of houses. [17130]

  Mr. Clappison
  None.

  Mesothelioma and Lung Cancer
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the estimated annual cost to employers of employees developing mesothelioma or lung cancer. [17224]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information requested is not available.

  Odden's Pump
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what studies he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated as to changes in the operation of Odden's Pump off the coast of Greenland. [17183]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 26 February 1996]: The European Commission has initiated a research study into changes in the Odden feature. A report on the first phase is expected in April.

  Groundwater Levels, London
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he has taken following the report of the Construction Industry Research and Information Association in 1989 on the problems of groundwater levels in London. [17507]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Following its report in 1989 CIRIA, undertook a two-year study of groundwater levels in the Whitehall area. Property Holdings then funded this research for another four years until 1995. The study concluded that there was a seasonal change in water levels but no evidence of any long-term rise in groundwater levels.

  All Government buildings are inspected every three months. This enables problems of water penetration to be detected and cured at an early stage. No Government building is in imminent danger from rising groundwater as far as we are aware.

  Habitats
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he plans to introduce immediately in response to the Biodiversity United Kingdom steering group report relating to the management of environmentally important United Kingdom habitats. [16807]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Biodiversity steering group chaired by my Department, with members drawn from all sectors, was set up to advise the Government on individual costed action plans for selected species and 622
  habitats, a forward programme for improving biological recording and monitoring in the UK and a programme for improving public awareness and involvement in conserving biodiversity.

  The group published its findings on 13 December 1995. "Biodiversity: The UK Steering Group Report" contains a number of proposals including costed action plans for 14 key habitats. It also recommends that costed action plans for a further 24 key habitats be produced within three years. Each of the habitat action plans contains proposals for the management of the habitat.

  The Government are currently considering the advice and recommendations in the report and expect to publish their response in the spring of 1996.

  Marine Nature Reserves
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to increase the number of marine nature reserves. [16808]

  Mr. Clappison
  None in England. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is currently considering a proposal to designate the Menai straits as a marine nature reserve. Some 36 marine areas containing rare or endangered habitats and species have been identified as possible special areas of conservation under the habitats directive.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action will be taken to protect sensitive and nationally important United Kingdom habitats from the effects of air pollution. [16809]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Government are taking a range of measures to improve air quality throughout the United Kingdom and planning to publish a consultation document on a national air quality strategy later this year which will build on existing national and EC legislation in this area.

  The UK is also committed as a signatory to various protocols under the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe convention on long-range transboundary air pollution to reducing emissions of a range of air pollutants which have harmful effects on health and the environment.

  Water Leakages
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what progress has been made in the establishment of voluntary targets by water companies in controlling leakage; [17432]

  (2) if he will list those water companies which have established, but not published, targets for the control of water leakage; [17434]

  (3) if he will list those water companies which have not established targets for the control of water leakage; [17478]

  (4) if he will list those water companies which have published targets for the control of water leakage, together with the targets involved and the time scale over which they are to be achieved. [17433]

  Mr. Clappison
  My answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) on 10 January,Official Report, column 270, indicated that all water

  623
  companies supplied projections of water balances to the Director General of Water Services as part of his quinquennial review.

  More recently, eight of the water service companies—Anglian Water, North West Water, Severn Trent Water, Southern Water, South West Water, Thames Water, Wessex Water and Yorkshire Water—have made announcements concerning their plans for tackling leakage. The director general is continuing discussions with the water companies on their current intentions.

  Water Meters
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the expenditure by water authorities and companies on the installation of water meters in domestic properties in(a) 1985, (b) 1990 and (c) 1995. [17387]

  Mr. Clappison
  This information is not kept centrally.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those water companies which offer a choice to customers living in newly built homes about whether or not they pay for water and sewerage services by meter; and if he will list the choice offered in each case. [17411]

  Mr. Clappison
  Customers living in new domestic properties served by the following companies are charged for water and sewerage services on a flat fee basis:

  Dwr Cymru

  Northumbrian Water

  Hartlepool Water

  Portsmouth Water

  Sutton Water

  York Waterworks.

  Customers of these companies may request to be charged on a measured basis if they are willing to pay for the installation of the meter.

  All other water companies charge customers living in new built homes on a metered basis.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is his assessment of the number of sites of special scientific interest which could be damaged by water abstraction in 1996–97; [17357]
  624
  (2) what is his assessment of the number of sites of special scientific interest that were damaged by water abstraction in 1995–96. [17358]

  Mr. Clappison
  English Nature is at present assessing, in consultation with the National Rivers Authority, 148 sites of special scientific interest in England which may be affected by water abstraction. A report is expected next month.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from English Nature on the impact of water abstraction on sites of special scientific interest and what response he has made. [17359]

  Mr. Clappison
  In October 1992, English Nature submitted a response to the Department's consultation document "Using Water Wisely". In January this year, it made representations about Yorkshire Water's proposals for a drought order to take additional water from the River Derwent near York. The company requested postponement of a hearing on this order to enable further discussion to take place.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the 1996–97 charging scheme for local authority air pollution control under part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. [18261]

  Mr. Clappison
  Charges to cover the costs of local enforcing authorities in regulating processes which are subject to part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 were introduced in April 1991.

  With the approval of the Treasury, and following consultation with local authority associations and industry, my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales have made a revised scheme specifying the scale of fees and charges to take effect from 1 April 1996. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is revising the parallel scheme for Scotland on the same basis, and will be making a separate announcement.

  The main changes are that the standard application fee is increased by £25 to £1,015, the application fee for a former Alkali Act works is increased by £15 to £610, the substantial change fee is increased by £15 to £650, and the annual subsistence charge is increased by £20 to £625.

  The scheme will be laid before both Houses and a copy placed in the Libraries.

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 Kilpatrick of Kincraig
Sir Robert Kilpatrick, Knight, CBE, having been created Baron Kilpatrick of Kincraig, of Dysart in the District of Kirkcaldy, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Richardson and the Lord Walton of Detchant.
Lord Gillmore of Thamesfield
Sir David Howe Gillmore, GCMG, having been created Baron Gillmore of Thamesfield, of Putney in the London Borough of Wandsworth, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Wilson of Tillyorn and the Lord Wright of Richmond.

Bus Drivers: Recruitment
2.58 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are aware of the current practice of recruiting in Australia bus drivers to drive buses in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, we are aware that one company has been recruiting drivers in Australia to meet the needs of its business. Provided that the immigration and driver licensing requirements are fulfilled, this is a matter for the company.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. In view of the fact that it costs £2,500 to train a lorry driver, is he able to tell me how much it costs to keep one of our own unemployed people on benefit for the year?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am sure that it costs more than training a driver. The issue at stake is that the company must remain free to recruit people where it wishes provided that it complies with the immigration rules and provided that those people are properly licensed. My information is that the drivers who have been brought over are British born and hold British passports.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, if those drivers have to hold work permits, will my noble friend say how long they will be allowed to stay in this country? After how long would they become eligible to play
1450
cricket for England? That might be very helpful, but it might involve driving of another kind—on the on and the off.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I think it highly unlikely that work permits would be issued to bus drivers. These people are coming over on the basis that they are British born, British passport holders, or one of their parents or grandparents was British born.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is it possible that the company involved confused the abilities of our own home-trained bus drivers who are unemployed with the abilities of the English cricket team?
However, is it not a serious matter that that bus company has been a major contributor to the congestion and dangerous driving that occurs in Oxford where, in particular, it operates, and that it has a particularly bad record? Can it really be the case that there is an insufficiency of unemployed, well-trained bus drivers in this country?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the bus industry has been extremely successful after bus deregulation. There is a thriving industry. There are now more operators on routes driving more miles at lower cost.
The party opposite continually champions public transport. The fact is that the bus industry is thriving; unemployment is coming down in the region; and there is a skills shortage. That company has decided to address that issue in an innovative way.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, as a frequent visitor to Oxford, I have noticed the enormous improvement in bus services in that city since I was a resident there? It is largely due to the efforts of that company. To suggest that it voluntarily takes less efficient drivers than are available in this country seems to me to be quite absurd. This is again a matter of the strong prejudice against the improvement in bus services which competition in Oxford and on the Oxford-London route has brought about.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, of course I welcome my noble friend's first-hand experience of the bus market in Oxford. Clearly there is now competition which has led to more services being put on, and there are more operators of bus services. Like any other company, this company must be free to make its own employment decisions, provided they coincide with the licensing and immigration rules.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, what are the employment laws? In Oxford, as of yesterday, there were 9,345 unemployed people in the city and villages around. Surely, among that number there must be people who can drive or be helped to drive well. Therefore, should not they apply and be given jobs rather than companies having to bring people over from Australia?
Viscount Goschen: Yes, my Lords, I quite agree that such people should be applying. However, the company has advertised extensively in the UK, working closely with the local jobcentres. I understand that at the moment positions are advertised both for qualified

1451
drivers and for trainee drivers. In the growing market, there is a shortage of drivers and the company is having real difficulty in filling places. That is why it looked overseas.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, some weeks ago the Minister told us that a number of heavy goods vehicle drivers might no longer be able to drive if they wore glasses. Under a new European directive they would lose their jobs. Could he tell me whether it would be possible to make some fast-track training available for those people who are already experienced drivers and who drive heavy goods vehicles? They would have to convert to a public vehicle licence. Would it be possible to consider that, even if the Minister cannot give an answer on it immediately? It seems, according to the answer we were given, that there might be 3,000 drivers of heavy goods vehicles out of work.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my noble friend is not entirely accurate as regards what I said about the new driver licence directive. Bus drivers will be caught by the directive, as will heavy goods vehicle drivers. However, it is not the case that all those with glasses will not be able to continue to drive; it will be those who have very bad sight indeed in one eye, without the use of glasses, and who cannot see even the biggest letter on the optician's chart. Therefore, there is no difference between those who drive passenger carrying vehicles and those who drive heavy goods vehicles in that regard.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, if the Minister seeks to dismiss what I say—as he is entitled to—will be take more notice of an article that appeared in the Sunday Telegraph? It usually subscribes to his party's forlorn case. I quote in regard to Oxford:
"The city centre is clogged and polluted, passengers are confused and irate. But such is life in Oxford, where two companies have been battling for supremacy since bus deregulation was introduced 10 years ago".
That is a far cry from the Minister's representation of the facts.
Viscount Goschen: No, my Lords, that equals competition, which equals benefits for passengers, which equals more service. It is exactly what people have been calling for for a long time.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, after the comments of the Opposition on the congestion caused by buses, are we to assume that they are not in favour of public transport? Alternatively, can we assume that they have no more idea of what they want than yesterday when they did not know what their policy was on the subject under discussion?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that clear question. It appears that the Opposition refuse to recognise the benefits that come from companies operating public transport services.
1452
Over and over again we see those benefits in the bus industry, and we will see the same benefits with railway privatisation.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, on the threshold of St. David's Day, will the Minister give an assurance the drivers will not be allowed into Wales unless they speak Welsh?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, much of the concern is that the drivers should speak English in the first place. According to the programme "Neighbours", Australians speak a version of English.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the subject was covered on the programme "Today" a few days ago? It is not a matter of bringing bus drivers over from Australia but of getting them trained fast enough in England.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it is extremely important that people should be trained properly, but it takes time and there is a cost involved. A balance must be made. It is important that the bus industry here should be served by people who are properly trained and who have the right qualifications. However, there is a time lag involved.

Drugs and Driving
3.7 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are considering the introduction of tests for drugs for drivers of motor vehicles on similar lines to those now applying for alcohol.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, there are already powers to test drivers for drugs but we have no current plans to introduce roadside testing. Research is being commissioned to help to assess the level of drug use among road accident fatalities in Great Britain. That will assist us in determining whether action may be necessary.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply from my noble friend. Can he confirm that police and doctors consider that certain drugs do dangerously affect driving? When particular drugs are prescribed medically, doctors normally tell the patients not to drive. But in any future scheme, in cases of harmless drug medication, should doctors supply certificates which would explain traces found upon roadside testing? Is my noble friend aware that the RAC has today launched a nationwide campaign on the scale and dangers of drugs and driving?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, since 1977 the legislation has ensured that medicines which can affect drivers adversely carry warnings. It is also best practice on the part of the medical profession to warn patients of the effects of prescribed medicines. However, prescribed drugs can be misused or patients fail to exercise sufficient care. It is every individual's

1453
responsibility to ensure that they are fit to drive. If they then drive while unfit through drugs, they have committed an offence. It is for the courts to consider whether there are other factors which should be taken into account in each individual case.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, are the Government aware that tiredness is also a cause of problems with drivers? Will they take steps to prevent motorway service areas levying parking charges on those who might feel drowsy and stop to have a little kip before proceeding on their journey?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I am not aware of service stations levying charges. The noble Lord nods. I learn something new every day. I have travelled up and down the country on many occasions. When I am tired, I pull into a service station and have something to drink—soft, of course—and something to eat.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is any research being done in relation to roadside kits so that people on illegal drugs can receive blood and urine tests without having to go to a station?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, no equipment is presently available that can test for drugs in the same way as roadside breathalysers. Some kits exist to detect the presence of certain illicit drugs on a person; for example, if someone has handled an illicit drug. However, I understand that at present there is no equipment that can be used to test whether someone is under the influence of a drug.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in 1994 678,500 breath tests were carried out, of which 14 per cent. were found to be positive? Is he further aware that, in the same period, 1,000 drugs tests were carried out following negative breath tests and Department of Transport figures indicate that 90 per cent. proved positive? Having regard to the fact that there can be no doubt as to the lethal quality of some of those drugs, is there not a case for an urgent and rapid inquiry to be undertaken by either the Department of Transport or the Home Office in order to ensure that proper cognisance is taken of the advice given by the police and many others?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I was not aware of all the statistics that the noble Lord gave. Research is being instigated between the Department of Transport, the Home Office, the Coroners' Society and the Association of Chief Police Officers. That is to establish systematically the instance of drug use among fatal road casualties in Great Britain. It relates not just to illicit drugs, but also takes into account those that are prescribed and those available over the counter which may affect the ability of a driver to drive safely. It is a three-year research programme. It will report on a regular basis, and if research brought to our attention implies the need for some legislation, we will take action.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, while at the present stage of knowledge it may not be possible to conduct roadside tests for the presence of illicit drugs in the body of a driver, do the police have the power to subject blood
1454
samples taken in the course of testing for alcohol to laboratory tests, off-line, so that the presence of illicit drugs could later be established and presented as evidence in court when the question of a person's impairment through the use of drugs may arise?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, Section 4 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 empowers a constable to arrest a person if he has reasonable cause to suspect that that person has been driving or has been in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle when unfit through drugs. Section 7 of that Act empowers a constable to require the suspect to provide a specimen for laboratory analysis.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is not just illicit drugs that cause such problems; ordinary drugs can cause drowsiness? The police say that that is very difficult to check. Will the Minister refer this very serious matter to the Secretary of State for consideration?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, my noble friend makes a very good point. This area is also being examined in relation to the research that will be carried out, starting on 1st July. That will look into various types of drug: alcohol; amphetamines; and methyl-amphetamines, which I am told include ecstasy, cannabis, cocaine, opiates, methadone, LSD, benzodiazepines and tricyclic anti-depressants.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, might one of the problems in roadside testing be that it is not necessarily so easy to detect the difference between various sorts of drugs in chemical residues in the body as it is with alcohol? If so, are the Government conducting or funding any research into that approach; in other words, developing better equipment to enable roadside testing to take place?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite correct. There is a great problem with this subject because of the wide range of drugs that can affect drivers and the matter of degree of substance in the bloodstream or urine. I believe that investigation into this area is currently being carried out.

Detention of Juveniles
3.15 p.m.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights of 21st February on the detention of juveniles.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Drumadoon): My Lords, the Government are disappointed that the court has found against the current procedure for deciding on release for those detained during Her Majesty's pleasure. We are considering the

1455
implications of the judgment and will announce what changes will be made to take account of it as soon as possible.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, am I to gather that in the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, the Minister is saying that the Government do not accept the finding—which, as most of us are aware, they are bound to accept—but are still equivocating? Are the Government now prepared to bear in mind that there are some 100 young offenders whose tariff has expired and who have been told that they must be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure? Does the Minister agree that, under the court ruling, those 100 cases should therefore go to the Parole Board? Are those young people being allowed access to the Parole Board; and are the Government ready to accept the finding of the Parole Board, or are they still equivocating?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, as I indicated, the position is quite clear. The Government will announce what changes will be made to take account of these judgments. The Government accept the judgments, which were pronounced on the 21st of this month. I venture to suggest that to have to come to any decision within the period of time from that day to today's date on precisely what the new procedures will be would have led to an accusation of rushing the matter and not thinking it through clearly. I have given an undertaking that, when the changes are decided upon, they will be announced to the House as soon as possible.
The noble Earl raises the question of how many people may be affected. My information is that in England and Wales some 235 cases are potentially affected by the judgment. While each and every one of those cases is being looked at urgently, it is likely that primary legislation will be required to set up the new procedure. In the interim, before primary legislation is passed, cases where the tariff has expired will be dealt with on an administrative basis.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether, despite the fact that Parliament was not consulted about this matter, the Government regard the decision of this particular body as binding?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, the Government regard the judgments in these two cases as ones that will require a change in the procedure. As I have indicated, that change will require to be done by way of primary legislation, which will be brought before Parliament as soon as practicable. It affects only those detained during Her Majesty's pleasure. As the House will know, those are people whose offences were committed while they were under the age of 18. It has no effect on people convicted of murder when they were 18 years or more on the day that they committed the offence.
Lord Renton: My Lords, during the hearing of this case, was the attention of the Court of Human Rights drawn to the law in this country and the sentencing
1456
practices that have arisen under it? And was the court told of the likely effect in this country of the decision that it reached?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, my understanding is that the court was fully informed as to the law in this country and the procedure that has been followed in such cases for many years. I am sure that the noble Lord is aware that detention during Her Majesty's pleasure was introduced as long ago as 1908. The procedure followed since then has been to sentence young offenders to be detained without any limit being specified to the time of the detention. Subsequently, at an appropriate juncture, the issue of when they fall to be released is considered by the Parole Board.
The Government were represented before the court by David Pannick, QC. I have copies of both judgments before me this afternoon. Having read them, and from the advice I have received, I am quite satisfied that the court had placed before it not only the law but the implication that a change to the law would be required were the decision to go against the Government, as in each case it did.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister has given answers that are both factual and helpful, but has be not considered the possibility that the judgment may apply not only to those who are detained at Her Majesty's pleasure but also to those whose tariffs may be affected by the Home Secretary? In other words, the issue may be wider than previously supposed, and the involvement of the Home Secretary—a politician—in sentencing may not be at risk. Have the Government considered that possibility?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, the Government have given consideration to that possibility. The advice that the Government have is that the decision does not affect the power of the Home Secretary to impose a tariff in cases of this nature in England and Wales.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, the Minister did not appear to answer the question put by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. My noble friend asked whether we had to change the law to fit in with this ruling or could refuse to do it. Are we, under treaty, obligated to alter our law to fit in with the court, or can we leave it as it is if we wish?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I believe that the attitude of the Government to the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights is well known. On occasions its judgments are not welcomed or agreed with, but because the Government believe in the rule of law those judgments are respected. That is what is to happen in this case. The effect of the judgment will be respected, and as soon as practicable my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will bring forward proposals to amend the law in England and Wales.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, is the Minister aware that to those of us who remember the hard work put in by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles,

1457
and Sir David Maxwell Fyfe (as he then was) towards bringing in the Convention on Human Rights in Strasbourg and securing its adoption by other European countries, this decision sounds a very sensible one?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I am fully aware that the British Government and senior Government Ministers at that time did a great deal of work in setting up the convention. As is well known to noble Lords, the Government have no quarrel with the terms of the European convention itself.
The problems that have arisen over the years, and particular recent ones, have related to the decisions of the court. Because of that, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced in another place early in December that steps were being taken to discuss with members of the Council of Europe, and members and officials of the court, whether or not anything could be done to improve the court's procedures so that its decisions commanded greater and wider public respect than unfortunately has been the case in recent months. While the convention is clearly important and falls to he respected, and some noble Lords may welcome the decisions in these two cases, the issue whether or not the Government welcome it is neither here nor there. The Government respect the judgments and will act accordingly.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister able to tell us what the position is in Scotland?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, not surprisingly the position in Scotland has been considered by the Lord Advocate since it was suggested that he might answer this Question! Having given the matter the briefest of consideration, although not having had the opportunity to discuss it with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, I have little doubt that consideration will have to be given to amending the law of Scotland as well. In Scotland, no tariffs are set for young people who are detained at Her Majesty's pleasure. Therefore, two issues will have to be looked at in Scotland: the setting of a tariff and a procedure to deal with the release of such prisoners once the tariff has expired.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is one to understand from the answers given by the noble Lord this afternoon that the Government now believe that the public interest is best decided by the European Court of Human Rights rather than by the elected government of this country?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, the noble Lord is wrong to jump to that conclusion, as I suspect many Members of the House will readily appreciate. The issue comes down to the basic question of whether or not we respect the judgments of the court and act in accordance with them. Those who are bound by the rule of law occasionally have to follow decisions of courts with which they do not agree. That is what the rule of law is all about. Procedures are set up to adjudicate on cases. When the court rules accordingly, those bound by the decision have to take it into account. That applies
1458
to individual members of society as well as to this Government, of which I am a Member. The Government do not suggest for one moment that the European Court is the place to decide these issues in preference to Parliament, but when an issue arises they have to consider it. It is then for Parliament to decide what new procedures are put in place.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble and learned friend said that legislation would have to be introduced to change the law of this country to bring the judgment into effect. What happens if both Houses of Parliament unceremoniously throw out such legislation?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, as a new Member of your Lordships' House I find it difficult to answer any question. I find it impossible to answer hypothetical questions, and I decline to do so.

Business
3.24 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 4.15 p.m., my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on Northern Ireland.
I should also like to say a word about today's debate standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Winston. Other than the mover, Front Bench spokesmen and the Minister replying, speakers will be limited to 10 minutes. I should remind your Lordships that if any noble Lord speaks at greater length he will do so at the expense of subsequent speakers in the debate. I also remind your Lordships that when the digital clock shows 10 minutes the full 10 minutes have elapsed and the speaker will already be trespassing on the time of others.

Business of the House: Debates, Friday, 8th March
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 38 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Friday, 8th March to enable the Motion standing in the name of the Earl Howe to be taken before the Second Reading of the Defamation Bill [H.L.].—(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business of the House: Debate this Day
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Winston set down for today shall be limited to four hours.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill [H.L.]
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill [H.L.] has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 100,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 101 to 121,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 122 to 145,

Schedule 3.—(Earl Ferrers.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

National Health Service
3.27 p.m.
Lord Winston Lord Winston rose to call attention to the level of concern among health service staff about current developments in the National Health Service, and the potential effects upon patients; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, first I do not intend to indulge in political invective. In particular, no disrespect is intended to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. This is not personal. She is honourable and her reputation is high because she appears to listen and clearly cares about the health service. She is highly respected by many of my colleagues throughout the country, but sadly her attitude does not entirely reflect the damage that I feel has been done to the National Health Service over 16 years of this Government. I do not blame her.
Secondly, I do not want to indulge in the politics of invective or hysteria. That is something which occurs in another place. I speak simply from the coal face. I do not come here with a political motive. I do not believe that the National Health Service should be a political football. This House is respected for its reasoned argument and consideration of the facts. I have no desire to be vexatious. However, it is difficult for me not to use strong language for what many of us feel is the disgraceful mismanagement of the National Health Service, for which this Government have been largely responsible. I ask the House to forgive me if I speak with some emotion. These are very emotional matters.
I shall not introduce all the things that are wrong in the National Health Service. Other speakers will deal later with, for example, nursing staff, who, quite rightly, are regarded as the backbone of the health service; general practitioners; primary care and care in the community. I intend to deal mainly with the latest, most important and significant reform; namely, the National Health Service internal market.
The principle is simple enough. Noble Lords will forgive me if I explain what may be well known to some of your Lordships. I do so because many members of
1460
the public do not understand the internal market. Indeed, one might add that because the far-reaching changes were thrust without proper consultation upon the National Health Service itself, many people working in the National Health Service, including doctors, do not fully understand them either. I do so because this issue will undoubtedly become one of the most important electoral issues in any forthcoming General Election. Inevitably, too, I have to say, the press will be listening and it is important that what is happening in our health service should be explained to them. In my clinic, I find that very few patients indeed, even those with high qualifications and university degrees, understand the implications to them of the reforms of the health service. This is not a political point. Any hospital consultant can confirm it, unless he is extremely partisan.
Among other things, the reform means that purchasing health authorities, responsible for providing care to their local populations, are given a sum of money to buy medical treatment to meet their catchment area's needs. Providers, which in my case means most hospital based medicine, are the NHS Trust Hospitals. They compete with each other to tender the best contracts for medical services to the purchasing authorities, who then decide on the basis of various criteria whether they will agree to contract for those services.
It would be entirely foolish to say that there are not signal advantages to that system. Indeed, the Government repeatedly take credit for the improvements. The internal market has resulted in many hospitals improving outpatient facilities, improving comfort for patients, improving waiting times in clinics and in some cases improving waiting lists. There is no doubt that that has happened. It has resulted because hospitals are more assiduous and give better information to patients, and because any hospital not making those simple improvements would be likely to lose its contracts and hence its essential funding.
However, I and many of my colleagues feel that the internal market was largely an attempt to mask underfunding and to ration healthcare locally. It has so many adverse facets, as it was envisaged, that it now stands as a monument to government deafness, bureaucratic inefficiency and incompetence. What are its effects? Let me examine some of them.
First, this is the Government of choice. Yet we see a loss of patient choice. It was no idle boast in the old health service that any patient could be referred to the most expert person involved in managing his or her condition. That was one of the star qualities of the National Health Service. It was much envied all over the world, including in the United States of America. For example, in the 1970s and 1980s in my unit at Hammersmith I saw patients for complex surgery from Truro, Inverness, Belfast and all over the United Kingdom. What did that mean? It meant that we grew in expertise and were able to give an unparalleled service. We could provide medical improvements in that particular condition which were copied all over the world. Indeed, post-graduate students came from over 80 countries to study there during that period of time.
What has happened since then? No longer do we get those patients. Now they go for that treatment to their local health authorities. Nobody wants to purchase that treatment because of the competing demands made locally and the need for contracts. It now means that instead of doing 12 or 18 of those operations a week, sometimes in a good week—when beds are available of course—we might do only three to six such operations.
Let me give another example about freedom of choice. Perhaps noble Lords will excuse me if I mention my mother. Her problem took much of my time this week on the telephone. She is a brittle diabetic, very sensitive to insulin. She responds very rapidly to overdoses and underdoses of that drug. She has been cared for at Hammersmith Hospital for 15 years. During that time, she has attended in acute diabetic coma many other hospitals: University College Hospital, the Middlesex Hospital, the Royal Free Hospital and other hospitals in London; and, when she did community work outside this country, hospitals in The Hague, South Africa and so on. She has been to more hospitals than I certainly have. Invariably, after those comas, she came back to Hammersmith because she needed stabilisation. Like many older people with diabetes, bits stop working. Consequently, from time to time she has been to see the urologist at Hammersmith Hospital, the gynaecologist at Hammersmith Hospital, the chest physician at Hammersmith Hospital, renal people at Hammersmith Hospital, the vascular people at Hammersmith Hospital and the orthopaedic people at Hammersmith Hospital.
What happened last week? Despite a bad cold she went to Buckingham Palace to receive an honour for her longstanding public service. It was a cold day and she developed a worsening chest infection. My sister tried to arrange an urgent chest appointment for her to be seen by the Hammersmith Hospital chest physician, whom she knows very well and who knows her. However, because she had not attended that particular part of Hammersmith Hospital for the past two years, where, of course, her notes were, she was refused an appointment; they needed a referral letter from her general practitioner. That was not done on clinical grounds but simply because it was the required form. On the other hand, a general practitioner refused to give her that referral because he was contracting with another providing authority.
That bureaucratic muddle resulted in delay in her being seen in the proper chest clinic. The matter has been resolved because nature intervened and her chest got better despite treatment, as so often happens in medical practice. But many hundreds of thousands of older people in this country do not have somebody who can clout for them and go in there and bat for them.
Secondly, the internal market has meant competition, not co-operation, between doctors. It has meant that many hospitals now compete to try to give the same medical services. I give noble Lords one trivial example from my own area, but it is one that shows very clearly the potential wastage of National Health Service resources. Chelsea & Westminster Hospital has recently set up an IVF clinic. Indeed, it was in the news recently. It was prepared, it said, to try to undercut any of the other National Health Service hospitals in its area
1462
and would try to provide a cut-price service on St. Valentine's day and indeed advertised that. Just down the road is Hammersmith Hospital, which has the most expert NHS IVF service in the country, probably in Europe, and is offering that treatment at some 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. less than the cost in the Chelsea & Westminster Hospital. Moreover, Hammersmith Hospital has a huge number of patients, so it is extremely efficient, with a very short waiting list of less than three months, thanks in part, admittedly, to the Government's waiting list initiative.
These are not bad doctors but they have been corrupted by the system in which they work. This week, a patient who had been referred to me by her general practitioner, in error telephoned the Chelsea & Westminster Hospital. Over the telephone, without investigation and without assessment it said that it would offer her treatment which would undercut the Hammersmith Hospital's IVF unit. That would have been in a unit which cannot offer the specialised service and the degree of skill that we can offer because of our huge expertise and large scientific background. What will happen if that practice continues? It will mean that Hammersmith will inevitably lose patients and will have to put up its prices, again increasing the costs to the health service. It means loss of research to an alpha-rated department and probably lowered IVF success rates. Also, because it has not costed its operation properly, it will probably mean that after two years' wastage of money the Chelsea & Westminster Hospital will have to close that unit.
We have a burgeoning administration in the health service. Other noble Lords will speak of that. But one of the things the Government did was introduce a massive administration without the proper information technology. The Secretary of State now wants to decrease the managers by 8 per cent. and to do so, of course, would bring further chaos. In the absence of information technology, they cannot know what the cost of the market is. In fact this is not a market; it is a lottery. There is no serious audit; there is no professional basis for making judgments about buying on behalf of purchasers.
Let me draw your Lordships' attention to a letter I recently received from Professor Jacobs, who is a particularly distinguished professor of endocrinology and Britain's leading reproductive endocrinologist. He says,
"At present, patients see me either because they are part of a block contract, because they're referred by GP fundholders or because they are extracontractual referrals. The cost of these referrals varies according to type. The number of GPs becoming fundholders is steadily increasing and there is expected to be a new tranche of fundholders on 1st April. Of course, as new contracts are forged, so the number of people who come to us as ECRs varies. It turns out that if a patient is being seen as part of an overperforming block contract and that patient comes from a practice that has become a GP fundholder, by definition the swap from the overperforming block contract to GP fundholding increases the income to the institution. If, on the other hand, the patient was an ECR but now the patient's doctor becomes a fundholder, the institution will almost certainly lose. If the ECR patient does not have many re-attendances, there is no gain to the institution by the patient becoming that of a fundholder, but if the patient has a high

1463
rate of re-attendance (clearly a chronic and severe disease) then the institution gains because fundholders are requested, at least by this institution, to pay per attendance".
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, will my noble friend allow me to intervene? I find it a little difficult to follow what he is saying. Can be translate it into a simple proposition so that I can see what he is really saying?
Lord Winston: My Lords, in summarising, Professor Jacobs says,
"If a patient changes from a 'correctly performing' block contract"—
one where they do not see too many patients, even though it would be cheaper for the health service—
"to a GP fundholding contract then the institution neither benefits nor gains".
He summarises by saying,
"This Alice in Wonderland version of economics is called the contracting system in the National Health Service".
That muddle is totally unintelligible. It means that it is unfair because, if a patient is not from a fundholding practice and if he is referred to an over-performing hospital, he may not get his operation this year but have to wait until next year because of the needs of the health service. How many administrators does it take to work that nonsense out?
There are bed shortages due, partly, to the burgeoning administration and the money spent on it. It is interesting to note that nurses have had a small pay rise; chief executives have had pay rises of up to 7.6 per cent. When I asked the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, on 21st February, how the extra money for the nurses' miserable pay rise will be funded or whether it will simply come from trusts' hard-pressed budgets, she mentioned that some would come through, to use her words, improved "efficiencies and other economies". What does that mean? It means improved efficiency and economies in those hospitals. That adds to the increased cost of the administration and, among other things, leads to fewer beds.
The chairman of the Health Services Research recently stated that the pressure on emergency beds is up by 15 per cent. The Middlesex Hospital this week had nine patients waiting for cancer treatment, which was cancelled because it had no beds available for them. One can imagine the problem for those patients who had to wait until the following week to receive their oncological care. That can be cancelled again and only then are they placed on a priority list when they might receive their treatment. I understand that that is the situation in that excellent hospital.
This week I was delayed in coming to this House because there was a young woman in her thirties who was bleeding and for whom I could not find a hospital bed. Three of us had to phone round to try to find her a bed and all the time we were giving instructions over the phone to explain to the people who were with her how to staunch the bleeding by internal pressure. That procedure was carried out in the 17th century but, because there was no other alternative for that patient,
1464
we were forced to give that advice. God intervened, otherwise the patient would have died, and the bleeding stopped. But we could not find her a bed in a National Health Service hospital or in Queen Charlotte's Hospital.
In the last few minutes available to me I want to touch on medical education. It is worth bearing in mind that we used to have probably the best medical education in the world. Students came from all over to study in the United Kingdom. It is worth looking at the problems that the universities are now facing. The cut in capital budget, which involves equipment as well as building, is 30 per cent. this year. The PFI, in spite of the Government's claims, cannot possibly replace that funding. It is doubly serious for the NHS because many projects are jointly funded by the National Health Service and health authorities in collaboration with universities.
What do the Government do? They promote the Dearing Report. They kick it into touch at a time when universities are in crisis and so we are delayed for at least another year and it is probable that any implementation of that review cannot take place until 1999. This week we sat through a committee at the Royal Postgraduate Medical School to work out what we could do about the 3 per cent. cut with which we were immediately faced. Because we are particularly well managed, it will not actually prevent our continuing to build the library. But there is no doubt that this is the last cut that we can possibly sustain, and certainly our building scheme constitutes a serious problem.
Another matter which I should like briefly to draw to your Lordships' attention is the Calman reorganisation of junior staff training. The idea of a unified training system is not bad. It is due to start in April. But even my own highly intelligent medical staff who are entering that training system do not understand it. It shortens the training programme for staff in specialist training, but limits the choice of hospital department; it limits their freedom of movement and thence experience; above all, it will inhibit their ability to do clinical and basic research in hospitals—in fact, there will be no advantage in doing clinical research because they are in a set programme. Who will look after the patients? The consultants will not only have to continue their clinical work, but will also have to give lectures to students and demonstrate operations to them. That is a real crisis which worries medical people in the health service.
It is not surprising that we have serious concerns in the National Health Service. In answer to a question I asked on 17th January in relation to the acute bed problem in West London, the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, replied with pride,
"I believe that we have a remarkable National Health Service; it is a near miracle".—[Official Report, 17/1/96; col. 591.]
I weep at that reply. I believe that they do not understand what is happening. We face a serious situation. Of course this Government have spent on the health service. Of course they have spent in real terms—no doubt we shall hear more about that from the Government Benches. We are familiar with their story of spending on the National Health Service. The truth is that this is a spent government. Having spent unwisely

1465
on the National Health Service, they may have to pay the cost at the next general election. Sadly, another government will have to pick up the bill.
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, in view of the fact that he said extensive cuts had been made in the NHS funding, can be say by how much be would like that funding to be increased? Will be also declare an interest?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, this is a time-limited debate and we do not normally have interventions because that takes from other people's time.
3.49 p.m.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Winston, for drawing the National Health Service to the attention of your Lordships. I believe that the general public are getting a bit sick of the denigration of what this Government have done in the past 15 or 16 years. Whether it relates to the economy or the National Health Service—perhaps the noble Lord would be kind enough to listen for a few moments—welfare, education or whatever, it is always a question of underfunding.
The noble Lord spoke about cuts in the National Health Service. What he did not say is that those cuts were projected expenditure which the Treasury then reduced. That is not a cut. There were increases, but not as much as asked for by the departments. I remind your Lordships that when one considers the situation between 1979 and today, some £41 billion has been put into the National Health Service. In simple terms, that means that for every man, woman and child in the country in 1979, £433 was spent on the National Health Service. Today the figure is £697. In real terms the increase in the National Health Service budget is 66 per cent.
Noble Lords will probably ask how that has been done. In my view, it has been achieved because of good national housekeeping. Perhaps I may return to that in a few moments. The noble Lord agreed that more patients are being treated. The figure is now 3 million. Waiting time has been reduced; and the noble Lord paid tribute to that. Those are the kinds of things that we need to talk about regarding the National Health Service. Fund-holding for GPs has been a great success. God forbid that the noble Lord's party should ever get into power!—they would abolish that.
What we must remember about the National Health Service is the fact that the advances in medicine are beyond our comprehension when one considers what patient treatment was some 20 or 30 years ago. There is no comparison with today. There are so many new cures and we are living longer. Quite obviously these factors produce extra drain and strain on the National Health Service.
As regards the nurses, as your Lordships know, the Government have accepted the independent review body's offer of 2 per cent. In addition to that, there is whatever the nurses can negotiate locally. I believe that
1466
even the noble Lord will pay tribute to the fact that the National Health Service is generally very healthy. It employs more nursing staff, care staff and so on.
Perhaps I may return to the question of nurses' pay, and something which the noble Lord did not mention. In real terms, over the period of this Government since 1979, nurses' pay has increased by about 79 per cent. Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord that under the last Labour Government in real terms nurses' pay was reduced by 3 per cent. How does that square with what the Labour Party are saying today? It is hypocrisy for it to criticise the National Health Service. I remind the noble Lord of the time when the Labour Government had to go cap in hand to the IMF. That meant a cut-back not only in nurses' pay, but also a tremendous reduction in capital expenditure within the National Health Service and other departments.
Perhaps I may now turn to hospital trusts, to which the noble Lord paid some tribute. As regards hospital services, 98 per cent. of them are hospital trusts. Consequently, that means that there is more power held locally in running the local health service. The Government are shortly to abolish the regional health authorities. That again will create more efficiency and more local power as regards the National Health Service.
I referred earlier to how this was being done. The Government have increased taxpayers' expenditure on the National Health Service and also on other departments such as education. That has been achieved because of the Government's economic policy. Whatever one likes to say about this Government, their economic policy has reduced inflation from 26 per cent. to under 3 per cent. That helps everybody: it helps the National Health Service and the nurses. Bank interest rates are down from 15 per cent. to something like 6.25 per cent. and they are falling. I have no doubt that they will fall further. Unemployment is also down. The unemployment figures have come down for 29 successive months. It is due to good national housekeeping.
When one considers inward investment, that is proof positive that the foreign investor looks on this country as a good bet and a good place in which to put his goods. Exports have increased and also the number of small businesses. This is good national housekeeping. The standard of living has improved for everybody in this country by about 40 per cent.
These are the factors which determine whether any government can spend money on, for example, education, the National Health Service or whatever. Government are only the trustees of the taxpayers' money and unless the economy is buoyant then this money will not be available for the National Health Service. That is how this Government have increased expenditure on the National Health Service.
When one hears from Labour Members of Parliament and noble Lords in opposition, one never gets a figure or an explanation in relation to their grandiose schemes. Whether that is the frivolity of opposition, I do not know. They announce grandiose schemes but they never price them. That is what the general public want to

1467
know. If expenditure on the National Health Service is to be increased, the public want to know where the money is coming from. Will it come from the taxpayer; will it be borrowed, or what? Will it lead to an inflationary spiral as we had under the last Labour Government?
If the Labour Party want to show any credibility, it really is high time that the leaders of the Labour Party came out fair and square and said, "All this is going to cost more. More teachers will cost the taxpayers more. More money spent on the National Health Service is going to cost so much more". At the end of the day the Opposition should say where the money is coming from. That is something they shy away from. It is becoming so serious that I believe the Opposition are losing credibility. Anyone in opposition can promise, but it is only if one is in government that one has to deliver and that can only be done if there are the resources available.
The future danger for this country is that if there were a change in government, that would mean a minimum wage. I believe that all economists and many Members of the Opposition agree that that would increase unemployment. If we accepted the social chapter that would increase the unit costs of production, which even the Germans and the French now realise. They realise that the social chapter is not really working. If there were a change of government and we ended competitive tendering, that would be disastrous so far as the economy is concerned. Any diminution of our economy must mean that there will be fewer services for the National Health Service. Therefore, I trust that my noble friend will resist the criticism.
3.59 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winston, for introducing this debate and for the opportunity of contributing to it. At the outset I must express my sincere apologies to him and to the noble Baroness who will reply for the fact that I only learnt last week that this debate was to be held. I had already accepted a pressing engagement for later this afternoon which may prevent me from listening to the entire debate. I shall read all the closing speeches.
I have been a fervent supporter of the National Health Service since it began in 1948. That resulted from the fact that my salary as a medical registrar at the very beginning of the NHS was immediately increased from £400 to £775 per annum. In 1958 I became a consultant. I later held an honorary Chair and later still had six university sessions as a professor while retaining five NHS sessions. Even when I was translated to the dreaming spires of Oxford in 1983, I continued to hold two honorary sessions as a consultant until some four years ago when, on reaching a certain age, I was told by the health service that my honorary clinical contract had expired and that I could visit the hospital for social reasons, but without any clinical facilities.
That introduction may be irrelevant, but the point I want to make at the outset is that I lived through the halcyon days of expansion in the NHS when my
1468
department and the facilities and staffing available continued to expand. We saw almost incredible advances in medicine with imaging, transplants, spare parts surgery, immunology, rehabilitation, cardiac surgery and many more developments. I eventually headed an academic and research unit which received referrals from all over the country and, indeed, from many parts of the world. Those were wonderful days—they were days when I was very proud to work in the NHS. Indeed, we can still take a justifiable pride in our National Health Service, upon which we still spend less than 6 per cent. of our gross domestic product, one of the lowest proportions spent by any developed country.
However, we have an ageing population and we have a population with greater expectations than ever before about what the NHS can provide. Why should they not have hip replacements? Why should not everyone who can benefit from it have cardiac surgery? The introduction of new expensive drugs such as Beta Interferon for multiple sclerosis and of new procedures has imposed immense demands on our NHS.
I still believe that the NHS provides the best emergency care in the world, but even in the early 1980s we began to see the gathering clouds on the horizon and to recognise that no developed country can ever produce a health service which provides every conceivable medical treatment irrespective of cost. At that time I suggested, rather interestingly, the possibility of predicated taxation and the introduction, which I believe that the country would welcome, of an index-linked income-related health tax, but I was told that the Treasury would never stand for it. I often wonder whether we will ever be able to relax the iron hand of the Treasury in promoting desirable developments. However, that is water under the bridge.
The Government's response to the problems that we saw at that time was to introduce a review of the National Health Service. I believe that what has followed has in many respects been very beneficial: better management and better cost control, with doctors for the first time fully understanding the costs of the procedures and forms of treatment that they offer. I think that GP fundholding has many great benefits to offer, although there is clearly a risk of a two-tier service. Nevertheless, with the academic and vocational training of general practitioners we have seen an enormous improvement in community care and in the quality of British general practice which I now believe to be the best in the world.
The contractor-customer principle carries certain benefits hut, as the noble Lord, Lord Winston, said, it has also brought problems, some of which were highlighted in a report on medical research in the NHS in the light of the reforms which was based on a Select Committee inquiry which I chaired and which was debated in your Lordships' House last year. There is no doubt that tertiary referrals for patients with difficult clinical problems requiring specialised treatment in centres of excellence have fallen sharply, if only because local managers have taken the view that the treatment can be equally well offered in a local hospital instead of sending the patient to, say, Hammersmith or

1469
to the Newcastle General Hospital, where I once worked, or to other centres where highly specialised care can be provided.
I know full well that the Minister will give us much information about the increasing resources that are being devoted to the National Health Service, about the reduction in waiting lists and the increased standard of care. I accept all the points that she will make: more money is being spent on the NHS. Indeed, I congratulate the noble Baroness on her spirited and dedicated advocacy of the National Health Service, which has invariably won the respect of the entire House.
However, without doubt the storm clouds are gathering again—and they are deepening. Morale in many of the professions in the National Health Service in many of the professions is at its lowest for a decade. Many hospitals have improved their standards of care through day surgery and short stays, but I believe that the closure of acute beds has happened too fast. That can be seen from isolated examples, such as the Sidcup patient who had to be flown to Leeds, the Stepping Hill case where a scanner was not available in the evening, and the recent story of the cancer care unit in Bristol which has had to turn away patients. Those are isolated examples occurring against a background of increasingly high standards of general medical care, but they are happening far too often. The National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts has produced figures to show that over the past three years there has been a 14 per cent. increase in emergency admissions. One of the inevitable reasons for that is our ageing population.
But why in certain areas has there been a veritable stampede of consultants seeking early retirement at the age of 60 rather than wanting to continue to serve the NHS to the age of 65? Why are we unable in many areas of the country to recruit consultants in psychiatry, anaesthetics, paediatrics, accident and emergency, and orthopaedics? Why in the region in which I used to work has the Shotley Bridge Hospital had to close its accident and emergency department because it is unable to recruit doctors to staff it? When I was the Warden of Green College and when I was Dean at Newcastle many of the brightest medical students wanted to enter the new, developing and exciting branch of general practice with vocational training, but there has been a 14 per cent. reduction in the number of young doctors entering general practice training as registrars. I shall not comment on the nursing shortages as I am sure that other noble Lords will mention them, but I do believe that the recent pay award was unfortunate, to say the least.
I turn now to academic medicine. Professors, senior lecturers and lecturers have a clinical contract and do a great deal of clinical work, but the evidence from our Select Committee inquiry showed that at present 24 clinical Chairs in the United Kingdom are vacant for lack of suitable applicants, 10 of them having been vacant for more than 12 months. Fortunately, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has established an inquiry under Sir Rex Richards of Oxford to look at the future of clinical academic medicine which, without any question at all, is in crisis.
1470
Yesterday we considered the Reserve Forces Bill on Report. That presents us with another little problem. I served for 16 years in the Territorial Army and was happy eventually to command a Territorial Army general hospital. I understand that there is now pressure from managers not to allow doctors to enrol in the reserve forces in case they are called out in an emergency. There was a problem during the Gulf War when the NHS suffered through the call up of many doctors in the Territorial Army.
Those are just a few of the problems which the NHS is facing. I believe fervently in its future. I believe that the NHS is one of the things of which this country may be justly proud. However, I urge the noble Baroness, her colleagues and her right honourable friends to undertake discussions with the medical royal colleges, the nursing profession and many others, and to look at some of the emerging problems to which I have drawn her attention because they present a considerable threat to the future of our beloved NHS.
4.8 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, and to express my gratitude and, I am sure, that of the House to my noble friend Lord Winston for initiating this debate. We are grateful to him—the NHS is grateful to him—for his professional contribution over many years. I know that that gratitude is shared by many patients.
My only quarrel with my noble friend lies in his framing of the Motion. Inevitably he started with the word "staff". When I talk about the NHS I think that it is a good principle to start with "patients", but that word does not appear until the very end of the Motion.
The noble Lord, Lord Clark of Kempston, said that we should declare our interests. I declare an interest as the Chair of an NHS trust hospital. But there is an interest that we all share as patients or potential patients of the National Health Service. It is a very real interest, even for those who are covered by private insurance and who normally take their healthcare elsewhere. I refer to the fact that there is no alternative in terms of emergency provision to the National Health Service. We all may have cause to be grateful for and be dependent on the qualities of care within that service.
There is a justification for focusing on the concerns of staff in our deliberations today because it is proper that we should be aware—and that anyone involved in the political process should be aware—that it is not within the purview or power of a Secretary of State to deliver the quality of care and the kind of health service to which we aspire. That can only be delivered by the staff who work within that service. It is only because of the commitment of the staff who have worked within that service over generations that we have the National Health Service of which we are all, I think, rightly proud.
We have therefore to take very seriously the concerns of people who work within the service. I hesitate to make wild assertions about morale. It is very dangerous to talk about morale because it is a difficult and notoriously dangerous area to try to quantify. In my

1471
experience of the public services it is unusual for members of staff to come up to you and tell you how high morale is. That having been said, it would be wrong not to acknowledge the wide-ranging and deep-rooted concerns that exist among various groups of staff within the National Health Service. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, alluded to some of them.
When the explicit commitment of the National Health Service is to a primary care led service, we must all be concerned about the extremely worrying difficulties of recruitment into general practice. General practice in this country has been the jewel in the crown of the National Health Service. It has been of tremendous importance to the quality of care for individual patients and to the continuity of that care. It has also been of crucial importance in keeping down the costs of the NHS because of the gate-keeping role of the general practitioner. We sacrifice that role and demoralise those people at our peril. The difficulties of recruitment into general practice are something that should cause very great concern.
Looking at morale, the nursing profession is also faced with enormous changes. Its members are being asked to take on—and want to take on—developing roles in response to our commitment, as a service, to reducing junior hospital doctors' hours, by expanding their practitioner roles. That is foolish in the extreme when recruitment is getting more and more difficult. There was a time during the recession when recruitment was not as difficult, when there was a great stability in the nursing workforce, but that is gradually changing and recruitment is becoming more and more difficult. It was foolish as well as insulting to treat the nurses' pay round as we have done this year.
As to the state of morale among managers, it is very easy to attack managers. It is very easy to call them bureaucrats, to talk about grey suits and to assume that if we only got rid of them and saved the money we spent on them it would solve all the problems within the NHS. The NHS is an enormous, expensive, labour-intensive and extremely complex organisation, and it deserves the highest quality of management.
It is hypocritical to say that we have to cut the costs of management without taking away any of the tasks of management. My quarrel—one of my many quarrels—with the reforms is that the tasks that have been put on the NHS have not been of management but of bureaucracy; of dealing with the nightmare of year-on-year contracting which takes up huge amounts of time and energy to very little avail, and which turns it into an organisation more interested in patients' postcodes than their prognosis, and into a paperchase of trying to build different parts of the service for different bits of care that is given. That has been a terrible distraction, among the reforms, from the very real problems that affect the service.
I was surprised at the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Clark. It seemed to me that he was harking back to a vision of a Labour Government that I did not very much recognise, and to a vision of a future Labour Government—which I certainly did not recognise—with a little synopsis in the middle of an NHS under the
1472
Conservative Government that no one that I know who works in the NHS would recognise. Certainly everything in the garden is not as rosy as he suggested.
I am not suggesting that there are simple answers or that these are black and white questions. There are, internationally, huge and recurring problems that have been alluded to: the problems about rising expectations, about changes in demography and about what we can do by the extension of technology, which has both pluses and minuses on the treatment and the costs side. They are dilemmas for every country and every health service in the world, whether you are in Bangladesh and paying $10 per head per year on health care or in the United States where the government is looking at $2,500 per head on health care. We are still talking about affordability, about the best structures for delivering high-quality, cost-effective care. They are real and difficult issues that we must tackle.
There are real and difficult issues in this country that we have to tackle. We must look at the Calman changes for doctors in training and the changed role that we are asking consultants to take on. The correspondence in the BMJ illustrates the real concerns about who will deliver the care to patients when consultants are doing more teaching, junior doctors are doing more learning, and there are more and more demands from patients. So there are real issues there.
There are real issues raised by the Culyer Report and how we will finance research within the NHS. There are real issues about what a primary care led NHS means, what the public think it means and how much they want to support it. There are real issues, which were discussed in the House recently, concerning community care, the spectrum of community care and whether, when we closed the long-stay institutions, for very good reasons, we perhaps looked after patients who were already in them but did not anticipate well enough what would be needed for patients who would have gone into those institutions in the future. That was a real problem.
There are enormous, real difficulties. No one within the health service thinks that we can spin gold out of straw. We know that there are resource constraints and we know that there are real dilemmas about priorities that all governments have to face. What distresses me is that we have spent the past few years pretending that the market had a solution to those problems and that we could deal with structures and not deal with the real problems, and that we have been diverted from facing them.
4.19 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, it is good to have this opportunity to debate the NHS, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Winston, for his choice of subject. To listen to him, is to hear one side only of the health service story. Let us not be too depressed. There is a great deal of good news to tell. Indeed, one concern that the noble Lord did not mention is that many staff working in the NHS feel that they tend to be taken for granted by the public who do not appreciate their great contribution. Instead of flagging up the marvellous results they have achieved, and valuing the efforts that

1473
have gone into that, they hear only moans about what more the health service should do. An example of that is that 17 per cent. of patients failed to keep their NHS appointments in hospitals.
My interest as chairman of the Royal Free NHS Trust is one that I have declared often, and I do so again. In many ways, the introduction of the Government reform of the health service has been highly successful. At the Royal Free we have treated more in-patients each year. This year we have treated 25,000 more than in 1990. We have now more beds, many new facilities, a newly built renal unit, many state of the art pieces of new technology, a gamma camera, CT scanners and MRI scanners. We are currently developing an expanded A&E department. Next year we shall have increased out-patient facilities.
Recently a world famous actor came to the hospital to unveil our replacement and updated CT scanner—a great improvement in technology and patient comfort. He asked me who had donated it, and expressed great surprise when I was able to tell him that it came out of the national health budget. He had been led to believe that the health service was so strapped for cash that only generous donors or public appeals could supply any equipment even if it were considered to be essential. The patients and staff need to know that the health service is still making a huge investment in patient care.
It is true that the staff are working harder than ever. That is true also of jobs in industry. Those who are in employment find that the demands made on them are increasing. New computer technology which is planned to assist can often involve considerable extra effort, especially during a learning phase. Hospital patients dislike the fact that the nurse or receptionist can see the screen while they cannot. That causes friction and adds to the staff burden.
The reduction in junior hospital doctors' hours has been good for them, and we hope for the patients, but it means that nurses are taking on duties which were previously done by the junior doctors. Someone else will need to take on the duties that were done by the nurses. NHS work is never ending.
In any health system there are always concerns about growing demands and the availability of resources to meet those inevitable demands. The demographic changes of an ageing population and the constant advance of technology are familiar to us all. I know from my own experience that the staff express anxiety about that dilemma.
Local pay is an issue. Trusts have supported the introduction of local pay, and it is right that successful trusts should have the opportunity to reward staff fairly; but there is anxiety that with the additional 3 per cent. central funding for pay in the NHS, it will be difficult to meet reasonable expectations above that level, especially when central decisions on those staff with national arrangements—for example, the Doctors and Dentists Review Body groups—have given rises in excess of 3 per cent., and for senior registrars and registrars at a nett cost of 4.63 per cent. in 1996–97.
1474
Some issues are creating staff concern in the Royal Free Trust. There has been a national reduction in the funding of HIV/AIDS services in the light of the anticipated flattening out and potential reduction in new AIDS cases in the future. However, there is concern that those national reductions take little account of local variation in the delivery of service at designated treatment centres. Our trust has seen a continuous growth in the numbers of HIV/AIDS cases under treatment—20 per cent. more last year. As those patients can go to any treatment centre, and often choose to be away from their own areas, predictions cannot be made accurately. The actual trend needs to be recognised in funding terms. The Minister has agreed to look retrospectively at where those patients receive their treatment.
The Royal Free is one of the largest providers of specialist services to haemophiliacs in the country. Great strides have been made in the treatment and care of those patients, but the costs are rising inexorably. New methods of purifying the products necessary for blood clotting are being developed. They will increasingly ensure safe transfusion, but they cost more. Those services are not supported by any national funding arrangements and must be met from local resources. The rising costs cause huge pressure on existing budgets and have a knock-on effect on other hospital services in-year.
I quote those two points as they are examples staff have taken up with me of highly specialised treatments where the financial pressures are concentrated on only a few treatment centres in the whole country.
New management procedures have been successful, and there is a greatly improved standard of managers. Our trust does not have all the excess management staff of which I hear talk. Our managers work hard with all the other staff, and a genuine effort is put in by all in the trust to provide the best possible patient care. Better use is made of beds. Complaints, no matter how few in number, are taken seriously, as we aim to learn valuable lessons and to ensure that mistakes are not repeated.
It is time to reassess the Patient's Charter standards, to see whether they have proved to be the most relevant or whether they require amendment. There is a case for a degree of variation to cover chief teaching hospitals where the aim is to combine education and treatment.
Health of the Nation priorities should be reviewed regularly. The health needs of our population are changing constantly. We have good NHS staff and a good NHS. We must be sure that that continues in the future and that the efforts of those working in the NHS are valued. A number of conflicting statements have been made in the debate. For example, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, spoke of when GPs were better, but I think they are better now. Many GP practices now offer amazingly good services. They run minor accident centres.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords—
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am sorry but I cannot give way as my time has almost run out. What we have found is that the better the GP the greater

1475
the hospital referrals. I may have misunderstood what the noble Baroness said. The discussion was about a primary-care led health service. If there are better informed GPs who look after their patients better there is more work in the hospitals and not less.
The noble Lord, Lord Winston, referred to Caiman. We are concerned about the costs and the structures of Calman. We estimated that in the past doctors had 46,000 hours of experience before they became consultants. Although opinions seem to vary on this, they will now have between 13,000 and 18,000 hours of experience. There will be dramatic changes. As regards the funding, I understand that the department is aware of the pressure that that will put on hospitals and that that will be taken into account in the planning of the health service.
The noble Lord looked two ways. He wanted all these major services in big centres, and yet he complained that they had them in too many; for example, the Westminster and Chelsea, and the Hammersmith. We cannot have it both ways. I am proud of our health service. I wish to see it continue.

Northern Ireland
4.29 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on the Anglo-Irish Summit earlier today and its implications for the peace process in Northern Ireland.
"The Taoiseach and I met in Downing Street this afternoon and agreed a way forward, set out in our communique, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House. Let me summarise the main points of the approach.
"First, both Governments condemn unreservedly the IRA abandonment of the ceasefire and subsequent acts of terrorism and call for the immediate and unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire.
"Secondly, we have confirmed that the two Governments will have no ministerial dialogue with Sinn Fein until the ceasefire is restored. Thirdly, I am glad to say that the Irish Government have now made clear their support for an elective process that is broadly acceptable to the parties in Northern Ireland. We and the Irish Government will conduct further intensive consultations with the parties between now and mid-March. After that, this Government will bring forward for consideration by this House appropriate legislation for the elective process, and we will take other decisions necessary for the peace process to take place.
"Fourthly, both Governments reaffirm their commitment to all-party negotiations with a comprehensive agenda. These will be convened on 10th June, following a broadly acceptable elective process. Whether those negotiations will include Sinn Fein will depend on whether the ceasefire has been restored.
1476
"Fifthly, we have agreed that at the beginning of the negotiations, in order to build confidence, all participants, including Sinn Fein if the ceasefire has been restored, will need to make clear their total and absolute commitment to the principles of democracy and non-violence set out in the Mitchell report and to address, also at the beginning of the negotiations, Senator Mitchell's proposals on decommissioning.
"Madam Speaker, I believe these agreements and commitments represent a balanced approach to which I hope all the parties in Northern Ireland will be able to subscribe. No-one will find in there all they might have asked for. Equally, no-one need fear that their basic interests and requirements are being overlooked.
"The approach the Taoiseach and I agreed marks out a clear route to all-party negotiations. We believe that this route is viable and direct. That is why we have set a firm date by which the negotiations will be launched. There is still detail to be filled in, and some important issues to be settled. That is the purpose of the intensive consultations due to start next week and last until mid-March. But we now have a framework and a timescale to address and decide these matters. We are ready to meet all the parties in whatever format best suits them, but I repeat that there can be no dialogue between Ministers and Sinn Fein until the ceasefire is unequivocally restored. That is the Irish Government's position as well.
"The issues still to be settled include: first, the nature of the electoral system to be used in the elective process. There are strong views for and against different systems. While the decision is for us, we intend first to explore and test all the options in discussions with the parties before coming to our decision on what seems most broadly acceptable; secondly, the nature and role of an elected body that will come out of the elections. Again there are strongly held views, although many believe such a body has a role to play as a forum for peace; and, thirdly, format, structure and agenda of the negotiations themselves.
"Madam Speaker, we have been discussing these issues intensively with the Northern Ireland parties and the Irish Government for some time now. I would have liked to have been in a position to announce agreement on these issues and to have been able to publish detailed proposals today. There are, however, still gaps to he filled in. That is why we have called for fresh but time-limited consultations to make a last effort to reach agreement on these issues. If I judge it would be helpful I may put forward to the parties, and perhaps publish, specific written proposals during the consultations. At the end of that period, the two Governments will review the outcome.
"Whether or not final agreement on all issues can be reached during this period, let me make clear that at the end of it, the Government will put forward to this House legislative proposals for elections in Northern Ireland. Decisions on the other outstanding arrangements will also be announced. These decisions will be taken on the basis of a judgment of what is most likely to be broadly acceptable to the parties,

1477
and to the people of Northern Ireland. We have decided to act in this way to make clear that the process cannot be held up further if in the end there is still lack of agreement.
"Madam Speaker, we are taking these decisions upon ourselves together with the Irish Government where appropriate, because we do not believe that the overwhelming desire of the people of Northern Ireland for lasting peace will brook further delay. We are ready to fulfil our responsibilities.
"There is one other aspect of the communiqué I should bring to the attention of the House—the suggestion that there could be referendums in Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. These could be held on the same day as the proposed election in Northern Ireland. The aim would be to give the people of Northern Ireland the opportunity to speak clearly about their own commitment to peaceful, democratic methods and rejection of violence.
"The Government will consider with the parties whether such a referendum would be valuable or not. There is clearly room for debate about what the question or questions should be in such a referendum. But we will listen to the views of the parties and make our own views clear at the end of the consultation period.
"Meanwhile, let there be no doubt about three points: first, that there is no place whatsoever for violence or the threat of violence in the peace process or in the negotiations. Those who advocate violence or do not dissociate themselves clearly from its use or threat by others cannot expect others to go on sitting at the negotiating table with them. Senator Mitchell's report sets out clear principles on democracy and non-violence, makes clear the priority to be attached to the decommissioning of illegal weapons and makes proposals on how this can be tackled. These issues, however difficult, cannot be dodged. They will be on the table at the beginning of negotiations. If it becomes clear that any party is not committed to these principles and this approach, either at the beginning of negotiations or subsequently, there will in our view be no place for them at the table.
"The second point is that there has never been any justification for terrorism and violence in Northern Ireland. These proposals and the firm commitment to all-party negotiations by a fixed date will remove any lingering shred of obfuscation and pretence about this. Thirdly, the battle against terrorism is being intensified. Co-operation between us and the Irish Government has never been better. We will hunt down those responsible for bombings and killings and maintain security at whatever level it needs to be to protect the citizens of this country as they go about their daily business.
"Madam Speaker, the people of this country and the Irish Republic have made clearer than ever before their demand for an end to violence. That demand must now be met and the people have the right to expect the violence to stop for good.
1478
"The search for peace has been much complicated by the resumption of terrorism on 9th February. But the Government said they would not be deflected from their efforts and we have not been. I am grateful for the support we have received in our efforts from this House, across all the parties. We and the Irish Government are united in our determination to stamp out terrorism and bring lasting peace. With the support of this House I believe we will succeed. But I warn the House that the road ahead may yet be long and stony. The men of violence will not give up lightly. Among them are people who do not truly want peace as we understand it.
"As we go though the process leading to the negotiations and take the difficult decisions, concerns will be raised from this or that side, this or that interest. We will, of course, take account of all views, but we will not be deflected from our central objective. Because the men, women and children of Great Britain and Northern Ireland demand no less of us. It is their lives and their futures that must be our first concern.
"Madam Speaker, I commend to the House this approach to negotiations and ultimately to a lasting and comprehensive peace."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, on behalf of the Opposition, perhaps I may thank the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement that his right honourable friend has just made in another place. I should like to say at the outset that we welcome the Statement. We believe that the Government are right to pursue that potential road to peace and we therefore support it.
For the sake of clarification, as I understand it there are basically three elements in the route that is now proposed. First, June 10th is now a firm date for the commencement of all-party talks, negotiations, or whatever word one likes to use. Secondly, there is to be some form of electoral process in the period between now and 10th June. Given the pressure of time that that imposes, I imagine that that process will be sooner rather than later. However, I am not clear from the Statement—and I shall be most grateful if the noble Viscount could help us in this respect—of precisely what it is that the electoral process is designed to produce.
I believe that the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister says in the Statement that perhaps it could provide a forum for peace. Can the noble Viscount say whether it is intended that the elections are to be held in order to produce negotiating teams with a negotiating mandate to go into the negotiations on June 10th, or whether there is some other reason for them which is not set out in the Statement?
Thirdly, as I understand it, preliminary talks over the details are to start very early; indeed, I believe that someone has said as early as the beginning of next week. A possible fourth element is the idea of having a referendum. I assume that that would be a referendum

1479
both in Northern Ireland and in the Republic, although, again, that is not clear from the Statement. Of course, that may be because the right honourable gentleman is speaking for this country and not for the Irish Republic. If the noble Viscount can tell us that that is how it is envisaged, we would be grateful.
One's immediate comment is that clearly it is most important now to ascertain what the attitude of Sinn Fein will be to this route towards all-party talks. Sinn Fein has urged all-party talks for a very long time. It seems to me that Sinn Fein now has a very clear and obvious route whereby those concerned can get the all-party talks for which they have been pressing. We would obviously prefer—indeed, everyone would—that Sinn Fein were part of the whole process and taking part in the talks. However, I very much agree with what the noble Viscount said: Sinn Fein cannot run them and it cannot be in charge of the process. It is right that Sinn Fein should have to accept the Mitchell principles, if I may call them that, before its members fully participate in the all-party talks. On one point of detail in that respect, is it envisaged that Sinn Fein should accept those principles before the talks start, or will they be on the table when they all sit down in order to try to negotiate?
Those are not minor points but they are, perhaps, peripheral ones for today. I believe that the best we can do today is to welcome the progress that has been made and emphasise yet again how important it is that the two Governments march in step on the whole issue. We wish the process well, and hope that it will succeed.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, from these Benches perhaps I may, equally, welcome the Statement just repeated by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. I believe that the process was always going to be bumpy. Just as it is incumbent upon us not to be over-depressed or cast down by the had times, the terrible things that happen and the had moments in the whole process—and let us remember, for example, that the process of peace in the Middle East has been marked by periodic and terrible explosions—so I believe that we should not overreact or become over-euphoric at happier moments like this.
I believe that this is a happier moment, not so much because the package in the Statement represents some sort of magic solution to the multifarious problems of the advancing peace in Northern Ireland, but because it demonstrates that the two Governments are together again. After the very dangerous period of the past few months when the two Governments diverged, they have now made it their highest priority to find agreement.
I suspect that the noble Viscount will agree, but it seems to us on these Benches that, whenever the two Governments are together as they were so conspicuously at the time of the framework document and the joint declaration, the terrorists do not thrive and when the two Governments open up a space between them in that atmosphere, the terrorists come out again from under their stones. The fact that the two Governments are together is the indispensable rock upon which any sort of progress has to be built. Through the noble Viscount,
1480
I should like to extend our congratulations to the Prime Minister and to the Taoiseach on the imagination and energy that they have undoubtedly put into the package that we are looking at today.
Perhaps I may make one or two observations. There are all the characteristics in the package of a trade-off—that is, a trade-off between the Irish Government's emphasis on fixed dates for all-party talks and the British Government's emphasis on the helpfulness of the elective process. When he replies, can the noble Viscount say whether he is now convinced that the commitment of both Governments to both elements of the package is complete? It will be tested severely in the weeks ahead.
I turn now to the second observation that I should like to make. What a conspicuously impressive phenomenon it was last weekend to see those demonstrations in Belfast and Dublin of tens of thousands of people saying that they wanted their ceasefire back! The demonstrators were turning their backs on the terrorists in a way that we have very rarely seen so publicly. In that context, I should like to emphasise particularly the brave and outspoken words of the Taoiseach, John Bruton, on the subject of the IRA.
I have one or two further questions for the noble Viscount. First, can be clarify the conditions for Sinn Fein participation in the talks? I am sure that it is right to put the onus on Sinn Fein to say whether it wants to be part of the process. There have already been three scares today in central London. It is an ever-present question in all our minds. The Government said quite clearly that the first condition is that there should be a ceasefire again. I am sure that that is right. Beyond that, I am afraid that the Statement leaves me slightly confused. In order to take part in the elections and the talks that follow, does Sinn Fein have to commit itself to the Mitchell principles? At one point in the Statement it appears that during the talks Sinn Fein will have to be consistent in its approach to those principles rather than that being a precondition. I should be most grateful for some guidance on that question.
Secondly, among the issues to be settled—they are very large issues and I fear that, as so often, the devil will be in the details of the package—there is the question not so much of electoral systems (where I gather the intention is to have preferential voting) but of the basis of the constituency. As the Statement does not refer to that matter, perhaps the noble Viscount will be able to clarify that aspect.
Thirdly, there is the important question of what the nature and the role of this elected body is to be. If we cannot be clear as to what it is—and, indeed, the Statement is not clear on that—we should be clear as to what it is not. Are we clear that it is not a reversion to Stormont? In other words, that it is not to be a talking shop, but simply a transitional gearing towards a negotiating body. I must say that I am most unclear from the Statement as to the answer to that question.
I turn next to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, regarding the linkage of the election to the 10th June negotiating date; in other words, the

1481
gearing between those two. That may not yet be agreed, but I believe that it would be better for us to know whether that is the case.
Finally, I should like to say a few words about a referendum. If we are to have a referendum, please let us have a meaningful question. It would be totally meaningless to have the sort of question that has so far been discussed, for example, "Are you against violence?", or, "Are you in favour of motherhood and apple pie?" If we had such a referendum, it might be sensible to ask: "Should only parties committed to a peaceful future take part in talks?" That would be a meaningful referendum question. Let us only have a referendum if it asks a question which has some meaning in it and which will advance the process.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to both noble Lords for the measured, restrained and extremely constructive welcome they have given to my right honourable friend's Statement. One of the most comforting elements during these distressing past few weeks has been the statesmanlike support both parties opposite have given to the Government in what has been a difficult process.
I can confirm the analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, of the three elements. I shall not bother to repeat them here, except to say that he is right about that. As regards the referendum, which is the fourth element that the noble Lord mentioned, that is a kite which has so far been flown and we do not yet know whether it will be brought successfully to earth. However, it is clear that it could be helpful in the prosecution of the process to hold a referendum both in the north and the south. I certainly note what the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, said about the nature of the question. I shall make sure that that is brought to the attention of my right honourable friends in the consideration of what the question ought to be. It is a matter which will have to be discussed between the parties in the course of the intensive talks, which it is hoped will begin on 4th March next. It is hoped that they can be brought to an end by 13th March. That is another question that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, asked.
I was also delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Richard, say that Sinn Fein cannot run the talks. It is absolutely right that they should renounce violence, particularly in view of the undertakings that they gave at the beginning of the 17-month ceasefire. It is important that they should be able to convince us this time, if and when they declare another ceasefire, in the most believable manner.
In that context I should make it plain to the noble Lord, Lord Holme, that the condition for Sinn Fein, and any other party which has been associated with violence (and we should remember that Sinn Fein is not the only party that has been associated with violence), is that there should be a ceasefire. In answer to the two understandable questions which the noble Lord asked arising out of his observations I can do no better than quote the words at paragraph 12 of the agreed communiqué which was issued at the end of the talks which my right honourable friend held this afternoon
1482
with the Taoiseach. In relation to the discussions which will take place after the elections among the negotiating teams, both Prime Ministers agreed that:
"all participants would need to make clear at the beginning of the discussions their total and absolute commitment to the principles of democracy and non-violence set out in the report of the International Body. They would also need to address. at that stage, its proposals on decommissioning".
Therefore, I hope that it is clear that at the beginning of that process both those matters would be addressed.
Both noble Lords asked what was the purpose of the elected body. The electoral process is designed to choose the negotiating teams. As my right honourable friend's Statement indicated, there could also be a role for a forum consisting of all those elected, which, as my right honourable friend also said, many believe has a role to play as a forum for peace. Precisely what that role will be will have to be nailed down between 4th and 13th March. Clearly, before we can proceed it is important that all the parties we need to persuade to participate in the process should agree what that role should be. I should be grateful if noble Lords will allow me to rest my comments at that point.
I wholly sympathise with the warning of the noble Lord, Lord Holme, that we should not be over-optimistic, just as we had no need to be over-pessimistic during the past two or three weeks. Nevertheless, as my right honourable friend has emphasised, we should be aware that the road ahead will be difficult and stony. As both noble Lords said, the only way we can hope to make progress is by trying to ensure as best we can that both Governments move as one.
Finally, I shall of course pass on to my right honourable friend, and via him to the Taoiseach, the congratulations of the noble Lord, Lord Holme. The best reward that any of us can have is that this process should lead to a successful conclusion.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I agree with what my noble friend said. I agree with the Statement, and I believe that all parties in this House will be prepared to back the course that has been outlined by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, and especially the election proposals for the Province. I believe that eventually that will reveal the democratic strengths of all the parties concerned, but particularly the strength of the Provisional Sinn Fein.
I agree in particular with what the noble Lord, Lord Holme, said. The vast majority of the peoples of the island of Ireland are yearning again for a ceasefire. They have had 18 months of peace and are yearning for a return; witness the thousands of people who marched in north and south last weekend. If there was a referendum in both north and south—without worrying at this stage about the words, which would be centred upon peace—there would be a vast majority in support. What is more, it would be a clear declaration that the Provisional IRA would be isolated.
Has not the Provisional IRA army council taken the view that holding the republican movement together is more important than the continuation of talks? The

1483
extremists, the marxist ideologues, the bombers, will not change. The hasty activity of Ministers to meet and prepare further plans, with which I agree, may have given the Provisional IRA the impression that bombing pays. They must be absolutely denied any satisfaction on that point.
Did the Government ascertain whether Gerry Adams knew that war was to be declared, for that is what it really is? If so, why did he not warn Her Majesty's Government? If he did know, he should have warned them; if he did not know, what credibility has he left to negotiate a ceasefire? Are Her Majesty's Government still dependent on Adams to assist in effecting a ceasefire, or have they determined—as was indicated in the Statement—to go ahead with all-party talks to the exclusion of Adams?
Of course we are trying to be optimistic, but there are many irreconcilables to be considered during the course of the next few months. I notice that the Provisional Sinn Fein say that there should be no elections before talks; Her Majesty's Government say that elections must precede talks. We cannot iron out those differences at the moment, but they will be some of the imponderables.
In my opinion it is essential that the Government have a referendum as quickly as possible, in both north and south. The result is already clear to us, but it will be a clear indication to the Provos that they are isolated and the vast majority want peace.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I hope that the words of the noble Lord will reverberate far outside this Chamber. I am sure that when they do, his remarks about the desirability of a referendum will reverberate with them and we will be able to take note of his strong recommendation.
I agree with what he implied about the electoral process revealing the true strength of Sinn Fein. I also would like to associate myself with his remarks about the extraordinary demonstrations that were seen in recent days in both parts of the island of Ireland; and, if I may say so, the touching and extraordinary courage of the parents of the young bomber in their declaration about the nature of their son's funeral.
The noble Lord rightly asked me whether it could be said that this latest development proves to the IRA that bombing pays. I think it is fair to say that we would have had a much better chance to have been where we are today a week or two ago if the bomb had not gone off. I would suggest to the noble Lord that far from hurrying the process of agreement between my right honourable friend and the Taoiseach, the explosions that we have seen in London over the past few days have delayed the process. If noble Lords take that same view with me, it is all the more important that we should proceed and realise that it is up to Sinn Fein whether it participates in a process that will take place anyway among parties who have renounced violence and who can agree on the way forward. Those parties are committed to the parliamentary traditions with which we conduct our politics in the United Kingdom and in the Republic of Ireland. I do not know whether Mr. Adams knew or did
1484
not know of the resumption of violence. I am not privy to the internal counsels of Sinn Fein IRA. However, if he did know, I can do no more than say that I am driven to the same conclusions as the noble Lord.
Lord McConnell: My Lords, as an Ulster Unionist, perhaps I may join in the welcome that has been given to the Statement this afternoon. I was particularly glad to hear the noble Viscount condemn violence and assert that the Government would not give way to it. To give any concessions as a result of bombs would be shortsighted and irresponsible in the extreme because it would merely invite more bombs to produce more concessions.
I was, indeed, glad to hear the noble Viscount say that he would not deal with Sinn Fein until it renounced violence; and, I hope, until the weapons are handed over. You cannot have democratic discussions or negotiations if one of the parties has armaments and bombs readily available if that party happens to feel dissatisfied with the progress of those negotiations.
I note that the noble Viscount said there would be no ministerial dialogue with Sinn Fein. I understand from a press report that a few days ago there was a meeting at Stormont between members of Sinn Fein and civil servants. As we all know, civil servants must report to their Ministers. Is this just a device for achieving communication, while at the same time saying that there is no ministerial contact? I should like to hear an assurance from the noble Viscount the Leader of the House that negotiations, or even discussions, should not be held with Sinn Fein in any roundabout method or with any subterfuge.
I join with what the noble Lord, Lord Mason, said about the demonstrations that we saw recently in Northern Ireland. I think that they are a clear indication of the feelings of people of all political persuasions who are completely disgusted with the bombing which has gone on over so many years.
When it comes to the election, it is said that various methods will be discussed. However, I believe that the good old British system is by far the best and that we should not start playing with systems such as lists, and so on, which are quite alien to British democracy.
As regards a referendum, certainly in Northern Ireland—what they do in the Irish Republic is their own affair—I agree that the question to be asked is important. We have all seen opinion polls where a loaded question produces the answer that the person running the poll wishes to obtain. Therefore it is important that any question should be fair. Subject to those reservations, I join with other noble Lords in welcoming the Statement.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the noble Lord speaks with great authority on these matters. I agree wholly with what he says about the shortsightedness of appearing to prove to terrorists that terrorism works. They are all too convinced of that delusion already.
On decommissioning, I can do no more than refer the noble Lord once again to the two sentences that I quoted a little earlier from paragraph 12 of the communiqué which seemed to me to be about as clear as we can be on the subject.

1485
I am pleased that the noble Lord referred to the contact between officials and Sinn Fein. It was broadcast on Sunday evening last by some news channels, I think, as being talks. It is well worth making it clear that the contact which occurred was at the request of Sinn Fein and that officials merely listened to what was characterised as an urgent message. I understand that their response was no more than a restatement of present government policy.
I believe your Lordships would feel that it would be sensible at least to have a listening post so that if a communication has to be delivered there is a mechanism for doing so. But I believe that my right honourable friend has been perfectly clear that negotiations are matters for Ministers and that until Sinn Fein renounces violence in the terms that I have described to your Lordships this afternoon negotiations will not be open to Sinn Fein if it wishes to deal with Her Majesty's Government. I am delighted to be able to say that the Republic of Ireland Government maintains precisely the same position.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in adding my name to those who welcome the Statement, it would be proper to add a note of admiration for the way in which we have been brought to the situation. It will not have escaped your Lordships' notice that the return of terrorist activity, the pressure of important international events, and quite serious political difficulties have not for a moment detracted the attention of the Prime Minister and his Secretary of State from this issue as a first item of importance on the national agenda. In those circumstances, to deny any of the participants in the negotiations preceding the Statement any advantage whatever from the local domestic political difficulties is a mark of great political statesmanship and integrity which should not pass unremarked.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. I know the pressures there have been on my right honourable friend the Prime Minister from a number of quarters in the past few days. I can testify to your Lordships' House that never for a second has he thought of trying to obtain party advantage out of the talks. I only hope that in his position I should have had the same courage.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, I welcome the talks and the fact that the two elected governments are working together. It has not always been thus, and that is the main reason that after the events of last week there has been the announcement today.
With regard to the IRA, in my view, we should not underestimate the possibility that throughout Belfast anyway the story will be that the bombs in London have brought about the Statement today. It is easy to do that. I refer to the electoral system and testing. One test has already taken place under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lowry. As Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, and after permission from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, he chaired the convention of 1975 when there was an election and a forum. Noble Lords should look at copies of Hansard and read the debates. If anyone expects a negotiating
1486
position to come out of this, it will not happen. Negotiating is a difficult job. As regards the forum, I believe we should not forget that there are elected representatives in the north and south who were elected to Parliament or the Doyle. They must not be forgotten in the story.
I wish to raise one point on the electoral system that may or may not emerge. We must have wide representation on the negotiating body; noble Lords should not forget the Protestant paramilitaries who have political parties. Under most systems they would not be elected because they are powerful in only one or two parts of Belfast. However, if they are not at the negotiating table it will lead to problems. I know that they meet with government representatives. It ought to be made clear to one of the groups that if they go down to the south and bomb Dublin, the same position will apply to them as applies to Sinn Fein: they will not be at the negotiating table. I wish the Government well; they have a difficult task ahead.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for what he said. As regards the so-called Loyalist paramilitary parties, I should emphasise that so far they have played what anyone would call an important and constructive role. We sincerely hope that it will continue. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. It is not just Sinn Fein who have to denounce violence in the terms that I have attempted to describe to your Lordships this afternoon; it is all parties. Some parties will find that more difficult than others. We shall see. Nevertheless, the noble Lord's point is well made and taken.
We will want to put forward proposals in intensive multilateral discussions about how to deal with parties who do not achieve an adequate electoral mandate. I am sorry that at this stage I cannot be more specific to the noble Lord, but I am sure that he will understand.
I wholly agree about the story which is no doubt already running in certain parts of Northern Ireland and the Republic, as well as perhaps certain parts of Great Britain, about whether "It was the bombing wot did it". I have attempted to give my answer to that canard. We have clear internal evidence, when the story of the negotiations comes to be written, of what I regard as being the incontrovertible truth of what I have told your Lordships this afternoon. Whether we can be clever enough, direct enough and forthright enough to "unconvince" people who are inclined to believe that canard will be up to the people of Northern Ireland and the south. However, like everyone else in your Lordships' House, I am encouraged by the size of the demonstrations which may enable us to ensure that the truth is given a proper hearing.
As regards the electoral system, in the main two systems have been proposed so far. In fact, there have been many more, but two seem to be the front runners. Our mind is not closed and it is important that between 4th March and 13th March we ascertain whether we can reach an agreement which is acceptable to the parties. My right honourable friend has made it clear that in the absence of that agreement, Her Majesty's Government

1487
will put forward proposals which they will deem to be the best and most acceptable under the circumstances. That should not lead to holding up the process.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I wish to express the view that the Prime Minister's handling of the matter greatly increases the admiration which many of us feel for him. We would like respectfully to send our congratulations to him that, despite many other manifold problems, he has handled the matter in a courageous and masterly way. I am sure that all elements in this country are profoundly grateful to him for it.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend and, with his permission, will, with the greatest pleasure, pass his sentiments on. I also associate myself with them.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that: given the fact that Sinn Fein and the IRA are one and the same organisation, that membership of that organisation is both tiny and wholly unrepresentative of the people of either Ireland or Ulster, that it has four components: first, a few genuine Irish Republican Nationalists; secondly, a few committed Marxists whose long time desire has been for a united Ireland (Gerry Adams having been a long-term member of that persuasion); thirdly, a small number of dangerous psychopaths who enjoy the process of killing and maiming; and, fourthly and overwhelmingly, a group of criminal extortionists who for years have been making a very satisfactory living out of this form of crime, there is a certain conceptual contradiction in trying to arrive at a political agreement with Sinn Fein/IRA? Indeed, is it not rather like trying to arrive at a political settlement with the Mafia in the United States?
Does my noble friend agree that for the vast majority of the active members of the Sinn Fein/IRA a political settlement in Northern Ireland would represent a terminal threat to their chosen way of life, and that is precisely why the Governments of the United Kingdom, Ireland and the United States must continue to strive for such a settlement?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. As negotiations begin, we shall see whether Sinn Fein is able to change its spots.

National Health Service
5.17 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Baroness Masham of Ilion: My Lords, we now go back to the National Health Service. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Winston, for initiating the debate. Having been a member of a health authority for many years I have seen numerous changes. One is how the current competition among hospital trusts has not always been as happy as it might be. I have heard the saying: "Trusts no longer trust each other".
1488
I have nothing against competition which will raise standards for everyone, most of all the patients. But now trust hospitals are pinching each other's staff and working under the stress of always having to save money. So the pressure throughout a hospital penetrates down to patients. Efficiency is not always about direct money. It should also be about the standard of care at patient level where time can be wasted with inefficiency.
A friend of mine with whom I had lunch last week told me that he had just been to a London teaching hospital for a stomach investigation under anaesthetic. Just before he was given the injection the doctor checked his notes and asked whether he had stopped taking the tablets which he had been on so that the investigation was viable. He had not; no one had told the patient. The doctor used two words which I could certainly not repeat in your Lordships' House and the operation had to he postponed for a month, wasting everyone's time.
So often, the staff making the arrangements with the patients are very junior or, as happens nowadays, are agency staff brought in to fill the gaps. They may not know the procedure for different investigations. Surely there should be a checking system so that the patient knows exactly what to do.
Living as I do in the rural part of north Yorkshire, I know how important it is for everyone to have a first-class GP service. Hospitals can be a long distance away. We are lucky to have many good GPs in north Yorkshire.
My GP and his wife trained at St. Bartholomew's Hospital and have been greatly affected by the saga of Bart's. His loyalty to his teaching hospital has been steadfast, but his commitment to being a GP in England is wavering. After a visit to Australia, he keeps talking about it. Speaking as an FHSA member, we in north Yorkshire are concerned about the lack of general practitioners coming forward for selection when a practice vacancy occurs. A few years ago there might have been as many as 200 applicants. Now we are lucky to have five—and most of those will not have reached the standard required.
There needs to be careful consideration as to why there is a shortage of general practitioners. There are many reasons: too much paperwork; drugs and alcohol violence; demanding patients; out-of-hours working; isolation; too many sick patients in the community who a few years ago would have been treated in hospital; a feel for working in developing countries on the part of many young doctors, and many other reasons. But perhaps also it has something to do with our restless society, which brings with it a lack of long-term commitment. That is reflected not only in the medical profession but in many other professions.
I am president of the Spinal Injuries Association. Since our formation 22 years ago we have always pressed for all patients with damage to their spinal cord resulting in paraplegia or tetraplegia (paralysis from the lesion down) to he treated, whenever possible, in a specialised spinal unit. If you do not feel your paralysed

1489
parts there is a serious possibility of developing pressure sores, especially while a patient is in spinal shock during the first 24 hours after injury.
I raise this matter today as it is of great concern to the medical staff of spinal units, and of even greater concern to the patient and his family, if a patient develops a pressure sore before he comes to a spinal unit. It is one of the biggest problems, holding up rehabilitation and unnecessarily costing the NHS an immense amount of money. In spinal units there are procedures for turning patients regularly to relieve pressure, with special equipment and nursing expertise.
Patients who are treated in general trust hospitals are still developing pressure sores. In the south of England there are some excellent, up-to-date spinal units; and the one in Scotland which I visited recently must be one of the best in the world. I ask the Minister: what is happening in the north of England? There is concern about the Hexham and Wakefield units.
It is so important for spinal patients to have the correct treatment. Would it not be of great benefit to everyone if there were a central reference point in finding beds? Is there not also a request for this from neurosurgical departments? It seems that the Department of Health could do much more to help these critically ill patients and the doctors who need to find specialised beds for them. Surely it is possible to have a national database linked with A&E departments. If department stores can do that when one goes to buy a dress, surely the National Health Service must be able to do it too?
In recent weeks throughout the country there has been great concern over the lack of intensive care beds both for adults and for children who need critical care. These patients do not come in regimented order. Serious illness and traumatic injury is spasmodic. Would it not be possible to have multi-disciplinary training in critical care for all ages, and nurses who could be used more flexibly and moved to other departments should the critical care beds not be occupied? These beds are very expensive to fund, but they are an insurance policy for everyone who may need them. It is frustrating and tragic for everyone when lives are lost that could have been saved had such a bed been available.
I have heard that social workers have been withdrawn from hospitals in Buckinghamshire by social services, so that links between hospital and the community have been cut. That has caused great concern to hospital trusts such as Stoke Mandeville, which now has to fund its own discharge co-ordinators. Making community care work, especially with elderly patients, is very important. It is a difficult problem. It will mean that hospital beds will be blocked if patients cannot be got back to the community. There seems to be a problem, and I hope the Minister will look into the matter.
There are many needs in this vast health service. Many people work hard to raise money to help provide equipment and keep it up to date. When a scanner to diagnose a critical patient does not have a 24-hour on-call person to work it, there is dismay and disbelief. I hope there will be ways to provide what is needed to
1490
save as many lives as possible and to rehabilitate those who need it, so that they can have the quality of life that they are able to attain.
If you ask doctors and dentists in the health service these days how they feel, many will say that bureaucracy is swamping them. They have so much pressure on them to use cheap products that at the end of the day job satisfaction is not as good as it should be.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I rise to speak not as anyone who has managed a trust, has been a doctor, or is active in the National Health Service. I take the opportunity to ask this question. If so many extra resources have gone into the health service—as the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Kempston, emphasised and as we all acknowledge—why is there such a high degree of dissatisfaction with the service?
The noble Lord, Lord Clark, said that we were denigrating the National Health Service. I do not think that is the case. Every morning I buy six newspapers: the Sun, the Daily Mail, The Times, the Independent, the Guardian and the Financial Times. I read the Sun first, and then the Daily Mail. I tell the noble Lord: read the tabloids every day. There is always a national health story in which people are complaining. This is not made up. As the noble Lord, Lord Walton, said, perhaps these are events on the margin, whereas the broad flow of service is satisfactory. However, I do not think it can be said that the Motion tabled by my noble friend was somehow concocted from his imagination, or that it merely represents Labour Party denigration of the Government.
The National Health Service is in trust to all the parties. We agree with that. All the parties have helped to make it what it is. It is a valuable asset to us. We are discussing this matter now because in our various ways we care about it. It is in that spirit that I wish to address the subject today.
I believe that there is a problem with the internal market. In my view, the problem is that the internal market does not work like any other market. In the recent past I have had occasion to speak on the Broadcasting Bill, the issue of student loans and several other issues. I have pointed out again and again that this Government say they believe in a free market but do not understand how a free market works. Unfortunately, what turns up is a series of bureaucratic pricing rules and contractual arrangements which make work rather than reduce it.
My noble friend Baroness Hayman was entirely correct. Managers should be there to manage. Of course they have very important things to do. However, they cannot manage but have become bureaucrats. They have become bureaucrats, for the very simple reason that since the introduction of internal market reforms we do not have a market which prices services or commodities, but a series of centrally set prices and contractual arrangements.
What is the temptation of central government? Ultimately, in their search to emulate the market they make more and more pigeonholes, as my noble friend

1491
has described: fund-holding GPs, non fund-holding GPs, what the patient's history is, which hospital he or she has been to, the length of stay, and so on. Each carries a different price. Those prices are bureaucratic and do not allow for any adjustment.
The welfare state is run in the same way. We create lots and lots of categories just to make a difference of 50 pence to how much we pay somebody each week. If one has so many categories and prices to worry about they are not prices at all. They are what may be called "soviet" prices. Such prices lead to bureaucratic work. A hamburger will cost a different price in a town versus a city, in different parts of a city and in different kinds of hotels and restaurants. Why is that? It happens because the market offers a variety of different prices and lets matters adjust. What we are doing is setting the same price across the country for each separate category rather than allowing local managers to manage. I am not saying that it is easy, because health is not a simple commodity. Health is a bundle of commodities. One does not have to take my word for it. Professor Alan Maynard, who is a more fervent believer in the free market than I shall ever be, is critical of the internal market precisely because it is not a free market.
I was briefly responsible for the health portfolio and spoke from the Front Bench. During my brief tenure the Tomlinson Report came out. That report identified a very simple problem. If you impose on inner city hospitals the same costing rules that you impose on other hospitals, especially if you include the price of land as one of the costs to be met, they will end up as high cost hospitals. If one has the same price across the country for a hip operation they will price themselves out of the market. One does not require a sophisticated diagram to show it. Therefore, one has a single price and bureaucratic rules which say that costs have to be met, with the result that inner city hospitals are shut down. With the finest of intentions, it was said that there were too many inner city hospitals, that technology was changing, that people liked treatment at home and that there should be more primary health care in London. That is fine. But if one does not put primary health care in place long before one shuts down hospitals, if one does not educate people who are used to going to hospital for their problems that alternatives are available, and the transition will be as costly as I have said that it will be—to shut down hospitals does not save money but costs money—one will have a little bit of pinching here and there.
We have not properly thought through the internal market. How to price differentially a hip operation, or anything else, across regions, hospitals and age and gender is not an easy thing to do, but I believe that a lot more flexibility can be allowed. What we have is a system of soviet pricing and decentralisation and, even at a time of a growing budget, budget restrictions. Therefore, a lot of time has to be spent filling out forms.
My experience as an inner city academic is that as money gets tighter there are more forms to fill out. As money gets tighter we have not learned any way of allocating money except bureaucratically by filling out forms. The Government will not allow us to charge any
1492
particular student fee that we want to charge because that will be too much of a free market. They cannot stand it. It may also antagonise the middle classes. Therefore, we have no free market in student fees and restrictions on the number of students we can take, but we are supposed to behave like an internal market. It does not make any sense. All it does is to make us do things that we are no good at: filling out forms.
I have nothing against managers, but a tremendous amount is spent on them. If they have not been able to solve this problem it is because they have not been given the freedom to do so. They operate under constraints which are unreasonable. Until those reforms are properly implemented we will go on having problems, regardless of which party is in power.
5.36 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Winston, for initiating this debate. I must declare an interest. First, I had the privilege of playing a small part as a special trustee in the noble Lord, Lord Winston's hospital, the Hammersmith. Secondly, until the end of 1994 I was director of a PLC medical services group which included the provision of agency nurses.
Of one thing we ought to be clear. Some of the more uncritical supporters of the purchaser/provider regime may give the impression that we moved straight from stagnation in health care management to the broad sunlit uplands of the Griffiths reforms. It was not like that. Many of the developments that we now see were already under way. It was just that the new climate enabled them to happen more quickly. That having been said, on the whole we have an exciting and motivated National Health Service which is not without its attendant problems, several of which have been articulated by noble Lords this afternoon. At the root of it all, the health service is becoming more patient-responsive. Waiting lists are down and the Patient's Charter has some meaning to it. I suggest that that derives from better management and use of resources; in particular better management in the difficult areas of cross-discipline problems such as mental health and chronic diseases. Lest it should be thought that I am seeing all of this through rose-coloured spectacles, I should add that there is a danger of over-efficiency. A drastic cutdown of beds probably results in a lack of surgical beds when there is a crisis in acute wards, but they are developments that are capable of adjustment in the light of experience.
The success of the new service owes a great deal to that much maligned body of men and women, hospital administrators, for whom, contrary to much that appears in the media, I have found widespread appreciation on the part of the medical profession. I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. There may be bureaucracy in the health service, but in the vast majority of cases managements across the country are very effective. There is also a perception that there is better local planning and welcome delegation of responsibility from central government to the health service and, within the health service, to a level close to local communities. At this

1493
stage there is perhaps more promise than delivery, but the groundwork is in place. Per capita funding is to be welcomed where the resources follow the population, though I know some inner-city trusts feel disadvantaged under the department's current formula vis-à-vis those in suburban and rural areas. Should not weighting for deprivation be applied to all health authority funding without exclusion of some elements as at present? I hope that my noble friend the Minister will look at that afresh.
One hears of a release of enthusiasm for innovations. GP funding is a high profile and successful example. But initiatives can be found in many areas of the hospital and community services and indeed in collaboration with the voluntary sector. But let us not be blind to problems which radical developments of this nature bring in their train. The trusts and authorities must be sensitive to a fault that extra responsibility is not forced on those who do not want it, whether for reasons of age or innate conservatism, or quite simply because they just want to get on with the job of treating and caring for the sick for which they joined the service. Those people must be left to get on with their chosen line. But at the same time, it is good to know that in the current climate it is the young Turks, too, who are being given their head.
Lastly, let me say a word about nurses. Mistakes have been made in the past. Nursing training schools were closed down to a far greater extent than they should have been. It can never be said that nurses are adequately paid, despite the very telling statistics produced by my noble friend Lord Clark. The nurses' case always seems to me to be less well articulated than—dare I say?—that of the junior doctors. But nursing directors speak of the motivation that nurses now have. They arrive with, if not a degree, at least a university standard of qualification. They are ambitious to get on. Trusts now provide a wide range of in-house training and there are management opportunities for those so inclined. A good example is the present chief executive of one of the three largest Manchester trusts, who is herself a qualified nurse. The significance will not be lost on the profession.
At a lower level, nurses are increasingly involved in consultations affecting every aspect of their work. The development of the role of nurse-practitioners, to do work previously done by doctors only, is an enormous step forward, not—one nursing director pointed out to me forcefully—because it enables junior doctors' hours to be reduced, desirable though that is, but quite simply because the patient gets better service, often by the elimination of lengthy delays. The increased practice of named nurses to accompany patients through different departments of the hospital is another small example of improving care for the patient.
The reforms of the National Health Service are far from complete and inevitably there will be frustrations and mistakes. But I suggest that the omens are good
1494
for the twin goals of better care for patients and occupational fulfilment for all those committed to their well-being.
5.43 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity for debate given by my noble friend Lord Winston and also his very interesting and purposeful comments when introducing it. I should declare an interest. I am a non-executive director of an NHS trust in south London which deals with mental illness. Some years ago I was on the Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster Area Health Authority.
I note from the debate that there seem to be two health services in this country. There is the one described by some Conservative Members opposite as a system which is working perfectly, with which nothing can go wrong and in which all is ideal. Then there is the National Health Service which we on this side of the House describe. That is based, I suggest, on fairly broad experience and it tells us that there is quite a lot amiss with the National Health Service. We have to note that over the years since the Conservative Government were elected there have been repeated statements made by Ministers about their wish to have an increasingly large private sector of healthcare in this country. There have also been other comments which may have made some of us wonder whether there is a total commitment to the National Health Service. I totally exempt from those remarks the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. I know her very strong commitment to the health service. But over the years, there have occasionally been other signals.
I believe that in this country we are getting our health service on the cheap. As a country, we spend far too little of our gross domestic product on healthcare. Compared with every other advanced industrial country, the percentage of our GDP spent on the health service is less. The latest figures that I have are for 1994. In the UK we spend 7.1 per cent.—that is for all healthcare, private and public; in France the figure is 9.8 per cent.; in Germany it is 8.6 per cent.; in Canada it is over 10 per cent. and the United States spends over 14 per cent.
I believe that part of the reason is that over the years the National Health Service has been extremely cost-effective in delivering healthcare. All the evidence suggests that a state-financed health service, financed from the centre, is a better and more effective way of providing healthcare than the whole range of private and insurance-based schemes that we see in other countries. But there is a price to be paid for that. Because it means that the Government have to make one decision every year about how much money goes into the National Health Service, it is all too easy for a government to provide less than they should. Therefore we spend the low percentage of GDP to which I referred.
I turn to the subject of managers. I believe that one of the regrettable consequences of the purchaser/provider split and moving on to a market-based system has been a proliferation of managers of various levels in the health service. On the

1495
other hand—I speak from my experience of the health service to which I referred—there is a need for good and effective management in the health service. I should be very disappointed if the arguments about the first point—namely, the need for additional management simply to have an internal market—were to distract attention from the need to have good, effective and adequate management, so that in turn we can provide better and more efficient healthcare for patients. My fear is that in these arguments the second point will not come out so clearly.
The Pathfinder Trust, of which I am a non-executive director, in my experience has an extremely dedicated staff who often are working against difficult odds. There are some excellent non-executive directors and indeed executive directors to manage the trust. It is a pleasure to be there with them. The trust also provides a number of national or wider-than-regional services, such as a specialised service for the deaf mentally ill. That is all very positive. But I believe that the context in which we and other bodies in the health service are working is often a difficult context, which is made more difficult by some of the activities of the Government.
I turn briefly to care in the community, to which we paid some attention in this House only a few days ago. Traditionally, the expression "care in the community" seems to have been applied to resettling long-term hospital residents into supported places in the community. But the definition has now become wider. We are speaking about an approach to mental healthcare which has as its aim the avoidance of care in institutions whenever possible. That is not an easy or inexpensive option. In fact, it might be a more expensive option because providing intensive support in the community may indeed cost the provider of the service rather more than long-term stays in hospital. So it seems to me that we must not regard community care as an inexpensive option but as one which is right and proper when handled well and in the interests of patients.
There is one other aspect of our mental illness services to which I shall refer. I have noticed at Pathfinder that there is a disturbingly large proportion of black people in Springfield Hospital. It is even more disturbing that, when one asks how they have been referred to the hospital, they seem to be referred by different means from those for other patients in the hospital. In other words, fewer of the black people in the hospital are referred by GPs and therefore picked up early in the process when they become ill; but, alarmingly, a larger proportion of black people are referred by the police when their illness has become very severe. There must be something wrong in that regard. I do not know what the answer is, but it is right to draw attention to the problem. It is widely understood by those who have studied it; nevertheless, it is a matter of some importance and concern.
We recently had to move to determining pay at a local level. I am bound to say that I find that process difficult. One trust alone negotiating pay—we have not yet started this year's negotiations; we are about to—is in a difficult position. We have to look to see what others are doing and wait. That is not a sensible way of moving
1496
forward but the resources and options are limited. I question the idea of local pay rather than utilising the old system, which seemed to me to work well.
Perhaps I can refer to one aspect of preventive health care, or the lack of adequate preventive health care related to teenagers who smoke. It is disturbing that smoking by 11 to 15 year-olds increased by 12 per cent. in the last year for which we have figures. That means that 280,000 regular smokers are aged between 11 and 15 years. If one adds the occasional smokers, it means that over 20 per cent. of that age group, none of whom should be allowed to buy cigarettes and tobacco, are smokers. It is also disturbing that girls feature more prominently in those figures than boys. The consequences to the National Health Service will be that at some future time it will have to deal with the increased severe illness that arises from people who begin smoking at an early age.
The Health Education Authority has had less money available to deal with the problem of teenage smoking. In 1991–92 it had a budget for that purpose of £1.7 million and in 1995–96 it was reduced to just £850,000. It is an extremely serious problem with long-term implications for the health service. It is being made worse by the fact that, though television advertising of cigarettes is not permitted, there is so much sport sponsorship, all of which feature the tobacco companies, that many teenagers in surveys still think that cigarettes can be advertised on television. That is undesirable and I urge that more effort is made in promoting health education for young people in order to reduce the number of teenagers who smoke.
5.53 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winston, for initiating a debate which allows so many important issues to he addressed. I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Royal College of Nursing. In that capacity I shall address some of the problems facing the nursing profession in Britain today.
I appreciate that the Government have introduced many reforms which have offered nurses many new opportunities and some of those were identified by my noble friend Lord Bridgeman. However, this afternoon I speak with a heavy heart. I fear that my contribution will sound negative, but that is because it is born in the concern experienced by so many members of a profession which is staffed by dedicated people who now feel undervalued by the Government and by a review body which recommended so much less remuneration for them than for other professions, including junior doctors.
I shall address four interrelated problems: shortages of nurses; morale; recruitment and pay. In each of those areas I shall refer back to answers given by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege in response to questions asked in your Lordships' House on 21st February. I hope that she will be able to give rather more reassuring responses today to a profession on which the National Health Service depends for 80 per cent. of the care it gives to patients.

1497
I turn first to nursing shortages. My noble friend referred to an excerpt from the review body's report, asserting that there is no general shortage of nurses, though the report admits that there are difficulties in some areas. It also points out that there are signs of more shortages to come. My noble friend also claimed that local pay negotiations are the best way of meeting such shortages. Can my noble friend say whether that principle is being applied to other professions such as doctors, teachers and social workers? If not, why are nurses singled out for that treatment?
Is my noble friend aware also that the principle of local pay negotiation is quite invidious? Trust executives are making the point that salary increases for nurses can only be made at the expense of resources available for patient care, and that has an inhibiting effect on a profession manifestly dedicated to promoting the highest possible standards of care. It therefore feels uncomfortable in competing for resources which would otherwise go to patients.
I also fear that my noble friend's confidence in local pay negotiations for reducing nurse shortages may prove unfounded. For example, there is only a small pool of nurses available for recruitment to the NHS. The unemployment rate for nurses is now only 2.5 per cent. compared with a figure of 8.6 per cent. unemployment rate for the general population. That small pool of available nurses also needs to he seen in the context of expanding demands for nurses. According to Department of Health statistics, the demands for nurses in the NHS, in the independent sector and in GP practices expanded by over 20,000 whole-time equivalents in the five years between 1989 and 1995. Since one-third of nurses work part-time, that probably means a net expansion of at least 27,000 nurses in the past five years.
That expansion occurred at the same time as a sharp cut-back in the number of students in training. In 1983, 37,000 nurses qualified. In 1986, the figure dropped to a mere 14,000. Though the Government announced recently a proposed increase to 17,000, that is still a far cry from earlier years. Taking retirements into account, the prospects are that the pool of nurses available to meet the expanding demands of the NHS will shrink; that shortages will increase, and that patient care will suffer.
Perhaps I may give a few examples of current shortages from the many which I could have chosen. Glasgow Royal Infirmary delayed opening its winter medical ward by two months because of problems in recruiting nurses. Leighton Park Hospital in Crewe, where there were 76 unfilled vacancies, issued a public appeal for nurses. I have just heard that the Maudsley Hospital, a Mecca for psychiatric care, has around 100 unfilled places for nurses. In November 1995 Whipps Cross Hospital had to close to emergencies for 15 hours because of a shortage of qualified staff. In January this year Great Ormond Street could use only 11 out of 19 paediatric IT units because of staff shortages. A survey by the Royal College of Nursing's journal, Nursing Standard, found that two-thirds of trusts are finding difficulty in recruiting qualified nurses; one in five nurses believes that staff levels are
1498
"dangerously" low and 70 per cent. said that they thought staffing levels were too low to provide adequate care to patients.
From my experience of nursing I know that one of the most potent sources of low morale is the inability to provide the quality of care for patients and their families which professional standards require. If one spends a shift run off one's feet without a proper meal break, it is not the hard work, the long hours, the physical exhaustion or the lack of a meal which gets one down; it is the care one could not give because the ward was too short-staffed; the patient one did not have time to talk to when he was lonely or depressed; the relatives one could not spend time with when they needed reassurance; the students whom one could not supervise and teach, or the personal care of a patient which had to be rushed, for example, because so many patients were coming and going to theatres and life-threatening responsibilities had to take priority over other kinds of care.
One shift like that is not only physically and mentally exhausting; more seriously, it creates frustration and a lack of job satisfaction over the shortcomings of the quality of care you could not give to your patients. But shifts like this, day after day, week after week, create demoralisation and may well lead to resignation from nursing.
It is perhaps not surprising that the Royal College of Nursing has analysed new evidence from the Department of Health, which confirms a worsening picture of rising demand and falling recruitment. Turnover and wastage in nursing have been increasing steadily over the past three years, with turnover rising from 11.1 per cent. in 1992 to 14.7 per cent. in 1995; and wastage rising from 7.5 per cent. to 9.3 per cent. over the same time. I believe that this evidence was excluded from the Government's own evidence to the review body. These are the hidden costs of shortages behind statistics and are closely related to morale.
As part of its evidence to the Nurses' Pay Review Body, the RCN commissioned the largest ever survey of UK nurses. It found dissatisfaction with pay, career prospects and job security had reached record levels. Among reasons given by nurses for leaving the NHS, almost one-third cited low job satisfaction or concerns about career prospects or pay; nearly 40 per cent. said that they would leave nursing if they could.
Another aspect of my noble friend the Minister's reply last week indicated satisfaction with the number of applicants wanting to come into nursing. But these figures must be seen in context. I am happy to say that there has always been a pool of idealistic, young and not so young, people prepared to enter nursing despite the relatively low pay, anti-social hours and life and death responsibilities, making personal demands which add incalculably to the stress of professional responsibilities. But these figures must be seen in the context of reductions in the number of student places and in newly qualified nurses to the extent to which I have already referred. Moreover, the fact that nearly 40 per cent. of qualified nurses are considering leaving the profession can hardly be encouraging for new recruits.

1499
Probably the most discouraging development of all is the last point I want to address—the level of pay relative to other professions and the derisory 2 per cent. recommendation by the review body. I ask my noble friend what encouragement she can give to nurses concerning this recommendation of a 2 per cent. pay increase, when a qualified nurse already earns 23.6 per cent. less than a police constable; 21.4 per cent. less than a teacher and 31.2 less than a social worker? And what explanation can my noble friend give for the disparities in recommendations for the 2 per cent. for nurses compared with between 4.3 per cent. and 5.8 per cent. initial increase for junior doctors, with a further 1 per cent. from December?
Will my noble friend understand that these discrepancies are extremely demoralising for a very hard-pressed profession? Does she appreciate that a relatively low salary structure already exists? A newly qualified staff nurse with major clinical responsibilities earns a mere £11,895. A small percentage on a small salary is a very small increase indeed and cannot be seen as fair or encouraging.
Finally, my noble friend Lord Clark claimed that the Government had treated nurses very generously. NHS nurses' pay has increased by 6.2 per cent. less than average earnings since 1989. In relation to other professions, nurses would need an 8 per cent. increase to achieve the same level of pay as a teacher. Can my noble friend explain how these developments can be interpreted as encouraging to a profession on whom the National Health Service depends for quality of patient care?
6.3 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for giving me the opportunity to air one of my own particular worries, but also for allowing us to hear the very expert speeches from so many Members of this House, not least that of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, who has just spoken. I found her speech extremely inspiring in its way because one begins to feel that there is little understanding of the whole problem of nursing. She encapsulated it for us.
My approach to health provision is that, within the National Health Service, there should be no discrimination between patients on the grounds of money, background or influence. That probably now sounds old-fashioned. There should be just one criterion governing the provision of treatment and that is medical need.
For many years it was a matter for national pride that our approach to the provision of medical care was that it should be free at the point of need and available to all without discrimination, within the hounds, of course, of available resources. The introduction of market ethics has changed all that and I wish to devote my few words to the effects of some of those changes rather than reciting the details of the changes with which we are all familiar.
I find that Government Ministers are cynical about cases quoted by Opposition speakers so I propose to quote at some length from a speech made last November
1500
by the BMA Chairman of Council, Dr. Sandy Macara. This is what he had to say about the internal market in the National Health Service:
"It was assumed that competition, with the philosophy of 'winners' and 'losers' replacing that of co-operation, would deliver the goods … It is little surprise that a majority of senior doctors now crave early retirement, and an unprecedented proportion of young doctors are abandoning medicine after many years of gruelling and expensive education. Where, they ask, stands equity, when the cash lottery dictates priority to patients with lesser need? Where stands integrity, when doctors are instructed, as in Deal earlier this year, to conceal from the town's fund-holding general practitioners' patients the reason why their treatment had to be deferred—because their doctors' money had run out? Where stands the theory of money following patients, when patients have no choice but to follow the money or to await the next contract? Where stands patient choice, when bulk contracts unrelated to relative need dictate place, time and person providing care? Where stands management, whose proper function is to care for those who do the caring, when the government's policy forces them to take the blame for inability to meet heightened demands incited by successive patients' charters?".
Surely the Government will not claim that Dr. Macara does not know his facts or that he has a party political viewpoint.
During a recent debate in another place on the subject of GP fundholding, my honourable friends and others, reported evidence of the inequalities of availability of hospital treatment between patients of GP fundholders and non-fundholders. In the long and sometimes rambling answers from the Secretary of State, I could not discover any concern for the patients of the 50 per cent. or so of doctors who are not fundholders. The concern was all for the success of this particular scheme; the patients obviously taking second or even third place.
I agree that all sections of the National Health Service should be expected to take account of the costs of running the service. But I strongly oppose the idea that medical practitioners should be expected to put financial efficiency ahead of the needs of their patients. So does the chairman of the BMA Council and I quote once more from his November speech. In relation to the use of resources, he said,
"Of course, everyone—manager, professionals and those whom they serve—has an absolute duty to make the best possible use of the available resources, which will always be finite".
He then went on to say,
"More adequate resources would, naturally, make decisions less painful but, as Kierkegaard observed 'in every choice there is a sacrifice'. But any sacrifice should be minimal and bearable, such as having to wait a little longer for treatment which is neither life-threatening or disabling. The blanket refusal to provide whole categories of treatment with total disregard for the claims of individual patients, as the Berkshire Health Authority sought to do, is not only illegal but totally irresponsible".
Those are strong words from someone in a very senior position. I hope that the Government will take them on board.
For me there is something deeply offensive about any system which discriminates against someone in medical need, in favour of someone in less medical need, but for whom money is forthcoming, whether that money is from the GP fundholder or any other source. Where medical services are rationed for whatever reason, there should be only one criterion for priority in treatment—medical need. That used to be the ethic by which the

1501
health service was run and the sooner we can return to it in the health service, the better it will be not only for the health of the nation, but for the confidence of people in the service and for the morale of both patients and health service workers.
6.10 p.m.
Baroness Brigstocke: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, I feel privileged to be taking part in this debate in which there have been so many informed and fascinating speeches. I speak as a non-executive director of the Health Education Authority but, more importantly, as a mother of someone who has been a nurse and, for many years, a sister in a busy accident and emergency department in a well-known inner-city hospital.
I turn first to the Health Education Authority, which is a key player in implementing the Government's health of the nation strategy. Its health promotion work is recognised nationally and internationally. I should like to make it clear that the HEA is not part of the Department of Health. It works not only for the department but for other agencies and organisations on a contract basis. To respond to a remark of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, I should like to say that the HEA is happy to work with the present funding arrangements.
By helping to educate the public, the potential patients, not only during their school days (regrettably, there has been an increase in the number of teenage girl smokers) but also later in life by encouraging a healthier lifestyle, such as encouraging the elderly to take more exercise, to get more fresh air and to have a better diet, the HEA plays some part in making us all fitter and thus less likely to overload our GPs, hospitals and health professionals with trivial complaints. How we get the middle-aged to be more thoughtful and less self-centred is, I fear, beyond the powers of the Health Education Authority.
My two points relate to abuse of the National Health Service and to its management style. There are difficulties in the NHS—no huge organisation is without them—but they do not arise only from, to quote from the Motion,
"current developments in the National Health Service".
Many are the result of gross abuse by the public, as voiced this very day by many strained and overworked GPs. The notion of care as expressed in the Health of the Nation should apply not only to patients, but to doctors and nurses also. The public—the potential patients—have a duty to behave responsibly. How can we prevent patients from abusing the service?
I speak now entirely on my own account and from a personal point of view. I respect and admire the high quality of so much in the National Health Service, but I do have some concerns. What I say is based on what I have learned from my daughter who, as I have already mentioned, has over 10 years' experience in an accident and emergency department. She has seen many examples of abuse of the National Health Service, especially on Thursday nights when the dole has been handed out and abuse comes from drunken louts using unimaginably disgusting language. Last
1502
week, for instance, two men came in, escorted by the police, having attacked each other in a pub with an axe.
I was delighted to hear my noble friend the Minister refer in answer to a Question earlier this week to the accident and emergency department at the Royal London Hospital, which could deal with three times the number of emergencies that it sees. Unhappily, that is not the position in my daughter's hospital. I shall not enumerate the problems for nursing staff and patients which she has encountered when there are simply not enough beds or nurses available. Both she and I realise the financial constraints, but it is demoralising to a responsible professional when nurses in the department are not asked for their advice or to give an answer to even the simplest of problems, such as what colour to paint the accident and emergency department. In come the engineers and they decide the colour. It will certainly be the cheapest paint. They do not ask the staff who have to work in the painted area, yet colour can have an enormous effect on patients and staff, their well-being and behaviour. Soothing colour is very important in casualty.
Now that the overall necessary restructuring of the National Health Service has taken place, could the management style be looked at again? I know that there are many good examples, but I want all hospitals to reach the same high standards. It seems to me that the overall management style is still inappropriate. A command-and-control management style is more suited to the running of an old-fashioned car factory. It is the managers and the senior consultants who could improve that and thereby improve the morale not only of the nurses, but also of the junior doctors. They are all skilled professionals and should be consulted and have the opportunity to contribute to decisions on all matters relating to their work. One cannot blame the Government or a shortage of money for everything. Let the managers and the senior medical staff sort this out. They are the ones who can improve the morale of the nurses.
Managers and senior medical staff are responsible for considering major incident procedures. That has been particularly important in the past few days in the light of the recent bombings with the threats of even more. Here is a perfect opportunity for managers and senior and junior medical staff to work together. It is always easier to talk about the problems than the solutions.
I urge my noble friend the Minister, for whom I too have the highest regard and admiration—I cannot express it as fluently as the noble Lord, Lord Walton—to continue supporting all the education programmes which seek to make people fitter, as outlined originally in the Health of the Nation report. Will she also look at ways to help all managers and senior staff to consult and to use the superb professional expertise of all their staff, especially the nurses who are so often those who really know what is needed on the wards to give even better care to their patients?
6.19 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Winston on initiating

1503
this valuable and important debate, and on the way in which he spoke. He got the debate off to a fine start with a first-class speech, and we are all grateful to him.
As to his reference to the market, I wish to comment on its effect on profoundly deaf people. Their story is a staggering one, and I use that word advisedly. I am concerned about profoundly deaf people—adults and children—who are being deprived of something which can magically transform their lives. I refer to a cochlear implant; an electrical stimulation of the ear which introduces or restores the perception of sound. It is totally unacceptable that any adult or child should be deprived of this wonderful device.
On a personal note, after 25 years of total silence, when I could not even hear my own voice, I have benefited from a cochlear implant, and it has transformed my life. I can now participate in conversations whereas I could not do that before; I can hear all kinds of ordinary sounds. It has transformed the lives of some 15,000 people throughout the world, and will transform the lives of many more millions in future.
Let me remind the House of the words of the Minister, whom we all respect and expect to give a positive answer to the many speeches we have heard tonight. On 9th December 1993 she said,
"I would be very surprised if there are people being denied this treatment".
The Minister also said,
"Health authorities are required to meet the costs of cochlear implants in all cases where that is the appropriate treatment".— [Official Report, 9/12/93; col. 1015.]
I greatly appreciated what she said, but there is abundant evidence that many district health authorities have been evading their responsibilities. At first their very limp excuse was that the cochlear implant was unsafe and unproven. That was said after it had been in use for years and years and before the official report of the Medical Research Council's Institute of Hearing Research which said that cochlear implants were "safe and effective". Some district health authorities then changed their tune and their excuses. They then said, "Well, these are too expensive." Either way, whatever the excuse, the patient suffered.
How has it come about that profoundly deaf people are deprived of cochlear implants? It is because of the market system. Some health authorities are instructing the local ENT surgeon, or even the local medical officer of health—neither of whom are specialists in cochlear implants—to decide whether or not a deaf person should be considered for a cochlear implant. That is ridiculous, is it not? Health authorities acting in this way are doing so because of limited budgets and a need to have priorities. I recognise that, hut some DHAs fail to appreciate the profound significance of total deafness.
One of the most staggering examples of this ignorance was shown by the Dudley Health Authority and its director of public health. She questioned whether a woman who was totally deafened by meningitis should have a cochlear implant operation. She wrote in one letter to a surgeon,
1504
"this lady's GP tells me that she leads an active and virtually normal life with no detrimental effects from her deafness".
"No detrimental effects" from total deafness—how irresponsible can you get? How can deaf people hope to have the medical treatment promised by the Minister if that kind of attitude is shown by district health authorities? We need a much greater appreciation of the problems of total deafness and a greater willingness to make treating it a priority.
A disturbing aspect of the behaviour of some but not all district health authorities—there are some great district health authorities—is that they react in different ways to total deafness. They are not really making available their criteria for funding or not funding cochlear implants. As a result, it is a lottery for deaf people. That cannot be right given the ethics and the basis on which we believe the National Health Service is run.
I shall quote the case of the Lincoln Health Authority. In a letter dated 26th October 1995, that health authority told a deaf woman's Member of Parliament that it had not funded any cochlear implants at all that year. It was oblivious to the fact that cochlear implants had been available on the National Health Service since 1990. Instead the health authority had commissioned an internal report into the costs and benefits of cochlear implants. There was no need to do that because of the official report of the Medical Research Council which was already in hand and which was published a month or two after the local authority report.
When the notable surgeon, Mr. John Graham, asked the district health authority for that report, it refused to disclose it. He was entitled to know the criteria for allowing or not allowing cochlear implants, but the health authority simply refused to disclose the report. That, too, I find unacceptable.
Will the Minister appeal to that district health authority to state its criteria for agreeing or refusing cochlear implants, and place its response in the Library? I also urge that all district health authorities should report annually on the number of cochlear implants that they have authorised.
Some district health authorities are saying that they will only do one or two operations per year, and those will be for children. Of course I strongly support implants for children—they are the most important of all—but it would be unfortunate if ageism began to creep into the cochlear implant programme; adults are as entitled to them as anybody else.
The real problem is that there is a backlog from before this operation was invented and perfected, and that backlog will be neglected if the district health authorities insist on a children only policy. More funds must be found by the Government—they are the only source of funds—for operations for adults. The backlog must be tackled otherwise some deaf people will be left in limbo for ever.
We are discussing an operation which costs £39,000. That is what the operation costs with the concomitant rehabilitation. If it were a case of an operation costing £39,000 which could restore the sight of blind people, and they were denied that operation, there would be a

1505
great outcry and people would march on Whitehall—and rightly so—because that would not be considered acceptable. But the same thing does not happen when deaf people are deprived of an operation which can restore their hearing, or give hearing to people born congenitally deaf. This is a situation which cannot be tolerated in a civilised society, and I hope the Minister will do her best to resolve it by appealing to and pressing the district health authorities on this matter.
6.29 p.m.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, first, perhaps I, too, may thank the noble Lord, Lord Winston, for initiating the debate; and, secondly, take issue with one statement that he made when he said that his speech was going to be non-political. All I can say is that I am greatly looking forward to hearing a political speech from him so that I may have a chance to compare the two.
My first question is: could the health service have continued in the same shape and form in which it existed before the reforms? I am sure that different people answer that question differently. I do not believe that it was possible for the health service to continue as it was. There have been such advances in medicine, about which we all know. They are not new. We have also to remember that we are giving more and more people more and more expectations. I do not believe that any amount of money will, in the end, meet all expectations. There will never be a government who will not be accused of underfunding the health service. It is true of every country. It is happening all over the world.
This country still has one of the best, if not the best, health services. I know that it has been said that we spend less money on it than other countries. All I can say is that we must be receiving better value than other countries. I saw a programme on Monday about Wheeler's "America", which I am sure many other noble Lords saw. What we saw in that programme about the richest and most powerful country in the world should make us realise that we are not as badly off as we think we are. We have got into the habit of continually running down this country. I do not understand that. It is my adopted country, so perhaps I do not have the British psyche after all. On this occasion, I am pleased that I do not have it.
Whenever I go to the countries of our European partners or to the USA all I hear is, "What a great place this is. Look at what we are doing and what we are achieving. Look at the structures we have put into place. Look at what we have done". As soon as one comes here all one hears is that everything is dismal, everything is negative and everything is doom and gloom. That applies also to the health service.
We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, that staff morale is low. If one awoke every morning to read in the press that one's morale is extremely low, and everyone spent their entire time saying that one's morale is low, I doubt very much that one could raise one's morale. One would be completely confused about what is going on within one's area of work and about what one is being told is going on. Everyone has heard of the self-fulfilling prophecy. I believe that in this case it is a question of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
1506
I am a non-executive director of Hillingdon Hospital Trust. It became a trust in the first wave of trusts. It was one of those general hospitals which was grossly neglected and badly run. It was dirty and uninviting. When one went into the hospital one could find no one to give directions. As a non-executive director, I experienced that. I am pleased to say that I was never a patient in that hospital at that stage. I should not have liked to go there. The place was confused. One could not find one's way around and there was no structure to the place.
It has been transformed in the years since it has been a trust. The waiting list has decreased by almost 1,000. The workload has increased by about 20 per cent. Hillingdon is situated in an area with a high ethnic minority population. There was a beautiful policy document, but no one had ever bothered to open it. We now have a substantial action plan in place to meet the needs of ethnic minority patients and ethnic minority staff. That in itself is extremely important.
There are new developments in areas of sensitive service such as a women's unit for surgery and consultant clinics which have moved to become community clinics. They are not just for fundholders. They are specifically for non-fundholding GPs.
A great deal has been said about there being too many managers. I do not believe that we have too many managers. I do not believe that we have enough. The hospital's turnover amounts to £53 million a year. We have five managers. One of them is at the lowest grade. That is not too many managers for that size of turnover. Their salaries would not be acceptable anywhere except in the NHS. It has become a habit to knock managers. I am sad about that, because many of the managers work extremely well and hard.
I should mention also the continual harping about there being no beds. We have never for any reason shut our A&E department. We have always found a bed for every patient. There is a detailed protocol in place at the hospital, agreed by the RHA, as to what steps should be taken. I urge my noble friend the Minister to ensure that all hospitals plan carefully what to do in case they are under pressure, so that it is not said that they are being lazy, but are trying to find a suitable bed for everyone who needs one.
One swallow may not make a summer, but we have heard that there are many trust hospitals which have improved beyond all recognition as a result of the reforms. Let us at least be optimistic about the chink of light and not dwell constantly on doom and gloom.
6.37 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, perhaps I may start by saying that I have no interests to declare. I have never served on a health authority, on a hospital board, or, indeed, on any quango. I would describe myself as a user of the health service. As such, I should like to record my debt of gratitude to all the people who work in the health service—the staff, the doctors, the nurses, and, yes, the administrators. I too should like to thank my noble friend Lord Winston for giving me the opportunity to express my gratitude.

1507
My experience is in industry. From what I read and observe, I must agree with my noble friends Lord Winston and Lady Hayman that the health service seems to be suffering from low morale. All the signs are there. We have heard about high staff turnover, unfilled vacancies, dissatisfaction over pay, excessive paperwork, early retirement, and all kinds of grumbles. Other noble Lords have suggested that the cause of the low morale is not just underfunding but too much management. Even the Government have become alarmed at that. I understand that Mr. Stephen Dorrell has said that he hopes to cut management costs by some 7 per cent. during the current financial year.
However, a 7 per cent. cut in management costs is only a small part of the solution. It seems obvious to me that the solution is not just less management; it is more leadership. The difference between management and leadership is a matter in which I have taken an interest for a number of years. But the Minister does not have to take my word for it. She can get it from her own colleagues. Just down the road, at No. 1 Victoria Street, at the Department of Trade and Industry, one will find one of the Government's more imaginative schemes. It is called "The World Class Companies Scheme". This scheme is designed to assist our better companies to become world class.
My proposal is simply that the National Health Service takes their advice: the Labour Party has. The party is busily introducing facets of the scheme into its headquarters at John Smith House. What is more, the Labour Party has appointed a person to introduce this and other schemes into the local authorities controlled by Labour.
As other noble Lords have said, it is of course management's role to manage, but it is also management's role to lead. What is the difference? Management deals with important practical matters, such as organisation, budgeting, finance, technology and marketing. It also spends time at the centre monitoring activities at what my noble friend Lord Winston called the coalface. Incidentally, as it is made easier by centralised decision-making, perhaps this is the real reason why the regional health authorities are to be abolished in April and not, as the noble Lord, Lord Clark, suggested, for financial reasons.
Leadership is less practical. It deals with vision, progress, ethos, cohesion and, yes, morale—and despite the warning of my noble friend Lady Hayman, I would like to speak about morale. I would like to start with trust. I have had occasion to quote in your Lordships' House on earlier occasions from Professor Fukayama's recent book. His point is simple: that trust is an important element of leadership: trust that contracts will be honoured, trust that the truth will be told, trust that institutions are responsive and accountable and trust that people's words are their bonds. From what I have heard today, a little less management and a bit more trust could work wonders for morale in the NHS.
Down in Victoria Street they will tell you that leadership matters a lot in "people businesses". If ever there was a people business, it must be the National
1508
Health Service, which employs 1 million people. Other people businesses, such as advertising or research organisations, flourish under a light management touch and react to leadership because most people prefer to work that way. Directors know that low morale means low profits. This is the direction in which business in general is moving, encouraged by the DTI, I might add.
It seems to me that the NHS is moving in the opposite direction, having recruited 20,000 managers since 1981; and they are now trying to reduce that number. Mr. Marco Creste, chairman of the National Health Service Trust Federation, agrees.
"What needs to be done first is to reduce the administrative burdens put on trusts",
he says. Neither he nor I are suggesting that financial controls should be reduced, and of course trust executives must be accountable to their boards. What I am suggesting is that world-class companies have learnt that staff perform better if they are managed less and trusted more.
We have been told by noble Lords that the health service keeps down costs by being market driven. What do the Minister's colleagues down in Victoria Street say that world-class companies should do about this? They acknowledge that cost cutting and tight budgeting are necessary, but that it is not enough. If your Lordships will excuse the jargon, you also have to create value in the marketplace. To create this value in a people business you need your employees to become better trained, better skilled, more conscientious and better informed, and to be willing to educate and improve themselves. Nowadays people understand that to achieve this it is sometimes necessary to work longer hours and under more pressure. In an organisation such as the National Health Service, where people see their work less as a job and more as a vocation, I am sure it is easy to achieve this result.
The reward for all this effort should be more meaningful employment and a greater value put on employees. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, described this for nurses, and in this way people perceive fairness in the organisation and have an incentive to co-operate. This is what keeps morale high. Sadly, in the National Health Service the reward seems to be insecurity, with short-term contracts, frustration from unfilled vacancies and divisiveness from competition for resources. With this low morale, no army of managers will get employees to lift their performance. Money incentives alone will not do it.
Another lesson the Minister could learn from businesses striving to become world class is that management development is the key, not imposing management. By adding management to the skills of engineers, salesmen and accountants industry has made them more accountable. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, was trying to suggest this. If you do not involve medical staff in management how do you fully measure the success or failure of their work? Without this measurement management becomes administration; and this is why I think my noble friend Lord Winston told us that there is no serious audit.

1509
One final point: to a businessman it has always seemed to me rather naïve to think that money will follow the patient. Experience tells us that the patient will follow the money. The management philosophy in the NHS to me still seems to be stuck in the 1980s, when the market was considered to be little more than the law of the jungle. Better companies in the 1990s have found that they can become world class by taking wider considerations into account.
At the same time it will not have escaped people's attention that generally better companies pay better wages. This is the way they share out success. My noble friend Lord Winston spoke of unnecessary competition. World-class companies now co-operate with their suppliers and get better results than they did with the old adversarial relationships. Surely it is time for the National Health Service to learn this lesson instead of opposing it on the grounds of "collusion". The price of failing to deal with these issues is a low-grade NHS, which in my view is too high a price to contemplate.
6.46 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, the wording of the Motion is very specific and I will keep my remarks specific to that wording; namely, dealing with the level of the concern among Health Service staff. Before I do so, perhaps I should declare an interest. My interest is that the National Health Service impinges upon my life through the wonderful, unstinting and efficient service given to my husband by our local general practise which, despite many and deep-seated concerns about fund holding, now finds that it is workable and much more efficient in dealing with patients.
I would add another interest. I am a taxpayer and a contributor to national insurance. Both of these are probably not specifically the types of interest that one would expect to be declared, but actually unless a business—and the National Health Service is a huge business: a £41 billion per year business—takes the needs of its customers, like my husband, and shareholders, as I feel I am, into account that business will not thrive.
The National Health Service is an internationally respected and admired business. What we must do is to make that business even more efficient and more effective. I know from personal conversations with employees of the National Health Service that one level of concern among them is the rapid development of what are called business management approaches to the service. Those who work in the National Health Service have as their main objective the provision of the best possible health service to the population as a whole. But probably because of less-than-perfect communication processes they have not been convinced that some of the proposals currently being put forward are in the best interests of the patients and of those who work in the service.
My specific point relates to the non-espousal of the concept of local bargaining of pay and conditions of employment for nursing staff, midwives, health visitors and professions allied to medicine. The National Pay Review Body in 1995 recommended that an element of
1510
local pay negotiation should be contained in the annual settlement of pay and conditions. That was recommended for several reasons, not least because local pay determination is an inherent part of the Government's National Health Service reforms. That might be greeted with scepticism or even derision, but before it evokes that response, perhaps I may, as someone who has had a long career in business, put forward some facts—and I mean facts—about local pay determination.
Those of us in business know that local pay determination provides for flexibility in both organising the provision of labour to meet the needs of the local conditions and flexibility in employing staff to meet the staff's own needs. It is a partnership between serving the customer and serving the special circumstances of those who wish to be employed in the serving of that customer.
I give your Lordships an example. In the retail business some staff want the flexibility to be at home when the children arrive from school; and some staff who have retired early from their full-time career want to continue some sort of economic activity and feel that they wish to get out of the house on a regular basis and get involved once more in paid work—not necessarily on a 35-hour per week basis, but perhaps on a 20-hour per week basis. Neither of those groups of people is being exploited; those people are getting annual salaries with adjustments made for the work patterns that they have requested and that they have seen as best suiting their own specific needs and wants.
From the employer's point of view, the flexibility offered by that type of arrangement permits greater flexibility in scheduling staff cover for peaks and troughs of activity; flexibility to cover what many would think of as being "unsocial hours" but which the staff in question welcome because it has been their choice.
They are but two of the advantages. Logistics must also be considered. Is it realistic that pay and conditions for 430,000 nurses can be dealt with centrally? How can that be efficient? How can the differing needs and wants of both patients and nurses be assessed at long distance? I suggest that both groups would be much better served by local bargaining on pay and conditions if it were espoused because it would, in effect, result in what is currently known in management terms as empowerment. Empowerment implies trust and that really goes along the lines supported by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel.
We keep on talking about educating our workforce to take its place in the constant struggle to improve competitiveness. All young people must be aware of this now—there are so many statements made to that effect. In the course of such education we emphasise the need for decision making. We raise expectations that when young people enter paid work they will be able to contribute to the decision-making process. Greater autonomy is seen as the method by which a business can and will flourish. Smaller units which can make decisions on the spot to deal with particular local needs and wants of the customer are at the root of the most successful businesses in this country. Greater autonomy demands greater control over resources, and one of the most important of those resources is staff.

1511
The latest report of the National Pay Review Body makes somewhat sad reading on the issue. In effect, it describes how, despite signalling the change in 1994, little progress has been made. The Royal College of Nursing did little to counter the impression that the basic rate of the national agreement was all that the staff would get. Even my noble friend Lady Cox stated that nurses were offered only 2 per cent. That is the national salary scale. On top of that, it is expected that local pay increases will be granted. Sadly the whole concept of the two-part approach—a basic national rate plus an element of local pay—has been interpreted as a one-part approach; namely, the basic national rate.
Last year, a big communication exercise was not effective in countering the widespread belief that only a minimal pay rise was offered. As an outsider I have to say that it appeared that there was a deliberate campaign to obfuscate the issue; in other words, as I have already said, there existed a "less-than-perfect communication process".
There was actually a campaign by the Royal College of Nursing to seek offers from the trusts of a certain universal rate—the same rate whether one lives in Aberdare, Brighton or Cirencester—without any conditions as a requirement for accepting any local offer. The trusts' freedom for action was limited by the refusal of the staff side to sanction any local pay negotiation. However, some seven months after negotiations commenced, the Department of Health and the Royal College of Nursing reached an agreement on a national framework within which local pay arrangements could be implemented. Some progress has been made and I hope that more progress will follow.
The whole new system proposed contains strong safeguards for equitable treatment and for the appointment of local representatives of staff to carry out negotiations. It is not a recipe for bulldozing the staff to accept pay cuts or any such devious plan: it is the devolution of power to local level; it is at the local level that patients are treated; it is at the local level that staff are employed; and it is at the local level that intelligent, hard-working and committed staff should be empowered to have a much greater say in the application of the great strengths of the National Health Service to the improved level of local service—and, indeed, even empowered to choose the colour of the paint in the working environment, as required by my noble friend Lady Brigstocke. That is what local bargaining on pay and conditions achieves. That is what business has discovered.
The NHS business is one of the biggest businesses in the country. I suggest that the time has come for it also to discover the benefits. Like the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, my experience is in industry and business. I am sure that he would agree with me that, in the case of efficiency and effectiveness, the central bargaining on behalf of over 400,000 staff cannot he efficient..
I return now to the word "concern", in respect of which morale has been quoted. We have heard of the shortage of nurses. However, in the report of the National Pay Review Body, I was interested to see that,
1512
on 31st March 1995, total vacancies for nurses which had lasted for over three months as a proportion of total establishment was 1.4 per cent. In business, that would actually be welcomed as a very low figure.
Concerns are often fuelled and the flames fanned by the supporters of the status quo. Nothing stands still; nothing is unchanged in our ever-changing world, particularly in the health sector where I have been reliably told that some 90 per cent. of extant medical knowledge is 10 years old or less. Indeed, a graphic account of the scale of recent developments has already been given by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant. We cannot have a lopsided National Health Service where the technology has surged ahead, yet there are attempts to fix the issue of pay and conditions in some "time warp" which has long been deemed to be past its sell-by date by the rest of the business and commercial world.
6.59 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, as someone who has spent most of his professional life in general practice, I shall concentrate on the current situation as it affects GPs. For a number of years, until about 1990, general practice was a popular choice for medical graduates. With vocational training, as other noble Lords have pointed out, standards have risen and the importance of primary care has been recognised by the Government to the extent of coining the phrase, "a primary care-led National Health Service". That concept has been cautiously welcomed by the General Medical Services Council of the BMA which represents the interests of GPs and the Royal College of GPs which is the academic arm of general practice, provided that the necessary resources are made available.
The Royal College spelt out what is required in a recent statement. On resources, it said that,
"shifting resources from secondary to primary care at least equivalent to the shift in the balance of work,"
is necessary, as are "adequate funds" for,
"the training and continuing education of general practitioners to ensure they have the skills necessary to undertake an extended role".
The college also asks for the development of:
"structural and financial mechanisms to support the delivery of high quality patient care".
To run down or trim hospital services and to discharge patients early before the necessary community and primary care services are up and running will lead, as my noble friend Lord Dubs said, to overstretching of health workers in the community, a fall in standards and a fall in morale. That is already happening to some extent, and is one reason for the rise in emergency admissions. Some patients have to be readmitted because they have been discharged too early, in too unstable a condition for community health resources to handle them. That is especially although not entirely true with regard to mental health problems.
While I recognise the increased and even pivotal role of primary care, we must not allow developments there to follow the pattern of community care for the mentally ill in the mistaken belief that it will save money. As

1513
noble Lords are only too well aware, and as has been mentioned, community care for the mentally ill, however laudable the objective, is not adequate at present to cope with the caseload of mentally ill patients needing care. That will be the case even after Mr. Stephen Dorrell's recent emergency injection of some £90 million.
Just as the idea of a primary care led NHS has been taking shape, the GMSC of the BMA has come up with a rather disturbing report. Under the heading:
"Where have all the doctors gone",
it states that
"general practice faces a deepening workforce crisis"
and
"there are insufficient doctors to meet the increasing demand and the changes in the roles and responsibilities of GPs working in the NHS".
That report is a warning of trouble ahead.
Until 1994 the total number of GPs was rising. However, since 1989, as the noble Lord, Lord Walton, pointed out, the number of newly qualified doctors entering training schemes for general practice has fallen by 18 per cent. That is my calculation; the noble Lord, Lord Walton, said that it was 14 per cent., but I have checked and I believe that 18 per cent. is the correct figure. That is an early warning sign that doctors are turning away from general practice.
More GPs are retiring early before the age of 65. The total number of male GPs has already started to fall. Luckily, the number of new women GPs has been increasing sufficiently to keep the total rising. Many of us would say that is a very good thing. I certainly agree. However, it is well known that the majority of younger women doctors will need to take time off to produce and care for children. Therefore, more are needed to provide the equivalent number of full-time doctors. Already the proportion of doctors working part-time has increased from 5 per cent. to 11 per cent. of the total in the past five years.
One reason for the decline in the number of male entrants to general practice is that more consultant posts have been created-18 per cent. more since 1988. That is another welcome development, which no one would want to see reversed. However, the hospital service also suffers from the fall in recruitment to general practice training schemes, because two out of the three years in those schemes are spent in hospital SHO posts. Already, because of manpower needs, some of the training programmes are having to recruit from overseas. Those doctors—from Spain, Holland or wherever it might be—will return home after they have received their training at our expense. Of course they will have worked here during their training period and nearly always given very good service, but we lose them in the end.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said, there are often very few applicants for some practice vacancies. To cope with the problem, the GMSC recommends that at present no more healthcare activities are transferred from hospitals to primary care. I am very sad about that, but it may be necessary. It also recommends that medical school intakes be reviewed urgently, both because of the falling number of GPs and the increasing
1514
number of consultants. The GMSC says, logically enough, that a primary care led NHS cannot exist without an adequate supply of properly rewarded GPs. It also states, among other suggestions, that
"support must be provided in the form of additional resources to provide staff, premises and technical assistance",
and that
"additional incentives will be required in those areas where there are particularly acute recruitment problems".
Those are usually deprived, inner city areas.
Deprivation payments to GPs have been made since 1990. The scheme has been of help in keeping some GPs in inner city areas and raising the income of some of them to an average level. It used to be lower. However, it is an inadequate system, both in terms of the extra workload which deprived patients cause and their additional health burdens, and also because of the high level of deprivation which a community has to reach before the doctors there qualify for extra payments. I believe that the system should be reviewed urgently and more appropriately targeted. Discussions should reopen with the profession on the best methods of achieving that.
General practitioners feel that the additional tasks required of them through the 1990 contract, which include much preventive medicine and health promotional activities such as reaching immunisation and cervical cytology targets, and so on—which are aspects which are not fully covered in their training—have diverted them from their highly valued task of providing high standards of continuing personal clinical care. Many of those tasks can be delegated to nurses and other workers, who do them better and more methodically. However, for that to be achieved proper premises and facilities must be available. The procedure by which the contract was virtually imposed on the profession has left a lasting distrust of the Government among general practitioners.
Several noble Lords opposite have praised the GP fundholding scheme. It is now fairly clear that, despite enthusiasm by some fundholding GPs, the scheme has caused more problems than it has solved, quite apart from its divisive effects. Recent research based reports have shown little long-term change in referral patterns or prescribing by fund holding GPs.
Other noble Lords have mentioned increasing expectations of patients, such as the increased number of calls for night visits. That is a manifestation of a socially fragmented society—which has been getting worse during the lifetime of this Government.
Those are just some of the reasons doctors have been turning away from general practice. To make a primary healthcare led NHS a reality a real injection of resources into undergraduate and postgraduate training and increased support of GPs in their work is needed. The details should be the subject of immediate negotiations between the profession and the Department of Health.
7.8 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, if there were not concern in the NHS about developments it would be remarkable in such a large organisation. Noble Lords

1515
have spoken both in the general and in the particular. I shall speak in the particular, as no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Winston, would expect. I take this opportunity to congratulate him not only on his maiden speech but on his opening speech today.
One fact that I find compelling, and which is a development which should be of great concern to the NHS, is that conventional medicine uses modern drugs which are becoming less and less reliable as the viruses they are designed to treat become resistant and the bacteria learn to mutate. Logically, we could eventually reach the point where the pharmacist has been defeated.
Before I am accused of scaremongering, perhaps I may quote from the report of the Parliamentary Office of Science Technology entitled Diseases Fighting Back, published less than 18 months ago. The noble Lords, Lord Flowers and Lord Dainton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Platt of Writtle—whose permission I have to mention her name—were members of the panel. Noble Lords will appreciate that I am encouraged to quote from a report which speaks with such authority. Paragraph 2.2 on page 4 states,
"As antibiotics became widely used, it soon became apparent that bacteria which were previously susceptible to a particular drug could acquire resistance to it. This 'acquired resistance' stems from the natural ability of bacteria to adapt genetically to a new threat".
As noble Lords know, the body has its own powers of resistance to and recovery from disease. Sometimes that is included, quite wrongly I believe, in the placebo effect. The report continues at page 5:
"A proportion of the natural bacteria population in the body are capable of defending against an antibiotic … treatment subjects the bacteria to a 'selection pressure' which will soon lead to the resistant strain becoming a dominant one".
We have recently had a Starred Question on the subject of MRSA; a subject relevant to this point. The report continues at paragraph 4.1 that 9 per cent. of the 5.7 million NHS patients—over 500,000 citizens—acquire infections while in hospital and some 60 per cent. of MRSA infection involves multi-resistant strains. If we solve that problem, the nine cancer patients referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, would soon find beds. Why does the medical profession not do something about this extraordinary scandal, where patients are being poisoned in hospital by medicine presented to them? It is not the fault of the National Health Service, but of the medical profession. This surely must be a development that causes concern to the health service.
But history shows, on the contrary, that herbal preparations are not subject to these self-defeating effects. It is not only our own UK brand of herbalism which makes the point, but Chinese herbalism and its thousands of years of proven benefit with traditional remedies continuing to bring relief to patients in a wide field of therapy. In particular, there is the example of the severe atopic eczema to which I referred in a previous debate.
On the subject of male infertility—currently a subject of great national concern according to the press—traditional Chinese medicine has developed techniques which have relieved that problem over centuries. Studies
1516
in China cover 13 associated problems ranging from azoospermia to varicocele spermophlebectasia, with 11 other activities which are either unpronounceable or too indelicate to repeat.
Eight different studies involve over 1,500 patients with success rates varying between 71 per cent. and 94 per cent. Indeed, a small number of patients have been treated at the Chiswick Clinic over periods of 50 to 90 days with results of considerable importance. Is all this to be discarded as anecdotal, as all herbal treatment is considered? Even if it is anecdotal, it should be followed up and funds provided for further clinical trials. That would relieve pressure on the NHS.
As regards the concerns of NHS employees and practitioners, a revolution is being brought about by the department to keep up with modern technology of the IT variety and the ever-increasing flood of new technology from medical research. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, explained that point. It is a revolution which provides more care to more people every day in an atmosphere where there is an insatiable demand for eternal health.
Where is it all to end? Is it not enough that 1 million more patients are being treated this year than in 1991? That is 3,500 new patients every day. Is that not a remarkable achievement? How can anyone carp at the National Health Service when it provides a service like that? Waiting lists are dropping and, yes, I know that there are always some statistics which will indicate problem areas somewhere, especially at a time of such expansion in this huge organisation which is the largest employer in Europe.
Let us imagine the NHS still juddering along in the old way before the Conservative Party started to put it to rights. The miracle is that those waiting lists and problems are dwindling despite what anyone can say, and under extraordinarily difficult circumstances. This is all being achieved at a time when the bacteria are busy with genetic mutation to counter the wonders of modem science-based medicine. There will obviously never be enough money to fund the health service. There never can be. It can only be more efficiently organised.
I hope noble Lords will accept that applying some of the non-conventional systems might relieve pressure on the health service. That is not a total panacea but a help. The noble Lord, Lord Desai—unfortunately he is not in his place—said that not a day went by without some tabloid horror story coming forward. The truth is that hardly a day goes by without complementary medicine being mentioned in the press. In The Times today Donald Lane, vice-chairman of the National Asthma Campaign and consultant chest physician at the Churchill Hospital, Oxford, states that there was little doubt that some complementary therapies helped but they had to be used in addition to, not instead of, standard treatments. Chinese medicine combines them all. That is how treatments should go forward. It is not a question of one or other, but of using all opportunities together.
I congratulate my noble friend on the success of the department in running the NHS in the face of such adversity and carping, and the remorseless advances in

1517
science, costs, and the demographic effect. Perhaps I may draw the attention of the House to the fact that the NHS will never be in trouble because in this debate 11 noble Baronesses have spoken and only 11 Peers.
7.18 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Winston, for introducing the debate. It is particularly significant that the debate has been introduced by a member of the medical profession actively involved not only in the service but also in the education and training of doctors, and in research. He is someone who really knows what he is talking about. The noble Lord introduced the debate by giving his impression of the impact of the reforms and the problems that have been created through the creation of the internal market. That set the pattern for our debate.
The large number of speakers taking part in the debate and the frequency with which health service Questions appear on the Order Paper is a sign of the deep concern felt on all sides of the House as well as all over the country about what is happening to our National Health Service.
I should like to begin, first, as have many speakers, by thanking all the people, in whatever capacity they work in the health service, for all the work they do and for their dedication, often under very difficult conditions. Secondly, I wish to emphasise how lucky we are in this country to have a system based on the general practitioner service which ensures that everyone in this country has his or her family doctor to turn to in times of need. That is probably the greatest strength of the NHS.
I was born in another country, Sweden, which has often been held up as the shining example of a perfect health service. But for years it had no general practitioners. As a result, the hospital clinics became overcrowded. Sweden has now finally had to start creating a general practitioner service. I believe that that is one of the most important things in our health service. However, we have reached a point where all the dedication of nurses and doctors is not enough. As a nation, we cannot go on expecting people to perform well beyond the call of duty.
I wish to return to the problem of the fall in the number of doctors who enter general practice. Between 1988 and 1994 the number of GP registrars fell from 2,165 to 1,840. At the same time, there was an increase in the number of women GP registrars, which adds to the problem of the lower numbers as women GPs are likely to work part-time during at least some period in their lives and careers because of family commitments. For every 100 GPs retiring, today we need 110 new recruits, not fewer than we had before. So we must ask: What is the reason for the fall in the intake of general practitioners? Many noble Lords have said that it is largely to do with the increased workload because of the increasing shift in the health service towards primary care and also the unsocial hours. Both contribut to low morale in the service. In addition to low recruitment figures, an increasing number of GPs are also considering early retirement. In some parts of the country, I am told, it may be as many as 50 per cent. In
1518
my family I have a consultant at a hospital and a GP, both fairly young people. They are already seriously considering taking early retirement because of the pressure of work.
In addition, the Government's decision to phase the recommendations of the pay review body has only exacerbated the problem. We need urgent action now to safeguard our GP services. As a first step, there should be a complete halt or moratorium on any further work being loaded onto general practice until the problem of recruitment has been dealt with. I ask the Minister to consider that.
There is also a shortage of doctors in the hospital sector. This was clearly set out in the report of the Department of Health's own medical workforce Standing Advisory Committee last June. Furthermore, we have been told that emergency admissions increased by about 13 per cent., 14 per cent. or 18 per cent.— I am not sure which is the correct figure—between the years 1990 and 1993. According to NAHAT, the most likely reasons for the increase are: patients are older, there are more cases of some illnesses, patients have higher expectations and GPs feel less able or willing to cope with seriously ill patients. Early discharge has been mentioned, in other words the revolving door of going back into the accident and emergency department. Also, family life is quite different and families are less able to look after their own members. So there is an inter relationship which is clearly visible between the hospital service and the GP service.
We know that the greatest shortage exists in the A&E departments where, because of the closure of a number of departments, bed closures and ward closures, the workload is now almost impossible. That results in long waits on trolleys, departments running out of trolleys and having to borrow them from the x-ray and theatre departments, with treatment having to he carried out in the accident and emergency department which should be carried out in wards. Too often, the standards of the Patient's Charter—of which the Government are proud—for accident and emergencies of a bed within two hours of admission cannot be fulfilled.
The above concerns are echoed by the Royal College of Nursing. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, told us about her concerns. For two years the RCN has been warning the Government of a growing nurse shortage problem. It is now acknowledged that there is an acute shortage in certain areas: intensive care, theatre nursing and paediatric intensive care. Faced with those admitted shortages, it seems incomprehensible that a number of senior nurses across the country are being made redundant as a result. In the Trent region 32 senior nursing posts are threatened as part of the Government's proposed management cuts. We are all aware that the quality of care in clinical areas depends on the skill and experience of the ward sister. We cannot afford to get rid of our senior nursing staff.
In the present climate, we need a national workforce planning system, not a local one, to identify the need for nurses all round the country. Nurses feel unable to fulfil their tasks in the face of those shortages and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, told us, as many as

1519
40 per cent. of them are considering leaving the profession. The recent national pay award of 2 per cent. has added to the problem, making morale among nurses at an all-time low. Any extra will have to be negotiated locally. NAHAT itself admits that each trust will need to make its own judgment in the light of its financial position which is bound to vary from trust to trust.
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, said that the right to remunerate at different levels is not necessarily wrong. I agree with that, but it should be for good performance over and above the basic rate. It should not be dependent on an award of a 2 per cent. increase, which is below inflation. It should not be phased, as it is for doctors. The nurses who, a few years ago, were delighted when they achieved their own pay review body must wonder whether they have achieved all they thought they were going to.
I believe that the recommendations of the pay review body should be altered or varied only with the assent of Parliament. If the Government decide not to follow the recommendations, as they did this year, by delaying implementation, it should require parliamentary approval. That will give parliamentary protection against the actions of any government who want to change what the independent body recommended. After all, both the Government and the staff had agreed to accept the pay review body decision.
I also believe that there should be national criteria for local flexibility. There is need for that flexibility, but there should be national criteria to govern how it is supplied. For example, there should be flexibility to reorganise the staff structure in a trust, to deal with a local recruitment problem or to reward exemplary performances. That flexibility should be used within a pattern established for the country as a whole. After all, we pride ourselves on a national health service, not a local health service.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, we have had an extremely informative and rather disturbing debate—about probably the most important factor in any successful healthcare system; namely, the well-being of the people who themselves look after patients. In the NHS, the quality and dedication of the staff is, rightly, universally recognised. It is because of their work that the health service has always been so widely admired and held in such esteem and affection by us all. I emphasise "by us all" because any attempts by noble Lords to pretend that the estimation of the health service is a partisan issue is completely incorrect.
That is why I echo the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, in saying that it was particularly disturbing to hear a distinguished senior member of the medical profession give the kind of description of his and his colleagues' concerns that my noble friend Lord Winston gave in his opening speech. I am very grateful indeed to my noble friend for tabling this Motion and making such an authoritative contribution. Almost all who took 'part in the debate spoke from personal experience and knowledge. I hope that, in replying, the Minister will not suggest that those who are critical speak from ignorance. Too often we are told by the Government
1520
that it is only the ill motivated or ill informed who are alarmed by current developments in the NHS. Indeed, in previous debates the noble Baroness herself has said that there seem to be two health services—the one she knows and sees, and the one about which she reads and hears. I hope that today she has been convinced by the evidence of grave concern that was demonstrated. And I hope that her reply will contain positive proposals for addressing those concerns.
I speak from some personal experience, and must declare three relevant interests. First, I am married to a senior consultant physician. His immediate concern is that his department in a London teaching hospital faces an 8 per cent. cut in its budget this year. He and his colleagues have spent a very great deal of time since the cuts were announced, just before Christmas, trying to juggle with figures and adjust plans—time that they might better have spent in clinical work or teaching. They have come, unhappily, to the conclusion that, with rising patient numbers, they cannot possibly absorb an 8 per cent. cut in funding. They will have to close wards and clinics this spring. When the Government speak of ever—increasing funds for the health services, it pays to look at the fine print. Too often extra money does not go to patient services. As the Labour Party discovered this month in parliamentary Questions in another place, an extra £1.5 billion has been spent in the past five years on bureaucracy.
In another part of London I serve on a commissioning health authority. That is my second declared interest. That agency is very well managed. Nevertheless, problems of staff morale, from the most senior to the most junior levels, are a constant concern. Staff there have particular anxieties about the inadequate services they are providing for the mentally ill living in the community—an issue discussed in this House last week and referred to again this afternoon by my noble friends Lord Dubs and Lady Hayman. They also have anxieties about how they can cope with continuing care for the elderly, and anxieties about proper primary care. They are still uncertain that hospital bed closures will be effectively replaced by the much advertised hut not very visible improvements in community services that we have all been promised. These are all legitimate anxieties about the quality of care that they can offer and which affect both staff and patients.
My third declared interest is as national chairman of the League of Hospital Friends—a role that takes me into many health service organisations all over the country. My visits are often to celebrate achievements or to mark the opening of new facilities. But I cannot count the number of times that my hosts, who may be local medical staff, nurses, or indeed managers, have taken me aside at a reception or followed me across a car park to start conversations which always begin: "Of course, we are very happy with what has happened today, but extremely worried about what is going on in general". Many of the issues they want to raise are those referred to in the debate this afternoon: the complications of contracting; professional training; local pay bargaining; ITU beds; and above all, staff shortages at every level and in every part of the service.

1521
Two other general worries are also often presented to me. One is the frustration that many professionals in the health service feel about being asked to compete with other health service trusts. These are often neighbouring hospitals which, in the past, were regarded as colleagues and collaborators in patient care and which must now be treated with suspicion as market competitors. On the ground, it is that spurious and artificial boundary that is fuelling fears that the National Health Service is fragmented. As my noble friend Lord Winston demonstrated very clearly, it can give rise to very serious clinical anxieties.
General concern about fragmentation also goes with the feelings of isolation that many staff have as regional health authorities disappear and the Government abrogate more and more responsibility to a very local level. In the past, many enjoyed and took pride in the sense of belonging to the nationwide family of the NHS, which provided networks of professional support and patient referral, as the noble Lord, Lord Walton, explained in his contribution. As well, they maintained universal standards of care. Today, there is very little of that. Horizons are limited to the small business interests of individual trusts. One medical director commented rather sardonically to me recently that the esprit de corps in his particular trust was now expressed through the local marketing brochure and improved hospital signposting, rather than through national recognition as a centre of excellence. I have to say, without any discourtesy, that something of that was conveyed in the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Flather.
All of this can be dismissed either as shroud-waving or as anecdotal. But many speakers this afternoon rightly quoted from the growing amount of objective, independent evidence from surveys and reports about the attitudes and concerns of health service workers. I make no apology now for again highlighting some of those findings.
First, in relation to nurses, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said in a very powerful speech, they are the largest single group of staff working in healthcare. The noble Baroness quoted the RCN survey which showed that two-thirds of trusts are having difficulty recruiting qualified nurses. Both the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, referred to the tragically high figure of 40 per cent.—I repeat, 40 per cent., my Lords—of nurses who are considering leaving the profession. Nurses rightly feel that that leaves them in a situation that can often be described as dangerous, and is certainly inadequate for them to feel that they are providing proper patient care. The recent miserly national pay award of 2 per cent. is, as my noble friend Lady Hayman said, bound to undermine morale still further, particularly when it is compared with last year's pay award to chief executives in the health service of 7.6 per cent. UNISON has already polled its nursing and midwife membership about morale. More than three in four—78 per cent.—feel that the morale on their ward or in their unit has worsened in the past year.
My noble friend Lord Rea, with his long experience as a family doctor, focused the attention of the House on the anxieties and concerns of general practice. My
1522
noble friend quoted from the GMSE report published last week, on 21st February. To me, perhaps the most disturbing finding was the recruitment crisis that it showed of a 15 per cent. fall in the number of trainee GPs in the past six years. And at the other end of their professional lives, the report noted that six out of 10 wanted to take early retirement.
The Government constantly tell us that family doctors are completely happy with the changes in the health service; that GP fundholders are the enthusiastic standard—hearers of the reforms. This latest report paints a totally different and very gloomy picture—one that the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, painted in some detail. The only encouraging fact is perhaps the accompanying NOP poll of the voting intentions of GPs, which shows a dramatic swing to Labour. Apparently, the Labour Party now enjoys more GP support than all the other parties combined.
My noble friend Lord Winston, the noble Lord, Lord Walton, and other noble Lords, gave us a vivid idea of the situation in our hospitals. Their experiences of pressures and shortages are reinforced by this month's Health Director Magazine which publishes a survey by the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts called "Is there a Doctor in the House?" With very dramatic graphics of "wanted" doctors, it shows that most NHS trusts cannot recruit doctors in a whole range of specialties. Seventy per cent. do not have enough psychiatrists; 64 per cent. have shortages of anaesthetists; over a quarter are unable to recruit enough paediatricians; and the same number have shortfalls in accident and emergency specialties. In all of these areas there is real anxiety about the need to rely upon locums or other non-specialist staff, the impact upon waiting times and, above all, the quality and standards of patient care. No wonder that hospital consultants mirror GPs in seeking early retirement! Another survey showed that 70 per cent. would take it if they could.
All of this points to an NHS staff situation which is one of growing shortages and falling morale. That is a very unhealthy combination. We began this debate with an important contribution from a very distinguished physician. I should like to conclude by quoting the president of the Royal College of Physicians who recently sent a letter to fellows of that royal college, all of whom are very senior doctors. In that letter, Professor Sir Leslie Turnberg succinctly summarised the case that we have argued today. He wrote:
"There is widespread concern amongst physicians that increasing pressure to take on ever more work is impeding their ability to practise the high standards of medicine to which they aspire. Uncertainty, frustration and even despondency are beginning to threaten the sense of commitment to the NHS of many physicians … I constantly bring to the attention of the Department of Health and the NHS Executive the damage that this is causing to the quality and standard of care we provide. … Threats to increase this burden still further have become unconscionable for many. This, coupled with a sense that some employing authorities do not appreciate the work and dedication of physicians, combines to form a depressing picture".
This depressing picture must be changed. One million people work in the health service. Without their motivated commitment the NHS will begin to disintegrate. It is the Government's responsibility to act now to prevent that happening.
7.43 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winston, for initiating this debate and for his generous opening remarks to me personally. As a pioneer in the rarefied field of fertility, he is not only the "father" of thousands, a highly respected academic, and a clinician with a formidable reputation, but also, I understand, a former Thespian. One may think that that combination is perfect preparation for your Lordships' House. However, in the course of the debate I wondered whether the noble Lord was attempting to construct an alternative reality, or a make-believe land, because I did not quite recognise the picture that he painted.
The noble Lord referred, quite rightly, to the Government as the Government of choice. He went on to suggest that we had restricted patient choice. But for the first time ever choice is enshrined in the Patient's Charter. The charter gives patients the right, with the agreement of their GP, to a second opinion. While in no way decrying the international recognition and reputation of the noble Lord's department at Hammersmith Hospital, which I know to be extremely well led and a first-class unit, if health authorities feel that with the agreement of patients they can get better value locally, or wish to break traditional patterns of referral, we do not wish to deny them that right. If I may be a little cheeky, we all know that referral patterns in the past may have had more to do with medical networks than patient choice.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, implied that noble Lords on these Benches thought that the NHS was perfect in every way. That is not so. Your Lordships have heard many of my noble friends say this evening that we are never complacent or satisfied with the NHS. I believe that some noble Lords on the opposite Benches under-estimate recent achievements, which have been Herculean. Great credit for that goes not only to the Government but, more importantly, to the commitment of NHS staff.
There are three very powerful forces that influence the service. These were referred to by my noble friend Lord Clanwilliam and went unchallenged by any of the speakers on the opposite Benches this evening. They are the increasing number of elderly people, mounting consumer pressure, and technical change. The noble Lord, Lord Winston, is at the leading edge of developments in medical science and must also be well aware of consumer pressure. He will know that these forces are hard to influence. Indeed, some argue that they are unstoppable. He will also know that not only is change a challenge to manage but that the provision of buildings, technology, staff training and the redevelopment of a service take time.
The noble Lord, Lord Winston, mentioned another factor: politics. In commercial firms which, like the NHS, also have to change, restructuring can be done without the glare of publicity. In the NHS, which we all recognise as one of the great institutions of this country, policy and management are always topics for debate, including debate in the political arena. The noble Lord,
1524
Lord Desai, was right when he said that there was a lot of coverage in the media. But the media searches for stories among those things that go wrong. The Opposition parties seek to make political capital by exposing errors. It is the role of Opposition parties to oppose, and errors need to be exposed. We believe in open government. However, my noble friend Baroness Flather put her finger on it so rightly when she said that constant knocking demoralised staff and did not help recruitment.
The Government are engaged UK-wide in spending over £41 billion of taxpayers' money. We are accountable for doing that prudently and for the benefit of the whole population. It is a responsibility that any government accepts. However, there is a fundamental dilemma. The media and well-organised opposition can together make people believe that the NHS is not doing a marvellous job. They neglect the fact that 83 per cent. of people who have used NHS services say that their treatment has been average, satisfactory or very satisfactory. That is a higher satisfaction rate than almost any service industry can show.
The Government have privatised many industries, such as British Steel, British Airways and Britoil. In so doing, they have removed their management from the political arena and so concentrated the areas of opposition on fewer services. But the NHS is still a mutual society and is there solely for the benefit of taxpayers and users. One may say that it is "nationwide". Sadly, the NHS has become, not a treasure to be guarded, but a quarry to be thrown to the pack. That is not a good principle of management. Everybody wants to work for a winner. The NHS is a winner, not only among most staff but among most patients, but some parliamentarians egg on the media and are motivated to portray the NHS as a loser. I accept it but resent it, because it is not like that. The NHS combines two great principles: "love thy neighbour" and "each according to his needs". When one has great principles they are an inspiration but are incredibly difficult to fulfil. Doom and gloom can trickle down from Parliament into the NHS and on to patients.
As the noble Baroness said, the NHS has a staff of nearly 1 million, but its great ethos draws millions more actively to support it. Hundreds of thousands are volunteers, and millions give money. They manifest the great achievement that the NHS belongs to the people. Few organisations have so many and so sure defenders.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, that it is extremely difficult to define and gauge morale. I spend much time visiting throughout the service and find both high and low morale. Recently, I went into a ward in a hospital and was met with a barrage of complaints from the ward sister. She complained of under-resourcing, under-staffing, absenteeism, the junior staff wanted to leave—nothing was right. A few minutes later on another ward in the same specialty, and in the same hospital with the same catchment area, it was all smiles and only a slight embarrassment at the size of the waiting list. I refer to the waiting list of staff who wanted to join the team.

1525
Now, of course, there are jobs that are hard to fill in some of the best hospitals and GP practices, but behind many local disasters lies indifferent leadership. Rather unexpectedly, and delightedly, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Haskel. The importance of leadership is crucial. I am sure he will agree that managers must also lead and that we have a huge workforce that needs to be led, the vast majority of whom are excellent. But, as my noble friend Lady Brigstocke implied, it would be beyond belief if we did not have a few bad doctors, a few bad nurses, a few bad managers and a few bad technicians among a million people. But they are remarkably few because, on the whole, the NHS is full of committed staff and it is very well run.
I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, welcomed the move to a primary care led NHS. I share the admiration of the noble Baroness, Lady Robson for GPs. Perhaps this is the time for me to declare an interest. I am the daughter of one and I grew up in such a family household. We all agree that family doctors are central to the NHS. Together with community nurses they are nearest to patients. They understand the family dynamics, the nature of an individual's employment and the community in which they live. A primary care led NHS puts the GP at the heart of healthcare—no longer a doctor, as the noble Lord, Lord Moran, declared, who had "fallen off the ladder". I strongly agree with my noble friend Lady Gardner that GPs have never been better. Today, the vast majority are highly trained and supported by a skilled primary healthcare team with better premises and increased staff. They are pivotal to the future development of the NHS, a recognition warmly welcomed by the Royal College of General Practitioners in its statement on A Primary Care Led NHS, published earlier this month. GP fundholding is an extension of that. But, as my noble friend Lord Clark of Kempston said, in a very powerful speech, the party opposite wish to abolish GP fundholding; unlike Brian Abel-Smith, the former chief adviser on health to the Labour Party and presently vice-chairman of the Fabian Society, who recently said that all GPs should be fundholders.
Who would have imagined five years ago, when GPs and the BMA were implacably opposed to it, that today we should witness over half of all GPs having chosen to become fundholders. As the noble Lord, Lord Walton, said, pioneering fundholders have shown what can be achieved. They have negotiated same day test results, arranged consultant clinics at their surgeries and provided extra physiotherapy, chiropody and complementary therapies on site. The benefits are many and other GPs wanting to do the best for their patients have followed the lead. Fundholding gives them opportunities which they never dreamt were possible only five years ago.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Masham of Ilton and Lady Hayman, suggested that GP morale was in crisis. But that is scarcely borne out by their recruitment, which is an issue that concerned the noble Lord, Lord Rea, and the noble Baroness, Lady Robson. Despite recent pessimistic reports, I am pleased to be able to tell your Lordships that the number of GPs increased by more than 11 per cent. between 1984 and 1994. It
1526
continues to increase every year by about 1 per cent. At the same time, the lists of GPs have become shorter and the average size is now under 2,000 patients. According to the Medical Practices Committee, 80 per cent. of GP practices recruited successfully, with each post attracting an average of 10 applicants.
That is not a picture of a service in decline; but the Government are anxious to ensure that the pivotal role of general practitioners remains attractive to doctors in training. To help understand where government action might be able to enhance further the delivery of primary care, my right honourable friend the Minister for Health recently embarked on a listening tour to hear at first hand the aspirations and concerns of family doctors. I am sure that he will pick up many of the points mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rea.
Like my noble friends Lady Gardner and Lady Flather, the Government have been resolute in their appreciation of good management. It is quite bizarre to think that highly complex hospitals or GP practices can be run without the highest quality management. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, will agree, as no doubt will the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, that getting the numbers right is a process of adjustment. We share the noble Lord's view that training doctors, nurses and technical staff to manage is an imperative. Personally, I am very encouraged that over 30 nurses are now chief executives of trusts.
We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that bureaucracy must not take over and gobble up resources that could be better used. By abolishing regional health authorities—a move opposed by the noble Lord's party—and also by merging FHSAs and DHAs, and streamlining the department, we have cut bureaucracy and saved £300 million a year for reinvestment in patient care.
The noble Lord, Lord Winston, was critical of the internal market, which he described as a mask for under-funding. The separation of responsibilities between hospitals and health authorities has, as the noble Lord acknowledged at one point, brought immense benefits to patients. He is right that health authorities, through their pressure on quality standards and trusts, have ensured that hospitals have delivered shorter out-patient waits, shorter waiting times for operations and shorter waiting times in A&E departments. They have also put appropriate pressures on community services. That is not a mask for underfunding. Under this Government, funding for the NHS has increased every year and now, as I said, stands at £41.2 billion in the UK.
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, was critical of the way in which the internal market is working. But one has to bear in mind that this is still very new and very young. It needs time to mature. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, that co-operation is breaking out. I could give a list of examples, but time is running on.
When the internal market was introduced, the Labour Party predicted total collapse. That did not happen. It was a relatively smooth transition and we are beginning to see the benefits coming through in a very

1527
tangible way. I agree with my noble friend Lord Bridgeman that the management is better and resources are more appropriately used.
My noble friend Lord Bridgeman also referred to nurses training. He is right. We have invested hugely in the Project 2000 courses. From April they will be countrywide. The benefits are visible. One has only to walk the wards or go into the community and one finds confident, competent, thinking nurses doing a very good job indeed.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, mentioned the percentage of GDP spent on healthcare. But he acknowledged that the percentage of GDP is no measure of the healthcare that is provided. My noble friend Lady Flather was right when she pointed out that the real measure is what that money can buy. We believe that £41.2 billion in the NHS represents outstanding value for money.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Walton, who described accident and emergency care in this country as the best in the world. But I understand the concerns of the noble Baronesses, Lady Masham and Lady Robson. A&E services are demand-led and it is not easy to find the right balance, so that peaks can be accommodated while avoiding the inefficiency of empty beds and wasted resources. But in the majority of cases, that balance has been found. However, this winter we have seen undue pressure on accident and emergency services in many parts of the country. There are many reasons for that. The 'flu epidemic early in the year both increased the demand for beds and reduced the number of fit staff; more people are coming forward as emergency admissions; discharge procedures in some areas are preventing beds becoming available. I also have to say that not all social services departments have got their act together in regard to discharge procedures.
The NHS has tackled peak demand in its customary professional way. The Government have also responded flexibly. Earlier this year my right honourable friend the Minister for Health announced that trusts can appoint extra staff-grade doctors to ensure full cover for A&E departments. In addition to the 39 extra consultant posts funded through the new deal, we have also approved a further 38 specialist registrar posts. Consultant expansion in A&E is the fastest within the medical specialties.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, raised the issue of intensive care beds. Those have increased by nearly 90 in the past four years and now stand at 2,600. The number of qualified intensive care nurses has also increased by over 1,000 to 7,650. However, there will be times when intensive care units, despite having a full complement of staffed beds, will be full. In those circumstances, suitable specialist beds will be found in an alternative hospital as close as possible. Perhaps I can reassure the noble Baroness that to ensure that transfers can be arranged where necessary the are reviewing the options for a central intensive care bed bureau to build on the pioneering work which has been so successful in London and which we believe could be used in other areas.
1528
My noble friend Lady Gardner asked about junior doctors. I thank her and other noble Lords who are actively involved in the NHS. My noble friend spelt out clearly the achievements of the Royal Free Hospital. She also made clear that running a trust to deliver a high quality, modern healthcare service is a demanding task. She referred to the new deal, which we put in place to improve the living and working conditions of junior doctors. It has meant that they are better able to deliver care to the benefit of patients and to benefit from their own training.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, expressed concern about the future of research. This country used to have a brain drain; today we have a brain gain. Scientists beat a path to our door to visit the Cochrane Centre—a world beater—to talk to our director of research and development; an appointment due purely to your Lordships who moved for that when a Bill passed through this House. They come to see how we guarantee central funding for research and development and they come to work here. My noble friend Lord Bridgeman also asked about the investment in nurses and the services that they carry out today. That is an issue close to my heart and I concur with all that he said concerning the increasing role of nurses and the pivotal role that they play.
Many noble Lords raised the question of nurses' pay. It was an issue clearly addressed by my noble friends Lord Clark and Lady O'Cathain. My noble friend Lord Clark, as a master of finance, put the case clearly in terms of figures and I do not want to go over that ground. But he is right to contrast this Government's good record on nurses' pay with that of the Labour Government, whose record I have to say was miserable. In their time in office nurses' pay did not even keep pace with inflation year on year.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and my noble friend Lady Cox referred to impending shortages in nurse recruitment. But the review body was in no doubt that the Government's move towards local pay is right. It is right that the solutions will increasingly be in the hands of trusts, the local employers. No organisation can afford not to have control over 70 per cent. of its costs. My noble friend Lady Cox asked why only nurses are subject to local pay negotiations. But every group in the NHS is subject to local pay, except the doctors; they are the one exception. But even this year the doctors and dentists' review body will start to introduce local pay by abolishing C awards and introducing a local points system. My noble friend Lady O'Cathain put the case on local pay so well, and I want to endorse all that she said. It makes a nonsense today to have centralised pay countrywide; no other organisation does it.
My noble friend Lady Cox was right to draw our attention to staffing issues. I hope that she will take comfort from the fact that next year the commissions for training will be increased by 14 per cent. That has already been debated this week in your Lordships' House and I am sure that my noble friend knows the issues as well as I do. But I just want to say on shortages that it was only three or four years ago that the RCN's concern was that nurses were without jobs; that we were training nurses for the dole.

1529
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, was worried about two-tierism. The Government stand by the 1991 guidance agreed with the medical profession which states that common waiting lists should apply for all urgent cases and no hospital should offer contracts to one purchaser which would disadvantage the patients of another. That refers particularly to GP fundholding. We are determined that there should not be two-tierism, but we want to ensure that we bring the rest up to the level of the best.
Issues were raised on medical teaching and training but time is moving on and perhaps I could write to those noble Lords who raised that point.
I thank my noble friend Lady Brigstock. She is absolutely right that we have to ensure that staff are consulted and have an influence on the nature of the work that they are doing, their organisations and their trusts. Indeed, we believe that with our new arrangements that is easier.
The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, mentioned cochlear implants. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his courageous advocacy on this issue. I can assure him that all health authorities have been sent copies of the famous report to which he referred and it is something that we are watching closely. If there are individual cases, I shall be grateful if he will bring them to my attention. I thank my noble friend Lord Clanwilliam for his contribution and we will study it carefully.
In summing up, I believe that the NHS is a pioneering organisation. Every year we see an increase in new developments. Ten years ago we carried out three lung transplants; last year 115. Cataract removals are now carried out on a day-case basis; where they were once considered leading edge, they are now the norm.
The NHS is full of innovation, full of change. I do not believe that we would see nurses raring to prescribe—which is one of the projects in which I have been interested—nor that we would be seeing GPs more than meeting their targets if this was a service on its knees. It is not a service in decline; rather, it is an NHS that strives year after year to do better and better. It is part of our heritage, a force for unity and inspiration; but it is inextricably dependent upon the fortunes of this country. A thriving economy cherishes a thriving NHS. A thriving NHS requires acceptance of change by staff, resolution by government and understanding from the people. The lesson we are all learning is that only the best will survive. In global terms, I believe that the NHS is the very best; it deserves to survive and we should rejoice in its supremacy.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Winston: My Lords, I thank all those who spoke this afternoon and also the Minister for replying to our anxieties. However, I feel that we are faced with a serious problem. The problem lies in being courageous enough to stand up and talk about what is happening in one's own area of practice. That is not easy for a medical practitioner to do; it is not easy for ,a trust manager and it is not easy for a nurse.
It would be invidious of me to single out specific speakers in this debate. However, I draw your Lordships' attention to the remarkable and eloquent
1530
comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, which seemed to me to be extremely courageous. I fear the trouble is that when Ministers visit the trusts and the practices they see basically what we want to show them, which generally is an attempt to try to impress them. Not to impress them is to assassinate oneself. It is a serious problem. I invite the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, to visit us and I will show her the wards.
I do not want to denigrate managers; I never said that. I am concerned about the bureaucracy, which is quite different. I would just say to the noble Lord, Lord Clark, that it seems to me he is perhaps just a touch complacent, if not a touch out of touch.
The health service is a major constituency. It has a million employees. A manager said to me about two weeks ago, when I was trying to negotiate treatment for a leukaemic patient, "I have had to make eight telephone calls on my inflated salary to different managers". The manager said to me, "Don't blame me, I did not start this ridiculous system". Many eminent consultants and friends of mine who are certainly Conservatives, say that they will not vote for this Government again. I fear that as regards the National Health Service the moving finger has come out; the writing may be on the wall. I fear that the Government have been weighed in the balance and found wanting. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Treaties (Parliamentary Approval) Bill [H.L.]
8.11 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill's purpose is to provide for parliamentary approval of treaties before they are ratified. It responds to the democratic deficit; the want of parliamentary control over the Executive—a deficit widened by the Maastricht Treaty, which introduced two major areas of inter-governmental co-operation with very little parliamentary accountability.
The Bill is short, simple and modest. It seeks to involve Parliament in approving, mainly by negative procedure, the dozen or so treaties a year which require ratification before they come into force for the United Kingdom. It also provides for Parliament to be given basic but essential information about the practical consequences of ratification. Exceptionally, the Secretary of State may circumvent the procedures in the Bill altogether provided that an explanation is given to Parliament.
Treaties no longer deal solely with military alliances and other matters remote from our daily lives. Commercial and financial transactions, transport and communications, internationally-protected human rights, cross-border police powers, labour, social security, environmental protection, and many other aspects of modern society are governed by treaty law, reaching into the nooks and crannies of our daily lives.

1531
There are very few treaties whose effects are entirely confined to the level of inter-state relations of concern only to governments. Yet as Professor Francis Jacobs QC, now British Advocate-General in the European Court of Justice, has noted,
"by a strange legal anachronism, some States, notably the United Kingdom, still seem to consider that treaties are matters for governments alone".
It is of course the prerogative power of the Crown—that is of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, appropriately located on King Charles Street—which gives the government exclusive power to negotiate and enter into a treaty and to decide what international obligations the United Kingdom shall undertake. This is a monopolistic power, medieval in origin. It is arbitrary in the sense that it is not governed by binding principles or rules, but is exercised entirely as a matter of executive discretion on behalf of the state. Except in the very rare case where a statute so provides, the government do not have to obtain Parliament's approval before they enter into a treaty that binds this country.
Treaties of far-reaching importance for the people of this country and its system of government, such as the European Convention on Human Rights, have been entered into by the government of the day without any parliamentary scrutiny, debate or approval, even though the effect of such conventions is to transfer important legal powers from Westminster and Whitehall to international institutions, such as the European Court of Human Rights.
When the second Wilson administration ratified the UN International Covenants on Human Rights in 1976, there was a vigorous Cabinet debate because ratification meant that a future government and Parliament would no longer be able to abolish independent schools without breaching international law. Yet Parliament was kept completely in the dark.
A year ago the Government ratified Protocol No. 11 to the European Convention, guaranteeing a permanent right of access by alleged victims of breaches, to a new, streamlined European Court of Human Rights. It was a major step forward in relation to a very important treaty; but the protocol was ratified without the Government having initiated any parliamentary debate, still less having sought parliamentary approval, for undertaking new international obligations directly affecting the rights of the governed against the state.
Even though the practical reach of treaties has so greatly increased, the use of prerogative power has scarcely changed since the heyday of the British Empire when Palmerston was Foreign Secretary and the parliamentary franchise was being gradually extended.
We are out of line with the other member states of the European Union, the majority of which involve Parliament in the treaty-making process. The European Parliament now has the right to be consulted on, and to assent in certain cases, to agreements concluded' by the European Union with third countries and international organisations, unlike the British Parliament, which is sorely neglected in the conduct of domestic foreign policy.
1532
The dead hand of British practice has been rejected in some former British colonies, including the United States and South Africa. It is the established practice in Canada for the government to seek parliamentary approval of important treaties by way of a resolution of both Houses. Traditional British practice may well soon be rejected by Australia as well. A cogent and comprehensive report published in November 1995 by the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee has criticised the traditional imperial approach which leaves treaty-making entirely to the government. I have arranged for a copy of the report to be placed in the Library.
Having outlined the general mischief which the Bill is designed to tackle, I must now enter into just a little more explanation. There are various ways in which states can signify their formal assent to be bound by a treaty. Some, including most bilateral treaties, become formally binding by mere signature or by exchange of letters. However, if the bilateral treaty is an important one, or if what is involved is a multilateral treaty, it is more common to require not just signature, but a second step known as ratification. It is this latter step, the communication of a formal instrument, that constitutes the consent of the state to become bound by the treaty. In this country that is done by affixing the Great Seal. If a state which was not present at the negotiation of the treaty, or for any other reason has not signed it, subsequently wishes to become a party, the formal process by which it does so is commonly called accession or adhesion. The legal effect is the same as that of ratification.
In many countries the Executive is not free to bind the state to a treaty without the approval of the legislature, or some part of it. In the United Kingdom, however, Parliament generally has no such role. If a treaty entails a change in the internal law of the land before it can be implemented, then legislation is needed; and in such cases the normal (but not invariable) practice of the FCO, is to delay acceptance until the necessary domestic legislation has been passed.
But in such cases the substance of the legislation required to implement the treaty obligations is determined by the substance of those obligations over which Parliament has had no say at all. There may also be other important parts of that treaty which do not entail a change in domestic law, and in respect of which the approval of Parliament is consequently not sought.
Only a minority of treaties are incorporated directly into English law. There is incorporating legislation only if, in the Government's view, the treaty demands a change in domestic law involving a cessation of territory, or requires the raising of revenue or the alteration of taxation. The mere fact that adherence to a treaty will give rise to recurring expenditure—for example, to meet the costs of or to satisfy awards of damages by the European Court of Human Rights—is not regarded by the Government as requiring incorporating legislation, but is routinely dealt with under the annual Appropriation Act. For the very many treaties which do not involve any change at all in the law of the land, Parliament has no formal role to play

1533
even if important international obligations and substantial limitations on the sovereignty of this country and of its legislature are involved.
It has been the practice of successive Governments to lay before Parliament as Command Papers all treaties signed by the United Kingdom, but only after their entry into force. It has also been the practice, known as the "Ponsonby Rule", to lay before Parliament, before its entry into force, any treaty which has been signed subject to ratification. Such a treaty lies on the Table in the normal case for a period of 21 sitting days, after which it is ratified.
When a treaty is laid before Parliament, only the text itself is laid. There is no accompanying White Paper or explanatory memorandum informing Parliament of the object and purpose of the treaty, the reasons for its ratification, and the likely costs and benefits for the United Kingdom and its inhabitants of the treaty entering into force. The process of laying treaties before Parliament is opaque. One has to be an expert insider to understand what is really happening.
In theory it is open to the Opposition, or to any Member, to table a resolution deploring the terms of a treaty duly laid and condemning the Government's intention to ratify. Even if the impact of the treaty were readily understood without government explanation, and even if parliamentary time were found for such a Motion, and even in the unlikely event of the Government being defeated on the Motion, the Government would not be legally obliged to heed the will of Parliament. In reality, in the well-chosen words of Professor Rosalyn Higgins QC (now the distinguished British judge at the International Court of Justice) Parliament's role on ratification is "both formal and passive".
Indeed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker of Wallasey, made clear in a Written Answer on 1st November 1995, the Government do not regard themselves as precluded in what were laconically described as "appropriate cases" from proceeding to ratification (or its equivalent) without laying for 21 days in accordance with the Ponsonby Rule. When that happens, there is no obligation on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office even to inform Parliament of the reasons for dispensing with the laying of the treaty.
Arthur Ponsonby was a diplomat, a Member of both Houses and of the Liberal and Labour Parties. His experience as a diplomat at the Foreign Office made him a staunch advocate of democratic control of foreign policy in place of secret, elitist diplomacy. When he became Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in Ramsay MacDonald's frail, brief, minority Government in 1924, Mr. Ponsonby used a debate on the new peace treaty with the Turks as an opportunity to introduce a modicum of parliamentary control. He read out his famous memorandum during a debate in another place on 1st April 1924.
According to his biographer, Raymond Jones, Ponsonby made the statement knowing that it was out of order and raced through it to get it down in print. That was all that he could do given the difficult circumstances of the parliamentary timetable. A Bill
1534
was out of the question, and even a resolution of both Houses would have required two days of parliamentary time which were simply not available in the difficult, straitened circumstances of Ramsay MacDonald's minority Administration. Understandably, Ponsonby failed to achieve what he had intended as a proper partnership between government and Parliament in the making of treaties. His hastily uttered statement did not lead to the change for which he—and, I think, Ramsay MacDonald—had hoped.
Ponsonby's statement expressly envisaged that, in the case of important treaties, the Government would submit them to each House during the 21 sitting days not just as a formality, but for parliamentary discussion. The Government, he said,
"desire that Parliament should … exercise supervision over agreements … by which the nation may be bound in certain circumstances".
He also said that,
"if there is a formal demand for discussion forwarded through the usual channels from the Opposition or any other party, time will be found for the discussion of the Treaty in question".—[Official Report, Commons, 1/4/24; col. 2003–2004.]
Yet again and again important treaties have been ratified without being submitted to Parliament for discussion or supervision. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, kindly made clear in a Written Answer on 20th December 1995 that there is no question of Ponsonby's statement being a binding convention or rule. In his words, the present Government
"do not consider themselves bound by a statement made over 70 years ago by a member of an Administration of a different political persuasion".—[Official Report, 20/12/95; col. WA152.]
In a Written Answer on 1st November 1995 the Minister admitted that there had been departures from the Ponsonby Rule during the past 15 years, but stated that such departures had been rare. The noble Baroness also stated that there would be disproportionate cost in listing the departures and the reasons for them. In another Written Answer on 19th December 1995, the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, explained that there are no fixed criteria for determining which treaties are debated in Parliament for discussion. The Government decide the matter case by case.
I asked the Government which of the other member states of the Council of Europe require parliamentary approval to be given for the ratification of treaties. In another Written Answer on 19th December 1995— apologise for cluttering Hansard with so many Questions—the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, stated that this information is not readily available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
So I have done some research of my own. Naturally there are variations from country to country. But all of them (other than former British colonies)—whether the countries are monarchical or republican, whether "dualist" (like the Nordic countries) or "monist" (like most European states)—are legally bound to obtain parliamentary approval for entering into important treaties.
I have not discovered any European country which excludes Parliament from the treaty-making process. Ireland comes closest to the British position, for

1535
historical reasons, but even Ireland has a constitutional guarantee of parliamentary consultation—of a rather rudimentary kind. Most OECD countries also require parliamentary approval of at least some categories of treaty. Their position contrasts starkly with our own Parliament which, as I have explained, has no function in treaty-making properly speaking. It may occasionally, and entirely on the Government's initiative, be consulted beforehand, but there is no requirement for approval by Parliament of treaties before they are ratified. Unless the treaty has to be woven directly into the fabric of our law, the treaty is treated as government property.
The Australian Senate Committee, whose inquiry took extensive evidence, found that in countries which require some form of parliamentary approval for entering into treaties, the pursuit of foreign policy objectives is not necessarily restricted or delayed. It recommended that Parliament should be involved before ratification, so that it can make a free choice without the possibility of a potential breach of treaty obligations. The Australian Senate Committee proposed legislation requiring that all treaties be tabled before ratification together with a treaty impact statement, with special exceptions for urgent treaties and sensitive treaties (such as those whose early publication would threaten the safety of people or the effectiveness of law enforcement operations). The committee also proposed the creation of a joint parliamentary treaties committee to keep Parliament informed about the implications of treaties and to consult the public and interested groups about them; and a government duty to report annually to Parliament on actions taken during the previous year to implement treaties to which Australia is a party. I would hope that both those proposals might commend themselves to our Government and our Parliament.
The present Bill is deliberately modest and, I hope, easy to operate. It applies only to treaties as defined in Clause 6, that is to those, mainly multilateral treaties which are subject to ratification or to equivalent acts of consent such as accession or approval. The Bill does not apply at all to the very many bilateral treaties which require only the signature of contracting states or an exchange of notes for them to become binding in international law upon the states parties. This deliberately leaves a wide latitude to the FCO and line departments concerned with the particular subject matter of such treaties. In practical terms, only some 14 treaties a year out of about 70 treaties would become subject to parliamentary scrutiny under the provisions of the Bill.
By virtue of Clauses 1 and 2, the Government are obliged to lay before each House every treaty to which the Bill applies, before ratification, together with an explanatory memorandum informing Parliament of the treaty's object and purpose, the reasons for the proposed ratification, and the likely benefits and costs for the UK and its inhabitants.
Clause 3 prescribes two familiar methods of approval; by affirmative or negative procedure. Where the treaty would affect existing laws or private rights, or lay a pecuniary burden upon the people, or cede any part of the territory of this country, ratification would be by affirmative procedure. In most of these cases, some form
1536
of domestic implementing legislation will, in any event, be required. The order authorising ratification will, however, enable the general impact of the treaty to be debated and not merely those parts, which may not be the most important parts, requiring legislative implementation. In other cases, approval would be by negative procedure, within a period of 21 sitting days, as under the present Ponsonby arrangements.
Clause 4 empowers the Secretary of State, in exceptional circumstances, to circumvent the procedure for parliamentary approval altogether. If the Secretary of State decided to use this special, fast-track procedure, he would be obliged by Clause 4(2) to notify Parliament of his decision and of the reasons for it, so as to ensure transparency and accountability.
Some may think that the Bill is timorous in narrowly limiting the categories of treaty whose ratification requires the positive approval of both Houses. But Clause 3(3) empowers the Secretary of State to add to those categories by statutory instrument. The existence of such a power would be useful in concentrating minds, both in the FCO and in Parliament, on whether the limited degree of scrutiny provided for in the Bill is sufficient, reconciling the need of the Government to act speedily and efficiently in concluding treaties with the need for Parliament to exercise real oversight and control over the Executive in an area of ever greater importance to us and our fellow citizens.
Your Lordships' House has been in the vanguard of promoting more effective scrutiny of European Community legislation and British delegated legislation. This Bill provides a further opportunity for the Upper House to secure more effective parliamentary accountability by enabling Parliament to approve treaties before they are ratified. I very much hope—and I am an optimist by nature-that the Government will not strive officiously to preserve intact their ancient but outmoded citadel of unlimited prerogative power on grounds of administrative convenience. The whole House will surely wish to endorse the modern democratic principles of transparency, consultation and parliamentary accountability upon which the Bill is based. It would be excellent too if we eventually had the benefit of a Select Committee to facilitate the Bill's procedures, along the lines of that proposed by the Australian Senate Committee. I respectfully commend the Bill to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord Lester of Herne Hill.)
8.35 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, is not only a natural optimist, as he has told us, but also a man of great kindness. He has perceived that I am afflicted by an increasing nostalgia for the academic world that I have left, and therefore has given a very good academic lecture of the kind I used to hear.
I say "academic" because, whatever the merits of the Bill might have been in Ponsonby's time—and I remember that event—it is wholly out of touch with the present situation. It refers to a Britain which had

1537
national sovereignty, the authority of whose Parliament was unchallenged, and it is peculiar that Parliament at the time of its greatest influence did not go into the field to which the noble Lord refers.
The situation is very different today. At Question Time we were assured by the representative of Her Majesty's Government that we had no option but to accept decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and to alter our legislation accordingly, despite the fact that that court must naturally have a large majority of members who are trained in a wholly different legal tradition to our own.
But much more important, of course, to those who have not got the misfortune of running into a human rights problem, is the fact that through the Treaties of Rome and Maastricht the legislative functions of this Parliament have been reduced to a very considerable extent. Only the other day I heard the right honourable gentleman, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food say that only 30 per cent. of the decisions that he had to make emanated from British policy; 70 per cent. had to do with the implementation of policy formed in Brussels. One could take other areas of national life where the same is true. As the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, reminded us, the Maastricht Treaty itself brings further possibilities of encroachment.
So what is left? After all, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, belongs to a political party—he sits on its Front Bench at the moment—which is dedicated to continuing that process of sacrificing British sovereignty by making Britain part of a European federation. That is how I interpret the speeches of his political leader, Mr. Paddy Ashdown, and others of the party. If Britain became, as they wish, a member of a European federal system, it would not have any treaties to make at all. South Dakota has no treaty-making power. So we must regard this as an exercise in the might have been, rather as though one could say what would have happened in the Battle of Hastings if King Harold had had a Kalashnikov.
However, as it would be unfair to the noble Lord not to consider his Bill as it stands, I propose that we overlook the fact that it is no longer relevant and go into some imaginary situation. Let us suppose that Europe tires of the Franco-German domination enshrined in the 13russels' institutions; let us suppose that the European Union in its present form explodes, as a result of the attempt to introduce a single currency or other scenarios. Let us suppose then that we would clearly have to make, as other countries would have to make, a new series of treaties to regulate relations between European countries. Would we, if we had to embark upon that process, want Parliament to he involved?
There the noble Lord has a good case, because one of the lessons, perhaps, of what has happened in the diminution of this country's democracy, has been a lack of attention, except intermittently, to the positions being created by the exercise of a treaty power.
Even supposing that the Government on that future date were a government of extraordinary competence, intelligence, and far—sightedness, so that all the treaties they proposed were admirably suited to the problem,
1538
there is still the argument that the public discussion and debate in a legislature of a treaty has an important educative function.
The country which seems to me to he much more interesting in that respect than the countries of the European continent, where parliaments, though they may be formally associated with the treaty-making power, have in many instances a rather restricted command of the political scene, is the USA.
The record of the role of the American Senate in the treaty-making power of the USA is, perhaps, from our point of view a mixed one. It was, after all, the need to obtain legislative consent which prevented the USA from joining the League of Nations. Many people would think that that was perhaps one of the root causes of the subsequent instability of Europe and the world. On the other hand, it was the debates in the American Senate about the North Atlantic Treaty that helped to bring America into the position of the guardian of Western interests in which it remained for the duration of the Cold War.
Whether it means that one cannot do something which perhaps in retrospect one should have done, or whether one takes the advantage of public discussion, one would have to look in depth at America's experience rather than the experience of other countries on the Continent. Although in some cases, of which perhaps the German Federal Republic is at the moment the most obvious, there is clearly an inherent power in their legislature, perhaps partly because it is a federal one.
When we look at the Bill in that respect it seems, on the whole, to classify correctly the kind of treaties where it would be especially desirable for the approval of ratification to rest with Parliament. I am slightly surprised that in Clause 3, which sets out the treaties where it is thought that positive approval should be sought, the noble Lord refers to the secession of UK territory among those examples. It is of course true that there is a foreign country with which we are endeavouring to act which in its constitution lays claim to an important part of the UK. That is an exception which we may hope will vanish in due course.
I am surprised though that the noble Lord did not include possessions of the British Crown overseas. It is much more likely that some government might be pressured to have a treaty ceding the Falkland Islands to Argentina or Gibraltar to Spain. I should have thought that in those cases the need to secure the assent of Parliament would be essential.
The noble Lord referred, in relation to the Australian proposals, to the need for a select committee of some kind. Clearly Parliament, as at present organised and constructed, especially the other place, is not particularly well suited to the kind of detailed work which the scrutiny of an important multilateral treaty would demand. Therefore there would clearly have to he a procedure which would involve a committee, with perhaps committee hearings on the American model. It may be desirable, given the distribution of experience as between the two Houses, that it should be a joint committee of both Houses of our Parliament.

1539
There are many interesting hares which the noble Lord has raised which one could pursue. I rather like being propelled into this kind of imaginary world. Together with other noble Lords, we owe some thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for having put us on that road.
8.47 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, had many wise things to say in the second half of his speech, and I agree with them. But in the first part of his speech, he contended that this is all pure theory and not practical politics. He had the argument upside down. Let us suppose that at the time of the signature of the Treaties of Rome and Maastricht this Bill had been law, would he not have welcomed the opportunity to state his views, (had he been in the British Parliament at the time of the first treaty) as fully as he has done now, and also the opportunity of putting them to the vote to see which way this country would have gone?
If that had been possible, we should have been spared, I believe, 25 years of destructive and exhausting political strife within both the major parties, which became necessary just because Parliament had not had the opportunity to sort out its views when it would still have had an effect.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, perhaps it was my fault, but I fear that the noble Lord did not appreciate my central point: if the legislation had already been in operation, it would have been of great benefit to us when questions of uniting with Europe came along. What I argued in the first part of my speech was that in fact they have now become part of the scene, and that we cannot go back beyond that: we cannot retrospectively put ourselves in a better position than we were.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, of course, no legislation—unless it deliberately does so—can do anything retrospectively, but I would not go as far as the noble Lord in accepting that we are, in effect, already a South Dakota. I do not believe we are that. There are still many international issues which can well affect the destiny of our people in major ways, which have nothing to do with the European Union.
Clearly the House must thank the noble Lord for bringing forward the Bill. If it gets through—I hope that it will—it will provide a clear advance in the ability of the elected legislature to obtain control over the totality of British government policy. In some respects the part which the legislature does not now control—namely, the introduction of treaty law—is the most important of all. Its importance is not readily visible to the whole people simply because they know so little about what is going on in international affairs. The passage of this Bill would sharply increase what the public knows. As the noble Lord, Lord Lester, pointed out, very few states do not have parliamentary ratification in one form or another. We are an anachronism in being without it and I endorse his phrase that the British Parliament is sadly neglected in the conduct of foreign affairs.
1540
Let us consider for a moment what would happen if this Bill were passed and how it would affect the fabric of British foreign policy and the role of Parliament towards the totality of the destiny of its people. If a proposed treaty which was under negotiation began to look a bit "dicey" for the government—began to look as though it would be unpopular with the people when it came into effect—then the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would have every inducement to keep Parliament in the picture throughout. Before the signature he would come back from Strasbourg, Brussels, Washington or wherever, and he would keep Parliament up to date in a narrative manner—"we have gone this far and we have gone that far"—and he would listen to what advice he could get from both Houses. This would enable him to feed British opinion—the British national will, if you like—correctly into the negotiations instead of getting it wrong, as I think everybody knows does fairly often happen.
What I have been saying is true of all treaties that this country will negotiate from now on if this Bill becomes law, but it is of course especially true of the developments from Rome and Maastricht as they come along, as they will. These are and will be the vital treaties which—here I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff—most directly impinge on British sovereignty. To put it at its lowest, I believe the passage of this Bill would allow all Foreign Secretaries from now on a much smoother ride than they have had. If it goes through, it will at last complete the control of Parliament over all those things which it began to control with increasing effect—the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—shall we say from the late 16th century onwards.
It would be an immense accretion—and if it had been introduced 20 years ago it would have been even more immense—but it will still be an immense accretion to the validity of parliamentary government. It will strengthen our democracy from top to bottom and will put it on a par with that of other countries. It will also lead to a great deal of public enlightenment and help us to rise out of what I myself perceive as a fairly severe degree of insularity and ignorance of world affairs which at present afflicts the British people. It is a fact that the more time you spend abroad the more you are amazed at the ignorance of foreign affairs displayed by our people, as compared with the better knowledge of British affairs that you find abroad.
I think we should go through the Bill in some detail, with a lot of probing amendments in Committee. I am not at all sure that the Bill goes far enough, particularly in Clause 4, which allows the Secretary of State to decide what he may ratify without parliamentary approval and then later face the music, or not, as the case may be. That is unjustifiable, I think. It does not take a great deal of effort to get an hour or two in both Houses of Parliament if there is a real crisis over a treaty; nor can I readily imagine a situation in which it would be so urgent to ratify a treaty. So let us try removing that one later on and try putting the entire conduct of substantial treaty-making under parliamentary control.
8.55 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, I too would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for introducing his Bill. The subject is not one which normally attracts much attention and I rather agree when he says it is worth looking at our current practice regarding the ratification of treaties and considering the possibility of putting it on some more formal basis. I begin by examining the origins of our present procedures, which are not without interest.
The treaty-making power was originally a compact between monarchs. An emissary sent by a sovereign to negotiate abroad carried with him a letter in Latin giving him authority to act. This letter was produced and shown to the other party. It was called a "Full Power" and generally contained a promise to confirm, approve and ratify the result of the negotiations.
This practice developed rather considerably in the 17th century, particularly with the beginning of what we would now call multilateral diplomacy which preceded the signature of the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 and which ended the Thirty Years War, and the Treaty of Nijmegen in 1697. On the latter occasion much time was spent examining the powers of the delegates, which were different. It was eventually agreed that a common form of words should be adopted, stating that the person concerned had the power to conclude the negotiation. Thereafter the Full Power given to a diplomatic representative contained words amounting to a promise to ratify the results of the negotiation.
This practice changed after the French Revolution and after American Independence. Treaties were no longer compacts between sovereign princes but became agreements between states. Thus Article 4 of the French Constitution of 1794 contained an express reservation that treaties were invalid unless they were examined, ratified and confirmed by the National Committee and the Committee of Public Safety. Just three years later, in 1797, President Adams drew up Full Powers for the American representatives in Paris and requested them to convey the agreements they reached with France, in his words,
"to the President of the United States for his final ratification, with the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States".
This was a form of words to which much thought had evidently been given.
Thus the customary promise to ratify contained in the earlier Full Powers had given way to this formal and specific reservation. We in Britain followed suit a few years later. When a Full Power was drawn up in 1824 for the signature of a treaty in Latin America, the Foreign Secretary, Canning, himself deleted from the draft the customary promise to ratify, and minuted this in the margin:
"It is necessary, or may it not be expedient, in so singular a business as this, to omit this strong promise and rather to say that when ratified by us we will never suffer it to be infringed, or something of that kind."
I wonder what Sir Richard Scott would make of that!
So in broad terms the current practice of regarding ratification as an act quite separate from negotiation developed with the growth of parliamentary
1542
democracies in the 19th century. At the same time it was generally agreed in Europe, but not in the United States, that the only substantial grounds on which a sovereign or president could refuse ratification was when a diplomatic agent exceeded his instructions; and that when this happened a clear statement of the reasons should be given. Palmerston said that in Parliament in 1864. But that, too, gradually gave way to a different concept, closer to the American practice where the absolute right of the Senate to make its own decisions on ratification was insisted upon. Thus we arrived at the current situation, where ratification is often perceived as part of the process of democratic control by national parliaments which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, wishes us to adopt in a more specific form in his Bill.
My impression is—and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, will correct me if I am wrong—that the origin of the movement in this country for more democratic control was the cession of Heligoland to Germany in 1890. That was done in recognition of the growing power of the German Reich, the desire to avoid unnecessary friction with Germany and the realisation that it would be difficult to defend that particular piece of real estate so close to the German coast.
The treaty was drawn up and ratified by the Sovereign but Parliament was not consulted. Some Members of another place did not like that use of the Crown prerogative. I understand that Mr. Gladstone himself raised an eyebrow. Those anxieties were, with good reason, greatly magnified when it was discovered at the outbreak of the war in 1914 that secret negotiations had taken place with France about the military help that we could provide in the event of German attack upon her. There was also widespread dismay and resentment at the extent of the secret undertakings made by all the great powers which had created the fatal network of obligation, misunderstanding and miscalculation which led to the outbreak of war.
That feeling was very strongly held in the centre and Left of British politics. It led to the resignation of Lord Morley in August 1914. The apostle of democratic control was E.D. Morel, and Arthur Ponsonby was one who thought likewise. He took the opportunity of the ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne, negotiated by a different government, to expound what we know as the Ponsonby rule.
The latter is not really a rule at all; rather it is a unilateral statement of intention by a junior Minister which has come to be our accepted practice, although not binding in any formal sense. It has worked rather well, I believe. Important treaties are brought before Parliament for discussion and, where necessary, to make changes to our own law. Also, if desired, specific reservations can he made on the text.
I heard the complaint made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that we adopted the European human rights convention without debate, but I suggest that that occurred because the convention was not perceived, at the time, to present any difficulties: its principles were widely accepted in this country, and much of the language had been drafted by our own lawyers. It could have been debated if there had been public interest in

1543
doing so. It is, however, news to me that we have adopted Protocol 11 on the permanent right of individual petition to the court. Perhaps the Minister would be able to tell us about that.
There are a number of specific matters raised by the text of the Bill upon which I should like to comment. First, if I read Clause 2 correctly, every treaty must be submitted to the House with an Explanatory Memorandum. I suspect that that would mean a lot of paper. It would help to know the volume of the treaties which would be involved. I heard the noble Lord, Lord Lester, say that he thought that the procedure would only cover a dozen treaties, but perhaps I misunderstood what he said. Indeed, I would expect the number to be rather more.
I turn next to the definition in Clause 3(1)(a) which is very widely drawn. I would suppose that that would cover the majority of international agreements. If I am right, that would mean the passage of a considerable number of resolutions by Parliament. That being the case, as has been correctly pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, it would probably he necessary to set up a Select Committee, either in both Houses or, indeed, a joint committee.
Then there is the question of the class of treaties about which we are talking. I do not believe that the Bill defines in any exact way the treaties to he covered. I have heard that there is a Vienna Convention which contains such a definition. If it is satisfactory, that might he included in the text. But I suspect that this is not a straightforward matter. Agreements take different forms in various countries and so do their procedures for ratification. As the noble Lord, Lord Lester, reminded us, the United States has a category of Executive Agreements which do not require ratification by the Senate, and thus do not have any binding status in American law.
An example of that which I happen to know about is the bilateral agreement on civil aviation between the United Kingdom and the United States, called Bermuda 2, which I helped to negotiate some 20 years ago. Although that is important for many commercial airlines in both countries (thus falling within Clause 3(1)(a) as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lester), it has not been ratified by the United States because it is an executive agreement. Thus, if we are not careful, we might, as in this case, give the American airlines rights here which our own companies might not enjoy in the United States. I think that we may need some further thought and clarification about the classes of treaty which require ratification and how that might best he expressed in a Bill.
One other potential problem exists; namely, the practice of requiring what amounts to a second round of negotiation in order to secure the ratification of a treaty by a particular foreign legislature. There have been many examples of this over the years and it may, perhaps, be unavoidable if democratic control is to be fully exercised. But I do recall difficult times in Washington in the 1970s when it was necessary to persuade Congress to ratify commercial agreements on trade issues, after those agreements had been painfully
1544
negotiated with the Administration. Further concessions often had to be made in order to secure the approval of Congress. In effect, the foreigner had to pay twice. I hope that we do not fall into that practice if we do formalise our procedure for ratification.
Something rather similar happened in Germany recently when the Bundestag ratified the Maastricht Treaty. The Bundestag passed a resolution requiring further debate before part of the treaty could enter into force. One might say that the Bundestag unilaterally inserted an opt-out clause of its own. I have long believed in that excellent German concept, Vorsprung durch Technik, but here they seem to have found a method of how to half ratify a treaty. That is also an example which I believe we should seek to avoid.
I do not wish to suggest that any of those matters cannot he dealt with in one way or another. However, if we are to proceed, I think that we need some more thought and clarification of them. As I said at the beginning, I have some sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, proposes, but we should remember that we have at present the benefit of a system which I believe works rather well. In particular, we do not suffer from the immensely long and convoluted procedures over ratification that I have seen in other legislatures. This can take years, and I do not exaggerate. Nor do I agree with the rather disgraceful article which appeared in the Financial Times last Saturday, which comes close to accusing the Foreign Office of old style, secret diplomacy, a charge which I think is wholly unjustified. That is a rare and regrettable lapse by that newspaper. Perhaps the noble Baroness will have something to say about that.
The best advice on this subject was given to us by none other than Mr. Arthur Ponsonby in his celebrated speech on 1st April 1924. He said:
"I would however remind the House of the paradox that, under the British Constitution, it is rules that depend solely on practice and usage which are the most immutable. A change effected by Acts of Parliament is not likely to last so long as one effected by Ministers as a change of practice, and dependent only on the will of the Members of the Legislature for the time being".
As his procedure has now lasted for 70 years, that was a prophetic remark. As the French proverb has it, rien ne dare contrite le provisoire.
9.8 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Lester for raising this debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, made clear, we are talking about a remnant of the medieval or at least very early modern, British monarchical constitution. It makes nonsense of the principle of the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty that the Crown retains the right to sign and ratify treaties without submitting them to Parliament.
A number of very good points have been made about the difficulties now of defining treaties. As a former student, I hesitate to disagree with the professor who first taught me about the Ponsonby rules, but I must point out to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, that some states within federal systems do indeed sign at least international agreements. The state of California has

1545
caused much difficulty to the British Government over a number of its international agreements in the past few years, and some of the provinces of Canada operate relatively autonomously for all kinds of purposes in international activities.
The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, is quite right to say that there are many agreements which are not quite treaties which have effects that go deep into domestic politics.
I am struck by how much more, day by day and week by week, the operations of the British Government are bound by such multilateral negotiations, not only involving the Foreign and Commonwealth Office but also many other departments of state. Indeed, increasingly they involve other agencies of the British Government. Some years ago I spoke to a conference of military officers and others and had touched on some aspects of this subject. I was told quietly over coffee by the chief constable of a provincial force that his force had just signed an agreement with its French opposite number on the conditions under which they might carry arms on each other's territory. I asked him how that had been reported to Parliament. He said, "We asked the Home Office about that, and they said they would prefer not to know officially".
There is a whole range of agreements which bind us. The problem is that if governments—not only our Government but many other governments—agree matters which are not explained to their parliaments particular suspicions grow up that bureaucrats are imposing roles which we do not ourselves understand. Usually it is assumed that they are foreign bureaucrats, although often it is British bureaucrats responsible to British Ministers who are actively engaged in negotiations.
I recall many years ago when I acted as adviser to the Treasury Committee of the other place having to explain to Members of the other House that we had signed a number of treaties of which they appeared to be unaware and which had certain consequences of limiting our freedom of action. Much of the discussion of the European Convention on Human Rights takes place in the same context—the sense that somehow or other the British Government ought not to have accepted this vast incursion into our natural sovereignty.
Perhaps I may again disagree politely with the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. He suggested that the majority of judges in the European Court of Human Rights follow a code of law which is wholly foreign to this country. I believe that I remember correctly. I suspect that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and other Scottish lawyers might disagree with such an English statement.
The extent to which we have a widening gap between the unavoidably multilateral processes of Government and the continuing national discussions of Parliaments raises a real problem. From time to time it leads to an outburst of parliamentary or press anger or of popular frustration at things which are said to have been agreed in our name and about which
1546
we have not been informed. Now that we have within the European Union not only the first pillar of the European Community, but the second pillar of common, foreign and security policy, and the third pillar of justice and home affairs, the number of agreements and semi-treaties into which our Government and others are entering which are not reported back to national parliaments concerns me very much.
As regards the third pillar, the extent to which the British Government and their colleagues have gone deeply into co-operation among intelligence services and police forces, and other agencies of Government such as Customs and Immigration, ought to be more fully reported to this House and another place.
Academics of my profession now write of governments playing two-level games—of negotiating with each other, and then having to negotiate with their domestic audience. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, pointed out that in the United States that is an explicit two level game as it is for some purposes in Germany. In this country it is only an implicit two level game because it does not evolve through a regular constitutional process. The Bill proposes that there should he a more regularised constitutional process. It is not a radical reform; it is rather a prudential measure to make the British Parliament more self conscious of the limits to sovereignty, of the advantages to Britain of operating through multilateral rules, and of the obligation which Ministers are accepting in our name. It imposes on Ministers of whatever government the obligation of explaining to Parliament what they have signed and why they have signed it.
Several noble Lords have remarked on the sheer weight of paper and the sheer number of agreements in which that might involve us. There seems considerable merit in the idea of a committee of both Houses monitoring those agreements. We all understand that in the next few years the weight of multilateral agreements encompassing this country is likely to increase as issues of international environmental law, climate change, and so on, add to all the other areas on which governments now have to accept further limitations on what was formerly their sovereignty.
This proposal suggests one step in that direction. It is a step that will help government, not hinder them. It will work to limit popular and parliamentary suspicion and, one would hope, therefore to carry greater public support. Not only in Britain, but in other countries across the world—from the United States across western Europe—we find increasingly the problem of a populist backlash against the growth of international co-operation—politicians who set themselves out to be outsiders and argue, "Your government have betrayed you. Your government should not have accepted the latest World Trade Organisation agreement, the latest European agreement", or whatever it might be. There is a real danger of a populist backlash, a nationalist backlash, against which prudential Government should guard.

1547
Greater openness in governments explaining to their parliaments what they have agreed in their name would help to limit that backlash.
9.23 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I support the Motion for a Second Reading of the Bill which has been so ably presented by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. As he indicated, this is a modest Bill and may not affect more than 10 or 12 treaties per annum. Nonetheless, it is very important.
I am most encouraged. I regard the Bill as one small effort to claw back from the Executive the powers of Parliament which have been taken away from it either by the existing domestic establishment, which regards the people as an occasionally convenient instrument of popular support, or by those in Brussels who seem to regard themselves as rather beyond the normal hoi polloi of human life and existence.
I welcome this first step. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, I am more of an optimist because I recall—I have it on the authority of one of the most learned Lord Chancellors that we have had for a long time, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone—that no government can bind its successors. Succeeding governments can overturn anything that a previous government has done. Ultimately, Parliament remains supreme because all members of the Government are taken from it.
I do not know that there will be any resistance because I have not had the advantage of seeing the notes of the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker. However, for the life of me I cannot understand why there should be any resistance, particularly after the observations that fell from the lips of her colleague dealing with the Scott Report. He promised in specific terms that Parliament, including its Select Committees and the public, would receive as full information as possible about the policies, decisions and actions of the Government. We were going to have far more open government. Perhaps the noble Baroness will agree with the Bill, in which case she has my felicitations in advance.
We all know that most Ministers—let alone Members of Parliament—do not even know what is in the treaties that their Government sign. We had the immortal example of the Chancellor of the Exchequer who admitted that he had not read the treaty, even though it was passed by the Cabinet. On the basis of personal experience I am bound to say that the number of Ministers who have detailed, comprehensive knowledge of the Treaty of Maastricht, for example, could almost he numbered on the fingers of one hand.
I am not so much concerned with ourselves. We are a breed that is presumably about to go into extinction, but we can at least utter a few dying words before we depart. It is in the interests of the people of the United Kingdom and the Government that as much information as possible is made available initially to Members of Parliament and, after them, the public. I see the requirements set out by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, as being a modest step in that direction. I hope to revive
1548
the enthusiasm of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, in due course, but with him we may well take advantage of the Committee stage of the Bill to make some surprising suggestions, particularly as they affect the multilateral treaties to which one of the parties may be the European Union. That opens possibilities for discussion of some of the issues that are important to our country today.
It has been complained—though not overmuch or tendentiously—that we should have regard to the volume of paper likely to be involved if the seven or eight treaties complied with the procedures set forth in Clauses 2, 3 and 4 of the Bill. If it takes that many quires of paper to explain the treaties, it is clear that the interests of people in the country will be affected in one way or another, otherwise they would not need such detailed explanation.
When it comes to bulk of legislation, let us be adult. Week by week by week, I examine tons of paper that come from the European Commission, including its proposals, including the explanatory memoranda added by the Government—explanatory memoranda which I am quite confident in some cases, because I have a great affection for individual Members of the Government, they cannot possibly have agreed with or, if they did agree, they certainly did not understand. The explanatory memoranda issued with some of the draft legislation and proposals that cascade into the British Parliament week after week is something that has to be seen to be believed.
That suits the Establishment, although I do not mean all members of it. I do not include the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, in that category; he has the advantage of a long history. The fact is, it suits the Establishment and it suits the Civil Service for there to be such a cascade of material that people cannot even find time to read it. Over the past 20 years, in particular, the powers of the British Parliament have been progressively taken away, either by delegated legislation or by legislation from continental institutions. That has to be reversed.
I can remember a time during the war when Parliament was held in very high regard. It was at one with the people, regardless of what political party was represented there. Parliament was held in very great respect indeed. Some of our statesmen in those days held it in very high regard. Not any longer.
Our task here—and my task for the remaining years during which I may be privileged to address this House—is progressively to increase the power of Parliament; to claw back some of the powers that we have lost in order that we can really represent the people whose interests we are supposed to safeguard, however small and insignificant they may be, however literate or otherwise they may be, however poor or wealthy they may be. That is our trust. And trust is based upon truth. It does not speak with a forked tongue. The quicker we get some facts from the Government about the legislation they propose to pass or the treaties they propose to enter into, the better it will be for the country as a whole and its future.
9.28 p.m.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, attractive though the prospect might be of following the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and indeed my noble friend Lord Beloff, on the powers that they have explored, from Scott to South Dakota, I shall refrain from that pursuit. Indeed, I hesitate to join this debate at all because of my own past record. As I told the noble Lord, Lord Lester, when first he discussed this Bill with me, I must be on record myself with enough words in another place commending the existing system to make it embarrassing for me now to enlist under the noble Lord's banner. So I speak with some hesitation.
I remember, at the Second Reading of the European Communities Bill, when we made the very first move down that road, spending almost a complete 24 hours under the never-exhausted chairmanship of Sir Robert Grant-Ferris, as he then was, before we even completed the points of order on that ratification process. My noble friend Lady Chalker will no doubt recollect sharing with me the burden of securing the enactment of the Single European Act in a more beneficent era, when our noble friend Lady Thatcher was happy to impose a guillotine in support of the swift enactment of those pan-European measures. Therefore I approach this modest measure pretty warily. However, there are some arguments in favour of giving it serious scrutiny. First, it is introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for whose perception and dedication to justice in this field I have high regard. Secondly, the Bill has the merit of being compact and clear. I also have enthusiasm for simplicity in legislative draftmanship. Thirdly, it appears to have limited objectives, essentially the provision of an explanatory memorandum, which is not unimportant, to back up the parliamentary approval procedure, with a sensible provision for exceptions in exceptional cases.
Parliaments elsewhere in the world have been increasingly involved in the approval of treaties in this way, notably even the European Parliament, although to some extent that may have been conceded to it as a relatively harmless addition to its diet. But there are arguments against the Bill which deserve scrutiny. First, it can be said that the Ponsonby Rules, if not more flexible, are certainly flexible enough to provide for effective parliamentary review of any significant new treaty obligation. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, with his clamour for the clawing back by Parliament of powers long since departed, has an exaggerated view of the diminution of parliamentary authority. Anyone who has been concerned with any major measures enacting European legislation can hardly feel that he is sailing along smooth parliamentary seas. Both Houses of Parliament have a notable power for getting their teeth into significant changes which inflict treaties upon this country. One should not be too concerned about it.
The other argument that deserves some scrutiny—and worries me—is that there is a risk that the procedure proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, may extend the amount of parliamentary time that perforce has to be added to the process of approving treaties. It appears to introduce a necessary separate stage. That is not decisive, although as a former Leader of the House of
1550
Commons I am always anxious not to have inescapable burdens of parliamentary procedure imposed upon our procedures. I would be content for this Bill to be examined with sympathy if it was necessary to ensure the filling of any realistic gaps in the opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny. I am not satisfied that for practical purposes there are such realistic gaps, but if there are I hope that the Government will look at the Bill with sympathetic attention.
On the other hand, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, will consider how far the range of Bills to be covered by Clause 3(1)(a) may impose a double jeopardy upon the legislative process. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, rather blithely said that the whole process would ensure a much smoother parliamentary ride for treaties and Ministers alike. I am not sure about that. My anxiety is that it will place the passage of parliamentary approval of new treaties at risk of double jeopardy. If that were the case, I would be tempted to conclude with the simple proposition: Ponsonby Rules okay. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has presented to the House with characteristic clarity a prima facie case. I am not sure that it deserves to go forward to the next stage of its procedure, but we ought at least to consider the possibility with sympathetic care.
9.34 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, this has been a remarkable debate and one in which we have had some knowledgeable and wise contributions. This House has reached a level of consensus which is somewhat surprising, not only across the Floor of the House. I am delighted that it includes the support of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. I was extremely pleased to hear his support for the Bill.
In presenting the case for this Bill, my noble friend Lord Lester outlined the very strange situation in which the United Kingdom finds itself in comparison with not only most other European countries but most other Commonwealth countries as well. He commended to the House the report of the Australian Senate. The report of that senate, which went in great detail into the whole issue of the ratification of treaties and the approval of that ratification by parliament, dealt with some of the issues raised in this debate, in particular, by commending very strongly the idea of a joint select committee of parliament. It dealt with some of the issues which concern the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, in reminding us that there could be heavy demands on parliamentary time.
The establishment of a joint committee of the two Houses of Parliament would itself go a very long way towards ensuring that there is proper scrutiny of treaties and that the Houses themselves have commended to them those treaties which deserve further observation and further debate. Many of us in this House and the other place would feel much more content if we knew that treaties were being carefully investigated in that way. It is already the case that the Select Committee on the European Communities deals with many of the directives which come forward from that quarter and

1551
which, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, pointed out, already involve a very considerable burden of scrutiny on that particular committee.
The burden of the treaties, to which my noble friend Lord Lester referred, is considerably less. According to a Written Answer the number of treaties needed to be ratified subject to the Ponsonby Rules—in other words, laid before Parliament—is only 72 since 1st January 1991; an average of just over 14 treaties a year. If my noble friend's example of an explanatory memorandum holds good, that would involve only a minute proportion of the kind of weight of paper that arrives in this House every week of the year as a result of secondary legislation in the form of regulations.
I should like to refer to a matter put to the House by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire; namely, the growing significance of treaties as a proportion of the legislation passed by Parliament. There are not only the treaties that we have referred to in respect of global dealing with environmental problems, and with other problems increasingly, that require an intergovernmental response to the problems established. There is also such new legislation as flows, for example, from the Anglo-Irish Treaty—an area of intense interest to this House and another place—which is nevertheless in the form of a treaty rather than domestic legislation; involving, as it does, more than one government. There are many other illustrations that I might bring forward of the way in which treaties between governments are becoming more and more crucial to the exposition and discovery of the objectives of domestic policy in all the countries of the European Union and, indeed, beyond.
If I may say so, this is intended to he a modest Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked whether Clause 4 allowed too great a degree of discretion to Ministers in enabling them to go ahead with urgent treaties, with an explanation to the House of why they felt obliged to ratify without going through its procedure. But that was deliberate on the part of my noble friend. He wants to ensure that there can be no reasonable objections to the modest Bill that he proposes to the House this evening.
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, brought forward a rather strange argument—the argument that because, in his view, democracy had been limited by our membership of the European Union, it was appropriate to limit it still further by not taking the powers proposed in this Bill. I found that a strange argument. I found it even stranger that he was not willing to consider the position put forward by my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire that in many ways today the German federal constitutional structure—the German Federal Government—has considerably greater influence over the pattern of the treaties of the European Union precisely because the national parliament has insisted upon debating the treaties and in some cases even attaching conditions to the passage of those treaties. The example that springs to mind is the requirement by the German Bundestag that there can be no ratification of a new treaty involving the setting up of the European Monetary Union without the full approval of the German Bundestag—incidentally, something that did
1552
not apply in the same way to most of the other countries of the European Union. It is an example which shows that both national parliaments and the European Parliament can be given greater responsibility and accountability by working together rather than fighting one another over the shrinking area for which they are found to be responsible.
The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, gave us a fascinating history of earlier treaties and raised some specific problems with which my noble friend Lord Lester will deal, but perhaps I can again mention, first, that the burden of treaties is a relatively limited one, at least up to now; secondly, that an explanatory memorandum can be brief and clear; and, thirdly, that the proposal for a Select Committee of both Houses on the lines of that proposed for the Australian Senate would go a long way indeed to give the House the assurance it needs without involving a heavy demand on parliamentary time of the kind about which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, expressed concern.
Perhaps I may make one or two brief references to the suggestions made by my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire and the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, regarding the extent to which we might widen the educational understanding of this country in international affairs if treaties were required to be ratified by Parliament. That seems to me to be an extremely important point; that is, that Parliament might create its own backlash against treaties signed in its name.
Perhaps I can give a precise example of what we have in mind. The danger of backlash can be met to a great extent by what the architect of the German constitution, the famous Karl Joachin Friedrick, referred to as the "law of anticipated reactions". He said that in drawing up treaties governments would be constrained by the very fact that those treaties had to be approved by the legislature and would therefore bear in mind the interests of the people in the very ways in which they negotiated treaties. That seems to me to be a serious and important point.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, referred to the accountability of the Executive to Parliament and in particular to the dangers of Executive prerogative, widening in such a way that Parliament became increasingly ineffective. I am bound to say that I have some sympathy with his point. Parliament has allowed itself to be sidelined, though it must be said that perhaps earlier this week and last week were good examples of the way in which Parliament is once again beginning to reassert its independence and its conscience.
I conclude by referring to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, and perhaps I can again draw attention to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire. I refer to the extension of the European Treaty into what were called the second and third pillars; the common, foreign and security policy being the second pillar and the third pillar with its concern and interest in matters of internal security.
Accountability, particularly in the case of the third pillar, falls between the two stools of national parliaments and the European Parliament. There is no

1553
adequate accountability, as my noble friend Lord 'Wallace pointed out, for matters concerned with the issues under the third pillar. Yet it is the treaties under that pillar that most demand to be carefully scrutinised, for in many cases they directly affect the liberties of individual citizens of the European Union.
I therefore believe that my noble friend's Bill will bring those matters to the attention of the House; will hopefully bring them to the attention of a Joint Select Committee of this Parliament and in so doing will go a considerable way to try to provide democratic accountability and scrutiny over an area of policy that is important, that is widening, and that is insignificantly scrutinised by a democratic institution. I am proud to support it.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, like other speakers, I should like to begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for introducing this Bill. I admire his initiative not just in identifying a gap in our procedures, but also in undertaking the historical research on the Ponsonby Rule and how it is operated, and other matters, and in investigating what happens in other countries as well.
I have to admit that, unlike other speakers, I am no expert on either parliamentary procedure or international law. I am not sure whether that is an adequate excuse for my failure to have noticed that there is in fact a democratic deficit with respect to consideration of treaties by Parliament. I am very grateful therefore to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for drawing it to my attention and for drafting this Bill which, if enacted, will help to rectify it.
There may be details in this Bill on which further work is needed. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, drew our attention to one or two omissions and, with the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, to some problems of definition. However, the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, are in my view persuasive on the need for changes to our procedures in order to deal with this democratic deficit.
We have had an extremely interesting debate on this Bill this evening; in fact, it had some of the qualities of an academic seminar, but perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff" that I do not believe that it has been impractically academic in any way.
We are debating this Bill in the same week as a major debate in this House and in another place on the Scott Report. As my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington has already indicated, in that debate the Government accepted the need for a number of changes in both Whitehall and Westminster governing the export of arms. Some of these changes concern greater openness and transparency, including the consideration of policy guidelines and how they are arrived at in Parliament and reporting to Parliament on their implementation.
In acknowledging the importance of ministerial accountability to Parliament in this area, like my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, I hope that the Government might also be willing to accept that there needs as well to he an improved system in place for the Executive to obtain parliamentary approval in
1554
this rather different area of multilateral treaties which is before us today. I very much look forward to the Minister's reply and in particular ask whether she can throw some light on the number of treaties likely to come before Parliament each year, if this Bill were enacted, and on which there appears to be some dispute this evening.
Quite rightly, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, drew our attention to the fact that most treaties today have considerable ramifications for domestic policy. They are rarely about alliances which commit us to send gunboats or their modern equivalent. They are instead about a very wide range of matters which he mentioned at the beginning of his speech. In the past treaties largely about military alliances and diplomatic relations had relatively little direct impact on people's lives because for the most part they never had to be activated. By contrast, many of today's treaties reach deeply into our daily lives and do so on a continuing basis—in other words, treaties which cover such subjects as environmental protection, have an ongoing effect from the very day on which they are ratified. Because of that they are obviously not a matter for governments alone and should be approved by Parliament even if it means that there is a bit more paper—to use my noble friend's term—cascading" into both our Houses.
Moreover, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has pointed out, our membership of the European Union means that there will be an increase in the number of treaties likely to require ratification. In that context, it is interesting, (is it not?) that there appears, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has already said, to be no other European country which excludes Parliament from the treaty-making process in the way that Britain does.
I was a little surprised that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was unable to answer the noble Lord's Written Question on the practice of other countries. Perhaps the Minister could confirm tonight that we are out of line with the rest of Europe in that respect. If we are out of line and the Government are prepared either to accept the Bill or to introduce their own legislation to rectify the situation, we may be faced with one of those rare occurrences where Euro-philes and Euro-sceptics can agree. Those in favour of greater integration will presumably welcome the UK coming into line with other European countries on this matter and, despite the argument of noble Lord, Lord Beloff, which I too found a little perlexing, those who are against it may favour more opportunity for Parliament to consider European Union treaties and, indeed, treaties that may be made with other parts of the world. Incidentally, I was delighted to find myself in agreement with my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington. On many such matters he is usually on the side of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, rather than on mine.
When my attention was first drawn to the need for this Bill, I was concerned about potential delays in getting agreement to important treaties. However, my anxieties have been allayed by subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 4, where the Secretary of State is able to cite exceptional circumstances requiring rapid ratification of a treaty, and therefore the bypassing of the Act. It is right that, as the Bill proposes, reasons for urgency

1555
should be given to Parliament. Therefore, I am afraid that I am not in agreement with what my noble friend Lord Kennet said on that.
The Minister may say that all treaties which require domestic legislation are considered by Parliament anyway. She may also, following the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, say that the Ponsonby Rule (under which, as we have already heard, treaties subject to ratification are left on the Table for 21 sitting days after which they are ratified) provides for satisfactory parliamentary scrutiny. However, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has made the case for rejecting the view that those provisions are entirely adequate. I do not need to repeat all his arguments.
I have looked at the Report of the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee of the Australian Parliament, to which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, have already referred. It is an interesting report, and I commend it to the Minister if she has not already seen it. However, I am not entirely clear about what the position of the Australian Government now is. Have they indicated that they will accept the recommendations? I assume that they have not yet decided. If, however, Australia goes ahead, the UK will become even more unusual in its failure to provide for proper parliamentary scrutiny and approval of treaties in law.
The noble Lord introducing the Bill has made a very persuasive case for it. Perhaps the Minister will make an equally persuasive case for rejecting it. On the face of it, I believe that she will find that difficult, but I greatly look forward to hearing the Government's position after a debate in which, apart from the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, who opposed the Bill, there has been considerable support for it—in fact, from noble Lords on all sides of the House, including interestingly from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, who, as a distinguished former Foreign Secretary, has more experience of these matters than most of us speaking tonight. Like the noble and learned Lord, I hope that the Government will look sympathetically at the Bill.
9.59 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, has brought an interesting Bill to Parliament tonight. It has been a fascinating debate for those of us concerned with procedure and concerned to see greater openness, as are those of us on the Government Front Bench.
It was interesting to see the new alliances that have been formed tonight between the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. I felt sorry for the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, who was rather out on his own in the debate tonight. He may he a supporter of the Bill but he was not arguing from quite the same basis.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to specify the respect in which I was out on my own?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I will not be drawn down that path. I will read tomorrow what the noble Lord said but, as I understood him, he was not quite on the same wavelength, as his noble friend Baroness Blackstone has just said.
It was amazing to see that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington—who is a great friend of my noble friend Lord Beloff—found himself, for totally different reasons, in a similar position to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby.
Then came my old boss, if I may affectionately call him that, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon. As always when listening to him—and when we read his remarks in Hansard—we understand that while he too is very much in favour of openness, he can see some downside risks in the Bill. That does not mean to say that its intent is not perfectly worthy, but he can see some downside risks and I believe that he gave us some valuable advice tonight.
The Bill provides that no treaty shall be ratified by Her Majesty's Government without its first having been approved by Parliament. The Government share the noble Lord, Lord Lester's concern that the international obligations of the United Kingdom should be the subject of a proper scrutiny by Parliament. The real question—which I am not sure that we have yet answered in the drafting of the Bill—is what is the best way for this to be carried out. We may need more thought and clarification on that.
The present arrangement for parliamentary consideration of treaties is flexible. It provides for proper opportunity for debate and, as the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, said, the system works rather well. It has worked remarkably well considering its age—but then, in this House, I am a great respecter that good things last a long while.
The Bill worries me because it would introduce fixed procedures which could impinge upon Parliament's timetable and yet do little to further the democratic scrutiny of international agreements concluded by the Government. Successive British Governments have long recognised the importance of ensuring that their international obligations and responsibilities are well understood, publicised, and that Parliament is kept fully informed. That is why this Government, like all governments before them since 1924, comply with the Ponsonby rule, as we have discussed tonight. Under that rule it is settled practice that treaties requiring ratification, acceptance, approval or accession are laid before Parliament for 21 sitting days before the Government deposit their instrument of ratification, acceptance or approval. It provides opportunities for comment and debate if Parliament so desires.
In addition, to the extent that any treaty would alter the law or require legislation for its implementation, it is settled practice to ensure that the necessary legislation has been passed before the treaty is entered into. This is exactly what my noble and learned friend Lord Howe meant when he spoke of the flexibility of the Ponsonby rule.

1557
There are special cases in which, by convention, treaties are not entered into without parliamentary sanction. Noble Lords will remember that Parliament expressly provided in the European Assembly Elections Act 1978 that no treaty which provides for an increase In the powers of the European Parliament may be ratified by the United Kingdom unless it has been approved by an Act of Parliament. That is certainly something of which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, definitely approves.
In addition to that special case, there are five situations where treaties are not concluded without parliamentary approval, usually in the form of statute. Those are where they require an amendment to UK law; where they affect private rights; where they create a charge on public funds; where they attribute new powers to the Crown; or where they cede British territory.
There are then other cases where Parliament sanctions in advance, by general legislation, the conclusion of bilateral treaties in particular fields within the minutes laid down. Examples here are extradition treaties, double taxation treaties, and reciprocal social security benefit treaties. Here it is often provided that the terms of the treaty take immediate effect on being scheduled to an Order in Council.
I shall turn now to some of the points raised in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, was worried that parliamentary sovereignty is infringed by the Crown's prerogative to ratify treaties. I do not believe that is so, because parliamentary sovereignty requires that while the Government may make treaties without parliamentary approval, it must seek approval by means of prior legislation where existing law is affected. That is why the European Communities Act was required to give effect to the Treaty of Rome. That is why on other occasions in recent years we have had some long and interesting debates in the House which I well remember.
Whenever we are talking about bringing more information to Parliament, the reason given for it, as given by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, and by others today, is that there is a democratic deficit. I am not sure whether there is a democratic deficit here, because the power to make treaties is not vested in the Crown only, it is exercised by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth affairs. He must consult those of his colleagues whose departments are responsible for implementing the provisions of a particular treaty. The authority of the Government rests upon a democratic mandate, and effective government requires the support of the majority of the Members of the other place.
While Parliament may not invariably have a formal role in the ratification of the treaties, unless it decides to debate them, it has every opportunity to scrutinise their provisions. Through Parliament, governments will always be democratically accountable for their actions. They include the making of international treaties.
I have been involved in a number of signings over the past 10 years. I cannot remember a case where, when (here was something to he questioned, it has not been questioned. Others may differ in their view on that
1558
matter. Others may say that the Bill is a safeguard. But I believe that this is something about which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is a good deal more diligent, as the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, intimated, than the House may have assumed from having listened to the debate.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way, but before she leaves the section of her speech which she is now devoting to the issue of parliamentary scrutiny, will she consider the issues raised about an explanatory memorandum, given that some treaties are complex, and that that would enable the two Houses to understand much more clearly what is at stake in some of the treaties?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I shall be coming to that matter a little later, because I see the possibility of some good practice being developed along those lines. If I may, I shall leave the point until a little later.
I remember well the concern about the European Convention on Human Rights, because the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has queried matters of that nature with me previously. It is important to note that when the European Convention on Human Rights was to be ratified, long before I came into Parliament, the convention was laid under the Ponsonby rule on 23rd January 1951. Members' attention was drawn to it on 5th February 1951 in a Written Answer from the then Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Kenneth Younger. There were no objections raised, despite the fact that that Written Answer actually invited them, and therefore the convention was duly ratified. That seems to me a very sensible way under the existing system to proceed, to notify by Written Answer that if objections are not made within the 21 days after the convention has been laid, then it will be duly ratified. That obviously does not answer the noble Lord, Lord Lester, or the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire.
One of the things I believe we can do is to look at these cases in a positive light: that is to say, to look at these cases and see on each occasion how it has been dealt with. The noble Lords, Lord Bridges and Lord Lester, both asked me about Protocol 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Once again, the protocol was laid before Parliament in the normal way. The Ponsonby rule was completely complied with and an opportunity was given for debate, though none was in fact held on that occasion.
When we come to the inevitably interesting question of the ratification of European Community treaties, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill—my noble friend Lord Beloff said that his most interesting speech would be a "very academic" speech—one has to realise that all treaties amending the European Community's treaties require the government to introduce legislation. I have already given the example of the European Communities Act 1972. Any proposal for one of the communities themselves to enter into a treaty is already submitted under cover of an explanatory memorandum to the Scrutiny Committees

1559
of both Houses, so in a sense part of what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is asking for is actually carried out in that case.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, asked me about third pillar agreements, as did a number of other noble Lords. The Government have already undertaken to provide Parliament with texts of draft third pillar conventions while they are still under negotiation. I think this is very important. Normal ratifications as at present would proceed after signature, but the very fact that there is to be prior notice while negotiation is going on is certainly a step forward. I noted what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, said about the liberties of citizens. May I just say to him that common positions, joint actions or joint positions adopted under the second and third pillars, while they may impose legally binding obligations, are not normally subject to ratification. That is why they do not occur under the Ponsonby rule. Also I must point out that under this Bill they would not be subject to that process either.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, asked how many treaties might come before us if this Bill were to he given Royal Assent. That is a matter which as we as answered in a Parliamentary Question, varies from year to year, some 72 treaties having been ratified between 1st January 1991 and 31st December 1995: in other words, the number is running at between 10 and 15 a session. I should also like to point out that 280 treaties have entered into force for the United Kingdom in the same period, either on signature or by a notification contained in an exchange of diplomatic notes. Of course, neither of these two circumstances would be covered by this Bill.
I believe, too, that although there may be only 10 or 15 treaties a Session requiring resolutions from both Houses, there would be a significant additional amount of parliamentary time required under the noble Lord's Bill without necessarily demonstrably contributing to the better scrutiny of the treaty-making process. It seems to me that that scrutiny should come rather earlier in the process than when one is at the final treaty stage. Undoubtedly there are problems with a number of the elements of the Bill which, if it is given a Second Reading, I am sure your Lordships will want to go into at a later stage.
I turn now to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, about the article in the Financial Times of last Saturday by Mr. A Hermann, and especially the comment made by the noble Lord about secrecy. After my 10 years in the Foreign Office, I am absolutely convinced that the ratification process is not secret. A distinguished noble Lord who is a former member of the Diplomatic Service will know full well the amount of quizzing about treaties which takes place.
One of the difficulties involved is the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby; namely, that there are complex treaties. Indeed, there are treaties which, except to experienced lawyers such as the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, and my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon, are not clear. But there is no question, as the writer of the article in the Financial Times said, that it is a secret matter. The
1560
Foreign Office has no interest in keeping secret things which can be shared. I believe that that is the right way to proceed.
A number of questions were asked about practice in other countries. Certainly the essentials of our practice on treaty making and the balance of responsibilities between the Executive and the legislature is actually common to most countries. In the majority of OECD countries, parliamentary approval is required for certain types of treaty. But in most other countries, unlike the UK, the treaties take effect directly in national law upon ratification.
In the United States, treaties are subject to presidential ratification and require approval by two-thirds of the Senate. But the American constitution also provides that all treaties made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land and that the judges in every state shall be bound by them, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the constitution or laws of any state. That is obviously not the case in the United Kingdom; treaties cannot and do not take effect in our law without implementing legislation.
There are countries, such as Denmark, where treaties are not self executing. Prior parliamentary approval is required for the ratification of treaties requiring implementation in national law in that country. The purpose of that is to prevent its government from undertaking international obligations which its parliament might refuse to implement.
However, it is the consistent practice of HMG not to ratify any treaty requiring implementation in UK law until such legislation has actually been passed. As regards the question put to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, of how it affects other European countries, perhaps I may write to her on the matter because I do not have details of the situation in each country to hand at present. Those situations vary and it would take me a considerable amount of time to explain them.
We have heard a good deal tonight about the Australian constitution. Although there is much talk in Australia at present about a change in the matter, I am sure that neither there nor, indeed, in New Zealand or Canada are the treaties subject to parliamentary approval. We answered the noble Lord, Lord Lester, on that point in a Written Answer a short while ago.
I am happy to put in writing the detail about the Australian Federal Parliament, but it is a situation which has been very much akin to our own. The difficulty is that the Australian Parliament did not actually use the practice which it was afforded by its written constitution. The Parliament had 12 sitting days prior to ratification, but those concerned allowed their system to fall into disuse. They then overtook the practice that they had previously kept to by tabling treaties in bulk every six months, with the result that many treaties were tabled after ratification. That is why there has been a great debate in Australia. Your Lordships would be right and, indeed, would have every reason to complain had we followed such a practice of tabling treaties in bulk. We have not done that. If our Australian friends had

1561
used something like the Ponsonby rule on treaties effectively one by one they would not be in the situation in which they now find themselves.
We are very different from the Australian Government in this. We are committed to a policy of open government. The full texts of all treaties are published. We give guidance on the treaty practice and procedures. That has been laid in both Houses, and it is available to the public on request from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
There has been some comment tonight about lack of infon-nation to answer the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Lester. This is a recent matter in terms of the great interest that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has brought to the subject. We have been computerising treaty records. Some 12,000 items, dating back to 1835, are now being entered on to computer. No doubt, hit by hit, we shall be able to do an analysis of them which might answer the questions that the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, keeps asking me. I do not know whether I can do that quickly, but it may come.
Several times I have spoken about openness and have mentioned the explanatory memorandum. It is the practice of the Foreign Office to be as open as possible to the public and, of course, Parliament. There has been a massive increase in openness in the last 10 years since I first went to the Foreign Office. I hasten to add that that has nothing to do with me, although I am very much in favour of it. Ministerial speeches and correspondence are a growing feature of government business. In 1994 the Foreign Office exchanged 11,000 letters with Members of Parliament. That is a much higher figure than ever before. We make available verbatim copies of all ministerial speeches. I have already mentioned the treaty series, which is published by the Foreign Office.
However, that may not he enough. That was the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, made. The suggestion concerning explanatory memoranda is one that is worthy of further consideration whether or not this Bill becomes law. We should try to see that suggestion in the positive light in which I know it has been proposed. I shall want to examine it further with my colleagues before giving a definitive answer, but it seems a sensible way to proceed.
Certainly, I can assure your Lordships that if an MP or one of the Select Committees ever writes asking for an explanation, not only of a treaty but of anything else, they receive one. Frequently it is in memorandum form. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that I will not sign any explanatory memorandum without having not only read it but also learnt to understand it. Sometimes that takes a little more work than may at first sight be apparent.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, says, it is more than 70 years since Arthur Ponsonby put the case forcefully against a measure such as that which the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, wishes to introduce. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, used the same quotation that I had picked out from that speech. Arthur Ponsonby said:
"Resolutions expressing Parliamentary approval of every Treaty before ratification would be a very cumbersome form of procedure and would burden the House with a lot of unnecessary business".
1562
Today, I would not use the word "unnecessary". It is probably quite time consuming, but your Lordships might deem it necessary.
It is clear that the Ponsonby rule, as it has been applied consistently over many years, has the great merit of allowing flexibility. My noble and learned friend Lord Howe said that the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, might impose inescapable burdens. That is a matter that your Lordships need to examine very carefully at a later stage in the Bill. We want not only the flexibility but the efficiency of the Ponsonby rule, while preserving the sovereignty and prerogatives of Parliament. Parliament has ample opportunity, whenever necessary, to examine and discuss new international responsibilities. But administrative and procedural costs must be minimised as well as making sure that the information is always available. We want parliamentary control which is effective. We want scrutiny maintained. It is not, as many noble Lords seemed to imply tonight, that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or any other government department would feel greatly hampered by the Bill. What we must not do is to burden Parliament in such a way that Parliament cannot cope with the Bill. That is why I do not have an open-handed welcome for the Bill but a little scepticism (if I may so put it) about whether this is the best way for Parliament to go.
The Government will not seek to impede the progress of the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, in this House. What we shall ask your Lordships to do is to give it strict scrutiny. It is in those terms that I welcome the debate that we have had tonight. However, as my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon said, we should investigate the realistic gaps which may exist and see what can best be done about them.
10.21 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in what for me has been a remarkably interesting debate. I am particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, for his over-generous personal remarks about me and for his participation as the most experienced former Minister in this area in the House.
The debate has already been summed up by the preceding three speakers. At this late hour your Lordships will not wish me to do so again. If I do not deal with all the points raised, I hope that your Lordships will not think that it is out of lack of courtesy to anyone.
I am extremely encouraged by several aspects of the debate. First, the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, paid me, I think, the doubtful compliment of describing me as though I were a professor. I would reply that to my mother I might he a professor, but to a professor I certainly would not be. Apart from the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, at the outset of his speech, every noble Lord has spoken with the same objective. Indeed, I believe the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, has the same objective. It is that there should be effective parliamentary scrutiny combined with flexibility and

1563
efficiency with no unnecessary overloading of Parliament. I believe that that is the common view on all sides of the House.
Secondly, it is generally recognised that this country lags behind in practice compared with other Parliaments—that there is a democratic deficit. That deficit was brought home to me as a member of the IGC Sub-committee of the Select Committee of this House in the evidence given by such experienced people as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, and Sir Leon Brittan who emphasised the need to enhance the role of national parliaments especially in the context of the European Union.
Thirdly, I share the distaste expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff (I think that it was distaste) of the excessive scrutiny given by the American Senate in this area. The last thing that I should like to sec are telephone directory-sized explanatory memoranda, coupled with Senator Bricker style amendments, and all the other gadgets built into the American process. However, we are far from that in the Bill.
Fourthly, even though we appreciate the explanatory documents that we receive from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and other departments, one should not overestimate the problems of parliamentarians in understanding what is going on. Perhaps I may give one brief example. We considered the Europol Convention in Sub-committee E. It was impossible to obtain an authoritative text of the treaty. It was a had English translation of a German text. The result was that we were never able properly to understand what the treaty was about. There were endless arguments about what the German text meant, and so on.
A group of extremely able experts was on the committee dealing with the treaty. I believe that lack of information provided at the right time is at the heart of the problem. Therefore, I have sought to balance the need of Parliament to he properly informed with the need of the Executive to get on with the necessary business of government and move speedily.
I take full personal responsibility for the policy of the Bill but I have been greatly assisted by advice from much greater experts than myself: Professor Maurice Mendelson, Professor James Crawford and Mrs. Eileen Denza, who is well known to this House. They all scrutinised my Bill. The definition of "treaties" comes from the Vienna Convention and I believe is correct.
The reason for including Clause 3(1)(c), dealing with the cession of any part of the territory of the United Kingdom, in that form is that the definition of the United Kingdom includes overseas dependent territories of the United Kingdom. It is not necessary to say so on the face of the Bill, it is in the Interpretation Act.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, raised the point on double jeopardy. It will need to be carefully examined because one does not wish to clog the business of the House or both Houses with unnecessary procedures. On the other hand, not many treaties cede parts of a territory of the UK or "lay a pecuniary burden" on the inhabitants of the UK, in the
1564
words of subsections 3(1)(b) or (c). As the Minister confirmed, one is talking about 15 treaties a year at most.
As a practical person who has to read too many pieces of paper in my professional life, I am convinced that it is not beyond the wit of civil servants to produce explanatory memoranda of the kind that they produce for their own Ministers. They would explain to Ministers the object, purpose and likely impact of the treaty, to brief Ministers when they come to both Houses of Parliament to explain. It seems to me that just as Notes on Clauses for Bills are widely provided to Parliament so that we can understand what is in the Bills, so it should he possible to find a practical way of supplying timely and concise explanatory memoranda. They should not be enormous documents, but well-focused and practical, provided at the time when the treaty is being laid, during the 21 days.
Your Lordships should be well aware that the negative procedure which would be the main procedure under the Bill is used by both Houses for all British delegated legislation, but using 40 sitting days instead of the 21 under the Ponsonby rule. To use the same period of 21 days with negative procedure for almost all treaties would not in any way burden the House, any more than the thousands of subordinate instruments which we already have.
As regards the late Arthur Ponsonby, several noble Lords suggested that he was against legislation. That is what he said during the debate, but if noble Lords borrow from the Library Arthur Ponsonby: The Politics of Life by Raymond Jones, they will find that on the day of the debate he wrote to his wife Dolly. In that letter he said that he really would have liked to have legislation but it was not possible. He knew his friend E. D. Morell was very disappointed about that, but it was the most that he could do. He probably put a brave face on it in the course of the debate.
I am in no way wedded to the precise form of the Bill and I would welcome strict scrutiny in Committee. If the Government came up with a practical administrative scheme that did not require legislation at all, I should be delighted to take the consequences into account in looking at the future progress of the Bill.
It is ironic that the position with regard to treaty-making remains undemocratic, to some extent, in this country. Her Majesty the Queen graciously consented to my humble request that her Prerogative might not stand in the way of the Bill being considered. I am a firm supporter of the ancient monarchical system of government that we have in this country because it has a unique capacity to evolve in response to changing needs and contemporary values. I am not a republican. I respect our constitutional heritage. But that does not mean— and I know that the noble Baroness the Minister agrees with this— that Ministers should cling to Royal Prerogative powers without effective accountability.
I am, as I say, very encouraged. I am very grateful to all noble Lords. I commend the Bill to the House and respectfully ask that it be given a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Leicestershire (City of Leicester and District of Rutland) (Structural Change) Order 1996
10.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 18th January be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this order implements changes from 1st April next year in the structure of local government in Leicestershire. These changes were recommended by the Local Government Commission.
The order creates two unitary authorities— one for Leicester and one for Rutland— with the remainder of Leicestershire remaining as a two-tier authority.
Leicester City has a long history of unitary government. It was a county borough from the late 19th century until 1974, when it became part of Leicestershire County Council. It is therefore returning, as it were, to its previous incarnation. It is the second largest of the non-metropolitan districts. Opinion polls, both in the city and in the county, suggested that there was a majority in favour of a unitary Leicester. Within the city there was support for one or other of the options which involved a unitary city; 41 per cent. were in favour of a unitary authority and 17 per cent. preferred no change. We think that the city will be able to fulfil the functions of a unitary authority perfectly well.
In the case of Rutland the question of local identity was particularly significant. Surveys found what is called a very high "community identity". Eighty per cent. of people who replied had a very, or fairly strong feeling of "belonging" to Rutland. That strength of feeling is unmatched anywhere else in the country. It undoubtedly reflects the feeling of people who live in Rutland that they do not like the idea— and they never have— of Rutland being swallowed up by Leicestershire, which happened some 20 years ago. That very strong feeling was the reason why the Local Government Commission recommended that the county of Rutland should be re-created for ceremonial and related purposes.
But community identity is not enough on its own. That is why, if Rutland is to become a unitary authority, we wanted to be sure that the costs could be met within the same financial systems and constraints as apply to other reorganised authorities. We also sought assurances that good practical arrangements would be made for providing the local services economically.
Although Rutland is a small authority it has convinced us that it is capable of providing cost-effective services. As an enabling authority— one which looks to others to provide services while it concentrates on the necessary level of services and how they should be developed— Rutland already has a good history of reducing overheads and of improving services. Nevertheless, we accept that special arrangements will be needed in order to ensure the services will be provided properly, and we have made it clear that there should be joint arrangements wherever necessary. That is particularly so for social services. The
1566
Social Services Inspectorate of the Department of Health has considered the arrangements for social services which Rutland District Council intends to put in place, and the inspectorate is content that it will be a viable social services authority.
As a consequence of this order Rutland will have its own separate Lieutenancy and its own Shrievalty. Rutland is different from almost all other new unitary authorities because of its previous history as a county.
It has been suggested that Rutland should remain within Leicestershire County Council as at present, but that it should be given "historic county" status. In fact, that is not possible. The status does not exist. Rutland can have a separate ceremonial identity only if it has a structure change. In other words, it can become a county again only if it becomes a unitary authority. That is what is proposed.
Leicester City will be deemed to be part of Leicestershire for ceremonial purposes. We shall bring forward a provision after April which will deal with the ceremonial arrangements in all the 1997 reorganisations.
We believe that authorities which are to assume unitary status should have a fresh democratic mandate. The order, therefore, provides for elections to the whole of both Leicester and Rutland councils this May. The councillors, who are then elected, will plan for the change and take over responsibility for running all local authority services in their areas from 1st April 1997. The order also includes arrangements for the authorities to return their normal electoral cycles.
Under regulations which were made last year, the county council and district councils will have additional powers and duties to prepare for the transfer of functions. The councils will be able to begin preparations from the time when this order is made. However, certain decisions can only be made once the new councillors have been elected in May, such as the appointment of chief officers. The councillors who are elected in May 1996 must consider whether particular functions can best be carried out through voluntary joint arrangements with other authorities. These provisions, taken together, should ensure that there is a smooth transition to the new structures with proper safeguards for essential services.
The order allows for a combined fire authority for Leicestershire, which will include Leicester City and Rutland. This will be created by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary by a separate order under the Fire Services Act 1947. The order also provides for the county council and the two new unitary authorities to be represented on the joint committee which makes appointments to Leicestershire police authority. This also follows the commission's recommendation.
The unitary authorities will be responsible for strategic planning, which will he new, as well as for local land-use planning, which they have at present. The order transfers Leicestershire County Council's strategic planning responsibilities for the areas of Leicester and Rutland to the Leicester and Rutland councils respectively. This will enable all three authorities to make voluntary arrangements for joint working on the

1567
structure plan covering their combined areas so that strategic planning can be retained across the area of the county as it exists at present.
I see that my noble friend Lord Kimball has put down an amendment to this order, as has the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. To have an amendment to an order which one is taking through the House is pretty alarming stuff; to have two is positively unnerving. I will restrain myself from what is sometimes rather indecorously called a knee-jerk reaction— on this occasion with both knees— until I have heard my noble friend's views and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. As the views will he coming from such magnanimous Members of the House, I have no doubt that they will be of a non-contentious and wholly agreeable nature. I will give a considered reply to the amendments when I answer the debate.
The Government are of the view that the changes which this order will make will enable local councillors to provide better and more effective local government, and one which will be more directly accountable to the local people. But the authorities will have to set aside any differences which they may have and work together to make a success of the reorganisation. I am sure that they will do so. I commend the order to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 18th January be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].— (Earl Ferrers.)
10.40 p.m.
Lord Kimball Lord Kimball rose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, to leave out ("approved") and insert ("withdrawn and be replaced by an order that directs the Rutland and Leicestershire County Councils and the City of Leicester unitary authority to maintain the current unique museums, arts and records services for all three authorities").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I must declare an interest in that I am chairman of the management committee and trustee of Leicestershire's 15th fledgling museum in Melton Mowbray. I start by thanking the usual channels for the fact that, even at this late hour, we are having a proper debate on the Floor of the House. There was serious concern that in another place the order was taken upstairs in a committee, at which the Leicestershire County Members of Parliament who wished to vote against it were unable to do so. It is only right that those doubts should he aired here tonight.
I was brought up in Rutland. I served on the original Rutland County Council. I have always supported the restoration of historic county status to Rutland. It is unfortunate that the English Act does not allow the Scottish solution. After all, Sutherland, Caithness and Ross-shire are historic counties within the area administered by the Highland Regional Council. I think we made a mistake, when the English Bill was passing through this House, in that we did not spot the need to insert the necessary provision to allow such a status for the county of Rutland, which in my opinion would be the right solution.
The House must not underestimate the problems of running a unitary authority, carrying, as a result of popular demand and granted by the Government, full county status with 33,000 people. It would depend on joint arrangements for many services: museums, police, fire and specialist services. My noble friend mentioned the police force. Perhaps I may just say that there is serious concern that Rutland's representatives, coming from an independent authority with no political status, will have difficulty in obtaining the correct number of places where representatives on a joint authority such as the police are chosen by reference to the aggregate number of councillors elected by party. It is rather a unique problem which is particular to Rutland. My noble friend has assured the new county of Rutland that it will have its lieutenancy and its High Sheriff.
But all those matters, and even the reservations, are minor points compared with the great achievement of the Government, which at last listened to the wishes of the local inhabitants and appreciated the fact that the voluntary services in Rutland are committed to making the county work. We must wish them well in their bold venture.
I now turn to the worries of this order in relation to Leicestershire and Leicester City. The geographical position of Leicester City reinforces the interdependence between the city and the rest of the county. No other proposed unitary authority is as central to, and interdependent within its county, as Leicester is within Leicestershire. In Lincolnshire there is Scunthorpe and Grimsby, right at the extremity of the county, splitting off as unitary authorities. But Leicester City is right in the centre of the county.
The major problem is how to achieve the economic revitalisation of Leicester City within the countrywide framework. Land is needed for homes and jobs. There is no potentially derelict land within the city of Leicester for recycling. Leicester City will be looking for substantial boundary extensions. The commission made the mistake of assuming that Leicester's central role in the county is now less important than its greater role as a freestanding settlement operating on the national stage. In fact, Leicester is the heart and focal point of the county.
I am concerned about the strategic planning, in particular for land use. The Government have assumed that this will work with the proposed two unitaries and the county council assuming joint responsibility for structure planning. Experience elsewhere has shown that it is difficult to achieve consensus on planning and transportation matters across areas which are geographically cohesive without the presence of a single authority. It is naive to believe that that can be done just by voluntary participation.
Because of my great concern about those joint arrangements, I tabled the amendment to the Motion. I hope that it will fall on fertile ground. My noble friend is familiar with the Leicestershire museums, arts and records service. He was kind enough to interrupt his Christmas Recess to come to the county, open the Bakewell Exhibition and renew his family's historic connections with the county of Leicestershire. In

1569
coming to Leicestershire he passed through Rutland and he very nobly agreed to make the traditional payment by a Peer of the realm entering that county. Noble Lords should beware. It costs noble Lords a golden horseshoe to the Lord of the Manor of Oakham, to be added to the collection in Oakham's Castle Museum— a contribution to be held by the joint forces of all three authorities. Rutland is well aware of the guidance produced for the management of museums, and has undertaken to consider this when deciding how the service will be administered.
My amendment uses the word "unique". I had slight trouble in persuading the Clerk of the Parliaments to accept that word. The point is that the museums service in Leicestershire is in fact unique. It is recognised as the finest provincial museums service in the country. It has been singled out as an example of excellence by the Museums and Galleries Commission. The local government review in Leicestershire highlighted the overwhelming desire of service users, interest groups and the general public, as well as regional and national professional opinion, to maintain the service as an integrated, countrywide service. Specific provision should have been made in the order if the danger to that flagship service from the combustible combination of party politics is to be avoided. The 190 staff, its 14 museums, its five historic sites and its collection of 3 million objects should not be divided up.
Finally, we must consider public opinion in relation to Leicestershire. The proposals for structural change are not popular. After all, the commission itself said:
"Unlike some of the other areas the Commission has so far reviewed, there was no groundswell of opinion that local government in Leicestershire needed drastic reform. There was strong support for the present structure, reflected in the fact that for the past the two-tier system has worked well".
The tragedy is that the Local Government Commission failed to offer the choice of "no change". And the Secretary of State failed to take into account the strength of public opinion in Leicestershire. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion, to leave out ("approved") and insert ("withdrawn and be replaced by an order that directs the Rutland and Leicestershire County Councils and the City of Leicester unitary authority to maintain the current unique museums, arts and records services for all three authorities— (Lord Kimball.)
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, in speaking to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, and to the main Motion, I shall speak also to my amendment, though I am not at this point moving it. For the convenience of the House, perhaps I may read it. It seeks to insert, at the end of the main Motion, the words,
"('but that this House regrets that the draft order is made under primary legislation which contains no statutory safeguard for effective strategic planning across the area of the county council of Leicestershire in the event of any failure of voluntary joint working to that end between the new authorities')."
1570
To pick up the Minister's adjectives, my amendment is perhaps considered contentious, but if both his knees jerk at the same time he is liable to fall over. I hope that I do not provoke such an extreme reaction.
I confess to little connection with either the City or the county, save for occasional trips to the Haymarket Theatre where I have seen some exceptionally good productions. My remarks on the main Motion, therefore, are largely based on what I understand to be public opinion as it has been assessed.
The statutory objectives of the legislation were to reflect the interests and identities of local communities and to secure effective and convenient local government. In a Question requiring a Written Answer, I asked the Minister about local opinion; after all, that reflects local communities. I referred him to comments made by the Secretary of State in a news release of September 1993 that the views of local people are of paramount importance. A more recent remark was made by the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, in April 1995, when he said,
"the opinion of local people who live and work in these areas will be important— [Official Report, 25/4/95; col. 783.]
On 21st February, 1996, the Minister replied to me by way of Written Answer:
"We are currently considering the … Commission's recommendations on the … reviews along with the representations which we receive. The June 1995 Policy and Procedure Guidance to the Commission makes it clear that the views of local people are important as an element of community identity, and we shall give proper attention to that factor. However, our decisions must be taken as a result of attention to all the issues, not just one element".— [Official Report, col. WA80.]
One would not argue that there are not other issues to be considered. I was depressed by that answer, which, frankly, did not seem to me to give proper weight to local opinion that local people must have hoped that it would receive.
At best the support for a new unitary City and County of Leicester can he said to be inconclusive. Indeed, points raised against a unitary Leicester seem to me to be very similar to those raised by the Commission when it rejected unitary authorities for Norwich on the question of boundaries, and for Northampton on the question of public opinion and the importance of having a county town.
The Minister has referred to the opinion polls and surveys. The NOP poll, taking together either one or two unitary authorities and two-tier elsewhere, showed in favour 47 per cent. for a unitary authority and 39 per cent. for change. Over the county as a whole the figures were 49 per cent. to 34 per cent. for no change. That is very high support for no change since that option has to be written in by the respondents. The MORI survey, using different methodology— it was a survey and I am someone who is more inclined to trust them if they are well done rather than polls— showed in Leicester 27 per cent. in favour of unitary arrangements and 17 per cent. in favour of no change. Across the county the figures were 29 per cent. for unitary arrangements and 21 per cent. for no change. Those are really quite close figures. One must remember that the

1571
county figures are swayed by particularly strong feelings about Rutland, which to me suggests that these figures are even less conclusive in arguing for change.
Major changes in government need very solid support. It is accepted and admitted that there are differences of views within all the political parties over the exercise, but I have rarely seen them so strongly expressed as in the comments made by the chairman of the county, a member of the Conservative Party, when he resigned from the party. There are also the comments made by a Conservative county councillor in Rutland to the vice-chairman of the Conservative Party. I dare say that other noble Lords have seen copies of the correspondence which uses extremely strong language, such as,
"The proceedings typify this Government's cavalier approach"
and referring to,
"a flawed and tainted scheme".
In the heat of emotion over important local matters I know that feelings run high. It is unusual to see them expressed quite so forcefully and in print.
That councillor is from Rutland where there is a lot of opinion which differs from hers. I recollect the murmur which ran round this House in March last year when the announcement was made about Rutland. I got something of a "boo" from the Bench behind me when I said then that Rutland's county status might he a matter of considerable nostalgia, and nostalgia was all right in its place, but some say nostalgia is not what it used to be. I make that remark again because I believe that the Government have to he particularly sure that so small a unitary authority can operate effectively.
The Minister has mentioned the question of social services, and I am sure that other noble Lords will refer to them. The House should he able to understand on what basis he has satisfied himself - and the Secretary of State has satisfied himself - about the viability of a unitary Rutland and in particular that discussions between the district and the social services inspectorate should be a matter of public record or, at any rate, that the basis for the views should he a matter of public record.
I understand that the MORI survey was the first— perhaps the only survey— which asked whether people would be willing to pay more. Close to 90 per cent. of people said no. That highlights the importance of every survey putting a question in context.
The changes proposed will have on-going costs of some £6 million. That is according to the commission's estimates. Others estimate that it will cost more in indirect costs. Although it will cost £6 million, as the Minister said, Rutland will not get an all-purpose authority such as we might expect to see, but one which is greatly dependent on arrangements with other service-providers. The Minister used the word "enabling". I think that every authority is an enabling authority these days, but Rutland will be an extreme example. I repeat that that £6 million could be spent on direct services.
1572
I have considerable sympathy with the points made about services by the noble Lord, Lord Kimball. Without repeating the detail of his argument, I should like to express the support of these Benches for his Motion. As well as museums, many other services cover a wide area. I should like to add libraries to that list, noting that the Library Association says that Rutland will be totally dependent on the goodwill of neighbouring authorities to provide an adequate service. In noting the level of support for a unitary Rutland, I think that it might have been better if such provisions had been brought forward in a separate order.
The noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, is unable to be present tonight but I noted that in speaking on the order on Cleveland on 23rd January 1995, he mentioned what he called the,
"whimsically outspoken chairman of the commission— "
the then chairman, who confessed at a recent ACC conference that he knew,
"of no evidence that smaller unitary authorities will be better placed to deliver effective and convenient local services … Surely we are entitled to expect more than assertion before gambling literally millions of pounds of public money on a costly and risky reorganisation".-[Official Report, 23/1/95; col. 929.]
My particular concern, to which I have referred in previous debates in this House, is the matter of strategic planning, hence my amendment. The Minister said that the strategic planning arrangements would enable the three authorities— I think that I noted his words correctly— to continue voluntary joint working "as before". I differ from him - they may not continue "as before".
In July 1995, in response to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, the then Minister replied to a question about in what circumstances the power to establish a statutory joint arrangement under Section 21 of the Local Government Act 1992 will be available to the Secretary of State for the Environment.
The reply was that the Government's policy was that local authorities which were granted unitary powers should be capable of undertaking the full range of functions entrusted to them. The Minister went on to say that Section 21 contained back-up powers for the Secretary of State to establish a statutory joint authority where voluntary arrangements had not been made or had broken down. He then added that he was advised that that power would he available only in those cases where joint working was to take place between authorities, all of which had acquired the relevant function as a result of a structural or boundary change. That would not be available where, for example, a new unitary authority had been asked to work with an existing county council. In other words, that statutory provision does not apply in the case of a "hybrid" council (as they have come to be called) such as Leicestershire will become, with its two unitaries. I do not understand why the Government have apparently set their face against the very minor necessary legislative amendment to fill that gap.
The point is important in a large number of areas given the general pattern of the outcome of the review which has— if it can be characterised as a whole— unitary cities, in a two-tier county context, in many parts of the country. In those places, as in Leicestershire, the

1573
Government will rely entirely on voluntary arrangements. I support voluntary arrangements; the most important thing is that political representatives, like everybody else in society, should be able to work together. But not all marriages are made in heaven; some might have to be made in Marsham Street— which is not everyone's idea of heaven, I concede.
The Government have accepted the point that joint working might have to be imposed by including it in legislation in the first place. If the omission is simply an error— and I think it must be— then should not the Government admit that they have made an error? There is no crime in making a mistake; what is more serious is refusing to rectify that mistake once it has become apparent.
Strategic planning, as the noble Lord, Lord Kimball said, is inseparable from matters such as transport and economic development. In Leicester there is little brown field land for development. The city is in the middle of the county— the county around it like a doughnut— and, as the core city, it is economically, demographically and geographically linked with its surrounding areas. It may well want to consider development— expansion might be too emotive a term— and if it is constrained by green wedges and flood plains, what then if it and the county fail to make voluntary arrangements?
While I recognise that this is the last place in which to discuss direct representation, I should add from these Benches a word about the cherry picking which appears now to extend to the handling of the order in another place. It is arguable that the Committee in another place should have included no local members, but what cannot have been right is that if it were to include local members, they would he representative of one view only. We cannot tell another place how to conduct itself, but we can comment on the Government's apparent inability to do things properly when they fear the outcome will not be their preferred result. I accept that the Minister may differ from me on that.
If the order is agreed, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Kimball in wishing the new councils well, and in thanking the members and staff of the existing authorities. Perhaps they should all have golden horseshoes.
11.3 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, as to the proposal concerning Rutland, I see in it some difficulties which I hope might be resolved in this debate.
There is little doubt that many people in Rutland take great pride in living there, not least because of its history. We were all told at school that Rutland was the smallest county in England. That status was lost in 1974, and now that it is proposed to return it that has been welcomed by many people. It is necessary to examine how that welcome was arrived at. The commission sought the views of residents by
1574
means of a leaflet with a detachable questionnaire, which was delivered principally by the Royal Mail to households throughout the county. That was supplemented by newspaper advertisements and additional deliveries.
There was, in addition, a MORI poll conducted on behalf of the commission. Only 2 per cent. of the questionnaires were returned, and 770 letters were sent. I am bound to say that it seemed to be a comprehensive attempt at determining public opinion, although a 2 per cent. return and a number of letters are not convincing. In letters and questionnaires there was a 60 per cent. preference for Rutland to have unitary status. The MORI poll showed that 34 per cent. of the people of Rutland preferred Rutland to have unitary status. The rest preferred other options, or no change, or did not know what they preferred.
The commission says that it placed greater weight on the findings of the MORI survey because of its representative nature. Your Lordships may agree that that is of some significance bearing in mind MORI's reputation. One of the key factors which emerged from the MORI survey was that in Rutland 48 per cent. of those questioned preferred unitary status for Rutland. In such polls, 48 per cent. might be considered to he a high figure, but it is not a majority.
One of the difficulties to which I referred earlier is considering the popularity of the proposal against the view that an area with a population as low as 34,000 cannot sustain the wide range of services which a unitary authority is expected to carry out. That is the difference I have discovered since the report has been published.
There is an additional difficulty. Are those who express support for the change prepared to sustain it if the proposal means paying more in council tax in order to have it? In its draft recommendations, the commission saw that as a potential problem, because it said that it would be prepared to recommend unitary status,
"as long as the people of Rutland understood the cost implications".
When the commission sought the views of Rutland residents, it indicated to the public that there would be an additional cost of between £83 and £125 per household should unitary status be granted. It made a final recommendation which increased the cost to £170.
From the documents I have, I cannot ascertain whether that increase was made clear to the people of Rutland. In my political experience I have found that the electorate may be enthusiastic about proposals, whatever they may be, but not so enthusiastic when the bigger bills drop through the letter box. Rutland District Council commissioned an exercise carried out by independent consultants. The outcome was that the overall impact upon a Rutland council taxpayer would be a saving of between £15 and £45 per annum on a Band D property. I ask the Minister whether the Government have been able to look at that, and, if so, do they agree with the findings?

1575
What is an amateur like myself to make of such a discrepancy between the two sets of figures that I have mentioned? I assume that the Minister has some figures on what is, after all, a crucial factor in determining whether an area should have unitary status. I hope that when the Minister replies he will be able to help me on that aspect of the matter.
I return to the problem I posed in my earlier remarks about whether a population of 34,000 can deal with the necessary services to be carried out by a unitary authority. It appears that many people doubt it. I have had letters from head teachers, former social workers, councillors and the Labour Party. Perhaps that is of some significance, because your Lordships may know that the Labour Party in general supports unitary authorities. All these and others are deeply concerned about what they believe will be a rapid deterioration in service, particularly in education and social services.
In two respects the commission is quite clear. It says,
"in our judgment no additional recommendations are required to ensure the effective and convenient delivery of an education service in Rutland."
The commission's other major concern— that of effective provision of services— is met in that Rutland has accepted the need to enter into formal joint arrangements with other authorities, especially to provide continuity in the recently established community care planning framework. Of course there was initial doubt by the commission about social services and so that was referred to the social services inspectorate. The reply from the inspectorate, as the Minister mentioned, is that it is satisfied with the proposals, which include the joint arrangements to which I have just referred. Perhaps I should say, too, that I share the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in saying that none of that has been made public and it is just possible that there might be a difference of opinion on the conclusion which the inspectorate reached.
The education service needs to be mentioned. A director of education will have to he appointed. I have to say that I see two disadvantages here. First, I suspect that very few people will be attracted by such a small population. Secondly— and related to it— the area has no secondary schools and so there would he a director of education for primary education. It would be the only LEA that I know of in the country where the director of education would have no secondary schools to administer. It is doubtful whether a council would receive highly qualified applicants in such circumstances. If it did they would be from brighter younger people eager to enter educational administration for the first time. But I fear they would leave after gaining two or three years' experience, or perhaps a little more, in that field. I must say that that would not be good for Rutland's education service.
There are some services which by their very nature could not be conducted by an area as small as Rutland. It was to be expected that police, fire,
1576
probation and magistrates' courts would be administered over the whole of the existing Leicestershire County Council area, and the Minister spelt that out in his opening remarks.
This brings me to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kimball. It appears to me that there is a strong case for the proposal and, as I understand it, the same arrangements exist in many other parts of the country. The noble Lord expanded on the word "unique" and I was pleased to hear that. Any measure using that word ought to receive careful attention and I hope that the Government will accept the suggestion. I read, too, that the view expressed in the amendment is supported by the Museums and Galleries Commission and by the Museums Association. I suspect that the people of Rutland believe that the Leicestershire Museums, Arts and Records Service is one of the best in the country and they would not wish to see it changed in any way.
Most people in the area do not feel that they have been consulted. There have been two opinion polls and a virtual 190 per cent. leaflet distribution, but they do not appear to have made any impact on the population of Rutland. I believe that a referendum ought to have been held. In normal circumstances that might have been a difficult and costly project, but, as we are always saying how small Rutland is, in my view it would not have been so difficult or, indeed, so expensive to carry out.
In a referendum— which is a very different matter from the leaflets and newspaper advertisements that I mentioned earlier— the possible additional cost could have been made abundantly clear. I feel that that is probably the most important aspect of the reorganisation. Presumably the commission would have had to say that the new structure would result in up to an extra £6 million each year being spent on administrative costs, together with the one-off cost of £4 million to £6 million in changing to the new structure. Those figures come from the commission. Again, I ask the Minister to say in his reply who will pay those sums. The financial implications of the proposals are important and could well decide the attitudes of the people of Rutland. I hope that we can hear the Minister mention those implications tonight.
It seems certain from the evidence that there is no overwhelming desire by the inhabitants of Rutland to have unitary status. From my own personal experience, I believe that there is a strong community feeling in the area; a feeling— as I said earlier— which is attached to the pride of having been the smallest county in England. But, for the sake of emphasis, I repeat that that feeling cannot be detached from the concern about the cost involved and whether the present high standards of service can be maintained with such a small population. In those circumstances, I look forward with very great interest to the Minister's reply.
11.16 p.m.
The Earl of Gainsborough: My Lords, the Minister explained the purpose of the order and therefore I shall not spend any time discussing it. I mention only that, in a way, it is a status quo in that the city of Leicester will become again as it was before— an all-purpose authority, a county borough— and Rutland will again be a county, though now a unitary authority and not as it was when I was chairman of the county council with, at one time, no less than four district councils. It has always been small; its motto is multum in parvo.
We are very pleased in Rutland that the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, has come to live with us in his retirement. I believe that the noble Lord already more than accepts the area and has been made very welcome. The noble Lord mentioned a number of matters of great importance about costs and other considerations. I can assure him, and your Lordships generally, that the councillors on the Rutland District Council— and I was, until recently, one of them— took great care to ascertain from their constituents whether they wished Rutland to he restored to an independent county. I believe that there is a strong feeling within the area for Rutland to be independent as it was before. However, there is the question of costs and it will remain to be seen how that will work out eventually. I served as a councillor in Rutland from 1948 to 1992, so I know a little about how local government works in the area.
There are three comprehensive schools in Rutland and a sixth-form college; but I understand that two of the schools have opted to be grant-maintained and that the third one will probably do so. There is something in the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, about schools. The shadow education committee of the district council has dealt with all these matters and is fully satisfied that it will be able to deliver good education in Rutland, as was the case in the past. Our schools produced some excellent results. I still keep in touch with some people I knew when they were pupils in those schools. They have all done very well. Most of them have left Rutland, and they work all over the country and the world.
The noble Lord, Lord Kimball— outside this House I would refer to him as my noble friend, but I am not supposed to do that here because I sit on one side of the House and he sits on the other— is a close friend of mine and has been for many years. He and I served together on the county council. He mentioned, rightly, the excellent county museum service. It has been a great benefit to the Leicestershire county area, of which Rutland has been a part. Even before 1974 the city of Leicester provided a very good museum service. I had many dealings with it, as some of the artefacts belonging to my family were handed over to the museum service for safekeeping and so that the public could see them. I understand from my former colleagues on the Rutland District Council that they are in conversation with the other authorities with a view to setting up a joint operation so that the museum service can be maintained as a single Entity
1578
with its excellent professional staff, some of whom have been present this evening although because of the late hour most of them have had to go home.
There may he difficulties with some of the specialist services due to the size of Rutland. I am afraid that it is inevitable that some of those services will have to be obtained from outside the county, from the best available sources, and be paid for by Rutland. Some services can be provided internally but, because of the size of the county, not all.
The social services are extremely important. I remember that when I was quite a junior member of the county council, almost 40 years ago, the time came to appoint a children's officer. In those days the children's officer was responsible to the council for looking after children who needed care and attention. We appointed a very capable lady, who dealt virtually single-handed with all the matters relating to children and young people in the county. It is very encouraging to see the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, in the Chamber. She knows more about the subject than any of us, and certainly more than I do. She knows very well how those services started, having once herself held the post of children's officer in Oxfordshire.
Social services involve a great deal more today than they did 40 years ago. It will be important to see that social services are delivered in Rutland in a satisfactory manner. Again, there will have to be some help from outside. It may be more expensive than my former colleagues believe to deliver a good service in Rutland.
I admit to being one of those who are worried by the cost. The scale of operation of the new authority will mean that if the government grants and SSA levels are unfavourable towards Rutland the council tax will undoubtedly rise to a considerable extent. The Secretary of State has confirmed that resources will follow services, and it remains to be seen exactly how that will work out in practice. The noble Lord, Lord Dormand, spoke about the Local Government Commission's estimate of the additional costs. I shall not refer to that.
I believe that my former colleagues on the district council are confident that the figure of £125 per Band D household is higher than is likely to be the case. What will happen remains to be seen. I feel that Rutland people will probably have to pay quite a lot for their newly-acquired independence. However, I believe that they are willing to do so. There is a great community spirit in Rutland. I am sure that, even if costs are higher than before, provided that the services are delivered satisfactorily people will not mind paying for good services, delivered locally by councillors whom they know.
All councillors have to be elected. When I first went on the council we were never opposed. I had nearly 40 years of service. No one ever opposed me, except on one occasion, when I was defeated; but that served me right. Three years later I stood again. I knocked on everyone's door and was re-elected. The other poor chap was hardly seen again.

1579
I shall conclude because the hour is late. I still live in Rutland and do some work there. If Rutland succeeds in its new role it will be a formidable achievement. Many pundits say it will be impossible to achieve. I do not believe that it will be impossible, although it may be difficult. The Rutland motto is multum in parvo. I am sure that in its new incarnation it will live up to that motto very well.
11.27 p.m.
Lord Rees: My Lords, I support the amendment moved so eloquently by my noble friend Lord Kimball. I intervene in the debate with some diffidence because I have never lived in either of the old counties of Leicestershire or Rutland; nor— since my noble friend mentioned the new museum at Melton which is involved— have I ever kept horses in either of those two counties.
However, I speak as a member of the Museums and Galleries Commission. I am delighted to see that my colleague from the commission, my noble friend Lady Brigstocke, is present. The commission and I are very concerned about the future of the museums, arts and records service. It has existed for over 20 years. I do not wish to paint any of my noble friend's lilies in this regard, or to try to tap off what the noble Earl said about the service. I understand that over the past 20 years it has assembled a very capable and devoted staff. It has brought together many cultural functions. It has had many achievements, culminating— if that is the appropriate word— in the formation of the Snibston Discovery Park at Coalville, which has won a notable and satisfactory award.
I believe that all three parties during the review of the local government structure were in favour of some form of combined perpetuation of the service. Certainly the Museum and Galleries Commission is concerned about this. I believe that they have the support of the East Midlands Museum Service and the East Midlands Arts Board. Perhaps I may say this to my noble friend who moved the order. His department has been a little vague, or not precise in the direction it has given, about the division of assets and staff, which is of critical importance when one is talking about a museum service. On that basis I support the amendment of my noble friend.
If the order were to become law, I hope that my noble friend Lord Ferrers will give encouragement to the view that there should be some combination of the three authorities to provide those services. There is a good precedent in Norwich, although I shall leave it to the noble Baroness who will speak later in the debate to tell us more about that precedent. I noticed that when the noble Earl moved the order, he mentioned that there would he a combination for the purpose of appointments to the police authority. So there is plenty of precedent for something along those lines, if the division of the three authorities goes ahead.
1580
Finally, I make a plea to the noble Earl that in the broad sweep of local government reform, the role of museums and of the local authorities in their provision for museums should not be overlooked.
11.30 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I speak tonight as someone who was born and grew up in Leicestershire, who returned to Leicestershire as an adult at a time when my involvement through my husband's job was in education, prior to reorganisation. In those days people who lived in what they viewed as Leicester, particularly people who moved to the locality, could not understand the boundaries. I am not certain that that problem is resolved by the order before us tonight. I speak also as someone who spent most of their adult life away from Leicestershire, living in Lancashire. I know that the sense of place can encompass both county and locality. Those who fiercely support their right to be Prestonians and proud of it will also sing that they are lassies from Lancashire.
I question whether the order started from a process with the wrong questions put in the wrong way. The sense of place that people possess and the strength of community feeling are important. I find it difficult to accept from a Government who have, over a considerable time, managed to produce legislation which has been decidedly unpopular, that it appears to be beyond them to bring forward fairly minor legislation to allow the people of Rutland to have a ceremonial county, without having to have a unitary local authority. From these Benches, were we minded to support that solution, I am sure we could come up with a consensus as to which legislation at present could be put on one side to allow such a piece of legislation to pass.
At this hour I would not dream of repeating them but among the many points raised to do with strategic planning, the library and museums service and other services, my noble friend Lord Dormand referred to the most important issue. The people of Rutland, when questioned, appeared to make it clear that, if additional cost were to result, they did not want to see a change in the structure of local government.
I refer to that because the whole review of local government has started badly. Functions and finance are obviously integral to good, effective, enduring local government structures and a realistic assessment of the costs of change is necessary. We can already see people in Scotland, Wales and parts of England objecting to the fact that, far from providing money for reorganisation, the Government have allowed too little to be borrowed by local communities to pay for the cost of change. I am not clear that, on the Government's own admission, given that most of the important services will have to be purchased from elsewhere rather than be provided by a democratically elected authority whose members the people of Rutland are entitled to elect directly, the people of Rutland have been given a fair opportunity to answer the real questions.

1581
I repeat my question, to which I am sure we shall receive a reply; namely, why have the detailed views of the inspectorate on the issue of social services, and other matters raised, not been made public?
It is now becoming quite clear that the Government are beginning to recognise the cost implications of local government reorganisation. The Secretary of State, Mr. Gummer, said in answer to a Question from Sir Colin Shepherd that the implementation of reorganisation in England must proceed at a pace that would take account of the resources available.
What is the position with regard to those resources? It is that the authorities that face reorganisation on 1st April this year bid for a total of £113 million under the 1995–96 scheme, but were allocated approval to borrow a mere £50 million. In 1996–97 the sum of £100 million in borrowing approvals for all reorganisations has been set aside and taken out of the local authority finance settlement. That is inadequate. The local authorities that are already subject to reorganisation orders have assessed the costs and the total bids for reorganisation to be £220 million. The figures do not include orders such as the one before us tonight. I cannot believe that the allocation of £55 million will be adequate for the orders that the Government intend to bring before Parliament to implement reorganisation.
At a time when local government services are not adequately funded, when services are suffering as a result of government constraints on expenditure, when the people of Scotland are marching in large numbers to object to education cuts and referring to the imposition of a reorganisation tax, it is very difficult to accept that the answer that people from a new county of Rutland will give to the Government in 12 months' time will be the one that the Government want to hear or appear to anticipate.
Speakers referred to many concerns about this reorganisation proposal. It is critically important that services are protected. The functions of local government have changed in emphasis since the old pattern prior to the last major reorganisation. It is critically important that authorities have the resources and the capacity to protect the vulnerable who need care in the community and services to meet special educational needs. There is one assurance that the Minister ought at the very least to give the House tonight. If the Government are determined to press ahead with changes such as those in the order, they owe it to people in the areas to fund the costs of their policy and to allow those in the locality to protect and strengthen services following a government-imposed reorganisation.
11.34 p.m.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, some years ago I was Member of Parliament for one of the constituencies in the City of Leicester. I also live on the borders of Leicestershire. So I have some knowledge of the area and the problems that arise from these orders. I shall say little about Rutland because I know less about it,
1582
and a number of expert views upon it have already been given. I simply say that for a county of some 34,000 it seems to be stretching it quite a lot. I am a great admirer of their spirit in going for this target, but am less enthusiastic about their economics. I say nothing about the museums. Experts have commented on them, and I entirely endorse what they have said.
I confine my remarks to the City of Leicester becoming a unitary authority.As my noble friend on the Front Bench said, I recall that before 1974 it was a county borough. To some extent, it is reverting to that state. I recall, too, the regret at the change which was brought about in 1974. That took place over 20 years ago. The initial cost and disruption to which it gave rise have been absorbed. It is now working reasonably well, if not very effectively. As my noble friend Lord Kimball has described it, the City of Leicester is central to and interdependent with the county. It is an ideal example of a county town. It shares most services with the county. Most of the services will be fragmented as a resulted of these proposals. It is, as the commission described, almost a perfect example of a town which should not be a unitary authority, Had the city boundaries been wider than they are, I might have shared the commission's views on this order. Regretfully, I do not.
The very narrow boundaries which surround Leicester cause considerable problems. I shall not bore your Lordships with references to the Redcliffe-Maud Report, which I am sure my noble friend knows well, or The Crossnian Diaries that came out shortly afterwards. They gave reasons why the boundaries were kept so tight for political reasons, which I am sure no one would wish to copy today. But those boundaries are tight. There is no room for expansion. The county boundary cuts across pretty well every road in the city. One can cross the county boundary without touching a patch of grass or anything other than urban streets. There is no room for expansion or growth, or for the provision of services of various kinds, such as waste disposal and those kinds of things. They have to be begged somehow from the county. Despite the goodwill which I am sure we all help to create between county and city, there is an underlying dislike for handing over land from the county to the city and, with it, the people living on it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and other noble Lords have referred to the structure plan. Three authorities— city, county and Rutland— are being encouraged to work together on a voluntary basis. There is no suggestion of a boss who will knock their heads together if they do not agree. Goodness only knows what will happen if they do not agree. I ask my noble friend to persuade them to take a more realistic view of this. It is impossible to imagine that the city will be able to demand an expansion beyond its boundary to Wigston, or somewhere like that, to the offence of occupants there, without causing major problems in the county.
Services which have bedded down and have been working satisfactorily for the past 20-odd years are to be torn up by their roots and divided. The services cover such matters as education, social services,

1583
museums and libraries, and so on. Under those, there are 63 separate operations that have to be split. Each of those will no doubt want a new head of department and will probably want new offices and buildings. Goodness knows what will happen to the standards! I feel that it is very regrettable.
My noble friend referred to the police. The police have to come under a new joint committee which has to be formed. As my noble friend Lord Kimball said, it has to reflect the party political balance of the constituent components of the county, the city and Rutland. It will present a massive problem because, as I understand from the noble Earl, Rutland does not have a party political attitude to these matters. Apart from that difficulty— it is not a difficulty but rather a pleasant state of affairs, is it not?— the numbers will presumably be related to the number of councillors. Rutland will have one councillor for every 1,685 people; the city of Leicester will have one councillor for 5,160 members of the population; and the county will have one councillor for every 10,640 people. Those are the ratios. Each of them will presumably have the same pull and authority in that key joint committee for the police.
That illustrates one of the kinds of problem that will arise. I am sure that they will manage to tackle it and overcome it, but it will be very difficult and one of quite a number of problems.
Perhaps I may refer to a problem which is perhaps quite unique to the city of Leicester compared with other counties and county towns of the same kind. Leicester has a very large ethnic community. Much of that community has dispersed into the county around it. Leicester and the county have behaved with great responsibility over the past 25 years in dealing with that problem. They have a very proud record. It is most important that nothing should arise which could cause any disturbance to that. But fears have been expressed to me that to isolate Leicester in the way that this order may tend to do, may, with a further ethnic community coming into it, produce a very large element in a city, which would run the danger of creating problems. It is a very delicate area and I do not want to say anything to suggest that there are likely to be any difficulties. I am sure that there will not be. On the other hand, I should have felt happier if the commission had looked at this very particular problem before making its judgment. It is of very great importance that nothing must be done to disturb or disrupt the community that has existed so well, considering the difficulties, over such a long period.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to the cost, which is an extra £6 million per annum. That is very little compared with the total budget. But it will not produce an additional teacher, or any extra person. It is £6 million per annum paid in order to achieve this result, with an initial sum of between £4 million and £6 million. I ask, why? So far as I can see, no one has asked for the change to be made, and no one seems to want it particularly. My noble friend referred to a public opinion poll and said That there were some
1584
41 per cent. in favour of the change. If I understood rightly, that figure was arrived at by taking all the three options put together which proposed unitary status and adding together. the replies that came. One can make anything one likes of the various statistics. One could quote them all evening and still not get agreement.
There is, however, one statistic which I find impressive; namely, the response from the opinion poll. Something like 2 per cent. responded. The highest proportion of those consulted wanted the change that is now suggested. Almost the same number wanted no change. I am not quite sure why two amounts of 1.5 per cent. add up to 2 per cent. but apparently it is so— 1.5 per cent. of those consulted wanted the change and a similar 1.5 per cent. wanted no change. Incidentally, that was not one of the options on the survey paper; but it indicates that there was hardly an overwhelming thrust of people wanting to spend that extra money and to sacrifice those services to make the change.
Others who are opposed to the change include the majority of parish councils, the majority of voluntary organisations and the majority of those with educational interests. I find that worrying. Reference was made to the fact that this issue was not discussed in the other place, except in committee. There is considerable resentment in Leicester and Leicestershire that their Members of Parliament did not have a part in the committee considering the order when it was a matter which meant so much to their constituents. Those of us who know a little about the area have been given the chance today to discuss the matter, and I am grateful for that. I should have liked to urge the Government not to fix it, as it is not bust. However, if we have gone beyond the point when I can do that, all I can do is wish the councils well in their new role, and only wish that it were not so.
11.50 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, at this hour of the night it is not my intention to go over ground already covered so ably by other noble Lords. I shall therefore throw away much of what I prepared, but perhaps I can make just one or two points.
I have always found the process of structural change in local government a fascinating one. It has changed in detail and method over the years, but the essential principles, rather like shuffling a pack of cards and dealing them out, have remained the same. That similarity is all the more pertinent given that we live in a time when resources are restricted. I cannot help feeling that the people of Leicestershire at large will finish up holding a pretty poor hand. And the people of Rutland in particular are being dealt a yarborough, for which they will pay dearly when the bills are finally presented.
Even if the overall effects of those changes were cost neutral from a national point of view— we know that they are not— experience suggests that a shift of

1585
financial resource in the form of standard spending assessment to the urban areas is the result of change. In any event, the loss of the ability to spread costs over both urban and rural communities tends to leave rural areas with higher costs than is the case where both work together in a unified way.
Can my noble friend the Minister give me any assurance that the people of Rutland, for instance, will be in any way protected from such effects? We have the commission's estimate that after the changes a Band D council tax payer in Rutland will have to pay over £170 more in the first year than would have been the case under present arrangements. We heard tonight that the district council has made other estimates, and indeed expects to achieve a saving. I should like very much to hope that that might be so, but in my experience— and I spent a very long time in local government— one usually found that district councils, in looking at these situations, were preparing their estimates on an unrealistic basis.
Local government is not just about money; it is also about the provision of essential services to the community. The new Rutland, which in my own county of Essex would be joined with an adjacent area to form even a district council, is likely to have particular problems in this respect. While it may manage well enough in respect of the generality of services, it will be likely to have particular problems with specialist services where its small scale will make adequate levels of investment difficult.
I mention two areas. I understand that there are 156 children in the Rutland area who are statemented as having special educational needs. While such cases are increasingly dealt with through the ordinary schools system, many of the cases will require additional, specialist facilities. Again, can my noble friend the Minister assure me that adequate co-operative arrangements with neighbouring authorities will be in place at the changeover to ensure that no child has to suffer more difficult conditions than those that exist before the change?
Similarly, we see increasing numbers of elderly people in the community. Indeed, we should rejoice in the rising standard of living generally that makes this possible. However, as the elderly increase in number and as people tend to live longer, so does the number of the elderly mentally infirm increase. That puts a particular burden on the local authority to provide the specialist facilities that such cases require. Again, I ask my noble friend the Minister whether he is satisfied that adequate arrangements, sufficiently resourced, will be in place in the new Rutland so that no one is less well served than they have been in the past.
I admire the sheer bravado of the Rutland case, although I fear that it is a bravado which will cost its people dearly. I hope that I am wrong; indeed, I would like to be proved to be wrong, but in the meantime I shall await the response of my noble friend the Minister with interest.
11.57 p.m.
Baroness Brigstocke: My Lords, like my fellow commissioner and noble friend Lord Rees, I rise to support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Kimball. I shall be brief. I have just chaired a committee of experienced and knowledgeable museum education experts who produced the guidelines on museum education for the Museums and Galleries Commission. They all share the concern that small museums on their own do not have the resources or the expertise to provide the educational support for the National Curriculum, or indeed the public at large, which can come from a larger, co-ordinated museum authority with a wide range of specialists. I only hope, as the noble Earl, Lord Gainsborough, indicated, that, as in the case of the Norfolk museum service, Leicestershire will be able to run a joint museum board and thus preserve its specialist expertise, collections care and local services.
This debate, whatever its outcome, provides an opportunity to stress the importance of museums in their local community. It is evident that in the broad sweep of local authority re-organisation there is real danger that, despite the best efforts of the Museums and Galleries Commission, museums may be overlooked because they appear a relatively small component in the bigger pattern of local authority services. They are not; they are a vital element in the overall education provision of this country.
Midnight
Lord Crawshaw: My Lords, I feel that I ought to declare more than a passing interest in the county of Leicestershire. I was born there and I still live there. Although I am not a councillor, I am a subscriber to and consumer of the services provided. I have had a certain amount of involvement with public life in the county and my only concern is to try to get the best for the maximum number of people in Leicester and Leicestershire. My main experience of public life in the county and the city has come through the Scout movement in which I served as a county commissioner for 20 years, and in that role I went to all parts of Leicestershire and Rutland.
Leicester is, of course, the county town. It is centrally placed and was, and is, the focal point. However, I perceived something of a fortress mentality within Leicester, emanating from local government, and from which people in other spheres always took their cue. It is a mental rather than a physical wall because at least 40 per cent. of the people working in Leicester live outside in the county.
As we have heard, Leicestershire and Leicester are very much interdependent. I am not sure of the origin of that introspective attitude. After all, the city of Leicester has performed on a national plane since the Romans made it an important centre with a fosse way through it, connecting Watling Street to Ermine Street; Simon de Montfort called the first Parliament there; the city witnessed the last journey of Richard III; Cardinal Wolsey lies in the remains of the abbey,

1587
which was demolished, to his great shame, by Henry VIII— and so it goes on, through the Civil War, and the Chartist movement to the present time.
Pride in the city is understandable and admirable, but that should extend beyond the mental wall into the surrounding county. So now, when at last we have all our councillors under one roof, it seems a great pity to dismantle that at great expense. I believe that the extra expense is in the order of £6 million per annum.
My noble friend Lord Kimball mentioned museums, arts and records— and I support him. I too have a list. My noble friend Lord Boardman counted 63 specialist services; I make it 66, but whatever it is, it is a great number, and they would be fragmented or duplicated under the proposed order. Your Lordships will be glad to hear that I do not intend to go through them all. I was going to say something about strategic land use and planning, but that subject has been fairly well aired. The proposal for three new authorities assuming joint responsibility for planning instead of a single authority must be doubtful, to say the least. That is what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was concerned about in her amendment.
In one way the fortress mentality is justified because Leicester's boundaries, drawn up in 1935, are very tight and in many ways artificial. There is not enough room to meet all the needs, so many joint arrangements would be required, thus completely undermining the principle of a unitary authority.
There are no tracts of derelict land to be recycled. I remember years ago driving along the Belgrave Road area and seeing rows and rows of depressing back-to-back houses and wondering when they would he knocked down and replaced. Then along came the mass immigration of Asians from Uganda et cetera who have renovated and relit the area, as well as set up scores of prosperous businesses. That is a very good thing in many ways, but excludes thoughts of new houses for the home population.
So, as the Local Government Commission has to admit,
"There remains little scope for further development within the present boundaries, so inevitably the future planning and economic development of the area will need to involve parts of Blaby, Oadby, Wigston, Charnwood and possibly Harborough".
A unitary Leicester on present boundaries would also have a detrimental effect on surrounding suburban and rural areas which rely heavily on services, such as special schools, based in Leicester.
As to Rutland, although it is not really within my sphere I confess I was pleased when I heard that Rutland was going to stage some sort of revival. I have always been fascinated by England's smallest county and enchanted by the county town of Oakham. Indeed, I am physically incapable of using any other address than "Oakham, Rutland" on an envelope.
I have no wish to snuff out or take over some 34,000 people and this land. For example, the
1588
Leicestershire and Rutland police have always got on well together and should remain like that, but a rigid unitary authority again gives me visions of a fortress mentality. Rather surprisingly, I thought at the time, I have been written to by various householders, councillors, schoolteachers, etc., in Rutland asking me to try to ensure the continued alliance with Leicestershire. Householders are not anxious to pay between £125 and £170 per annum minimum as their share of the increased total of £2 million per annum. In education, for example, Mr. Hitchcox of the Ketton Church of England primary school in Rutland, is only one schoolmaster who asks your Lordships to prevent, using his words, "the proposed insanity".
Your Lordships may by now have the impression that I am not exactly impressed with this order and could not vote to approve it. After what has been said, I hope my noble friend Lord Ferrers will recognise our feelings and suggest how we might proceed. After all, the noble Earl has more Leicestershire blood in his veins than anyone else here.
As I understand it, until today this order has had only one hour and 30 minutes scrutiny by the Standing Committee in the other place. The composition of that committee was strange, to say the least. I fear I have only recently become directly involved in these proposals, having been laid up for most of last year, but there is a great deal of experience in this House which cannot be expressed in one evening and at this hour. I would happily vote for some motion or amendment that would have the effect of allowing more time to scrutinise the order. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Ferrers will suggest that we refer the matter to a Select Committee.
There is a great deal at stake and everybody in the area is bound to he affected in some way. At the moment many of us feel that change is being proposed for change's sake and not because the present set-up is unsatisfactory. No other proposed unitary authority is as essential to and independent with its county as Leicester is with Leicestershire. I am sorry to have to say that I fear this order will be expensive and a retrograde step.
12.9 a.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I must apologise that my name is not on the list of speakers. I was at a meeting in the City this morning; I found myself in a traffic jam outside St. Paul's and did not arrive before 12 o'clock in time to put my name down.
I speak, as the noble Earl, Lord Gainsborough, knows, as a children's officer and a director of social services. I spent three-and-a-half very happy years working in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland, and therefore I have a little knowledge of that delightful area of England.

1589
Oxford has a great historic background, as has Rutland. We have a Lord Mayor and ceremony. I should have thought that Rutland would be able to have the ceremonial procedures that it wants. I cannot think that Rutland will ever lose its wonderful historic identity.
I shall talk about the social services. The noble Earl, Lord Gainsborough, spoke about the wonderful woman Rutland had as a children's officer. Since then social services have changed completely. They have now to deal with the Children Act 1989, which produces an enormous amount of work; the community care legislation; and, as has been said, Part III of the Education Act.
A director of social services in Rutland will now have a solely bureaucratic job. It will not involve social work, because Rutland will be unable to provide the facilities that it will need to deal with all the social work cases. It will find itself buying in services through the purchaser/provider system. So the director of social services will not be doing social work but merely obtaining services by buying them in. Under those circumstances, a true social worker would not find the job satisfying, although he or she would be satisfied at living in a lovely place like Rutland.
Several noble Lords have talked about the social services report. I can tell your Lordships why it has not been seen: it has not been published. I have made inquiries about it. The social services inspectorate of the Department of Health has visited Rutland. It has talked to Rutland, but it has not said whether it agrees or disagrees with any recommended change. It has asked Rutland to produce a plan, and that plan has not yet been produced. I hope I have not misunderstood that, because I have made careful inquiries. We do not yet know what the social services inspectorate will recommend.
Coterminosity will cause a great deal of extra work. Rutland will find it difficult to work with the police, the Probation Service, the courts, and the child protection teams. It will find it far more difficult than it envisaged because when it was its own authority it did not have that range of work to do.
Other noble Lords have talked about costs. Do the people of Rutland really know what this will cost them? I acknowledge that some of them are so anxious to have independence that they believe the price is worth paying, but it will come hard to a number of people in Rutland.
When I worked in the area, Leicester City and the County of Leicester worked harmoniously with the county and City of Rutland. I cannot believe that it will add to the efficiency of education, the social services, and other services for them not to be as one. Oxford is an old historic city which goes back to the 12th century. We have the county, and we have the status quo. It is working out extremely well. Leicester is in the centre of the area, as is Oxford. I would say that the system of one central department, with branch offices all with the same policy and operating in the
1590
same way throughout the county, gives both flexibility and a cohesive service. Therefore I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Kimball.
12.15 a.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, let me first of all declare an interest as a vice-president of the Association of District Councils. This has been a full and interesting debate, especially on issues of cost, boundaries and democratic representation. These are issues which, if I may say so, have been more thoroughly explored and at greater length in this House tonight than they have been in the other place.
As it is late, I will not say much of what I was going to say. The 1974 reorganisation, as is widely agreed, was especially unfortunate for those former county boroughs, like Leicester, which for centuries, as proud and independent cities, had run their own affairs— and that at a time when in county councils the administration was by justices in quarter session.
With a population of 285,000 and a strong tradition of self-government, I think it could be argued that Leicester should never have lost so many vital functions in 1974. Reorganisation, we are now told, has strong local support. I think there can be no doubt about the competence and viability of Leicester City, nor of the remaining county council, to provide the full range of services; and in so far as it would allow the county council to focus on more rural matters undistracted by the urban focus of the city of Leicester and its strong ethnic mix, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, then we very much hope that reorganisation will, for the people of Leicestershire and of Leicester City, be a win-win proposal.
These orders are consistent with those so far proposed for Bristol, York and Hull, and for others like Nottingham, Derby, Plymouth, Portsmouth, and so on, which are in the pipeline. I have to say that the situation is rather different when one looks at Rutland. As many speakers tonight have said, Rutland clearly has a strong sense of community and historic identity. Very real worries have been expressed about cost, to which my noble friend Lord Dormand referred. Rutland is extremely small: smaller in population, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, than many urban parishes and many town councils, although it is of course larger than the Scilly Isles and some Scottish island councils. The jury, I have to say, may he out in some eyes on Rutland's competence to ensure the delivery of all services to an acceptable level. I think one does accept many of the worries mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, tonight.
However, if the Department of Health is satisfied in terms of its social services provision, and given the move to local self-management of education— which means, of course, that schools are no longer dependent on having a large number-based local authority to run them-I join with other noble Lords tonight in hoping and trusting that Rutland Council will be an effective and efficient local authority. We wish it well, whatever question marks we may have about the

1591
viability of its services. What it does, of course, is to once and for all destroy any of the arguments that only local authorities of at least 100,000 or 150,000 can be viable. In so far as Rutland is evidence of the plurality of English local government, that too performs a useful service.
What I want to do in the remaining time is to focus rather more explicitly on the issue of museums, raised by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kimball. At the 1974 re-organisation the museums service was, unusually, made a concurrent function; that is, both district council and county council could take responsibility for it. Virtually all former county boroughs of which I am aware— for example, Hull, Derby, Nottingham, Plymouth and Portsmouth— chose to continue to run their own museums authority. That means that, as they become unitary authorities, there is no question involved of splintering, dividing or trying to take apart what has been knitted together. They have run side by side and county councils have done likewise. Therefore, no historic properties, no collections and no professional staff need to be untangled.
Two counties, both of which have been mentioned tonight— Norfolk and Leicester— followed a different route in 1974. In that year, Leicester City was running a museum service in which 70 percent. of its collection referred not to the city but to the county; in other words, the city was running a truncated, county museum service on a county-borough base. While that was just possible financially on such a base, it clearly became impossible on the much smaller budget of a district council. Therefore, by agreement in 1974, and uniquely, which I believe is the right word to use tonight, the entire city museums service was transferred to the county: its historic buildings and its collections and records, lock, stock and barrel. So far as I am aware, it was the only former county borough so to do.
However, Norwich and Norfolk (the other aberrant county) did it differently, as one might expect. We set up— and I speak as one of the negotiators for the arrangement in 1972— a joint museums authority. The city council retained ownership of its historic properties, including the castle and its pre-1974 collection; but the county ran and managed the entire collection and owns the post-1974 additions. The museums authority is steered by a joint committee of city and county councillors, the more easily, I believe, because museums are not normally politically contentious and all members are guided by their professional officers. They are very dependent on that advice. Were Norwich to become a unitary authority I am confident that the same joint— authority arrangements would rightly and properly continue. I would certainly argue vigorously for that.
Therefore, in most of England, former county boroughs, which are now becoming unitary authorities again, kept a separate, independent and free-standing museum service. Norfolk went for a joint museum service. Leicestershire, uniquely, went for an exclusively county service. That is why the noble
1592
Lord, Lord Kimball, is absolutely right tonight to focus on the particular problems that that presents at re-organisation.
Since 1974, Leicester .county has built up that service to what I believe is possibly one of the finest in the country. It has 200 staff, a strong archaeological unit which, inevitably, has to be county-wide, a strong county ecology service, a strong county records service (though one, I have to say, that is so strong that it tried to charge me twice for using the service once; no doubt that will show its financial viability in the future, and I am sure that it was not personal) and pioneering community and disability access. It is clearly a service which is hugely popular.
It is clearly difficult and certainly unwise to splinter an integrated service. How does one break up the collections? Does one do so by way of where the material came from, from where it refers to or even by ascertaining whether it was acquired before or after 1974? If I may suggest it, the answer is that the city and the county together should consider, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, said, a joint solution along the Norfolk lines which will protect and strengthen an integrated service.
The very "interconnectedness" that so many speakers have mentioned tonight of city and county makes that a sensible solution in my view. Such a service does work. I know. I can personally recommend it. To my pleasure, I believe that the city of Leicester, as well as the county of Leicestershire, also recognise that fact. In a letter to the Minister of 27th February of which I have a copy— and I know that the noble Earl will forgive me for mentioning it— the leader of the city council said:
"I am writing to confirm that Leicester City Council is fully committed to establishing robust joint arrangements for the Museums. Arts and Records Services".
This could be a joint board or a joint committee. Either way, I was assured this evening on the telephone by the leader of Leicester City Council, Peter Soulsby, that there will be an integrated service, run by a joint authority, with councillors drawn from both authorities and with shared financial responsibility. The leader of Leicester City Council told me tonight that he expects that those joint arrangements will be in place by the end of June at the latest and probably well before then.
Therefore, as a result of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, with the support of other noble Lords led by the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, the city and county councils have been brought together to a sensible view that there should be an integrated museum service. A joint museums authority will follow. I am sure that that will benefit the people of both Leicester and Leicestershire. With those assurances on an important service, we are happy to support the recommendations.
12.25 a.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we have had an interesting debate. I find myself in some slight

1593
difficulty because, owing to the lateness of the hour, one might wish for a short reply, but it would he a discourtesy if I did not reply to noble Lords who, correctly, have aired their anxieties.
I know that this is a matter of considerable concern to many people who live in Leicestershire and Rutland. It is notable that tonight we have heard from my noble friend Lord Kimball, who has lived in Rutland and is well connected with Leicestershire; the noble Earl, Lord Gainsborough, who lives in Rutland; the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, who lives in Leicestershire; my noble friend Lord Boardman, who was Member of Parliament for Leicester; and my noble friend Lord Crawshaw, who is also a great Leicestershire man. Therefore, a great deal of interest has been shown in Leicestershire this evening.
My noble friend Lord Kimball said that there was no groundswell for change, as did my noble friend Lord Boardman. That is perfectly true. One of the difficulties about any local government changes is that nobody actually likes change but everyone wants to hang on to what they have. However, it was necessary for the Government to set up the Local Government Commission to suggest what changes ought to be made where it considered that necessary. That is why we have taken the advice of the Local Government Commission.
My noble friends Lord Kimball and Lord Boardman and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, criticised the way the order was dealt with in another place. I shall not follow that track because that is a matter for another place.
I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, welcomed the return of Rutland. I gather that that is very popular in the area of Rutland. Indeed, I am told that one brewery there— none other than Ruddles brewery in Oakham in Rutland— is producing a special beer called Independence, so the order may please some people, and it will please a great many more who have had a swig of the beer.
It has been questioned whether Rutland, with a population of 34,000, can provide the necessary services. I believe that it can. It is not the smallest county. There are other authorities which are smaller. For instance, Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles are three Scottish councils which have been unitary authorities since 1975. They are all smaller than Rutland. Orkney has a population of only 20,000, which makes Rutland look quite big in comparison. Therefore it is possible for the change to be carried out properly. It will be an enabling authority. That means that it can buy in services as necessary. The job of that unitary authority will he to ensure that services are available to the people of Rutland, whether those services are provided by the authority itself or are purchased from another.
The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, was concerned that this should be a ceremonial authority without being a unitary authority. I am hound to tell her that Rutland can only have a ceremonial identity if there is a structural change. There is no such thing
1594
as an historic county status. Therefore it can only become a county again if Rutland becomes a unitary authority.
That puzzled my noble.friend Lady Faithfull. She asked, "What about Oxford?" Oxford has a Lord Mayor because it is a city. Oxfordshire has a Lord Lieutenant because it is a county. At present, Rutland cannot have a Lord Lieutenant because it is not a county for the purposes of the Local Government Act 1972. It can only become a county and have a Lord Lieutenant if it becomes a unitary authority.
I thought my noble friend Lord Kimball made a convincing speech in support of his amendment. My noble friend Lady Brigstocke, my noble friend Lord Rees, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, also agreed with what he said about the museum, arts and records service. The noble Earl, Lord Gainsborough, said that it was a good museum service as— this was not the reason he gave to justify that— it had the records of his own family. I, too, believe that it is a good service; it also has the records of my family.
I know that there has been considerable concern in the locality about what will happen to the museums, arts and records' service. Having been brought up in Leicestershire, and having gone in the New Year to open a Robert Bakewell exhibition, put on by the museum service— my noble friend Lord Kimball referred to it— I know only too well what an excellent service the people in "old" Leicestershire have.
My noble friend was quite right, because I had been to Rutland I was asked to give a golden horseshoe at the Castle Museum, Oakham. I was told that one of the requirements is that a Peer who visits Oakham should give a horseshoe. I was asked to do so, and I said in a conciliatory way that of course I would give a horseshoe. I was not aware until this evening that it was supposed to be a golden horseshoe. However that may be, a horseshoe of some description will appear in due course. I think it is a very good thing to have such practices.
When I went to Leicestershire, none of those whom I met could resist the opportunity of giving me the full flood of their views; and I do not take any exception to that. They were quite right to do so and they did it with great courtesy. I have also had the pleasure of receiving various letters about the matter— all virtually saying the same thing, "We have an excellent service and we don't want it bust up".
After all, the service has received support from local, regional and national organisations; and the creation of this service some 20 years ago brought together a whole range of "heritage" activities where the whole becomes much more than the sum of its parts.
I hope that I can allay some of the fears which some noble Lords have understandably expressed this evening, and which to an extent I share. In the end it must be for the authorities concerned to decide how best to provide the full range of local government services in their areas. It would not be right for the Government to try to force them to adopt joint arrangements. In fact it is not possible for us to do so.

1595
The fact is that the Government have no powers to force them to adopt joint arrangements. First, the provision of a museums service is discretionary on the part of local authorities. They are not obliged to provide the service. Secondly, if we were to force them to join together we would be changing a discretionary function into a compulsory one. We cannot do that.
It was because we understood the concerns which people had locally that my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary took the unusual step of writing to the authorities concerned. He told them that we expect them all to co-operate in setting up good arrangements to safeguard the county's museums. Those arrangements should be to the satisfaction of the Museums and Galleries Commission which has issued guidelines to local authorities on the provision of the service. He also asked the local authorities to keep the Department of National Heritage informed of their arrangements.
Both Rutland and Leicester City Council have confirmed that they are sensitive to the need for an integrated service and they have undertaken to follow the guidance on the provision of museum services provided by the Museums and Galleries Commission and the Department of National Heritage.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said, I received a letter today from the leader of Leicester City Council. I confirm that he said that they were:
"committed to establishing robust joint arrangements for the Museums, Arts and Records Services",
and that they were "anxious" to reach a sensible conclusion with the county council which:
"preserved the integrity of the collections".
He also said that it had been decided to hold a special meeting of the members and officers of the two authorities within, they hoped, the next two weeks. That is a pretty convincing undertaking. The letter also said that the council was working with the Museums and Galleries Commission to find a suitable solution.
My noble friend Lord Rees said that we, the Government, had been slow about saying how the assets would be divided up. I hope that the assets will not be divided up. The whole purpose of what we have been trying to do is to ensure that the assets will not be divided up. I do not see that there should be any difficulty in keeping the same excellent standard of service as has been achieved to date; but it will be organised by a joint committee of the three authorities, if that is what they want.
After all, there is nothing new in that. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said, it has been done in the county in which I now live. I am not a peripatetic person, but it just happens that I live in Norfolk, whereas I used to live in Leicestershire. Therefore, I happen to have experience, in a modest way, of both. That has happened in Norfolk and has worked well for the past 20 years.
1596
In my personal modest judgment, it would be a disaster if the Leicestershire Museums, Arts and Records Service were to be split up. It would be quite unnecessary. I simply cannot believe that it would be in anyone's interest to use up valuable staff resources in busting up a service which is doing good work. I am sure that there are enough people of stature and goodwill in Leicestershire to ensure that that does not happen. If the three local authorities work together— and there is no reason why they should not and I understand that they intend to— I see no reason to think that the services will not continue.
I turn to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in which she says that there is no statutory safeguard for effective strategic planning. I mentioned earlier the joint arrangements which we seek for structure planning in Leicestershire. Our policy is that where there needs to be joint working, it should be done on a voluntary basis. We think that this is more accountable. For all services there should be statutory joint arrangements only where it is absolutely necessary. Authorities locally are in the best position to know what arrangements are most suitable in their own circumstances.
As the noble Baroness said, Section 21 of the 1992 Act contains a power for the Secretary of State to set up a statutory joint authority in cases where voluntary arrangements do not work. I am advised though— and the noble Baroness confirmed this— that the power is not available in hybrid situations like Leicestershire. My right honourable friend has made it clear that he is looking to the authorities concerned to produce a structure plan for their combined areas. He has asked them to set up joint working arrangements to maintain the Leicestershire structure plan.
The department has recently consulted on a draft circular about that. The circular contains advice on development planning after reorganisation. We expect to publish the final circular within the next month or so. The local authority associations and planning officer societies are working together to provide practical guidance to their members nationally. It will cover the different approaches to joint working which are possible under Section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972. They expect to publish a guidance note shortly. I find that encouraging.
My noble friend Lord Kimball and the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, were concerned about the size of Rutland, saying it was too small. I have explained that there are other unitary authorities smaller than it. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was concerned about the social services findings. The Department of Health found that Rutland understood the scale of the role which it will assume. Rutland is aware of the need to adopt an enabling role rather than to provide services directly itself, and that it must co-operate with other authorities in the provision of those services. Considerable progress has already been made in identifying the issues and in finding the solutions.
The social services inspector was in regular contact with the district council. This included meetings with the authority and consultants advising the district on

1597
its unitary preparations. The inspector concentrated on assisting Rutland to identify and to explore the more critical issues in order to find a tailor-made solution.
The noble Lord, Lord Dormand, was concerned about the cost implications. The commission made it perfectly clear that there were cost implications. The response from the people of Rutland was, nevertheless, still to support the unitary status. Given the anxieties expressed, we undertook a further analysis of the financial implications. Independent advice from the Institute of Public Finance estimates the increased council tax to be somewhere between £6 and £15, which is much less than the estimates of the commission.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, were concerned, again, about the costs of transition. The authorities can apply for supplementary credit approvals for transitional costs. That allows them to spread the costs over many years and in some cases to defer all repayments for a while. That is in order to enable reorganisation to be implemented smoothly and effectively.
The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, was concerned about Rutland being an enabling authority. I do not think it is true to say that enabling authorities are less democratic than those that offer the direct provision of services. It is still the councillors who decide what the level of service should be and how those services should be provided. It may be that they decide to provide the service themselves, or it may be that they decide to buy it in. But either way it is a democratically provided service.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Farrington and Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lady Faithfull were concerned about the publication of the report by the Social Services Inspectorate. I shall look into the matter, if I may. My noble friend Lady Faithfull said that the Social Services Inspectorate has not made a recommendation. However, the report says in terms that, given its work with Rutland, it has no reason to object to the decision to award Rutland unitary status.
My noble friend Lord Boardman, with all his experience as a former Member of Parliament for Leicester, was concerned about the expansion of Leicester's boundaries. The commission looked at this issue pretty carefully before producing its draft report. It found that the city council is not pressing for an increase in its boundaries. There is evidence that people outside the city would strongly oppose being included in Leicester. It therefore concluded that there would not be an extension.
My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith was concerned about special educational needs. The authorities are determined that there should be no deterioration in the service. Various options are being explored to ensure that that does not happen. No local authority is totally independent in the provision of special education, and it is normal for those kinds of schools to take children from other areas. That is already the case in Leicestershire now.
1598
My noble friends Lord Dixon-Smith and Lady Faithfull, and the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, were concerned about future costs in Rutland. The council tax must be the result of the authority's decision on its level of spending and organisation. Rutland has made a commitment to residents that it will organise itself so that there will be no heavy tax burdens resulting from reorganisation. In the end, it must be the councils which are accountable to the electors.
My noble friend Lord Boardman and others referred to the representations on the police authorities. I accept that the present system may throw up difficulties. The local authority associations have suggested, and we have agreed, that the effects of the present rules in those areas where local government is being restructured should be looked at after October, when the police authorities start to reconstitute themselves for the changes on 1st April 1997, when we shall have a better idea as to what the effects across the country are.
A number of noble Lords referred to structure planning. That depends on a voluntary approach. The Secretary of State for the Environment will continue to scrutinise the structure plan proposals in the normal way. His powers of intervention in the plan maturing process under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 remain unchanged. He will consider using them as necessary to ensure that plans remain up to date and consistent with the relevant regional planning guidance. I know that whenever reorganisations of local government take place they throw up a tremendous number of anxieties and concerns. The most prevalent anxiety is that people do not like moving from positions that they know, accept and understand. On the other hand, as time goes on one has to have a relook and consider whether local government services are provided in the best possible way in view of what is likely to happen in future. It was for that reason that we set up the Local Government Commission which produced a report. I hope that, despite the anxieties expressed by noble Lords, they will feel that this is worth a good shot and that I have been able to reassure them on those matters about which they have been particularly anxious. I hope that my noble friend Lord Kimball and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, may feel it prudent not to press their amendments. If so, I will later move that my Motion be agreed to.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, despite the late hour, we have had a very good debate. I am most grateful to all noble Lords and Baronesses who have supported me in my amendment. We keep using the term "unique". I do not know whether it is unique in your Lordships' House that almost 50 per cent. of the contributions to the debate have been made by noble Baronesses on all sides of the House. There is only one extra male speaker.
I should like to say how grateful everybody in Leicestershire and the museum service will be for what the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has said,

1599
making it perfectly clear that some form of joint board or committee to maintain an integrated museum service is in everybody's mind.
After the forthright and positive way in which my noble friend has wound up the debate, I hope that the whole House will agree that the proper thing for me to do is to thank him for the guidance in his wind-up speech and to seek your Lordships' permission to withdraw my amendment.
1600
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, with considerable reluctance I do not move my amendment.
[Amendment not moved.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes before one o'clock.

Official Report of the Committee on the Arbitration Bill [H.L.]
Wednesday, 28th February 1996.
The Committee met in the Moses Room at four of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill) in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): Before I put the Question that the Title be postponed, it may be helpful to remind your Lordships of the procedure for today's Committee. Except in one important respect, our proceedings will be exactly as in a normal Committee of the Whole House. We shall go through the Bill clause by clause; noble Lords will speak standing; all noble Lords are free to attend and participate; and the proceedings will be recorded in Hansard. But the House has agreed there shall be no Divisions in the Committee. Any issue on which agreement cannot be reached should be considered again at the Report stage when, if necessary, a Division may be called. Unless, therefore, an amendment is likely to be agreed to, it should be withdrawn.
I should also explain what will happen if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting. This Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division bells are rung and will resume after 10 minutes.
On Question, Title postponed.
Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Separability of arbitration agreement]:
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie)The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 30, after ("agreement") insert ("(whether or not in writing)").
The noble and learned Lord said: Clause 7 codifies the law on the separability of the arbitration clause from the main contract or agreement. This is a small drafting amendment but it may be useful if I expand on it. As the text stands at the moment, it could be argued that the clause is operative only where the main agreement is in writing. This is because Clause 5 provides for agreements to be effective for the purpose of the part only if in writing. It was not our intention that Clause 7 should apply only where both the arbitration clause and the substantive part are in writing. To put matters beyond doubt the amendment makes clear that the clause applies whether or not the main agreement is in writing. Members of the Committee will wish to know that, as is the case with most amendments to which I shall speak this afternoon, this point is discussed in the report on the Bill which was very helpfully prepared earlier this month by the departmental advisory
CWH 2
committee on arbitration law. It is to be found in paragraph 358. From looking around, it is clear that this document is well known to Members of the Committee.
Since this amendment raises this issue for the first time, it may be helpful if I say a few words about this report. In this case the committee has suggested amending the Bill and I am very happy to agree with this particular recommendation and a number of others. There will be other cases, however, where the committee has commented on some point of difficulty but has concluded that the Bill is clear as it stands. Given the close involvement of the committee in the preparation of the Bill, its views on such points clearly carry great weight. I have therefore arranged for a copy of the report to be placed in the Library of the House for those who have an interest in it.
In the short time available, we have not been able to deal with all the points in the committee's supplementary recommendations but I should be happy to clarify any other points. Simply because amendments which follow the recommendations do not appear at this stage on the Marshalled List, that should not be taken as an indication that they have been rejected by the Government. In some circumstances, the position is simply that there has been insufficient time for us either to undertake additional consultation or to reflect on how such amendments might be incorporated within the Bill. If necessary, we can return to these matters at a later stage. I hope that is helpful. I beg to move Amendment No. 1.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Perhaps I may make a brief comment about the departmental advisory committee's report to which the noble and learned Lord the Minister has just referred. During the Second Reading debate, all noble Lords expressed great pleasure at the clarity of the drafting of the Bill and its underlying principles. As the least well-informed Member of this Committee, I pay tribute to the clarity of that report. I should imagine that should there be any ambiguity in the legislation, the status of the report would be entirely a matter for the courts to determine. However, I suppose that the report will be a very valuable guide to practitioners of all kinds, as well as to the courts. Therefore, I express my personal gratitude to the committee for the excellent work that it has done.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses, 8 to 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Procedure for appointment of arbitrators]:
4.15 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 7, line 3, leave out ("any") and insert ("a").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 2, perhaps I may also speak to Amendment No. 3. These are both small drafting amendments. As currently drafted, it could be argued that the arbitrators are to appoint an umpire only when they cannot agree on all matters. That is clearly not the

CWH 3
intention. The amendments put this matter beyond doubt and are shorter. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 17 to 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Umpire]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 8, line 27, leave out ("any") and insert ("a").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 22 and 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Power of court to remove arbitrator]:
Lord Hacking Lord Hacking had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 4:
Page 9, line 39, leave out from ("expenses") to end of line 40.
The noble Lord said: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 4, standing in my name on the Marshalled List and at the same time I want to address noble Lords on Amendment No. 6. I should like to associate myself with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, on the quality of the report that has been prepared by the departmental advisory committee on arbitration law, chaired by Lord Justice Saville, and for the enormous assistance that Lord Justice Saville continues to give us on the Arbitration Bill.
Some assistance was given yesterday by Lord Justice Saville when informally he saw several noble Lords, including my noble friend the Minister. As a result of the explanation that Lord Justice Saville gave, I am happy not to move the amendment. I am addressing noble Lords now because I did have a concern, and continue to have some concern, over parts of the Bill that may have been overworked.
As for the particular extra phraseology in this clause, and in the clause to which Amendment No. 6 refers, I am wholly satisfied with the explanation; I am wholly satisfied that these words are needed. On that basis, unless any noble Lords wish to address the Committee, I shall not move Amendment No. 4.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Resignation of arbitrator]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 10, line 5, leave out ("in writing").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment is a small but important drafting amendment. Noble Lords may recall that Clause 5 provides that the arbitration agreement and any other agreement between the parties are effective only if in writing. Therefore, throughout the Bill we have not repeated the words "in writing" wherever mention is made of an agreement. However, I regret to say that in this clause the words have crept in. They need to be removed in case a reader might come to the conclusion that, where the words are not included, there is no need for the agreement to be in writing. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 26 to 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 [Immunity of arbitrator]:
Lord Brightman Lord Brightman moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 11, line 19, at end insert—
("( ) An arbitrator is nevertheless liable for any costs of the arbitration thrown away if by reason of his own default or the default of his employee or agent he fails to take a step necessary for the proper and expeditious conduct of the arbitral proceedings.").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment arises out of Clause 29 which confers general immunity on an arbitrator. I entirely support Clause 29 (1) as it stands subject to one point. It seems to me that if costs are thrown away as a result of an arbitrator's negligence, then perhaps he should not escape liability. The sort of scenario that I have in mind is this. An arbitration is arranged to take place on Monday. By error of the arbitrator's secretary, "Tuesday" is written into his diary. Therefore, the Monday hearing is totally aborted. Of course there. will be the expenses of hiring the premises where the arbitration is to take place, expenses, no doubt, of witnesses who are not called upon and expenses of solicitors and perhaps of counsel. Therefore I propose an amendment to Clause 29 providing that an arbitrator is to be liable:
"for any costs of the arbitration thrown away if by reason of his own default or the default of his employee or agent he fails to take a step necessary for the proper and expeditious conduct of the arbitral proceedings".
Since I tabled the amendment I have received a wholly unsolicited letter from my noble and learned friend Lord Denning, who unfortunately is not able to be here. He wrote to say that he entirely supports the amendment and has asked me to inform the Committee of that fact.
In the amendment I have referred to "costs thrown away". There is an alternative expression which is "costs wasted". Both expressions are commonly used in the courts in England and are to be found on page 1069 of the 1985 edition of the Supreme Court Practice.
I have also used the expression
"fails to take a step necessary for the proper and expeditious conduct of the arbitral proceedings".
I suggest that if the amendment is accepted in principle, it might be improved by adopting from Clause 41 the words:
"failure to do something necessary for the proper and expeditious conduct of the arbitration".
Then there can be no debate as to what is meant by the word "step" in the arbitration. There is nothing else that I wish to say about the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Mustill: Perhaps I may raise a point on the amendment. I did not give my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman the courtesy of speaking to him about it first because I have only just seen the amendment. Clause 33(1)(b) provides that the arbitrator shall,
"adopt procedures … avoiding unnecessary delay or expense".

CWH 5
I feel a little apprehension about creating a liability on the arbitrator in certain circumstances. For example, if he had made a peremptory order which would have hastened the arbitration he would be in breach of his obligations under Clause 33(1)(b) and would be made liable for the wasted costs which resulted from the arbitration taking longer than it should have done. So far as I am aware, there has never been a case in which an arbitrator has been held liable for that kind of wasted cost. For the Act as amended not only to recognise the possibility but to impose a liability for such a waste might be thought to be going rather further than what I believe the intent of the amendment conveys. I simply offer that thought to the Committee before the Question is actually put.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: I have two worries about this amendment, both of which I have made known to the noble and learned Lord. The first is much the same as that set out by my noble and learned friend Lord Mustill. I was appointed an arbitrator some two years ago in a quite absurd dispute, the details of which do not matter. Beyond writing a pained letter saying, "Would it be a good idea if they got on with it", I have done nothing.
I have done nothing, because I have set the principle that the bottom line is that the parties are entitled to run or not run the arbitration as they wish. But there is no doubt that, in order to obtain an expeditious resolution of this absurd dispute, I should have made peremptory orders left, right and centre. I should really resent very much if either party turned round at a late stage and said "A whole lot of costs had been wasted while we had been consulting our solicitors over and over again, because you didn't make a peremptory order."
The answer of my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman to that, which may be a good answer, is that I am not in default in failing to take that step, but I am hound to say that I would rather not be at the mercy of one of these disputants in all the circumstances.
My other worry is that if an arbitrator—for example, my noble and learned friend's clerk—puts the date of the arbitration and the wrong date in his calendar, that would be a perfectly proper fact to take into consideration when deciding what his fee for the arbitration should be. I venture to think that that is the way in which it ought to be dealt with. If we are to have a straight liability here as an exception to the general exemption contained in the clause, arbitrators will be forced to take out insurance. As a very occasional arbitrator, if I had to start taking out insurance, for my part I would cease to arbitrate at all.
Lord Roskill: With hesitation, I venture to differ from anything that my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman puts forward, but I respectfully echo what has fallen from the lips of my noble and learned friends Lord Mustill and Lord Donaldson.
I suppose some of us ought to declare an interest here. The fundamental fallacy in this is not only that referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill, but it also overlooks the fact that the jurisdiction in arbitrations is consensual and not compulsory. This
CWH 6
seeks to put upon an arbitrator a duty of getting on with an arbitration. Under the new doctrines of case management, the Bill may now be right in the commercial court, but it is. not right for an arbitration which is under the control of the parties. There are now ways and means of getting arbitration struck out under other clauses of the Bill if the parties do not proceed with it, but it is no part of the duty of an arbitrator or umpire to become involved. He is there to decide what the parties ask him to decide. He is not there to take any initiative.
The proposed amendment has two limbs to it. I have dealt with the first. The second part states,
"or … he fails to take a step necessary for the proper and expeditious conduct of the arbitral proceedings".
What does that involve? Is he to ring up? Is he to say get on with it? I do not know. However, I venture to suggest, with profound respect, that this amendment is misconceived.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Any advocate in the presence of noble Lords, all of whom are noble and learned Lords, must speak with profound humility and hesitation. However, like the noble and learned Lords, Lord Donaldson and Lord Roskill, I have serious doubts about the amendment. I wonder whether the answer lies in the protection given by Clause 24 on the power to remove the arbitrator, because subsection (1)(d) contemplates a situation where,
"he has refused or failed—

(i) properly to conduct the proceedings, or

(ii) to use all reasonable despatch in conducting the proceedings".

I note from the departmental report that one matter that one might wish to revisit at Report stage would be to give the judge who removes the arbitrator a wider discretion to withdraw the arbitrator's immunity but to impose a ceiling on the amount of liability in extreme circumstances. That is not a matter for us now to consider. However, it seems to me that the mischief might be better dealt with under Clause 24 than giving liability at large in the way proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman.
Lord Hacking: Those of us who are not noble and learned Lords must have some temerity to disagree not only with three noble and learned Lords, but also with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, who is a highly qualified lawyer. However, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, needs a friend, and I am willing to offer friendship to him on the principle that arbitration should be conducted in a proper and expeditious way; and if the fault lies with the arbitrator, I see no reason why he should not pick up the financial penalty.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, whom we do not wish to discourage from presiding over arbitrations, is worried about insurance. All I have to say to the noble and learned Lord and to other noble Lords is that all the rest of us who are in the marketplace offering professional services must have insurance, and I do not see any reason why arbitrators should not contemplate that as well.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: It may be helpful, before the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, responds

CWH 7
if I contribute briefly to this interesting debate. It might be helpful if I outline the thinking, as I understand it, behind the clause. The purpose of the clause is to confer immunity upon members of the tribunal, their employees and agents in respect of arbitral functions, other than those discharged in bad faith. There is some doubt whether arbitrators have such immunity at the moment at common law and this provision would clarify the situation.
Like judges, arbitrators need to be able to act and make decisions based solely on the merits of the case. Justice must be uppermost in their minds and they should not have to worry about whether they will be sued for the decisions they make or indeed about taking out insurance against the prospect of being sued. At the same time, it will stop recalcitrant parties, who have no solid grounds for challenging an award, from suing the arbitrator as an alternative. In this way, the finality of the arbitral process is strengthened.
An important point to note is that the arbitrator is not protected if he acts, or fails to act, in bad faith. There is sufficient case law to underpin what we mean by bad faith, and we need only refer to the case of Melton Medes v. Securities and Investments Board to establish certain clear principles. What we are talking about is malice in the sense of personal spite or desire to injure for improper reasons, or knowledge of the absence of power to make the decision in question. I think there is a clear dividing line between acts of bad faith and behaviour which falls short of it.
What seems to me to be important is that there are sanctions elsewhere in the Bill, to which in particular the noble Lord, Lord Lester, referred, which can be used against an arbitrator whose behaviour falls short of bad faith. Clause 33, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill, referred, imposes a general duty on the tribunal to act fairly and impartially and to avoid unnecessary delay and expense. If an arbitrator fails to comply with these requirements, in particular if he has refused or failed to conduct the proceedings properly or with reasonable speed and a party has suffered substantial injustice as a result, that party can apply to the court under Clause 24 to have the arbitrator removed. The court has the power to make such an order as it thinks fit with regard to the entitlement of the arbitrator to his fees and expenses, an approach which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, also urged as a useful alternative to the proposal that is contained within the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman.
I hope that that explanation of the Government's view of this important clause is helpful to the Committee.
Lord Brightman:I remain unrepentant. I am very grateful for the one friend whom I have. However, in the circumstances, I think it right for me to seek leave to withdraw the amendment and in the meantime I will reconsider the position.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 29 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Hacking: My noble and learned friend the Minister very kindly said that if an amendment did not appear in the Marshalled List of amendments, but had nonetheless been recommended by the DAC report, we were not to take it that the amendment had been rejected. I should therefore be grateful if my noble friend could help the Committee over paragraph 361 of the report, which refers to Clauses 24 and 25 and the clause that we are now considering.
That paragraph points out that if the arbitrator resigns and is sued for his fees, he is not protected from a breach of contract action under the immunity clause, Clause 29; but, on the other hand, if he is removed by the court he has the benefit of immunity under Clause 29.
That is an anomaly and I wonder whether my noble and learned friend is able to help us with his consideration of that paragraph in the report?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Having made an opening set of observations about those recommendations which do not appear as amendments, I was hoping to avoid being probed at this stage as to whether we are accepting or rejecting them on an individual basis. I can shortly say to the noble Lord that the proposal to be found in that paragraph is one that we are still considering. At this stage I hope that he will not press me further.
Lord Hacking: I certainly shall not do that. It seemed to me that that was rather an important recommendation in the report and for that reason I drew it to the attention of the Committee. I do not intend to go through all the other amendments as they appear in chapter 6 of the report, which I hope is of some comfort to my noble and learned friend the Minister.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clauses 30 and 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 [Determination of preliminary point of jurisdiction]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 12, line 35, leave out ("unless the court certifies") and insert ("which shall not be given unless the court considers").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 8, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 12 and 15. While the purpose of the amendments is probably well known to those of your Lordships attending the Committee, I shall spell out shortly the reasoning behind them for those who are not present.
Clause 32 empowers the court in certain limited circumstances to determine a question as to the substantive jurisdiction of the parties put to it by a party. Clause 45 empowers the court to determine a preliminary point of law and Clause 69 a point of law arising out of the award.
The amendments relate to the provisions for appeal from a decision of the court. In each case the leave of the court for an appeal from a decision of the court is required. Each clause also restricts the possibility of an appeal by requiring leave of the court or a certificate by

CWH 9
the court that the question involves a point of law which is of general importance or which for some other special reason should be considered by the Court of Appeal.
As drafted, these appeal provisions look as though they are alternatives. That is not our intention. We want to ensure that the leave of the court is obtained only in cases which are of general importance or which for some other special reason should be considered by the Court of Appeal. In that way, appeals that are made simply to waste time will be deterred. That is in line with the general philosophy of the Bill. Indeed, in the case of determination of points of law, that is the current law under the Arbitration Act 1979. It is certainly not the intention to make appeals easier than they are now. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 33 to 37 agreed to.
Clause 38 [General powers exercisable by the tribunal]:
Lord Hacking Lord Hacking moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 14, leave out lines 17 to 20.
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 9, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 10, which is the amendment of my noble and learned friend the Minister, and to Amendment No. 11, which is in my name.
These amendments are directed to the issue of security for costs. As the Committee will be aware, the notable change between the present law, under the Arbitration Act 1950, and the proposed law in the Bill is that the right to make an order for security for costs moves from the court to the arbitrator. I welcome that.
The first question that should be considered is whether there should be at all the right to order security for costs in an arbitration. The experience in litigation is that security for costs is used as a weapon to discomfit another party in that litigation, particularly in the application of Order 23, Rule 1 under the rules of the Supreme Court when the plaintiff is ordinarily resident out of the jurisdiction. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill, makes some interesting observations on security for costs in the Ken-Ren case. I read from the speech of the noble and learned Lord, who says this on page 468:
"Finally, there is the argument that security for costs is an English idiosyncrasy which should be excluded from the cosmopolitan world of institutional arbitration. This is correct to the extent that most national arbitration laws do not offer such a procedure, which is not surprising since only the common law systems … enable a tribunal to order the losing party to pay its opponent's costs".
That is the first question, which might be described as the idiosyncratic question. Amendment No. 9 seeks to deal with that by simply removing altogether the power for an order for security for costs.
I now turn to Amendments Nos. 10 and 11. I can do so swiftly and easily because my noble and learned friend the Minister has a much better amendment. If my noble and learned friend moves Amendment No. 10 and it is accepted, then it is not my intention to move Amendment No. 11.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie:It might be useful to clarify the position. My noble friend ought to have
CWH 10
indicated to the Committee, although I stand to be corrected by him, that if my Amendment No. 10 is accepted, and if I indicate to him now that I wish to move it, he would not then seek to move his Amendment No. 9.
Lord Hacking: That is right.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The provision for security for costs is difficult and it is undoubtedly important that we get it right. I am convinced that we are right to give the power to order security for costs to the tribunal. At the moment, parties have to incur the expense and inconvenience of making applications to the court. The philosophy underlying the Bill is to transfer power from the courts to the tribunal wherever appropriate. In our view, this is such a case. Amendment No. 11 would leave parties in limbo, as it removes the power of the tribunal to order security for costs. But there is no provision in the Bill for the court to act. The ability of a party to rely on an order for security of costs is a useful tool in appropriate cases and it is right that the possibility should remain available.
The subsection as it is drafted might be criticised for a lack of user friendliness. One of our objectives has been to make the Bill as user-friendly as possible. While on the whole we have succeeded, there is nevertheless scope for improvement here. The provision is not self-contained in that reference has to be made to the rules of court and to case law to ascertain in what circumstances the court would act, and on what principles. It would be exceptionally difficult to encapsulate court processes and principles in the Bill. We have come to the conclusion that it would be preferable to de-couple the powers available to the tribunal from those of the court. To that extent, Amendment No. 9 has merit. However, turning to my own Amendment No.10, I should additionally like to place a restraint on the tribunal whereby it cannot order security for costs on the grounds that the party concerned is foreign. It will be appreciated that there has been some concern expressed by those who do not live here.
The concept of security for costs is alien to many jurisdictions, and many in foreign business circles think they are being singled out for special and undeserved treatment. One of the main objectives of the Bill is to ensure that foreign business continues to come to London to have disputes arbitrated. The invisible earnings that such business brings are substantial and I am loth to place that business in jeopardy because our security for costs provisions are seen as unacceptable.
I invite my noble friend to withdraw Amendment No.9. I shall propose Amendment No.10 and I hope that he will not move Amendment No. 11.
Lord Hacking: Before my noble and learned friend sits down, can I tell your Lordships I was a little quick in agreeing with my noble friend? In fact Amendment No.9 stands quite separate from Amendments Nos. 10 and 11. The purport of Amendment No.9 is to remove altogether the power to order security for costs. That is a separate issue.

CWH 11
When I addressed the Committee on my Amendments Nos.9 and 11 and my noble and learned friend's Amendment No.10, I said that if the Committee was against me on the issue there should not be the power of order for security for costs. My position is that I prefer my noble friend's Amendment No.10 to my own amendment, Amendment No.11.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I speak in opposition to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, and in support of the Minister's amendment. It seems to me that the matter is clearly dealt with in the DAC report where the advantages of a power towards security for costs is clearly out. The committee was concerned at the possible injustice that might occur but came to the conclusion after further thought that that possibility could be overstated and, for reasons given in paragraph 366(iii), it concluded that there were adequate safeguards against abuse in the Bill as it stands. I agree with that view. It seems to me that the great advantage of the Minister's amendment is that it is more user-friendly than the previous draft and it also ensures that our law is brought into line with European Community law so far as any discrimination based on nationality is concerned in making an order for security for costs.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: Subject to guidance, I am not clear whether this is an appropriate moment to comment upon the Minister's amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, says that security is used as a weapon; and so it is by the advocates. From the point of view of the court, it is not used as a weapon at all. It reflects the fact that as we have a system in this country whereby costs can be awarded against one party or the other it is important that there should be some system for ensuring that should that eventuality occur there are ways and means of seeing that the order is effected. That is the sole purpose. I see no reason why that should be any different for international commercial arbitrations if they are being consulted under a system of law which would enable an order for costs to be made at the end. Of course I am very conscious of the extent to which this power is misunderstood and is an obstacle to arbitration in this country. The only thought that I would like to put forward for consideration by the noble and learned Lord, the Minister, is that one might perhaps put in the word "only" so that his amendment would read:
"This power shall not be exercised only on the ground that the party is".
The reality is that if somebody has assets within this country or within the European Community, there is no need for security for costs. There may be other countries outside the Community where the same is true, but in Ruritania—to take a country at random—where there is no such system, it is the very fact that one party is ordinarily resident in Ruritania which could be said to justify the making of an order for security for costs. The problem arises where somebody is resident, which does not matter, coupled with the fact that it is not possible to get at him there. I say frankly that I do not know how
CWH 12
to redraft this and it may be that it should not be redrafted at all. However, I put forward the point for further consideration, if that is thought to be appropriate.
Lord Mustill: I do not know whether I am in order in referring to observations that are made in a judicial capacity here but since they were cited, I ought to comment on them. My recollection is that in using the word "idiosyncratic", I was describing the arguments addressed by one side, not using the epithet for my own purposes. I would agree with the substitution of the words:
"An order for security for costs in arbitration is only available in a minority of jurisdictions"
The fact that it is a minority power does not mean that it is necessarily bad for that reason alone. I believe that, as my noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson has said, in a jurisdiction where there is a power to award costs, then a power to award security marches satisfactorily and helpfully with it. I would respectfully agree with everything that has been said by the noble and learned Lord, and I associate myself with Amendment No. 10, possibly with the minor adjustments proposed by the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Wilberforce: For my part, I find this particular provision the most difficult one which the Committee is now considering. I accept entirely the principle that we ought to withdraw any power to order security of costs from the court and transfer it if it is to be exercised by the arbitrators.
I view with some misgiving a general provision such as will emerge in any event, which simply says the tribunal may order a party to provide security for costs, without giving any indication as to the principles on which that order is to be made. That was met in the original text by saying that power must be exercised in the same way as it would be exercised by the court. I see the objection to that because it would necessitate referring to a great many provisions in the White Book; and also, it would frighten away many foreigners. However, to leave it absolutely open-ended does seem to me extremely difficult.
This will be regarded by arbitrators as a delightful new instrument, a wonderful new toy. They will say, "This is wonderful. We have completely unfettered discretion to order this, with the only limitation, if the noble Lord's amendment is accepted, that we must not do it on the grounds, or only on the grounds, that the party concerned is outside the jurisdiction".
I agree that the clause would be better with the Minister's amendment than without it, and it may be that is the best we can do. We have to accept the position that cases will emerge of discretions exercised by arbitrators on various grounds which will be questioned. Some body will have to be built up of practice or possibly of directions by the court. It may be quite some time before the position is stabilised. A great door of ambiguity and uncertainty is opened by this

CWH 13
word "may" with the only restriction being that proposed by the Minister. I daresay that is the very best we can do, but I do not feel very happy about it.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I may unintentionally have confused matters about the two amendments that my noble friend has tabled. I do not invite the Committee to accept either of those amendments, but I invite the Committee to accept my Amendment No. 10.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, suggested that Amendment No. 10 might be improved by the introduction of the word "only". That proposal was to be found within the report on the Arbitration Bill, to which I referred earlier, where the draft provided included that word. My understanding of the matter is that the draftsman came to the view that it did not add anything to the provision. However, given the observation that the noble and learned Lord has now made, I wonder if I might move my amendment but give him an indication that I will, with the draftsman, reflect further on that one word addition to the clause. There is nothing further that I can usefully add.
Lord Peston: I regret to say that there is a very commonsensical question I would like to ask. This arises, as I understand it from the Minister, because a foreigner might wish to use arbitration procedures in this country, and he does not want them frightened away, or so he says. I am totally sympathetic to that. But do I misunderstand Clause 38(1) which says:
"The parties are free to agree on the powers exercisable".
Surely, then, they should be free to agree what they would like to do about the ordering of costs, which could only arise if they had not sorted out the problem in the first place. The essence is that they are supposed Ito think about it in the first place because they are worried about coming here. I am not quite clear, with all respect to the noble and learned Lord, what the fuss is all about.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: There is a difficulty with the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. I fully understand the reason for including the word "only" but I respectfully submit that it would create problems with European Community law unless we had another law to deal with European Community law separately.
One can envisage the situation where if one put in the word "only" it would not deal with a case of mixed causation or intention. If part of the reason for imposing security for costs was that an individual was ordinarily resident in another European Community State, as 1 understand Community law as interpreted by the English Court of Appeal recently, our wording would breach European Community law, because there must be no direct or indirect discrimination based on nationality. That would include a case of mixed motives or complicated causation where, but for the EC nationality of the individual person concerned, an order for security for costs would not have been made. Therefore, if one were to go down the road of including the word "only", I would respectfully suggest that one
CWH 14
would need a further amendment at a later stage to deal with that problem of European Community law, which would not arise, of course, in relation to Ruritania.
Lord Wilberforce: Perhaps I may comment on what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. Surely Clause 38(1) is not really of any help. There is a situation in which one party wants security for costs and the other does not want to give security for costs. It is quite unrealistic to suppose that the parties will agree that security for costs will be given. The situation is ex hypothesi a hostile one. I had hoped that Clause 38(1) would help but in reality, I do not think that it does.
Lord Byron: Before the Minister sits down, I was about to say something that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, has also partly said. Those who are arbitrating pursuant to a set of rules will often have these laid down for them in advance, whether the tribunal gives security for costs or not. Those who are arbitrating in an ad hoc way, not pursuant to a set of rules, will almost certainly not be able to reach agreement. That is why it is often important.
The introduction of the word "only" seems to me quite important. Either residence abroad is a reason or it is not a reason. As I understand the present draft, it is not a reason at all. Therefore, in seeking security for costs one would have to find some other reason and presumably one would have to convince the tribunal that enforcement was the important criterion and that there would be a difficulty of enforcement or whatever. But the actual fact of residence would not be a ground at all. Once the word "only" is introduced—and opinions may differ as to whether that is a good thing or not—it becomes a ground. Then only one other peg may be needed to hang it on. It may be said that the main reason is that the plaintiff is in Ruritania or wherever, but the claim may also be rather weak and some other small ground is given as a make-weight. It would certainly alter significantly the text if we were to introduce the word "only". We should perhaps be rather careful as to the actual intention of the amendment. As I read the amendment, it was intended to take it out as a ground completely but leave in the more material considerations of questions of enforcement and so on.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I indicated to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, that I would reflect further on this matter. I may have been too hasty in saying that it was exclusively the draftsman who had determined that the word "only" should be removed from the proposed amendment. My improved understanding of the situation is that it was removed as the result of a wider range of advice available to the draftsman.
However, in view of the observations that have subsequently been made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and the noble Lord, Lord Byron, I should still like to hold to my undertaking to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, that I will reflect on it. But there is clearly a body of opinion within the Committee which would indicate that the draft that is before your

CWH 15
Lordships on the Marshalled List is correct. I will nevertheless stick to my undertaking to reflect upon the matter.
Lord Hacking: I am not quite sure what my noble and learned friend proposes to do about his Amendment No. 10.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I shall move it.
Lord Hacking: In hearing all the argument, as your Lordships have, it was a delight that the one non-lawyer in our company made the winning argument on Clause 38(1) in making Clause 38(3) redundant, but when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, intervened, I realised that there could be a situation in the ad hoc setting up of an arbitration (rather than the institutional setting up of arbitration rules) where the parties would not be able to agree and I reluctantly come back to the position that if we are to have such a power, it has to be written into the statute book. My argument still remains that we should not have such a power. As my noble and learned friend the Minister said, the concept of security for costs is alien to many who are not familiar with our system of costs and the way in which we conduct legal proceedings, let alone arbitration proceedings.
It is clear that I do not have the Committee with me. I never expected to have a noble and learned Lord with me and, as I do not have the Committee with me, it is my intention—although I still ask my noble friend to reflect on my observations—to withdraw Amendment No. 9.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No.10:
Page 14, line 18, leave out from ("arbitration") to end of line 20 and insert—
("This power shall not be exercised on the ground that the party Is—

(a) an individual ordinarily resident outside the United Kingdom, or

(b) a corporation or association incorporated or formed under the law of a country outside the United Kingdom, or whose central management and control is exercised outside the United Kingdom.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 39 to 44 agreed to.
Clause 45 [Determination of preliminary point of law]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 18, line 13, leave out ("unless the court certifies") and insert ("which shall not be given unless the court considers").
The noble and learned Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 8, I also spoke to Amendment No. 12. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 45, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 46 to 60 agreed to.
Clause 61 [Award of costs]:
Lord Hacking Lord Hacking moved Amendment No. 13:
Leave out Clause 61 and insert the following new Clause—
AWARD OF COSTS
(".—(1) The parties are free to agree on the power of the tribunal as regards the award of costs.
(2) Subject to the agreement of the parties, the tribunal shall determine the costs of the arbitration and decide which of the parties should bear the costs and in which proportion between the parties the costs should be borne.").
The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move Amendment No. 13. In my professional capacity and in the professional capacity of my noble friend Lord Byron who sits besides me, we have to advise. My noble friend is not in my practice and I am assuming therefore that he advises—as I have to advise—on the issues of costs to clients whether they arise as a matter of litigation or whether they arise as a matter of arbitration. I have to tell the Committee that cost is an extremely important element in a client's decision-making. It is an important element because large sums of money are at stake and because of the rule that the loser pays all. That can act as a deterrent for a party asserting his or her rights in litigation or arbitration. It applies the more so in litigation when one brings in the further ingredient of payments into court.
The other major unsatisfactory feature about the issue of costs is the system of taxation. I am not observing whether that is right or wrong, but the fact is that now, when a bill is taken to a taxing master to be taxed, there is a severe reduction of the awardable or recoverable costs of the party who has had the order for costs in his favour. The winning party is fortunate if that party gets as much as half of his costs on taxation.
That is the background to the amendment I have put before the Committee. In supporting the amendment I would say that the arbitrator should not be tied to the rule of costs following the event. There should be a separation between the conduct of litigation and the conduct of arbitration on this issue. It is highly undesirable to have that rule written in, and it should be left to the discretion of the arbitrator, who should have complete freedom. The rule of costs following the event, when one party has narrowly lost and one has narrowly won, results in the unhappiness of the losing party having the order for costs against him and then the next unhappiness is the winning party thinking that he will recover all his costs and derive a benefit from the system; he then does not benefit because he only recovers half of his costs. The issue of costs is a serious issue for the parties and this is why I have moved this amendment which is designed specifically to give complete discretion to the arbitrator.
Lord Byron: My noble friend Lord Hacking mentioned my name and although I share the same profession as he does, I cannot support him in this amendment. In so far as his amendment differs from the printed clause only in relation to whether costs should follow the event, subject to certain exceptions as set out

CWH 17
in the Bill, or whether there should be complete discretion, my experience is slightly different from that of my noble friend Lord Hacking.
If there is a complaint, it tends to be that arbitrators do not quite follow the rules and do not necessarily allow that costs should follow the event—they can sometimes be quite wayward. The rule that costs should follow the event is well understood and easy to operate. There are ways in which parties can protect themselves and, in any event, the clause has within it a discretion where it appears that circumstances dictate otherwise. I cannot support my noble friend in this amendment.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: I intervene only to say that I see nothing wrong in principle with costs following the event. I fully understand that there are difficulties where somebody is short of the amount and is caught for costs in those circumstances. The arbitrator would have a discretion if he thought there should be some tempering of the wind.
It must be remembered that if that presumption is abolished, it becomes very difficult to keep the system of Calderbank letters, or payments into court or some equivalent, which are so important in encouraging settlements before an award is made. Therefore, I am against that.
The question of taxation is a different one altogether. I am bound to say I was very surprised that the noble Lord was complaining about the taxation for two reasons: first, because it does not appear to have occurred to him that perhaps the taxing masters might be right; and, secondly, because certainly when I knew more about these things than I now do, I never heard of a commercial solicitor allowing his costs to be taxed by the taxing masters—they were always taxed by a third firm of commercial solicitors.
Lord Roskill: Perhaps I may add to what my noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson said on the last point. For what it is worth, my own experience as an arbitrator has been that the solicitors involved invariably arrange for the costs to be taxed not by a taxing master but by an experienced costs clerk in a third firm of solicitors.
On the other point, I venture to agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Byron, said. This clause as drafted does all that is necessary.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: There is little that I can usefully add to the three contributions that have been made to this debate. The principle that costs follow the event is well established and I believe it has indeed stood the test of time. Should circumstances arise which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, indicated and someone is short of a few pounds, as both he and the noble Lord, Lord Byron, have pointed out, a discretion is provided within the clause as drafted.
The only further point that I make is directed to the noble Lord, Lord Peston. Again, this is a non-mandatory clause. If the parties wish to devise a principle other than costs following the event, they are at liberty so to do.
Lord Hacking: If there is a divide in the army, it is rather difficult for one leader to go in one direction and
CWH 18
the other leader to go in the other direction and to keep the army, or the argument, intact. I therefore address noble Lords from a divided camp, and in the circumstances—let alone all the noble and learned Lords, once again arguing against me—I am not in a position to press this matter further forward in Committee. However, it is a real concern and I ask the noble Lords to accept that.
I have noted the observations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, about costs of commercial solicitors. I am aware that there are various ways of resolving the issue of costs. However, there is still a problem, and I most sincerely put that problem before your Lordships as one who practises law and who advises clients on the issue of costs—whether it be arbitration or litigation—and come across this as part of my daily work. On that basis, certainly for the present, I withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 61 agreed to.
Clauses 62 to 67 agreed to.
Clause 68 [Challenging the award: serious irregularity]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 25, line 22, after ("ambiguity") insert ("as to the effect").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a small but nevertheless important amendment. This clause enables the party to apply to the court to challenge an award on the grounds of serious irregularity affecting the tribunal, the proceedings or the award. The clause provides a closed list of grounds which can be classed as serious irregularities. One such is "uncertainty or ambiguity of the award". On reflection we believe this ground needs to be drawn more tightly.
By virtue of Clause 52 the arbitrator's reasons form part of the award, but the intention is not that ambiguity or uncertainty in the arbitrator's reasons should be a ground for challenging the award. Rather we want to limit the ground to a shortcoming in the decisions which form the award, and this is achieved by focusing on the effect of the award. If there is ambiguity or uncertainty as to that effect, a challenge is possible. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 68, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 69 [Appeal on point of law]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 26, line 40, leave out ("unless the court certifies") and insert ("which shall not be given unless the court considers").
The noble and learned Lord said: In speaking to both Amendments Nos. 8 and 12 I spoke to Amendment No. 15. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 69, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 70 [Challenge or appeal: supplementary provisions]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 27, line 3, after ("applicant") insert ("or appellant").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment 16 it may be helpful if I speak also to Amendment 17. These are minor and obvious drafting changes. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 17
Page 27. line 10, after ("applicant") insert ("or appellant").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 27, line 20, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
("(6) The court may order the applicant or appellant to provide security for the costs of the application or appeal, and may direct that the application or appeal be dismissed if the order is not complied with.
The power to order security for costs shall not be exercised on the ground that the applicant or appellant is—

(a) an individual ordinarily resident outside the United Kingdom, or

(b) a corporation or association incorporated or formed under the law of a country outside the United Kingdom, or whose central management and control is exercised outside the United Kingdom.

(7) The court may order that any money payable under the award shall be brought into court or otherwise secured pending the determination of the application or appeal, and may direct that the application or appeal be dismissed if the order is not complied with.
(8) The court may grant leave to appeal subject to conditions to the same or similar effect as an order under subsection (6) or (7).
This does not affect the general discretion of the court to grant leave subject to conditions.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have spoken to two minor amendments to this clause, but this is one of rather greater substance. The clause deals with a number of supplementary procedural matters relating to challenges to the award or appeals on a point of law under Clauses 67, 68 or 69. As subsection (6) of the clause stands, the court can order security for costs or money to be brought into court only in respect of a challenge to awards under Clauses 67 and 68. There is merit in enabling the court to impose these requirements as a condition of granting leave to appeal on a point of law under Clause 69. This would help to avoid a situation where the ability of the losing party to honour the award becomes reduced, whether by design or otherwise, while the award is pending.
The only other changes are as follows. We thought it would be helpful to provide expression for the position on appeal from a decision under this clause. The rules of the court apply, but there is merit again in terms of user-friendliness and clarity in including a provision on the face of this Bill. The wording of subsection (6) is brought into line with the amendment to Clause 38 on security for costs. To accommodate these changes the
CWH 20
second half of the clause has been re-ordered slightly. That is rather complicated, but I trust that the reasoning behind the amendment is clear enough. I beg to move.
Lord Hacking: I intervene to ask my noble friend whether my understanding is correct. My understanding on the drafting of this amendment, which reads in the second paragraph:
"The power to order security for costs shall not be exercised on the ground that the applicant or appellant is—
(a) an individual ordinarily resident outside the United Kingdom,"
(and the other ground) is that that drafting has the approval of the DTI advisory committee chaired by Lord Justice Saville, as indeed did the drafting of the earlier clause when we were looking at security for costs in Amendment No. 10. The importance of that is that in the original report—which was received by your Lordships in February this year—the word "only" was used and then subsequently, as we know from Amendment No. 10 and this amendment, the word "only" has been removed. I understand that the word "only" has been removed on the recommendation of the committee chaired by Lord Justice Saville. The reason for its removal, as advanced by my noble friend Lord Byron is that it would act as a deterrent to arbitrations being conducted in this country.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Those who have had the opportunity to consider the report to which I referred earlier will find that the line of argument I deployed in moving this amendment is succinctly set out in paragraph 380, but the reasoning is exactly the same. I can confirm to my noble friend that, following our acceptance of the proposal that there should be an amendment, as he might have anticipated, there has been a very useful and constructive discussion with Lord Justice Saville, among others, which led to the amendment being framed in the terms which now appear on the Marshalled List.
Lord Hacking: Does it apply also to Amendment No. 10?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I certainly understand that that amendment was also subject to discussion with Lord Justice Saville, and that that particular deletion met with his approval. If I am wrong about that, doubtless I will be corrected.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 70, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 71 to 75 agreed to.
Clause 76 [Service of notices &c.]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 29, line 8, after ("be") insert ("given or").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 19, I speak also to Amendment No. 20. Clause 76 is about the service of notices or other documents, which is mentioned at various points in the Bill. At other places the expression "to give notice" is used. For example, in Clause 17 where a party is to

CWH 21
appoint an arbitrator and fails to do so within the time specified, the other party may give notice to the party in default that he proposes to appoint his arbitrator to act as sole arbitrator. These two amendments are designed to link in the giving of notice with the provisions of Clause 76 on the service of notices or other documents. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 29, line 25, leave out ("service") and insert ("giving or serving a notice or other document").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 76, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 77 [Powers of court in relation to service of documents]:
5.15 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 29, line 38, leave out subsection (5).
The noble and learned Lord said: This subsection serves no useful purpose. The point is already covered by Clause 76(6). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 77, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 78 and 79 agreed to.
Clause 80 [Notice and other requirements in connection with legal proceedings]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 22 to 25:
Page 30, line 37, after ("application") insert (". appeal").
Page 31, line 8, after ("application") insert ("or appeal").
Page 31, line II, after ("application") insert ("or appeal").
Page 31, line 17, after ("application") insert ("or appeal").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 22, perhaps I may speak also to Amendment Nos. 23, 24 and 25. As is obvious, these are very minor drafting amendments. Legal proceedings also cover appeal proceedings which need to be specified. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 80, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 81 agreed to.
Clause 82 [Minor definitions]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 32, line 11, leave out ("where the seat of the arbitration is") and insert ("for a court").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 26, perhaps I may speak also to Amendment No. 27. Both amendments are designed to clarify the definition of "question of law".
As drafted, it is possible that the definition may be interpreted to mean that where the seat of the arbitration is outside England and Wales or Northern Ireland, questions of law include those other than the law of England and Wales and Northern Ireland. That is not the case. Our objective is to make it clear that there is
CWH 22
no question of appeal in respect of a matter of foreign law. To put the matter beyond any doubt, the amendment substitutes the court in England and Wales or Northern Ireland as the defining factor rather than the seat of the arbitration. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 32, line 13, leave out ("where the seat of the arbitration is") and insert ("for a court").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 82, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 83 and 84 agreed to.
Clause 85 [Modification of Part 1 in relation to domestic arbitration agreement]:
On Question, Whether Clause 85 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Hacking: I address your Lordships not only on the issue of whether Clause 85 should stand part of the Bill but the accompanying Clauses 86, 87 and 88. As noble Lords may have noticed in the Marshalled List, the opposition to' these clauses standing part of the Bill is directed to whether there should be separate treatment in the Bill between domestic and international arbitrations. It is my submission to your Lordships that the time has now come to remove that distinction. It relates to the difference in powers of the courts in the staying of court proceedings when an arbitration is in existence and it relates to the right to contract out by an exclusion agreement from court intervention on termination of preliminary points of law under Clause 45 and on appeals on points of law under Clause 69.
The distinction between domestic and international arbitrations only came about when Parliament enacted the New York Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitration Awards of 1958, which was done in the Arbitration Act 1975.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: I think the year was 1979.
Lord Hacking: I am looking at the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. It was in the Arbitration Act 1975, which was the one that dealt with the New York convention and the power of the court to stay court proceedings when there was an arbitration. The difference between the two was that in order to comply with the New York convention it had to be a mandatory power to stay the court proceedings when there was in existence a valid arbitration—that is to say, an arbitration under a valid arbitration clause—but with domestic arbitrations it was still left discretionary with the court.
It was then continued—and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, is quite right to draw attention to it—in the 1979 Act. He played a great part in the creation of that Act when he was chairman of the Commercial Court Committee. Then the distinction was stretched into the new provisions of the 1979 Act which prevented parties to domestic arbitrations contracting

CWH 23
out of the court intervention proceedings unless the agreement to do so had taken place, as I recollect, after the arbitration had started. It also prevented the contracting out of the special category cases, which have now gone from the Bill.
That is the history behind it. The reason why I urge your Lordships to abandon now the distinction starts from a commonsense position. The commonsense position, is it not, is that we should have one arbitration law and that we should not have arbitration laws of different application? There is also concern about European Community law, but if the noble Lord, Lord Lester, wishes to raise that point I will leave that with him because it is much more within his knowledge than mine.
As long as we keep this distinction between domestic and international arbitration, it means that the parties have different rights and we therefore have the bizarre situation that when two English-based construction companies, as I quoted at Second Reading, are in dispute with one another, one set of arbitration rules apply, but if an English construction company should be in dispute with an overseas construction company in an arbitral process, then a different set of rules apply.
Your Lordships will have read Chapter 3 of the DAC report in which the arguments for and against the continuation of the separate distinction of domestic arbitration were carefully considered. Your Lordships will therefore have noted that the DAC Committee, having considered all the alternative arguments, is clearly of the view, that there are no grounds to continue this distinction. Indeed, until I spoke yesterday to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill, I understood his departmental advisory committee report of June 1989 was also of the same mind. In paragraph 108(4), when referring to the new arbitration law and the recommendation that we should have a new and improved Arbitration Act (rather than adopt the model law), it was his committee's view that the new law should in general apply to domestic and international arbitrations alike, although there would have to be exceptions to take account of treaty obligations.
For all those reasons, I submit to your Lordships that the time has come to remove this distinction.
Lord Mustill: Perhaps I may suggest, in opposition to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, in a limited sense, that this Committee is not the occasion to contemplate such a large-scale revision of the Bill in its existing form. It is plain enough from what is written in the report, which has been such an admirable help to us all, that the matter is open to further consideration and that the shape of the Bill, as drawn, enables Parliament to think again if it concludes that the arguments for making international and national arbitrations homogeneous are sufficient to carry the day.
However, I would make just two points. First, the Bill is explicitly stated to be modelled on the model law. The model law is a model law on international commercial arbitration. It was never contemplated by those who prepared the draft of that model law that it would have
CWH 24
anything to do with domestic arbitration at all. I speak from personal experience because I was there throughout almost the entire debate and I can say this.
It was regarded in many quarters as extraordinary that the United Kingdom should even contemplate having the same law for international arbitration as it did for domestic arbitration. Very many European countries take the view that the two types of arbitration are completely different, governed by a different philosophy and different practical considerations, and to make them homogeneous is wrong in principle. I do not necessarily say that that is a correct view. All I am saying is that if we were to make our law homogeneous, we would be putting ourselves out of step with a great deal of thinking in the arbitral community worldwide.
I wish to make it plain that I am not opposing the suggestion, but it raises delicate issues which require wider consultation on this point which there has not been opportunity to hold. It is for that reason alone that I would respectfully oppose the proposal that these clauses should not stand part.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: I apologise for having got the Act wrong. I do not have my copy of my noble and learned friend's book with me, and no doubt he will correct me if I make any other errors. My recollection of this problem stems from the work done by the Commercial Court of Appeal, of which I was Chairman before the 1979 Act, and in that situation I was as it were Lord Diplock's junior. I know that he felt very strongly, as I do, that it is important that there should be a body of case law stemming from arbitrations, and it is important that it should not be possible for arbitration law, if one can call it that, to go off into free orbit unrelated to the law administered by the courts. It may be improbable that would happen, but nevertheless if there is an unfettered right to exclude any resort to the courts at all, there is a very real danger that would happen.
Faced with that situation, what happened in the 1979 Act was that domestic arbitrations were put in a special category to which were added insurance and one other category—I cannot remember it.
Lord Hacking: Shipping.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: Shipping law. The Secretary of State had power to amend that; I do not believe he did but they disappeared from this Bill, and I would not quarrel with that for one moment. I see that the process is being carried on, because in Clause 88 there is power again for the Secretary of State to amend these provisions in the light of experience.
For all those reasons this has not been written in stone, unlike most of the rest of the Act, and I personally would very much doubt whether it would be wise to give an unfettered right of exclusion to all concerned in arbitration. I would oppose this amendment.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: It has been helpful that my noble friend has indicated that he speaks not only to Clause 85 but the succeeding clauses through to Clause 88. The clauses reflect only minor changes to the law as they are set out in the current Arbitration Acts.

CWH 25
Domestic users of arbitration have been able to rely on them for some time and we must consider carefully the effect on them of any changes in the current provision. That is why it was decided to restate the current law in the Bill and to propose an order-making power in Clause 88 which would give us the opportunity of removing or amending the provisions at a later date.
Having said that, I recognise that the provisions as they stand are not free of difficulties. The definition of a domestic arbitration agreement has certain consequences which may have been unforeseen at the time the provision was first drafted. In particular, as the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, indicated, it has the effect that nationals from other EC countries are treated differently from United Kingdom nationals. I do not think I need to elaborate on the difficulties that that may bring forward.
I have listened carefully to what my noble friend has said and, following on the contributions made to the debate by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Mustill and Lord Donaldson, I should like to take time to reflect further on the case for removing these provisions now rather than later. It is not an issue that is without difficulties but I will return to the question on Report. I hope that that is acceptable to the Committee.
Lord Hacking: That is certainly acceptable and I am grateful to my noble and learned friend the Minister for agreeing to consider this further. I would only make the observation that there have been continuing discussions on this issue and while it may not have formed part of the formal consultation process of the DAC committee chaired by Lord Justice Saville, it is something that Lord Justice Saville and his colleagues have closely considered, as can be seen from Chapter 3 of the report. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, rightly reminded the Committee, there was a power in the 1979 Act by statutory instrument to remove the special category cases. It is nice to remember Lord Diplock. Special category cases were very much the children of his creation, and of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, when he was chairman of the Commercial Court Committee.
As I recall, it was envisaged that we would see for two or three years how it all went along in the special category cases and then have another look at it. After all, the statute gave power for a statutory instrument to remove the special categories altogether. The fact is that they were not moved on statutory instrument. Special category cases have remained in existence right up to the present time. That seems to be an unsatisfactory state of affairs . If there is an issue as to whether there should be a separate treatment for domestic and international arbitration, that is an issue that should be addressed by Parliament during the passage of this Bill and we should not leave it over to statutory instrument. We should not leave it over to an unfortunate—and I say "unfortunate" not in any way critical of the European Court but unfortunate for us that the European Court should make a ruling on it and declare our law as inconsistent with European law. It seems to me that we are left in an embarrassing and silly position. In any event, we should be addressing this now during the passage of the Bill through Parliament and not leave it to a statutory instrument.
Clause 85 agreed to.
Clauses 86 to 97 agreed to.
Clause 98 [Specific adaptations of provisions in relation to statutory arbitrations]:
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 37, line 40. at end insert—
("( ) In section I (general principles) the reference in paragraph (a) to an impartial tribunal shall be construed, for the avoidance of doubt, as requiring the tribunal to be independent of the executive.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment arises from a problem that I mentioned during the Second Reading debate. I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Minister for having considered it carefully and corresponded with me upon it.
The problem of which I would like shortly to remind noble Lords arises in this way. The general principles in Clause 1 refer in subsection (1)(a) to the need for the fair resolution of dispute by an impartial tribunal. There is no reference to an independent and impartial tribunal. In Clause 33 the duty on the arbitrator is to act fairly and impartially between the parties, and the Committee may think that' there is nothing wrong with that. I respectfully agree with that when one is dealing with private consensual arbitrations. There is no requirement of independence.
The problem that arises is in the part of the Bill with which we are now concerned dealing with statutory arbitration, because obviously statutory arbitrations are not voluntary, but are imposed. The particular problem is where the Executive is party to a statutory arbitration. The case law of the European Court of Human Rights to which the European Court of Justice also looks as regards Article VI of the convention is what gives rise to the difficulty. Article VI of the European convention provides that everyone is entitled, in the determination of his civil rights obligation, to an independent as well as an impartial tribunal established by law. It is clear from the case law that the requirement of independence does not apply to a private voluntary consensual arbitration. But it is also clear from the case law that, where there is a compulsory arbitration and where the state is a party to the arbitration, it is essential for the arbitrators to be independent of the Executive as well as impartial.
The last thing that I wish to do is to inflict an amendment which would have the effect of causing confusion in the main part of the Bill dealing with consensual arbitration. I have drafted this amendment in order that the issue can be raised and essentially to hear the views of the noble Lords, and I especially ask the noble and learned Lord the Minister to clarify the position. This why I put the amendment before your Lordships.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: I am not clear, if this became part of the Bill, how anybody would be certain that a particular tribunal was independent of the Executive. I say that because of the devolution of power down to Executive agencies and quangoes of one kind or another. I take as a recent example the Marine Accident Investigations Branch which claims to be

CWH 27
independent of the Executive, and in the other place the Secretary of State said that it was. It is an integral part of the Department of Transport. How would this be applied?
Lord Preston: When the noble Lord, Lord Lester, raised this subject I was very puzzled, and I remain puzzled. I take it that the word "impartial" has a meaning. It seems to me that its meaning does not change depending on which part of the Bill you are considering. If it has a meaning and it is what we want, then its meaning remains in the clause of the Bill, which is what we want. My question is to ask the point of what he is saying. I am not sure whether the Minister feels he should reply or whether the noble Lord, Lord Lester, should, but one runs into a fundamental logical difficulty. I would have thought the amendment otiose.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I shall endeavour to answer those two questions before the Minister replies. So far as the question raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, is concerned, I cannot give a very satisfactory answer. Whether a court or tribunal is independent is very much rooted in the facts of a particular case—the nature of the subject matter, the method of appointment, the relationship between the members of the tribunal and the subject matter. There is case law, but it is obviously a difficult problem. I respectfully agree that if that is the criterion which must be satisfied under European law it gives rise to difficulties of interpretation which at present the European Court of Human Rights, if not our own courts, would be concerned with under the convention.
As to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, the difficulty is that it is not correct that the word "impartial" in subsection (1)(a) or Clause 32 should be construed to include independence in the way that word is used in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Were it to be so construed it would give rise to very great difficulties in practice in commercial arbitration. The problem is: what is one to do when one is dealing not with an ordinary, private, consensual arbitration but with a statutory arbitration to which the executive is party? I draw attention to the problem because it is necessary for us to be satisfied that we are complying with our obligations when we enact legislation of this kind. My amendment may be inept but it attempts at least to raise the point so that it can be dealt with in some fashion.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for putting down this amendment. I regard it as a very important point. We must do our best to ensure that the position is wholly clear.
There is much common ground between us. We are both clear that the European Convention on Human Rights does not apply to consensual arbitrations under Part I of the Bill. We are concerned in this part of the Bill, as he indicated, with statutory arbitrations. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, will doubtless recall, if others do not, that at the Second Reading, in answer to his
CWH 28
speech, I sought to propose a possible distinction between statutory arbitrations where the executive was not involved in the dispute. I sought to suggest that perhaps in those circumstances the convention did not apply. It is important to put on record that upon further reflection I depart wholly from the attempt to suggest such a distinction. I accept that the convention applies to all statutory arbitrations, even those where the executive is not involved in settling the dispute. I accept that the state is engaged by virtue of having established the framework under which the arbitration is to take place.
It goes without saying that we take our obligations under the convention most seriously.
It is clear that the Bill must comply with the convention in relation to statutory arbitrations. The fact that the Bill does not expressly require tribunals in statutory arbitrations to be independent as well as impartial should not be taken to mean that independence is not a necessary attribute of such tribunals. The provisions of the Bill are consistent with a need for the tribunal to be independent. There is no provision for the Executive to overturn a decision of the tribunal. There are various avenues of appeal to the court for an aggrieved party.
If there is any doubt about a particular tribunal, the proper way of dealing with the matter is in relation to that tribunal. If necessary, the power in Clause 100(1) would be available. I am confident that the Bill is not inconsistent with the requirements of the convention, and that no change is necessary to the text. I have taken some time to go through my response slowly and, I trust, clearly because I am conscious of the importance of what is being said, and my words on this matter might be subject to scrutiny on some later occasion. However, I hope that what I have said is sufficient to reassure the noble Lord, and that he will consider that he can now withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am extremely grateful for that considered and detailed statement. I have mixed feelings about having been the successful advocate in the case of Pepper v. Hart but the statement by the Minister does illustrate that there are some cases in which a studied ambiguity in the text of legislation may actually be desirable, and this may be one of those. I am grateful and satisfied that that statement does put the position extremely clearly and that to try to incorporate that in the text of the Bill would be very difficult to do, and is really unnecessary. If there is any doubt about the concept of impartiality and independence in the context of statutory arbitrations, it is now made clear by the Minister. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 98 agreed to.
Clauses 99 to 112 agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Modifications of Part I in relation to judge-arbitrators]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 42, line 36, leave out ("and 45(6)") and insert (", 45(6) and 69(8)").
The noble and learned Lord said: The amendment is needed to correct a small oversight. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Consequential amendments]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 50, line 12, leave out from beginning to ("(restrictions") and insert—
("35.—(1) The Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 35(2)").
The noble and learned Lord said: The Bill will extend to Northern Ireland. Current Northern Irish arbitration law differs from the law of England and Wales in certain respects, and consideration has been given to the extent to which Northern Irish law should align itself with the provisions of the Bill. The following four amendments all relate to Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 31 to 33:
Page 50, line 15, at end insert—
("(3) In section 55(2) (rules of court) after paragraph (c) insert—

"(cc) providing for any prescribed part of the jurisdiction of the High Court in relation to the trial of any action involving matters of account to be exercised in the prescribed manner by a person agreed by the parties and for the remuneration of any such person;".").

Page 50, line 21, leave out from beginning to ("(civil") and insert—
CWH 30
("37.—(I) The County Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 is amended as follows. (2) In Article 30").
Page 50, line 31, at end insert—
("(3) After Article 61 insert—
"Appeals from decisions under Part 1 of Arbitration Act 1996
61 A.—(1) Article 61 does not apply to a decision of a county court judge made in the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by Part I of the Arbitration Act 1996.
(2) Any party dissatisfied with a decision of the county court made in the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by any of the following provisions of Part I of the Arbitration Act 1996, namely—

(a) section 32 (question as to substantive jurisdiction of arbitral tribunal);

(b) section 45 (question of law arising in course of arbitral proceedings);

(c) section 67 (challenging award of arbitral tribunal: substantive jurisdiction);

(d) section 68 (challenging award of arbitral tribunal: serious irregularity);

(e) section 69 (appeal on point of law),

may, subject to the provisions of that Part, appeal from that decision to the Court of Appeal.
(3) Any party dissatisfied with any decision of a county court made in the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by any other provision of Part I of the Arbitration Act 1996 may, subject to the provisions of that Part, appeal from that decision to the High Court.
(4) The decision of the Court of Appeal on an appeal under paragraph (2) shall be final.".").
The noble and learned Lord said: As I indicated in speaking very briefly to Amendment No. 30, these amendments all relate in differing minor respects to Northern Ireland. I would intend to move them formally unless noble Lords wish me to elaborate on any one.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
The remaining schedule agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendments.
Committee adjourned at ten minutes before six o'clock.

  CARIN System
  CARIN System
  Mr. Eddison James: Visit
  Mr. Eddison James: Visit
  British Embassies: EU Business Monitoring
  British Embassies: EU Business Monitoring
  Air Pollution Control: Fee Scale
  Air Pollution Control: Fee Scale
  Rights of Audience in Higher Courts
  Rights of Audience in Higher Courts
  Commonhold: Legislation
  Commonhold: Legislation
  Legal Aid: Means Testing
  Legal Aid: Means Testing
  Medical Infusion Devices: Malfunction Incidents
  Medical Infusion Devices: Malfunction Incidents
  Nuclear Non-Proliferation
  Nuclear Non-Proliferation
  Civil Service and Armed Forces: Entry Requirements
  Civil Service and Armed Forces: Entry Requirements
  Global Positioning System
  Global Positioning System
  Sierra Leone: Military Training
  Sierra Leone: Military Training
  RAF Flying Training Scheme
  RAF Flying Training Scheme
  Millennium Exhibition
  Millennium Exhibition