Sitting of 29 February 1996

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

    CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords]
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That the Promoters of the City of Westminster Bill [Lords] may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
    That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the last Session;
    That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed) and shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who shall make such Amendments thereto as were made by him in the last Session, and shall report the Bill as amended to the House forthwith, and the Bill, so amended, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
    That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during any previous Session.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be considered again on Thursday 7 March.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Turner: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the National Farmers Union to discuss the common agricultural policy. [16097]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I meet the NFU regularly to discuss all aspects of agricultural policy.
    Mr. Turner: Is the Minister aware that Opposition Members agree with the National Farmers Union that the divisions and isolation on Europe in the Conservative party are greatly weakening the Government's negotiating
    982
    position? What does he think about the statement by the previous NFU president that he intends to vote Labour at the next general election?
    Mr. Hogg: If he does, he will be very upset by the consequences, should the hon. Gentleman's party by any evil chance be elected.
    Sir Roger Moate: When he next meets members of the NFU, will my right hon. and learned Friend discuss the form of the dairy regime? According to figures from his own Department, a Dutch cow receives about £400 a year in financial support from the Common Market, as does a Danish cow. This country receives £80 per cow. Why is the British cow worth so much less than European Community cows? One might ask who is milking whom.
    Mr. Hogg: I have always taken the view that the British cow is a splendid cow.
    My hon. Friend has made a good point about the need to reform the common agricultural policy. The British Government have been taking the lead in that regard. I am glad to say, however, that there has been a substantial increase in farmers' incomes, which have risen by some 52 per cent. in real terms over four years.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: I welcome the fact that the cost of the CAP has fallen by about 20 per cent. since 1988. Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm, however, that the CAP costs the average family about £20 a week in additional bills? Is that not a very good reason for reviewing its operation at the intergovernmental conference, particularly given that, with the expansion of Europe, it will become even less sustainable than it is now?
    Mr.Hogg: My hon. Friend is right to say that the cost of the CAP is unsustainably high. That is one of the reasons why we want it to be substantially reformed. It is worth pointing out, however, that between 1988 and 1994 there was an annual decrease of some 0.2 per cent. in real terms in the cost of the CAP to the taxpayer. Under the last Labour regime, the cost quadrupled.
    Mr. Stevenson: Has the Minister discussed with the NFU the dramatic increase in the CAP budget to which the United Kingdom Government have agreed? Between 1992–93 and the current year, the budget has increased by £4.5 billion—about 30 per cent. How can the Minister justify that, and how can he equate it with the Government's professed intention of reforming the CAP, which, they say, would be good for the taxpayer, the consumer and the farmer?
    Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman clearly was not listening to what I said. Between 1974 and 1979, under the Labour Government, expenditure on the CAP quadrupled. That coincided with a period in which food prices rose and farm incomes fell in real terms. Under the Conservative Government, we have got a real grip on the CAP—for example, in the 1992 reforms. As I said a moment ago, between 1988 and 1994 there was an annual decrease, on average, of 0.2 per cent. in expenditure on FEOGA.
    Dr. Strang: How can the huge arable and set-aside payments to large farmers be justified? Surely it is indefensible that, last year, 13 cereal growers received individual payments of £500,000 or more from a regime that, this year, will cost more than £1 billion? How does the Minister reconcile that expenditure with his decision to cut European money towards the cost of school milk?
    Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman really should not exaggerate the contribution that either he or the Labour party has made to the discussion on agricultural reform. I just happen to have on me every word that appeared in the Labour party manifesto in 1992 on agricultural policy. Those words make up two sentences. They are conveniently pasted on the back of an ordinary bus ticket, the type of bus ticket that a Labour Member used to take on her journey from Peckham to St. Olave's. If you, Madam Speaker, would like me to deposit that artefact in the Library of the House of Commons, I will most certainly do so. It will not take 10 days to read.
    Dr. Spink: Having dispatched Labour's policy, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree with the Liberal Democrats' assessment that they are"too pro-European ever to reform the CAP"?
    Mr. Hogg: I do indeed agree. I happen to have in my hand a report prepared by a lady called Candida Gould, who is described as a "Political Warfare Officer"—not a job that we would expect to find in a party that criticises other parties for partisan policy making. On behalf of the Liberal Whips office, she said, "The Lib Dems are too"—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The Minister is amusing us this afternoon, but it is not the purpose of the House to be amused by a Minister. He is here to answer questions on Government policy and I should like him to be accountable for that policy today.
    Mr. Tyler: I hope that the Minister will have some—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I have not called the hon. Gentleman's question. Let us have an answer from the Minister that relates to his responsibilities.

    EU Intergovernmental Conference
    Mr. Tyler: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what issues relevant to the responsibilities of his Department are on the agenda for the European Union intergovernmental conference; and if he will make a statement. [16098]
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: As I announced on 7 February, we will seek to add to the treaty of Rome a protocol that will provide that full regard should be paid to
    "animal welfare in matters relating to agriculture, transport, research and the single market".
    Any further proposals will be announced at the appropriate time.
    Mr. Tyler: I am sorry that I was distracted by your intervention, Madam Deputy Speaker.
    984
    I am grateful to the Minister for that reply and I acknowledge the advance that has been made, but will he acknowledge that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed concern this afternoon about the IGC agenda preparation's failure so far to take into account the need for radical reform both of the common fisheries policy and of the common agricultural policy? Will the Minister confirm, as it is a major feature of his Green Paper, that there needs to be a substantial transfer from production-related support to environmental, employment and social objectives, and that the IGC can consider those matters?
    Mr. Hogg: I think that the hon. Gentleman is rather confused about the IGC's purpose. On the common agricultural policy—here I make a distinction between the CAP and the CFP, the common fisheries policy—we are talking about reform in policy. Negotiations will proceed in parallel with the IGC to try to ensure thorough CAP reform. It is possible that issues will properly be dealt with in relation to certain specific defects that we have identified in the CFP. If that is our conclusion, we will make proposals at the appropriate time.
    Mr. Harris: On the last point made by my right hon. and learned Friend, will he look in particular at the memorandum that I and others have sent him on possible parts of the common fisheries policy that could be taken into account at the intergovernmental conference, such as the setting of parameters for the review of the policy and the very important question of what on earth we do about the wretched Spanish flag of convenience vessels and vessels from other member states that are plundering our stocks?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend, along with other hon. Friends, has produced an important memorandum identifying a range of issues within the common fisheries policy that we need to address. My colleagues and I, especially my hon. Friend the Minister of State, have been looking carefully at the memorandum. My hon. Friend is right to draw specific attention to quota hopping, which is the point that he made at the end of the question. These are matters on which we are reflecting, and if we see positive ways forward we shall come to the House, in one way or another, to make our conclusions known. My hon. Friend has contributed enormously to the formulation of our thinking on this matter.

    Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
    Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his latest estimate of the total number of animals affected by bovine spongiform encephalopathy. [16099]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Angela Browning): Up to 23 February, a total of 158,277 cases of BSE had been confirmed in Great Britain.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Does the Minister expect the results of the Ministry's study of cattle born after the feed ban to prove conclusively whether BSE is vertically transmissible?
    Mrs. Browning: Our research into maternal transmission and animals born after the ban is intended to give a conclusive answer. We are some way from that so, in the interim, we have said categorically that we cannot rule out maternal transmission. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if maternal transmission is subsequently proved, the numbers already show that it would not be sufficient to be responsible for the figures I gave in my initial answer.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend agree that public confidence in British beef has been severely undermined by irresponsible media reporting, by media scaremongering and by media madness? Does she agree that British beef—I eat it on all occasions—is not only safe but the best? We should stand up for the British beef farmer.
    Mrs. Browning: Indeed, my hon. Friend has summed up exactly the travesty presented by the media when they seek to decry an industry that is of high quality and respected around the world. British beef is safe to eat. Those are not just my words, but the words of the chief medical officer and the chairman of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee. I commend the eating of British beef to all hon. Members who eat meat.

    Live Animal Transport
    Mr. Connarty: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met his European counterparts to discuss the welfare of farm animal exports. [16100]
    Mrs. Browning: The Council of Agriculture Ministers negotiated an important agreement on the welfare of animals in transport in June 1995. My right hon. and learned Friend and his predecessor have had bilateral contact with a number of their counterparts since then, on a variety of issues including animal welfare.
    Mr. Connarty: Given the wish of the farming industry to maintain the reputation of British beef exports, does the Minister share our concern about the allegations made in the "Dispatches" programme of 17 January that local veterinary inspections of calves were not carried out to ensure either that they did not have foot and mouth or that they did not come from mothers that had connections with BSE? If the Minister shares that concern, can she explain why Jonathan Stirling, the veterinary surgeon accused of those malpractices, has been reinstated before the inquiry has come to a conclusion?
    Mrs. Browning: We take very seriously any allegations of the kind that the hon. Gentleman has outlined and that were flagged up in the "Dispatches" programme. The programme makers have made available to us documentation which is being rigorously inspected. However, I point out to the hon. Gentleman that, as in other cases where people are accused of something, it is part of our culture that people are innocent until proven guilty. We would not wish to take action against an individual until the allegations had been properly investigated, which is what is happening.
    Mr. Gale: I thank my hon. Friend for her continued efforts in bringing about the end of the use of veal crates on mainland Europe and securing humane transport conditions. Will not the protocol, to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food referred a few moments ago, help that process enormously? Is it not a prime example of the Government pursuing unilateral action in Europe? Do they not deserve support for that?
    Mrs. Browning: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He has clearly identified the Government's policy, which has been opposed by the Opposition in the past year. If we are to succeed, whether with veal crates or with transport regulations, in improving the welfare of animals in transit and the methods by which they are reared, we must gain the prize of high standards across the European Union—not just apply them here, never mind what happens across the channel. We are making very good progress on those issues. The European dimension is important to the welfare of animals.
    Mr. Morley: Do not the irregularities exposed in the Channel 4 programme "Dispatches" demonstrate that it would be far better if animals being exported were inspected by an independent veterinary body rather than allowing exporters to choose their own veterinary surgeons? Is it not true that the Minister's Department produced the Morris report which demonstrated a range of serious failings in that area? Why has that report been suppressed and not made available for hon. Members to read it?
    Mrs. Browning: The Morris report was an internal document, and such reports are not usually made public. I can, however, assure the hon. Gentleman that all the points raised in that internal document have been addressed and its recommendations have been actioned.

    Environmentally Sensitive Areas
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he has made recently in allocating money under the environmentally sensitive areas scheme. [16101]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs (Mr. Tim Boswell): Payment in English ESAs will total £30.5 million this year.
    Mr. Ainsworth: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in an age of food production surpluses, there is very little logic behind continuing to pay farming subsidies other than those related to environmental protection? I congratulate my hon. Friend on the fact that, during a very tight public spending round, he has managed to find another £5 million over two years for countryside stewardship schemes. Is that not a clear example of the Government's determination to protect and enhance our green and pleasant land?
    Mr. Boswell: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. We certainly wish to emphasise increasingly the environmental role in public support for agriculture. The environmentally sensitive areas scheme was wholly

    987
    devised and brought into effect under the present Administration, and we are already beginning to see its benefits.
    Mr. Ainger: Is the Minister aware that approximately half my constituency has been designated an environmentally sensitive area but that, because of the disaster caused by the massive spillage of 60,000 to 70,000 tonnes of oil from the Sea Empress, fishery products from my constituency are basically—sometimes literally—blacked? The National Farmers Union, hundreds of constituents of mine and many other Members and organisations, including fishery and farming organisations throughout the country, are demanding an independent inquiry into the disaster. Will he join them and try to persuade his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport that an internal inquiry carried out by his Department is totally unacceptable and will not carry the confidence of my constituents or anyone else? Will he urge the Secretary of State to accept that if the report is to have any credibility, it must be independent and, ideally, controlled by Lord Donaldson, who conducted the excellent inquiry into the Braer disaster?
    Mr. Boswell: I am very sorry about the position in which the hon. Gentleman's constituents find themselves. The environmentally sensitive areas regime to which he referred is terrestrial, but that in no sense takes away the problems that apply to his fishermen, who are of course now excluded from a certain fishing zone. My hon. Friends and I are very concerned, and I shall convey the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's interest in an independent inquiry to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: My hon. Friend will know that, during a tight settlement by the Government this year, £5 million extra has been put into the countryside stewardship scheme. I congratulate my hon. Friend on that. Does he agree that the best friend of the countryside is our farming community? It takes a responsible view of what it is doing—despite the sort of criticism that we constantly hear, especially from the animal rights lobby, who sponsor even Labour Front-Bench spokesmen, to the tune of £15,000, which explains why we hear such daft, mad policies from Labour.
    Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out that we are providing an additional £5 million for countryside stewardship for the year that begins in April, and a further £5 million for the following year. That is because, like my hon. Friend, we believe that farmers are the best custodians of the countryside and should have every practicable incentive to carry out that task. We firmly reject the philosophy based on control, regulation and interference that characterises Opposition policies.

    Turkey Farming
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to improve the standards in turkey farming. [16102]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Tony Baldry): We are currently considering recommendations from the Farm Animal Welfare Council for changes that will build on the protection already offered by legislation and welfare codes.
    Mr. Cohen: Does not the selective breeding of turkeys result in male birds suffering from congenital hip disorders and enduring chronic pain? Do not 2.5 million birds die in their sheds each year? Is there not a case for urgent reform of current turkey farming practices, and do not Agriculture Ministers deserve stuffing for allowing those bad practices?
    Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman rather spoilt what was obviously a serious observation by his trite comment at the end. Of course it is important that high animal welfare standards be maintained and improved. The Farm Animal Welfare Council reported last year on the welfare of turkeys and made several recommendations. If anyone had evidence to support the hon. Gentleman's contentions, that evidence would have been made available to the council. We have been taking careful note of the subsequent comments of the industry and of animal welfare organisations, and we shall publish our response shortly.
    Mr. Congdon: I welcome what my hon. Friend said about the need to ensure that turkey farming is carried out as humanely as possible. Should we not also recognise how successful the industry has been in rearing turkeys that represent such excellent value for money for the British consumer?
    Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The price of turkey in supermarkets and elsewhere has been coming down over the years, which is of considerable benefit to the consumer and reflects considerable credit on the British turkey industry.

    Nutritious Food
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he proposes to increase appreciation of and access to nutritious food. 16103]
    Mrs. Browning: The range of foodstuffs available today is such that everyone should be able to select an interesting, enjoyable and nutritious diet of their choice. My Department provides information and advice to assist people to do so.
    Mr. Mackinlay: But not everyone can. Has not the Minister's own nutrition task force drawn attention to the high rate of heart disease in this country, and to the fact that by the year 2005 a quarter of women and one in five men will suffer from severe obesity unless there is a change in dietary habits and a greater awareness of the problems caused by eating junk food? Do the Government not have an obligation to ensure that the poorest and most disadvantaged people have access to the most nutritious food, and that the food industry is taken to task to make it label foods properly and give proper advice and guidance? Leadership should come from the Government to protect the health of the people of this country.
    Mrs. Browning: The nutrition task force low income project team—I think that is the group to which the hon. Gentleman referred—has produced a report, which we shall publish soon. The MAFF national food survey, which has been in operation since 1940, regularly monitors the diet of a full cross-section at all levels of income. The problems of obesity and heart disease that the hon. Gentleman mentioned are indeed important, and they are among the targets of "The Health of The Nation" White Paper. We believe that it is excess fat in the diet that causes the problem, and people do not necessarily have to spend a lot to eat a diet that is nutritious and does not contain excessive fat. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is pulling a rather funny face. I shall show him two booklets that MAFF produced, which give guidelines for a balanced diet. Some of the eight guidelines are:
    "enjoy your food; eat a variety of different foods"—
    such as pasta and rice, which are very low cost, and vegetables, although not only the most expensive ones—
    "eat the right amount … eat plenty of foods rich in starch and fibre".
    If the hon. Gentleman requests more details, I should be very happy to send him, and any other hon. Member, a copy of our advice.
    Mr. Fabricant: May I invite my hon. Friend to take a motoring tour with me around Europe? Behind our car we will have a refrigerated trailer that will contain apples from Kent, gooseberries from Worcestershire and best British beef from Staffordshire. When we get to Europe, we will stop off in the Champs Elysèes, or the Grand Place in Brussels, and have a picnic. The fine British food will be appreciated not only by us, because we shall invite some of the Europeans to try it too. They will see that British food is not only nutritious; it is a darn sight better than French horse or—come to that—French golden delicious apples.
    Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend is attempting to flag up, quite rightly, the excellent regional foods for which this country is rightly proud. I must say that, as I was sitting on the Front Bench when my hon. Friend extended to me his very generous invitation, I received a message from the Whips which said, "Don't you dare."

    Dairy Products
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the imports and exports of dairy products. [16104]
    Mr. Baldry: Over the past 10 years, the value of UK dairy exports has increased twice as much as imports and, in real terms, the UK's trade deficit in dairy products has been cut by 26 per cent.
    Mr. Williams: In my constituency, Andrew Dare, the chief executive of Milk Marque, recently pointed out that the value per tonne of imported dairy products is 40 per cent. greater than the goods that we export. What can the Government and the dairy industry do to boost added value in the dairy industry so that we move upmarket— to such items as yoghurts, desserts and fine cheeses—for import displacement and to improve that export performance?
    Mr. Baldry: That is exactly what is happening. I think that the hon. Gentleman has somehow got the situation the wrong way around. Since deregulation, we are seeing high-value milk products for export; there is no longer an incentive for processors to put milk into such low-value products as skim milk or into butter for intervention. We are seeing a very substantial increase in the value of our exports, which have increased by some 126 per cent. What is happening is what the hon. Gentleman wants to happen.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that the reason why Britain is not 100 per cent self-sufficient in milk quotas can be directly attributed to the failure of the previous Labour Government? The base that was set in 1981 was influenced by the depression caused by that former Labour Government.
    Mr. Baldry: The Opposition might not like it, but the reason why we are not self-sufficient in milk products is that, during the late 1970s, the agrimonetary policy that was followed by the former Labour Government disadvantaged this country. That policy meant that, when milk quotas were introduced, this country was not self-sufficient.

    Calves
    Mr. Clapham: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many representations he has received concerning the welfare of calves in the last two years. [16105]
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: The answer is: many.
    Mr. Clapham: I am grateful for that answer, because it reflects the British public's great concern. Does the Minister share my view that it is unacceptable that calves which are exported from the UK are put into veal crates that are so cruel that they were banned in the UK in 1990? Will the Minister stop the trade if the current judicial review, which has been called by animal welfare organisations, demonstrates that he has the power to do so?
    Mr. Hogg: I am rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not give credit to the Conservative Government. First, the UK ban was introduced by the Conservative Government—not by anybody else. Secondly, the fact that the European Union is, at this very moment, discussing the proposals for banning veal crates is due primarily to the hard work that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary did over a number of years to bring this discussion before the Council and the Commission. We are pressing the matter exceedingly hard, and the hon. Gentleman should give credit where credit is due.
    Dr. Strang: Does the Minister recall that his predecessor proclaimed that the days of the veal crate were numbered? However, more than 400 days later, we are still exporting calves into relative darkness to be malnourished and reared in crates in which they cannot turn around. Will the Minister answer this question: is it true that he has said that, even if European law permits it, he will not act to prevent the export of calves into continental veal crates?
    Mr. Hogg: I shall make two points. First, I find it astonishing that the hon. Gentleman should ever raise this subject. Let us not forget that the matter was discussed in 1975 and, on a free vote, the hon. Gentleman, who was then an agriculture spokesman, voted to resume the export of live animals, even though the right hon. John Silkin, the future Minister, voted the other way. It is a clear case of members of the Labour Front-Bench team saying one thing, but doing another.
    As for the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I have made the position quite plain. I do not believe that I have the legal power to prohibit the export of live calves. If I did have that power, I would not exercise it because I do not believe in heaping unilateral burdens on British farmers. Such things should be dealt with throughout Europe. Incidentally, that was substantially the position adopted by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary and stated expressly in the House.

    Public Footpaths
    Mr. Colvin: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to ensure access to the countryside through established public footpaths. [16106]
    Mr. Boswell: The Government have adopted the target of bringing the current rights of way network into good order by 2000. That is primarily the responsibility of highway authorities, which are devoting additional resources to the task.
    Mr. Colvin: I appreciate that the matter was covered in the White Paper on the rural economy. As the Department of the Environment was joint author of that White Paper, what discussions has my hon. Friend had with his opposite number at the Department of the Environment about the reform of the law and regulations relating to rights of way? Diversions should be easier to obtain because that would mean not only safer rights of way but better access to the countryside for the public than would be afforded by the Opposition's right to roam proposals. Would not the Opposition's proposals be difficult to manage and almost impossible to enforce?
    Mr. Boswell: I assure my hon. Friend that we have close and continuing relations, and an element of joint working, with our colleagues at the Department of the Environment in pursuing the follow-up to the rural White Paper, including the important points that he made about a simpler regime for footpath diversion and, for that matter, the concerns expressed about four-wheel drive vehicles. I stand by the remarks in the White Paper about the right to roam proposals, which my hon. Friend highlighted, which were to the effect that they would elevate one interest above all others and create a pattern of rights without responsibilities. We regard that as very ill-founded.
    Sir James Molyneaux: Is the Minister aware that access to the countryside has created problems for many farmers who face public liability claims, a great many of which are entirely bogus and, in some areas, so numerous that insurance companies are refusing to provide cover?
    Mr. Boswell: I am grateful that the right hon. Gentleman has raised that point. That concern, which I am sure arises in his area as it does in many other parts of the United Kingdom, is one that will be part of our discussions.
    Mr. David Nicholson: Does my hon. Friend recognise that useful progress was made on this matter as a result of the private Member's Bill in the previous Parliament initiated by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), of which I was a co-sponsor? Will he contrast that with the Labour party's "right to roam" Bill, which has been condemned by the prominent Labour peeress Baroness Mallalieu for imposing burdens on farmers, encouraging rural crime and being effectively unenforceable?
    Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing the House's attention to the excellent work of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) with his Bill. My hon. Friend is right to the bring our attention to the views of the noble and learned Baroness on the right to roam proposals. On the radio, she said:
    "the reality is that no legislation in respect of access can truly succeed without the co-operation of those most directly concerned, the farmers and landowners."
    Mrs. Golding: The Minister knows that the Labour party believes that the countryside should not be a battleground of blocked pathways and bad tempers. We believe that access to the countryside should be about consideration, conservation and consultation. He knows that access agreements have already been made in Scotland between landowners and ramblers under the right to roam proposals. Does he think that what has been achieved in Scotland could not be achieved in the rest of country?
    Mr. Boswell: The hon. Lady misunderstands two points. No Conservative Member is against access to the countryside where it is by agreement and properly managed. We have no objection to farmers and landowners concluding agreements for public access, whether in Scotland, England or other parts of the United Kingdom. What we fear in the proposals for a right to roam is the imposition of a right, over the heads of farmers and landowners, without any corresponding obligations. It would amount, even if she means it well, as I am sure that she does, to a troublemakers charter, and it would not advance the cause of better access.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to ensure that nationally recognised public footpaths and bridlepaths are formed with full consultation with local farmers. [16107]
    Mr. Boswell: Legislation already requires that new public rights of way are created in full consultation with landowners. Responsibility for this is primarily a matter for highway authorities. We welcome constructive dialogue between interested parties.
    Mr. Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in seeking to achieve the delicate balance between the rights of ramblers and walkers and those of farmers and landowners, it is inevitable that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should be on the side of the latter? In that context, will he bear in mind the need to seek secure diversion of footpaths around farm yards, where safety considerations should be paramount? In the past, it has not been easy to persuade local authorities to allow such diversions.
    Mr. Boswell: I assure my hon. Friend that the attitudes of Government Departments on the matter are at one. We are interested in improving access by agreement and making the arrangements as flexible as possible. At the same time, he rightly flags up our departmental interest in ensuring that farmers are not messed about if that can be avoided. I am concerned that we should provide a better regime for diversion. I hope that local authorities will consider that under their existing powers, and we shall consider whether it is necessary to go further in conjunction with them.
    Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that, in the early part of the century, large numbers of people from the towns enjoyed walking in lowland parts of Britain, using country lanes and footpaths? Is he aware that it is now almost impossible to enjoy such rambles because of the traffic on country lanes? Does he accept that there is a strong case for creating new footpaths, especially on set-aside land, so that people can continue to enjoy long walks without having to compete with traffic on country lanes?
    Mr. Boswell: I know from my experience as a farmer that there is plenty of use of the footpath and bridleway network. Currently, there is a provision of 120,000 miles. We have no objection to extending that. The issue between the parties is whether it should be by agreement or imposition.

    Farm Incomes
    Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the change in farm incomes since September 1992. [16108]
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Total—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] It is indeed good news, Madam Speaker. Total income from farming is estimated to have risen by 52 per cent. in real terms between 1992 and 1995.
    Mr. Brown: Does that not show that, under a Conservative Government, farm incomes have risen while food prices have fallen? Can my right hon. and learned Friend refresh my memory? Was it not the other way round under the last Labour Government? Did not farm incomes fall, while food prices rocketed?
    Mr. Hogg: You will not be surprised to learn, Madam Speaker, that my hon. Friend is right. The full particulars are as follows: agricultural spending within the common agricultural policy quadrupled under Labour; food prices in real terms went up under Labour; and, under Labour during 1974–79, total income from farming, expressed in real terms, went down by 32 per cent.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 February. [16127]
    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is carrying out official engagements in the far east.
    Mr. Shaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Dover and Deal we have a selective system of education that offers choice and diversity and requires no parent to send his child 15 miles to school? Is he aware that we have grant-maintained grammar schools, high schools, a grant-maintained comprehensive school and we now have a Labour-run county council that wants to try to change what the Conservative county council set up? Is he further aware that the Labour party's policies in Kent reek of old Labour hypocrisy? Is the Labour party trying to change the policy or the guidelines, or is it just being hypocritical?
    Madam Speaker: Order. I have cautioned the hon. Gentleman before. Ministers at the Dispatch Box are not responsible for the policy of any other political party. They are responsible for Government policy and they should be asked matters relating to that policy and for which they are accountable. I have no doubt that there is something in the hon. Gentleman's earlier comments to which the Deputy Prime Minister can reply, but I am sure he will relate his comments to Government policy.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I think that I can stretch my answer to embrace your suggestions, Madam Speaker. The fact is that my hon. Friend has described the excellent range of choice and policies that Conservative education policy represents. He will be well aware of the criticisms of the alternative structure of comprehensive education that we have heard from the Labour spokesman on education, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), who said:
    "In spite of 30 years of comprehensive education, the pattern of excellence at the top and chronic under-performance at the bottom persists".
    That is the most comprehensive criticism of Labour education policy that I have ever heard, even from a Labour spokesman.
    Mr. Prescott: Why did the Prime Minister refuse to answer parliamentary questions about the names of the people he will be meeting on his publicly funded visit to Hong Kong?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have not the slightest doubt that my right hon. Friend's programme will remain flexible during the course of his visit. Any Labour Member who has ever represented his country abroad will know the great importance of being able to respond to suggestions of meetings in the margins of international councils. It is ludicrous to think that one can plan all those

    995
    things with so many world leaders in one circumstance at a time. It shows that the Opposition are so devoid of reality that they are unfit to govern.
    Mr. Prescott: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that there is a great deal of public concern because, during the Prime Minister's last visit to Hong Kong, he met a number of wealthy Hong Kong business men who then gave millions of pounds to Tory party funds, none of which was publicly declared? Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that, on this occasion, no such meetings will take place?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman would ever take the trouble to find out about the world outside Britain, he would know that there are a number of wealthy Chinese business men in Hong Kong, because it is one of the most successful capitalist economies in the world.
    Mr. Prescott: Why does the right hon. Gentleman refuse to be open and honest about Tory party funding? Have we not returned to the fundamental question about the Tory party—what does it have to hide?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman would be a great deal better off telling the country about the clandestine meetings that are taking place with the trade unions to do the deals that will enable them to support the Labour party, in the hope that it will get power.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that top British companies succeed because they are no longer hamstrung by trade union domination, and that that has resulted in the lowest strike level for more than 100 years? Will he give the House a commitment that the Conservative Government will not engage in any sleazy backroom deals with trade unions to do away with the trade union legislation that has enabled Britain to be the enterprise economy of Europe?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I can give my hon. Friend an unequivocal assurance that we will do no sleazy backroom deals with anyone, whether in the trade unions, the capitalist system or anywhere else.
    Mr. Tyler: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 February. [16128]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Tyler: Does the Deputy Prime Minister recall who was the last Conservative Minister to take full accountability for the actions of his Department and to resign on principle? Does he think that certain Ministers in the present Government should follow that example?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will remember that he lost the vote on Monday. I recall that my noble Friend Lord Carrington resigned in circumstances with which the hon. Gentleman will be as
    996
    familiar as I am, but the fact of the matter is that my right hon. Friends explained our views on the Scott report. The House listened to the arguments and found in favour of the Government.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: As my right hon. Friend quite clearly and rightly believes in retaining the rank of Prime Minister, will he please explain to the House why we are to abolish the rank of field marshal?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend misunderstood the recent announcement. As I understand it, the rank of field marshal will now be awarded only to generals commanding an army in the field in times of war.
    Mr. Gapes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 February. [16130]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Gapes: Does the Deputy Prime Minister recall that, before he was appointed to his elevated position last July, the Labour party was leading the Conservatives by 27 per cent. in the opinion polls? Has he seen the MORI poll in The Times today, showing that Labour's lead over the Conservatives is now 31 per cent? In view of that, does the Deputy Prime Minister believe that he should continue in his responsibility for the presentation of Government policy?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The answer— [Interruption.] I thought that the House might be interested in the answer to the question, which is best summarised in one word: yes.
    Sir Alan Haselhurst: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 February. [16131]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Sir Alan Haselhurst: Will my right hon. Friend undertake to examine the workings of the Land Compensation Act 1973? Is he aware that claimants against Stansted airport have to wait between four and five years for settlement, and that that is causing a great deal of anguish, if not hardship, in many cases; whereas the airport operator can still sustain claims up to 1988 and has absolutely no idea of its total liability? Is that not a recipe for maximum discontent?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am sympathetic to the point that my hon. Friend has made, and I know the efforts to which he has gone to make representations on this issue. However, the matter is not under ministerial control; it is a matter of quasi-judicial responsibilities and the processes must unfold in the way that he has described.
    Mr. Rooker: Will the Deputy Prime Minister address the issue of the standards of conduct in public life? Are the Government planning to do anything to close the loophole—about which we are criticised—whereby hon. Members use the freedom of aircraft tickets to travel between constituencies to gain private air miles for their families? [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should listen to questions, and to the answers.
    Mr. Rooker: Will the Deputy Prime Minister explain the difference in that action and the actions of a publicly funded Prime Minister travelling to the other side of the world to fill the coffers of his party's political funds?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman raised a serious issue in the first part of his question, and I shall deal with it seriously. Guidance to Ministers is quite clear: they are not allowed to use air miles incurred in public services for private purposes.
    Mr. Gill: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 February. [16132]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Gill: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to walk away from the conference table at the forthcoming intergovernmental conference if they cannot get a deal that is acceptable to the majority of British voters?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The Government will shortly publish a White Paper on their approach to the intergovernmental conference. The British Government will represent the interests of this country at the conference, and it is their view that they will do that more effectively if they participate in the dialogue.
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 February. [16133]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Flynn: Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that the heartbreaking pollution from the Sea Empress is the worst environmental catastrophe ever to hit the United Kingdom? Is he aware that an internal inquiry by civil
    998
    servants of the conduct of other civil servants and their Minister is not a satisfactory inquiry? Will he give the undertakings that a full inquiry will take place, preferably under Lord Donaldson, and that it will be public and entirely independent?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport told the House last week, the marine accident investigation branch will carry out a thorough and independent inquiry into the cause of the incident and the conduct of the salvage operation.
    Sir Michael Shersby: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity today to recall that, when he was the Secretary of State for the Environment, he pursued the excellent policy of defending the metropolitan green belt? Does he agree with me that the metropolitan green belt is the greatest bulwark against urban sprawl? Will Her Majesty's Government continue to make that policy the centrepoint of their environment policy?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is as determined as any former Secretary of State in his advocacy and maintenance of Government policy on the green belt. He will act in compliance with planning policy guidance and with the law. He must consider any matters that are put before him, but no one should doubt his commitment to the green belt.
    Mr. Jack Thompson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 February. [16134]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Thompson: Bearing in mind the enthusiasm of the Deputy Prime Minister and of the Prime Minister for efficiency in Government Departments—which was shown clearly by their support for market testing—is it not now appropriate for the British people to market test the Government?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: They would find that they are looking forward to an economy that is as strong as any in contemporary history. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained at the time of the Budget statement, they are looking forward to an increase in average incomes of £9 a week. Since then, there have been two reductions in interest rates. We have the lowest inflation rate for many years, falling unemployment and a competitive currency. It is obvious that the Government have presided over extremely exciting economic prospects.

Channel Tunnel Rail Link
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport (Sir George Young): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the outcome of the competition to select a private sector promoter for the high-speed channel tunnel rail link.
The competition took place under the Government's private finance initiative, and was keenly fought by four very serious and capable bidders. In order to meet the requirements of the stock exchange, I announced this morning that the winning consortium is London and Continental Railways, whose members are Halcrow, London Electricity, National Express, Virgin, Warburg, Arup, Bechtel and Systra. I should now like to give the House further details.
This is the launch of a new, international, private sector enterprise. The agreements that I have signed with London and Continental are much more than a construction contract. It is about the private sector taking on the running of the existing Eurostar services, procuring the construction of the new high-speed railway line, operating and maintaining the railway after its completion, and providing international passenger services. In short, it is the creation of an entirely new business: a complete private sector railway.
The benefits of the deal for the nation are wide-ranging and substantial. London and Continental will bring to European Passenger Services the commercial and marketing skills of highly successful private sector transport operators. It has impressive plans for increasing EPS passenger numbers and revenues.
The construction of the new high-speed railway from St. Pancras to the channel tunnel will reduce journey times for international travellers by about 40 minutes: London to Paris will be two hours 25 minutes; and London to Brussels, two hours five minutes. The new line will greatly increase the capacity of the international rail market, removing a constraint that would otherwise have limited its growth.
The railway will be a great boost to economic development and regeneration, particularly in the Thames gateway area. We have already announced that there will be a combined international and domestic station at Ebbsfleet in north Kent. I can announce today that a combined international and domestic station will also be provided at Stratford in east London. That station will help attract development and jobs to Stratford itself, to east London more widely, to docklands and to the Lea Valley. It will be a shot in the arm for development in areas where that is sorely needed.
London and Continental's plans will also extend the benefits of the channel tunnel rail link beyond the south-east. In particular, it proposes to construct a short length of new railway within the King's Cross railway lands, which will provide a direct twin-track connection between the channel tunnel rail link and the west coast main line. That will allow direct and frequent international services from cities such as Manchester and Birmingham, bypassing St. Pancras and calling at Stratford. That will cut journey times by up to an hour: for instance, Birmingham will be just four hours from Paris, and Manchester five hours.
1000
London and Continental will now promote applications under the Transport and Works Act 1992 to construct the station at Stratford and the short length of new track just north of St. Pancras.
The main CTRL terminus at St. Pancras will provide an excellent interchange for services to the midlands and the north along the midland main line and the east coast main line, and also with the Thameslink 2000 project which I announced on Tuesday. The new St. Pancras terminus will, of course, respect the architectural integrity of that magnificent building. It will also greatly enhance the prospects for a sympathetic development of the St. Pancras Chambers, and for the redevelopment of the King's Cross railway lands, which is the largest redevelopment opportunity in London.
London and Continental plans to continue frequent international services from Waterloo, where travellers will also benefit from faster journeys via the CTRL, with a saving of around 20 minutes on current times.
Domestic rail travellers will also benefit from the new line. As we announced in July last year, the Government will be reserving capacity on the new line for up to eight domestic trains an hour in the peak period. The new services should start as soon as CTRL is open, and will dramatically improve journey times from many parts of Kent. The increase in overall rail capacity will help ease congestion and improve reliability on existing Railtrack lines.
The key criteria for the evaluation of the bids were the size and timing of the Government's financial contribution, and the risk each bidder was prepared to accept.
The Government will transfer certain assets to the promoter: European Passenger Services, free of capital debt; Union Railways, the Government-owned company which has developed the project thus far and supported us in promoting the hybrid Bill; and, lastly, the land and property needed for the project, in particular the railway lands at Kings Cross and Stratford, and surplus properties acquired in connection with previous rail link schemes.
London and Continental will be free to develop those parts of the lands not required for CTRL itself; and arrangements have been put in place to ensure that the Government receive a fair share of development profits realised from them. In addition, London and Continental is required to use any income derived from the sale of surplus properties only for the CTRL project.
The Government will also provide financial support with a present value of around £1.4 billion, compared with the overall construction cost of about £3 billion. That is an excellent investment for the nation, since we estimate the benefits of the project to be worth around £6 billion. Those are made up mainly of benefits to international and domestic passengers and regeneration benefits. We have linked the payment of grant to construction milestones to incentivise London and Continental, and to ensure that real progress is made. We do not expect to make the first payments before the year 2000.
CTRL is a key part of the European Union's trans-European network, and London and Continental will receive substantial financial support from the trans-European network programme, expected to be around £100 million up to 1999, with more thereafter.
The allocation of risk between public and private sectors lies at the heart of the private finance initiative. London and Continental will bear in full both the

1001
construction risks and the risks relating to the performance of EPS. Financing for the development phase is contractually committed. The Government will take responsibility for the passage of the hybrid Bill which is now before Parliament, and those risks which they are better able to manage than the private sector.
London and Continental will start immediately on detailed design work. That will enable it to be fully ready, by the time that the CTRL hybrid Bill receives Royal Assent, to raise the main financing, and for the full construction works to start. On current plans, London and Continental anticipates that work could start late next year, and construction is expected to take five and a half years.
As the House knows, the hybrid Bill which will authorise the construction of CTRL has now completed its scrutiny by a Select Committee of the House. I applaud the efforts of the Select Committee, its Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant), and its Deputy Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick). The Select Committee has now reported the Bill, and members of the Standing Committee have been chosen. I look forward to the Standing Committee beginning its consideration of the Bill on 5 March.
Through Union Railways, London and Continental will help the Government to promote the Bill during its remaining stages. London and Continental is bound by all the undertakings and assurances already given in connection with the Bill, as well as others that will no doubt be given during the later stages of the Bill.
This is an historic day for transport in Britain, and a triumph for the Government's private finance initiative. It is because of private finance and private initiative that this impressive project can go forward today. The private sector has come forward with excellent proposals, and we shall all benefit from them. Passengers will benefit, economic regeneration will benefit, and the taxpayer will benefit.
I have now announced in one week two massive investments in Britain's new private sector railway— Thameslink 2000 and the channel tunnel rail link. Here is real proof of the benefits of the Government's policies to tap the skills and finance of the private sector, and of our commitment to a dynamic future for the railway industry.
Ms Clare Short: Will the Secretary of State confirm that he first made this announcement at a press conference at Waterloo station earlier today? Does he not think that he should apologise to the House for that discourtesy?
The Secretary of State will be aware that the Labour party, for a long time, has supported the development of the channel tunnel rail link. We believe that it could and should have been built by a public-private partnership such as that proposed by British Rail and Trafalgar House in 1989. Clearly the then proposed route needed modification.
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm, however, that the project could have been started in 1989, at a cost of less than £1 billion to public funds? Does he not agree that the delay has had tragic consequences, including the imposition of terrible blight on many homes? Delay has denied us the opportunity provided by the channel tunnel to move more freight from road on to rail. It has affected
1002
the finance of the channel tunnel, and massively put back the improved rail services for commuters that the link will provide.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the work did not begin in 1989 because the Government were then insisting that the link should be fully funded by the private sector? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm also that the massive delay and terrible blight that have ensued are the results of the Government's ideological obsession with privatisation? Those factors caused the Government to reject the public-private partnership which was on offer in 1989.
Will the Secretary of State admit that the Government have made a complete U-turn and are handing over £3 billion-worth of public assets, including Waterloo international station, land at King's Cross, St. Pancras station, 120 acres at Stratford, and Eurostar? In addition, the Government are writing off £1.3 billion-worth of Eurostar debt, and contributing £1.4 billion to the project. Thus, the taxpayer is contributing £5.7 billion for a £3 billion project that we could have had for £1 billion in 1989. It is—[Laughter.] That is absolutely true.
Is it not true also that the powers of the regulator are less in terms of this project than those that prevail for the rest of the rail network? Will the Secretary of State explain why that might be? Is there any fixed date for work to begin on the project? Is there not a danger that the successful bidder could proceed slowly, sit back and enjoy the growing profits coming to him from Eurostar?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the contract would fall if the CTRL Bill failed to pass through the House and the other place? What would happen if that were to happen? I understand that Eurostar is to be handed over shortly. Will the Secretary of State tell us what will happen to Eurostar if the project does not go ahead?
Finally, will the Secretary of State apologise to the House and the country for the Government's ideological obsessions, which have massively delayed the project that we are now considering? It is—[Interruption.] This is the truth. Conservative Members may not like it, but it is the truth. The taxpayer is paying a high cost for the Government's right-wing ideological obsessions. There have been enormous delays, and the taxpayer is being asked to pay £5.7 billion instead of £1 billion, which would have been the cost of bringing the project forward in 1989.
Sir George Young: I make no apology for my statement to the House, which I think will be widely welcomed by those who take a serious interest in transport policy. I announced the winner at 10 o'clock this morning, because stock exchange requirements oblige the companies concerned to notify it when they incur additional obligations. I did not announce then the decision on Stratford, the Government's commitment or other relevant aspects, which I preserved until my statement to the House this afternoon.
I am glad that the hon. Lady would like to see the channel tunnel rail link constructed. If she wants to proceed with the 1989 proposals, she will have to explain to her hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) why she wants a route that would not have provided the regeneration opportunities that are now available to the Thames gateway. So far as blight is concerned, the hon. Lady will know that the Select Committee saw about 1,000 petitioners, and that it has safeguarded the interests of those who have been affected by the proposals.

1003
As far as the commencement date is concerned, London and Continental proposes to start when the Bill has completed all its stages in both Houses, which I hope will be in about a year's time.
Taxpayers' interests have been protected in respect of the eventualities that the hon. Lady mentioned. The key point that she will have to answer is that it was her party that cancelled a publicly funded channel tunnel; we therefore take with a pinch of salt commitments by the Labour party to any publicly funded project.
So far as the rail link is concerned, the hon. Lady must decide whether she is old Labour or new Labour. If she is old Labour, and she wants this project to be funded conventionally, she must come to the House, with the sanction of her hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), and commit herself to £3 billion-worth of public expenditure.
If, on the other hand, she is new Labour and welcomes projects that involve the private sector, she should welcome with open arms the project that I have just announced, which is a public sector/private sector project; driving the project forward—protecting the taxpayers' interests, harnessing the enterprise, energy and resources of the private sector—at a faster pace than the public sector would ever have been able to afford.
Sir Anthony Durant: My right hon. Friend will be aware that my Committee sat for 320 hours and 71 sittings on this important Bill. I am sure that my Committee would welcome the fact that the station at Stratford is to be built. We put in the Stratford box so that it could be built, because we supported it but did not wish to hold up the Bill. We are also delighted—I am sure that my Committee would agree—about the development at King's Cross and St. Pancras. I hope that it will be well planned and well developed, as it is a very important development in that part of London. My only plea is: can we get on and build the line?
Sir George Young: The whole House will want to pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend and all members of the Committee, who spent such a long time listening to the petitioners and processing the Bill through its Select Committee stage. I share his wish that the Bill should make speedy progress in Standing Committee and in another place, so that developers can have the legislative cover that they need.
I am sure that the promoter, London and Continental, will take to heart my hon. Friend's exhortations about the treatment of St. Pancras. All of us who know St. Pancras chambers cannot wait to see that building brought back into constructive use. The regeneration work that will take place there—the construction of a major international terminal—will make it possible to put St. Pancras chambers to more productive use than we have seen for the past decade or so.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I refer to the references to the north? The Secretary of State mentioned Manchester and Birmingham. Has he any idea of the frequency of service to Edinburgh and Glasgow using Stratford rather than the difficulties of King's Cross?
Sir George Young: At this stage and with trains likely to start running on the link in 2002, the hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot predict with great accuracy the frequency of the services that will run through to the north, but under the present regime, EPS will run services through London to Birmingham and Manchester, so those who live north of London will have an opportunity to get on an EPS train and go to the continent. Those facilities are, I believe, being extended this year.
Mr. Bob Dunn: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, especially his confirmation that the station will be built at Ebbsfleet in my constituency. Will he confirm that he will impose, as much as he can, a rigid timetable, so that construction is locked into the shortest possible time, to minimise disruption to my constituents in north-west Kent?
Sir George Young: It is a contractual minimum requirement that London and Continental should build a combined international and domestic station at Ebbsfleet. In fact, it is keen to do so, because that is an integral part of its plans. It also intends to improve the station by building extra platforms, so that trains running from the north Kent line on to the CTRL can stop at Ebbsfleet, providing an excellent interchange with international services.
The structure of the contract provides London and Continental with every incentive to make good progress. Only when it has achieved a substantial proportion of the contractual requirements will it receive its grant from the Government, and only when the contract is fully met can trains run on the line and provide revenue. I hope that that gives my hon. Friend the reassurance he seeks.
Mr. David Chidgey: I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement: the link is essential to our rail system. Sadly, however, there has been a good deal of delay, especially in comparison with the progress made by the French.
Notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman's earlier remarks, is it not a fact that, had the British Rail proposals been proceeded with in 1989, the link would be nearly in place by now, at a cost of around £1 billion? I recognise the problems that the right hon. Gentleman cited, but is it not also true that much of the delay was caused by the Government's insistence on using solely private finance?
The net result has been an increase in costs from £1 billion to £3 billion. Does not total reliance on the PFI concept mean that the taxpayer ends up paying more, because private finance is more expensive than finance generated by the public?
I welcome the statement about the channel tunnel rail link with the North London line, which will provide links with the west coast main line. That is an important part of the development. Will the Secretary of State assure the House, however, that, throughout the channel tunnel rail link, there will be requirements for the necessary works to be done to accommodate large-gauge freight and to facilitate piggy-back operation?
That will enable us to provide a modern rail freight service throughout the west coast main line, using the meagre £70 million that is needed to upgrade the system. We shall then have a proper, efficient, modern connection between our freight system and the rest of Europe.
Sir George Young: The CTRL will indeed be able to carry freight, certainly piggy-back—although its main purpose is to carry passenger traffic, thus freeing other lines that may be more appropriate for freight. The capacity and track geometry are suitable, and the necessary loops are there to accommodate freight traffic.
As for the allegation that this deal will cost more than the original one, I do not believe that that is true. The 1990 proposal would have required or placed at risk £1.9 billion of Government money. The eventual outturn could have been much higher, and would probably have fallen on the taxpayer. We now have a well-structured contract that minimises the risks to the taxpayer.
More important, the 1989 and 1990 proposals would not have brought about the significant regeneration that we have secured by re-routeing the CTRL through the Thames gateway and east London, and providing a station at Stratford, where regeneration may create up to 50,000 jobs. We must view the project in the round. It is not just a transport contract; it is very much a regeneration contract as well.
Dame Peggy Fenner: I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend assure the House that the conditions imposed on the bid would include all the proposals agreed to by the Select Committee—that the Government had accepted them all.
My right hon. Friend said that other matters could be raised during the Bill's remaining stages, including its consideration in the House of Lords. Does that apply to further petitions in respect of noise barriers? My constituents in Borstal are not wholly satisfied that the barriers agreed to by the Select Committee will be adequate. I would welcome reassurance from my right hon. Friend.
Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is right. Petitioners will have further opportunities in another place to make that point. As I made clear in my statement, if the Bill is amended as it goes through Parliament, the Government will bear the risks of any changes; but the project will still proceed.
Mr. Stephen Timms: May I welcome unreservedly the Secretary of State's comments about Stratford international station? He has always taken a close interest in east London, and I congratulate him on his decision. Will he join me in saluting the eight-year, Newham council-led campaign for that station, supported strongly and determinedly by hon. Members on both sides of the House? Will he confirm that the station will open when the link opens in 2002? Does he agree that the implication of his comment about through services to Manchester and Birmingham not stopping at St. Pancras is that Stratford will be the hub of the national high-speed rail network?
Sir George Young: I can think of one or two other destinations that might make a similarly ambitious claim, but I pay tribute to the work of the many people who have Stratford's interests at heart. When I was at the Department of the Environment, I had frequent contact with them, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration has been in contact with the Stratford Promoter Group and other representatives of Stratford's interests.
1006
Enormous opportunities are available at Stratford railway lands, which will be transferred to London and Continental. With local interests, it will want to work up a development strategy for that site, so that the most can be made of it for the benefit of the Thames gateway region.
Stratford provides an important interchange. It will be on the Jubilee line extension and it is already on the Central line, the docklands light railway and British Rail lines both east and west. I am sure that people who represent Stratford's interests will seize the opportunities that my announcement has made available to them.
Mr. James Couchman: I join other hon. Members in congratulating my right hon. Friend on his statement, and echo, as Kent's representative on the Standing Committee, the hope that it will not take 320 hours and 71 sittings to complete its work.
More seriously, I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement on domestic services. He will know that my constituency at the eastern end of the Thames gateway is served by the North Kent line, which is perhaps one of British Rail's less glorious and glamorous lines. What impact may his announcement have on the franchise that is to be granted for the operation of domestic trains through Kent on the north Kent line? Might it affect the amount of time given on that franchise, which some of us had hoped would include a commitment to some new rolling stock for that line, as some of the rolling stock on the Kent coast line is still the worst anywhere on the rail network?
Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I welcome his diligence as a member of the Standing Committee. As a result of the announcement, people in Kent who are within reach of Ashford and Ebbsfleet will be able to use the CTRL to gain speedy access to St. Pancras. Having travelled recently on the North Kent line, I recognise that there is scope for improvement.
The franchising director will be letting a contract soon, and there are options for companies bidding for the franchise to include the option of new rolling stock. The franchising director has made it clear that he will consider a longer franchise in return for investment in new rolling stock.
I have made it clear that domestic services will run on the CTRI. The rolling stock will have to be compatible with rolling stock on the CTRL and be capable of going fast. When the franchise is let, I imagine that the franchising director will include, among the passenger service requirements, an obligation to run a certain number of domestic services on the new CTRL, when it is built.
Mr. Tony Banks: It was music to my ears to hear that Stratford in my constituency will be the site of the international station. I remind the House that, not that long ago, British Rail was talking about an approach through south-east London, going straight to King's Cross. Now we have an easterly approach with an international station at Stratford. It is excellent news. I welcome it, and I thank the Secretary of State—all those visits to the east end have clearly paid off.
Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to the Stratford Promoter Group, which was a public and private sector organisation, and to hon. Members on both

1007
sides, especially the hon. Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant), who gave such great support to Stratford in the early days?
Although the tunnel will go immediately under my house in Forest Gate, I cannot wait to sit in my front room and hear the rumble of the trains on their way to Stratford.
Sir George Young: Hon. Members clearly get their pleasures in a variety of different ways. I am conscious that, in the 13 years we have been in the House together, I have said much from the Dispatch Box that has caused the hon. Gentleman great distress. I am glad that, at long last, I have managed to say something from the Dispatch Box that has given him some pleasure. I hope that he agrees that it was worth waiting for.
I pay tribute, of course, to the work of the Stratford Promoter Group and other organisations that have campaigned tirelessly for Stratford to be a domestic and international station, and whose work has now borne fruit.
Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Mailing): As my right hon. Friend said that the construction risks would be borne by London and Continental, can he confirm that that means that 100 per cent. of all overrun finance—the excess of actual costs over estimated costs—will be borne by London and Continental, and that the company will be placed under a clear contractual obligation to complete the project to specification, regardless of outturn costs?
If that is the case, as I anticipate, does my right hon. Friend agree that the way he has found of financing the project is infinitely better than the way proposed by the Opposition, which would have left the taxpayer with a wholly open-ended liability to complete the project?
Sir George Young: My right hon. Friend is right. The risks have been transferred from the taxpayer to the contractor, as my right hon. Friend has just described. Some of the key advantages of the private finance initiative are the risk transfer, the protection of the taxpayers' interests, and the incentive for the contractor to get on with the job and complete it on time, rather than looking to the taxpayer and the public sector to bail him out if things go wrong.
Ms Margaret Hodge: Will the Secretary of State confirm that London and Continental will be responsible for administering the discretionary purchase scheme for people whose properties have been blighted? Who will take the financial responsibility if that scheme is extended as a result of the Standing Committee proceedings?
Will the Secretary of State also confirm exactly what risks, both financial and non-financial, the Government will continue to bear? What sanctions will be placed on London and Continental, not just to finish the project within cost but to finish it within time? What controls does he propose to ensure that freight is carried underground, certainly through my constituency, rather than overground?
Sir George Young: On the first point, the development agreement requires London and Continental to continue the Union Railways voluntary purchase scheme until
1008
Royal Assent to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill, and the discretionary purchase scheme until one year after opening. It also requires London and Continental to apply all present statutory compensation according to the national compensation code. The full agreement will, in the normal way, be made available to the National Audit Office. I will, however, ensure that a memorandum setting out the structure of the agreement is placed in the Library next week.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the House had listened to the proposals by the Labour and Liberal Democrat spokesmen that we should go ahead in 1989, at a cost of almost £1 billion, the environment of Kent would have been ridden roughshod over, there would not have been resources for the compensatory buy-outs, and, worse than that, Ebbsfleet and Stratford would not have been developed along the route?
Does my right hon. Friend recognise that Ebbsfleet is vital to the regeneration of the Thames gateway, and that it means thousands of new jobs and far better transport connections for my constituents? Can he confirm that London and Continental will pick up all the environmental undertakings that have been given so far by Union Railways?
Sir George Young: The answer to the last part of my hon. Friend's question is yes. On the first part, I am slightly surprised to hear myself constantly being urged to have gone ahead with the 1989 proposals, which, as my hon. Friend said, were of a much lower environmental standard and would have forgone the regeneration benefits, to which I am sure the House attaches considerable importance. A quarter of the CTRL will be in a tunnel. The Select Committee has made a number of recommendations to enhance noise mitigation and environmental protection. The 1989 proposals were in all those respects significantly inferior to the one that I have just announced.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Has not the hon. Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) got a point? Although the Select Committee has very graciously and fairly amended the proposals, it was open to the Government and Union Railways to concede many obvious petitioners' claims right at the beginning of the process. I personally lobbied the hon. Member for Slough (Mr. Watts), the Minister for Railways and Roads, on very reasonable points that were subsequently conceded by the Select Committee. If it has to go through another place, would it not be more sensible and fair and advance the whole project if some of the legitimate petitions of disadvantaged people were conceded now, rather than being extracted later like teeth from a whale?
Was the Secretary of State at the Conservative party conference in October 1991, when the then Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), announced the final line of route? Why has it taken since October 1991

1009
to get to the stage where we can make some progress? Have not the Secretary of State's Government, which he has supported, been sloppy and dilatory?
Sir George Young rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I am sure that the Secretary of State will oblige with short answers. Will hon. Members who want to put questions also oblige by being brief?
Sir George Young: I very much hope that I was at the Conservative party conference in 1991. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend made a memorable speech in response to the transport debate.
On the hon. Gentleman's first point, we have a Select Committee to decide whether the petitioners are making legitimate points. He seems to want us to second-guess the Committee. That is why we have a Select Committee—to adjudicate on precisely those matters.
It is not the case that time has been wasted. Money and time have been well spent on developing the route and consulting the public, and on scrutiny in the House, which is not yet complete. We have a good route, which gives a massive boost to regeneration and is environmentally sensitive. The time spent on the competition has not delayed anything, because it has been going on in parallel with the passage of the hybrid Bill.
Sir Alan Haselhurst: Is my right hon. Friend aware that not the least welcome part of his announcement is the new international station at Stratford, because it opens up to potential channel tunnel passengers right across East Anglia the opportunity of connecting to the tunnel by train? When he next meets the chairman of Railtrack, will he bear in mind the fact that the upgrading of the line between Peterborough and Cambridge will provide a valuable belt and braces for trains from the north going to Stratford?
Sir George Young: I shall pass on my hon. Friend's point to the chairman of Railtrack. My hon. Friend has made a valuable point that has not so far been made. An international station at Stratford gives people living in East Anglia the opportunity of getting to the continent far more quickly than if there were no station there and they had to go right into London and out again. That is why my statement will be widely welcomed, not only in Birmingham and Manchester, but in East Anglia.
Mr. John Heppell: May I congratulate the Secretary of State on his announcement about the Stratford station? I join in congratulating the hon. Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant), as I am sure would all Labour Members who served on the Select Committee, not only on the amount of time the Committee spent in deliberation but on the way in which it was conducted. Labour Members felt that their views were taken into account as much as those of Conservative Members, which is not always the case.
I am concerned that the Secretary of State described the rail link as a private sector enterprise, although I accept that there is a partnership between the private and public sectors. It seems that the public sector is providing an awful lot of subsidy. I am not just talking
1010
about the £1.4 billion transparent subsidy: I am worried about the other subsidies that are not transparent. What about the £1.3 billion that has been written off on Eurostar's debts? What about the cost of Eurostar itself? What about the cost of Union Railways? What about all the land—not only land used for building the railway, but surplus land that is to be used for development?
Madam Speaker: What about applying for an Adjournment debate? I am sorry to interrupt, but I had pleaded for brief questions, so that the statement might get moving a little faster.
Sir George Young: I shall try to reply briefly. We have introduced a clawback mechanism so that the taxpayer can get some benefit from the increase in property values. If the hon. Gentleman says that the King's Cross lands are very valuable, he must explain why they have lain derelict for decades. European Passenger Services is at present a loss-making service, so against that background it is difficult to argue that it is of great financial value.
Mr. Piers Merchant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement will be warmly welcomed in my constituency because of the beneficial effect that the new line will have in alleviating pressure on existing routes? But does he know that there is still considerable concern in my area about freight traffic? Will he examine the recent claims that Railfreight may be about to break its promises and massively increase the use of the lines through Bromley for freight, because of problems with its new electric locos?
Sir George Young: Of course I shall make inquiries, and write to my hon. Friend about that last matter. On his first point, it is indeed true that, by increasing the railway capacity through the CTRL, we help to reduce the congestion in south-east London, so my hon. Friend's constituents will benefit from the link even if they do not use it themselves.
Mr. Harry Cohen: As an east London Member of Parliament, of course I welcome the international station at Stratford, which will bring economic and employment opportunities to the surrounding boroughs—but it will also have potentially serious traffic implications. On behalf of the areas surrounding the station, such as Leyton, I ask the Secretary of State to set up either a committee within the Department or an independent group to ensure that the potential traffic problems are not ignored.
Sir George Young: My hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London heard the hon. Gentleman's intervention, and we shall indeed monitor the traffic impact of the construction of the new station at Stratford.
Mr. Richard Tracey: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that, in direct contrast to the carping comments about his statement by those on the Opposition Front Bench, that statement, together with Tuesday's statement about Thameslink, underlines the distinct Government strategy for the transport infrastructure of London and the home counties— with considerable spin-offs for the rest of the country.

1011
As for my local point, will my right hon. Friend assure travellers in south London and Surrey that the Waterloo services will still be very regular?
Sir George Young: Yes. London and Continental has made clear its plans to continue the Waterloo service. Opposition Back Benchers have been warmer in their tributes to my statement than have Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, and I am sure that that fact will be noted. My hon. Friend is right to point out that this has been a good week for London. On Tuesday, we had the statement about Thameslink and on Wednesday the statement about the millennium exhibition, and today we have had the statement about the channel tunnel rail link.
Ms Glenda Jackson: I declare an interest as a Member sponsored by ASLEF, the train drivers' union. Will the Secretary of State flesh out a little more the protection for taxpayers? We have heard about more than £3 billion in national assets being handed over to the consortium, but little about how the taxpayer will be protected should it prove incapable of running a railway or of raising the money to build a new line.
Sir George Young: I explained that I would ensure that a memorandum setting out the structure of the agreement would be placed in the Library next week, and in view of your injunction, Madam Speaker, that we should give short answers, I think that that is the right way to respond to the hon. Lady's question.
Mr. David Amess: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his excellent announcement will mean increased prosperity not only for people in Newham but for those in Basildon and Southend, and throughout East Anglia? Will he confirm that Stratford station will open in the year 2002? Finally, does he accept that, as a result of his announcement, West Ham United may now win the Premier League?
Sir George Young: My hon. Friend injects a note of controversy by declaring his allegiance to one football club, although, as a Queens Park Rangers man, I would not endorse it. My hon. Friend is right to say that, as a result of today's announcement, there will be enormous benefits for all those who will be able to access Stratford station. From Stratford, they will be able to get a fast train to Paris and Brussels, which would not have been possible had we not included Stratford in the announcement.
Mr. John Austin-Walker: Although I welcome the statement on Stratford international terminal and the Minister's recognition of the importance of public transport to economic regeneration, does he recognise that Union Railway, London Underground, British Rail and all the local authorities are keenly interested in the Woolwich rail tunnel, which could link Ebbsfleet and Stratford, supply public transport access to the Thames gateway on the south bank of the river, and provide an excellent opportunity for economic regeneration? Will he press ahead with that?
Sir George Young: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. My hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London has recently consulted on a wide range of schemes—public transport and roads—in east London. He proposes to take that consultation forward.
Mr. David Tredinnick: May I also congratulate the Chairman of our Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant)? We sat three days a week for a year, and he chaired it very fairly?
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the fact that this is principally a passenger railway, but is he aware of the Committee's concern about freight and the fact that, at Singlewell in Kent, we required the optional loops for freight to be included in the main part of the Bill? Does he agree that huge environmental possibilities are connected with this new railway—not least because of the spur that is being put through to the west coast main line—in getting freight off the roads? Has he made any assessment of how much freight we can get off the roads, and of what the environmental impact will be?
Sir George Young: My hon. Friend asks a much broader and very important question about the capacity to move freight from the roads to the railway. As he may know, my predecessor launched a great debate on transport. I am in the process of considering the representations that have been made, and the Government hope to draw together the threads of the debate and make a response to it. The broader answer to my hon. Friend's question may become clearer after that response.
My hon. Friend will know that we have kept the options on freight open by enabling the CTRL to carry freight— by specifying suitable track geometry and the introduction of the loop. It will therefore be able to carry the so-called piggy-back trains and other container loads, if that is where the demand lies.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: I too welcome the decision on Stratford station, but if its benefits were so self-evident, why did it not appear on the face of the Bill, rather than merely being the option of a long box? We have the station only because of tremendous pressure from local people and from members of the Select Committee.
I should return, very briefly, to the point about public subsidy. When the cost is grossed up, this railway will incontestably require more than £5 billion of public subsidy. The railway did not go ahead in 1990, when— as the Minister conceded a few moments ago—the total public subsidy would have been £1.9 billion. It was vetoed at that point by the then Secretary of State for Transport, Lord Parkinson. The delay in getting this project off the ground has been a national disgrace.
Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman will have heard a number of other Opposition Members pay tribute to the statement, precisely because it includes Stratford. If he is pressing the case that the Government should have gone ahead in 1989 or 1990, he should remember that at that time it was proposed that the line should go not through east London but through south-east London. He will have to explain to

1013
Opposition Members who have welcomed the statement that the course he advocates would not have attracted the regeneration benefits that accompany today's statement.
Mr. Mark Robinson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on announcing the first new major railway line to be built in this country since Victorian times. Will he ensure that all the design documents and other detailed work are properly logged, so that the Railway Heritage Committee knows what it can preserve for future generations? I hope that, under my Railway Heritage Bill, which received a Second Reading a couple of weeks ago, the Committee's powers will be extended to cover the private sector.
Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; the answer is yes. He makes the important point that this will be the first new railway line to be built since the Victorian age. It is a tribute to the present Administration that the decision to go ahead with it has been made during our term in office.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: I warmly welcome what I understand is the biggest private finance initiative project ever. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it will cut journey times between Birmingham and Paris to four hours, and thus have a significant effect on the economic infrastructure of the midlands? Does he think that it is slightly hypocritical of the Labour party to argue for better economic and transport infrastructure for the midlands, but, at the same time, consistently to oppose the PFI and the privatisation which have made it possible?
Sir George Young: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. We continually hear about new Labour and its willingness to work with the private sector, but when such a project is put before the House, it is condemned by Members of the Opposition Front Bench. My hon. Friend rightly points out the benefits to people in the midlands from the announcement that I have just made.

ROYAL ASSENT
Madam Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Humber Bridge Debts Act 1996

Hong Kong (Overseas Public Servants) Act 1996

Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996

Edinburgh Assay Office Act 1996

Business of the House
4.20 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week.
MONDAY 4 MARCH—Debate on the Economy on a Government motion.
TUESDAY 5 MARCH—Debate on Benefit Fraud on a Government motion.
WEDNESDAY 6 MARCH—Until 2pm, there will be debates on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Second reading of the Community Care (Direct Payments) Bill [Lords].
Motion relating to the Education (School Premises) regulations.
THURSDAY 7 MARCH—Debate on Equal Opportunities for Women on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 8 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 11 MARCH—Estimates Day (2nd allotted day—first part). There will be a debate on the Spring Supplementary Estimate, Class XIII, Vote 4, Department of Social Security: Administration and Miscellaneous Services. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Motion relating to Welsh standing orders.
At Ten o'clock the House will be asked to agree the Spring Supplementary Estimates and the Defence Votes A.
TUESDAY 12 MARCH—I expect to take the Consolidated Fund Bill, followed by other Government business.
I am not yet able to give details for Wednesday 13 and Thursday 14 March, although it may be necessary to take Government business on the Thursday. Friday 15 March is a non-sitting day.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 6 March to consider European Community Document No. 11954–95 relating to worker information and consultation.
Wednesday 6 March —European Standing Committee B. European Community Document: 11954–95, Worker Information and Consultation. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 51-viii.]
Monday 11 March —Estimates Day. Spring Supplementary Estimate, Class XIII, Vote 4, Department of Social Security: administration and miscellaneous services. Relevant reports: Relevant reports: the fifth report from the Social Security Committee of Session 1994–95 on The Work of the Department of Social Security and its Agencies (House of Commons Paper No. 382), the Government's reply thereto (Cm 3148) and the Social Security Departmental Report: the Government's Expenditure Plans 1995–96 to 1997–98 (Cm 2813).
Mrs. Ann Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that statement, but must express our disappointment that next week will be the third in which no Opposition day has been allocated.

1015
I begin by reporting what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday about elections in Northern Ireland. The Opposition will facilitate any necessary legislation, assuming, of course, that such a move is broadly acceptable to both communities.
While we welcome the fact that we are to have a debate on the economy next Monday, the lack of notice about such a debate will cause concern to some hon. Members. Will the Leader of the House assure us that Monday's debate will not replace the set-piece economic debate that is usually held in the summer but will be in addition to it? If he can confirm that, will he ensure that greater notice is given next time? That is especially important to Back Benchers, but, in view of the Jopling agreement, it is also important that the House should have as much notice as possible of such a important debate.
On Wednesday, the House is to debate the Education (School Premises) Regulations. The Leader of the House knows that attention has already been drawn to the fact that the regulations have an incredible number of handwritten alterations; they are covered in scribbles. That issue has been under consideration by the Government for at least three years and the former Secretary of State for Education admitted that it was sensitive territory. Will the Leader of the House acknowledge that important issues that affect the education of our children should not be treated in such a cavalier fashion and that the House should not be treated with such contempt by asking Members to debate regulations that can hardly be read because of the number of handwritten comments on the only documents that are available?
I understand that the Dearing report on the education of 16 to 19-year-olds is to be published soon. It seems appropriate that there should be a statement to the House at the time of publication. Can the Leader of the House facilitate that?
On a matter not covered by next week's business, may I ask the Leader of the House whether he can find time for a debate on legal aid? Many hon. Members know—as I do—from constituency work, that there are many anomalies in the current system and that people have been alarmed at recent press reports of particular cases. A system in which too many people who need legal aid do not get it while, too often, those who do not appear to need it do get it must be a matter worthy of further debate by the House.
Finally, I return to an issue that I have raised before with the Leader of the House. Many hon. Members do not think that it is satisfactory that the recommendations of the Standing Committee on European Legislation are not given more weight. Have Ministers set their minds against debating important issues such as convergence, social protection and economic and monetary union? We have not yet been told when the White Paper on the intergovernmental conference is to be published and debated. It is rumoured that the White Paper will not be published until the third week in March. Can he confirm the timing of its publication and give an assurance that there will be sufficient time for a full debate on the Floor of the House so that all its aspects can be fully debated before Easter?
Mr. Newton: That was an exceptionally long list of questions, but I will do my best with it. On the question of an Opposition day, I take the hon. Lady's comments as a representation for a day in the following week and I will certainly bear that in mind.
I thank the hon. Lady for her reiteration of the indications of support of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) for Northern Ireland legislation in the possible circumstances that were described yesterday.
On the economic debate on Monday, hon. Members know that there has been much pressure over a period of time for a spring economic debate as well as a summer one. I have been glad to find time for one, albeit at fairly short notice. I do not intend it as a replacement for the summer economic debate and I will bear in mind the hon. Lady's point about longer notice, if it is possible.
On the Education (School Premises) Regulations, the hon. Lady knows that the background to the matter is that Opposition Members pressed hard to see the final version while the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill was in Committee. As a result, the Government have gone to considerable lengths to try to make sure that the Opposition had the chance to consider the text of the regulations and now to provide for a debate. I accept that that has led to the regulations, because of the speeding up in response to Opposition representations, appearing in a less than ideal form. I will try to make sure that they are available in a tidier form at the earliest possible moment, with a view to helping the debate next week.
On the Dearing report on 16 to 19-year-olds, I will keep in mind the hon. Lady's request for a statement and bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment.
On legal aid, I cannot make an off-the-cuff promise of a debate, but the hon. Lady may be aware that my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor has recently published some regulations on the matter, which might provide an opportunity. I will certainly look into it.
On scrutiny, no; the Government have not set their face against accepting recommendations for debate, whether in Committee or on the Floor of the House. We need to consider them on their merits on each occasion, although I accept that there may sometimes be differences of opinion about what is appropriate.
On the IGC and the White Paper, we intend to provide for a debate as usual before the Turin meeting, and the White Paper should be published in good time for that debate. I anticipate publication somewhat earlier than the third week in March.
Sir Dudley Smith: May I echo what the hon. Lady said about legal aid and the need for a debate about some of the abuses that are going on? Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have two constituents who were married to a Mr. Luis Vianna—a Portuguese national—who has not paid a penny piece to them or the four children he has had by them? Yet, there are good grounds for thinking that he has had upwards of half a million pounds in legal aid to pursue those families in the courts, despite the fact that he is a business man and a property developer.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend would not expect me to comment on a specific case from the Dispatch Box, but the regulations that my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor laid before Parliament on Tuesday, to which I referred, are intended to strengthen the arrangements for means-testing the "apparently wealthy". Those regulations will come into effect on 1 June 1996.
Mr. Chris Davies: Will the Leader of the House give hon. Members the opportunity to debate the report published by the Audit Commission in the past few hours, called "Streetwise", which reveals that of 120,000 police officers only about 6,000 are on patrol at any one time and most of those in cars? Hon. Members will no doubt want to point out the importance of patrolling officers to members of a community as a source of reassurance, and to discuss the disparity in performance between different constabularies.
Mr. Newton: We welcome this latest Audit Commission report and I have no doubt that it will be carefully studied. We hope that it will lead to further improvements in police effectiveness. The Government's commitment to police patrol is clear, not least in the funding recently announced, which is sufficient for an additional 5,000 officers in the next three years.
Mr. Edward Gamier: Will my right hon. Friend find an early opportunity for a debate on defence procurement, so that we can discuss the order for three new type 23 frigates announced yesterday? Would it not be helpful, not only to Conservative but to Opposition Members, to have a day on defence procurement so that we can discover if the Opposition have any policies on it, not least in the light of their appalling attitude towards defence spending at the last election?
Mr. Newton: It is certainly an interesting idea, but it is not long since we had the annual debate on the Navy; the annual debate on the RAF is the only one outstanding. Although I accept that it might be a bit difficult to discuss frigates during that debate, it would provide my hon. Friend with an opportunity to make some observations about defence procurement generally.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the plight of the 3,100 people with haemophilia who were contaminated with hepatitis C by NHS blood products? Is he aware of how many have died or are dying and of the terms of my hugely supported, all-party, early-day motion about the tragedy? If he is, will he try to persuade the Health Secretary to make an oral statement next week in response to the motion?
Mr. Newton: As the right hon. Gentleman and indeed you, Madam Speaker, will know, of course I am aware, from my former experience as a Minister for Health, of that tragedy. On the right hon. Gentleman's other points, he will be aware that that matter has been raised with me on a number of occasions by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) and I am afraid that I cannot add to what I said on those occasions, but I will draw the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
Sir Patrick Cormack: When may we have a debate on Northern Ireland? It is a long time since we had a full day's debate, and a debate on the Adjournment would enable Members to express their opinions on recent developments and proposals.
Mr. Newton: I will, of course, bear in mind my hon. Friend's request.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a statement on a subject that was raised during Agriculture questions today, namely the allocation of set-aside money? Is he aware that large sums of set-aside money were paid out to members of the aristocracy or landed gentry? May we have a guarantee as to what conditions apply to what happens to that money? Will some of it finish up in the Tory party coffers before the next general election? As Prince Charles has received more than £500,000 in set-aside money, may we have a guarantee that he will not be using it to set aside the Princess of Wales?
Mr. Newton: So far as I am aware, the rules on set-aside are of general application and I see no reason why those whom the hon. Gentleman chooses to describe as the landed gentry should be excluded. As to what they do with their funds, that appears to me to be a matter for them.
Mr. Rupert Allason: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is great concern about the Kingskerswell bypass and the fact that it has been put on the list for long-term development? Is he aware that it is a vital lifeline for south Devon? It is an economic priority and it is to my great regret that I did not add it to my list of demands on Monday evening. Will he now please accept that, as a PS, I would like to do so.
Mr. Newton: I was not aware of any demands that my hon. Friend made on Monday evening; I am sure that his co-operation was given most willingly. I shall bring his representations to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I feel like the importunate woman coming again to ask the Lord President for a meeting of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee. Is he in a position to answer my request positively, because of the justice of its case and the necessity to have such a meeting?
Mr. Newton: Without accepting the hon. Gentleman's description of himself, I have no objection at all to his raising the matter with me again as I have a piece of paper on which it says that, subject to the agreement of all concerned, I hope next week to table the necessary motion for the specific debate for which the hon. Gentleman asked me last week or the week before. I hope that it will be possible to arrange for the meeting to be held on 21 March, which may be a convenient date, but of course that would be subject to the agreement of everyone concerned.
Mr. Julian Brazier: May I urge my right hon. Friend to set aside a day as soon as possible for a debate on regional assemblies and regional government?

1019
Many of my constituents, who have received huge council tax bills from the Lib-Lab controlled Kent county council, are appalled by Labour's proposals for regional assemblies and regional government.
Mr. Newton: I live in hope that the next Opposition Day, for which I was pressed only a little while ago, might be used to unveil a little more of the Opposition's policies on those matters, but if that fails, of course I shall consider my hon. Friend's proposal.
Mr. David Winnick: Will the Prime Minister be making a statement on his trip to Hong Kong? In the post-Nolan climate, does the Leader of the House recognise how essential it is that the Prime Minister answers the question that was put to him earlier today: is money being collected by rich business people to help the Tory party at the next election? We are entitled to know and the Prime Minister should make a statement on his return.
Mr. Newton: The House will have heard the exchanges with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and I certainly do not intend to add to what he said. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will consider whether it seems appropriate for him to make a statement on his trip at the appropriate time.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: I echo the regret expressed by the Labour spokesman that there will not be an Opposition day next week and perhaps none the week after. We could debate the threat to grammar schools, or the threat to grant-maintained schools, or the threat to fundholding practices or the threat to the free and efficient operation of the labour market—all of which are Labour party policies.
Mr. Newton: On Monday we may well discuss the threat to the labour market; we recently debated fundholding practices, on which some important points were made; and a Bill is currently before the House which will enable points to be made about grant-maintained schools.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Suttons, a large transport company, operates in my constituency. Will the Secretary of State for Transport come before the House and explain how he intends to implement the Brussels directive with respect to eyesight? At present, it looks as though drivers will be asked to read numberplates from a distance without using their glasses or contact lenses because Brussels says that they may be a danger if people are involved in an accident. As a result, up to 100,000 lorry drivers will lose their jobs, which cannot be right.
Mr. Newton: Last week, I said that the points made by the hon. Gentleman appeared to be exaggerated. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is due to answer questions on Monday 11 March.
Mr. John Austin-Walker: Earlier this week, I raised a question with the Secretary of State for the Environment about the problem of rising groundwater
1020
levels in London and the threat of flooding. I asked him what he was going to do about the potential threat to the London Underground and buildings. He said that no Government building is in imminent danger, as far as he is aware. He is washing his hands of the affair. Thames Water is unwilling to drill the wells that would alleviate the situation as it is uneconomic: there is no shortage of water in London, despite the fact that in other areas there have been drought orders. Will he find time for a debate on the lack of co-ordinated planning in the water industry, and the problems faced by a fragmented and privatised water industry?
Mr. Newton: It will not surprise the hon. Gentleman to know that I do not accept the latter part of his remarks, which seem to be extremely tendentious. I will bring his concerns to the attention of my right hon. Friend, and it may be that the hon. Gentleman will wish to look to a Wednesday morning for such a debate.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May we have a debate next week on housing allocations policy so that I can bring before the House a leaked letter from a Labour Ealing councillor asking for council accommodation for a family living outside Ealing and, therefore, not on Ealing's list, but known to be Labour supporters? The councillor is seeking to build up Labour party support in that area of my constituency. Could we also discuss the fact that the chief executive of Ealing is to conduct an inquiry into this disgraceful and doubtful behaviour, but that she will be handicapped because the file concerned has gone missing?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will not expect me to comment on the specific allegations, and I certainly shall not do so. I am sure that what he has referred to will be carefully investigated. The housing allocations policy is a matter that arises on the Housing Bill, which is currently before the House.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I anticipate a guarded and cautious reply to this question: may we have a statement next week on a topic on which the House of Commons has been extremely reticent hitherto—the situation that has developed in the royal family in two respects. First, may we discuss the proposed role in some quarters of Diana Princess of Wales, because many hon. Members feel that it is unacceptable that she should be an ambassador in terms of policy or as a dispenser of aid? Secondly, if there are to be changes in the responsibility of the monarch for the education of royal heirs, should the House of Commons be consulted?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman correctly anticipated a guarded and cautious response, and he will duly receive one. I will say only that it seems to me that it is appropriate for the House of Commons to be reticent on these matters.
Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate on crime in London? Is he aware that Sir Paul Condon has been able to report a 75 per cent. increase in the number of muggers being arrested under Operation Eagle Eye? Is he also aware that there has been a large reduction in the number

1021
of household burglaries in London under Operation Bumblebee? Is this not good news for the law-abiding majority in London?
Mr. Newton: That news about levels of crime is encouraging and, in my view, a tribute to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and to his force, and to the measures that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department has put in place.
Mr. Barry Field: May we have an early debate on the policy of clamping vehicles that do not display a vehicle excise duty licence, so far as its display and sale is concerned? I understand that the Liberal Democrats are encouraging people not to comply with this law because they believe that duty should be put on fuel, which would have a detrimental effect on people living in rural areas. I promise my right hon. Friend that if the debate led to rural post offices being allowed to sell the vehicle excise duty licence, there would be a cacophony of cancellation stamps on the counters of postmistresses and postmasters throughout the country. Rural areas throughout the United Kingdom would welcome such an initiative because the vehicle excise duty licensing department has prevented sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses from selling these licences for too long.
Mr. Newton: Leaving aside the continuing confusion in my mind about Liberal Democrat policy in these matters, I will undertake to bring those representations to the attention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, who is the Minister concerned with the Post Office. However, some rural post offices—including the one in the village in which I live in Essex—can and do sell vehicle excise duty licences.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the Leader of the House arrange for next Thursday's debate to include a discussion on bank holidays, particularly the request made by every county council in Wales, which represent every person in Wales, that St. David's day be declared a bank holiday in Wales? That request was rejected contemptuously by a one-word reply from the Prime Minister. How dare the Prime Minister—whose party managed to get only 4 per cent. of the vote at the last by-election in Wales, and only 4 per cent. of the councillors in the last election in Wales—determine what should happen in Wales? Is this not proof that Wales has a large democratic deficit and is effectively being ruled by England as a colony?
Mr. Newton: That was as tortuous a question as I have ever heard, and I do not agree with the detail of it. It is particularly ungenerous on the day that we have staged the annual St. David's day Welsh debate. In the light of what has been said, I have ambitions to make sure that that debate takes place on a bank holiday and that the hon. Gentleman has to be here.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: May we have a debate on the disparity of treatment that clearing banks and other financial institutions extend to people who are facing bankruptcy? The Leader of the House will be aware of the article that appeared in The Sunday Times last week showing that Lord Younger of the Royal Bank of Scotland and Sir Gerrard Neale put together a rescue package for a Conservative Member of Parliament. Is this fair in relation to other businesses that are facing bankruptcy? May we have a debate so that we can probe that matter and argue the case for people who are struggling to keep their businesses alive but who cannot get the extended credit from the banks which has been afforded to an hon. Member of this House?
Mr. Newton: That is one of the two or three attempts that the hon. Gentleman has made to raise the issue. The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) raised it with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on Tuesday and I have absolutely nothing to add to what he said on that occasion.
Mr. Nick Ainger: May we have a debate on the Sea Empress disaster at the earliest opportunity, particularly in light of the fact that the Secretary of State for Transport has made two statements to the House about the incident but he has instituted only an internal inquiry? Since his statement last Thursday, it has become clear that the environmental damage is far greater than was first predicted. It is already far greater than the damage incurred following the Braer disaster, in relation to which Lord Donaldson conducted an independent inquiry.
Since the Secretary of State's statement, it has come to light that Department of Transport officials and their agencies were involved in the decision-making process about an accident on Thursday 15 February which led to a disaster on Monday 19 February. To a certain extent, they are to blame for that disaster and for the resulting threat to the local economy and environment in my area. Will the Leader of the House urge the Secretary of State for Transport to establish an independent inquiry—ideally chaired and controlled by Lord Donaldson—bearing in mind the significant changes that have occurred since his last statement?
Mr. Newton: Of course, I acknowledge the significance of the environmental damage. I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would also acknowledge the scale of the work that is going on. For example, I understand that no fewer than six oil recovery vessels are at work in Carmarthen bay and that more than 450 people are involved in beach cleaning and other activities at some 20 sites.
As to the main thrust of the hon. Gentleman's question—which echoes a comment made during Prime Minister's questions today—the Marine Accident Investigation Branch will carry out a thorough and independent inquiry. If I were a member of that branch, I would rather regret the implicit slur that it will not do the job properly.

Point of Order
Mr. Jim Cousins: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your assistance in ensuring that hon. Members receive answers to parliamentary questions in good time. The Department of Social Security in Newcastle is facing great changes. More than a month ago I tabled a question asking purely for facts—there was not a single policy implication— about job losses in Newcastle DSS in the past 12 months. I have had to wait more than four weeks for a reply. I seek your help in ensuring more timely and better quality answers from the DSS.
Madam Speaker: I have every sympathy with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) if what he says is correct—I have no reason to doubt that it is. Four weeks is an inordinately long time to wait for a reply from a Department and I hope that Ministers have noted the exchange.

Point of Order
  BILL PRESENTED
    MARRIAGE CEREMONY (PRESCRIBED WORDS)
    Julian Brazier, supported by Mr. Michael Alison, Mr. Donald Anderson, Rev. Martin Smyth, Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe and Mr. John Marshall, presented a Bill to provide alternatives for the declaration and words of contract prescribed by law for marriage ceremonies in registered buildings and register offices, on approved premises and in certain other circumstances: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 29 March 1996 and to be printed. [Bill 71.]

Welsh Affairs
4.52 pm
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. William Hague): It is a great pleasure to open this annual debate on Welsh affairs. I am pleased that we can celebrate St. David's day by debating Welsh issues.
I know that you, Madam Speaker, were pleased to celebrate St. David's day this morning by receiving daffodils from five-year-old Megan Godwin representing the children of Wales. Tomorrow, I shall be pleased to welcome His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to the Welsh Office in Cardiff where he will meet many staff.
We shall celebrate St. David's day tomorrow by announcing one of the largest investment projects to come to Wales in recent times. It demonstrates clearly the points that I intend to highlight in my remarks today: the undeniable momentum behind the Welsh economy, the importance of driving up levels of education and training, and the benefits that accrue to Wales from being part of the United Kingdom. I intend also to discuss at some length our approach to the environment, particularly in light of the Sea Empress incident about which I shall say a good deal. I shall also make some important announcements about the future responsibilities of local government in Wales.
The economic background to today's debate is good— as it is across the United Kingdom. The Government's policies aim to deliver low inflation, sound public finance and an efficient economy. They are the features that enable businesses to create wealth and deliver increased employment and rising living standards. That is true for this, and for any other, country. Our international competitors know that now, but we have set the pace. Interest rates have been set to achieve underlying inflation of 2.5 per cent. or less, and inflation has been below 4 per cent. for more than three years—which is the best run for almost half a century. Unemployment in the United Kingdom is now well below the European average.
Mr. Peter Hain: I ask the Secretary of State to clarify a report which appeared in yesterday's Western Mail that European Union objective 2 status may be lost in Neath, Port Talbot and parts of Cardiff and that funds may be switched to parts of England in order to benefit the Conservatives. I am sure that he will agree that the Welsh Office should fight hard on behalf of areas such as mine where unemployment is still very high in real terms.
Mr. Hague: I certainly do not wish to see the status of those areas change in any way. The Government do not plan to propose any change in their status and we do not want the European Commission to do so. I shall visit Brussels next Monday, when I shall make that point to the European Commission.
Total United Kingdom industrial production is at record levels, manufacturing investment has risen 12 per cent. in a year and the public sector borrowing requirement has fallen. They are the major strengths of the United Kingdom's economic recovery. Wales shares in that economic record and it exceeds the average United Kingdom performance in some important respects. Output in Wales rose by more than 4 per cent. in the year to September 1995 and manufacturing output rose by 3.7 per cent. Since 1990, average wage levels in Wales have risen faster than in Great Britain as a whole.

1025
Unemployment has fallen by 22 per cent. since the end of 1992. The old image of Wales as an area of chronic structural unemployment has not been true for some time. Unemployment in Wales has been at or near the United Kingdom average for 18 months. No Government since the 1920s—and no Labour Government—have been able to say that.
Mr. Alan Williams: Will the Secretary of State revise his comments in view of the fact that the failure to keep the level of unemployment to that inherited by the Government in 1979 has meant the loss of 1 million man years of work in Wales and £13 billion in earnings?
Mr. Hague: I am painting a different picture of the Welsh economy today—one of rapid improvement and greater employment in manufacturing and elsewhere. Since 1985, manufacturing employment in Wales has increased more than it has in any other region of the United Kingdom. Looking to the future—which is what really counts—a recent Dun and Bradstreet survey found that almost 80 per cent. of Welsh firms expect to increase their sales, which is the highest proportion in Great Britain; almost 70 per cent. of Welsh firms expect to increase their exports, which is the highest proportion in Great Britain; and almost two thirds of Welsh firms expect to increase their employment, which is the highest proportion in Great Britain.
That is the background to the Welsh economy. The Government aim to keep Britain on course to becoming the enterprise centre of Europe. My ambitions for Wales are no less: I want Wales to be an enterprise centre in Britain. Our history, skills and recent performance give me confidence that Wales can be at the leading edge of the United Kingdom's economic success.
Mr. Llew Smith: I shall put the question posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) in a different way. Will the Secretary of State comment on the fact that, since the Tories came to power in May 1979, 500 million working days have been lost in Wales through unemployment?
Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that unavoidable structural changes have occurred in the Welsh economy. The steel works at Port Talbot, which employs 4,000 workers, produces more steel now than it did in 1980 when it had a work force of 18,000. We could not have set our face against those changes and maintained competitive industries by refusing to embrace progress. Instead, we have ensured that new industries come to Wales, and there is more evidence every week that that effort is gaining momentum. We must now take that success forward, and public and private bodies must work together to do so. Wales has a strong tradition of partnership and team work, and nowhere is that more important than in winning inward investment.
More than 70,000 people are now employed in Wales by overseas-owned manufacturing companies. Those companies provide tremendous employment opportunities and a healthy diversification of industrial activity. They also create opportunities for indigenous companies.
Competition for inward investment has become fierce. Wales continues to perform to the envy of many other regions in the United Kingdom, but we cannot rest on our
1026
laurels. I was delighted to announce, a few weeks ago, the first major investment from Korea, following my recent visit to that most promising market and much hard work by other people. That investment means 300 new jobs as a start—a shot in the arm for the valleys. There is more good news on the way.
I want to pay tribute to the hard work of the Welsh Development Agency, which has been much criticised in the past. The people who run the agency have done a lot of work to put the problems behind them. I am committed to maintaining and building on the success of Wales and I urge everyone involved in industrial development—and parties in the House—to join in the team Wales effort.
Several hon. Members rose —
Mr. Hague: I am spoilt for choice, but I shall give way to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells).
Dr. Kim Howells: I agree with the Secretary of State's point about the Welsh Development Agency and the need not to rest on our laurels, but can he tell us why we lost the Chunghwa Picture Tube Company factory? Why did that factory go not to Cardiff, but to Lanarkshire? Why is it generally understood that the Welsh Development Agency was out-performed by the Lanarkshire development agency and Locate in Scotland? Will the Secretary of State inquire into the reasons for the loss of that contract and publish his final report so that we can all read it?
Mr. Hague: We will not win every project. We know that. We compete for many projects that we will not win because other people are bound to win some of them. There are many factors involved in such decisions, including the suitability of the site, the proximity to other businesses in the same industry, and development area or assisted area status. All those factors come together and the decisions are very complex.
I have inquired about the project that the hon. Member mentioned and I am well aware of the details. I do not believe that the contract was lost by Wales because of any failing in the WDA or in the work that was done on the project. Such decisions are based on complex factors, some of which I have mentioned, which sometimes bring success to Wales and sometimes bring it to other parts of the United Kingdom. I shall announce a major inward investment project tomorrow, and people in other parts of the United Kingdom and Europe will ask why they did not get the contract. This time, we will be the successful ones.
Mr. Cynog Dafis: Members of my party join others in rejoicing at the success of the Welsh economy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] They are doing some very important things.
Dr. Howells: Perhaps they are watching rugby.
Mr. Dafis: The rugby is on Saturday and this is Thursday.
I emphasise that the kind of success that inward investment brings has not benefited the western regions of Wales—eastern areas, including Montgomeryshire and places that are close to the English border and have links

1027
with the midlands, have benefited. Will the Secretary of State undertake to emphasise the importance of strengthening the economy of the western regions of Wales, because their weaknesses show not just in unemployment figures, but in figures for outward migration by the young? There are many deep, structural weaknesses in the economies of those regions.
Mr. Hague: Of course it is important to try to share the benefits of inward investment. That is why we have set a target for the Welsh Development Agency for the proportion of investment to areas outside the M4 and A55 corridors. I shall reaffirm that target for the coming year— I have reaffirmed it in my discussions with the Welsh Development Agency in the past few days. I recognise the importance of what the hon. Gentleman says, but an independent Wales would do nothing like as well at attracting inward investment. He and his party should bear that in mind when they consider the subject.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Before the Secretary of State leaves the subject of the Chunghwa Picture Tube Company, will he confirm whether our failure to land that project had anything to do with the cut of £30 million in his Department's budget for regional selective assistance, as revealed in the Department's report a year ago, and the £40 million cut in the budget of the Welsh Development Agency, giving altogether a cut of more than £70 million and almost halving the budget available for regional economic development in 1995–96?
Mr. Hague: There has been no reduction on such a scale in support for regional development. The hon. Gentleman may be quoting a figure that refers to more than changes in regional selective assistance. In any case, regional selective assistance is a demand-led expenditure, so it works the other way round from the way he suggests. Provision for regional selective assistance falls or rises as the projects that are eligible for it come in or fail to come in. The change that the hon. Gentleman mentioned may be a reflection of the level of inward investment in that year, but it is not the cause of that level, as his question suggested. The hon. Gentleman will notice that I have allocated a substantial sum for regional selective assistance when we discuss the new departmental report in a few weeks' time.
No economy can succeed by inward investment alone. Indigenous firms are crucial, not least the smaller ones. Half of all manufacturing employment in Wales is in firms with fewer than 200 employees.
Firms need fast access to first-class advice and information about the public sector support available to them. That is why in January we launched business connect—covering the whole of Wales and the full range of public sector services. With one telephone call, anyone can have access to the whole network of public support.
Export promotion is a key component of Government policy. In the first trade mission programme, we covered 30 countries, resulting in £87 million-worth of new business for more than 250 Welsh businesses. I have now extended that programme for a further three years. I hope that that will allow a further 24 missions and that it will have something to offer companies of all sizes with varying degrees of export experience.
1028
Everything in the economic future of Wales depends on the skills of the work force. Our goal is a world-class education and training system. All Welsh schools, further education colleges and higher education institutions are concentrating on lifting performance to contribute to achieving the national targets, as set out in our document "People and Prosperity".
The Welsh training and enterprise councils are supporting our activity and agreeing local skills priorities with the Welsh Development Agency, the Development Board for Rural Wales and the new unitary authorities. In line with the strategy in "People and Prosperity", I have asked the TECs to give top priority to manufacturing skills. Five hundred young people started modern apprenticeships in manufacturing in Wales in 1994–95. This year, I have allocated funding for 3,800 young people to start modern or accelerated apprenticeships, some 1,200 of them in manufacturing. We will expand modern manufacturing apprenticeships still further next year. This year, I have also allocated an extra £3 million to help local manufacturers train 1,200 adults for the next two years to give a fast injection of manufacturing skills.
The document, "A Bright Future", also published last year, set out a detailed programme to raise attainment in schools. Secondary schools are already making big strides in improving their performance. The number achieving high grade GCSEs continues to improve. One in five pupils now achieve two A-levels, whereas one in 10 did so 20 years ago. Over the past six years, the number leaving school without qualifications has dropped sharply from 17 per cent. to 11 per cent., but there is much to do to raise educational standards further and meet national targets for achievement in academic and vocational qualifications.
As a result of the bright future programme, every school in Wales is now expected to set its own targets for achievement and to beat its previous best, year by year. Successful primary schools are the vital underpinning, especially for the basic skills of literacy and numeracy. The 1995 test results show that standards at 11 are not good enough—fewer than half reached the standard expected of the majority in tests of English and maths.
Schools' targets will be reviewed as part of regular and independent inspections, and action plans following inspections will include targets for improvement. Where the targets are found to be insufficiently challenging, the inspectorate will expect schools to reconsider and set new, more challenging ones.
The development of vocational options in Wales is also an emerging success story. In Wales this year, 46 schools will be involved in the general national vocational qualifications development scheme for 14 to 16-year-olds. More than 60 per cent. of participating schools in Wales will offer manufacturing, engineering, or construction.
I have recently set up the disabled pupils school access initiative. About half a million pounds a year has been made available to assist local education authorities to provide improved access for disabled pupils in schools. We have introduced other initiatives to raise standards by expanding choice in education. That is something that Opposition Members have never favoured, but, steadily, they are becoming accustomed to it, as we have seen over recent months. Included also is the popular schools initiative, which promotes parental choice and diversity of provision. Total funding is now nearly £26 million.

1029
We are also proposing a pre-school voucher scheme for four-year-olds, which will put purchasing power in the hands of parents. The scheme will enhance choice and diversity of provision. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State announced today an expansion of the assisted places scheme, which means that 270 new places will be made available in 16 schools to provide opportunities for academically able children whose parents would not otherwise have been able to afford independent schools.
Mr. Win Griffiths: What is the point of doubling the size of the assisted places scheme if the places now available are not being filled?
Mr. Hague: We shall see whether we fill the places. I believe that we shall. We are bringing new schools into the scheme. That means that more pupils will be able to take up places. More schools will be near to them.
Several hon. Members rose —
Mr. Hague: I shall give way later. I have much to say and I am mindful of the time. I want to move on to other subjects.
The improvement of all our public services has been a major theme for the Government. Government policy on the national health service is directed at one simple aim— to improve the health of the people of Wales. The service must be properly funded if we are to achieve that aim, and it is. We have fulfilled our pledge to increase health care spending each year in real terms. That has led to genuine improvements in service. The number of people treated by our hospitals has doubled over the past 16 years. Therapies and treatments undreamt of in the 1970s are now commonplace.
A new patients charter for Wales was launched on 21 February. It sets out new and better standards of care. Hospital waiting times have been reduced. Over the past 12 months alone, the number of patients having to wait longer than six months for a hospital out-patient appointment has fallen by three quarters. I have asked NHS Wales to aim at a maximum total waiting time of 18 months for patients who need hospital treatment. The parallel drive to improve further the effectiveness of clinical care has captured the imagination and enthusiasm of health care professionals throughout Wales.
The NHS is also delivering impressive efficiency gains. Five health authorities will shortly replace the present 16. Over the next few years, that reduction will enable it to manage with 300 fewer staff and to release £8 million for direct patient care. Trusts are also under pressure to reduce management costs and to deliver further efficiencies. I shall help them to achieve savings by cutting the burden of paperwork and sharpening the focus of the Health Department. The challenge now is to ensure that every penny of the £2.2 billion of taxpayers' money entrusted to the NHS in Wales is spent effectively and for the benefit of patients.
Other high priorities for my Department are the promotion and facilitation of the use of the Welsh language, and access to the arts, sports and the cultural heritage. We shall continue actively to support the Welsh language. We shall enhance the role of the Welsh
1030
Language Board by transferring to it from April 1997 responsibility for public support for the four major voluntary sector Welsh language bodies in Wales.
Mr. Barry Jones: The Secretary of State has talked about the arts. Notwithstanding his generous intervention, the future of Theatr Clwyd remains extremely cloudy. Would it be possible for the riht hon. Gentleman in any way to intervene to ensure that neighbouring English authorities make a contribution? What can the right hon. Gentleman do to persuade neighbouring authorities in Wales to assist? The future appears to be extremely difficult.
Mr. Hague: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I do not have the power to command local authorities to devote money to Theatr Clwyd or to many other projects. Indeed, many authorities would complain bitterly if I had that power. As the hon. Gentleman has acknowledged, in view of the strategic and artistic importance of Theatr Clwyd, I have agreed in principle to provide a one-off grant of £1.3 million to pay off the outstanding capital debt. The Arts Council of Wales has agreed to increase its annual grant. It is now for local authorities, as the hon. Gentleman rightly suggests, to come up with the remaining goods. There has been generous support through the Welsh Office and it is up to everyone in the House who is concerned about these matters, as the hon. Gentleman rightly is, to encourage local authorities to do their bit.
My right hon. and hon. Friends and I have delivered a great deal of support in the complete writing off of the theatre's debt. It is right that we should now look to local authorities to meet the remaining gap. Every opportunity should be taken to market the work of the theatre as effectively as possible in future.
Dr. John Marek: I know that the Wrexham county borough authority is prepared to contribute to the theatre, but it needs its capping limits to be raised before it is able to do so. Will the Secretary of State look favourably upon raising capping limits so that the authority can make a contribution?
Mr. Hague: I am not able legally to change capping limits to enable an individual authority to spend on a particular project. I have considered the matter and I do not think that I can help in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman. I hope, however, that local authorities will be able to deliver, as it were, on their side of the deal. It is important for Theatr Clwyd to survive. I think that the Welsh Office has delivered generous support.
I look forward to the opening, at the end of May, by Her Majesty the Queen, of the third building of the national library of Wales, for which my Department has provided £11 million, which will meet the library's needs for at least the next generation.
The Millennium Commission has recently announced an award of nearly £22 million to enable a national botanical garden to be established at Middleton hall. I am delighted that the supporters of the site have been successful. I am sure that it will prove to be a great asset to Wales in terms of nature conservation, scientific research, education and tourism. I am delighted also that the commission has decided to support the rugby stadium in Cardiff. That will do much to ensure the success of the rugby world cup in 1999.

1031
Last September, I launched the sport in schools initiative. The Sports Council for Wales is energetically working on following up the initiative with 100 centres of excellence. I hope that we shall see an increased number of sporting successes for Wales during the coming year.
The quality of our environment is one of our most precious assets. In recognition of this, in my time in office so far I have increased the budget of the Countryside Council for Wales. I have announced our intention to produce a rural White Paper, which will be published within the next few weeks. I am launching the Environment Agency for Wales next month. I hope that the agency will liaise closely with other environmental bodies in Wales. I am committed to improving services for people who live and work in agriculture in rural Wales. My White Paper will set out my views and policies in detail.
We have made good progress in many environmental areas in Wales but we cannot, of course, discuss the environment without referring to the Sea Empress incident. Hon. Members are well aware that the ship initially ran aground on Thursday 15 February. Following a lengthy salvage operation, the ship was berthed in Milford Haven during the evening of Wednesday 21 February. The remaining oil is now being pumped out of the vessel. I add my tribute to that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to those brave people who worked long and hard, in dangerous conditions, throughout the operation.
The consequences of the oil lost from the Sea Empress remain with us. The effects on the beautiful Pembrokeshire coast and islands, and those on the rich wildlife, are distressing. They are being tackled energetically. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport made two statements last week. The marine accident investigation branch is investigating the incident and I hope that its report will be ready soon. I have twice visited Milford Haven to see the effects of the incident and to witness the work that is being done to tackle the consequences. The most obvious visible effect is on the coastline and the wildlife. There are, too, economic consequences. All fishing in the area affected by pollution has stopped, both for shellfish and white fish, since the Sea Empress ran aground. I pay tribute to the responsible attitude of the fishermen, traders and processors in agreeing to observe an immediate voluntary ban on fishing in the interests of the safety of the food chain. In the light of scientific advice, I have placed the ban on a formal basis. I signed an order yesterday to prohibit all fishing within Welsh waters affected by oil pollution. I shall review the boundaries of the restricted area when further scientific analysis has been carried out.
Mr. Nick Ainger: In my speech later, I shall concentrate on the Sea Empress, but is the Secretary of State aware that fishermen who operate and catch their fish—or who were catching their fish—far from the area covered by the exclusion order are also suffering because, unfortunately, if any fish product has "Welsh" or "Wales" on it, nobody wants to touch it with a bargepole? Is it possible to extend the exclusion order for a short period and introduce the testing regime, which must come in anyway, and thereby clear the areas that we all know are not suffering from any pollution?
Mr. Hague: I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's point, as he raises an important issue that extends to other industries where there is a risk that Wales will be regarded as a polluted place even though only part of it has suffered from this incident. It is important for hon. Members, while in no way trying to disguise or minimise the scale of the incident, to make it quite clear that much is being done to clean up the problem and that vast areas of Wales are not affected. If we do not, our tourism industry might suffer unnecessary consequences.
I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's point. It would be strange to extend the ban to an area that is not affected, but I realise that he raises a legitimate problem and thinks that that is a solution. I shall come back to him and am happy to discuss the matter further.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Hague: Yes, although I have other things to announce and I should get on.
Mr. Jones: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. On the related issue of the number of people and the different industries in Wales that have been affected by the disaster—the Secretary of State just mentioned tourism—is it not clear that there is a real danger—perhaps it is inevitable—that the amount of compensation currently available to people will be exceeded? What measures does the Secretary of State, with his colleague in the Ministry of Transport, believe he can take to ensure that extra compensation is made available so that people who have genuinely lost out as a result of the disaster are properly compensated?
Mr. Hague: I am coming to some of the measures that I want to take—I shall reach them in about a minute's time.
Scientific advice is that there is no indication at present of any risk to agricultural produce from oil particles being blown inland, but as a precaution we are analysing samples of agricultural produce and crops that are eaten by farm animals. These are very much precautionary measures to provide reassurance to farmers and growers and to the general public. We expect to get the results of the tests on the samples within the next few days. There are no indications of any risk to animal health or to the safety of meat when animals are sold for slaughter, but to give absolute reassurance on the matter, members of the state veterinary service are monitoring the situation on my behalf.
I have provided up to £250,000 for the Countryside Council for Wales for a comprehensive environmental assessment and monitoring programme. The Countryside Council for Wales will work with other statutory agencies and voluntary environment groups. The work is being complemented by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which has made available the research vessel Coryster for work on fish and shellfish. An independent assessor will examine the response, clean-up procedures and the techniques employed following this incident.
The Wales tourist board is taking an active lead with other interested public bodies in Pembrokeshire and throughout south Wales to ensure that tourists to the area are kept informed of the true state of the coastline. It is

1033
staying in the closest possible touch with the clean-up operation and will mount a vigorous and high-profile campaign of reassurance for potential visitors.
The main priority now is to provide assistance to people in west Wales whose livelihood has been affected by the spillage. Let us be clear that the responsibility for compensating those who have suffered loss must rest with the industry, on the clear principle that the polluter must pay. Some £8 million is available from the vessel's insurers, the Skuld Protection and Indemnity Club of Norway, and some £50 million is available from the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund. Urgent discussions took place yesterday between the relevant Government Departments, representatives of the fund, the insurers and the oil industry. The insurers have agreed to meet the claims of hardship cases straight away. They will set up a claims handling office in Milford Haven in co-operation with the IOPCF, which will immediately start to process claims received between now and the end of April and make hardship payments to individuals and small businesses. I welcome that action by the insurers.
The executive committee of the IOPCF is expected to meet again in April to consider further compensation arrangements. Although the responsibility for dealing with compensation rests with the insurers and the IOPCF, there are ways in which the Government can help, in addition to the measures that I have announced. First, I have taken steps to enable me, should there be any problems with the prompt payment of compensation in difficult cases, to set up a bridging fund of up to £2 million, financed by the Welsh Office, to be disbursed by the local authorities concerned. Any payments would be repayable in due course by the insurers or the IOPCF. I hope and expect that the bridging fund will not be necessary, but felt it prudent to ensure that we could bring it into play if the arrangements did not work as we expect them to.
Secondly, the Government will not ask for payment from insurers for costs that we have incurred until it is clear that all other claims can be paid in full. Thirdly, I shall consider sympathetically any representations that local authorities may wish to make concerning the costs incurred by them, including temporary supplementary credit approvals. Fourthly, I shall explore with the European Commission what assistance it might be able to provide to help alleviate the economic and environmental consequences. The affected area covers many protected sites, including sites protected under European directives. Fifthly, I have set up an oil incident response unit in the Welsh Office, which will report directly to me. It will act as a central point of liaison for local authorities, the Countryside Council for Wales, the Wales tourist board and the insurers, and it will provide help for people who need advice on these various and sometimes complex arrangements.
I hope that the House will welcome these arrangements and join me in saluting the hard work and dedication of all who are currently involved in the clean-up operation.
Mr. Gareth Wardell: The Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, which I chair, decided this morning to conduct a short inquiry into the problems that the fishing industry in Wales may experience following the Sea Empress disaster. In relation to the Secretary of State's point about tourism, which was well made, we do not want areas to be blighted. He and the Secretary of State
1034
for Transport will know that the beach sediments that have been affected by the oil will leach out over a period of 10 years. Will he ensure that, when tourists come to Wales, assistance will be given to the tourism industry to identify those areas so that people do not find that there is a problem of which they are unaware, just as they should be aware of the quality of bathing waters?
Mr. Hague: I shall certainly give attention to that point. These are complex matters and it is quite difficult to predict how things will work out in the future and what the long-term consequences will be. It is important that everybody has the maximum information about the problems at every stage. That is one of the reasons why I announced extra funding for the Countryside Council for Wales to map and survey the consequences of the pollution. We shall continue to give attention to the problem that the hon. Gentleman quite rightly raised.
Mr. Alan W. Williams rose —
Mr. Hague: I shall give way once more on this matter, but there are other matters that I wish to deal with.
Mr. Williams: On the question of compensation, I understand that £8 million is available from the ship's insurers and that £50 million is available from the IOPCF, but both are being capped. What happens if the total claims in one or two years' time exceed the cap, as is very likely? I understand that claims might be of the order of £100 million. Where will the rest of the money come from?
Mr. Hague: We are not able to say that the claims are likely to exceed the amount available. It is perfectly understandable that people should ask the question, but we should not raise the spectre of claims exceeding that amount. If compensation on the principle of the polluter paying is not adequate, the hon. Gentleman can rest assured that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and I will have strong words to say to the oil industry about the matter, and that we will seek a change in arrangements for the future or for this incident. I am alive to the hon. Gentleman's concern, but we are not currently in a position to say that the amount may exceed, is likely to exceed, or is very likely to exceed, the cap.
Local government has been playing its part in the process. In a month's time, local government in Wales will be administered by 22 all-purpose authorities. The House should be in no doubt that the reorganisation presents Wales with a great opportunity. The fact that single authorities will in future be responsible for all local authority services should ensure that they are managed more effectively. However, I see the reorganisation as another kind of opportunity as well: I want it to mark a turning point in relations between the Welsh Office and local government.
I want to reduce local authorities' dependence on my Department. Unnecessary controls should go. Most of all, I want more of the decisions that affect the well-being and prosperity of communities throughout Wales to be made where they will prove most effective—at local level. I shall shortly publish a consultation paper setting out a series of proposals. We now have the opportunity to mark

1035
a radical shift in the nature of the Welsh Office's relationship with local government. I shall outline three specific proposals.
First, I have been considering the future shape of my Department's strategic development scheme, the SDS. It supports local authority projects and strategies promoting economic, social and environmental development. In the coming year, it has a budget of around £57 million in support of regeneration projects across Wales.
Local authorities have argued that it should no longer be necessary for Ministers to make decisions on many such projects, which often have only local significance. They would like progressively greater delegation of decision-making, with Ministers involved only in the larger schemes. I agree with that: I believe that the time is now right for a further substantial shift of responsibility to local level. I have already indicated that, in the coming year, £13 million of SDS funding will be available to local authorities so that they can decide how to use it. Over the next three years, I propose to increase that amount substantially—to £38 million—so that unitary authorities have much greater freedom to make their own choices on local priorities.
At the same time, I believe that departmental funding should continue to be available to support an authority's major strategic priorities, which would include projects that go beyond the financing capabilities of an individual authority, or which have a regional significance. For that purpose, I propose to develop the SDS into a new challenge fund, the scope of which would be a matter for discussion.
As now, the emphasis will be on encouraging innovative projects and strong public and private sector partnerships. I also favour extending the challenge principle beyond the economic, social and environmental areas already covered by the SDS. I envisage that such an enhanced challenge fund would be introduced in 1997, with the first bids being invited by early this summer. Its initial budget would be at least £20 million, which would be funded in part from uncommitted SDS resources and in part from other existing local authority capital top-slices. In later years, there would be an opportunity to refine the schemes to take account of the lessons learnt from the parallel schemes being planned for England by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Secondly, I have re-examined our management of the European structural fund in Wales. Current programmes include the objective 2 programme for industrial south Wales, the objective 5b programme for rural Wales and nine special initiatives such as RECHAR. Together, over the life of the programmes, those measures involve more than £360 million of European funding, contributing to total programme expenditure by all the parties of more than £959 million. That funding makes a major contribution to the regeneration process across Wales and is a vital source of project finance for local authorities, agencies and the private and voluntary sectors.
My Department is currently responsible for managing the funds—It provides the secretariat for the relevant monitoring committees. It has been argued that the transparency of the system and of the decision-making process would be improved if my Department's
1036
management of the secretariat's functions were devolved to a free-standing executive that was independently staffed and operated under the guidance of local authorities and the wider partnership including local authorities.
From 1 January 1997, I propose to introduce such arrangements in respect of all relevant Welsh programmes and initiatives, and in respect of the successor objective 2 programme for industrial south Wales that is to be launched next year. The new executive body would have responsibility for publicity, for advice and for information supplied to potential beneficiaries of the funds, for the management of the bidding process and for the assessment and ranking of applications. The functions and composition of the monitoring committees would remain unchanged. I would also retain my present responsibilities for public expenditure provision, for payments and for accountability to Parliament for the deployment of funds.
Thirdly, my Department has had responsibility for training policy in Wales since 1993. Responsibility for management of the European social fund has, however, remained with the Department of Employment, and latterly with the Department for Education and Employment. I am glad to report that control over ESF programme management will be transferred to me from 1 January 1997. Responsibility for public expenditure provision and for the associated payments will be considered later. Management of the new responsibilities for the ESF will also be considered in the context of my proposals for a new structural fund executive body, to which I have already referred—a free-standing executive body in which local authorities have a primary role. The change will bring greater cohesion within and between European programmes in Wales, and allow local partnerships far more influence over the allocation of funds.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: We would broadly welcome any system other than the one that has prevailed in the case of RECHAR and other schemes, which have proved extremely frustrating and have led to much anger and bitterness. I hope, however, that the executive body will not involve a large new administration, and that some of the costs will be paid out of the funds to which the Secretary of State referred.
Mr. Hague: I certainly do not intend the system to lead to a large new administration. No more work should be involved. What will change is the number of people who are heavily involved in influencing the process.
I propose a further change. Other, more minor, changes will be proposed in my consultation document. My Department operates the urban investment grant scheme, a facility for assisting the private sector to undertake developments in the more deprived areas of Wales. Those incentives are much valued, and achieve excellent public-private sector leverage, but I believe that they could be more appropriately promoted and applied in the context of local development plans. Because of their nature, it would not be sensible or feasible to disperse the funds generally among unitary authorities. I have therefore decided that responsibility for the scheme should be transferred from the Department to the Welsh Development Agency so that the benefits can be brought to bear within the framework of the local partnerships

1037
now being formed—which involve the WDA. About £6.8 million has been set aside for the scheme next year, when the transfer will take place.
In my discussions with local authorities, I have agreed that they should have a primary role in local economic development. The authorities have proposed that there should be some forum for discussion of economic issues that affect the whole of Wales. I agree with them that the role and membership of the Welsh Economic Council does not provide a suitable vehicle for that purpose. I have therefore decided that it should be discontinued. I shall discuss with the new local authority association what alternative arrangements should be put in place for reviewing the operation of European and domestic economic development and considering the work of local and sub-regional partnerships.
The changes to the strategic development scheme, to the management of European funding and to various agency activities will give local authorities and their partners more influence than ever before over the direction of the regeneration process in Wales. European and domestic funding of more than £400 million will be involved. I am confident that the organisations will respond positively and with imagination, and I assure the House that my Department and the principal agencies will continue to work closely with the authorities to ensure the effective realisation of their plans for the benefit of the communities that they serve.
Mr. Donald Anderson: The Secretary of State has made a number of welcome announcements about the new body, which will have a co-ordinating function and whose membership will, I understand, be drawn primarily from local authorities. Is he moving, step by step, towards an indirectly elected Welsh Assembly?
Mr. Hague: Not at all. Oddly enough, I was about to say something about a Welsh Assembly. As I said earlier, one of the benefits enjoyed by Wales is the result of being part of the United Kingdom. My predecessor and I have set a clear direction in transferring responsibilities, where appropriate, to local authorities. My proposals take that process a long way. Such devolution of power closer to the people makes far more sense and is much more meaningful than adding an additional tier of government in the form of an assembly.
I should be interested to hear the differing views of hon. Members about that matter. There are differing views among the Opposition about plans for a Welsh Assembly. Conservative Members and the public are entitled to ask many questions—which remain unanswered—about how the assembly proposed by Opposition Members would work. That is why I wrote yesterday to the Leader of the Opposition—to receive clarification and to ask him, on the occasion of his visit to Wales—where he has been joined today by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies)—to answer questions to which we have not heard the answers. If the Labour party believes that the Scottish Parliament would work, why would Wales get a second-class version? Would the assembly have legislative powers over the Welsh language, local government and non-departmental public bodies? We have had differing interpretations from Labour.
Mr. Alun Michael rose —
Mr. Hague: I look forward to clarification of those matters.
Mr. Michael: Why does the Secretary of State fail to recognise that we have government in Wales, but that the elected representatives of that Government are not accountable at Welsh level? The Opposition—certainly the Labour party—is united about the need for an elected body to be accountable for those functions. Why does not the Secretary of State for Wales, who is accountable to the House, tell us what he intends to do to provide a level of elected accountability in the governance of Wales?
Mr. Hague: I have just set out one of the biggest transfers of functions to local government that any Secretary of State for Wales has set out in recent times.
Mr. Michael rose —
Mr. Hague: I must answer the hon. Gentleman's question before he asks another. I am talking about the Labour party's plans for an assembly. He says that Labour is united about these matters, but when Labour party members were recently asked during "On The Record" what the assembly would do, they were far from united. Mr. Wayne David, a Member of the European Parliament, said that it would have legislative responsibilities. Other leading Labour party members said that it would in no way have any legislative responsibilities. A recent meeting of Welsh Labour Members to discuss that body's electoral system was described as vicious. [Interruption.] Labour Members clearly remember it well.
Mr. Michael: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hague: I must give the hon. Gentleman the other questions. We need to know from Opposition Members whether Welsh Members would be able to vote on English matters in areas of policy reserved for the assembly, how Welsh Members voting on public spending in England when English and Welsh Members could not vote on public spending in Wales could be justified, why different electoral systems are proposed for a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly, and how much such an assembly would cost.
The Labour party is in the absurd position of advocating a referendum on proportional representation for the United Kingdom, proportional representation for a Scottish Parliament without a referendum, a first-past-the-post electoral system for a Welsh Assembly without a referendum, referendums in English regions on whether to have assemblies in such regions, but no referendum in Wales on whether to have a Welsh Assembly. And that is called a policy. It is an incredible dog's breakfast. It is hard to understand how any party could blunder into such a position. It is born not of a vision of the UK's future, but of a calculation of how to appease nationalist sentiment in each part of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Michael: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hague: In view of the hon. Gentleman's persistence, I shall give way to him one more time on this subject.
Mr. Michael: The Secretary of State referred to the meeting of the Welsh Labour group, of which, as far as I am aware, he is not a member. As chairman of that group,

1039
I assure him that it is united behind the party's policy. It is notable, however, that he makes many allegations and misrepresentations to avoid his responsibility, as Secretary of State for Wales, to say what he and his party will do to allow elected representation in relation to the government that exists in Wales.
Mr. Hague: If that group is so united, it should be easy to give answers to those fundamental questions. For the best part of an hour, I have been talking about my responsibilities and how I am discharging them. I am entitled to ask Labour Members about one of their principal proposals. I understand that, if they came to power, in their first year in office, they would spend their time setting up this expensive assembly—an additional tier of government and an expensive roomfull of hot air. People need to know the details. It is time Labour Members came clean about that.
Labour's proposals are a recipe for constitutional chaos. They would put at risk all the benefits that Wales derives from the Union: higher public spending per head, representation at Westminster and a voice at the Cabinet table. They would undermine the great economic progress that we have made in recent years. Jobs and businesses would not come to Wales if we were tearing ourselves apart in the UK and distancing Wales from Westminster, or if Wales pursued radically different policies from the rest of the UK.
I hope, therefore, that the Leader of the Opposition will offer some answers to those questions—but the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), who is to speak on behalf of the Opposition, may be able to answer some of them even before I receive the Leader of the Opposition's reply. We look forward to that.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Hague: I shall give way one more time and then I must end my remarks.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my right hon. Friend think that the Opposition spokesman on Wales will be able to answer this question: is there a Welsh equivalent to the West Lothian question?
Mr. Hague: There is a direct Welsh equivalent to that question. If we had an assembly, Welsh Members would be able to vote on English public spending, but neither English nor Welsh Members would be able to vote on Welsh public spending. The Labour party needs to deal with that ludicrous position.
The position that I have set out is that of an expanding economy; of renewed momentum behind inward investment, of which we will see further evidence in coming days; of an improving education system, but where there is still much to do; of people working together to promote trade and a healthy environment; and of an important series of policy changes in local government. My announcements on the environment in Pembrokeshire and on local government will be warmly and deservedly welcomed in Wales and throughout the House. I look
1040
forward to hearing in more detail Opposition Members' proposals for Wales's future government, because there are many questions to be answered.
5.47 pm
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: The Secretary of State for Wales is obviously far too young to wear spectacles, but I wish that he would not wear his rose-coloured contact lenses during the debate. When he describes the Welsh economy or the environment, those of us who represent constituencies in Wales just do not recognise the country that he is talking about. We examine the facts and the Scoreboard rather than what the commentators are saying and we see that the level of prosperity that the Welsh economy continues to produce for our constituents is 16 per cent. below the United Kingdom average.
Those are the Government's statistics, not ours. We have not invented them. They are on the Scoreboard. I am being generous to the Government in saying that Wales's prosperity level is 16 per cent. behind. The last fully accredited figures from the Government Central Statistical Office are for 1993–94. They show that Welsh gross domestic product per head—the ultimate measure of a region's prosperity—is 82.7 per cent. of the UK average. Not fully tested, not entirely complete figures estimate that the figure for 1994–95 is 84.7 per cent. I am willing to accept that that may turn out to be true, but even that shows a level more than 15 per cent. below the UK average, which in itself is nothing special compared with that of other European Union countries. That is the actual picture. That is what our constituents live with.
I welcome, in advance, the announcement that is to be made tomorrow—the Secretary of State made great play of it, although obviously he cannot formally say what it is. We hope that it is in the silicon chip sector, that it is vaguely Celtic and that many jobs are involved. However, we also have to remember the ones that got away. We are living in a unique year. We are coming to the last few months of 1995–96, during which—I do not blame the Secretary of State for this because it was his predecessor who started it—the experiment of ending the bipartisan approach to economic development in Wales, which has gone on since the 1930s, has been running.
The Secretary of State's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who had his own agenda about "standing on your own two feet", "getting on your bike" and all the different nostrums of the ideological far right of the Conservative party, set up the budget with which we are still living. He simply broke the mould and decided that it was time for Wales to get away from the begging bowl mentality. That is why I raise the point about the departmental report.
The Secretary of State should look at his departmental report for this time last year. It shows the amount that the Welsh Office has had in its budget for industrial development and gives the figures for 1989 through to 1995. In general, the amount was £150 million-plus; sometimes it was as high as £170 million and sometimes it was £160 million. The figure represents the funds going to the Welsh Development Agency from the Welsh Office and what is in the Secretary of State's kitty for regional selective assistance. The figure was always between £150 million and £173 million.
This year, however, the figure has dropped to half the usual amount; it is just £86 million. That is a dramatic fall. The Secretary of State must admit that the budget

1041
for economic development in Wales has been chopped by almost half. We want to know why that has happened and whether it has anything to do with Wales losing out on the Chunghwa Picture Tube Company factory with its 3,000 jobs—a big development in which we were thought to be in the lead. The factory eventually went to Lanarkshire.
I had better make an apology to the House. My tie says CPT on it, but I assure the House, in case any of Lord Nolan's snoopers are watching the closed-circuit television, that it has nothing to do with Chunghwa Picture Tube. Some other body gave me the tie at a dinner; I think that it was something to do with passenger transport.
Although we in Cardiff especially missed out on the Chunghwa Picture Tube development because we were said to be in the lead, South Wales as a whole suffered from losing a development of that size. I asked the Secretary of State whether the fact that his predecessor had chopped £23 million or £24 million out of the regional selective assistance budget and another £43 million out of his grant in aid to the WDA had anything to do with Chunghwa's decision. He said that the fact that the WDA had only half its usual budget available had nothing to do with our losing the development and that assistance was demand led. He said that if Chunghwa had come to Wales, he would have found the money somewhere.
It is true that the regional selective assistance budget is demand led. Through the Department of Trade and Industry budget, England has overspent its RSA and has taken the money necessary out of contingency reserves. The Scottish Office has overspent its RSA budget and has taken money out of its reserves. We have underspent our RSA budget, so we have given money back to the Treasury, as the previous Secretary of State proudly boasted. It was very nice for him to be able to make that boast when he was running for leadership of the Tory party, but it was not very good for us because we had to live with the consequence—less industry coming into Wales.
It is also true that one can always find a few extra million if one gets industry in, but one cannot get industry in unless the WDA has the money to put the package together. That is the problem. The pincer movement of cutting the regional selective assistance budget and cutting the Welsh Office grant to the WDA means that if the WDA cannot get the firm in by offering the package that it could be offered in Lanarkshire, the Secretary of State does not need to spend his regional selective assistance budget because the firm is not coming to Wales. The massive cut—as a result of last year's experiment carried out by his predecessor for which I do not blame the present Secretary of State—is another reason why the Secretary of State should put away the rose-coloured contact lenses that he was wearing during his speech.
Lord Crickhowell, Lord Walker and the right hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt) all believed in a bipartisan approach, with economic and industrial development being the top priority for the Secretary of State for Wales, so that new jobs could replace jobs in the old industries. I am afraid that the right hon. Member for Wokingham did not believe in that approach. He believed in "on your bike", the cold shower and the need to get away from the begging bowl mentality, so he broke that consensus. We have to live with the consequences, and I would have liked the Secretary of State to have said what
1042
he intended to do to establish in the job description of the Secretary of State for Wales an agreement about the primacy of economic development. We might then have been able to work out what next year's budget for industrial development would look like, and that would have given us some assurances.
The Secretary of State mentioned tomorrow's development, which has not yet been announced. However, he did not say that the development was new in the sense that it was a project by a firm that was new to Wales. Much of the industrial development that is announced, re-announced and then announced to the House for a third or fourth time, forming part of the Secretary of State's hype offensive against the people of Wales, involves firms, such as Ford and Sony, which have been in Wales for 20 years or more. Some firms came in during the previous Labour Government's tenure and some came in during the early years of the present Administration. Those firms may reinvest and expand, but they are not new names.
In the past 10 years, Wales has missed out on all the big new investment providing 2,000 jobs and more. Firms such as Siemens, Fujitsu, Toyota, Nissan and Chunghwa have not come to Wales. We would have liked to have won one of those firms and we might then have felt satisfied that Wales remained at the forefront of the Government's regional economic development effort. Of the six big investments providing 2,000 and 3,000 jobs during the past eight or nine years, none has come to Wales.
Chunghwa was probably our best bet because of its natural connection with Ocean Technical Glass in Cardiff, but we missed out on that one. It is an extremely sad story, for which the Secretary of State should apologise on behalf of his predecessor who gave him a budget, set this time last year, which was far too small, in terms both of the departmental budget and the WDA budget.
I understand that Chunghwa made the point that one of the advantages of Lanarkshire was that it had a Eurofreight terminal. In Wales, unfortunately, we do not have a Eurofreight terminal and there has been a battle royal over where the Eurofreight terminal should go. It must be said that the Secretary of State has not been fighting hard for Wales on the issue. I understand that he has been telling people, "Well, I cannot approve the Eurofreight terminal because it may screw up the process of the privatisation of Railfreight. It may involve closing the Pengam rail freight terminal", which belongs to Freightliners Ltd. and is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael).
The Secretary of State for Wales is under instructions from the Secretary of State for Transport not to make any decisions on the Eurofreight terminal until Railfreight has been sold. That is not good enough. The Eurofreight terminal is a major generator of new jobs, both directly and indirectly, because it is an attraction to firms such as Chunghwa.
We do not have a Eurofreight terminal and, to be honest, the amount of attention that the Secretary of State has given to the issue is a disgrace to the Welsh Office and to his post. He has an out tray, a pending tray, a mañana tray and, for things that are even less urgent, he has the Eurofreight terminal tray. He has no excuses; the development has planning permission and it has funding.

1043
All it wants is a go-ahead and a bit of decision making by the Secretary of State. Tolstoy could have written "War and Peace" in the time that it has taken the Secretary of State to make up his mind. I do not know whether he can give us an undertaking about when he will make a decision on the Eurofreight terminal.
We are very pleased by the long-overdue decision, announced by the Secretary of State this afternoon, to take control of European structural funds out of the clammy hands of the Welsh Office and to give it to the infrastructure-providing partners. That decision has been taken about two years after the Scottish Office took a similar decision—not a sign of great dynamism on the part of the Secretary of State. I think that I am right about that; if I am wrong, I shall be interested to hear the Secretary of State's views. That long-overdue change is part of the idea that the Secretary of State should empower people to take more decisions for themselves and that he should remove some of the control over decisions from the Welsh Office.
We notice that, all the time, the Secretary of State makes great play of visiting the four European motor regions with which Wales is connected. I remember that the previous Minister, the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts), visited Catalonia. I understand that the Secretary of State has been to Catalonia and met its Prime Minister, Mr. Pujol. The Chief Minister of Lombardy was recently over in Cardiff. I do not whether the Secretary of State met him. I see that he is nodding.
The remarkable thing about all those motor regions with their respective headquarters in Milan, Grenoble Stuttgart and Barcelona, is that all their Chief Ministers' are accountable for their actions to the people who live in those regions. They are all directly elected. I often wonder how the conversation goes when Welsh Office Ministers meet those Chief Ministers. I was told that in Catalonia the local journalists were absolutely staggered when they found that this nice young man who had come over as Secretary of State for Wales was not elected by the people of Wales. They were puzzled by that and generally came to the conclusion, "Well, we would not allow that round here".
It is of concern that the Secretary of State's elective status and democratic accountability to the local population is entirely different from that of the local Prime Minister, Premier, Chief Minister, or whatever they are called, whom he meets through Welsh Office connections. He has nice perks and privileges such as going on lovely trips to Catalonia, where he shakes the hands and presses the flesh.
Mr. Walter Sweeney: If we were faced with the appalling reality of a Labour Government and if a Welsh Labour Member were good enough to be appointed to a major Cabinet office based in Westminster, would the hon. Gentleman deplore it? Does he accept that promotions in government should be made on merit and not because of where one's constituency happens to lie?
Mr. Morgan: I had to give way to the hon. Gentleman because he is my local Member of Parliament. If it were not for that, I probably would not have done so. His question is meaningless. The Secretary of State for Wales
1044
is the hired hand of No. 10 Downing street. He is not accountable to the people of Wales. If there is a fight over a Eurofreight terminal and the Secretary of State for Transport objects because he thinks that it will slow the process of rail privatisation—the big concern for the Government—the hired hand of No. 10 Downing street cannot fight and say, "I don't care whether it messes up that process; I want that Eurofreight terminal decided, determined, approved and up and running soon. I shall put together a grant package for Chunghwa Picture Tube, because if I don't, the people of Wales will vote me out of office at the next election." He cannot do that because he is someone who has his first foothold on the lowest rung of the slippery Cabinet ladder and is wondering when he is going to be promoted to what he would— probably—consider a proper mainstream Cabinet job.
Mr. Hague: I should like to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument to the next stage. If there were a Labour Government, presumably there would be a Secretary of State for Wales, unless the hon. Gentleman is planning to abolish the position. Would the Secretary of State for Wales in a Labour Government be chosen by the Prime Minister or by a popular vote in Wales?
Mr. Morgan: The office of Secretary of State for Wales would obviously be a Cabinet post.
Mr. Hague: Chosen by the Prime Minister?
Mr. Morgan: Yes, of course it would, but— [Interruption.] Sorry, that is not relevant. The point is that economic development would be the responsibility of the Welsh Assembly and whoever was the leader of it. If the right hon. Gentleman has not understood that, he has obviously not been reading Labour party policy documents as he claims to have been doing. If he wants to write to the Leader of the Opposition asking for clarification of certain proposals for devolution, he ought to read the documents first. Otherwise, he might be accused of wasting my right hon. Friend's time. Economic development and the funding of a Eurofreight terminal would clearly be matters for the Welsh Assembly, not for the Secretary of State for Wales. Has the right hon. Gentleman got that clear? Will he undertake not to write stupid letters to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition until he has read Labour's policy documents to at least O-level standard?
Mr. Dafis: I trust that the hon. Gentleman can assure us that any Secretary of State for Wales under a Labour Government would be a Member of Parliament from Wales. Is not the point that it would be absurd for the elected head of a regional Government—the Welsh Office is in effect a regional Government—not to represent a constituency in that region?
Mr. Morgan: It would not be worth while ever going back over the Severn bridge to Wales if we were to choose a Secretary of State for Wales who was not a Member of Parliament in Wales. I can give the hon. Gentleman absolute assurance on that. Although there might be many other things on which he may ask to be assured, we would be spoilt for choice on that front. There is no problem. The problem lies with the Conservatives because, much to our chagrin, they kept ignoring the right

1045
hon. Member for Conwy. They thought, for some strange reason, that he was not proper Cabinet material and instead they have chosen four successive Secretaries of State from English constituencies.
Of course the Government would not treat Scotland in the same way. None the less, they go on about second-class treatment for Wales. We have heard much about it in the debate. The Secretary of State has again written to the Leader of the Opposition asking, "Why are you giving second-class status to your Welsh Assembly?" Should the right hon. Gentleman not be looking for the beam in his own eye, considering that he is the fourth successive English-based Member of Parliament who has become Secretary of State for Wales?
Many commentators have said that even if the Conservative Government were down to only one Scottish Member, however appalling his quality, they would never dare choose an English Member as Secretary of State for Scotland. They are willing to try it on in Wales because it has been a long time since they ever had any expectation of political approval from the Welsh electorate. Indeed, they have not won a majority in Wales since the secret ballot was introduced 130 years ago. Perhaps they are right to give up trying it on with the Welsh.
I should have said earlier that my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) apologises for not being able to speak in the debate. He is with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who is on his way down to Wales for 24 hours and will be going to the scene of the Sea Empress tragedy tomorrow. When my right hon. Friend is spending a day in Wales, my hon. Friend must be with him.
We have been very interested in the Secretary of State's letter to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition because it is remarkably different from the Conservative party press release issued no more than eight months ago by the previous Secretary of State. Both letters carry the same banner of "Conservative Party News" and both purport to be careful, objective costings of Labour's assembly proposals.
In June, just before the right hon. Member for Wokingham took himself off in another direction—to the Back Benches—he said that Labour's assembly proposals were "very modest forecasts". He is a fellow of All Souls, like the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, so he obviously knows what he is talking about. He said that Labour's proposals for an assembly would cost £123 million.
However modest that forecast was, the Government must have been very successful in the fight against inflation in the past eight months because the present Secretary of State says:
"Labour's Assembly would cost £52 million".
The Secretary of State's assistants have been doing some serious work in Conservative party headquarters. If, eight months ago, the assembly was going to cost £123 million but, one day ago, £52 million, one wonders how seriously the Government expect be taken. How can two successive eminences, who are both Ministers and who both have the ability to call on assistance—not civil service assistance of course, although it is probably taxpayer-funded one way or another and done by the political advisers, and so on—estimate costs of a Welsh Assembly that vary in eight months by more than 60 per cent?
Nevertheless, the Secretary of State wants to be taken seriously. Indeed, he made that part of his speech. He said that he wanted answers to the questions that he has asked
1046
the Leader of the Opposition. The first thing that the right hon. Gentleman should have done is to say why he thinks that the previous Secretary of State's estimate was so wildly wrong. Then he should have said, "Okay, the previous Secretary of State was an absolute idiot. I am very sorry about that. I am going to have another go. Then we might get taken a quarter seriously."
The right hon. Gentleman should also have referred to the BBC estimate, which came out fairly recently. That does not come from a party political source—although I know that there are figures on the Conservative side who think that the BBC is a political party, or an adjunct to one. The BBC estimate was £25 million.
Then the Secretary of State should have asked the Prime Minister, "In all those interesting meetings you had with the Northern Ireland Members on Monday night when you were trying to get them into the Division Lobby with you, what was the estimate for the cost of the Downing street declaration Northern Ireland Assembly, by which you proposed to introduce a measure of democratic devolution in Northern Ireland, however the peace process eventually turns out in that Province?"
If one believes in provincial autonomy for Northern Ireland, presumably once accepts that it will cost money. Presumably, there will be big rows and differences of view about what sort of electoral system there should be. Although the Secretary of State seems to think that it is only in Wales that there is any possibility of a variation in views between political parties about the system for electing the parties involved in provincial devolution and autonomy, the same applies to Northern Ireland.
We are interested in knowing whether the Secretary of State has come across any estimates of the costs there. Will he answer that question, because we would like to know what costs are being worked on? I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will be able to answer, because before he asked us about costs, he should first have gone to the Library to find out how much Stormont cost in its last year of operation, 1972. He should then have asked the Library to uprate that figure by the increase in the retail prices index since then. What were Stormont's running costs in 1972, uprated to the 1996 equivalent? The Secretary of State would have found that the figure would be about £2.5 million.
From there, the right hon. Gentleman could work out how our assembly proposals would relate to the Stormont figures. Stormont is the only devolved assembly that the United Kingdom has ever had, so those figures are all that we have to go on. Obviously, there must be huge differences, but those figures should be the starting point, and we must try to relate our figures to them.
The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who represents yet another constituency east of the Severn bridge, asked, "What about the West Lothian question?" That was effectively answered by the Leader of the Opposition in his speech over the road in the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre a couple of weeks ago. Before answering the West Lothian question, the priority is to ask, "What about the Duke of Lothian question?"
Why is it considered logical for the Government to commit themselves to retaining the hereditary principle, which means that people who are not elected by anybody can vote in the House of Lords on Welsh business, Scottish business and English business? If this is all a big

1047
issue, that has to be sorted out first—and that is what Labour proposes to do. There is a package of constitutional reform, of which the Welsh proposals are only a part, and the Secretary of State must respond to it if he expects to be taken seriously.
The Opposition are open about the fact that we have different proposals for Scotland and for Wales. The right hon. Member for Wokingham, when he was Secretary of State, said that ours was a third-class proposal, but the present Secretary of State has uprated it to a second-class proposal. He probably does not understand the fact that the United Kingdom has an asymmetric pattern—a flexible and asymmetric constitution. That is what we are building on.
The Secretary of State certainly should not attempt to frighten the horses by saying that investment will not come to Wales if we have a Welsh Assembly. I do not know what that tells the people of Northern Ireland about what they will face if they have an elected autonomous provincial assembly there, as the Government propose. Will that frighten investment away from Northern Ireland, or is it only in Wales that that would happen if there were a measure of local democratic autonomy?
We keep being told that everyone in Wales will start squabbling, and that tribal conflicts will break out between north and south. "The assembly will be based in Cardiff," we hear. "Isn't that a terrible thing?" The idea of a Cardiff-based assembly is used as a sort of insult; I do not know what that says about the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), and his influence on his ministerial colleagues.
We have heard such statements before, although the Secretary of State will not have heard them. He is not old enough to remember Africa before Macmillan's "winds of change" speech, although he might have read about it. The language that he uses about Wales is exactly the sort of language that was spoken by white colonialists trying to discourage Nigeria, the Gold Coast or wherever from introducing any measure of freedom from the British colonialists. The right hon. Gentleman must realise that to us in Wales, such language spoken by him sounds deeply colonial.
There is a lesson there that applies to the Sea Empress disaster too, and we must learn it when we consider the environment. We welcome much of what the Secretary of State said about setting up extra response units in the Welsh Office, but we must tell him about the burning resentment that has been caused throughout south Wales, above all in Pembrokeshire, by the way in which the Sea Empress tragedy unfolded over several days, and changed from a minor incident to a major tragedy.
I know that the Secretary of State has been down to Milford Haven, and I am sure that anybody who goes there will detect the almost palpable sense of burning resentment about the fact that local expertise was ignored while "sea vultures" from the salvage companies, and perhaps jobsworths from the headquarters of the Secretary of State for Transport, made a muck-up of the whole thing by ignoring local expertise.
Until the result of the inquiry is known, we shall not know the truth for sure. I re-emphasise the strong support from those on the Labour Front Bench, not only from shadow Welsh Office Ministers but from everyone else
1048
too, for making the inquiry initiated by the Secretary of State for Transport a fully independent one, like the inquiry into the Braer disaster. Otherwise we shall never know whether further improvements are needed in our ways of trying to reconcile conservation of the environment with saving a ship and its oil cargo.
In Milford Haven, our methods do not seem to have worked. The chilling words of the pilot on board the Sea Empress—not the original pilot, but the one who went on board over the weekend—are recorded on tape. They were in all the newspapers, so I am not giving away any secret that should be revealed only to the inquiry. The pilot said something like, "I can see my way to take her clear out to sea now," and the harbourmaster called him back to tell him, "Yes, I agree with you, but I am in a room full of men telling me no."
Those are chilling words, and we want to know who those men in the room were. Most of them were probably acting with the authority of the Secretary of State for Transport. From that moment, things went horribly wrong. The Government cannot hide behind the salvage experts. The conversation between the pilot and the harbourmaster is public knowledge. The Government's handling of the whole affair has not covered them in glory.
The presence in Pembrokeshire of the Minister for Aviation and Shipping, Viscount Goschen, was not much help to the Government. His unofficial family motto, which he told journalists about when he was first appointed—
"Mr. Goschen has no notion of the ocean"—
has now come back to haunt him. Following the heroism of the man from the Chinese take-away, the people of Pembrokeshire now have a lot more faith in the Chinese waiter than in the chinless wonder.
That weekend, people in Wales felt that we had joined the third world. We were being treated as a colony. The authorities were going completely wrong, without listening to local experts, who were treated as people who knew nothing about Milford Haven and its workings. That was one of the major reasons why the affair became such a huge disaster, with environmental and economic consequences that may continue for decades.
Such treatment is common in many areas of Welsh life. This afternoon my local paper, the South Wales Echo —
Mr. Ainger: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend is saying. Does he accept that, irrespective of who was involved and where the blame lies—we hope that those facts will come out in full in an independent inquiry—my constituents and the many other people in Wales who have been directly affected, whether they are fishermen, involved in the tourist industry or whatever, will believe that they are being told the truth only if the inquiry is seen to be independent from the Department of Transport?
There is no question about the fact that officials and agencies of the Department of Transport were heavily involved in the salvage operation, or about the fact that Ministers did not implement the recommendations that Lord Donaldson made following the Braer inquiry. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the Government want a credible report that is well received, as the Donaldson

1049
report was—everyone, all political parties and both sides of industry, accepted it—they will achieve their aim only if the inquiry is independent?
Mr. Morgan: I could not agree more. It is absolutely essential that the inquiry should be independent so that the palpable, burning resentment of the people of Pembrokeshire, and, increasingly, those of Carmarthenshire and North Gower, about the consequences of the ill-fated tanker and the way in which its accident was mishandled can be assuaged and their faith restored. At the moment, those people have no faith whatsoever in the Government.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) will hate me for this, but I must take this opportunity to pay tribute to him for his remarkable work in trying to bring into the open the reasons why a minor incident turned into a massive tragedy. Given his experience at Milford Haven before he came to the House he is, in a way, a silver lining to this oil-based tragedy. We could not have a more qualified person as the Member of Parliament for Pembroke in these tragic circumstances.
I referred to the fear that we are, in some ways, becoming a third-world country. The headline in today's South Wales Echo —a local evening paper—refers to six elderly patients being moved from the Cardiff Royal infirmary to the Heath hospital—the University hospital of Wales—at 12.15 am because of the lack of beds at the infirmary. We thought that the crisis was temporary, occurring as it did after Christmas, and that the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards), who is to wind up the debate, had a plan to solve the emergency admissions crisis. In the early hours of this morning, however, six patients were asked whether they would agree to be moved to the University hospital of Wales because the infirmary had run out of beds in the accident and emergency unit.
That is an example of the reasons why I ask the Secretary of State to park his rose-coloured contact lenses at the Welsh Office. He can use them when he is on sales missions but not on the St. David's day debate, as this is the only opportunity that we have to discuss Welsh affairs objectively, frankly and honestly in the House so that our debate can be heard by the people of Wales. This is the day that we discuss the facts without the salesman's hype or the statistician's sleight of hand.
We, as Members of Parliament, are accountable to the people of Wales. That is why, should the Secretary of State have the opportunity to make this speech again, I beg him to do so without his rose-coloured contact lenses, and instead to tell the story as it really is, not as he thinks that it should be, according to the Conservative propaganda machine.
6.21 pm
Sir Wyn Roberts: I always enjoy the speeches of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), especially when he is on form, as he was today. His speech made compulsive listening. I shall refer to many of the points he made, but my speech will not follow directly from his.
I thought that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's speech was very rich in content. Indeed, I am not sure that I have been able to digest it all. We all welcome the radical reformist drive that he is clearly putting into a
1050
raft of policies—economic, educational and organisational. We also welcome the positive signs of his success in attracting inward investment, and in reducing the level of unemployment in Wales to that of the United Kingdom as a whole and keeping it there for some 18 months.
I appreciate that the tragedy of the Sea Empress is controversial. That is understandable, and I sympathise with the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger), who has had the responsibility of dealing with the brunt of the problems faced by his constituents. Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend announced a comprehensive list of measures in connection with the Sea Empress, and I am sure that they will be greatly welcomed by those affected.
I shall need to study my right hon. Friend's proposals with regard to the structural development scheme and local authorities, but clearly there is to be a devolution of responsibility to local authorities, which is a welcome move. The moves in connection with the European structural programme and the European social fund are also right, and very much in accordance with the evidence heard by the Select Committee when we were preparing our report on Wales and Europe.
This could be one of my last debates on Welsh affairs, unless such debates are held in other places—I do not mean the other place. I think of colleagues who sat on these Benches but who have passed on. If I mention some of them, I am sure that some hon. Members will be pleased to hear their names—I know that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) will be glad to hear the name of Alec Jones. When I think of my late colleague Michael Roberts, of Brynmor John, John Stradling Thomas and a small host of others, I cannot but believe that there is a very grand debating chamber somewhere in the hereafter where Wales is eternally dissected, examined, discussed and put together again.
Traditionally on this day, which is so close to St. David's day, we always make much of Wales's problems. I once heard the late Huw T. Edwards ask, "Where would Wales be without its problems?" He was a socialist, but a friend of mine, who, at the end of his life, joined Plaid Cymru. Most of us knew that the answer was implicit in the question—without its problems, Wales would be nowhere. Our problems are real enough, especially on occasions such as this, when state of the nation, or state of the constituency, speeches are the order of the day.
I have been thinking about the nation of Wales. We are, of course, very much a nation, but we are not a nation state. That is sometimes forgotten. As Members of Parliament, we rightly feel responsible for ensuring that the British state, which looks after the Welsh people's heritage from yesterday, their interests today and their hopes for tomorrow, looks after those interests properly.
Some of us hope that the British state, which covers all our nations—the Scots, the Northern Irish and the English, too—will be able to look after itself and will not lose so much sovereignty in the years ahead that it does not have the powers necessary to safeguard our diverse interests.
There is no doubt that developments in the European Union in recent years have been causing some concern. We joined the Common Market, but find ourselves on the path to economic and monetary union. Political union cannot be

1051
far behind. Some people regard that as a desirable goal; others do not. I must say that I am among the latter, and am extremely sceptical about the wisdom of concentrating so much European governmental power in so few hands, however benevolent their stated intentions.
Mr. Ainger rose —
Sir Wyn Roberts: I should like to continue for a moment.
The debate about the future of the European Union has had a powerful effect on our internal debate about the future of the United Kingdom. Proposals to devolve power to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have undoubtedly been given a fillip by the prospect of greater European union. The nationalists regard devolution optimistically as a chance to achieve greater independence within the United Kingdom and the European Union, while others may regard it as the ultimate defence against the overwhelming centralised power of the European Commission in Brussels, or wherever it may reside.
Mr. Llew Smith: I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman has raised the question of European union and its possible effects on Wales. Only a couple of weeks ago, he and I participated in a radio phone-in programme, when one of the questions related to that very point. I mentioned that the European Union treaties state that budget deficits must not exceed 3 per cent. of GDP, and that that would have a devastating effect on public expenditure. He denied that there was anything in the treaties to that effect. Has he had time to go through the treaties to find which of our interpretations was correct? If I am correct, could he tell the House what percentage cuts to public services in Wales would result?
Sir Wyn Roberts: I have not had an opportunity to chase up that point. I was relying on the hon. Gentleman to write to me to amplify it. It sounds like a reference to the convergence criteria and to what would happen if they were met.
There is a sense of inevitability about European developments, prompted by the fact that there is no alternative on offer except outright opposition. However, there is widespread popular scepticism not only in the United Kingdom but in the countries of the European Union, where people feel that they have been led into a shotgun wedding under the canopy of the convergence criteria. It may be that those developments will not come about, and I for one would not regret that.
The European argument has had a strong bearing on devolution. To judge by the latest opinion polls, there is a fair wind—that is all one can say, and they are only opinion polls—blowing behind the Opposition's proposals. However, as we have learnt again this afternoon, those proposals are shrouded in doubts, defects and disadvantages. The Conservative party must resist those proposals with all the strength it can muster, for the simple reason that they weaken the British nation state, which is still the best and most convincing embodiment of our nations' unity.
Our British nation state has served Wales well and fairly under successive Governments of different party political complexions. We tamper with its constitution at
1052
our peril. It seems that Opposition Members have not grasped that they are changing the direct line of responsibility in putting forward their devolution proposals. We know that the direct line of responsibility runs from this House, through Government and the people, but they propose an entirely different line of responsibility.
It has been said, and it was said again this afternoon, that the Government have conceded the principle of devolution in the recent consultative document that offered an assembly to Northern Ireland. The situation there is so different that most of us would be prepared to make almost any sacrifice, even one of principle, to secure peace and stability in the Province. But it is as well to remember that
"devolution was a necessary evil"
in the case of Northern Ireland. That quote is from a reputable historian, R. J. Lawrence, and his book "Tho Government of Northern Ireland". Stormont, after all, was only accepted by the Unionists in the 1920s as a guarantee that they would not be joined with the Republic without their consent. Stormont, which we abolished, has to take some of the blame for the present discontents.
Ulster had to endure one-party rule without an Opposition for a long time. That is precisely what the Labour party is prescribing for Wales under its devolution regime. I know that the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis), other Plaid Cymru Members and the leader of the Liberal Democrats, if he were here, would be crying out that the Labour party should change its proposals and allow proportional representation. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales pointed out, the Opposition are at variance in their attitude towards the election of assemblies in Scotland, Wales and elsewhere.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: While the right hon. Gentleman is talking about the history of these islands, their constitution and the role that his party has played in opposing constitutional reform over the years, will he take his mind to the history books and think about the situation 100 years ago, when his party was opposed to constitutional reform and devolution for Ireland as a whole? The Liberal party was then the major Opposition to the Conservative Government, and was proposing devolution for Ireland. Does he believe that devolution for Ireland was an obstacle to the unity of the United Kingdom, or would it have helped to maintain the unity of these islands as they were then constituted?
Sir Wyn Roberts: We would need an entire day's debate to tackle that issue. It has already been said that many of those arguments have been heard before. We have been through a great many of the devolution arguments. People went through all the arguments about federalism and anti-federalism in the United States before it was formed into a union. Pretty well all the arguments were covered then. They were covered again in various parts of Europe. History has not proved that devolution of any sort for Ireland has been a success; otherwise, we would not be in the position that we are in today.
Opposition Members have talked a great deal about the democratic deficit in Wales under the present Government. By the same token, if they were elected to government, we would have not only a democratic surplus

1053
but what I would call a demagogic surplus. We would have rule by party caucus—we are already beginning to get a taste of that—and, of course, their commissar leaders.
Mr. Cynog Dafis: It is important to distinguish between the Northern Ireland and Welsh situations. Whereas, in Northern Ireland, domination by one party was underpinned by the sectarian nature of Irish politics, which made that sort of continual distinction between two parties and domination by one inevitable over a long period, there is no reason to believe that the same situation would exist in Wales.
I entirely agree that the Labour party's proposals are seriously flawed and their insistence on first past the post is a disgrace, but it would be a mistake for the Labour party in Wales to imagine that, even under that system, their total domination of politics in Wales would continue ad infinitum. They would be seriously misled if they believed that to be the case.
Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There was one-party rule in Northern Ireland for so long because the Opposition stayed away, in spite of the fact that there was proportional representation. I agree that Wales is different in that respect, and it is most unlikely that hon. Members elected to represent minor parties would keep away from an assembly.
Of course the people of Wales want to feel the proximity of Government, and the Government want them to feel that they are close to them. That is the way in which I regard my right hon. Friend's proposals to enhance the role of the Welsh Grand Committee. Some hon. Members are for ever talking about the "powers" of that Committee. It is not meant to have powers under our system. [Laughter] The hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) laughs, which shows the extent to which he fails to understand the parliamentary system. The power rests with the Executive. The power of Parliament, as expressed through its various Committees, is to keep a check on the Executive.
The Welsh Grand Committee should certainly be the voice of Wales to the Government. The Government always listen, but their response must be their own, in the light of circumstances, resources available and so forth. That will always be the position, whatever form of government we have.
Listening, as I occasionally do, to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies)—I am sorry that he is not in his place, but we know where he is—one would think that all decision-making in the assembly would be a smooth continuum, rather like a fudge-making factory. We all know that easy decisions can be made that way, but tough decisions have to be made by an accountable individual— in our case, the Secretary of State.
We all know that the quality of government in Wales and the drive behind policies and initiatives depend on the Secretary of State. He has shown that in his speech this afternoon—just as the thrust of government in the United Kingdom depends on my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. There is no escaping that responsibility—not that either of my right hon. Friends would want to do so.
I am intrigued by what we have heard about the relationship between the assembly and the new local authorities. Will they really be under the thumb of the
1054
assembly in the allocation of resources? If so, it is a recipe for further conflict. We know that we will have a conflict between the assembly and this place over its allocation of funds, but to have a further major conflict between the directly elected local authorities and an assembly is total nonsense, as I implied in the debate on local government finance.
My strongest objection to the devolutionary proposals is that they will be a time and effort-wasting distraction from the main task facing the Welsh people, which is to raise their standard of living and quality of life. We really must lessen our dependence on the rest of the United Kingdom. That means galvanising ourselves to secure the maximum inward investment and indigenous growth. We have come a long way—I do not think that anyone here would deny that—but we still have a great distance to go: we are all agreed on that. We are all agreed on the importance of inward investment.
Of course, we cannot win them all. We shall lose some projects because there are greater attractions elsewhere. I will not pursue the Chunghwa case, but there is not much doubt that there was a fine site in Lanarkshire, which is, after all, proximate to Ravenscraig. I am sure that the Scots did everything possible, and put everything they had into getting Chunghwa, as we would have done had Llanwern been closed instead of Ravenscraig.
I read the economic case put by the hon. Member for Caerphilly for a Welsh assembly. It is well written, but it has to be, because the case is so weak. He sets great store by the familiar themes that we have been hammering on about for a long time—partnership and a consensus. The implication is that those will be the natural by-products of the assembly. I am far from convinced that they will be. Certainly there is no guarantee that they will. I fear that the outcome will be increased divisiveness, with one area pitched against another, and we will all lose in the long run.
The document refers to the four motor regions— all with far greater populations than Wales, and with a curious lack of respect for their national capitals and national Governments, amounting on some occasions to real distrust. The Welsh view of Whitehall is different from the views of Rome that one will find in Milan. I played some small part in linking Wales with those leading regions of Europe, and I did so with the full-hearted support of the British Government. Without that support, our partnerships could never have developed as successfully as they have done, and Wales would never have had its unique foothold in Europe.
I returned this morning from Baden-Württemberg, where the unemployment rate is the same as ours. They face a relatively difficult time and are concentrating their minds on getting through it. That is what Wales ought to be doing—concentrating on our economic future and prosperity. Our economic circumstances are propitious and our prospects excellent while the Government remain in office. We have low inflation and falling interest rates and unemployment, and our businesses are improving their competitiveness. That is a position much envied by our European partners.
So this is not the time, and I do not see the time arriving in the next few years, when we should be diverted into costly, internal, constitutional wrangling. On the other hand, it must be the time to try to eliminate that disparity of incomes to which the hon. Member for Cardiff, West

1055
referred, which grieves me as much as it does him. We want to eliminate that disparity of incomes between Wales and other parts of the United Kingdom, and the best way to do so is by getting more and better jobs in the Principality. I hope that the Government will nail their colours firmly to the mast of further economic development and better education and training in Wales. We shall then see the Opposition disappear into the limbo where they belong.
6.49 pm
Mr. Ray Powell: It is a privilege to be one of the first Opposition Members to be called, especially after 12 years in the Whip's Office. At one time, the occupant of the Chair would place severe restrictions on Whips. No Whip—junior or senior—would be called to speak and Whips would be frowned on if they attempted to intervene. That has changed and Whips are now allowed to speak from the Front Bench and stand at the Dispatch Box. They can ask questions and intervene. The years that some of us served in the Whips office undoubtedly restricted our opportunities to speak in the Chamber. I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—and Madam Speaker—will bear that in mind in future when I seek to catch your eye.
I know that some of my hon. Friends have much to say, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger), who would like to discuss the disaster in his constituency, so I shall not detain the House unduly.
It is a privilege for me to follow the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts). When he was a Minister, he co-operated with Members representing Welsh constituencies and tried to help us solve our problems. I hope that today will not be his last Welsh day debate. If there is not an election before this time next year, I hope to hear him speak again.
When the right hon. Gentleman referred to the other place I thought that someone had been whispering in his ear. Undoubtedly, there is a place down the corridor where we will be able to meet him and talk to him in future years. I am sure that it will be a long time before some of us will meet him in another place high above here—and there are one or two who may not have that opportunity.
I agree with the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) regarding his appointment as Secretary of State for Wales. I am sure that he would have received overwhelming support from the Opposition had he been afforded that opportunity.
Mr. Paul Murphy: My hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) are both distinguished sons of Wales with a long, proud sense of history. Do they agree that, as 1997 is the 100th anniversary of the birth of Aneurin Bevan, the local district hospital, Neville hall in Abergaveny, should be named after the modern founder of the health service?
Mr. Powell: I agree entirely, as will my hon. Friends and some Conservative Members, who in all probability will have enjoyed what was introduced in 1947. I look forward to seeing the bust that will be placed in the House of Commons, as will all hon. Members who supported
1056
Nye Bevan and share his views and opinions. I am one of his converts. He more or less introduced me to the socialist ideals that are shared by a number of my colleagues.
This year, our annual debate on Welsh affairs is on the eve of the celebrations of St. David's day. I have attended almost every year since I was elected and I have participated several times—whenever I have been fortunate enough to catch the eye of the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker. Sometimes that has proved difficult because I am short and most other Members are taller than I am. On one occasion, when another Deputy Speaker, who I shall not name, deliberately did not call me because I was a Whip, I decided to stand on the Bench and wave my Order Paper in the hope that I would catch his eye. By the end of the debate, I had not managed to catch his eye and I did not deliver my speech. When I asked him in the Tea Room why he had not called me he said, "I am very sorry Ray, but I did not see you." I replied, "How could you not see me when I was the only one on the Opposition Benches?". That was the attitude taken towards Whips at the time.
Despite the statement by the Secretary of State for Wales on local authorities, my local authority—which I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths)—has expressed grave concern about the difficulties of meeting the responsibilities of both the Ogwr borough authority and Mid Glamorgan county council in Bridgend. I asked the Secretary of State about the revenue support grant for Bridgend and received a reply from the Minister. I have three specific questions for him tonight. If he cannot answer them when he replies to the debate, perhaps he will give me a written answer that I can pass on to the council.
First, does the Secretary of State for Wales realise that, as a result of a settlement that, for the first time, is based on a reorganised local government system in Wales, which was not requested by the Opposition, but introduced by the Government, council tax payers in Bridgend will face an increase in council tax of some 36.8 per cent. and, at the same time, suffer real reductions in services? Meanwhile, council tax payers in the Aberconwy and Colwyn unitary authority will enjoy council tax increases of only 1.1 per cent. How can the Secretary of State justify such differences in council tax bills arising out of a reorganisation that was meant to provide improved services more efficiently?
Secondly, Aberconwy and Colwyn are allowed to increase expenditure by 5.2 per cent. with a resultant increase in council tax of only 1.1 per cent. while Bridgend is allowed to increase expenditure by 4.4 per cent. yet impose a council tax increase of 36.8 per cent. How can the Secretary of State justify those differences to council tax payers in Bridgend?"
Thirdly, the increase in needs assessment for Bridgend at 1.2 per cent. compares with Cardiganshire at 4.8 per cent., Aberconwy and Colwyn at 4 per cent., Denbigh at 4 per cent. and Pembrokeshire at 4 per cent. In setting the increase for Bridgend at 1.2 per cent., the Secretary of State for Wales is showing a complete disregard for the needs of the people who are covered by a new unitary authority in its first year. How can he justify such a wide range of increases in the needs assessment and how is it that the four successor unitary authorities out of the

1057
former Mid Glamorgan county council have fared so badly when the county council was recognised as being the poorest in England and Wales?
I share the concern about the Rhondda Cynon Taff council area, as my constituency covers part of that area as well as Bridgend. I sympathise with both constituencies in relation to revenue support. The newly elected councillors of Bridgend county council have expressed concern because they will not be able to give their electors the facilities that they had under the Ogwr borough due to lack of financial support from the Welsh Office. Is it fair that our constituents are funding the reorganisation of local government that was imposed on them by the Government when all Welsh councils opposed it?
I shall refer to the Secretary of State's comments about devolution before he leaves the Chamber. I have spent most of my life in the Labour movement and we discussed devolution in the early 1970s. I chaired a committee on devolution for the Welsh Labour party and for 10 years we discussed and developed our policies on it. In 1977, I was the chairman of the Labour party conference in Llandudno which adopted a document that was for devolution, which the Labour Government agreed to implement. All that work, discussion and disagreement was no different from what the Secretary of State suggested is at present being discussed in the Welsh group.
I do not know who the Secretary of State's informer is, but the Welsh group does not mind what information is passed to him about our discussions because they are quite open. Frankly, we have disagreed with our colleagues on devolution since we started to discuss it. However, devolution meant success for one of our members: he became a right hon. Member, was elected to the national executive of the Labour party, was elected to leader of the Labour party, lost an election and then was compensated by receiving a position as a commissioner in Europe. We do not mind that—that is politics.
Those of us who have spent our lifetime trying to have devolution for Wales will still argue in the Welsh group and in this Chamber, and in all probability try to reverse the problems and difficulties the Labour Government had in 1977 and onwards when they tried to introduce devolution and were stopped in this House. We might still fail, but I believe that now the people of Wales are prepared to have a change in government. When the policy for devolution is finalised it will be accepted by the electorate and introduced.
Today I received a number of letters from constituents about last Monday's debate on, and the result of, the Scott report. I received a letter regarding the Prime Minister's declaration yesterday that there had been no deals with the Irish Members before the vote on Monday. The letter suggested that it was passing strange, to say the least, that only one of the Irish political parties, the Ulster Democratic Unionist Party, abstained. The letter also said that an inquiry should be set up by the Speaker to ensure that the House was not misled and that the Members of the minority party who abstained were aware of the debate and understood the consequences of essential voting.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of the House for many years, and he will remember that this evening's debate is about Welsh affairs. I am having some difficulty
1058
relating what he is saying about a minority party from Northern Ireland to Welsh affairs, but perhaps he is about to make his point.
Mr. Powell: I am glad that you interrupted me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I was about to say that hon. Members might be asking what this has to do with the debate on Welsh affairs. The issue is the standing of politicians generally. My constituents have expressed alarm that all the sleaze and Ministers misleading Parliament will dissuade a large percentage of people from voting. This concerns me, and the consequences of the disillusionment of the electors should concern all hon. Members— especially as we shall shortly be fighting to retain our seats.
Those of us with majorities to worry about and who are vulnerable to the swings of electors could find ourselves with a new Government, elected by persons misled by the Government, the press, the opinion pollsters and others who might have a vested interest in misleading. I recommend that all hon. Members read The Daily Telegraph's editorial on Irish deals today. The people of Wales have consistently trusted Labour councillors; in addition, of the 38 constituencies in Wales, 27 are held by Labour.
I shall comment on the contribution by the Secretary of State for Wales in this week's "The House Magazine"— I am sorry that he has left the Chamber—which had a special feature on Wales. The article set out the main political parties' attitude to the country and asked leading parliamentarians what it means to be Welsh. I will not make a meal of the fact that the Secretary of State is not Welsh—we all realise that this disability is not entirely his fault.
The Secretary of State for Wales is a Tory, he represents an English constituency in Richmond, Yorkshire, and he is not Welsh—that is an absolute disaster for Wales and its people. Some people might promote his attributes—he is a nice guy, very amiable and there is always a smile on his face. However, there are a number of prominent politicians of all political persuasions whose smiles are a lot larger than their hearts.
I shall comment on the right hon. Gentleman's contribution in "The House Magazine", entitled "A New Sense of Confidence". He claims that business leaders have praised our economy and our work force, and have decided to come to Wales—he then rightly lists the number of firms that have come to the Principality. He states:
"These firms don't come here out of kindness, they come because we offer low taxes, light regulation, and secure access to UK and European markets."
When asked to explain the reasons for success in Wales, the Secretary of State quipped:
"a question that would never have been asked in the 1970s".
As a member of old Labour, I remind the young man that the rich rewards about which he boasts are the direct result of the Labour Government's efforts in the 1970s when the Ford and Sony plants were established in Bridgend and in my constituency. Many other factories and industrialists came to Bridgend in the 1970s. The Secretary of State may say that those questions were not asked in the 1970s, but they were and that is why those factories are in Wales today. Investors are prepared to come to Wales because they can see the benefits that have accrued to those factories that were established there in the 1970s.

1059
The Secretary of State boasts that unemployment in Wales is in line with the United Kingdom average. I remind him that, when I was elected to represent the constituency of Ogmore in 1979, unemployment in the Bridgend catchment area was 3 per cent: 1 per cent. of that number were unemployable because they were silicotic and pneumoconiotic miners and ex-miners; 1 per cent. were involved in the building industry and they were chasing and changing jobs; and 1 per cent. were not seeking work. There was virtually full employment in my constituency at that time. However, within five years of the return of a Tory Government, seven collieries— employing 8,500 miners—closed. Between 8,000 and 10,000 workers from the Margam steel works were made redundant. After only five years of Tory Government, 20 per cent. of workers in the Bridgend catchment area were made redundant.
We want to see better pay and job security in Wales. Workers must enjoy more protection under recognised union agreements and they should not be threatened with the sack if they attend hospital appointments, for example. People are working part-time for peanuts in order to repay student loans—those with degrees cannot find real jobs.
The Secretary of State boasts also about improved water quality under the stewardship of Dru Cymru. However, he failed to mention the costs that are borne by Welsh Water users. Anyone who reads the article in "The House Magazine" might assume that the "new sense of confidence" about which the Secretary of State writes was achieved within his first few months at the Welsh Office. Much research has been done into Welsh Water. I have a document entitled "Waterfacts about Welsh Water", which examines its profits, perks and pay. Welsh Water achieved a dividend of £28,100,000 in 1990–91, which escalated to £49,600,000 in 1994–95. That is an increase of £21,500,000 or 77 per cent.
In conclusion, it is not a question of confidence—as the Secretary of State writes in "The House Magazine"—but a lack of confidence on the part of the Welsh people. They have no confidence in retaining their jobs, in economic growth, the health service, the education system, housing, law and order or in the fight against drugs. Above all, they have no confidence in the Government. Labour will fight to win for Wales and for all the people of the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State for Wales should spend some time in his constituency unless he wishes to share the experience that his Government have forced upon thousands: the humiliation of unemployment.
7.14 pm
Mr. Walter Sweeney: I am pleased to have the opportunity to celebrate St. David's day a day early by talking about some of the achievements in Wales and about our hopes for the future.
Developments in or near the Vale of Glamorgan in recent years exemplify the exciting enterprise culture that has developed in Wales. I shall give a few examples. The Ford and Sony plants near Bridgend and the Bosch plant in the rural vale near the M4 are examples of the inward investment that has been encouraged by lower rates of corporation and income tax, low inflation, a stable work force and the much lower social costs of labour in Wales compared with many other European countries.
1060
During a visit to Stuttgart a few months ago, I talked to a senior Bosch employee who had managed the plant in Wales. He said that Bosch's success in the Vale of Glamorgan was due mainly to the relative lack of red tape in Wales compared with Germany. With the active assistance of the Welsh Development Agency and local planners, Bosch designed and built its plant in the vale in half the time that it would have taken in Germany. The speed with which the plant reached productive capability helped to provide Bosch with a return on its capital investment significantly sooner than would have been possible in Stuttgart.
The unavoidable social costs of German labour mean that the cost of employing a top quality work force is much greater than in the vale. The Government's steadfast refusal to adopt the social chapter means that we will retain that competitive advantage—while the Conservatives remain in power. The Bosch factory in the vale remains competitive also because it is allowed to move raw materials and manufactured goods seven days a week, instead of being restricted by lorry bans at weekends. As a result of the flexible shifts worked by Bosch personnel in the vale, productivity can be readily adjusted to meet demand—unlike the system in Stuttgart and certainly unlike the bad old days under the last Labour Government, which encouraged restrictive practices and the loss of many working days through strikes.
Mr. Win Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why Sony and Ford came to the Bridgend area when Labour Governments were in power?
Mr. Sweeney: I did not suggest that the Welsh environment was totally hostile to investment under a Labour Government. However, I do suggest that the changes that have occurred in the past 17 years have produced a climate that is more conducive to inward investment.
Further exciting investment has come to the vale recently. The British Airways maintenance base, which was opened by the Prince of Wales, is providing high-tech jobs and is making a valuable contribution to the local economy. RAF St. Athan has civilianised many jobs.
Mr. Michael: I am intrigued by the hon. Gentleman's references to Bosch and to British Airways. As he has been in the vale for only a short time, perhaps he is not aware of the leading role played by the local authorities— particularly South Glamorgan county council—in bringing those jobs to the area. Secretaries of State have paid tribute to their work and I think that the hon. Gentleman should follow suit.
Mr. Sweeney: I am certainly happy to pay tribute to local authorities that have taken advantage of the climate provided by the Conservative Government to attract inward investment. Vale of Glamorgan borough council, which for most of my time in south Wales has been under Conservative control, has certainly been helpful. I hope that the new Vale of Glamorgan council will continue to take advantage of the enterprise culture and continue to encourage further investment in the Vale of Glamorgan.
Mr. Llew Smith: I was interested by the hon. Member's earlier comments, which seemed to imply that the number of days lost through strikes under the Labour

1061
Government had a devastating effect on the economy. Would the hon. Gentleman care to compare the number of days lost through strikes under the Labour Government with the number of days lost through unemployment under the Conservative Governments since May 1979? The days lost through unemployment have had a devastating effect on the economy. I believe that 500 million days have been lost in Wales through unemployment.
Mr. Sweeney: The hon. Gentleman is not comparing like with like. There is simply no comparison between the number of days lost through strikes under the Labour Government and the number of days lost through strikes under the Conservative Government. As for the considerable increase in unemployment that has taken place, clearly many people under the Labour Government did not do a fair day's work for a fair day's pay. Much of industry was grossly inefficient and uncompetitive.
Mr. Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Sweeney: I cannot keep on giving way.
The British Airways maintenance base, which was opened by the Prince of Wales, is providing high-tech jobs and making a valuable contribution to the local economy. RAF St. Athan has civilianised many jobs and has maintained the competitive edge necessary to retain valuable contracts against the challenge of competitive tendering.
I regret the recently announced loss of driver training jobs at St. Athan, but I accept the economic arguments of my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces for centralising driver training at Leconfield. I believe that RAF St. Athan will continue to thrive in a competitive environment.
Cardiff international airport is going from strength to strength since it was taken over by TVI plc. Since the takeover, substantial investment in the airport has already been made and much more is in the pipeline. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made one of his regular visits to the Vale to open a new visitor reception lounge at the airport, which is the envy of terminal two at Heathrow.
In Barry docks, Associated British Ports, in close co-operation with the Welsh Development Agency, and the Vale council—if the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) had waited, he would have heard me pay tribute to the local authority—has exciting plans for the regeneration of that important part of Barry.
Of course, the prosperity of Wales depends not only on new development, but on the expansion and success of existing firms. I recently visited Dow Corning to see the progress on expansion there. The new Genesis plant will provide about 200 new jobs, many of them highly skilled. Welsh Water and Dow Corning will co-operate on a new water treatment plant to reduce dramatically pollution into the Cadoxton river. Welsh Water is also building a new sewage treatment works at Cog Moor, which will be very welcome to all my constituents, but especially to those who enjoy water sports. They will benefit from a big improvement in the quality of sea water in the Bristol channel.
Mr. Llew Smith: The hon. Member said that, under Labour, many working people did not do a fair day's work for a fair day's pay. Would he care to mention those Welsh workers who cheated their employers at that time?
Mr. Sweeney: I do not understand the question.
As important as the big firms in Wales are the small firms from which bigger firms grow.
Mr. Smith: Let me have another go.
Mr. Sweeney: I think that the hon. Gentleman has had quite enough goes for one afternoon.
Last week, I enjoyed visiting the Lion laboratories in Barry where sophisticated equipment is manufactured, at very high levels of quality control, for the provision of breath-testing equipment. The flexibility of the 96 Lion employees in Barry, a significant proportion of whom have masters or higher level degrees, is such that they are able to produce different equipment to meet the exacting requirements of various countries, as well as supplying almost all the police forces in Britain with roadside screening devices and evidential devices for use at police stations.
I warmly welcome the commitment by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to fund the design stage of the proposed new link road between Culverhouse Cross and Cardiff international airport, a scheme for which I have pressed him and his predecessors for the past four years. I have just had a meeting with TVI plc at which we stressed the fundamental economic importance of the new road for the airport and the surrounding business sites. I emphasise that not only the airport but the whole of Barry—especially the docks and industrial complex nearby—will benefit from better communications. I therefore ask my right hon. Friend to give a commitment to the House that after the design stage has been completed, the Welsh Office will provide funding for the construction stage so that that vital project can come to fruition.
I hope that the few examples that I have had time to give, of successful and exciting business developments in my part of Wales, will help to counter the usual messages of doom and gloom that we have heard from the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). I seriously suggest to him that—instead of running Wales down by constantly harping on about the gross domestic product per head in Wales being lower than that of the United Kingdom or about lost jobs in twilight industries—he should break the habits of a political lifetime and talk up the achievements of the Welsh people instead of talking them down.
Wales has done well relative to the rest of United Kingdom and relative to other parts of Europe in recent years. In this St. David's day debate, let us send out from the House a message of confidence and hope for the future.
7.26 pm
Mr. Alan W. Williams: I wish to comment, in this annual Welsh debate, on two big problems that worry my constituents. One is the state of the education service and the other is the recent Sea Empress disaster.

1063
I attended the Secretary of State's budget statement on 13 December and I have been present for Welsh questions and the debate on local government. Continually, the Government line is that the settlement is very generous and 3.1 per cent. above last year's rate support grant settlement. Of course, there is a deep difference between the Government and us about their interpretation of the statistics on planned expenditure and outturn expenditure. Outturn expenditure is higher than the current RSG settlement.
The arguments that we have had in the House have been rather academic for people back home. The reality of the settlement, which is increasingly hitting parents and teachers at schools, is that it is severely stringent.
The new Carmarthenshire county council—my local authority—will be faced with a 17 per cent. increase in council tax and, at the same time, a 3.7 per cent. cut across the board in all local authority expenditure. People will not be able to understand why the council tax is going up by about £100 a household and, at the same time, social services, highways and—especially—education are suffering cuts. The cuts come after 17 years of regular stringency in the education budget which has faced many cuts before.
In Carmarthenshire over the decades, we have given a high priority to education and I have been proud of our educational attainment. The league tables—not that we attach complete credibility to those numbers—show that the secondary schools in my constituency compare very well with those in the rest of Wales and are substantially better than the average for England and Wales. There are many good schools in my constituency. Rural schools tend to be good, whether they are English medium, Welsh medium or bilingual. There are excellent schools, but they are working under severe handicaps in terms of class sizes, quality of buildings and additional resources such as laboratory equipment, for example.
I have received about 15 or 20 letters on education matters over the past few weeks. First, I shall refer to a letter from the head teacher of Llandovery comprehensive school. He wrote to tell me that his is a small rural comprehensive school that faces cuts of between 2.4 and 4.0 teachers. In other words, three or four teachers will have to lose their jobs. That is based on a cut of 3.7 per cent. This head teacher sent me a league table of all the comprehensive schools in Carmarthenshire. It reveals that in some areas three, four, five or six teachers may have to lose their jobs. In Amman valley, eight may lose their jobs.
Mr. Gareth Wardell: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Audit Commission set out the position clearly a couple of years ago in its publication entitled "Adding Up the Sums"? School governing bodies are faced with the choice that my hon. Friend has described so clearly. That is the choice of sacking teachers or not paying them the increments that they should receive every year. That is the dilemma that Government expenditure controls are imposing on governing bodies.
Mr. Williams: Absolutely. There is a problem for all schools in finding people who are willing to be governors. If there is a positive pattern of growth, expansion and
1064
investment for the future, and at the same time the creation of a better atmosphere and better opportunities for children, everyone will want to be part of it. When there is regular cost cutting and it is necessary to choose areas in which to impose cuts, the role is distressing and governors become pessimistic.
Tregib comprehensive school is near Llandeilo. A governor set out the options that face the school, which are the loss of four teachers, a reduction in the choice of subjects, reduced support for special needs, increased class sizes and a threat to peripatetic teachers.
Llanarthne primary school has 58 pupils. It will have 2.8 teachers instead of 3.0 teachers. It is a three-class, rural primary school and for one teacher there will be only a four-day-a-week salary. The way in which the cuts will have to be met can be described only as incredible.
The cuts that I have described will damage children's futures. Given that they will be imposed in addition to the cuts of previous years, it is clear that education is not safe in Conservative hands. Equally, it is apparent that our children's futures are not safe in the Government's hands.
My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) has done enormous work over the past two weeks in response to the Sea Empress disaster. My constituency is the next one up, as it were, and the oil slick is affecting Carmarthen bay and Pendine sands. It will have an effect on the tourism industry in my constituency.
I was brought up in Dyfed. I saw the oil industry develop during my early years in the 1960s and 1970s in Milford Haven. It is a natural deep-water harbour. There was concern about the development in the 1960s because it was taking place in a rich environment. We were reassured, however, that with modern technology there would not be major disasters. We were told that there would be occasional oil spills, but that with booms and recovery equipment the spills would be controllable.
The record of the 1970s and 1980s was relatively good. It is surprising, however, that the international transport of oil has had a worsening safety record over the past 10 years when all other forms of transport have had improving records. Numbers of road transport accidents and deaths fall year by year. The safety record of air transport is improving. There are only a few rail transport incidents. I do not understand why the record of oceanic transportation of oil is becoming worse.
I appreciate, of course, that there are international problems. We have flags of convenience and Russian crews, for example. I do not understand why we cannot formulate better international regulations and arrive at better co-operation so that, for example, when a vessel is in British waters at least one person on board can speak English. That was one of the recommendations of the Donaldson report. Indeed, that seems elementary.
With modern navigation aids, how did the Sea Empress disaster happen? I understand that the latest radar equipment was not functional for the past six months. As the disaster took place at low tide, or as the tide was going out, was it an example of cost cutting on the part of the tanker's captain? Was he trying to get into port rather than wait for the next high tide, which would have been six hours later? Was he in a short-cut manoeuvre in working against the clock? My third question—
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Williams: I am sorry, but I shall not allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene. Time is against me. I know that Opposition Members want to be disciplined in the use of time.
There were delays between the Thursday evening and the Monday. It is incredible that the tanker was stranded for four days and unable to be refloated. It is especially surprising that it was unable to be refloated on the Saturday, when the weather was calm. Wales played Scotland that afternoon at Cardiff Arms park and my concentration was there. It was a still, wonderful day. The availability of tugs has to be examined.
The Sea Empress is an example of massive vessels carrying enormous cargoes. Going back about 25 years, my reading has told me that a second hull is an obvious safety measure. I understand that the United States will not allow oil tankers into its ports unless they are double hulled. If that is the case in the United States, why not in Pembrokeshire, in Milford Haven and in Europe generally? It should certainly be the position in Pembrokeshire, which is an area of especially high nature conservation value.
Dispersants help to get oil out of sight but their toxicity is a problem. I wonder sometimes, especially given the geographical position of Pembrokeshire, whether it would not be better to let nature take its course. In mid-winter, there are strong winds and rough seas—those are the conditions in March, April and May for example—and given western approaches the oil will be washed into the oceans gradually without the aid of dispersants. I recognise, of course, the argument that is mounted on behalf of oiled sea birds.
The Secretary of State spoke earlier about compensation. I ask that the Government provide every possible mechanism to ensure that 100 per cent. compensation is provided for fishermen, for the clean-up costs and for the effects on the tourist industry that are bound to materialise over the next few months and possibly during the next year. I understand that compensation payments for the Braer incident cost about £70 million. The capped funds available for this incident may not be enough. If they are not, the Government and the oil industry must work on that. If the oil industry wants a good future in Pembrokeshire, as a good neighbour it must from its own resources and on the polluter pays principle find 100 per cent. compensation for the losses. When we look at its turnover—it is a multi-billion dollar industry—£100 million is not an enormous amount.
We must, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke has argued vigorously and consistently since day one of the incident, have a full and open public inquiry. Recall Donaldson. An internal inquiry just will not satisfy the local people. We want to know exactly why the incident on that Thursday evening happened, why it took four days to refloat the tanker and why during that time we turned what was a problem into a catastrophe.
7.40 pm
Mr. Martyn Jones: I shall speak briefly about the effects of the revenue support grant on services for my constituents and on the local authority
1066
areas that are being formed from Clwyd. Unfortunately, I was unable to speak in the revenue support grant debate. Following it, during Welsh Questions on 19 February, I asked a question of the Secretary of State for Wales. I pointed out that, during the past two years, 411 teachers had gone from the Clwyd area but the number of pupils had grown by 710. I asked what he would say to the parents of pupils in my constituency. He did not tell me, but he said that I had not voted against the revenue support grant. I must put on record the fact that I was unable to attend the debate because I was in Brussels, on a day trip, on Select Committee business. I can assure the House that it was quite gruelling. We talked to Franz Fischler, the Agriculture Commissioner, about problems in agriculture which affect my area. There were three Tories with me who also did not vote—in their case for the revenue support grant—so I was on a winner there in terms of numbers.
The Chancellor's Budget last year assumed a freeze on local authority spending in 1996–97. All the signs are that, after the Budget, the situation is worse. His verdict on the settlement was that pay and price increases should be offset—or more than offset—by efficiency savings and other economies. How often have we heard that one? It takes no account of local authority associations' demand for a cash increase of 13 per cent. just to maintain services and cope with the growing demographic and legislative pressures of community care, rising pupil numbers, the new landfill tax and maintaining local roads. It is hard to see how local authorities in Wales will survive within the Government's capping limits.
In my constituency, the county borough council of Wrexham faces an additional burden—the costs and difficulties of coping with the effects of local government reorganisation. It and other councils in Wales face a very difficult year in 1996–97.
We all remember the Tory fiasco at the most recent local government elections. It is upsetting and frustrating to think that the Government's continuing cuts to local authorities may in part be due to their almost total lack of representation at that level of government. When a Government have become so distant from the people that they are prepared continually to slash local funding, in the knowledge that it will badly damage public services, it is dishonourable for them to cling to power. A grant settlement sufficient to prevent damage to our public services is vital.
I mentioned the horrendous cut in the number of teachers, which has resulted in an increase in class sizes in the Clwyd area—now Flintshire, Denbighshire and Wrexham, the new unitary authorities. I point out to hon. Members that, in future, I intend to use the word "Scottism", the dictionary definition of which will be: an example of Government incompetence wrapped up in layers of doublespeak, contradiction and paradox, with an abundant supply of Ministers reinterpreting the meaning of words to suit the occasion. An example of a Scottism is when a Government refuse to acknowledge "sophism" as the dictionary definition of a downright lie.
Examples of Scottisms are, as is to be expected, abundant in the Welsh Office, particularly in education. As I have said, we have 400 fewer teachers in Clwyd and an extra 700 pupils, yet we are supposed to believe that we have been given an increase in education funding.

1067
Another concern is the nursery voucher scheme and its specific impact in Wales. There has been plenty of rhetoric from the Welsh Office but little in the way of hard facts and figures. How much will really be taken from each local authority to pay for the scheme? Do not the Government realise that nursery education—thanks to Labour authorities in Wales—is already provided by more than 90 per cent. of local authorities in Wales, and that the changeover to nursery vouchers will disrupt the system? The Welsh already pride themselves on nursery provision. A classic Scottism is the use of the word "nursery" in this case because, as Ministers should know, the word means different things in Wales and England, as Welsh children already enjoy it as part of local authority provision.
It is appropriate to note that the National Farmers Union in Wales reported this week farmers' disgust that the Government are to cut discretionary payments for the use of milk in schools and in school catering. Pupils will no longer benefit every day from receiving just under half a pint of low-cost milk. As hon. Members will know, the EU scheme enables schools to buy subsidised milk and milk products and pass on the benefits to children in the form of cheaper or free milk. Milk is an important nutritional element in the diet of children throughout the United Kingdom, providing them with the essential protein and calcium necessary for healthy development. The National Osteoporosis Society and nutrition experts have stated that drinking milk may help children to guard against osteoporosis in later life.
The growth and popularity of convenience foods, particularly sugary snacks, make the cut particularly worrying. The cut is disgraceful, bearing in mind the fact that it is being made at a time of widespread concern about the poor quality of child nutrition. It is another example of cost cutting at any cost and of the Government scrambling around to slash resources to patch up their own mismanagement.
I come now to the problems in the fire service. I shall quote from a letter that the north Wales fire authority sent me:
"At its Budget meeting on 13th February, 1996, the North Wales Fire Authority expressed concern regarding the extreme pressure under which it would be placed during its first year.
In particular, Members of the Fire Authority were informed that the financial pressure on its revenue budget had been increased by the very disappointing level of Basic Capital Allowance given by Central Government"—
about £296,000—
"compared with the previous combined total for Gwynedd and Clwyd … in excess of £1.2m.
Such was Members' concern that they have asked for an urgent meeting with the Home Secretary to highlight the likely consequences of the Authority's problems … Also, on a national level, concern was expressed at the current situation regarding pensions liabilities which this Authority and others in England and Wales are faced with as an increasing burden on revenue and the need for a revision of policy by Central Government."
It has written to the Home Secretary requesting him to meet a delegation so that it can raise the above and other issues of concern with him. A copy of that letter has been sent to the Secretary of State for Wales, so I hope that, in his winding-up speech, the Minister will say that the Secretary of State will support the authority's case to the Home Office. I hope that he will support it to the full.
1068
We have heard about the problems of Theatr Clwyd. I believe that writing off the £1.3 million debt—although it sounds a lot of money—is not enough, because it is only a £200,000 revenue equivalent: in other words, the debt repayment is £200,000 a year. That means that the three remaining authorities in Clwyd will have to stump up at least £150,000. Wrexham, certainly, cannot afford that: it can probably afford only about £50,000.
Even paying that amount would force Wrexham to choose between a theatre of national importance and local services such as the provision of teachers and home helps. I do not think that such choices should have to be made. It is particularly objectionable for a council to have to decide whether to finance a theatre that is a wonderful national asset, and, moreover, is patronised by a number of people from across the border who will visit it free of charge, or will make a reduced, subsidised payment. The Secretary of State should not expect local government to continue to provide such funding, and it is disgraceful to expect the council to choose between financing the theatre and financing essential services such as community care and education.
7.50 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am delighted to be able to speak in our annual St. David's day debate—and to be the only English contributor apart from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, which may enable me to speak objectively about Wales.
I intended to make two points. The first concerned the Sea Empress; the second concerned Labour's proposals for a Welsh assembly. My right hon. Friend's speech, however, was a breath of fresh air: he announced a huge number of new initiatives. I was particularly impressed by the devolution of policy from the Welsh Office to 22 free-standing authorities, which must be one of the largest such devolutions ever announced to the House. I would have expected all hon. Members—especially Opposition Members—to welcome that, as it represents the working of local democracy and gives Wales a greater say over its own affairs.
Mr. Win Griffiths: My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) specifically welcomed a number of those announcements.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am delighted that the bipartisan spirit is returning to our debate. Surely we all want as many businesses and as much inward investment as possible in the province. The Opposition's support for my right hon. Friend's excellent proposal will help to create the confidence that will produce the inward investment and business climate to which I have referred.
Mr. Dafis: Some Opposition Members find the word "province" rather offensive in this context. My main point, however, relates to the devolution of powers to local authorities. A future Secretary of State could reverse the position, and Welsh Members would not be able to do anything about it. That is why we need democratic power at an all-Wales level.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. I understand that his party favours

1069
independence for Wales, yet he says that he does not like the phrase "Welsh province". Does he want an independent Wales, or does he want Wales to be part of the United Kingdom, as I do?
Mr. Dafis: Both.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: It is understandable for a member of the hon. Gentleman's party to want to have his cake and eat it.
Wales is fortunate to receive the benefits announced by my right hon. Friend, some of which we would do well to mirror in England. For example, every school in Wales is to be given an attainment target. Moreover, if the targets are not high enough, the schools will be asked to reconsider them. There are to be 500 more modern apprenticeship schemes and, subsequently, 3,800 more modern and accelerated apprenticeship schemes. My right hon. Friend announced many more education proposals. I am sure that my constituents would be delighted to be given the £2.2 billion that the Welsh have spent on health, in per capita terms. I note that the number of patients waiting more than six months for treatment has fallen by 75 per cent. I especially welcome the replacement of 16 health authorities by five: I have long believed that we should cut the bureaucracy in the health service, which employs nearly 1 million people. It is the largest organisation apart from the Red Army.
I shall return to my original theme. I welcome devolution to the province of Wales, as I like to call it. My right hon. Friend announced a strategic development scheme, which would provide a large amount of money—£13 million this year, rising to £38 million in three years' time. A total of £360 million in European objective 2a and 5b funds is to be channelled into the province; £959 million is to be spent on regeneration. That amounts to nearly £1 billion, and the 22 stand-alone authorities will at least have more say over its use than they have now.
I particularly welcomed my right hon. Friend's announcement about the environment. The budget of the Countryside Council for Wales is to be increased. Perhaps that announcement is nearest to the hearts of the Welsh people affected; I understood the comments of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams), and I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) will make further comments. As a member of the Select Committee on the Environment, however, I share the concern that is felt about the enviromental effects of the Sea Empress tragedy. We must all try to learn lessons from it. None the less, I hope that we will not over-emphasise its impact—the last thing that we want to do is to kill the tourism business stone dead.
I pay tribute to the heroic efforts made by all who have been involved in the refloating of the Sea Empress, and those still involved in the clean-up. They are doing magnificent work, and I am only too grateful for the fact that the country has been provided with some of the greatest expertise available. Opposition Members have made a number of accusations about the Government's handling of the process. It has been said, for example, that the Donaldson recommendations have not been followed and, in particular, that there was not on station at the time a tug of sufficient capacity to refloat the Sea Empress. That is not true. There was a Chinese tug of suitable capacity on station.
Mr. Nick Ainger: The hon. Gentleman has been misinformed. The Chinese tug was claimed by the
1070
salvors to be either the sixth or the ninth most powerful in the world, depending on which press conference one attended. Sadly, however, she was not a salvage tug; she was designed to tow large objects for long distances. When she attached herself to the Sea Empress, it was clear that the crew were not a salvage crew. That is no criticism of them, or of the master. The vessel was not designed to operate in such waters, and to be manoeuvrable. A mistake was made and, within between 12 and 24 hours of coming off station, the tug was put off charter—the reason being that she could not do the job.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that information, but a tug of that capacity was available. The Donaldson report said that the Government should make more salvage tugs available on station. The Government acted and put salvage tugs in Dover and on the north-west coast simply because those were adjudged to be the two most vulnerable regions. I understand that the approach to Milford Haven is relatively simple and that, therefore, the risk was not judged to be so great.
It is not surprising that it was extremely difficult to refloat a vessel that is almost 1,000 ft long, was carrying 160,000 tonnes of oil and had a draught of 24 ft—I believe that is the figure. Once it had been grounded, it was an almost Herculean task to refloat it. The hon. Member for Pembroke shakes his head. He obviously does not know much about it.
Mr. Ainger: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: No. I have given way to enough Opposition Members. It is clearly extremely difficult to refloat a vessel of that size and weight once it has been grounded. The main thing that we must guard against is a similar incident happening again.
I tried to intervene on the hon. Member for Carmarthen on that point because, as the hon. Member for Pembroke will know, once such a vessel is under the command of the pilot, it is his duty above all others—his takes precedence over the captain's command—to ensure that the ship is safely manoeuvred into port. Any accusations that the captain could not speak English or did not know the waters do not, therefore, hold water.
The investigation that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has set up may delve into those matters. I am delighted, as I hope the hon. Member for Pembroke is, that an independent investigation is to take place. It will have all the expertise. I understand that my right hon. Friend is already taking independent advice on a number of matters. When the investigation is complete, the Government will publish it and consider its recommendations carefully to ensure that such a disaster cannot happen again.
I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement that the Wales tourist board will do all it can to reassure visitors to Wales so that—as all Opposition Members would want—the number of visitors, especially later in the year, will not diminish as a result of the disaster.
I warmly welcome the insurance provision that has been made. Some £10 million will be available from the oil tanker's insurance and a further £50 million will be available from the oil bond that was set up after the Exxon Valdez disaster. It is worth mentioning that that disaster

1071
cost £2.5 billion, so the hon. Member for Carmarthen is right—there is concern that there may not be sufficient money to meet all the claims that may eventually be made. I hope that my right hon. Friend will speak severely to the oil industry if it does not cover all valid claims. There could be a case against the insurers if that happens.
I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you do not want me to go on for too long, so I shall come to the last section of my speech—about the Labour party's serious proposal for a Welsh Assembly. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to the Leader of the Opposition, who is visiting Wales today on a high-profile visit—no doubt getting ready for the next election and trying to garner votes. He will not be able to give the people of Wales answers to questions about the Labour party's main policy: a Welsh Assembly. The House is entitled to receive tonight from the hon. Member who is to wind up for the Opposition the answers to some of those questions.
For example, why would Wales receive a second-class assembly? Why would it not be the same as the Scottish assembly? Why would the people of Wales not be given the opportunity to have a referendum on the issue before the Labour party got anywhere near the reins of power—if it were ever that fortunate? Why would it not give the people of Wales a referendum? Let the people have a say as to whether they want their own assembly.
I intervened on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to ask about the West Lothian question. Why on earth should English and Welsh Members be able to vote on English expenditure, but unable to vote on Welsh expenditure? That would be a wrong that my English constituents would feel sore about. Why should Members from Wales have control over their affairs, while my constituents, through their Member of Parliament, would have no control over Welsh affairs?
How much would the Welsh Assembly cost? The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) was carping over our cost estimates, but, as it is his policy, he should be able to tell us how much it would cost. He cannot even do his sums and tell us. Why can he not tell us what form of voting there would be for the assembly? Why is it proposed that Scotland should have proportional representation for its assembly, but Wales should be relegated to the first-past-the-post system? Why should the two assemblies have different voting systems?
Why cannot Labour Welsh Members tell us? I shall happily give way if they can give us any answers to any of those questions, but they cannot. They have not thought it through. It is preposterous that the Leader of the Opposition should go to Wales to con the Welsh people into giving him their votes when Labour Members cannot even give elementary answers to elementary questions. The Opposition have an enormous amount to answer for.
8.6 pm
Mr. Nick Ainger: The previous speech shows why we should try to restrict speeches in such a debate to Welsh Members.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members called to speak are chosen by the Speaker. That job will remain with the Speaker and not with Back-Bench or Front-Bench Members.
Mr. Ainger rose —
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ainger: No.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I gave way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Ainger: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will want to intervene after I have corrected most of his mistakes, which were of a factual nature.
It will come as no surprise to hon. Members that I will deal purely with the Sea Empress—by any account, the most serious environmental disaster that this country has experienced, including that of the Torrey Canyon. For Wales and the north Devon and north Cornish coasts, the Sea Empress is potentially one of the most serious economic disasters.
I pay tribute to the individuals and organisations who have played such a great part in the salvage operation. On the night of 17 February and throughout the early hours of Sunday 18 February, individual tug crew members, the Sea Empress crew, the pilots and the salvage crew put their lives at risk. For 12 hours, the conditions were horrendous.
I put on record my appreciation of the enormous effort that is still being made in my constituency and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) by the clean-up teams and by the district and county councils. Hundreds of men are mobilised and many resources are being expended in tackling the horrendous problems on our beaches.
I thank all the volunteers from all over the country who have given their services to assist with the clean-up operation, especially in collecting the oil-affected birds that are constantly washed up on the Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire coastlines. The work carried out by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has been invaluable even though, unfortunately, it will not prevent many deaths from oiling.
Surely the issue is how the accident, which occurred on Thursday night, could have turned into disaster on Monday night and over the following two days. The Pembrokeshire coastline and the offshore islands are important to our world environment and not just to our local environment. Lundy and, more importantly, the Skomer marine nature reserve are now affected. The whole of the Pembrokeshire coastline is about to be designated by the European Union as an area of special conservation and offshore, we have some of the most important bird colonies in the world. There are huge colonies of gannets and Manx shearwaters. The scoters that overwinter in Carmarthen bay are being decimated. Heavily oiled puffins and razor bills are being washed ashore as well. Some 30 sites of special scientific interest are under threat as we debate the issue.
Mr. Gareth Wardell: In view of the picture that my hon. Friend has so vividly painted, does he agree that to ensure to the best of our ability that such a disaster never happens again, a full and independent inquiry should be set up by the Government as soon as possible?
Mr. Ainger: Absolutely. That is the point I have made constantly since the vessel ran aground and it became

1073
clear that a number of Lord Donaldson's recommendations had not been implemented. As the accident on Thursday night deteriorated into a tragedy, many individuals—and organisations—who have some contact with the Department of Transport and who are involved in the decision-making process realised that the only way to have a credible inquiry and report was for the inquiry to be independent of the Department of Transport and to be chaired, ideally, by Lord Donaldson, the former Master of the Rolls, who is the world's expert in relation not only to shipping, but to judicial matters. I am grateful for the support my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) and other hon. Friends have given to my call for a truly independent inquiry and I will touch on the reasons why only an independent inquiry can be justified.
According to the RSPCA's most recent count, almost 1,700 dead sea birds have been collected. The organisation estimates that there are probably at least four to 10 times that amount of dead sea birds out at sea. Thousands of birds with either light oiling or heavy oiling have been sighted. The RSPCA has managed to clean 3,000 birds.
It should be remembered that when the Government agreed to set up an independent inquiry, under Lord Donaldson, into the Braer disaster, the environmental impact was far smaller than that already caused by the Sea Empress, and we are nowhere near the end of the problem. It is, therefore, even more surprising that the Government still refuse to agree to an independent inquiry.
An environmental tragedy is happening before us, but there are also economic problems. The fishing industry in west Wales has now come to a stop and, as I pointed out to the Secretary of State, the problem is not confined to my constituency. Fishermen right along the Welsh coastline are suffering in the markets of France, Spain and even Billingsgate. I am told that fish merchants in Billingsgate have notices in their stalls saying, "No Welsh fish sold here." That problem will affect areas as far away from the spill as Holyhead, which we know will never be affected. However, that is the line. If it is Welsh fish, there may be a problem so the fish merchants do not want to handle it. I hope that the Secretary of State will take on board my suggestion that to restore order to the market and to try to get across the message that the majority of the Welsh coastline is not polluted, he should impose an exclusion order and then, following testing which will give confidence to the market, lift it.
I take the point made by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) that we must not talk up the disaster because if we do, we shall ruin the tourism industry. However, the media have already done that. Merely by showing the beaches that have been polluted at Tenby, the media have made it clear that we face disaster.
I was contacted by one of the major caravan site operators in west Wales who told me that before the tanker hit the rocks, his caravan site had only 20 per cent. vacancies for August. This is the period when he would expect to fill those vacancies because families are booking their holidays. We had an excellent summer last year and families want to come back to the beauty of Pembrokeshire. In the week after the tanker hit the rocks, instead of having 80 per cent. occupancy, cancellations meant that the operator had only 20 per cent. occupancy
1074
and 80 per cent. vacancies. That is the impact of the disaster, which could not have happened at a worse time. This is the time when families decide where to go on their holidays.
Every time I speak to the media, I tell people that by the summer—in fact by May—the beaches will be clean and children will be able to play on them. There may be a problem in certain areas, but the beaches that we now see on our television screens as heavily polluted will be absolutely clean. We have to get that message across and I welcome the action taken by the Secretary of State and the Welsh tourist board. However, we must not start the campaign too early because it has to have credibility. We should not start the campaign when we know that the media will say, "How can they say this? Look at our pictures." We have to time the campaign correctly.
My call for an independent inquiry has been echoed throughout the world. I have had letters from Canada and Australia calling for something to be done and for there to be, first of all, an independent inquiry. The bulk of the letters have come not from my constituency, but from elsewhere in Wales and the United Kingdom. The pictures on television screens throughout the country and throughout the world have moved people, especially those who know Pembrokeshire and its beauty. Those people are very, very angry and they are especially angry now because the Government have refused to implement an inquiry. Every reasonable person to whom I have spoken says, "Why on earth do the Government not have an independent inquiry?" The reasons given by the Secretary of State just do not hold water.
Mr. Hain: He has something to hide.
Mr. Ainger: That is the fear.
It is worth touching on what happened over those days; I have to correct the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury who got a number of facts wrong. Let us not forget that whatever the reasons for the disaster—I accept that there may well have been human error and mechanical error—an inquiry will establish the truth. In this field, if possibly no other, I have a great deal of knowledge, having worked as a docker at Milford Haven from 1977 until I was elected to Parliament in 1992. I know how the port operates.
The first question must be why the vessel was coming in only an hour and 20 minutes before low water, when the actual tide was 3 ft lower than the predicted tide. It would have had great difficulty getting to the berth at Texaco before the tide turned. Ships of that size have to come in to an ebbing tide and they cannot be swung in the port when they are laden. In fact, the tanker ran aground. It has since emerged that the super-tanker spilled approximately 250 tonnes of oil, ruptured a couple of cargo tanks, ruptured some ballast tanks and took on a list of 19 deg. With assistance from tugs, the vessel floated free within three hours. An accident occurred, for whatever reason, and resulted in the spillage of 250 tonnes of crude oil, which is not to be welcomed.
By Monday night, the vessel had ridden out a storm and run aground a number of times. In calm weather, at approximately 6.30, under the control of tugs and salvers, the vessel was put on to the rocks again in one of the highest tides of the decade and immediately spilt 50,000 tonnes of crude oil. Over the next two days, it probably

1075
shed another 15,000 tonnes. We must ask how an accident that occurred at 8.10 on Thursday night turned into such a disaster on Monday night.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Although I hesitate to intervene on the hon. Gentleman, especially as he has such great knowledge of these matters, will he answer the point that I put to the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams)? When a ship is on its way to port and the pilot has boarded, the pilot has overriding control of that ship. If the pilot did not feel that it was fit to take that ship in, he could have told the captain to abort the approach. The fact that he did not do so must have meant that he felt that the operation was feasible and quite safe.
Mr. Ainger: Although that is obviously an issue for the inquiry, the hon. Gentleman is incorrect. In those circumstances, the ship's captain never relieves responsibility. The pilot is merely there in an advisory capacity. It worries me that we, the media and the leaks coming out of the marine accident investigation branch inquiry seem to be concentrating on that issue too. Although the accident is regrettable—250 tonnes of oil should not have leaked and she should not have run aground—the main issue is what happened after that. That is why we need an independent inquiry. If the accident were so straightforward, I would have no problem at all with the fact that the marine accident investigation branch was considering it. But, subsequently, serious mistakes were made for which people are responsible. That can only be examined by a truly independent inquiry.
I stress that the tragedy is that the advice of the pilots, the only people with the expertise to handle very large crude carriers—although, strictly speaking, the Sea Empress is not a VLCC but merely a super-tanker—has been ignored throughout the salvage operation. Nobody has greater expertise of the tides and how the river works. On at least two occasions, they made recommendations to the management of the operation that were either ignored or overruled.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) referred to one of those occasions. On Saturday afternoon, the words of a pilot who has more than 20 years' experience, who is used to handling VLCCs and who knows Milford Haven like the back of his hand were recorded. He was speaking on a cellphone—not over a radio, but it happened to be recorded. From certain activities of the royal family, we know that such things happen. He said, "I am in the channel. I have got enough water underneath me to get out. Give me permission and I will take her out to sea."
We all knew that a gale was coming. A force 9 was predicted for that night and it was an ideal opportunity to get the vessel out into the open sea. The ship was being held on—probably—the most dangerous part of coastline in western Europe. I do not exaggerate. There are few places where a super-tanker of that size can be held. That part of the coastline is one of those places, and if one is in trouble, one gets away from it.
The strategy devised by the salvors—and presumably the marine pollution control unit and the coastguard—was based on the fact that due to the ship's great draught, it had to be held in position. That strategy was fatally
1076
flawed—the pilots have told me so. It was fatally flawed because the salvors did not have sufficient tug power to hold the vessel given the strong currents, the predicted gale and some of the highest tides of the decade. Everything was predicted, nothing surprised the salvors, yet they decided to hold the vessel in deep water and try to get a tug alongside to lighten it. The strategy was flawed from the word go and if the salvors had listened to the pilots, they would not have embarked on it.
The vessel could have been rescued earlier. Pilots who went on it on Friday morning suggested that it was trimmed further. By then, it was drawing 23 m— approximately 75 ft. The pilots suggested to the harbour authorities and those running the salvage operation that they could trim the vessel by either transferring a little cargo using the tanker's own fire system or by taking ballast off into its port side ballast tanks that were not damaged. The advice was ignored. The pilots predicted that they could reduce the draught to 20 m, and on the high tide on Friday get the vessel into the very birth where it now lies. Only 250 tonnes of oil would have leaked.
No answer at all to that suggestion was given. The only response was, "Hold her in position in the deep water". We must ask why. Who gains most? All I can suggest is that the salvors were blinkered; they adopted one strategy and nothing else would do. No one was prepared to listen to local knowledge and expertise and that led to the ultimate disaster on Monday night. That disaster did not have to happen. That is what has made so many people angry.
Mr. Rowlands: Is my hon. Friend saying that the marine pollution control unit was party to the decisions?
Mr. Ainger: If, like me, my hon. Friend had been at the press conferences throughout the operation, he would have realised that there was quite clearly a joint decision-making process between the salvors, the MPCU, the coastguard and the port authority. That was exemplified by the story about Saturday afternoon, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West referred.
After the pilot had asked permission to take the tanker out to sea and away from danger, the harbour master said that he agreed but that he was in a room full of men saying no. Who were those men? The only person under the Dangerous Vessels Act 1985 who can overrule the decision of a harbour master is the Secretary of State or anybody he appoints in his stead.
I think that it was decided to hold the tanker in deep water, try to get a tanker alongside it to lighten the load and then either bring it into port or take it out. No alternative strategy was to be considered. Some might say that if a strategy has been decided on, it should be stuck to, but we should bear in mind the fact that the local guys were saying that such a strategy was crazy and that the coast is one of the most dangerous. That is why we need to consider how decisions were taken and why the strategy was insisted on, which can only be established by an independent inquiry.
I apologise to my hon. Friends for speaking for a considerable amount of time, but I think that they accept that the issue is very important.
I should explain why I believe that only an independent inquiry will carry credibility. Lord Donaldson compiled a 522-page report following the Braer disaster, which did

1077
not—thankfully for the people of Shetland—create such a huge environmental problem as the one that we are experiencing in west Wales. The report was published in May 1994 and contains more than 100 recommendations. The Government have said that they have already implemented 84, and I welcome that. However, key recommendations have been ignored or not fully implemented. In paragraph 20.87, it says:
"There is not sufficient salvage capacity in UK waters at the moment, nor is it coherently organised. The market will not provide enough capacity. Action needs to be taken to achieve the ends of the action taken by other governments."
Paragraph 20.88 says:
"We believe that the Government should set up a system to ensure that tugs with adequate salvage capacity are available at key points around UK shores … Where adequate capacity cannot be provided in any other way, the Government should arrange for the funding of the difference between what is needed and what the private sector can provide".
Paragraph 20.95 says:
"We recommend that the Government should consider with the Governments of neighbouring countries—the Republic of Ireland, France, Belgium and the Netherlands—whether combined salvage capacity in adjacent waters is practicable".
In paragraph 20.124 Lord Donaldson discussed the need for further work and studies to be carried out, but concluded:
"We do not believe that it is sensible to wait for such a study, which could take several years: the tugs need to be in place quickly."
He continued:
"While we would very much like to see the entire system in place before the winter of 1994–95, we appreciate that this may not be practicable."
Lord Donaldson said that there should be five tugs round that part of the coast, but recognised that that might not be practicable. His conclusion, as the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury should recognise, is the important point:
"We therefore propose that there should be interim arrangements during the winter months until the new system—"
that is, the system with five tugs—
"is fully operational, and that the UK Government should be prepared to bear the full cost of such interim arrangements."
Lord Donaldson said that those interim arrangements should concentrate on three key areas. The first was north-west Scotland—that is already covered. The second was the Dover straits—that is already covered too. The third area was the western approaches. Where are the arrangements there? That is the key question.
A couple of days after the events, on Wednesday I believe, Lord Donaldson appeared on television. I saw him on BBC and ITV, saying that he accepted that his recommendations had not been fully implemented, and that that must have had some impact on the outcome of the operation.
That is because the strategy of holding the vessel in that most difficult area, with that combination of currents, tides and winds, could have worked only if powerful tugs had been available. Pilots have told me that in certain conditions during the operation, the vessel, without any power, would have exerted a pull of about 800 tonnes or equivalent. The tugs, even at full power, could exert a pull of only 200 tonnes. The vessel was pulling the tugs around rather than vice versa. That is why she kept running aground.
1078
The Secretary of State and his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt), who went on to become chairman of the Conservative party, are implicated, because they did not implement the Donaldson recommendations in full.
Let us also examine the involvement of the Department of Transport and its agencies. It is clear from the public statements made by the Coastguard Agency and by the marine pollution control unit that they were part of the decision-making process. They too were tied into the strategy. There is no question about that, because they have admitted it.
As those agencies were part of the flawed strategy, given that they are part of the Department of Transport, how can we allow another branch the same Department, the marine accident investigation branch, to investigate them—never mind the question whether Ministers, such as the Secretary of State for Transport and the Minister for Aviation and Shipping, Viscount Goschen, acted properly. Was Viscount Goschen part of the decision-making process? Did he instruct the harbour master not to allow the vessel out of the area? Those are serious questions, and they can be answered credibly only by an independent inquiry.
I realise that time is pushing on, and I shall do my best to be as brief as possible. On Thursday I asked the Secretary of State for Transport why he would not institute an independent inquiry. He replied by saying that nobody questions the integrity of the air accident investigation branch of the Civil Aviation Authority. However, I think that I have shown that the Department of Transport itself, including the Secretary of State and possibly the Minister for Aviation and Shipping, was heavily involved in the operation.
If there were an air accident in which the Department of Transport had shared the co-pilot's seat and the Secretary of State had been the air traffic controller, would we believe that the air accident investigation branch of the CAA would be able to carry out an independent inquiry? I doubt that very much, yet that is the equivalent of the present position.
Like my constituents who have written to me on the subject, I want wider issues to be touched on. Other hon. Members have mentioned some of them, such as double hulls. It is now recognised that double hulls or their equivalents—such as the mid-deck design—provide greater protection in groundings. Why do we not take the bull by the horns and, as a nation with substantial offshore oil reserves—the United Kingdom continental shelf sends a great deal of shipping into our ports—insist that vessels trading between the UK continental shelf and UK ports must be double-hulled or of an equivalent design?
My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen said that double hulls were compulsory off the United States coast. He is not right, and I must correct him. However, because under the Act on oil pollution passed by the United States in 1990, shipowners have unlimited liability, insurers now give them a discount on their premiums if their ships have double hulls. There is a financial incentive to have double rather than single hulls.
We could do that too. We must start to address the issue as quickly as possible. I believe that Lord Donaldson is the only person who could force that through. The marine accident investigation branch would certainly not do it.
Mr. Gareth Wardell: To be fair, must not my hon. Friend accept that Lord Donaldson made it clear that he

1079
could not give a convincing answer to the question whether all vessels should be double-hulled? More research needs to be done, because in certain cases double-hulled vessels are worse than single-hulled vessels.
Mr. Ainger: My hon. Friend is correct, but Lord Donaldson was not saying that we should carry on with single hulls. He said that more research should be done, and criticised the United States for saying that nothing but double-hulled vessels would be built after the year 2003, and that all others would be phased out by the year 2015.
The International Maritime Organisation has said that it wants far greater protection, so only vessels with double hulls or their equivalent should be constructed after the year 2000. But it also says that it would take 25 to 30 years to phase out single hulls, which would mean an unacceptable delay.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gower is right that Lord Donaldson says to the United States, in effect, "Don't put all your eggs in one basket". He was not arguing in favour of single hulls, by any stretch of the imagination. Lord Donaldson was trying to suggest that perhaps the mid-deck design, with ballast in the space between the cargo and the outer skin, is better. It is sometimes far safer, especially when there is an explosion.
Already two companies have declared that they will use nothing but double-hulled vessels. The first is Conoco, which manufactures Jet petrol, and the second is Bitor, which imports orimulsion all over the world, using only double-hulled vessels.
Salvage law, too, must be examined. The Sea Empress disaster is the first major incident since the passage of the Merchant Shipping (Salvage and Pollution) Act 1994, which was guided through the House by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris). The hon. Gentleman should be congratulated on his work, and so should the Government, on the fact that they picked up the idea and ran with it.
However, sadly, the fact remains that in the present incident the new legislation, which was intended to ensure that the environment was given far greater consideration, obviously did not work. We should review salvage legislation, in the hope that two things may happen. First, the environment must always be put before the safety, or rather the salvage, of the vessel. Secondly, if we had a proper full independent inquiry, the fact would emerge that the Government should step in immediately there is a major threat of pollution, and start managing the salvage operation. The salvors should be the contractors, not, as happens now, virtually become the owners of the vessel and the controllers of the operation. That is a lesson that we should learn. Only someone with the experience, and particularly the judicial background, of Lord Donaldson could address that issue. It certainly could not be addressed by the marine accidents investigation branch.
Milford Haven port authority must be fully investigated. I must declare a retrospective interest—if that is possible—because, from 1977 to 1992, I was, ultimately, an employee of the port authority: the company for which I worked was wholly owned by it. Over the years, I and many others, particularly pilots, have been saying that safety margins are being continually squeezed.
1080
In the 1960s and 1970s, Milford Haven was a model port. People from all over the world visited it to see how a port should be run. They would ask, "How can you run an oil port in the middle of a national park, surrounded by these important environmental areas?" It was possible to do so because the port invested in safety margins and oil pollution techniques. In a number of spheres, it was a world leader. Sullom Voe, which is now the biggest oil port in the UK, based its methods of operation on those of Milford Haven.
Those safety margins have, sadly, disappeared. Instead, we have the farce of a port that annually has more than 3,000 vessel movements in and out of its entrance, which is not covered by radar. For six months, the radar covering the port's entrance has been out of action, which shows that something is seriously wrong with the authority. When the Borga ran aground on 29 October, the radar was not working and it had been out of operation for weeks.
When the radar was first installed in 1984, it was state of the art. It had not an old-style radar sweep screen but television screens that were touch sensitive, and the operator could see what was moving on it. It cost nearly £1 million, but it is no longer operable; only an old sweep screen is operating at the port. The port authority says that the radar is operational, but it is using pre-1984 technology.
In his final meeting with the port's board, the previous harbour master recommended that it should invest £1 million in a new radar system. The board decided to defer the decision until the new harbour master took over in late 1994 or early 1995, and no decision was taken. It was only after the understandable furore when the Borga had run aground that the board announced that it would replace the radar with £100,000 worth of equipment. But that was to cover only the entrance to the port; no full replacement for the rest of the system was proposed.
The number of tugs has been reduced. When I first started berthing super-tankers in the port, it had six fully manned tugs. We are now down—admittedly with two fewer terminals—to only three fully manned tugs, with one on standby. If a fifth tug is required, Swansea, Liverpool or another port must be asked to supply one. Flexibility has been reduced; safety margins have been cut.
I was staggered to learn that, in the week before the Sea Empress ran aground, a ship of similar size, the Star of Westminster, approached the port in bad weather. The pilot went out to the ship, but it was too rough to board. He told the ship to turn round and to try again in a few hours. The vessel ignored his advice. Someone on the ship sent a message that said, "I'm coming in". It carried on through the entrance of the port and was berthed—without a pilot. That vessel was subject to compulsory piloting; it had to have a pilot. I know what will happen: a bill will be sent for the pilotage and it will be paid although the pilot was not on board. That should not be allowed to happen.
The problem that the oil refining sector faces is that everything is cost driven, and I am afraid that safety is falling victim to that. In Milford Haven, we are witnessing the oil company tail wagging the port authority dog. We are also witnessing the loss of port safety and conservation of the environment as priorities. The port's focus has shifted from that—its prime responsibilities under the legislation—to commercial activity. I do not

1081
criticise it for developing derelict areas and trying to improve and create jobs, but it must not be done at the expense of the prime responsibilities of port safety and environmental conservation. I am afraid that that is what has been happening over a number of years.
I return to the point that I was making to the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury. The most worrying thing is that a spin is starting to take place over this tragedy, in which the finger is being pointed and the focus is being concentrated on the first accident on Thursday night. We are in the middle of an inquiry—I do not believe that it is sufficiently extensive or, certainly, sufficiently independent—that has been instituted by the Secretary of State and is being conducted by the MAIB.
Yesterday, the port authority attempted to suspend the pilot who was on the bridge when the vessel ran aground on Thursday night. It is outrageous that, in the middle of an inquiry, the port authority has suddenly decided who is guilty and pointed a finger. It is also making statements such as, "It was a pity that we pulled the vessel off the rocks on Thursday night." In other words, the port authority thinks that the fault lies not with the salvors, because they were not there on Thursday night, not with the marine pollution control unit, because it was not there on Thursday night, and not with the coastguard. The fault must lie with the first tug crews who got there, the pilot who was on board and the master who called for help. That is outrageous and extremely worrying, and can be addressed only by a full independent inquiry.
In relation to compensation, I do not want to talk up the disaster or the losses that will be made by the tourist industry, but let us be realistic right from the word go. For a far smaller incident and with a far smaller tourist industry, Braer has already paid out £47 million. There is only £57 million in this pot. There are many tragedies related to this incident. If it had happened in two months' time, under the Merchant Shipping (Salvage and Pollution) Act 1994, the pot would have been £125 million; at present, it will stop at £55 to £57 million, depending on the exchange rate.
Let us be realistic and face the problems as we see them now. We are not talking up the disaster. We are saying that if Braer, in an area with a smaller tourist industry and, arguably, a smaller fishing industry—it is certainly not much bigger than Milford's—has already cost £47 million, what on earth will this one cost?
Mr. Rowlands: Double.
Mr. Ainger: My hon. Friend says double, and I would not disagree with him. We should be putting pressure on the oil industry—on the international oil pollution compensation fund—and saying, "If this had happened in June, you would have had to pay out £125 million. You do not want your reputation sullied any more than it has been." One of the ways in which it will be sullied is if the industry does not pay full compensation to the innocent victims of this disaster. Those words should be coming from the Secretary of State.
I welcome everything that the Secretary of State said tonight. The £2 million bridging fund is an excellent idea, for which I am grateful. I discussed it with one of his Conservative colleagues in the other place at the St. David's day lunch. I am glad that it has been implemented.
1082
On a personal note, I have been accused by the Minister for Aviation and Shipping of trying to make political capital out of this disaster. I understood that one of my jobs as a Back Bencher was to try to make the Executive accountable. I asked whether the Select Committee on Transport would be willing to hold some sort of independent inquiry, but I was told, "There is an inquiry going on and we cannot get involved." So Parliament seems to be negated and cannot go ahead with an independent inquiry. If we cannot get an independent inquiry within Parliament, Lord Donaldson is the only person to conduct one because he is an expert in this sphere. Why cannot we do that? It would give the Government credibility. It would give confidence to the people who have suffered and do not want it to happen again. They want to ensure that there will be no cover-up and no whitewash. The only way to do that is to call in Lord Donaldson.
We must all try to restore confidence in our fishing industry. I know that my suggestion to the Secretary of State may be difficult to implement but I think we should try to get the widest possible exclusion order in areas where the market is saying, "We don't want your fish" even though there is no justification for saying that. The only solution is to have the widest possible exclusion order, which can later be reduced following tests. As for tourism, I shall be saying that, in a few weeks, the beaches will be clean and people do not need to cancel their holidays. Perhaps if my colleague in this, the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis), contributes to the debate, he might mention orimulsion.
For any activities to be resumed, and even for the current operations to be undertaken with confidence, we have to tackle some fundamental problems in relation to the way in which Milford Haven has been operated over the past few years. We need to restore confidence. I hope that, even at this late stage, Conservative Members—we on this side are unanimous—will, in the nicest possible way, try to persuade the Secretary of State for Transport to swallow his pride and recognise that, since his statement on Thursday, there has been a fundamental change, especially in relation to environmental damage. Facts have also now emerged about his Department being part of the decision-making process, and we now know Lord Donaldson's views on the implementation of his recommendations. Given all that, is not it about time that it was recognised that the best way forward for all concerned is an independent inquiry?
8.51 pm
Mr. Cynog Dafis: My original intention was to speak about the importance of primary legislative powers for a Welsh Parliament and the insulting inadequacy of Labour's proposals for Wales in comparison with those for Scotland. I would have relished that, and did some homework on the subject so that I could point out the glaring deficiencies in Labour's assembly proposals, especially following the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) in presenting his ten-minute Bill yesterday. However, there will be ample opportunity to do that another time before the general election.
My original intention has been overtaken by events— those surrounding the Sea Empress disaster. That, together with some of the important and far-reaching lessons that we can learn from it, is what I shall speak about, although

1083
I shall refer later to the question of democratic government in Wales—an appropriate subject for a St. David's day debate.
I should like to emphasise, as my colleagues have done, how profoundly distressed and angry are the people of Pembrokeshire, south-west Wales and indeed, the whole of Wales. I believe that they are as one in demanding an independent public inquiry, based in Milford, into how on earth events could have taken such a chaotic course and how such hideous damage could have been allowed to happen.
Even at this late stage, I beg the Secretary of State for Transport to reconsider. The Government have rejected the public inquiry option and even refused to recall Lord Donaldson. I warn the Government that such a refusal will be condemned. I also warn them that if there is the slightest smell of a cover-up in the investigation and publication of results by the chief inspector of marine accidents, or if there is any failure to explore all the issues exhaustively, the Conservative party can say goodbye to any credibility in Pembrokeshire, which it once represented in Parliament. I have to say that the Conservative party's credibility in Wales is in any case at an all-time low, and this disaster will do nothing to help its recovery.
I do not intend to list all the questions that need to be answered, but I shall do so in my submission to the Department of Transport and the inquiry. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) has done so far better than I, but I should like to reiterate some of the questions he asked and ask a few others.
Why was there insufficient tug pulling power? Why was there such an appalling failure to implement the Donaldson recommendations for a heavy tug at the western approach, despite the outstanding ecological value and sensitivity of the area? Even though Milford, with 6,000 tanker movements a year—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but there seems to be a private conversation going on. As the last hon. Member to speak was heard with attention, it is only courteous that the same should apply to the hon. Gentleman who is speaking.
Mr. Dafis: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I was referring to the 6,000 tanker movements a year in Milford, which is the biggest oil port in the United Kingdom even though seafaring there is an inherently hazardous business. Why were booms not used to prevent oil from entering the haven and coming ashore? Were the salvors in any way culpable? Are there built-in disincentives to effective action in the system of remuneration for salvors? Does not the need to save time in docking, unloading and turning around constitute an incentive to take deadly risks? How can that be prevented in future?
Might the dispersants and detergents used to break up the slicks be more damaging than the oil itself? I have tabled a parliamentary question about this, but it is worth asking now whether they contain the oestrogen-mimicking substances that are now widely
1084
suspected of significantly reducing the fertility of many species, including our own. If so, what is the likely effect on biodiversity in the area in the future?
We have to ask whether enough is being done, even now. There has been great praise for the valiant efforts of many people but a local resident, who has been working hard on his own local beach, telephoned me last night to say with deep sadness that, whereas the clean-up of the well-known beaches might be proceeding well, there are a host of others, including small coves, where little is being achieved. He wanted the area to be declared what he described as a "disaster area" and many more resources to be brought in.
I notice in the notes of the technical advisory group, prepared by the Department of the Environment, that the emergency planning manager can in certain circumstances request military resources in a clean-up operation. I ask that consideration at least be given to that suggestion.
I do not think that the person who telephoned me last night would have much time for what the Secretary of State for Transport said last Monday week. The Secretary of State's words now sound highly ironic. He said:
"Where an incident does occur, we are determined to react swiftly, thus effectively to reduce the pollution or damage caused.
In this instance, despite severe weather, the practised implementation of our national contingency plan should ensure that the situation will be brought under control."—[Official Report, 19 February 1996; Vol. 272, c. 34.]
Those words already ring pretty hollow.
I shall deal briefly with the issue of compensation. Who pays? How much is to be paid for the ecological damage? Of course, it cannot be calculated or expressed in monetary terms, but the polluter should be required to make recompense, and in a big way. That is quite separate from economic compensation, but the economic damage to fishing, tourism and a host of related activities is unfortunately bound to be significant.
No complicated stumbling blocks should be placed in the path of genuine applicants. Whom do I mean by "genuine applicants"? They should include the bed-and-breakfast provider in Teifi valley on the borders of Pembrokeshire, who may suffer a negative spin-off from the reduced number of tourists visiting the area. They should include the Tenby baker who works part time in winter, but full out in summer. He should be compensated if his work hours do not reach their normal level in summer. Fishermen in Cardigan are unable to sell any fish, although that may be the result of the negative perception of all Welsh fish by continental buyers.
Anyone who is able to show a loss of livelihood resulting directly or indirectly from the disaster should be fully compensated. That should be the rule. The sums needed to compensate properly for the consequences of the disaster, which will be huge. There is no justification for not making such sums available. The polluters, by which I mean the ship owners and the oil companies, should pay. It would be unacceptable if the main beneficiaries from the compensation process were to be lawyers.
One could say much more about the Sea Empress catastrophe but it would be irresponsible not to consider the wider implications. The hon. Member for Pembroke anticipated correctly that I would refer to orimulsion. The case for a public inquiry about the burning of that fuel at

1085
Pembroke power station has been greatly strengthened by this event. The Department of Trade and Industry should hesitate no further in acceding to that demand.
I am informed on good authority that knowledge of how orimulsion reacts when spilled into sea water is limited. It is an unknown factor that needs to be identified. It is certain that the introduction of orimulsion would significantly increase the number of tanker movements. The size of tankers, double hulling and port management practice, along with the existing concerns about the burning process and the pollution arising from it, are among the topics that need to be considered by an inquiry into the application of orimulsion. There is also the question whether the international oil pollution compensation fund would cover orimulsion, which, strictly speaking, is not oil.
A wider and ultimately even more important issue is the exploration for, and possible exploitation of, oil and gas reserves in Cardigan bay. Plaid Cymru opposes all oil and gas exploration in Welsh seas this side of the establishment of a Welsh Parliament. That is not to say that we would approve of it even afterwards, except under very particular circumstances and conditions.
It is important to recognise how priceless an asset— first, ecologically, and secondly, economically—is Cardigan bay. In Cardigan bay, I include the coast right down to the outskirts of Milford Haven and the parts that are being damaged. I do not need to rehearse the litany of specially designated areas along the coast or the fact that part of the bay will probably become a marine special area of conservation under the EU habitats directive. I shall mention the variety of cetaceans—porpoises and dolphins of more than one sort—that live in the bay. Some are listed in the appendices to the habitats directive. The sea bed, or benthic, diversity of the bay is apparently especially rich. More than 1,000 species of invertebrates, including some new to science, have been identified in a recent survey. Almost certainly, there are many others that have not been identified. The estuaries of the bay have valuable roosting and feeding areas for migratory and wintering birds. The Dyfi estuary is a Ramsar site.
Even in the absence of a major catastrophe, exploration—but especially extraction—could have a damaging effect on the diverse and remarkably abundant marine life. The cumulative effects of spillages—from leakage of oil, including that from pipes, which corrode more rapidly than was originally anticipated; toxic materials in drill cuttings; lubricants, or what are called muds; the chemicals used in association with the drill muds; contaminated water, including heavy metals; and human sewage from the rigs—can be shown to be significant, even many kilometres away from the rigs. All that in a shallow bay, where the water exchange is slow— in effect it is a sort of slow whirlpool—and any pollution caused by drilling or oil spillage will not disperse easily. Cardigan bay is very different from the North sea.
I commend to hon. Members the detailed and excellent document prepared by the Friends of Cardigan Bay—a soundly based organisation with much sound scientific input. I shall make the document available to Ministers and other Members if they so wish.
I have described what happens with ordinary exploration and exploitation. As for the possibility of a Sea Empress-type disaster, which could occur with a rig in the bay or a tanker taking oil from a well—we do not
1086
know whether that is likely to happen or whether oil would be brought ashore—I can do no better than to quote a letter from the Friends of Cardigan Bay to the President of the Board of Trade. I support what it says. The letter states:
"The fiasco over the salvage attempts of the 'Sea Empress' and the consequent oil spill covering large areas of the Welsh and south-west English coastline has shown that the oil spill contingency plans are at best inadequate and at worst completely useless.
If the contingency plans fail to stop the spread of oil from an accident close inshore then we cannot see how the oil companies can be expected to cope with an accident further offshore at a drilling rig. We therefore demand that all oil drilling licences extant around the Welsh coastline are immediately suspended pending a full public enquiry into the events surrounding the 'Sea Empress' accident, and the wider environmental questions this throws up, and until the oil companies show they are able to deal with any situation that may occur."
I agree, and I urge other Members to support that demand for an immediate suspension. I would regard that as the reasonable application of the precautionary principle to which the Government subscribe.
I also declare my support and that of my party for the policy proposals set out recently in a document from the Joint Links Oil Consortium, which comprises countryside and wildlife organisations. As regards exploration and exploitation around Britain, the consortium calls, first, for an environmental assessment of the United Kingdom continental shelf, during which there would be an assessment of all the environmental resources and the sensitivity of various areas. That assessment would be undertaken by a statutory agency—in Wales, the appropriate organisation would be the countryside Council for Wales, which would be accountable to the appropriate Secretary of State. In Wales, that would be the Secretary of State for Wales, but in England it would be the Secretary of State for the Environment, not the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
Secondly, the consortium calls for a strategic impact assessment—not just an environmental assessment— focusing on areas of existing and potential interest for oil and gas exploration. Thirdly, on the basis of that assessment, it suggests the designation of certain areas as sacrosanct, others as moratorium areas on the grounds that information about them is incomplete and the impact is difficult to measure, and others as potential areas. In addition, all applicants for licences should have to submit a full project environmental impact assessment with each application and show the environmental impact of the whole process, from exploration to decommissioning at the end. All installations that come into existence should be required to have a zero-discharge policy—something that the United Kingdom Government do not require, although I understand that the Norwegian Government do.
It is a reflection of the nature of government in Wales that the Welsh Office has no input worth mentioning into the licensing process. That means that there is no such thing as a Welsh policy on an issue of major national— not provincial—importance for Wales.
The Joint Links Consortium document is important and merits serious study. It expresses the sort of rigorous and tough conditions that taking the environment seriously must imply. It is the sort of thing that comes at the beginning of the far-reaching process of transition to the very different model of economic and social organisation that we know as sustainable development—again, a concept to which the Government are signed up.

1087
I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition is beginning to wake up to the enormous significance of integrating environmental concerns into all aspects of policy. That was not apparent until the day before yesterday. It is only beginning and has been long delayed, but it is welcome as the right hon. Gentleman is likely to be the next Prime Minister, and the sooner that happens, the better.
Finally, the Sea Empress disaster reminds us that a fundamental precondition of sustainability—I emphasise that word as it concerns the future of the world—is a radical medium-term reduction in our dependency on fossil fuels, the extraction, transportation, processing and burning of which are having such a grave effect on the life support systems of our planet. The Sea Empress disaster is just one small example of the damage that is being caused globally.
As nuclear power is neither acceptable nor feasible, two issues must become crucial to economic and development policy—first, energy efficiency and, secondly, the diverse and decentralised sources that are covered by the term renewables. The Government target of 1500 MW of renewable generation by 2000 is absurdly inadequate. It could easily have been doubled. Pembroke power station has a capacity of 2,000 MW, so the Government's target for renewable generation is equivalent to the output of one major fossil fuel power station.
It is time to stop regarding energy efficiency and renewables as amiable, but marginal and eccentric pursuits. They are essential if mankind and our planet in all its wondrous richness and diversity is to have a sustainable future.
Phil Williams, the Plaid Cymru energy and environment spokesman, who is a renowned physicist, reckons that Wales could halve its use of fossil fuel by the year 2010 through a national programme of energy conservation and the planned development of safe, non-polluting and renewable sources of electricity such as wind turbines, tidal power, wave generators, photo-voltaic panels, small-scale hydro and so on. Another environmental issue that cannot be ducked is the reduction in car transport through the systematic improvement of public transport and the development of a broad-band communication network such as that provided by optic fibres. We have to take an integrated approach aimed at reducing fossil fuel consumption.
Let us hope that the day is not far distant when we have a democratically accountable power in Wales to enable us to carry through such a programme and put our country at the forefront of the global move towards sustainability.
9.12 pm
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) on his informative and frightening account of the Sea Empress disaster. I know how intimately involved he was throughout, and I am surprised that he managed to hold back his anger so successfully when he must have felt absolutely frustrated by not being able to influence events. As I once represented that part of Wales in the European Parliament, I know the extent of the tragedy. We all sympathise and hope that the clean-up will be extremely fast so that the tourist industry is not unduly affected. I support my hon. Friend's call for an independent inquiry,
1088
which is absolutely essential. If the Government do not grant such an inquiry, we can only assume that they have something to hide.
I want to talk about the former phurnacite plant in my constituency, which closed in 1990. The site became derelict in 1992. There are some 88 acres of derelict land on which there are around 100,000 tonnes of highly toxic material.
After the plant closed, I thought—as did everyone else who lived in the vicinity—that British Coal, which still had ownership of the land, would properly look after its safety until it was reclaimed. However, during the summer some of my constituents told me about their concerns and I walked over the site with them and saw the skulls of animals and the carcases of birds, hedgehogs and sheep that were stuck in the soft, sticky tar. Children and dogs had played on another part of the site, and the children had fallen ill with sores, ulcers and blisters.
The site was not properly cordoned off, there were no signs saying "danger" and there was no proper fence to keep children and animals away. Some parents are now seeking compensation for the skin difficulties suffered by their children who played on the site. The dumps contain mercury, asbestos, phenols, ammonia, hydrocarbons and gas, which are all mixed up with tar. In summer, it bubbles out of the ground. The site was open for people to walk over. It is incredible that British Coal did not make sure that the site was secure until it was properly reclaimed.
I have had quite a lot of correspondence with the Welsh Office on this issue. One of the first questions I asked was whether there was a register of contaminated land in my constituency. I was told that the only register went up to 1988 and that there was no record of any sites that were in use in 1988 that may be contaminated now. That is a defect on their part. The Welsh Office, which has responsibility for making money available to the Welsh Development Agency for the reclamation of land, should have an up-to-date register of all contaminated land in Wales. It is not good enough for the Welsh Office to say that it is the responsibility of the local authorities—it is its responsibility to have an overall view of the need for the correct amount of money to deal with that contaminated land.
I pay tribute to the Abercwmboi carers, who set up an action committee. In May, the Welsh Development Agency presented a plan to them, which was to encapsulate the waste, not to move it away. The encapsulation would have lasted 30 years at the most. A part solution was being offered, not a long-term solution. The carers, the people who lived in the area, were not content with that.
The phurnacite plant was closed because of pollution— the inspectorate said that it could not continue. It was one of the worst, if not the worst, industrial polluters in Britain. It is ironic that the people who were put out of work because of the closure of the plant—everyone was glad to see the plant close, except for those who were employed by it—were left with toxic waste on their doorsteps. There was no improvement to the environment.
The carers were not happy with the solution from the Welsh Development Agency, so they pushed for an environmental impact assessment. Such an assessment should have taken place as a matter of course. Were it not

1089
for public opposition to the proposals of the WDA, that environmental impact assessment would not have taken place.
The Cynon Valley local authority held a press conference today at which it presented the independent report that was compiled by consultants. We now have two conflicting views. The council commissioned a firm of environmental experts, Richards, Moorhead and Laing, to prepare an independent report. It was asked to assess the current environmental implications of the site and the likely impact of the proposed encapsulation scheme on the surrounding communities, both during the implementation and in the longer term. The consultants' findings show that further on-site investigations are essential before any reclamation can take place. The consultants' report states:
"The amount of investigation carried out to date has not been sufficient to accurately define the volume of contaminated materials on site".
That leads them to believe that the capacity of the proposed depository will be insufficient to contain all the waste present. In addition, the consultants cast doubt on the long-term viability of the cell within which the WDA is hoping to encapsulate the waste.
The WDA and its environmental impact report suggest one course of action and the council's independent consultants propose another. I am sure that I do not need to remind hon. Members that the industrial areas of south Wales have been left with the legacy of an unknown toxic waste cocktail. The council's consultants believe also that a proper assessment has not been made of that toxic waste content.
The Secretary of State said at the outset that the polluter should pay. I wonder how that affects British Coal, as it is the owner of the site, although the WDA wishes to acquire it. If the polluter should pay, British Coal should pay in that instance. At the very least, the proper safety precautions should have been taken when the site was abandoned, and the fact that they were not represents a clear dereliction of duty on the part of a number of authorities. Local people should now receive full information about the site so that the best possible options for them and for the environment can be discussed and decided.
That is why I believe that a full planning inquiry, with an inspector, should take place. It would establish principles which would apply to other areas contaminated by industrial waste in Wales—we should not have to repeat the same process time after time. I hope that the Secretary of State will support my call.
9.22 pm
Mr. Win Griffiths: This has been one of the best St. David's day debates in my nine years in this place. [Laughter.] Ministers may laugh, but we should record that fact. Today we have heard some extremely informative and passionate speeches about very important issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and I had a conversation—during one of the quieter periods in the debate, when a Conservative Member was speaking—about the traditions of the St. David's day debate. I am indebted to Geraint Howells, the former Member of Parliament for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North, for providing the information that today is the 50th anniversary of Welsh day debates.
1090
The first occurred in 1946, when I was a babe in nappies in South Africa. The Prime Minister at that time, Clement Attlee, and the then Leader of the House, Herbert Morrison, instituted the Welsh day debate. I imagine that today's debate is one of the best in 50 years. Quite understandably, because of the scale and immediate impact of the disaster, the Sea Empress has dominated much of the proceedings, and I will return to that subject a little later.
I wish to start with the way in which local government has been funded this year, which I believe will have a serious, long-term and possibly damaging impact on Wales. For a number of years now, the pressure on local government spending has caused a reduction in the services that local government is able to provide. At Welsh Questions recently, I was upbraided by the Under-Secretary, who said that I had made assertions that were not accurate. I hope that he will interrupt me this evening if I make an inaccurate assertion.
The rate support grant from the Welsh Office to local government has been falling as a proportion of local government spending. The Secretary of State's figures show that, from 1993 to 1995, the proportion has fallen from 64 per cent. to 58 per cent. of local government budgets. On top of that, the non-domestic rate contribution has fallen. In the early 1990s, it was 19.9 per cent. of the budget, and it is now 17.6 per cent.
Given that this year's rate support grant contribution to local government budgets has taken no account—like last year's—of the teachers' pay award, it is obvious that local government will struggle with the award from the Welsh Office. The Secretary of State recognised that fact in his infamous letter to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), which suggested, as far back as November, that local councils should be considering an increase in council tax of 11 per cent.
We now know that the Secretary of State has relaxed the capping limit from 0.5 per cent. of the notional budget to 3 per cent. That relaxation would allow many authorities in Wales to increase their council tax hugely. Rhondda Cynon Taff could increase its council tax by 40 per cent. and still keep within the limit set by the Secretary of State.
I am indebted to the local authorities that made a trawl for my information, which shows that the council tax this year, in 13 of the 22 authorities, is likely to increase by 20 per cent. or more. In six others, the increase will be between 11 and 19 per cent. Only three will have an increase in council tax that is anything like the rate of inflation. Two of those authorities will have increases of 4.5 per cent. and 3 per cent. I do not have the figure for the other authority, but the increase is not likely to be more than 2 per cent.
What is the consequence for the services provided by local government? We have seen cuts, as I said earlier, for a few years now. The result is that the pupil-teacher ratio in primary and secondary schools is now increasing. The number of classes in which more than 30 children are taught has increased. The latest figures from the Welsh Office show that there are at least 63,710 children in primary schools being taught in classes of more than 30. That is an increase—according to the latest figures available—of more than 7,000 children. That is what the figures for the years 1992–93 and 1993–94—the most recent ones published by the Welsh Office—show.

1091
It is no surprise, perhaps, that the number of children with statements of special educational need is increasing. The figures available from the Welsh Office tell us that the number has increased by 14 per cent. Over 16,000 children are the subject of these statements. Within those figures, the number of children with emotional and behavioural difficulties has increased by 20 per cent. There are now 770 such statements. There are probably more now, but I refer to the official figures from the Welsh Office.
I welcome wholeheartedly the £500,000 that the Secretary of State is providing to enable better access to schools for disabled children, but I should like to see a commitment to additional spending to ensure that the code of practice on the assessment and identification of children's special needs is properly funded. I can say with confidence that virtually every authority in Wales in the coming year will have difficulty in meeting its legal obligations under the code of practice. That is certainly the position of at least one authority. I think that we shall see more and more cases going to tribunals.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: If I had had the chance to participate in the debate, I would have drawn attention to the fact that struck me on reading school inspection reports from the Mid Glamorgan area setting out the number of children in receipt of free school meals. In some schools, 50 to 60 per cent. of the children are receiving free school meals. That reflects the problems of low wages and inadequate benefit levels. There are serious issues to be faced in primary schools especially.
Mr. Griffiths: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. The percentage of all children receiving free school meals, according to Welsh Office information, has increased from 17.8 in 1989–90 to 25.1 in 1993–94. In other words, about a quarter of children throughout Wales are now in receipt of free school meals. Problems are mounting in education.
Many problems are related to local government support from the Welsh Office. In addition, however, there are the problems associated with moving from a county structure to a smaller unitary authority structure. Those problems relate to some services such as drama, orchestras and outdoor pursuit centres such as Dol-y-Gaer in Merthyr or Ogmore-by-Sea in my constituency. These services have been threatened. The Gwent theatre in education is being threatened.
We have seen that the Secretary of State has done well in giving Theatr Clwyd a reprieve to enable authorities to come together with a package. I hope that it will be possible to find some solution to the Dyffryn gardens problem. In so many instances, the problem is a combination of the cap on Welsh Office support for local government and transition from eight counties to 22 county boroughs. That is having an impact on services which were maintained in the larger county structure.
The county boroughs will have to make much more of an effort to work together to keep these services alive. Under the pressures that the county boroughs will face, it is what might be described as the icing on the cake—extra experience outside the classroom—that will suffer.
There are signs that learning support staff for children who do not have statements are being cut. That could cause statementing problems later. My hon. Friends the
1092
Members for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) and for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) all referred to problems associated with the local government settlement.
Even though it is late in the day, it should be recognised that the Secretary of State has through the year provided supplementary sums for various services in Wales. I remember that, a few years ago, Welsh housing benefited from a substantial extra sum. There is a strong case for the right hon. Gentleman examining what is happening in education and providing extra moneys to local authorities through the year.
Before I move from the subject of local authorities, I appeal to him to ensure that the orders that will bring in the new boundaries are laid before the end of March, so that my constituents will not have to suffer being in three different authorities in the space of 18 months. Many of my constituents have telephoned my office enraged about what is happening.
Let us look at the housing scene, which is another important local government service. The value of renovation grants between 1994 and now has decreased by 7.6 per cent. in real terms. In the same period, local government housing capital provision is down by 8 per cent. in real terms.
Is it any wonder that homelessness is on the increase? In 1994, 22,000 people were officially declared homeless—double the number of a decade earlier. Almost half of those are children, and we know from studies in England—no study has been made in Wales—that their education and health suffer as a result. We have the poorest housing in Britain, at 13 per cent.—twice the number in England. Some 300,000 people in Wales live in unacceptable conditions. In the private sector, 10,000 mortgage repossession proceedings were instigated in 1995.
It is a bleak picture, yet the Welsh Office contribution to public housing has gone down in real terms. In 1991–92 and 1992–93, housing starts were down by 34.6 per cent., and completions were down by 33.6 per cent. At the same time, funding for the approved development programme, Tai Cymru, is down 46.1 per cent. in real terms on what it received in 1992–93, which was a slightly exceptional year, because of lots of additional money. When compared with the beginning of the 1990s, it is still a cash cut of 10.6 per cent., let alone what it might have been if we worked it out in real terms.
The fire service is an essential public service. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South-West about the problems of the new North Wales fire service. The same problems exist in other areas. The South Wales fire authority, which serves the largest population by far, has learnt that the credit approvals for the three joining authorities to order new fire engines to the value of almost £1.5 million have had to go by the board, because, under the new system, the money is no longer available.
In Cardiff, at Pentwyn, there is a danger that the fire station may not be built, yet Cardiff east has severe problems in meeting the targets for arriving at fires. The fire prevention service is not funded at all under the formula. These are serious problems, which the Welsh Office needs to consider.
I received a letter yesterday from the Under-Secretary of State, asking me to give more details about how Labour would fund local government, and the education service

1093
in particular. That was interesting, I thought, so I looked at the Tory party manifesto for 1979 to see what commitments the Tories made, and what details they gave about what they would do. It said that they would "simplify VAT" and be prepared to switch from taxes on earnings to taxes on spending. They could not simply tell us that they intended virtually to double VAT. At the previous election, the Prime Minister, with all the advantages of being in government, told the population that VAT did not need to be extended anywhere, and that taxes would come down. We know that the reverse is true.
The 1979 Conservative party manifesto stated:
"We need to concentrate more on the creation of conditions in which new, more modern, more secure, better jobs come into existence."
In fact, 98,000 fewer men are employed in Wales than in 1979, and wages are much worse. In 1979, Wales was fifth in the regional league for men's wages; now we are 10th—we are at the bottom. In 1979, we were second in the league for women's wages; now we are sixth. We have not got all those well-paid jobs, except in one or two places. Sony, Ford and Bosch are oases in the desert.
Mr. Sweeney: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that 68 per cent. of the population of working age are in employment in this country—more than in any other major European country? Moreover, 8.6 per cent. of the population of working age are unemployed in the United Kingdom, fewer than in any other major European country.
Mr. Griffiths: I am aware that 98,000 fewer men are in employment in Wales today than when Labour was in office. I am also aware that the hon. Gentleman's figures include part-time jobs. If full-time jobs were included in his calculation, we should see a different picture.
The 1979 manifesto also stated:
"The uplands are an important part of our agriculture. Those who live and work there should enjoy a reasonable standard of life."
Between 1978–79 and 1983–84, on the Government's own published indices, the income of farmers in upland areas in the United Kingdom fell from £128 a week to £92. That is not such a good record.
I have also examined the Welsh Office block grant. In 1994–95, planned expenditure was £6.41 billion, but the outturn is expected to be £6.346 billion. That is a £64 million drift. In the previous year, there was a £66 million drift, but in the opposite direction. If Welsh Office Ministers cannot get the calculations right with all the books in front of them, surely I am under no obligation to give them precise details, other than to say that we are sure that we can do a better job than the Welsh Office currently does in running Wales.
The Tory legacy is higher unemployment and lower wages. The education improvements have been made not because of the Government's policies, but in spite of them. The chief inspector of schools himself said that part of the problem for teachers was all the chopping and changing in the national curriculum.
As was graphically shown by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger), the Sea Empress disaster could have been avoided. It was a case of lowering standards to maximise profits. Working practices were affected. When things went wrong, it appeared that the priority was maximising the profit on
1094
the load, rather than saving the area from pollution and saving the jobs of all who depend on that beautiful coastline.
This is probably the last St David's day debate that we shall have before the next election. I believe that the verdict of the people of Wales at that election will be a resounding no: there will probably be no Tory from Wales on the Conservative Benches.
9.43 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Rod Richards): With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I propose a toast to absent friends. I refer, of course, to the three leaders of the Opposition parties. The three gentlemen who would have us believe that they are desperately concerned about Wales and all things Welsh could not turn up for the most important debate in the Welsh calendar.
I understand that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) is looking after his party leader in Gwent. I hope that, if the hon. Gentleman travelled to south Wales by train, on the newly privatised Great Western Railways, he will have enjoyed a lunch called cig oen Caerffili, which means Caerphilly lamb. I recommend it to all Opposition Members. I dined on it only recently. Caerphilly lamb would be appropriate for the hon. Gentleman.
We are led to believe that the leader of Plaid Cymru is in Dublin, and that the fact that the Ireland-Wales rugby match is taking place on Saturday is purely a coincidence. I understand that the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) is in hospital undergoing elective surgery. I am sure that I speak for all hon. Members when I wish him a speedy recovery.
Mr. Morgan: Rather than making snide remarks about the three leaders of the Opposition parties, perhaps the Minister should concentrate his efforts on doing the same as my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies). If he can persuade the Leader of the Opposition to visit the scene of the Sea Empress tragedy in Pembroke, perhaps the Minister should concentrate his efforts on persuading the Prime Minister to do so.
Mr. Richards: The hon. Gentleman knows that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has visited Pembrokeshire twice, which brings me to the stand-in for the hon. Member for Caerphilly—the verbally incontinent Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). May I go through some of his points?
The first thing I noticed was that, yet again, the hon. Gentleman indulged in the practice that Opposition Members enjoy: talking Wales down. He devoted much of his speech to talking it down. He challenged my right hon. Friend not to look through rose-tinted glasses. We do not have to do that to realise that, in the past 17 years, Wales has done well. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to dine on some of the facts that I am about to present to him on the Welsh economy's strengths.
In the past 10 years, manufacturing employment has risen by some 12.5 per cent. From September 1994 to September 1995, manufacturing employment in Wales rose by 1.5 per cent.—over twice the increase rate in the United Kingdom. Since September 1985, manufacturing employment in Wales has grown by more than in any

1095
other region. The number of unemployed people in Wales has fallen by 29,400. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about since 1979?"] Opposition Members talk about 1979. They were all around then and they know as well as I that, in 1979, the hidden unemployment level in terms of overmanning was so great that it could not be measured.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about inward investment. Since 1979, Wales has done well out of inward investment. He may recall that, on occasion, Conservative Members quoted inward investment running at 22 or more per cent. of all inward investment in the United Kingdom.
On the south Wales freight terminal, my right hon. Friend made it clear in the House on 8 November that the provision of a freight facility in south Wales is a matter for the commercial and technical judgment of investors, who do not need Ministers' permission to build a terminal in any location.
Various applications for assistance are still being carefully considered. Decisions will depend on the assessment of further commercial information that has been sought from the applicants. Grants cannot be paid until satisfactory cases have been made.
Mr. Michael: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Richards: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, West challenged my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State by saying that he was not accountable to the people of Wales. My right hon. Friend is accountable to Parliament, as previous Secretaries of State, the Prime Minister and previous Prime Ministers have been.
Opposition Members should cast their minds back to the 1970s, the most recent period when Labour was in power. As I recall—I am sure that Opposition Members will attempt to correct me if they think that I am wrong— the Labour party at that time did not have a majority in England. As I recall, the Prime Minister of the day, now Lord Callaghan, represented a Welsh seat. I do not recall Labour Members saying that Lord Callaghan was not accountable to the people of England.
I pose another question to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West and his right hon. and hon. Friends. The Opposition Chief Whip is now in the Chamber, and he will be interested in his hon. Friend's remark. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West asserted that, were there to be a Labour Government after the next general election, the next Secretary of State for Wales would definitely be a Welshman. The hon. Gentleman clearly has influence in high places.
The point I put to him is this. What will happen if a Welshman is not elected to the shadow Cabinet or to— [HON. MEMBERS: "There will be."] What if there is not? Will a Labour Prime Minister then appoint a Welshman who—
Mr. Rowlands: Yes.
Mr. Richards: I am delighted that decisions have already been delegated by the Labour leader.
1096
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has carefully costed the Welsh Assembly in its first year and has estimated the figure at £52 million, with a recurring cost of £28 million. As the Labour party has not been in government for such a long time, I should perhaps tell Labour Members what £28 million would buy each year. It would buy a district general hospital every year, if there were no Welsh Assembly.
I have been fascinated to hear that the Labour party is united on the issue of an assembly. Perhaps the hon. Member for Cardiff, West could explain to me why his hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) supported Plaid Cymru's ten-minute Bill on the governance of Wales yesterday, when his right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) opposed it.
Mr. Morgan: Perhaps the Minister could tell us whether he agrees with the estimate of the previous Secretary of State for Wales that a Welsh Assembly would cost £124 million, or with the estimate of the present Secretary of State, who is also his boss, who says that it will cost only £52 million. Which of them is right?
Mr. Richards: I recall that Mr. Neil Kinnock, who was opposed to a Welsh Assembly at one time, estimated in the 1970s that the cost would be £20 million.
On the issue of unity, is the hon. Member for Cardiff, West telling us that the views of the hon. Members for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) and for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) are shared—or not shared—by him or his right hon. and hon. Friends? [Interruption.] The basic calculations by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) are the same as those of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in terms of capital and running costs, except that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham looked at some of the cost implications of Labour's policy. I thought that he was conservative in what he said about the costs.
I now move on to a far more serious issue—the Sea Empress disaster, which was raised by the hon. Members for Cardiff, West and for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger), and by many others. The hon. Member for Pembroke thanked various individuals and groups for their hard work, and we wish to be associated with those remarks.
I understand the concerns of the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and the hon. Members for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams), for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis), and for Gower (Mr. Wardell) and their constituents. Obviously, I know that part of the world very well, having been brought up there, and I enjoyed the facilities and beaches. On that issue, there is clearly no disagreement at all.
The hon. Members for Cardiff, West and for Pembroke said that local expertise was neglected in Milford Haven. Any evidence of that will be fully considered in the independent investigation. [Interruption.] Opposition Members may shake their heads. Unlike them, I want to wait for the outcome of the inquiry instead of reaching conclusions based on imperfect information. The marine accidents investigation branch was set up by an Act of Parliament. Contrary to what Opposition Members said, that was how the House wanted such incidents to be investigated.
The branch's inspector reports directly to the Secretary of State for Transport, and he is appointed to be independent. That is his job. He can criticise anyone at all

1097
involved in either the accident or the salvage operation. The arrangements are parallel to those for the air accidents investigation branch, which conducts independent inquiries into air accidents and is highly regarded.
Mr. Ainger rose —
Mr. Richards: I will not gave way. I do not have much time, and I want to raise many serious points.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, West also raised the issue of accident and emergency beds, and referred to the transfer of six patients from Cardiff Royal infirmary to the Heath hospital in the middle of the night. I was naturally concerned about the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Of course, such decisions are taken by local hospital managers. Since the hon. Gentleman has raised the issue, I will certainly look into it and reply to him. The alleged incidents to which he referred are partly a justification for having one single accident and emergency unit in University hospital Wales.
On accident and emergency beds in general, the key issue is that hospitals—we have obviously had many discussions with trust and health authorities on the matter—should not turn patients away unless all beds other than child and maternity beds are full. That is in line with the action plan agreed by national health service chief executives, to minimise the risk of hospitals closing for short periods due to peak demands for emergency medical admissions.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) invited us to glance into the hereafter. Some of us are nearer to the hereafter than others. I
1098
certainly do not mean that with regard to my right hon. Friend, since one does not know what might happen. My right hon. Friend warned us, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney), about the dangers of the European state, which, together with an assembly in Cardiff, would weaken the British state.
My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan went on to enlighten us about why Wales is such a popular place for inward investment. He referred to the Bosch plant near his constituency. One of the reasons why German factories are going to Wales is the flexibility of the work force. When the Labour party was in government 20 years ago, the work force would have been the last reason to go to Wales. The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) reminisced about the 1970s. Clearly his memory on the issue is short and defective.
The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) failed to answer my question. In our previous debate on the local government settlement, he said that education was underfunded. If that is what he thinks, he must be able to put a figure on it. Why does he not come clean and tell us what sum should be spent on education? What is it? And how would a Labour Government find it? Would they increase revenue support grant, council tax or—this is what the business men of Wales want to know—the business rate? I suspect that the last of those three is the truth.
The business people of Wales will carefully consider what the hon. Gentleman says about that. I invite him now to tell us quickly by how much education is underfunded, and how the Labour party would—
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Landfill Tax
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Knapman.]
10 pm
Mr. Chris Davies: Yesterday, in my other capacity as a member of Oldham metropolitan borough council I had to vote for a budget embracing major cuts in public services, including cuts in education and social services that will have a severe effect on the local people whom I represent.
Of those cuts, £360,000 worth are directly due to the introduction of the new landfill tax. That figure is expected almost to double next year. The implications of the new tax were debated when parts of the Finance Bill was considered on the Floor of the House, but only now are the real concerns of local authorities starting to be felt and to be properly expressed.
During the early discussions of the Bill the lobbying of industry was paramount, and most apparent. Local authority treasurers had been led up the garden path and encouraged to believe that the effects would not be as severe as they have proved. So they have not spent the intervening time lobbying their local Members of Parliament. But now the realities are becoming clear, and I am grateful for the opportunity to debate them.
For once the Government had a really good idea—a green tax to benefit the environment, cut household waste and encourage recycling. Rarely, as I am sure the Minister will agree, can an idea have received such a warm welcome from all parties and from such a parade of environmental groups. The proposal was seen as beneficial and sweet, but it has rapidly turned sour.
The tax will cost councils in West Yorkshire, for example, some £3.3 million in the coming year alone. Across the Pennines it will cost councils in Greater Manchester £4 million, and in the country as a whole it will add £77 million to the burden of local authorities.
Instead of that money going to local councils to encourage recycling, it will go straight to the Government for their own purposes. Far from giving a boost to recycling, it will force councils to cut public services to pay for it, and in practice will leave them with even less money for recycling schemes. In summary, the tax is a tragedy—another wasted opportunity for environmental improvement.
I shall take the Minister back to those pleasant days in November 1994 when the Chancellor first announced his plans for a landfill tax. Each year local authorities dispose of about 20 million tonnes of household waste, 85 per cent. of which is tipped into one of Britain's 5,000 landfill sites.
It is widely recognised that that is not a good thing. Everyone who cares about the environment and about maintaining and sustaining the Earth's resources knows that it is not, and knows that we should reduce the amount of waste generated and recycle more of it. At present, I understand that only 5 per cent. of household waste is recycled. I am ashamed to say that in Oldham the figure is just 2.1 per cent., which is appalling.
Society's general throw-away approach results in the increasing use of the earth's finite resources, in the generation of additional road traffic and in heavy lorries
1100
taking waste materials to landfill sites which, in turn, causes disturbance and annoyance to local communities. It also results in the major generation of methane, which is one of the main greenhouse gases contributing to the warming of the planet, the results of which are becoming all too apparent as the conclusions of scientific study after scientific study prove.
The Chancellor's proposal for a landfill tax was therefore given a very warm welcome and a sympathetic hearing. It was thought that it would discourage the disposal of waste and encourage recycling and that it would be the Government's first genuine green tax—a really good move. It was assumed that money would be taken from local authorities on the one hand but given back on the other, in such a way as to create a disincentive to throw away our rubbish and put it in holes in the ground, leading to an increase in recycling facilities. It was to be a transfer of resources that would be revenue neutral but environmentally beneficial.
When the details of the tax were announced last November, we learned that landfill deposits of household waste were to be charged at £7 a tonne. That took local authorities by surprise because it was higher than they had originally anticipated. They were reassured, however, by the Government's response to the consultation paper produced last September. The Government said that the concerns of local government were understood and that
"the financial impact of the tax on local authorities"
would be addressed
"in the context of the local government finance settlement."
It was only when the details of the settlement were announced that local authorities realised that they had been led up a dark alley and had, in effect, been stabbed in the back by an assailant who was all too familiar. The truth has now become clear: the Government never had any intention of compensating local authorities for the additional burden of the landfill tax. Not a penny of compensation has been earmarked in the standard spending assessments for the coming financial year. The money from the landfill tax is not being recirculated back to local authorities to encourage recycling but is being put directly into central Government coffers for purposes determined by central Government.
I cite two local examples. In the boroughs of Oldham and Rochdale, householders will be paying some £6 each in council tax specifically attributable to the costs of the new landfill tax. I wonder how the Government can attack other parties' tax policies when they behave in such a way, introducing a direct tax on householders in such a discreet manner.
It is true that the money will be used to reduce employer's national insurance contributions from April 1997—a worthy objective that the Liberal Democrats support. But why should that cost be met out of local authority budgets? If the Government were genuinely interested in protecting the environment and making effective use of green taxes, surely they would consider an alternative, such as increasing through the taxation system the price of electricity charged to business and industrial users by an amount equivalent to the reduction of employer's national insurance contributions. That would be revenue neutral and represent a transfer of costs to business, not an increase in their overall costs. It would encourage energy saving and employment—a classic green tax. But no, environmental considerations are not

1101
the Government's priority. How could they be when the effect of the landfill tax, which was hailed as a measure to encourage recycling, will be to discourage it?
Leaving aside the fact that many local authorities are locked into long-term contracts with landfill operators, the financial equation produces a solution that suggests that landfill is still the most economical option for local authorities. The vast majority of metropolitan and county councils are already budgeting at their capping limits, which means that they cannot even pass on the cost of the new tax to householders. They cannot even apply the principle that the polluter—in this case, the householder who generates household waste—pays. Councils' flexibility in such circumstances is minimal. They cannot increase council taxes. The only way in which they can find the money to pay the new taxes, which will go to central Government, is to cut existing services. I had to vote for a budget of severe cuts in the council chamber in Oldham last night. Cuts in spending, schools and social services across the country are the result of the landfill tax.
Given that councils are struggling to provide the services for which they have statutory responsibilities, how are we to find the money to expand recycling schemes, which are not a statutory requirement? How are they going to find money for what will be conceived of as optional extras such as that? The economics of the way in which the tax was introduced do not add up.
How different it could have been if the Government had insisted that the money raised from the landfill tax should instead be devoted to recycling promotion. That would still have been tough on local government services and on the education and social services budgets that I have highlighted, but it would have given a massive boost to recycling. To take the examples of Oldham and Rochdale again, it would have been sufficient to pay for the introduction throughout the borough, over three years, of kerbside collection of pre-sorted waste ready for recycling. That would have put us well on target to increase the amount of recycling from its present abysmally low level to the 25 per cent. target that was, after all, set by the Government and which is low by European standards. In Germany, householders are expected—and provided with the necessary facilities—to sort their waste into seven different categories so that it is ready to recycle, and the amount of waste thrown into tips or thrown away is kept to a minimum.
For local authorities, the dark clouds of the landfill tax have no such silver lining. I regret that the tax is proving bad in every respect. Not only does it damage local services and not only is it a tragic waste of the opportunity that the Government had to demonstrate their commitment to the environment, but it has been turned into an application of hypothecation that makes local authorities subsidise central Government priorities and expenditure. For heaven's sake, how devious can one get? The Conservative party is still supposed to believe in measures to oppose the centralisation of power. Yet, they are placing a tax burden on local authorities to subsidise a central Government commitment.
The Minister will no doubt tell the House that local authorities are large employers and will benefit from the reductions in employer's national insurance contributions. Frankly, however, the effects will be marginal, quite apart
1102
from the fact that the reductions will not come into effect for 12 months—some six months after the landfill tax is introduced.
Even when the reduction in employer's national insurance contributions is taken into account, local authorities will lose out by a factor of four to one, or even worse. Tonight, the Minister must tell us how he intends to help local authorities out of those financial difficulties; how he will properly compensate them in future years, as the tax burden bites ever deeper; how he will restore the Government's tarnished reputation, from proclaiming what was seen as an environmentally beneficial green tax but will, by application, betray those great promises; and what measures he and the Government will announce to encourage waste recycling in future years.
10.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): I welcome this opportunity to respond to a debate on an important subject and to explain the importance of the landfill tax in terms of our strategy for waste management, as well as dealing with some of the comments of the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies) about the impact of the tax on local government.
The landfill tax is to be introduced in October and will be the first tax to be introduced with essentially environmental objectives—something that the hon. Gentleman was able to bring himself to admit at least at one point in his speech. On reflection, he may want to reconsider his avowed belief that environmental considerations are not a priority as regards the tax. Clearly, that is not correct; it is an environmentally driven tax.
The tax marks an important step in extending the use of economic instruments to protect and enhance environmental objectives. The central purpose of the new tax is to ensure that landfill costs reflect the full costs of the environmental impact of activity. By doing that, business and consumers are encouraged, in a cost-effective and non-regulatory manner, to produce less waste, to recover value from more of the waste that is produced, and to dispose of less waste in landfill sites.
The introduction of the tax will not result in an additional burden on industry and commerce. As part of the Government's policy to shift the burden of taxation from employment to activities that have a detrimental effect on the environment, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced that he intends to reduce the main rate of employer's national insurance contributions by 0.2 per cent. from April 1997. The rates of tax, which my right hon. and learned Friend announced in his November Budget statement, take into account the environmental impact of landfilling different types of waste. The standard rate of tax will be £7 per tonne and the lower rate, which will apply to inactive waste, will be £2 per tonne. Those rates take into account research sponsored by my Department into the environmental impacts of landfill disposal operations, which are not at present reflected in the price charged for land filled.
The Government have recently consulted interested parties about the list of wastes that should be subject to the lower rate of tax. We are considering the responses to consultation and will announce our conclusions in due course.

1103
Local authorities are responsible for the collection and disposal of household waste. The cost of the tax in respect of such waste will fall on them. Authorities already have an important part to play in helping to achieve the goals for sustainable waste management set out in our White Paper, "Making Waste Work". The tax will increase the incentive for them to encourage practices that reduce the amount of waste disposed of to landfill, for example by providing more recycling facilities and introducing kerbside collection schemes. The tax will also provide a further incentive for local authorities to bring home to local taxpayers the need to participate in that process.
The local government finance settlement was debated and approved in the House on 31 January. We have allowed a 3.3 per cent. increase in total standard spending—the overall level of provision for local authority spending next year. We accept that it will be a tough settlement for some councils, but within the limited resources we have given priority to education, as we said we would do. We believe that the settlement is fair and that authorities have sufficient resources to carry out their functions.
It is too easy for an authority to draw up a wish list or to add up all the new demands that it faces and ask taxpayers to pick up the tab. The Government have sought to put an end to that approach once and for all. Every council must ask what it can save as well as what else it needs to spend. The more efficient an authority is, the better services it will be able to provide.
During consultation on the settlement, we received many representations about the increased costs of the landfill tax. The net impact of the landfill tax will, of course, depend on individual local authorities' waste disposal policies and on the effect of the offsetting reductions in employer's national insurance contributions that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor is making.
Some authorities have asked that the landfill tax be disregarded for capping purposes. Our capping criteria and capping limits are, of course, still provisional as final decisions are not announced until after local authorities have set their budgets. However, I should point out that we have not adjusted local authorities' base budgets to reflect the fact that they are no longer responsible for waste regulation. That has given authorities an additional £26 million of spending power in 1996–97.
Of course we do not expect local authorities to change their practices overnight. The hon. Gentleman was pitching it a little too high when he said that the announcement of the landfill tax should not have taken councils by surprise, suggesting that it had taken them by surprise this year. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor announced that he intended to introduce a tax on landfill waste disposal in his 1994 Budget.
Mr. Chris Davies: I speak more in sorrow than in anger. Perhaps I am in a minority among Opposition Members in holding these views, but I believe that the current Secretary of State for the Environment is a committed environmentalist whose views are perhaps the most green among Conservative holders of that position. I re-emphasise that the landfill tax, the principle of which is not disputed, is warmly welcome. I welcome the tax,
1104
but not what the Government are doing with the money. The tragedy is that they are using the money not to encourage waste recycling, but for other purposes. Can the Minister give the House any indication that in practice the benefits of the tax will be used to the full by some of the money being given back to local authorities to encourage recycling projects?
Mr. Clappison: It would be churlish of me not to thank the hon. Gentleman on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment for the glowing and well deserved tribute to his environmental credentials. I am afraid that I shall now have to strike an unhappier note by diverging from the analysis that the hon. Gentleman has just made. He suggested that the tax has taken councils by surprise and that not enough thought has been given to recycling.
The announcement of landfill tax was made in 1994. As waste collected by local authorities represents a significant proportion of controlled waste, and as some 90 per cent. of local authority waste goes to landfill, which is above the average for controlled waste as whole, at 70 per cent., it could reasonably be inferred that it would be important for local authorities to respond to the landfill tax. It should have been in their purview to have considered other waste management options such as recycling, re-use and waste minimisation, which is at the top of the waste hierarchy. It was within the purview of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who clearly believes in those options and hopes that local authorities would follow such practices. Local authorities must now respond by implementing recycling—they have to respond to the landfill tax in the same way as industry and other generators of waste.
Mr. Chris Davies: How does a waste disposal authority—in Greater Manchester, for example— encourage local authorities to devote more expenditure to recycling when they are locked into five-year or seven-year contracts with landfill sites, and when the money that they could use to encourage recycling schemes is being taken away by central Government for their own purposes through the landfill tax scheme?
Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman knows that central Government carefully considered this issue in taking decisions on the local government settlement. Local authorities must make long-range plans. They have had two years' notice, going back to 1994, of the landfill tax—they should have used that time to change their waste disposal policies. We are aware that the link between the costs of landfill tax and the levels of household waste are not as strong as in the case of business. At present, local taxpayers pay for waste disposal as an undifferentiated sum within their council tax bills.
Many other countries have different arrangements, where household waste collection and disposal is charged for directly, often by weight or by volume. Such arrangements may have practical difficulties, but we are continually reviewing the evidence to see whether such measures have a material impact on the amount of waste generated and on the extent of beneficial use.
Every year we have to set the demands of local authorities in the context of what the country can afford. Local government spending accounts for a quarter of all

1105
public spending and no Government can afford to ignore it. Public spending decisions are made in the context of the medium-term financial strategy to promote sustained economic growth and thus ensure higher living standards. The best way in which we can protect local government services is to ensure that the national economy is strong and that inflation is under control. To this end, we must continue to make better use of existing public spending and to keep control of public sector wage bills. Both local and central government have essential parts to play in bringing about these benefits.
I am aware that local authorities are concerned that fly tipping may increase as a result of the landfill tax. In November, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced further measures to combat fly tipping when the tax is introduced. Although the current waste management licensing system and the duty of care for waste provide a strong regulatory framework to support the tax, it is intended to take further steps to avoid an increase in fly tipping. In particular, the Environment Agency will be asked to give a high priority to the prevention of fly tipping, and the financial gains made by perpetrators will be drawn to the attention of the courts.
I hope very much that local authorities will look on the introduction of the landfill tax as a further incentive to promote the use of more sustainable waste management practices in their areas. There will be considerable incentive for both tiers of local government to work together to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill and to encourage greater use of more sustainable waste management options as part of the waste planning process. As I have said, the tax will ensure that waste disposal to landfill is properly priced. In so doing, it will
1106
increase the awareness of local authorities of the advantages to be obtained by reducing the amount of waste generated in their areas by diverting waste from landfill and putting it to productive use through reuse or recycling.
I hope that what I have said will reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are fully aware of the impact of the task on local government and have taken account of all new burdens on local authority budgets in taking decisions about the overall level of provision for local authority spending in 1996–97. I draw my speech to a conclusion by going back to the starting point of the hon. Gentleman's speech: this is first and foremost an environmental tax. We have to make this a successful and effective tax, and the framework is in place for it to be successful.
Mr. Chris Davies rose—
Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman has intervened twice and I would like to draw my remarks to a conclusion. It is important for local authorities, for industry, for commerce and for householders to play their part in making this important environmental initiative the success that it deserves to be. The Government have laid the framework and it is now for others to rise to the challenge, as I am sure they will do, without becoming obsessed with the sorts of issues raised by the hon. Gentleman.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the
  Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) on 13 February,Official Report, column 514, if he will define the term parliamentary interest. [16146]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  In my answer of 13 February,Official report, column 514, the term parliamentary interest refers to cases in which a Member of Parliament or a noble Lord has made representations about the proposed removal of somebody from the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance has been issued to Home Office presenting officers and adjudicators regarding the period of time in which couples are expected to become self-supporting in the United Kingdom where one spouse has been granted entry clearance; when such guidance was issued; and if he will make a statement. [18206]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  No such guidance has been issued to presenting officers. The period of time in which couples are expected to become self-supporting will depend on the facts of the particular case. Guidance to adjudicators is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor.

  Dartmoor Prison (Death)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he expects the medical report into the death of Mr. Dennis Stevens in Dartmoor prison to be completed; and if he will make a statement on the causes of Mr. Stevens' death; [17336]

  (2) for how long Mr. Dennis Stevens was kept in a body belt in Dartmoor prison prior to his death on 18 October 1995; [17338]

  (3) what representations he has received alleging (a) improper procedures and (b) inadequacy in existing procedures in matters relating to the death of Mr. Dennis Stevens in Dartmoor prison; what response he has made; when he expects all the information on this case to be disclosed; and if he will make a statement. [17337]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for these matters has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 29 February 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Questions about the death of Mr. Dennis Stevens in Dartmoor prison.
  626
  Mr. Stevens was in a body belt for 24 hours prior to being discovered dead in his cell on the morning of 18 October 1995.
  There have been two post-mortems, the second attended by a pathologist representing Mr. Stevens' family. At the second post-mortem, it was agreed that further specialist forensic analysis was required. The coroner will open the inquest once the result of that analysis, which is being carried out in the United States, is available.
  A number of Members, prisoners' rights groups and others have written to express concern about the circumstances surrounding Mr. Stevens' death. They have been advised that a senior prison governor has conducted an enquiry into the circumstances surrounding Mr. Stevens' death and a separate enquiry into the control and restraint methods used has been commissioned. These enquiries will be in addition to the formal policy enquiry, which is underway.
  The results of the enquiries into this tragic incident cannot be made available until the inquest. However, I can assure you and Mr. Stevens' family that the service will respond promptly and positively to any recommendations made by the coroner.

  Construction Skills Certification Scheme
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his Department is taking to ensure that personnel on its prison construction sites have construction skills certification scheme accreditation. [17437]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. John Spellar, dated 29 February 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your Question about construction skills certification scheme accreditation on prison construction sites.
  It is the duty of the main contractor with whom the Home Office enters into a contract, to ensure that personnel on construction sites have the necessary skills.
  The Home Office is considering the introduction of clauses in construction contracts to bring to bear on the main contractor an obligation to ensure that personnel on prison construction sites have construction skills certification scheme accreditation.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what factors, other than population, determine Metropolitan police officer numbers per division. [17429]

  Mr. Maclean
  The deployment of manpower within the Metropolitan police district is a matter for the commissioner. I understand, however, that the allocation of officers to divisions takes account of, among other things, the number of crimes reported, calls for assistance, arrests, traffic accidents and incidents of disorder. In addition, officers in charge of divisional operational command units have some flexibility within their overall budget to decide on the mix of police officers, civil staff and other resources which will best meet local policing needs.

  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the recent reports by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary on Metropolitan police areas 3 and 4. [18765]
  627
  Mr. Howard
  Yes. I have today placed in the Library a note of the recommendations from these reports, together with the commissioner's responses and my responses, which take into account the advice I have received from the Metropolitan Police Committee.

  Electro-shock Equipment
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many British companies have been granted licences under section 5 of the Firearms Act 1982 to(a) handle, (b) store, (c) distribute and (d) manufacture electric shock devices in the last two years. [17363]

  Mr. Maclean
  Section 5(1)(b) of the Firearms Act 1968 prohibits the possession, purchase, acquisition, manufacture, sale and transfer of electric shock weapons without the authority of the Secretary of State. No company has been granted authority under this section specifically in respect of electric shock weapons in the last two years.

  Reoffenders
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he has issued to magistrates courts about sentencing in respect of repeated offences of theft and shoplifting goods of significant value. [17508]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government do not issue guidance on sentencing. The Magistrates Association issues sentencing guidelines for its members, which are available in the Library, and guidance is provided by Court of Appeal judgments in individual cases.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many of the asylum appeals passed by the tribunal to the adjudicator in 1994 were allowed by the adjudicator; and how many of these were appeals by port-of-entry applicants; [17540]

  (2) how many of the asylum appellants referred by the adjudicator to the Secretary of State in 1994 were granted leave to remain in the United Kingdom; and how many of these were port-of-entry applicants; [17542]

  (3) how many of (a) the asylum appeals allowed by the adjudicator and (b) those allowed by the tribunal in 1994 were made by port-of-entry applicants. [17541]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The information requested is not available.

  Docklands Bombing (Fire Appliances)
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 15 February,Official Report, column 706, in respect of 9 February only, how many appliances attended the scene, what time the last appliance left and from which stations the appliances were drawn. [17518]

  Mr. Sackville
  The deployment of appliances is an operational matter for the London fire and civil defence authority. The hon. Member may therefore wish to invite the chief officer to provide the details which she has sought.

  Older Prisoners
  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his Department has taken to meet the special needs of older people in prison. [17519]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Sir Andrew Bowden, dated 29 February 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about what action is being taken to meet the special needs of older people in prison.
  The Prison Service has recognised the needs of the older prisoner. A special unit is at present being commissioned at HMP Kingston. An existing accommodation block is being refurbished and will include specialist facilities for older prisoners with disabilities. The unit is for 25 prisoners and hopes to receive its first prisoners in May 1996.
  The Directorate of Health Care is currently compiling a health strategy for prisoners and staff and has particularly identified the needs of older prisoners amongst its topics. The health strategy will be presented to the Prisons Board in May 1996.

  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women aged over 60 and men over 65 years are being held in prison on(a) remand and (b) after sentence. [17594]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from, A. J. Pearson to Sir Andrew Bowden, dated 29 February 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking, how many women aged over 60 and men over 65 years are being held in prison on (a) remand and (b) after sentence.
  On 31 January 1996 there were 16 women aged 60 or over (3 on remand and 13 sentenced) and 300 males (25 remand and 275 sentenced) aged 65 and over in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales.

  Racial Attacks
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many reported racial attacks there were in each London borough in 1995. [17657]

  Mr. Maclean
  Figures are not available by London borough. Racial incidents reported to the police in each Metropolitan police division for 1995 are shown in the table. A racial incident is defined as any incident in which it appears to the reporting or investigating officer that the complaint involves an element of racial motivation, or any incident in which an allegation of racial motivation is made by any person.

  Classified racial incidents in the Metropolitan Police District Annual 1995

  Division

  Number

  Belgravia

  13

  Notting Hill

  11

  Brompton

  23

  629

  Classified racial incidents in the Metropolitan Police District Annual 1995

  Division

  Number

  West End Central

  2

  Charing Cross

  10

  Marylebone

  25

  Paddington

  21

  Fulham

  33

  Hammersmith

  29

  1 Area total

  167

  Hampstead

  40

  Kentish Town

  325

  Holborn

  78

  Holloway

  54

  Islington

  193

  Harrow

  108

  Wembley

  56

  Kilburn

  54

  Barnet and Hertsmere

  39

  Golders Green

  61

  West Hendon

  75

  Ealing

  45

  Southall

  108

  Hornsey

  34

  Tottenham

  45

  2 Area total

  1,315

  Hackney and Shoreditch

  114

  Stoke Newington

  83

  Limehouse

  389

  Whitechapel

  154

  Barkingside

  44

  Chingford

  55

  Ilford

  22

  Leyton

  55

  Havering

  45

  Forest Gate

  63

  Dagenham

  63

  Plaistow

  293

  Edmonton

  65

  Enfield

  104

  3 Area total

  1,549

  Southwark

  199

  Peckham

  87

  Walworth

  73

  Catford

  156

  Lewisham

  105

  Bromley and Orpington

  67

  Plumstead

  422

  Greenwich

  204

  Bexleyheath

  125

  Croydon

  46

  South Norwood

  82

  Epson and Sutton

  82

  4 Area total

  1,648

  Heathrow

  2

  Brixton

  45

  Streatham

  55

  Vauxhall

  26

  Chiswick

  42

  Hounslow

  149

  Spelthorne

  14

  Richmond

  49

  Kingston

  40

  Battersea

  26

  Wandsworth

  86

  630

  Classified racial incidents in the Metropolitan Police District Annual 1995

  Division

  Number

  Hillingdon

  157

  Merton

  129

  5 Area total

  821

  Bosnian Refugees
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to prepare a register of refugees and displaced persons from Bosnia-Herzegovina living in Britain and listed according to their religious or national background, their place of origin, gender and family connections; and if the Government have received a request from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to provide such a register. [17710]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  No formal request has been received from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees but when the UNHCR co-ordinator for former Yugoslavia briefed missions in Geneva recently, he said that accurate information was needed from countries of asylum on how many refugees and displaced persons they had; where they were from, where they wanted to return to, and when. This information is not available centrally and could be obtained only by contacting each person individually. We are considering the request.

  Secure Prisons
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are currently held in secure prison establishments in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [17551]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Sir Andrew Bowden, dated 19 February 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about how many prisoners are currently held in secure prison establishments in Wales.
  On 26 February 1996, there were 805 prisoners held in the following establishments.

  Number

  Cardiff

  436

  Swansea

  212

  Usk

  157

  Total

  805

  Carl Bridgewater
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list those individuals who helped the police with their inquiries in connection with the murder of Carl Bridgewater indicating the periods they were kept at each police station; [17205]
  631
  (2) if he will list the names of those individuals arrested in connection with the murder of Carl Bridgewater indicating the periods of detention at each police station; [17206]

  (3) if he will list the individuals to whom the police made payments for information in respect of the Carl Bridgewater trial; [17204]

  (4) if he will make a statement on all meetings between Joseph Hickey and Sergeant Ernest Robinson in (a) 1978 and (b) 1979. [17214]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  No. These are all operational matters and the responsibility of the chief constable of Staffordshire constabulary.

  Fire Services
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will review his allocation of funds to the fire services of Wales consequent upon the formation of the new local government unitary authorities; and if he will make a statement; [17330]

  (2) if he will sanction new funds to enable the new North Wales fire service authority to meet its commitments in Clwyd and Gwynedd counties. [17328]

  Mr. Sackville
  Supplementary credit approvals of up to £2.7 million have been provisionally set aside for 1996–97 to meet the transitional costs of fire service reorganisation in Wales. The allocation between the three new brigades will be reviewed during the course of the year.

  Body Belts
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the policy of the Prison Service in respect of the use of the body belt of the type involved in the death of Joy Gardner; when that policy was last reviewed; what plans the Prison Service has to co-ordinate its policy in respect of the belt with the police; and if he will make a statement. [17339]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 29 February 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about Prison Service policy on the use of body belts of the type involved in the death of Joy Gardner; when that policy was last reviewed and what plans the Prison Service has to co-ordinate its policy in respect of the belt with the Police.
  The type of body belt used by the Police is an operational matter for Chief Police Officers.
  The body belt used by the Prison Service is of a design approved by Prison Service headquarters. The authority for its use is covered in Prison Standing Order 3E, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.
  The design of the belts used by the Prison Service was reviewed some eighteen months ago. It was decided that the needs of the Service required the current design but we continue to see if more modern materials can be used to serve the same purpose, on the rare occasions body belts are used.

  Crime (Coventry)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of convictions in(a) Coventry and (b) the west midlands involved 16 to 24-year-olds in each of the last five years; and if he will indicate the year-on-year percentage change in this figure. [17120]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information which is readily available centrally is restricted to indictable offences and is given in the table. For summary offences, information on the actual age of adults is not available. The information is the latest available; 1995 data will be available in the autumn.

  Convictions for indictable offences of persons aged 16 to 24 and of all persons in Coventry Petty Sessional Division (PSD) and West Midlands Police Force Area, for the period 1990 to 1994.

  Number of persons

  Aged 16 to 24

  All ages

  Percentage aged 16 to 24

  Coventry Petty Sessional Division1

  1990

  1,709

  3,058

  56

  1991

  1,546

  2,825

  55

  1992

  1,511

  2,685

  56

  1993

  1,203

  2,357

  51

  1994

  1,182

  2,333

  51

  West Midlands Police Force Area

  1990

  11,839

  22,323

  53

  1991

  10,934

  20,688

  53

  1992

  9,984

  19,582

  51

  1993

  8,205

  16,784

  49

  1994

  7,541

  16,105

  47

  1 Includes persons convicted at the Crown Court, who were committed for trial/sentence by Coventry PSD.

  Euro '96
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the cost of the police operation for the Euro '96 championships; and how many officers will be involved. [17848]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Association of Chief Police Officers has estimated that the cost of policing for the European football championships 1996 could be around £5.5 million. Decisions about the number of officers involved, and their deployment, are for chief officers of the forces concerned.

  Merseyside Fire and Civil Defence Authority
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received in respect of the financing of the Merseyside fire and civil defence authority; how many of these alleged the funding was inadequate; and what was his response. [16292]

  Mr. Sackville
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received a number of such representations. Where the question of finance has been raised, the replies have made it clear that it was up to the authority to set a budget which would enable it to comply with its statutory duties.

  Football Pools Industry
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his most recent assessment of
  633
  the impact of the national lottery on the football pools industry; what plans he has to assist the pools industry; and if he will make a statement. [16296]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  In October 1995, the Pool Promoters Association estimated that the pools industry had lost 30 per cent. of its business since the introduction of the national lottery in November 1994.

  The pools industry has benefited substantially from the Government deregulation initiative. In November 1994, the age limit for participation in the football pools was reduced from 18 to 16; the collection of football pools coupons in shops and other premises was legalised; and rollover of prize money was allowed. In March 1995, the prohibition on advertising the football pools on television and radio was lifted. In the Gaming Machines and Betting Office Facilities Order, which was put to the Deregulation Committee of the House in December 1995, we are proposing to allow the payment of football pools winnings in betting offices.

  The pools industry has also benefited from reductions in pool betting duty. In May 1995, the duty was reduced from 37.5 per cent. to 32.5 per cent. In his Budget last November, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a further reduction to 26.5 per cent.

  We are currently considering a number of proposals for further relaxation of the restrictions on the pools which have been put forward by the industry. On one of these proposals, to revoke the regulation which prevents pools collectors from selling lottery tickets door to door, we have issued a consultation letter to interested parties.

  Buckley Hall Prison
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if prisoners from Buckley Hall prison are eligible for unaccompanied visits to Rochdale as a reward for good behaviour; and if he will make a statement. [18117]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 29 February 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the eligibility of prisoners at Buckley Hall prison to have unaccompanied visits to Rochdale as a reward for good behaviour.
  The Prison Service introduced a national framework of incentives and earned privileges for prisoners in July 1995, with most prisons commencing their own local scheme before the end of December. This policy reflects Ministers' and the Prison Service's commitment to a system of structured incentives based on prisoners' behaviour and willingness to cooperate. It seeks to ensure prisoners earn privileges by responsible behaviour and participation in hard work and other constructive activity.
  Buckley Hall plan to extend their three-tier incentives and earned privilege scheme by introducing, by the end of March, the key earnable privilege of unaccompanied community visits. Those eligible to apply will be prisoners in security category D who have been retained for outside work parties. Each applicant will be subjected to a full risk assessment before any decision is taken on the granting of temporary release.

  Fire Service College
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish the accounts for the national Fire Service College for the year 1994–95; and what was the overall financial result. [16731]

  Mr. Sackville
  [pursuant to his reply, 26 February 1996, c. 411]: The Fire Service College annual report and accounts were laid before the House of 28 February.

ENVIRONMENT

  City Disesel Fuel
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for he Environment what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the level of pollutants emitted by city diesel fuel. [17666]

  Mr. Clappison
  A programme of field trials of alternative fuels, including city diesel, was set up by the Department of Transport, the Department of the Environment, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in March 1994. The trials are assessing the emissions performance, energy consumption and economics of vans and buses using a number of alternative fuels. All vehicles in the trials are to be monitored in-service and up to 22 vans and 26 buses are to be emissions tested using driving cycles which best represent the real world in-service operating conditions for these vehicles. A final report of the project is expected in early 1997.

  Pollution Information
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to publish pollution information on the Internet. [17911]

  Mr. Clappison
  I refer to hon. Member to the answer given by the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford), on 16 January 1996,Official Report, column 491.

  Regional Development Funding (Merseyside)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the use of objective 1 funds in Merseyside; what plans he has to increase Government financial assistance towards European funding; and if he will make a statement. [16295]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  All claims for payment for projects approved under the programme are accompanied by a report from project sponsors outlining their progress towards delivery of required outputs. Claims received to date indicate that most of the targets are likely to be met or exceeded. In accordance with the regulations governing the structural funds, an interim evaluation of the progress made by the programme so far will shortly be undertaken. The results will be available later in the year.

  The structural funds contribute only a part of a project's costs. There are many sources of matching funds, from both the public and the private sectors, for the remaining costs and it is the responsibility of the applicant to explore fully the possibilities before making an application. This is not the responsibility of the Government.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was(a) the number of prosecutions by the Health and Safety Executive, (b) the number of convictions and (c) the average fine per conviction against employers in the construction industry in each of the last five years. [17835]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Health and Safety Executive's primary aim is to prevent accidents and ill health. In appropriate cases, prosecution may be taken. Details of prosecutions taken by the HSE's field operations division inspectorates, information laid, the number of convictions and the average penalty per conviction in all industrial sectors in each of the last five years was set out in table 24 of the Health and Safety Commissions's statistics 1994–95. The following table provides extracts from this table concerning proceedings in the construction industry.

  Prosecutions taken by the HSE's field operations division by result in the construction industry 1990–91 to 1994–95.

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  11994–95

  Information laid

  746

  746

  701

  526

  629

  The number of convictions

  600

  604

  572

  412

  497

  Average fine per conviction (£)

  857

  1,035

  1,279

  3,403

  2,675

  1 Provisional.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the number of(a) fatalities of workers in the construction industry and (b) members of the public killed by construction accidents in each of the last five years. [17765]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The number of fatalities of workers in the construction industry and of members of the public killed by construction accidents in each of the last five years was set out in table 2 of the Health and Safety Commission's statistics 1994–95. The table provides details of fatalities reported to the enforcing authorities in Great Britain.

  Fatal injuries reported to enforcement authorities in the construction industry 1990–91 to 1994–951

  2Workers

  Members of the public

  1990–91

  124

  9

  1991–92

  99

  6

  1992–93

  95

  5

  1993–94

  88

  6

  1994–95

  74

  5

  1 Provisional.

  2 Workers includes employees and self-employed.

  Statistic (Gender Breakdown)
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps his Department is taking to collect statistics broken down by gender where relevant. [17680]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  All relevant statistical information about employees of my Department is collected by reference to gender.
  636
  In addition, a gender breakdown of the employees of local authorities is collected quarterly by the Central Statistical Office in its "Work Force in Employment" series.

  A recent survey sponsored by my Department also collected gender information about occupations in the construction industry.

  Planning Inspectorate
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many inspectors are currently employed by the Planning Inspectorate. [17066]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Planning Inspectorate currently employs 209 salaried planning inspectors, 10 of whom work part time.

  A further 209 fee-paid inspectors are engaged either on short-term contracts or on a case-by-case basis, to undertake appeals and similar work.

  Mine Gas
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he commissioned consultants Wardell Armstrong to undertake an inquiry into the dangers of mine or stythe gas in the Gateshead area; and what were the circumstances which led him to commission the study. [17974]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Wardell Armstrong was commissioned to undertake a study of methane and other gases from disused coal mines in the autumn of 1993. The research has included consideration of Gateshead as a demonstration area and of stythe, among other gases. The main aims were, however, to examine the extent to which such emissions should be taken into account in planning of land use and the appropriate means of doing so. The focus, therefore, has been national rather than local.

  My Department had previously commissioned a series of general reviews of land instability and related geological issues in order to determine whether there was a need to take more account of these in planning. One of these, a review of naturally occurring contaminants, was undertaken by the British Geological Survey. The report indicated that gas problems associated with old mines were sufficiently widespread to merit more detailed consideration. This led directly to the commissioning of the work being undertaken by Wardell Armstrong.

  Mrs. Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the Wardell Armstrong report on the dangers of mine gas was received by his Department; and if he will publish it. [17975]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The final draft of a report by Wardell Armstrong entitled "Methane and other gas emissions from disused coal mines—the planning response" is currently awaited by my Department. It is expected that the report will be published in the summer of 1996.

  Proposed Supermarket, Barton-upon-Humber
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will announce his decision in respect of calling in the application to build a supermarket in Barton-upon-Humber. [18480]
  637
  Sir Paul Beresford
  The application to which my hon. Friend refers was called in on Tuesday 27 February for determination by the Secretary of State. The application and objections to it will now be examined at a local public inquiry by an independent inspector, who will submit his report to the Secretary of State.

  Housing Allocation Schemes
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how Ministers propose to use the powers contained in clause 128 of the Housing Bill to prescribe the criteria to be used in housing allocation schemes; and if he will make a statement. [18764]

  Mr. Curry
  Our proposals on the allocation criteria to be used are set out in the consultation paper "Allocation of Housing Accommodation by Local Authorities", published earlier this year. Once the consultation has ended and the Government have considered their response, we intend to bring forward, on Report, amendments to set the main allocation criteria in primary legislation. There would be provision to alter them subsequently only by an order subject to affirmative resolution procedure.

TRANSPORT

  A46–A47 Link Road
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many meetings his officials have held with Mr. Tommy Morrison of Leicestershire county council to discuss the A46–A47 link road; and what were the dates of those meetings. [17050]

  Mr. Norris
  I assume that the hon. Member is referring to Mr. Tommy Thompson, CS of LCC. During the year my officials have held regular meetings with officers of Leicestershire county council to discuss progress of all road and rail schemes within the county's transport policies and programme. There have been no meetings held solely to discuss the A46–47 link road.

  Central Railway
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations have taken place between Central Railway and the railway inspectorate. [18057]

  Mr. Watts
  I understand that Her Majesty's railway inspectorate met Central Railway plc last year and has commented on the company's outline design specification.

  EDS Ltd.
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 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. [17455]

  Mr. Norris
  My Department has five contracts with EDS:

  (a) Date of Inception

  (c) Duration to

  17 December 1993

  31 March 1999

  17 December 1993

  30 June 1999

  638

  (a) Date of Inception

  (c) Duration to

  17 December 1993

  31 December 1998

  17 December 1993

  30 June 1998

  14 March 1994

  13 March 1996

  (b) The value of the contracts is classified commercial in confidence information.

  London, Tilbury and Southend Line
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made on the inquiry into ticketing irregularities on the London, Tilbury and Southend line; when and how he intends to publish the inquiry results; and if he will make a statement. [18222]

  Mr. Watts
  The inquiry into ticketing irregularities on LTS Rail is being undertaken by the independent Rail Regulator, using his powers under section 58 of the Railways Act 1993. It is for him to decide whether and how the results of the inquiry might be made public. The Rail Regulator has said that he will make a statement once the investigation has been completed.

  Eurostar Services
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to ensure that the European passenger service from Doncaster to Waterloo is adequately publicised and connects promptly with Eurostar services. [17952]

  Mr. Watts
  The marketing and timetabling of these services are a matter for the operators, European Passenger Services. I understand that the main marketing thrust will come when the direct Eurostar services from the regions north of London to Paris and Brussels are introduced later this year.

  Ministerial Pedestrian Journeys
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all the journeys he made on foot in an official capacity in the week beginning 19 February. [18182]

  Sir George Young
  I often walk between my Department, meetings in Whitehall and the House.

  Sea Empress
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) on what date and time the salvage tug contracted to the Coastguard agency in Stornoway was offered to the salvors of the Sea Empress; what was their response; and when it was made; [18121]

  (2) what part of the marine pollution control unit played in the decision to introduce compressed air into the cargo holds of the Sea Empress prior to its refloating on Wednesday 21 February; [18119]

  (3) what estimate he had made of the cargo on board the Sea Empress (a) prior to the grounding on Thursday 15 February, (b) prior to the grounding on the evening of Monday 19 February, (c) at 0900 Tuesday 20 February, (d) at 0900 Wednesday 21 February and (e) immediately prior to the refloating on the night of Wednesday 21 February; [18118]
  639
  (4) what offers were made by French sources to assist in the Sea Empress incident; when they were made; and of what nature they were. [18120]

  Mr. Norris
  These matters will be covered by the inquiry being carried out by the marine accident investigation branch, which includes the planning and execution of the salvage operation. I do not wish to prejudge the inquiry's findings.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list the names and positions of officials from his Department, the Coastguard agency and the marine pollution control Unit who were present in the operation control room of the Milford Haven coastguard marine rescue centre between 1600 and 1730 hours on Saturday 17 February; [18125]

  (2) what are the names and positions of the officials in (a) his Department, (b) the marine pollution control unit and (c) the Coastguard Agency who were present in the operation control room at the Milford Haven coastguard marine rescue centre on the morning of Friday 16 February; [18123]

  (3) what was the name of the marine pollution control unit official on the bridge of the Sea Empress between 1600 and 1730 on Saturday 17 February; and what was his position within the MPCU. [18122]

  (4) if he will list the individuals from his Department, the Coastguard agency and the marine pollution control unit who travelled to Milford Haven as a result of the Sea Empress incident. [18124]

  Mr. Norris
  It is the Government's policy not to publish the names of officials engaged in particular tasks unless there are exceptional reasons for doing so. The MAIB investigation will examine all the issues of the salvage operation.

  Statistics (Gender Breakdown)
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps his Department is taking to collect statistics broken down by gender where relevant. [17684]

  Mr. Norris
  Statistics concerning staff employed in my Department are normally based on pay and personnel records which include information on gender. Statistical information about personnel can therefore usually be broken down by gender. Similarly, all travel statistics collected by the Department include gender, where relevant.

  Catford Loop Line
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many passenger trains run along the Catford loop line in both directions, in any 24-hour period between Monday and Friday, and Saturday and Sunday; and at what times these trains are travelling along the Catford loop line. [18197]
  640
  Mr. Norris
  The number of passenger trains scheduled to travel over the Catford loop line is as follows:

  London direction:

  Mondays to Fridays-42

  Saturdays-34

  Sundays-17.

  Bromley South direction:

  Mondays to Fridays-41

  Saturdays-36

  Sundays-16.

  In addition, the line may be used by empty passenger trains and also those diverted because of engineering works or operating difficulties. The time of all the scheduled services are to be found in the "Great Britain Passenger Railway Timetable".

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many freight trains run along the Catford loop line in both directions, in any 24-hour period between Monday and Friday, and Saturday and Sunday; and at what times these trains are travelling along the Catford loop line. [18196]

  Mr. Norris
  The number of freight trains that run along the Catford loop in either direction is as follows:

  Monday to Friday

  Up to 29 trains per day moving towards London distributed throughout the 24 hours.

  Up to 32 trains per day moving away from London distributed throughout the 24 hours.

  Saturday

  Up to 16 trains per day moving towards London distributed throughout the 24 hours.

  Up to 22 trains per day moving away from London distributed throughout the 24 hours.

  Sunday

  Up to 16 trains per day moving towards London distributed throughout the 24 hours.

  Up to 2 trains per day moving away from London distributed throughout the 24 hours.

  There may be additional or replacement services to run as a result of the need for track maintenance or for diversions.

  Waste (Illegal Discharges)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many convictions have been secured at the sheriff court for the illegal discharge of oil or waste at sea in each of the past seven years; what were the fines imposed; what was the number and proportion of United Kingdom registered vessels involved in such cases; and if he will make a statement. [17481]

  Mr. Norris
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on 24 January,Official Report, column 270, and on 31 January, Official Report, columns 807–808.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Chechnya
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Russian Government on the present conflict on Chechnya; and what was their response. [17217]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary last discussed Chechnya with the former Russian Foreign Minister Kozyrev in Moscow on 5 September. At that time the Russian Government were experiencing problems over the implementation of the military agreement negotiated in July 1995 with Chechen rebels but were hoping for a political solution within the Russian constitution.

  Since then we have been maintaining a dialogue through diplomatic channels, and supporting, with our EU partners, the efforts of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe to promote a negotiated settlement.

  War Crimes Tribunal
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the countries from which investigators are drawn by the UN war crimes tribunal on the former Yugoslavia. [16289]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The employment policy of the international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia is identical to that operated throughout the UN. Article 101 of the UN charter states that"paramount consideration in the employment of staff… shall be… the highest standards of efficiency, competence and integrity".
  The UN also aims to recruit staff from a wide geographical base. The tribunal will not divulge details of its investigators, including nationalities.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many of the Croats indicted for war crimes by the war crimes tribunal have been indicted for crimes committed in(a) Bosnia and (b) the Krajina. [16290]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The international criminal court for the former Yugoslavia has announced indictments against seven Croats to date. All of these were indicted for crimes allegedly committed in the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Bosnian Government in respect of the discovery by the implementation forces of concealed weapons in the Sarajevo area; and if the discovery is being referred to the war crimes tribunal. [16293]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We continue to urge all parties in the former Yugoslavia to meet their obligations under the Dayton peace agreement. The United Kingdom was presented at the Rome summit on 17 to 18 February where the parties reaffirmed their commitment to that agreement and took positive steps towards resolving outstanding 642
  incidences of non-compliance. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed a range of compliance issues with Bosnian President Izetbegovic, the commander of the implementation force, and the High Representative when he visited Sarajevo on 20 February. Concealment of weapons does not constitute a war crime. It does not therefore fall within the mandate of the international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

  Military Trade
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will prohibit British military trade with undemocratic regimes; and if he will make a statement. [18218]

  Mr. David Davis
  It is our policy to support the sale of British defence equipment overseas where this is compatible with our political, strategic and security interests. We defend ourselves and should not deny others the right to do the same without good reason. We observe strict responsibility in our defence exports. We consider applications for licences to export defence equipment on a case-by-case basis in the light of established criteria including the international guidelines and obligations to which we are committed. These criteria include consideration of the recipient country's human rights record. We do not export defence equipment likely to be used for internal repression.

  Statistics (Gender Breakdown)
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps his Department is taking to collect statistics broken down by gender where relevant. [17681]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Statistics concerning staff employed in this Department are normally based on pay and personnel records which include information on gender. Statistical information about personnel can therefore usually be broken down by gender.

  British Aerospace
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions(a) he and (b) his Ministers have had over the last five years concerning the sale by British Aerospace to India of Hawk 100 aircraft; and if he will make a statement. [18199]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  During the last five years there have been a number of occasions when Foreign Office Ministers have commended Hawk to the Indian authorities.

  India and Pakistan
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by what mechanisms he informs the Home Secretary when he reaches a decision on whether(a) India and (b) Pakistan is a candidate for designation as a country where there is in general no serious risk of persecution; and if he will make a statement. [18132]
  643
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has already informed his right hon. and learned Friend Friend the Home Secretary of his agreement to the proposed list of designated countries, which includes India and Pakistan. No actual designation will be possible until clause 1 of the Asylum and Immigration Bill comes into force, and an order has been made under it.

  Yemen (British Council Office)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he has had in relation to the closure of the British Council office in Yemen. [18129]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  None. The British Council is still considering how best to make the necessary adjustments to its programmes and activities following the latest public expenditure round.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make changes in the personnel of his Department following criticisms contained in the report of the Scott inquiry. [16567]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  [holding answer 22 February 1996]: Where officials criticised in the Scott report had acted conscientiously, in good faith and in accordance with Government policy, it would not normally be appropriate to take disciplinary action against them. If there are cases where disciplinary action is considered appropriate, this would be carried out under normal departmental disciplinary procedure.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to paragraph K8.1 of the Scott report relating to the ministerial accountability, what additional measures he proposes to ensure his Department's compliance with paragraph 27 of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers". [17309]

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what review has been undertaken by his Department of its role in overseeing export licence applications for technologies with the capability of assisting in the manufacture of nuclear weapons since the publication of the Scott report. [17578]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  [holding answer 26 February 1996]: I refer the hon. Members to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 26 February, Official Report, columns 589–604.

  Kenya
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what actions Her Majesty's Government intend to take to improve the relationship between the United Kingdom and Kenya. [17101]

  Mr. Hanley
  The United Kingdom has long-standing and deep-rooted links with Kenya, one of our most significant partners in Africa. The bilateral relationship 644
  spans wide-ranging areas of activity, many of them outside the framework of Government contacts. We maintain a close dialogue with the Kenyan authorities, one objective of which is to strengthen bilateral relations.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Fair Employment
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list all cases brought under fair employment legislation against(a) a Government Department and (b) a public body, indicating in each case the costs incurred in defending such action. [15150]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The number of cases registered with the fair employment tribunal under the Fair Employment Act (Northern Ireland) 1989 against(a) Government Departments and (b) public bodies is as follows:

  (a) NIO/NI Departments

  11 completed

  31 withdrawn 33 on-going.

  (b)Public bodies1

  46 completed

  49 withdrawn

  50 on-going.

  1This excludes public bodies for which the Department of Health and Social Services is responsible.

  Information on the costs incurred in defending these cases is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Criminals (Damages)
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what power he has, when convicted criminals initiate actions for damages against the Government or their agencies, to commence a counterclaim for(a) the costs to the state of the criminal's activities, (b) any moneys incurred by the state to aid or recompense their victims and (c) the costs of their trial and any legal aid; and if he will make a statement; [16743]

  (2) how many claims for recompense his Department has commenced against convicted criminals in the last five years; and if there is a standing instruction to pursue this option in suitable circumstances. [16744]

  Sir John Wheeler
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no power to counterclaim against a convicted criminal who has initiated an action for damages against the Government or their agencies, except in the exceptional case where the Northern Ireland Office itself would be entitled to claim—for instance, where a criminal's activities had damaged Northern Ireland Office property.

  However, regardless of whether a convicted criminal is claiming damages against the Government or their agencies, the Secretary of State may apply to the county court for an order directing the offender to reimburse an amount equal to the whole or part of any compensation, paid or payable under the criminal compensation legislation, which is directly attributable to the offence of which the offender was convicted.
  645
  The total value of such recoveries under the criminal damage and criminal injuries schemes, over the last five years, is as follows:

  1990–91: £65,000

  1991–92: £182,000

  1992–93: £232,000

  1993–94: £246,000

  1994–95: £376,000.

  Statistics (Gender Breakdown)
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps his Department is taking to collect statistics broken down by gender where relevant. [17687]

  Sir John Wheeler
  A wide range of statistics are collected by the Northern Ireland Departments to inform decision making. Data on major statistical series are broken down by gender where relevant.

  Independent Commissioner for Holding Centres
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he intends to publish Sir Louis Blom-Cooper's third annual report as Independent Commissioner for Holding Centres. [18766]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I have today arranged for the copies of Sir Louis Blom-Cooper's annual report for 1995 to be placed in the Library.

  I am grateful to the commissioner for his report and for the assurance that it provides that he has found absolutely nothing that might give anyone the slightest cause for concern about the care and treatment of detainees held in the custody of uniformed officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

  I shall be studying the recommendations which Sir Louis has made carefully in the light of the changed circumstances since the ending of Provisional IRA's cessation of military operations.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Nursery Voucher Scheme
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment by what means and on what criteria she intends to apportion vouchers distributed to parents for early-age education, where in any of the areas designated for phases 1 of the scheme the places offered by providers are fewer than the number of pupils whose parents have applied for vouchers. [17876]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  No such apportioning of vouchers will take place. All parents of all eligible four-year-olds in the phase 1 authorities will receive vouchers.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list for each training and enterprise council(a) how much was spent on administration in 1994–95 and (b) the number of staff employed in (i) 1992–93, (ii) 1993–94 and (iii) 1994–95 (A) for each TEC and (B) by all TECs. [18098]
  646
  Mr. Pake
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 27 February,Official Report, columns 483–84. This shows the amounts spent on administration in 1994–95 for each training and enterprise council and by all TECs. As TECs are private limited companies, they do not provide information to the DFEE on the number of staff they employ.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate she has made of the savings to be made as a result of full implementation of the efficiency scrutiny report into the training and enterprise management fee and administrative costs. [18097]

  Mr. Paice
  I expect to publish shortly details of the action that the Department plans to take in response to the recent efficiency scrutiny into the training and enterprise council contract and management fee. We believe that implementation of the Department's plans will reduce costs significantly. However, estimates of total savings will need to await detailed discussions with TECs over the coming month.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if asylum seekers who are currently enrolled on Government-funded training courses remain eligible to receive the full training allowance(a) if they are in-country asylum seekers, (b) if their application for asylum is refused and (c) while awaiting the outcome of an appeal; and if she will make a statement; [18128]

  (2) if (a) future in-country asylum applicants and (b) asylum seekers whose application has been refused will remain eligible for training for work after obtaining permission to work; in what circumstances they will be entitled to receive a training allowance; and how the training allowance will be calculated. [18131]

  Mr. Paice
  Eligibility for Government-funded training programmes, and for training allowances, is a matter for the Department for Education and Employment.

  Asylum seekers remain eligible for Government-funded training programmes while they retain the Home Office's permission to work in the United Kingdom. They must fulfil the other eligibility criteria for those programmes which apply to all UK residents. Asylum seekers receive training allowances on the same basis as other trainees.

  Social Fund Training Programmes
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will estimate the average number of unemployed claimants in 1996–97 who participate in European social fund training programmes. [18113]

  Mr. Forth
  It is not possible to estimate the number of unemployed claimants participating in ESF training programmes. Although the majority of participants are unemployed, they do not have to be claimant unemployed to be eligible for ESF support and this information is not therefore recorded.

  Jobmatch Scheme
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will estimate the effect on public revenues in 1996–97 and 1997–98 of making the jobmatch pilot a nationwide scheme. [18101]

  Mr. Forth
  At this stage of the jobmatch pilots, there is insufficient evaluation information available to be able to estimate accurately the effects on public revenues.

  Assisted Places
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will announce the allocation of extra assisted places among schools in England for 1996–97. [18726]

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  There has been an excellent response to my announcement of 29 November inviting bids for the first instalment of the expansion of the assisted places scheme from September 1996. Over 400 schools applied for more than 7,400 new entry places this year. Bids were also received for over 5,200 additional places in 1997.

  I have allocated over 4,000 new entry places at around 280 schools in England for the academic year 1996–97. This is a significant contribution to expansion. As successive years' entries move up through the schools, the total number of places will eventually double the 34,000 currently available in England. Over half the new places will be for secondary pupils entering at ages 11 to 13 as in the existing scheme, and about a quarter for direct sixth form entry. Subject to parliamentary approval, I also intend to make places available for children to enter the scheme below the age of 11 at schools which have an integral junior department.

  I am placing in the Library of the House a list of the 226 schools currently participating in the scheme which will be increasing the number of assisted places. These amount to around 2,800 new entry places.

  A further 60 schools will be new to the scheme and have not previously had assisted places. I am completing negotiations with these on the provision of about 1,100 new entry places, and will place a list in the Library shortly.

  I will also announce shortly the allocation of some 100 additional aided places under the parallel at specialist schools for talented pupils of music and dance.

  Every region of England will benefit from these allocations. Nearly two fifths of the new places will be in girls' schools, and the remainder in coeducational and boys schools. This new tranche of assisted places secures an equitable distribution across the scheme as a whole.

  Many of the independent schools in the scheme serve major urban areas. I am asking those schools where appropriate to encourage applications for places for pupils from inner-city areas and the ethnic minority communities.

  All the schools receiving allocations for 1996 achieve outstanding GCSE and A-level results and maintain strong sixth forms. Many of the other schools bidding for places also have excellent records, and I regret that it was not possible to accommodate them within the provision available for the first instalment. I am keen to offer further
  648
  allocations of new entry places for 1997, and to extend places to separate preparatory schools for pupils aged below 11 and to encourage schools to develop distinctive facilities for pupils within particular needs.

  The extension of the assisted places scheme improves the opportunities for able children from less well-off families to benefit from the excellent education offered by all the schools participating in it.

TREASURY

  Taxation
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total yield from higher and lower rate taxpayers in 1994–95 for each English county or tax area. [16769]

  Mr. Jack
  The table provides estimates based on the survey of personal incomes for 1993–94, the latest available year for which information can be provided below the United Kingdom level.

  Lower and higher rate taxpayers, 1993–94

  £ million

  Taxpayers liable at lower rate but not basic rate

  Taxpayers liable at higher rate

  Total tax

  Total tax

  Cleveland

  11

  108

  Cumbria

  13

  138

  Durham

  13

  102

  Northumberland

  7

  98

  Tyne and Wear

  27

  166

  Humberside

  20

  193

  North Yorkshire

  16

  300

  South Yorkshire

  25

  221

  West Yorkshire

  49

  749

  Cheshire

  21

  427

  Greater Manchester

  62

  559

  Lancashire

  30

  340

  Merseyside

  28

  242

  Derbyshire

  19

  235

  Leicestershire

  20

  209

  Lincolnshire

  16

  162

  Northamptonshire

  10

  226

  Nottinghamshire

  27

  288

  Hereford and Worcester

  16

  313

  Shropshire

  7

  170

  Staffordshire

  16

  249

  Warwickshire

  12

  249

  West Midlands

  48

  452

  Cambridgeshire

  11

  288

  Norfolk

  14

  186

  Suffolk

  12

  275

  Bedfordshire

  9

  218

  Berkshire

  17

  596

  Buckinghamshire

  12

  637

  East Sussex

  19

  278

  Essex

  34

  857

  Greater London

  124

  6,070

  Hampshire

  44

  739

  Hertfordshire

  21

  693

  Kent

  32

  677

  Oxfordshire

  16

  412

  Surrey

  29

  1,300

  West Sussex

  15

  422

  Isle of Wight

  5

  21

  Avon

  22

  327

  649

  Lower and higher rate taxpayers, 1993–94

  —million

  Taxpayers liable at lower rate but not basic rate

  Taxpayers liable at higher rate

  Total tax

  Total tax

  Cornwall

  16

  70

  Devon

  29

  256

  Dorset

  18

  195

  Gloucestershire

  12

  264

  Somerset

  10

  113

  Wiltshire

  13

  285

  VAT (Leisure Complexes)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those member counties of the European Union which allow reduced VAT rates for leisure complexes; and in each case what is the ordinary rate and the reduced rate and the date on which the concession was made. [17790]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  There is no common definition of leisure complexes. However, under the terms of the relevant EC agreements on VAT, member states have the option to apply reduced rates to certain specified goods and services, which include admission to sporting events and the use of sporting facilities. On the basis that those two categories most closely equate to leisure complexes, the table lists the member states that apply reduced rates. Detailed information on the date of introduction of the reduced rates is not readily available although, in general, reduced rates tend to date from the time when VAT was first introduced in the member state concerned.

  Percentage

  EC member state

  Standard rate of VAT

  Reduced rate of VAT applied admissions to sporting events

  Reduced rate of VAT applied to use of sporting facilities

  Belgium

  21

  3

  3

  Greece

  18

  8

  8

  Ireland

  21

  exempt

  12.5

  Italy

  19

  10

  —

  Luxembourg

  15

  3

  3

  Portugal

  17

  5

  5

  Spain

  16

  7 (amateur events only)

  —

  Source:

  European Commission Report on the operation of the VAT rates provisions in the Single Market (COM(94)584).

  Government Deficits
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the outturn against the Treasury Red Book forecast of Government deficits as a percentage of gross domestic product in the last four years including 1995 using the public sector borrowing requirement and Maastricht convergence, GGFD—general Government financial deficit—methods of measurement of Government deficit. [17663]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The table sets out the information requested. Calendar year forecasts are not made. Outturns for 1995–96 are not as yet known.
  650

  Percentage of GDP

  Year

  PSBR

  GGFD

  Budget forecast

  Outturn

  Budget forecast

  Outturn

  1992–93

  14.5

  6.00

  15.00

  7.50

  1993–94

  18.00

  7.00

  18.75

  7.25

  1994–95

  25.50

  5.25

  26.25

  6.25

  1995–96

  23.00

  n/a

  23.75

  n/a

  1 March 1992 and March 1993 Budgets respectively.

  2 November 1993 and November 1994 Budgets respectively.

  Nuclear Industry
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the net subsidy to the nuclear generation industry from the Exchequer in 1995 prices in each year since 1996 to the proposed privatisation date of British Energy. [12474]

  Mr. Jack
  A public corporation's external finance requirement consists broadly of net flows of funds from the Government to the company, plus any net borrowing by the company. The external financing requirements of Nuclear Electric and Scottish Nuclear have been as follows since 1990–91, in 1994–95 prices (million):

  Nuclear Electric

  Scottish Nuclear

  1990–91

  1,384

  -2

  1991–92

  1,287

  27

  1992–93

  1,039

  15

  1993–94

  740

  -29

  1994–95

  483

  -48

  Note:

  1. Negative numbers indicate positive net cash generation by the industry. These funds will have been used for both revenue and capital expenditure. In the years concerned, Nuclear Electric and Scottish Nuclear's expenditure on fixed assets was as follows, in 1994– prices (million £):

  Source:

  "Public Expenditure", Cm 2821, HM Treasury 1995. Financial year GDP deflator.

  Nuclear Electric

  Scottish Nuclear

  1990–91

  709

  42

  1991–92

  770

  49

  1992–93

  512

  58

  1993–94

  410

  50

  1994–95

  239

  35

  Source:

  Industry figures. Financial year GDP deflator.

  Prior to 1990, the Central Electricity Generating Board and the South of Scotland Electricity Board were responsible for most nuclear generation in the UK. The accounts of those companies did not separately identify detailed financial information on nuclear generation.

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the next steps review of the Inland Revenue is now complete; and if he will make a statement [18654]

  Mr. Jack
  The review of the Inland Revenue's next steps arrangements was announced in December 1994, and has been carried out in accordance with the normal
  651
  arrangements for periodic reviews of next steps bodies. Two of the three elements of the review have now been completed.

  The first element of the review required consideration of what are known as the prior options—abolition, privatisation, contractorisation or market testing of all or part of the Department's functions and reconsideration of its organisational structure. The review concluded that there is a continuing need for all the Department's core functions and that the wholesale privatisation of the work of assessing and collecting tax would not be appropriate, but the review also noted that the private sector has played and will continue to play a significant role in the delivery of the Department's business.

  Approaching 25 per cent. of the Department's annual running costs have already been contracted out, market tested or benchmarked against other market tests, and the Department's outsourcing contract for information technology services represents one of the largest such public sector arrangements in the world. The review reaffirmed the Inland Revenue's commitment to continue to search for further ways of involving the private sector either directly or indirectly in its work.

  The prior options review also concluded that the existing organisational structure based on a number of operational and service executive offices remains sound, and is right for the Inland Revenue.

  The second element of the review required evaluation of the effectiveness of the existing arrangements and scope for further improvements. That element took stock of the performance of the executive offices against their objectives and key targets, analysed their relationship with the centre of the Department and considered how existing arrangements might be improved. The results have been very encouraging, showing a marked improvement in performance since the establishment of the executive offices in April 1992, but areas for further development and improvement were identified and will be pursued.

  In the light of the findings of the review, the framework documents, which set out the policy and resources framework within which each of the Department's executive offices operates, and the authority, responsibilities and accountability of the controllers, are being revised.

  Ministerial Accountability
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, 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." [17320]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [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.

  Mortgage Endowment Policies
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the loss in revenue for each year since 1979 accruing from the granting of mortgage endowment policies. [17474]
  652
  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 27 February 1996]: The estimated cost of life assurance premium relief on mortgage endowment policy premiums was about £90 million in 1993–94 and £80 million in 1994–95. Information for earlier years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  These approximate estimates are based on information from the family expenditure survey.

PRIME MINISTER

  Export Controls
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to commission an independent review on the power to impose controls on exports from the United Kingdom. [17235]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I have been asked to reply.

  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.

  Engagements
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 26 February, indicating the purpose of each meeting. [18170]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 February. [16238]

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his engagements for Thursday 29 February. [16239]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is carrying out official engagements in the far east.

  Downing Street Meetings
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) on how many occasions during the past 12 months he has had meetings at 10 Downing street with(a) Sir Gerrard Neale and (b) Lord Younger; [18208]

  (2) what facilities have been extended to Sir Gerrard Neale to have access to 10 Downing street in the past 12 months; and what access he has had to office and telephone facilities. [18207]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I have been asked to reply.

  As far as my right hon. Friend is aware, none.

  British Aerospace
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister on what occasions British Aerospace was represented(a) directly

  653
  and (b) indirectly in groups led by (i) him and (ii) other Ministers to India in each of the last five years; if he will give the dates of such visits; and if he will make a statement. [18127]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I have been asked to reply.

  Representatives from British Aerospace have accompanied British Ministers to India on two occasions during the last five years in connection with our trade promotion programme for India.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had relating to the sale by British Aerospace to India of Hawk 100 aircraft; and if he will make a statement. [18133]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Indian air force has a requirement for a number of advanced jet trainer aircraft. British Aerospace has offered a variant of the Hawk aircraft to meet that requirement. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has commended the Hawk to the Indian Prime Minister on more than one occasion.

  Lord-Lieutenants
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Prime Minister which lord-lieutenants will be affected by the changes in local government organisation that come into operation on 1 April. [18655]

  The Prime Minister
  On 1 April 1996 the following arrangements will come into effect.

  In the former county of Avon

  Mr. Jay Tidmarsh will become the new Lord-Lieutenant of the new county of Bristol.

  Sir John Wills, Lord-Lieutenant of Somerset, will cover the unitary authorities of Bath and North East Somerset and North Somerset as part of the new ceremonial county of Somerset.

  Mr. Henry Elwes, Lord-Lieutenant of Gloucestershire, will cover the unitary authority of South Gloucestershire as part of the new ceremonial county of Gloucestershire.

  In the former County of Cleveland

  The Lord Gisborough, at present Lord-Lieutenant of Cleveland, will become Lieutenant of North Yorkshire, when the unitary authorities of Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland and Stockton on Tees (south of the River Tees), previously in Cleveland, become part of the new ceremonial county of North Yorkshire.

  Sir Marcus Worsley will continue as Lord-Lieutenant of the whole of the county of North Yorkshire, including the new unitary authority of York.

  Mr. David Grant, as Lord-Lieutenant of Durham, will cover the unitary authorities of Hartlepool and Stockton on Tees (north of the River Tees) within the new ceremonial county of Durham.

  In the former county of Humberside

  Mr. Richard Marriott will become the Lord-Lieutenant of the new county of the East Riding of Yorkshire, covering the unitary authorities of Kingston upon Hull and the East Riding of Yorkshire.

  Mrs. Bridget Cracroft-Eley, as Lord-Lieutenant of Lincolnshire, will cover the unitary authorities of North and North East Lincolnshire, as part of the new ceremonial county of Lincolnshire.

  Information Technology Developments
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Prime Minister how he intends to ensure that the United Kingdom derives maximum benefit from opportunities in developments in multi-media and information technology; and if he will make a statement. [18656]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government see the development of multi-media and information technology as an exciting area of opportunity for the United Kingdom in which much is already being achieved. These technological innovations are having an important impact on all aspects of our way of life. In the future there will be further opportunities for business to develop new products, services and ways of working; for individuals to adapt their work patterns; for consumers to improve their quality of life with new electronic products and services; and for the providers of services such as health care, education and training to strengthen their quality and delivery.

  The Government have been committed to the comprehensive development of these technologies since the early 1980s. By freeing up the market for our telecommunications and broadcasting industries through privatisation and deregulation and promoting the use of computers in schools we have made sure that the UK is in the vanguard of technological change. We are now undertaking a further range of initiatives, most recently through the information society initiative launched last month.

  A strong lead is rightly being given by the private sector's enterprise and initiative. That will continue to be supported by a focused and complementary partnership with Government. In order to reinforce that focus and driving force across Government, I have asked my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State and Deputy Prime Minister to convene a ministerial group with the following terms of reference:
  "To identify and take forward significant cross-departmental initiatives to ensure that developments in information technology are exploited to the full in the national interest".

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

  President of the Board of Trade

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  Secretary of State for National Heritage

  Secretary of State for Education and Employment

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Davis)

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science and Technology, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian Taylor).

  Other Ministers will be invited to attend for items on which they have a departmental interest. My efficiency adviser and the chief scientific adviser will also attend.

  The work of the group will build on the information society initiative and the separate activities of the central information technology unit recently set up in the Office of Public Service to plan the Government's own use of technology. By these means the Government will ensure

  655
  that there is strengthened stimulus and co-ordination within and beyond Government to enable the UK to derive maximum benefit from the new technology.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Export Controls
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what review he has undertaken of export controls over dual-use goods. [17222]

  Mr. Lang
  Her Majesty's Government keep under constant review export controls on dual-use goods. These are mainly based on agreements reached with other member states of the European Union and partners in international export control forums. In addition, some controls are maintained by Her Majesty's Government on a unilateral basis to reflect United Kingdom national security considerations and foreign policy requirements.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his oral statement on the Scott report of 26 February,Official Report, columns 589–604, if he will list the specific responses made by Her Majesty's Government to each of the recommendations relating to policy contained in the report. [18176]

  Mr. Lang
  Specific responses to the recommendations relating to policy in Sir Richard Scott's report were set out in my speech on 26 February. I have promised to keep the House informed of progress on those that require further consideration prior to implementation. Changes to export control policies and procedures will be the subject of a consultation paper in due course, and I shall also keep the House informed of progress on this matter.

  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make changes in the personnel of his Department following criticisms contained in the report of the Scott inquiry. [16563]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 22 February 1996]: Where officials criticised in the Scott report had acted conscientiously, in good faith and in accordance with Government policy, it would not normally be appropriate to take disciplinary action against them. If there are cases where disciplinary action is considered appropriate, this would be carried out under normal departmental disciplinary procedure.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he first consulted with other Cabinet Ministers about the contents of the report of the Scott inquiry; and where and when such discussions took place and with whom. [16518]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 22 February 1996]: It is not the practice to give details of ministerial meetings.

  Magnox Reactors
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 13 February to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle),Official Report,
  656
  column 539, if he will place in the Library the evidence on the economics of continuing to generate electricity from the Magnox stations. [17832]

  Mr. Lang
  The economic case for continued operation of the Magnox stations was considered in detail as part of the Government's coal review. The conclusions were set out in paragraphs 7.71 to 7.80 of the White Paper "The Prospects for Coal", Cm 2235.

  Fossil Fuel Levy
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 29 January,Official Report, column 511, if he will provide details of the outstanding moneys that the fossil fuel levy will recover after privatisation of Nuclear Electric; and how they will be paid to British Energy. [17834]

  Mr. Lang
  Any outstanding moneys will be paid to Magnox Electric, rather than British Energy. The amount will depend on a number of factors that are still uncertain, such as the level of electricty consumption this year.

  British Aerospace
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions(a) he and (b) his Ministers have had over the last five years concerning the sale by British Aerospace to India of Hawk 100 aircraft; and if he will make a statement. [18198]

  Mr. Eggar
  A number of DTI Ministers have been involved in discussions and visits with British Aerospace over the last five years which would have included the prospects for Hawk in India.

  Regional Enterprise and Technology Schemes
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list what financial assistance has been given since 1980 by his Department to(a) Monderntask Ltd., Redruth, (b) Digitize Ltd., Truro, (c) Thimbles Ltd., Redruth, (d) South West Leisure Products Ltd., Redruth, (e) Van Pieters plc, Pewsey, (f) Pan Atlantic (UK) plc, Birmingham, (g) CSL Group by (i) type of grant and (ii) date. [15775]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 20 February 1996]: Six of the companies have received assistance under the Department's principal regional, enterprise and technology schemes since 1980:

  Company

  Scheme

  Payment £

  Date

  Moderntask Ltd.

  Regional Development Grant (RDG)

  78,228

  1991

  Thimbles Ltd.

  Regional Selective Assistance (RSA)

  22,000

  1993–94

  SW Leisure Products Ltd.

  RSA

  23,068

  1985

  RDG

  66,900

  1989

  Van Pieters plc

  Enterprise Initiative (EI)

  3,173

  1992

  Pan Atlantia (UK) Ltd.

  RSA

  22,000

  1993

  CSL Group

  EI

  3,014

  1993

  Workers' Rights
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action the European Union is taking to promote international rules (i) against(a) forced and (b) child labour and (ii) to guarantee workers' rights to organize and to bargain collectively; if the United Kingdom Government support this action; and if he will make a statement. [16903]

  Mr. Forth
  I have been asked to reply.

  The European Commission has recently published a communication which suggested that the World Trade Organisation conference at Singapore
  "could take the lead in the discussion and set up a working party to look into the question of the links between international trade and working conditions".
  The Government do not accept that there is any link between trade and labour standards and are opposed to any form of coercive trade action designed to impose particular social standards on developing countries. International labour standards are a matter for the International Labour Organisation, not for the WTO.

  Cement Industry
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from the cement industry and other interested parties about the alleged unfair advantages of the Greek cement industry over others in the EU. [17698]

  Mr. Clappison
  I have been asked to reply.

  No representations have been received from the cement industry or from other interested parties on this matter. However, I am aware that the relevant trade association—Cembureau—has been successful in an application to the European Court of Justice against the European Commission for failing to take appropriate action.

  British Library (Documents)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will press for the depositing of(a) the document numbered BL SRIS and (b) "British telecommunications engineering" of January 1996 in the British library. [17155]

  Mr. Sproat
  I have been asked to reply.

  Without further information it is not possible to identify the first of these two documents: the letters "BL SRIS" refer to the British library's science reference and information service which acquires a large volume of documents for its library collection. I understand that the journal entitled "British telecommunications engineering: the journal of the Institution of British Telecommunications Engineers" is published quarterly. One copy of each issue is deposited with the British library by the publishers, as required under the statutory legal deposit arrangements, and a further copy of each issue is donated to the British library.

  The most recent issue of this journal to be received under legal deposit was volume 14, part 3, dated October 1995, which was deposited on 6 December 1995. On the basis of the publishing pattern of this journal, the library would expect to receive copies of the January 1996 issue during March.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Statistics (Gender Breakdown)
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps his Department is taking to collect statistics broken down by gender where relevant. [17686]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  This answer refers to the Lord Chancellor's Department, Court Service and Public Trust Office. Statistics collected by the Department and the two agencies referred to are aimed at improving decision making, stimulating research and informing debate within government and the wider community. Where statistics broken down by gender are relevant to this purpose, the Department will consider them when deciding or reviewing what to collect. Currently, the Department collects statistics broken down by gender on, for example, public and judicial appointments made by the Lord Chancellor or on his recommendation.

  Legal Aid (Franchised Firms)
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the number of franchised firms in each legal aid area at(a) 1 August 1994, (b) at 1 June 1995 and (c) 1 December 1995. [18209]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Franchises are awarded to suppliers' offices rather than firms. The number of franchised offices in each legal aid area as at the dates requested was as follows:

  Legal aid area

  1 August 1994

  1 June 1995

  1 December 1996

  London

  108

  117

  126

  Brighton

  53

  92

  94

  Reading

  115

  141

  148

  Bristol

  93

  122

  128

  Cardiff

  46

  41

  44

  Birmingham

  27

  32

  32

  Manchester

  70

  73

  91

  Newcastle

  36

  45

  44

  Leeds

  66

  70

  79

  Nottingham

  87

  102

  115

  Cambridge

  108

  124

  132

  Chester

  37

  42

  49

  Liverpool

  40

  44

  58

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the number of sole practitioner firms holding a franchise at 1 November 1995 in each of the legal aid areas. [18210]

  Mr. Evans
  Information on the number of sole practitioner firms holding a franchise is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Isle of Wight (Expenditure)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the total expenditure by his Department on(a) staff, (b) services, (c) offices and (d) other categories on the Isle of Wight in 1994–95. [16768]
  659
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Lord Chancellor's Department spent the following amounts on the Isle of Wight in 1994–95:

  (a) staff £238,241

  (b) services £169,764

  (c) offices £47,633

  (d) other categories.

  Some £191,556 of legal aid payments were made through the Crown court on the Isle of Wight. Expenditure from the legal aid fund cannot be identified separately. The Legal Aid Board administers applications and bills regionally and payments to Isle of Wight practitioners could be identified only by scrutinising each bill at the regional office.

  In addition, local authority expenditure on magistrates courts on the Isle of Wight was £747,361. The Lord Chancellor's Department pays grants to local authorities at a rate of 80 per cent. of approved expenditure of magistrates courts.

  Departmental Officials (Interests)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's 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' interests. [16892]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  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 Department's personnel management manual. Records of such declarations are kept in written form on the individual's personal file. Staff who disclose relevant interests do so on the understanding that the declaration, like all employment matters, is confidential between them and their employer. I do not intend to establish a central register of officials' interests.

DEFENCE

  Equipment Sales (Iraq)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the Iraq desk within the defence sales sector of his Department was closed. [16314]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  No assistance has been provided by my Department to British industry to promote sales of defence equipment to Iraq since August 1990. Before that date, any assistance provided would have been consistent with the guidelines in respect of exports to Iran and Iraq.

  Training Services (Foreign Governments)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what factors underlay his Department's decisions to write off expenditure in respect of training services for foreign Governments; and if he will indicate when and how the policies which informed these decisions have been reported to Parliament. [17784]
  660
  Mr. Soames
  Assistance with military training takes place mainly in support of wider foreign policy aims, but can also serve defence objectives by promoting stability and military effectiveness in countries where we retain valuable facilities, including for transit or training, or where we have an obligation to assist in the event of a security threat. Assistance of this nature forms part of military task 3.11, as described in paragraph 522 of the 1993 "Statement on the Defence Estimates" and significant activities under this task have been reported in subsequent statements on the defence estimates. On occasion, the MOD agrees to waive the costs of training provided in the furtherance of these objectives. Training costs can also be reduced or waived in the furtherance of some defence sales, but only when it is considered essential for the sale and when matching cost contributions are provided by the commercial firm involved. The total value of receipts forgone in respect of training is reported each year in the appropriation account. In addition, Ministers have from time to time provided information on the value of such waivers in response to questions. I refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) of 3 April 1995,Official Report, columns 968–69.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the sums of money(a) written off each year in respect of training services for foreign Governments and (b) waived in respect of training services for foreign military students; if he will distinguish the costs incurred for policy reasons; and if he will list any expenditure written off or waived in respect of the Government of Iraq. [17783]

  Mr. Soames
  The primary responsibility for funding military assistance lies with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. On occasion, however, where there is a benefit to defence interests, the MOD agrees to waive the costs of training provided to foreign Governments. According to available records, the total of these waivers in the last five years is as follows:

  £ million

  Year

  Total waiver

  Waiver for policy reasons

  1990–91

  4.6

  4.1

  1991–92

  4,6

  4.3

  1992–93

  5.9

  4.0

  1993–94

  5.5

  4.3

  1994–95

  5.2

  4.9

  Beyond the above costs, there have been no write-offs in respect of training services for foreign Governments.

  Details of the assistance provided are confidential between Governments.

  There are no records of any expenditure written off or waived during this period in respect of training services to the Government of Iraq.

  Seconded Staff
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what guidelines(a) in force now and (b) issued since 1981 prevent company staff seconded

  661
  to his Department working on memoranda of advice to Ministers on matters affecting the company from which they were seconded; [17797]

  (2) what guidelines have been issued since 13 May 1985 preventing access by company staff seconded to Defence Export Sales Organisation to correspondence, memoranda, and other contracts between the Ministry of Defence and their company; and what guidelines exist at the present time. [17795]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Rules governing access to, and possible disclosure of, information apply to all secondees to this Department, not just to those seconded to the Defence Export Sales Organisation. Guidance was issued by the Cabinet Office management and personnel office in 1987 which addressed, inter alia, the conduct of secondees to Government Departments. Secondees were reminded that they were subject to the Official Secrets Acts and were"to avoid situations that may lead to conflicts of interest."

  Attention was drawn to the need to avoid embarrassment either to the parent organisation or to the host Department. These rules remain in force.

  The Department's secondment agreement, which applies to all our secondees, requires them to conform to the normal civil service and departmental rules on conduct. These state:
  "no officer may engage in any occupation or undertaking which might in any way conflict with the interests of the Ministry of Defence or be inconsistent with his/her position as a public servant".

  Where a conflict of interest could arise, the secondee would be expected to declare this possibility to his/her line manager.

  On the question of possible disclosure, MOD rules state that material
  "which is of a security classified or confidential nature, to which the Secondee has access as a result of his/her work on secondment, (subject to the rights of third parties) may only be copied, disclosed and used solely for the purpose of performing that work. Such information or material may not be disclosed to or copied or used for the benefit of the Company or any of its employees or any other third party, without the prior written consent of the Secretary of State."

  Future Large Aircraft
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current position regarding Britain's membership of the future large aircraft project. [17435]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The United Kingdom has taken an active part in discussions on the future large aircraft project since the announcement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary when Secretary of State for Defence in December 1994 and will be considering with the FLA partner nations the implications of recent French statements on FLA funding.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the discovery by implementation forces of weapons in the neighbourhood of Sarajevo; what evidence has been found of complicity 662
  between the Bosnian Government and Iranians detained at the site of the discovery; and if the matter is being referred to the war crimes tribunal. [16294]

  Mr. Soames
  On 15 February, IFOR raided a building near Fojnica in central Bosnia and seized weapons, ammunition, explosives and bomb-making equipment. Eleven people were arrested at the scene, including three Iranians. IFOR is continuing its investigation into the discovery, which is believed to constitute a violation of the peace agreement that prohibits the presence of foreign forces in Bosnia. The matter does not fall within the mandate of the international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

  Army Careers Information Offices
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the locations of Army careers information offices in Scotland; which of these are to remain open and for how long; and if he will make a statement. [17480]

  Mr. Soames
  There are currently 18 Army careers information offices—ACIOs—in Scotland. Five of these are to become armed forces careers offices—AFCOs—during the next calendar year. These AFCOs will be manned and operated on a tri-service basis. A further nine ACIOs will become permanent Army satellite offices and provide support for the AFCOs. Additionally, four offices due for closure will remain open until April 1997. These four offices form part of the Army's recent review of its requirement for ACIOs as referred to in the Official Report, 20 February 1996, column 96. Locations of all the careers offices are shown in the table.

  Armed forces careers offices

  Aberdeen

  Dundee

  Edinburgh

  Glasgow

  Inverness.

  Army satellite offices

  Bathgate

  Dumfries

  Dunfermline

  Galashiels

  Glenrothes

  Hamilton

  Irvine

  Perth

  Stirling.

  Short-term retained offices

  Dumbarton

  Elgin

  Greenock

  Wick.

  Statistics (Gender Breakdown)
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps his Department is taking to collect statistics broken down by gender where relevant. [17679]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Ministry of Defence does not collect statistics from the general public, local authorities and business. Personnel information to assist the Ministry
  663
  in running its business is compiled from the Ministry's administrative systems and from surveys of the armed forces and civilian personnel. All the data are available by gender, although not always published as such.

  Hawk 100 Aircraft
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions(a) he and (b) his Ministers have had over the last five years concerning the sale by British Aerospace to India of Hawk 100 aircraft; and if he will make a statement. [18200]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Indian air force has a requirement for a number of advanced jet trainer aircraft. British Aerospace has offered a variant of the Hawk aircraft to meet that requirement. I discussed this with the Indian authorities during my recent visit. During the last five years, there have been a number of instances when Defence Ministers have had occasion to commend Hawk to the Indians.

  Defence Dental Agency
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the creation of the Defence Dental Agency. [18763]

  Mr. Soames
  The Defence Dental Agency—DDA—will form up on 1 March 1996, when primary dental care currently provided on a single-service basis will be included within a tri-service agency under the control of a chief executive. The headquarters of the DDA will initially be based in London and its training functions will be undertaken at Aldershot and Halton. However, the majority of the agency's personnel will continue to be employed in dental clinics throughout the United Kingdom and overseas. The staff of the agency comprise 864 military and 179 civilian personnel.

  Each service will continue to recruit to its own dental branch and to be responsible for issuing appointments and posting orders for personnel of their particular service into, within, and out of the agency after agreement with the chief executive, and for an agreed duration. It is expected that uniformed dental personnel will spend the major part of their career working within the agency.

  The aim of the agency is to contribute to the operational effectiveness of the armed forces by achieving and maintaining, in the most cost-effective way, their dental fitness in war, operational situations other than war, and peace.

  The chief executive will be afforded the responsibility and flexibility to build upon the professional ability and reputation for excellence of all three service dental branches. This will ensure that the MOD retains the capacity to deploy trained dental staff on military operations, retain close supervision of the dental fitness standards of service personnel, and maximise value for money in the delivery of dental treatment for service personnel in order to maintain their operational readiness during peacetime.

  The chief executive has been set the following key targets for the first year of operation:
  664

  1. To achieve the number of professional militarily trained personnel required for deployment at the specified readiness to meet medical support plans for the national contingency force based on defence planning assumptions 96.

  2. To define and implement tri-service dental fitness for deployment standards, and introduce a system of coding and quantifying outstanding treatment needs by 31 March 1996; and to achieve the agreed dental fitness for deployment performance targets by 31 March 1997.

  3. To identify a suitable clinical management information system and implement it at all DDA main locations.

  4. To operate an interim accounting system and a revised feeder system in order to produce full-cost accrual-based accounts for the financial year 1996–97 for preliminary audit by the National Audit Office.

  5. To achieve the agreed level of dental fitness for the forecast military population and provide treatment for dependants and entitled civilians overseas within budget; and to identify efficiency measures in the course of the financial year 1996– 97 to meet a specific efficiency target for the financial year 1997–98.

  I have arranged for copies of the agency's framework document to be placed in the Library of both Houses.

  Medical Supplies Agency
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the creation of the Medical Supplies Agency. [18762]

  Mr. Soames
  The defence medical supply organisation will become a defence agency of the Ministry of Defence, to be known as the Medical Supplies Agency—MSA—on 1 March 1996. The MSA will include the Army blood supply depot at Aldershot, the defence medical equipment depot at Ludgershall and 16 medical provisioning points located throughout the UK and overseas.

  The MSA will remain part of the MOD, but the chief executive will have delegated executive powers to discharge his responsibilities. The agency will employ 65 military and 260 civilian staff. The location of the headquarters of the agency has yet to be confirmed, but will initially be at Ludgershall.

  The aim of the agency is to ensure the most cost-effective and timely provision of medical, dental and veterinary material, blood and blood products, technical and logistic support and trained personnel to the UK armed forces in war, operations other than war, and peace.

  The chief executive has been set the following key targets for the first year of operation:

  1. To build, hold and maintain the agreed number of kits, outfits and associated items of equipment, as defined in endorsed equipment tables.

  2. To meet 100 per cent. of operational deployment requirements to time.

  3. To achieve efficiency savings of £4 million in the cash budget of the agency whilst maintaining a constant level of output.

  4. By April 1997, to have a fully integrated tri-service structure in place.

  5. To identify the minimum stock levels necessary for the agency and publish quantifiable stock reduction targets for the financial year 1997–98.

  6. To design and implement the initial customer survey so as to establish a quantifiable baseline for measuring customer satisfaction.

  665

  7. To implement an accounting system to produce full-cost accruals based accounts for the financial year 1996–97 for preliminary audit by the National Audit Office.

  8. Successful implementation of the medical material management information system and production of a statement of requirement for the procurement of systems to meet the agency's MIS needs.

  I have arranged for copies of the agency's framework document to be placed in the Library of both Houses.

  Ministerial Accountability
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, 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". [17306]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [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.

  Astra Holdings
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what were(a) the first and (b) the final dates of the removal of documents from Astra Holdings by Ministry of Defence police in 1990; [17845]

  (2) what were (a) the first and (b) the final dates of the lists of documents removed from Astra Holdings by Ministry of Defence police as required by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. [17800]

  Mr. Soames
  The first and final dates of the schedules of documents removed by the Ministry of Defence police from Astra Holdings were 13 March 1990 and 22 July 1992 respectively. The first and final dates of the removal of documents from Astra Holdings by Ministry of Defence police in 1990 were 13 March and 7 August 1990 respectively.

  Royal Navy Personnel
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of state for Defence how many(a) males and (b) females are employed as (i) commissioned officers, by rank, (ii) non-commissioned officers, by rank and (iii) seamen in the Royal Navy. [17947]

  Mr. Soames
  Details of the rank and gender breakdown of personnel of the naval service is included in a tri-service publication, TSP9, copies of which are placed in the Library of the House.

  Army Personnel
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) males and (b) females are

  Location

  Meeting date

  Room hire £

  Travel and accommodation for staff1£

  Equipment provision and transport2£

  Other costs3 £

  Total £

  Edinburgh

  11 December 1995

  713

  4,210

  1,571

  699

  7,192

  Glasgow

  18 December 1995

  —

  4,166

  411

  —

  4,578

  666
  employed as (i) commissioned officers, by rank, (ii) non-commissioned officers, by rank and (iii) privates in the Army. [17949]

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is contained in a tri-service publication TSP9, page 3, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  RAF Personnel
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) males and (b) females are employed as (i) commissioned officers, by rank, (ii) non-commissioned officers, by rank and (iii) airmen in the RAF. [17948]

  Mr. Soames
  Details of the breakdown of RAF personnel by rank and gender as at 1 January 1996 are included in the latest edition of the tri-service personnel statistics—TSP9—a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary to State for Defence what actions he(a) has taken and (b) plans to take as a result of the recommendations of the Scott report. [16960]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 26 February,Official Report, columns 589–604.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Scottish Grand Committee
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what is the total cost of each of the sittings of the Scottish Grand Committee held in Scotland during this Parliament; and what is the estimated cost of the future sittings in Scotland planned in this parliamentary Session for(a) room hire, (b) accommodation for parliamentary staff, (c) travel for parliamentary staff, (d) equipment transport costs and (e) other costs. [17770]

  Mr. Beith
  The costs to date of the six meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee held this Session are given in the table. These figures have been produced by a manual clerical check since costings have hitherto not been analysed to individual meetings. It is also the case that these figures are not the final costs as there are still some invoices and claims outstanding. Excluded from these figures are staff overtime, hire of telephone lines and Members' travel. Estimates are not produced in detail for each visit but the forecast for each meeting was expected to be approximately £8,500. The estimate for the seven future meetings planned up until the 8 July is £59,500.
  667

  Location

  Meeting date

  Room hire £

  Travel and accommodation for staff £

  Equipment provision and transport2 £

  Other costs1 £

  Total £

  Edinburgh

  15 January 1996

  —

  6,941

  411

  2,188

  9,540

  Stirling

  29 January 1996

  —

  1,970

  1,569

  350

  3,888

  Inverness

  5 February 1996

  —

  3,298

  —

  —

  3,298

  Aberdeen

  19 February 1996

  —

  1,650

  —

  —

  1,650

  1 Staff travel and accommodation costs are not separately analysed in the accounting system.

  2 The cost of providing recording equipment, transport is included.

  3 Includes security and refreshments.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what has been the cost of each meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee in the current Session to date; and what is the estimated cost of each of those planned for the remainder of the Session. [12960]

  Mr. Beith
  [pursuant to his reply, 26 February 1996, c. 337–38]: I am now able to give the hon. Member, in the table, the following information about the six meetings of

  Location

  Meeting date

  Room hire £

  Travel and accommodation for staff1 £

  Equipment provision and transport2 £

  Other costs3 £

  Total £

  Edinburgh

  11 December 1995

  713

  4,210

  1,571

  699

  7,192

  Glasgow

  18 December 1995

  —

  4,166

  411

  —

  4,578

  Edinburgh

  15 January 1996

  —

  6,941

  411

  2,188

  9,540

  Stirling

  29 January 1996

  —

  1,970

  1,569

  350

  3,888

  Inverness

  5 February 1996

  —

  3,298

  —

  —

  3,298

  Aberdeen

  19 February 1996

  —

  1,650

  —

  —

  1,650

  1 Staff travel and accommodation costs are not separately analysed in the accounting system.

  2 The cost of providing recording equipment, transport is included.

  3 Includes security and refreshments.

HEALTH

  Medium Secure Units
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average length of stay in medium secure units; and if length of stay is limited. [16787]

  Mr. Bowis
  The length of time patients spend in medium secure units is determined by their clinical needs. We do not have information centrally about an average for the length of stay.

  Available beds and staffed residential places for mentally ill people

  England

  Year

  Staffed residential places

  Beds

  Total beds and places

  Local authority

  Voluntary sector

  Private sector

  Private hospitals nursing homes and clinics

  NHS mental illness

  1987–88

  5,673

  2,581

  6,902

  4,507

  67,127

  86,790

  1988–89

  5,922

  2,576

  7,649

  5,862

  62,999

  85,008

  1989–90

  5,734

  3,008

  8,949

  7,693

  59,290

  84,674

  1990–91

  5,741

  3,454

  9,590

  10,772

  55,239

  84,796

  1991–92

  5,555

  4,245

  10,245

  12,653

  50,278

  82,976

  1992–93

  5,360

  4,935

  10,840

  16,946

  47,308

  85,389

  1993–94

  5,080

  5,004

  11,567

  21,082

  43,532

  86,265

  1994–95

  4,747

  5,192

  12,245

  24,190

  41,827

  88,201

  668
  the Scottish Grand Committee held so far this Session. These figures have been produced by a manual-clerical check as costings have not hitherto been analysed to individual meetings. It is also the case that these figures are not the final costs as there are still some invoices and claims outstanding. Excluded from these figures are staff overtime, hire of telephone lines and Members' travel. Estimates are not produced in detail for each visit but the forecast for each meeting was expected to be approximately £8,500. The estimate for the seven future meetings planned up until the 8 July is £59,500.

  Psychiatric Hospital Beds
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide a breakdown of the numbers of psychiatric hospital beds available for(a) short-stay and (b) long-stay patients between 1987 and 1995, together with a definition of short and long-stay patients. [16782]

  Mr. Bowis
  The number of available beds in hospital and residential units for mentally ill people is shown in the table.
  669
  In addition, there are about 1,600 places in the three special hospitals at Ashworth, Broadmoor and Rampton.

  Notes:

  Nursing care places in residential care homes which are registered for both residential and nursing care are included in the column containing nursing homes.

  Source: Department of Health RAC5, RA13A, KO36 and KH03 returns.

  The breakdown requested is available only in respect of NHS mental illness beds and is shown in the table.

  Average daily number of available beds/wards open 24 hours—NHS hospitals

  England: mental illness

  Short stay

  Long stay

  1987–88

  21,563

  38,984

  1988–89

  22,505

  39,687

  1989–90

  22,754

  35,667

  1990–91

  22,427

  31,942

  1991–92

  22,159

  27,237

  1992–93

  21,652

  24,724

  1993–94

  21,447

  21,056

  1994–95

  22,101

  18,644

  Notes:

  1. Definitions:

  Short Stay (Psychiatric). An element of the component of the ward classification intensity of care (psychiatric). Facilities for the mentally ill who are intended to stay less than one year.

  Long Stay (Psychiatric). An element of the component of the ward classification intensity of care (psychiatric). Facilities for the mentally ill who are intended to stay a year or more.

  2. The table excludes places in special hospitals and NHS secure wards, which are not defined in these terms.

  Bed availability for England, a copy of which is in the Library, contains information by individual NHS providers, ie Trusts, Directly managed Units and the Special Health Authorities, with summary tables for England. Data are collected by broad ward classification rather than by clinical specialty and returns are made on a financial year basis. The latest year for which data are available is 1994–95.

  Source:

  Department of Health KH03 returns.

  Accident and Emergency Units, Durham
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the cost of upgrading the accident and emergency department in Dryburn hospital, Durham; and how many extra full-time staff will be employed there; [17215]

  (2) how much will be saved as a result of the closure of the accident and emergency department at Shotley Bridge hospital, Durham. [17216]

  Mr. Horam
  This is a matter for North Durham acute hospitals national health service trust. The hon. Member may wish to contact the trust chairman, Mr. C. P. Douglas, for details.

  Infant Mortality
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the infant mortality rates in(a) East London/City, (b) Redbridge and Waltham Forest and (c) Kingston and Richmond; and what factors underlie the disparities between these figures; [17428]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the factors underlying significant variations in infant mortality rates in (a) the United Kingdom and (b) London. [17427]
  670
  Mr. Horam
  The infant mortality rates requested are as shown in the table:

  Infant mortality rates per 1,000 live births 1994

  Location

  Rate per 1,000 live births

  East London and The City Health Authority

  8.8

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest Health Authority

  6.7

  Kingston and Richmond Health Authority

  3.1

  The infant mortality rate for England and Wales as a whole has halved over the last 15 years and is now at the lowest level ever achieved. All parts of the country have benefited from this reduction, but variations in infant mortality, which have been apparent since the 1950s, have persisted. Last October, we asked health authorities to act on the recommendation of a report commissioned by the Chief Medical Officer, "Variations in Health: What can the Department of Health and the National Health Service do?", copies of which are available in the Library. We have also allocated £2.4 million in 1996 for research into the causes of variations in health and the needs of particularly vulnerable groups of the population.

  Lung Cancer
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the average annual cost to the NHS for treating all people suffering from(a) lung cancer and (b) mesothelioma over the last five years; [17221]

  (2) what is the current average cost to the NHS for treating each person suffering from (a) lung cancer and (b) mesothelioma over the course of their illness. [17220]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available centrally.

  Construction Skills Certification Scheme
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department is taking to ensure that personnel on its construction sites have construction skills certification scheme accreditation. [17438]

  Mr. Horam
  There are no current plans to issue guidance about the construction skills certification scheme, which is a voluntary register operated by the construction industry training board.

  Aging Study
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was his Department's input into the Medical Research Council's cognitive function and aging study; and if he will make a statement. [17512]

  Mr. Malone
  The cognitive function and aging study is a large, multi-centre study of the prevalence, incidence and natural history of declining cognitive function and dementia in old age. The Department has contributed £100,000 per year over seven years. In addition to the financial support, the Department has a presence on the project's steering group.

  NHS Patients (Compensation)
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what sums were paid out by the national health service to patients or their relatives as compensation, in each of the last five years for which information is available. [17714]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not separately identifiable from central returns.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many letters he received from the general public during 1995 on difficulties in obtaining treatment from NHS dentists. [17656]

  Mr. Malone
  During 1995 the Department of Health received some 243 letters from members of the public which were concerned with difficulties in gaining access to national health service dentists.

  Paediatric Cardiac Operators, Bristol
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what factors underlay his Department's decision to advise the United Bristol Healthcare NHS trust that an arterial switch operation scheduled to be performed at the Bristol royal infirmary on 12 January 1995 should not take place as planned. [17716]

  Mr. Horam
  My Department did not advise that the operation should not take place. It would not be appropriate for my Department to become involved in matters of clinical judgment. Concern was expressed to my Department about the advisability of operating in view of concerns expressed previously by some members of staff of the Bristol royal infirmary about the performance of complex paediatric open heart operations including the "switch". The United Bristol Healthcare NHS trust was informed about the expressions of concern and asked to ensure that the concerns were taken into account when deciding whether the operation should proceed.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations his Department has received from Professor G. Angelini since 1990 about the performance of neo-natal arterial switch operations at Bristol royal infirmary. [17715]

  Mr. Horam
  Professor Angelini expressed concern in the summer of 1994 about the results of an audit of performance of complex paediatric cardiac procedures including the neo-natal switch operation. These concerns were communicated to the United Bristol Healthcare NHS trust by my Department.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations his Department has received during the last five years from the supra-regional services advisory group about the performance of paediatric cardiac operations at Bristol royal infirmary. [17713]

  Mr. Horam
  None.

  Smokers
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of(a) men and (b) women in the United Kingdom aged 15 to 20 years smoke; and if he will make a statement. [17522]
  672
  Mr. Horam
  Information is not readily available in the form requested, but it is estimated that, among persons aged 16 to 20 in the United Kingdom, 31 per cent. of men and 27 per cent. of women smoke cigarettes.

  Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to issue guidance to social services departments regarding the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995; and what assessment he has made of the adequacy of this notice relative to the date of the Act coming into force. [17547]

  Mr. Bowis
  Policy and practice guidance to accompany the Act was distributed to local health authorities on 28 February 1996, copies of which will be placed in the Library. Draft versions were issued on 10 October 1995—some six months before the Act comes into force.

  Carers
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the number of carers in the United Kingdom; and how many are providing care for 20 hours or more each week. [17567]

  Mr. Bowis
  It is estimated that the number of carers in the United Kingdom in 1990 was 6.8 million, of whom 1.5 million provide care for more than 20 hours each week.

  Postgraduate Deans
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 14 February,Official Report, column 601, how many withdrawals of approval for post have been made by postgraduate deans in each of the last five years. [17941]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  Waiting List Initiative
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what reports he has received and what evidence he has assessed that the waiting list initiative has led to longer waits for urgent cases. [18061]

  Mr. Horam
  We have no evidence that the waiting list initiative has led to longer waits for urgent cases. Half of all admissions to hospital are immediate. Of those patients who go on to a waiting list, those who need urgent treatment are given priority. Decisions on when to admit patients are for doctors and must be based on their assessment of patients' clinical need.

  Hospital Closures, Wandsworth
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals have closed since 1978 in the London borough of Wandsworth. [16062]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Harry Cowd, chairman of Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority, for details of hospital closures in the area.

  Accident and Emergency Provisions, Liverpool and Sefton
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of accident and emergency provision in the Liverpool and South Sefton health authority areas; and what plans he has to provide additional resources for the provision of more intensive care beds. [16291]

  Mr. Horam
  These are matters for the Liverpool and Sefton health authorities. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. D. H. Tod and Mr. F. R. Ludlow, chairmen of Liverpool and Sefton health authorities respectively, for details.

  Adoption
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the impact of adoption on inheritance rights. [17388]

  Mr. Bowis
  Under the Adoption Act 1976, an adopted child's links with his birth family are severed and he is treated as the legitimate child of the adopter. He is therefore entitled to inherit only from the adoptive parent and adoptive family. An adopted person does not have legal entitlement to inherit from a birth parent unless his interest has been vested before the adoption order is made. Where interest is only contingent, that interest will be lost on adoption. The proposed Adoption Bill will include a provision to give the court discretion to allow an adopted child to retain a contingent interest—or part of it—in his birth family's property after adoption.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the findings of the Government's White Paper published in 1992 recommending changes to the existing adoption law. [17390]

  Mr. Bowis
  Following publication of the White Paper "Adoption: The Future" in November 1993, a draft Bill is being prepared for consultation and will be available shortly.

  Meningitis
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of meningitis have been confirmed over the past six months; how many patients have died; and what were the figures for the same period in 1994–95 in(a)the Tees health authority area and (b) England and Wales. [17590]

  Mr. Horam
  Provisional data on notified cases of meningitis and meningococcal disease in Cleveland—and its component authorities—for the last six-month period of 1995 and the corresponding period in 1994 are shown in the tables. Notifications can be made on clinical suspicion alone and it is likely that some notified cases will not have been laboratory confirmed.

  The incidence of meningococcal infection usually increases during the winter. In 1995, the rise in cases appears to have come earlier than usual, in December. Though this partly explains the higher 1995 figures for the July to December period, we did see more cases than in 1994 and also an increase in the proportion of the less
  674
  common group C strain. Nevertheless, the total number of cases and types of meningitis seen in 1995 is not out of line with that experienced in the recent past.

  All Meningitis

  July-December 1994

  July-December 1995

  Notifications

  Deaths

  Notifications

  Deaths

  England and Wales

  792

  88

  1,136

  120

  Hartlepool

  0

  0

  2

  0

  Langbaurgh on Tees

  0

  1

  6

  0

  Middlesbrough

  1

  0

  1

  1

  Stockton on Tees

  2

  2

  3

  0

  Cleveland total

  3

  3

  12

  1

  Meningococcal meningitis

  July-December 1994

  July-December 1995

  Notifications

  Deaths

  Notifications

  Deaths

  England and Wales

  378

  7

  537

  17

  Hartlepool

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Langbaurgh on Tees

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Middlesbrough

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Stockton on Tees

  0

  0

  2

  0

  Cleveland total

  1

  0

  5

  1

  Meningococcal septicaemia—without meningitis

  July-December 1994

  July-December 1995

  Notifications

  Deaths

  Notifications

  Deaths

  England and Wales

  199

  57

  327

  78

  Hartlepool

  0

  0

  3

  0

  Langbaurgh on Tees

  0

  0

  2

  0

  Middlesbrough

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Stockton on Tees

  0

  0

  5

  0

  Cleveland total

  0

  0

  10

  0

  Statistics (Gender Breakdown)
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to collect statistics broken down by gender where relevant. [17682]

  Mr. Horam
  Gender specific statistical information is already collected by the Department where justified by the purposes the data will serve and where the collation of the data does not place an undue burden on data providers. The coverage and level of detail of all centrally held statistics, including gender-related information, is subject to regular review in consultation with the providers and users of the data.

  Cancer Services, Bristol
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about cancer services at the Bristol oncology centre. [17897]
  675
  Mr. Horam
  This is a matter for Avon health commission and the United Bristol healthcare NHS trust. I refer the hon. Member to the response I gave the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) on 28 February,Official Report, at columns 849–57.

  Disabled People (Care Services)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has now considered the implications for local authorities of the High Court's decision in relation to Gloucestershire county council's refusal to restore care services to over 1,000 disabled people in the county; and if he plans to issue further guidance to local authorities on the effect of section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 following the High Court's decision. [17917]

  Mr. Bowis
  I have no current plans to issue further guidance on this matter.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what estimate his Department has made of the amount of money which will be reclaimed under the new rules for prescription charges in respect of men aged between 60 and 65; [16945]

  (2) how many pensioners have claimed refunds of prescription charges under the new rules affecting men aged between 60 and 65 years. [16944]
  676
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what total repayments have been made by the prescription claims processing unit to men aged 60 to 64 years since 20 October 1995; [17252]

  (2) what percentage of applications received by the prescription claims processing unit have been processed to the latest available date; [17254]

  (3) how many applications for refunds of NHS prescriptions charges have been lodged by men aged 60 to 64 years since 20 July 1995; and what percentage of those eligible this represents. [17253]

  Mr. Malone
  We do not hold figures on the number of men aged 60 to 65 who have paid prescription charges prior to the European Court of Justice ruling. Following our invitation to register a claim we have issued over 187,000 claim forms to men in the United Kingdom. At the close of business on 23 February 132,000—70 per cent.—had been returned.

  To date the prescription claims processing unit has authorised payments totalling £2.6 million to 83,000 —63 per cent.—men. At this stage it is not possible to forecast accurately the total cost of likely refunds but they are not expected to exceed £6 million. This does not include the cost of prepayment certificates refunded locally by family health services authorities. Administration costs will be additional.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Sporting Events (Broadcasting)
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she was informed of the Sky TV pay-as-you-view proposal for selected future sporting events prior to its announcement. [17745]

  Mr. Sproat
  This is a commercial matter between BSKyB and the right holder involved. My Department was not consulted.

  EDS Ltd.
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list those contracts her Department

  £ thousand

  Administration costs (exclusive of wages)

  National Heritage Memorial Fund

  National Lottery Charities Board

  Millennium Commission

  Arts Council of England

  Scottish Arts Council

  Arts Council of Wales

  Arts Council of Northern Ireland1

  Sports Council

  Scottish Sports Council

  Sports Council for Wales1

  Sports Council for Northern Ireland1

  January 1995

  9.3

  291.5

  173.0

  4—

  28.2

  21.2

  4.5

  0.0

  3—

  2.8

  48.8

  February

  99.1

  256.0

  230.0

  —

  5.3

  18.8

  4.5

  875.3

  —

  2.8

  12.9

  March

  214.3

  256.7

  61,445.0

  1,242.0

  23.2

  21.6

  4.5

  304.4

  201.3

  2.8

  9.7

  April

  181.0

  302.7

  7.0

  36.6

  20.2

  10.5

  0.2

  130.1

  3.8

  2.8

  19.7

  May

  105.6

  425.4

  103.0

  36.6

  12.9

  12.0

  10.1

  33.1

  4.7

  2.8

  17.1

  June

  247.6

  511.1

  95.0

  431.2

  19.6

  12.8

  3.5

  17.4

  5.2

  2.8

  4.0

  July

  165.0

  643.0

  443.0

  150.5

  6.4

  4.9

  3.8

  312.6

  9.3

  2.8

  4.0

  August

  161.6

  547.5

  226.0

  355.7

  16.8

  36.4

  6.0

  384.1

  18.4

  2.8

  5.2

  September

  126.6

  715.6

  200.0

  349.6

  9.5

  10.2

  4.7

  250.4

  12.5

  2.8

  37.2

  October

  359.8

  918.4

  380.0

  119.7

  25.5

  10.2

  4.9

  159.8

  6.6

  2.8

  3.0

  November

  234.1

  777.2

  270.0

  301.2

  28.2

  9.4

  8.2

  186.4

  11.9

  2.8

  0.0

  December

  257.0

  1,015.8

  463.0

  168.2

  3.4

  28.4

  7.7

  196.4

  13.7

  2.8

  3.5

  January 1996

  270.7

  743.3

  367.0

  5—

  40.6

  24.6

  3.4

  5—

  19.2

  2.8

  5—

  Total

  2,431.7

  7,404.2

  4,402.0

  3,191.3

  239.8

  221.0

  66.0

  2,850.0

  306.6

  36.4

  165.1

  1. The NHMF, the art councils and the sports councils were established to perform other activities prior to the national lottery. The figures shown for administration and wages, represent the charge to lottery funds of all full-time lottery staff, plus a proportion of the costs of other staff in the organisations, who spend only part of their time working on lottery activities.

  2. Distributors began developing systems to carry out lottery duties in the autumn of 1994. Costs associated with this development were met from other sources (grant-in-aid) and recharged against lottery funds in the first few months of 1995.

  1 Administration costs and wages of the Arts Council of Northern Ireland, the Sports Council for Wales and the Sports Council for Northern Ireland are initially met by the main council and recharged to the lottery at a later date. This does not always take place on a monthly basis.

  2 Administration and wages costs of the Scottish Sports Council lottery unit for January, February and March 1995 were incurred by the main council on behalf of the lottery unit and recharged to the lottery in total, in March.

  3 Administration costs of the Arts Council of England's lottery unit are shown in total for January, February and March 1995.

  4 Figures not available.

  5 Administration costs for the Millennium Commission in March includes £1,119,000 for repayment of grant-in-aid.

  £ thousand

  Wages costs

  National Heritage Memorial Fund

  National Lottery Charities Board

  Millennium Commission

  Arts Council of England

  Scottish Arts Council

  Arts Council of Wales

  Arts Council of Northern Ireland1

  Sports Council

  Scottish Sports Council

  Sports Council for Wales1

  Sports Council for Northern Ireland1

  January 1995

  20.3

  31.4

  25.0

  4—

  8.1

  10.1

  0.9

  2158.9

  3—

  13.3

  22.7

  February

  20.1

  33.5

  30.0

  —

  9.1

  10.8

  0.9

  68.0

  —

  13.3

  21.3

  March

  20.0

  33.1

  114.0

  169.0

  10.4

  11.0

  0.9

  67.9

  83.6

  13.3

  11.7

  April

  20.0

  50.6

  60.0

  31.9

  9.3

  11.0

  0.0

  63.3

  10.1

  13.3

  10.0

  May

  20.0

  119.0

  72.0

  31.9

  8.5

  11.0

  5.9

  61.9

  11.5

  13.3

  10.0

  June

  20.0

  226.3

  65.0

  32.7

  9.5

  12.7

  7.1

  60.1

  6.6

  13.3

  10.0

  July

  25.0

  255.2

  71.0

  40.4

  9.5

  11.2

  2.1

  63.6

  20.0

  13.3

  10.0

  August

  26.3

  220.4

  80.0

  47.7

  9.5

  11.2

  6.6

  64.1

  15.1

  13.3

  10.0

  September

  24.4

  180.1

  80.0

  40.6

  10.0

  11.2

  0.0

  61.2

  18.5

  13.3

  40.0

  October

  25.2

  224.7

  89.0

  43.7

  11.5

  11.9

  3.3

  66.2

  20.1

  13.3

  0.0

  November

  30.9

  393.5

  93.0

  49.5

  11.9

  12.0

  3.3

  75.6

  18.3

  13.3

  0.0

  December

  32.0

  372.0

  92.0

  56.3

  12.7

  13.2

  5.3

  71.0

  13.5

  13.3

  0.0

  678
  currently holds with EDS Ltd. indicating for each the (a) date of inception, (b) value and (c) duration. [17441]

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department has no contracts with EDS.

  National Lottery
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what have been the(a) administration and (b) wages costs for each national lottery funding distribution body in each month since its establishment. [15063]

  Mr. Sproat
  The tables show the lottery administration costs and wages met for 13 months from 1 January 1995. The majority of distributors were given approval to draw funds from the national lottery distribution fund from this date.
  679

  £ thousand

  Wages costs

  National Heritage Memorial Fund

  National Lottery Charities Board

  Millennium Commission

  Arts Council of England

  Scottish Arts Council

  Arts Council of Wales

  Arts Council of Northern Ireland1

  Sports Council

  Scottish Sports Council

  Sports Council for Wales1

  Sports Council for Northern Ireland1

  January 1996

  29.3

  392.7

  126.0

  5—

  15.1

  12.1

  5.3

  5—

  13.9

  13.3

  —

  Total

  313.5

  2,532.5

  997.0

  543.7

  135.1

  149.4

  41.6

  881.8

  231.2

  169.9

  142.7

  1. The NHMF, the art councils and the sports councils were established to perform other activities prior to the national lottery. The figures shown for administration and wages, represent the charge to lottery funds of all full-time lottery staff, plus a proportion of the costs of other staff in the organisations, who spend only part of their time working on lottery activities.

  2. Distributors began developing systems to carry out lottery duties in the autumn of 1994. Costs associated with this development were met from other sources (grant-in-aid) and recharged against lottery funds in the first few months of 1995.

  1 Administration costs and wages of the Arts Council of Northern Ireland, the Sports Council for Wales and the Sports Council for Northern Ireland are initially met by the main council and recharged to the lottery at a later date. This does not always take place on a monthly basis.

  2 The Sports Council's salary costs for January 1995 include the costs of the council's planning team for the period to 31 December 1994, which were later recharged by the council to the lottery unit.

  3 Administration and wages costs of the Scottish Sports Council lottery unit for January, February and March 1995 were incurred by the main council on behalf of the lottery unit and recharged to the lottery in total, in March.

  4 Administration costs of the Arts Council of England's lottery unit are shown in total for January, February and March 1995.

  5 Figures not available.

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will publish a list of those agencies charged with distributing national lottery funding detailing the size of budget, the number of staff and the remuneration of each agency head for the year(a) before and (b) after their duties in respect of the lottery were allocated. [15096]

  Distributor

  Estimated outturn of lottery administration costs—1995–96 £000

  Number of lottery staff

  Chief executive remuneration 1994–954 £

  Chief executive remuneration 1995–964 £

  National Heritage Memorial Fund

  3,546

  527

  45,000–49,999

  170,000–74,999

  National Lottery Charities Board

  11,145

  7148

  n/a

  880,000–84,999

  Millennium Commission

  5,000

  43

  240,000–44,999

  880,000–84,999

  Arts Council of England

  3,192

  23

  55,000–59,999

  60,000–64,999

  Scottish Arts Council

  376

  8

  40,000–44,999

  640,000–44,999

  Arts Council of Wales

  480

  9

  50,000–54,999

  50,000–54,999

  Arts Council of Northern Ireland

  137

  4

  40,000–44,999

  40,000–44,999

  Sports Council

  3,140

  33

  60,000–64,999

  60,000–64,999

  Scottish Sports Council

  253

  6

  55,000–59,999

  55,000–59,999

  Sports Council for Wales

  354

  4

  50,000–54,999

  50,000–54,999

  Sports Council for Northern Ireland

  300

  6

  35,000–39,999

  40,000–44,999

  Total

  27,923

  311

  —

  —

  1The NHMF appointed a new director in December 1995.

  2 The post of chief executive of the Millennium Commission was filled on a temporary basis until 1 March 1995.

  3 The figures for staff exclude any allowance for those officers of the NHMF, the arts councils and the sports councils who, though not assigned lottery staff, do spent a proportion of their time on lottery distribution activities.

  4 With the exception of the National Lottery Charities Board and the Millennium Commission, salaries of chief executives are not fully charged against lottery funds.

  5 The NHMF now has a staffing complement of 44 for its lottery distribution activities, the additional posts are expected to be filled in the near future.

  6 The salary of the chief executive of the Scottish Arts Council is currently under review.

  7 The staff complement of the NLCB has been agreed at 148. Some 30 temporary staff are also currently employed.

  8 The chief executives of the NLCB and the Millennium Commission are also paid an allowance of 15 per cent. of their salaries, with which to make their own pension provisions.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations she has received concerning the establishment of free-standing lottery distribution bodies for Wales and Scotland; and if she will make a statement. [16411]

  Mr. Sproat
  I have received no such representations.
  680
  Mr. Sproat
  The table shows expected administration costs to be incurred by each of the 11 lottery distributors for the 12 months ending 31 March 1996, the number of staff required by those bodies for lottery duties and the salaries of the most senior officials of each body for 1994–95 and 1995–96.

  English Heritage Sites (Cleaning Contracts)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) how many British companies tendered for the contract to clean British Heritage sites; [15891]
  681
  (2) what criteria were used in deciding which company should be awarded the contract for cleaning British Heritage sites; [15892]

  (3) what is her Department's policy in respect of awarding contracts to foreign companies; [15894]

  (4) to what extent the decision to award the contract to clean British Heritage sites to a French company was based on price considerations. [15890]

  Mr. Sproat
  The hon. Member's questions appear to refer to the sale by English Heritage of its direct labour conservation and maintenance organisation, Historic Property Restoration—HPR. The proposal to privatise HPR was set out in the forward strategy published by English Heritage in 1992. This proposal to privatise was prompted by changes in the geographic pattern of HPR's workload. Direct employment cannot provide the required flexibility. In accordance with our obligations as a member of the European Union, the sale of HPR was advertised in the Official Journal of the European Communities. Five shortlisted companies were invited to tender. Only two did so—one British owned, one French owned. The tender submitted by the British-owned company was significantly less financially favourable than the tender from the French-owned company.

  HPR has a work force skilled in building conservation which, in the private sector, will be able to bid for work from which it is statutorily excluded as a part of English Heritage. This will give the work force improved employment prospects. It is the intention to transfer staff under Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 provisions.

  Departmental Officials (Interests)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the officials in her Department who have declared a current interest; what

  Total expenditure in all Royal Parks (1995–96 prices)

  £ million

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Capital

  3.72

  2.29

  3.85

  5.31

  5.42

  2.65

  1.76

  1.69

  Grounds Maintenance

  4.92

  6.83

  7.14

  6.75

  7.25

  6.73

  6.75

  6.44

  Works Maintenance

  6.26

  5.58

  4.85

  3.97

  4.69

  4.08

  4.48

  4.84

  Other Operating Costs

  3.09

  2.11

  2.32

  2.31

  2.26

  2.52

  2.48

  3.32

  Running Costs

  2.62

  2.68

  2.89

  3.11

  3.26

  2.97

  2.87

  3.01

  Redundancy Costs

  2.78

  0.57

  0.12

  0.10

  0.10

  0.07

  0.05

  0.03

  Total

  23.39

  20.07

  21.17

  21.56

  22.98

  19.02

  18.39

  19.34

  Total expenditure in Greenwich Park (1995–96 prices)

  £ million

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Capital

  0.27

  0.36

  0.07

  0.42

  0.31

  0.14

  0.06

  0.11

  Grounds maintenance

  0.65

  0.86

  0.87

  0.79

  0.67

  0.73

  0.74

  0.74

  Works maintenance

  0.34

  0.24

  0.30

  0.39

  0.46

  0.46

  0.60

  0.36

  682
  requirements are placed on officials to declare relevant interests; in what form records of such declarations are kept; and if she will establish a central register of officials' interests. [16893]

  Mr. Sproat
  Officials in this Department 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 departmental rules. Staff who disclose relevant interests do so on the understanding that the declaration, like all employment matters, is confidential between them and the Department. There are currently no plans to establish a central register of officials' interests for this Department.

  Royal Parks
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will publish figures for planned public expenditure on(a) all the royal parks and (b) Greenwich park for the years 1995–96 to 1998–99 on the same basis as those published in (i) table 1 on page 60 and (ii) table 2 on page 61 of the report of the royal parks review group on Greenwich park, presented in March 1995. [16391]

  Mr. Sproat
  Responsibility for the subject of this question has been delegated to the Royal Parks under its chief executive, Mr. David Welch. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from David Welch to Mr. Nick Raynsford, dated 29 February 1996:
  I have been asked by Iain Sproat, Minister of State for National Heritage, to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking the Secretary of State to publish figures for planned expenditure on all the Royal Parks and on Greenwich Park because these are the areas for which I am responsible.
  I attach tables showing planned total expenditure in all the Royal Parks and in Greenwich until 1998/99. These figures are based on the Agency's 1995 Corporate Plan as we have not finalised our Plan for the period 1996–99.
  683

  Total expenditure in Greenwich Park (1995–96 prices)

  £ million

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Other operating costs

  0.31

  0.18

  0.15

  0.17

  0.16

  0.20

  0.20

  0.19

  Running costs

  0.11

  0.23

  0.22

  0.21

  0.18

  0.18

  0.17

  0.17

  Total

  1.68

  1.87

  1.61

  1.98

  1.78

  1.71

  1.77

  1.57

  Patents (British Library)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the present location of original documents held by the British library concerning(a) Rathbone and Burges' patent AD 1617 No. 1, (b) Jeremy Buck's patent of 1651 for the smelting of iron with coal, (c) Il Codice Atlantico by Leonardo da Vinci and (d) Aeronautica Illustrata by C. J. Norman. [17157]

  Mr. Sproat
  A copy of Rathbone and Burges' patent AD 1617 No. 1 is held by the British library and may be consulted at the science reference and information service's reading room at 25 Southampton buildings, London WC2A 1AW. The library does not hold a copy of Jeremy Buck's patent of 1651 for the smelting of iron with coal. I understand that official copies of most letters patent were enrolled on the Chancery patent rolls which are held by the Public Record Office. Information about such copies can be obtained from the Keeper of Public Records at the Public Record Office, Chancery lane, London WC2A 1LR. I understand that the Codex Atlanticus is held by the Ambrosian library in Milan. A copy of the Aeronautica Illustrata by C. J. Norman is held by the British library's science reference and information service and may be consulted at the library's reading room at 9 Kean street, London WC2B 4AT.

  Statistics (Gender Breakdown)
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps her Department is taking to collect statistics broken down by gender where relevant. [17694]

  Mr. Sproat
  Statistics concerning staff employed in my Department are normally based on pay and personnel records which include information on gender. Statistical information about personnel can therefore usually be broken down by gender.

  Party Political Broadcasts
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the current rules which permit political parties to have an entitlement to broadcasting time on television on the basis of the numbers of candidates fielded; what plans he has to review the procedures; and what parliamentary procedures would be needed to implement these proposals. [17094]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 26 February 1996]: Decisions about the provision of airtime for party election broadcasts are matters for the BBC, the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority. By convention, proposals are put to the major political parties represented at Westminster with a view to reaching consensus.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will raise at the next meeting of the Agriculture Council the size of the CAP budget for 1996. [16109]

  Mr. Baldry
  The CAP budget situation forms part of the Council's current considerations of the 1996–97 price fixing proposals.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made on making the operation of the common agricultural policy more effective and more efficient. [16111]

  Mr. Baldry
  The European Commission has now accepted our view that the CAP must change. But neither it nor the majority of member states are yet convinced of the need for the fundamental reform for which we are pressing.

  Live Animal Transport
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received concerning the transport of live animals; and if he will make a statement. [16110]

  Mrs. Browning
  We are conducting an extensive consultation on implementation of the EU rules on the welfare of animals in transit. The first stage of that is complete—we have had a high level of positive and proactive responses. We will be consulting widely again before any final decisions are taken.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the welfare of animals during export. [16124]

  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the welfare of farm animals during export. [16120]

  Mrs. Browning
  We are consulting extensively on implementation of the EU rules on the welfare of animals in transit. The first stage is complete—we are grateful for the positive and proactive responses of those affected. We shall consult further before putting forward any proposals for legislation.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has(a) to introduce new and (b) to revise existing regulations governing the transport of domestic animals to (i) EU and (ii) other overseas destinations. [17042]
  685
  Mrs. Browning
  We are currently consulting extensively on implementation in this country of new EU rules on the transport of animals. The details of these provisions are aimed primarily at farmed livestock but the general principles of safeguarding the welfare of animals in transit cover other animals as well. As part of the exercise we intend, as set out in our October 1995 consultation document, to consolidate existing legislation on animal welfare in transport into one instrument. Further consultation will take place before proposals for legislation are put forward.

  Calves
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many representations he has recently received concerning the welfare of calves. [16112]

  Mrs. Browning
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that my right hon. Friend gave earlier to the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham).

  Milk Marque
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has recently received about the operation of Milk Marque. [16113]

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend and I continue to receive representations about Milk Marque's operating practices. Any complaints about these practices are a matter for the competition authorities.

  Horticultural Imports
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the inister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next expects to meet representatives of the horticultural industry to discuss the price of imports from eastern Europe. [16115]

  Mr. Boswell
  I frequently meet representatives of the horticulture industry. We discuss a variety of issues of concern to them including, where appropriate, imports from central and eastern Europe.

  Integrated Administration and Control System
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made as to parity of enforcement of IACS payment by EU countries. [16116]

  Mr. Baldry
  All EU member states are required to implement IACS in accordance with the detailed rules laid down in Commission regulation 3887/92. Commission officials regularly visit all member states to check the way in which they operate the system. Full details of penalties applied are not available but information received suggests that the proportion of penalties applied in the UK is generally similar to those found in other member states.

  Fisheries Council
  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning the decisions made at the meeting of the Council of Fisheries Ministers in December 1995. [16117]
  686
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning the decisions made at the meeting of the Council of Fisheries Ministers in December 1995. [16118]

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning the decisions made at the meeting of the Council of Fisheries Ministers in December 1995. [16119]

  Mr. Baldry
  I received a wide range of representations from Members of Parliament and members of the public both before and after the meeting of the Council of Fisheries Ministers on 21 and 22 December 1995.

  Soya Milk
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on Government policies in respect of the labelling of soya milk. [16121]

  Mrs. Browning
  Since the adoption in 1987 of Community legislation prohibiting the use of dairy terms on non-dairy products, the Government have pressed the European Commission, and other member states, to allow the continued use of the term "soya milk" in the UK.

  However, we have now exhausted all possibilities for securing a change in the rules and have been obliged to take the action necessary to comply with the Community legislation.

  I am in contact with the industry and enforcement authorities about changing the name of the product.

  Peat (Container Plants)
  Mrs Golding
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to find an alternative to peat for use in raising container plants. [16122]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Ministry funds strategic research and development looking at the development of alternatives to peat as a growing medium. I will be pleased to write to the hon. Member with further details.

  Conservation
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action his Department is taking to improve environmental management and wildlife conservation on agricultural land. [16123]

  Mr. Boswell
  Over the past two years the Ministry has greatly expanded the range of incentives available to promote environmental management and wildlife conservation on farmland. We have launched six new environmentally sensitive areas, making 22 in total covering 10 per cent. of agricultural land in England, and 22 new nitrate sensitive areas, making 32 in all.

  We have also introduced several entirely new schemes addressing major environmental priorities such as creating valuable wildlife habitats on farmland, promoting organic farming and improving the condition of heather moorland. In addition, we have announced plans for the future expansion and development of the countryside

  687
  stewardship scheme when it transfers from the Countryside Commission to MAFF in April at the end of its pilot period. Taken together, these measures represent a substantial commitment to conserving the countryside.

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he has made towards renegotiating the common fisheries policy. [16126]

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government are pursuing a series of initiatives to achieve improvements in the way that the common fisheries policy operates.

  Dogs (Export Licences)
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many licences were issued for the export of dogs from the United Kingdom in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [17041]

  Mrs. Browning
  Exports of dogs are not subject to licensing. Precise figures for dog exports from the United Kingdom are not available since information is not held centrally, but it is estimated that 6,200 official export health certificates relating to approximately 9,600 dogs were issued during 1995. Figures for earlier years could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Animal Welfare Directive
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress the Government have made on implementing the European directive on animal welfare. [16751]

  Mrs. Browning
  We are consulting extensively on implementation in this country of the new EU rules on the protection of animals during transport. The first stage of consultation is complete, and we shall be consulting further on our proposals for legislation, taking account of the comments we have received. The EU rules have to be implemented in the member states by 31 December 1996.

  Veal Crates
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to persuade the European Commission to phase out veal crates earlier than the time scale provisionally set. [16833]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Commission presented its proposals for phasing out the close confinement veal crate to the Council of Agriculture Ministers earlier this week. We made it clear in the preliminary discussions that the 12-year lead-in period is too long and we will continue to press hard for an early end to the close confinement veal crate and its associated dietary regime throughout Europe.

  Zoonoses Diseases
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which other EU member states have implemented directive 92/117 for the harmonisation of rules governing the prevention of specified zoonoses diseases. [17182]

  Mrs. Browning
  Article 8 of directive 92/117 requires member states to submit to the Commission details of the measures they are taking to implement the requirements 688
  of the directive. We believe nine member states have so far submitted plans, but only Denmark's plan has been accepted as being fully compatible with the objectives of the directive while the others, including the United Kingdom's, have been rejected.

  The Commission's main objection to the United Kingdom's measures is our policy of offering alternatives to slaughter in respect of parent broiler breeder flocks found on investigation to be infected with salmonella enteritidis or salmonella typhimurium.

  Farm Woodland Premium Scheme
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to simplify the procedure involved in the consideration of grants sought under the farm woodland premium scheme. [17413]

  Mr. Boswell
  The farm woodland premium scheme is currently being reviewed to enable decisions to be taken about its future operation after 31 March 1997. The simplification of application procedures is one of the issues being addressed. We expect to announce the outcome of the review this summer.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the cost of grants under the farm woodland premium scheme in each of the last seven years; and how, in each year, the sums paid out compared with the amounts budgeted. [17414]

  Mr. Boswell
  The farm woodland premium scheme was launched on 1 April 1992. The first annual payments were not made until October 1993. Expenditure details for England are as follows:

  £000

  Year

  Actual expenditure

  PES provision

  1992–93

  0

  0

  1993–94

  645

  1,022

  1994–95

  1,362

  2,713

  1995–96

  11,943

  4,816

  1 Estimate.

  Licensed Abattoirs
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many licensed abattoirs there were in(a) Wales, (b) England, (c) Scotland and (d) Northern Ireland at the end of 1995; and if he will make a statement. [17554]

  Mrs. Browning
  In respect of(a), (b) and (c) the lists set out the number of slaughterhouses licensed at the end of 1995 under (i) the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995 and (ii) the Poultry Meat, Farmed Game Bird Meat and Rabbit Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995:

  (i) The Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995

  Wales: 36

  England: 402

  Scotland: 48

  (ii) The Poultry Meat, Farmed Game Bird Meat and Rabbit Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995

  Wales: 11

  England: 144

  Scotland: 8

  689
  In respect of (d) I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who is responsible for the licensing of slaughterhouses in Northern Ireland.

  Statistics (Gender Breakdown)
  Ms. Jowell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps his Department is taking to collect statistics broken down by gender where relevant. [17678]

  Mr. Boswell
  Statistics concerning staff employed in the Department are normally based on pay and personnel records which include information on gender. Statistical information about personnel can therefore usually be broken down by gender.

  The Department also collects the following information broken down by gender:

  (i) employment on agricultural holdings

  (ii) earnings and hours on agricultural holdings

  (iii) food consumption and expenditure.

  Rabies
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will commission an independent study and full economic audit of all the available options for managing the risk of rabies to Great Britain. [14786]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 14 February 1996]: The Government gave this matter careful consideration following recommendations made by the Agriculture Select Committee in its report in late 1994 for certain changes to the current quarantine arrangements. Ministers also receive regular advice from officials on all aspects of rabies control. I therefore see no need to commission a further study at this time.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to receive from his Chief Veterinary Officer the new rabies risk assessment; and if he will place a copy of the report in the Library. [14787]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 14 February 1996]: Ministers receive regular advice from officials on all aspects of rabies control including the risk of introduction of the disease. However, advice from officials to Ministers is confidential and is not normally divulged.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ensure that veterinary surgeons have immediate unrestricted access to the inactivated rabies vaccines already approved by his Department for use of in animals in their care. [14788]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 14 February 1996]: No. The British isles is an internationally recognised rabies-free zone and the use of rabies vaccine for any animals other than those going for export or those going into quarantine would be unnecessary and entirely inappropriate.

  Food and Drink Industry
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how he intends to help improve export opportunities for the United Kingdom's food and drink industry. [16125]
  690
  Mrs. Browning
  We continue, through Food from Britain, to provide active support, practical help and advice, to an increasing number of companies. Its recently opened new representative office in Copenhagen will help our exporters to reach even wider markets.

SCOTLAND

  District Court Trials
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what was the total number of trials in the district courts during 1995; [16734]

  (2) what was the total number of adjournments of trials in the district courts and the reason for these adjournments during 1995; and whether they were at the instance of the prosecution or the defence. [16735]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by the chief executive of the Scottish Court Service on 27 February 1996,Official Report, column 531.

  Lord Advocate
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Bills the Lord Advocate has introduced into the House of Lords in each of the past five years; and on what dates they were introduced. [16736]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is as follows:

  1991:

  None.

  1992:

  None.

  1993:

  Crofters (Scotland) Bill (25 May 1993)

  Scottish Land Court Bill (25 May 1993)

  Local Government (Wales) Bill (30 November 1993).

  1994:

  Value Added Tax Bill (16 May 1994)

  (Lord Advocate Rodger on behalf of the Lord Chancellor)

  Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill (17 November 1994)

  (Lord Advocate Rodger on behalf of the Lord Fraser of Carmyllie).

  1995:

  Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Bill (8 June 1995)

  Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Bill (8 June 1995)

  Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Bill (8 June 1995)

  Criminal Procedure (Consequential Provisions)(Scotland) Bill (8 June 1995).

  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate is currently a spokesman for legal affairs, Scotland, Home Office and Wales in the House of Lords and would normally be involved in later stages of Bills rather than on introduction.

  Housing
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many private sector leasing arrangements were established in the last year with local authorities in Argyll and Bute for the purpose of housing people on housing benefit and income support; and if he will make a statement. [17104]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Information in the form requested is not held centrally. However, we understand from Argyll and Bute district council that since 1 April

  Budget estimates for Scottish Police Forces for the last five years

  £000

  Central

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Fife

  Grampian

  Lothian and Borders

  Northern

  Strathclyde

  Tayside

  Total

  1991–92

  Net expenditure

  20,928

  12,962

  25,670

  40,354

  87,749

  24,521

  226,473

  37,096

  475,753

  Loan charges

  934

  511

  814

  1,585

  2,904

  2,764

  7,230

  1,495

  18,237

  Total

  21,862

  13,473

  26,484

  41,939

  90,653

  27,285

  233,703

  38,591

  493,990

  1992–93

  Net expenditure

  22,457

  14,077

  28,783

  43,026

  94,535

  26,560

  249,428

  39,483

  518,349

  Loan charges

  956

  675

  908

  1,450

  3,046

  2,425

  6,260

  1,709

  17,429

  Total

  23,413

  14,752

  29,691

  44,476

  97,581

  28,985

  255,688

  41,192

  535,778

  1993–94

  Net expenditure

  24,115

  14,652

  29,978

  46,246

  96,360

  27,200

  261,068

  41,281

  540,900

  Loan charges

  927

  1,172

  1,097

  1,461

  2,968

  2,502

  7,528

  1,761

  19,416

  Total

  25,042

  15,824

  31,075

  47,707

  99,328

  29,702

  268,596

  43,042

  560,316

  1994–95

  Net expenditure

  24,904

  15,241

  30,203

  47,028

  99,394

  28,495

  270,600

  42,734

  558,599

  Loan charges

  980

  927

  1,449

  1,513

  2,995

  2,299

  8,529

  1,520

  20,212

  Total

  25,884

  16,168

  31,652

  48,541

  102,389

  30,794

  279,129

  44,254

  578,811

  1995–96

  Net expenditure

  25,621

  16,361

  32,174

  51,334

  104,177

  30,095

  288,555

  44,334

  592,651

  Loan charges

  826

  804

  1,644

  2,099

  2,845

  2,513

  7,854

  1,659

  20,244

  Total

  26,447

  17,165

  33,818

  53,433

  107,022

  32,608

  296,409

  45,993

  612,895

  Loan charges include leasing payments.

  Ms Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the total number of staff for each of the Scottish police constabularies indicating(a) uniformed and (b)civilian employees for each of the last five years. [17431]
  692
  1995 it has accommodated 643 people in receipt of income support and housing benefit in privately leased accommodation in the district.

  Police
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the annual budget for each of the Scottish police constabularies for each of the last five years. [17430]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The budget estimates provided to the Scottish Office by local authorities are set out in the table.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is set out in the table.
  693

  31 December 1991

  31 December 1992

  31 December 1993

  31 December 1994

  31 December 1995

  Police strength1

  Civilian strength2

  Police strength1

  Civilian strength2

  Police strength1

  Civilian strength2

  Police strength1

  Civilian strength2

  Police strength1

  Civilian strength2

  Central

  636

  164.5

  649

  166.5

  657

  174.5

  654

  184.5

  659

  187.5

  Dumfries and Galloway

  370

  108.5

  387

  116

  386

  141

  390

  147

  392

  147

  Fife

  775

  227

  786

  231.5

  786

  242.5

  789

  229

  791

  254

  Grampian

  1,150

  414.5

  1,194

  435

  1,193

  430

  1,191

  434.5

  1,181

  432.5

  Lothian and Borders

  2,522

  886.5

  2,561

  926

  2,558

  961.5

  2,556

  988.5

  2,536

  988

  Northern

  633

  275

  636

  291

  658

  307

  643

  316

  648

  323

  Strathclyde

  6,790

  1,372.5

  6,797

  1,454.5

  6,823

  1,513

  7,003

  1,606.5

  7,156

  1,629

  Tayside

  1,031

  313

  1,084

  338

  1,078

  360.5

  1,087

  367.5

  1,116

  398.5

  Total

  13,907

  3,761.5

  14,094

  3,958.5

  14,139

  4,130

  14,313

  4,273.50

  14,479

  4,359.5

  1 Includes officers on secondment.

  2 Includes traffic wardens, clerical and technical staff, domestics, cleaners, cadets and part-time staff (shown as whole-time equivalent).

  Confiscation Unit
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many staff there are in the confiscation unit of the Scottish Prosecution Service. [17144]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There is no dedicated confiscation unit in the Scottish Prosecution Service. Confiscation proceedings are dealt with as part of the duties of the fraud and specialist services unit at the Crown Office. Each of the four legal staff in that unit carry, as part of their workload, confiscation cases. The full resources of the procurator fiscal service are available to assist in necessary investigation in such cases.

  Water and Sewerage (Grants)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what grants he has made since April 1995 to reduce or stabilise water and sewerage bills in Scotland; what is the estimated annual cost of such grants; and if he will make a statement on the revision for such grants. [17510]

  Mr. Kynoch
  No such grants have been made by my right hon. Friend since April 1995. For the financial year 1996–97, I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 29 November 1995 to my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro),Official Report, column 704.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what payments his Department made to optometrists in Scotland in respect of free or subsidized eye tests in 1978–79 and in the most recent year for which figures are available. [17517]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Sight tests may be carried out by ophthalmic opticians—optometrists—or ophthalmic medical practitioners. From April 1989 eligibility to NHS sight tests was restricted to certain groups of the population. The information requested is set out in the table.
  694

  Scotland: NHS sight test fees paid to ophthalmic opticians and ophthalmic medical practitioners

  £ thousand

  1978–79

  11994–95

  Sight tests2

  Ophthalmic medical practitioners

  168

  192

  Ophthalmic opticians

  2,500

  7,792

  Domiciliary visits3

  Ophthalmic medical practitioners

  n/a

  117

  Ophthalmic opticians

  n/a

  175

  Total Scotland

  2,668

  8,276

  1 Provisional figures.

  2 Including NHS contributions under the NHS Low Income Scheme to the cost of private sight tests.

  3 Since June 1990 practitioners may claim a visit fee when they carry out a sight test at a patient's home.

  Companies (Financial Assistance)
  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was(a) the number of applications that have been made by companies for financial assistance, (b) the number approved, (c) the total financial value of the approved applications and (d) the average time taken to process and approve these applications in the last three years for which figures are available for (i) the Scottish Development Agency and (ii) the Highlands and Islands development board. [16979]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The Scottish Development Agency and the Highlands and Islands development board were replaced by, respectively, Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise on 1 April 1991. As the information requested concerns the operational activities of these organisations, I have asked their chairman to write to my hon. Friend.

  Farm Woodland Premium Scheme
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will revise the regulatory arrangements to make farmers who are not engaged in full-time agricultural activity or farmers wishing to retire to take up support under the farm woodland premium scheme. [17212]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Under the existing statutory rules, entry to the farm woodland premium scheme is not restricted to full-time farmers, although retired farmers are ineligible. The scheme is currently being reviewed to enable decisions to be taken about its future operation after 31 March 1997. The eligibility rules
  695
  are among the various issues under consideration. It is too early to predict the outcome of the review but an announcement is expected during the summer.

  Forestry
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what study he has undertaken of schemes for the encouragement of forestry in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Ireland; and what has been the contribution made to the increase in forestry in Ireland from EC funds. [17415]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The Forestry Commission undertook a comprehensive review of the incentives for forestry investment in Britain in 1994. The EC reimburses up to 75 per cent. of the cost of planting grants in objective 1 areas. My right hon. Friend, however, has no responsibility for forestry in the Republic of Ireland.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the net change in afforested areas in(a) England and Ireland and (b) Scotland in each of the last 10 years. [17416]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The areas afforested in England and Scotland in each of the last 10 years are as follows. My right hon. Friend, however, has no responsibility for forestry in the Republic of Ireland. The area of woodland converted to other land uses each year is not recorded.

  Thousands hectares

  England

  Scotland

  1986

  1.3

  21.5

  1987

  1.4

  22.4

  1988

  2.0

  25.8

  1989

  2.0

  26.4

  1990

  3.7

  15.3

  1991

  4.4

  14.1

  1992

  4.2

  12.6

  1993

  5.3

  12.1

  1994

  6.2

  10.5

  1995

  5.1

  13.4

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland by what proportion the areas devoted to

  Table 1: SPS staffing as at 31 March each year 1991–1995

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Establishment

  Uniformed

  Civilian

  Uniformed

  Civilian

  Uniformed

  Civilian

  Uniformed

  Civilian

  Uniformed

  Civilian

  Aberdeen

  122

  13

  124

  11

  137

  10

  131

  6

  114

  8

  Barlinnie

  519

  18

  538

  22

  558

  17

  513

  15

  452

  21

  Castle Huntly

  69

  3

  78

  4

  82

  6

  73

  6

  70

  3

  Cornton Vale

  181

  9

  180

  9

  191

  13

  184

  15

  166

  11

  Dumfries

  129

  12

  150

  12

  147

  14

  145

  15

  133

  13

  Dungavel

  64

  5

  69

  7

  75

  7

  73

  6

  67

  10

  Edinburgh

  373

  10

  385

  10

  424

  8

  411

  8

  381

  11

  Friarton

  48

  2

  52

  3

  54

  2

  49

  2

  40

  3

  Glenochil

  406

  18

  417

  19

  441

  17

  430

  23

  388

  28

  Greenock

  149

  0

  154

  3

  168

  5

  164

  7

  145

  8

  Inverness

  89

  7

  83

  6

  95

  6

  90

  7

  64

  5

  Longriggend

  153

  4

  163

  7

  170

  7

  163

  7

  149

  8

  Low Moss

  131

  6

  141

  7

  165

  5

  150

  6

  146

  12

  Noranside

  62

  5

  72

  5

  71

  6

  72

  6

  61

  7

  Penninghame

  33

  1

  35

  4

  36

  5

  36

  7

  28

  7

  Perth

  353

  11

  383

  13

  395

  15

  391

  13

  373

  14

  Peterhead

  268

  4

  244

  7

  260

  5

  244

  8

  225

  8

  Polmont

  267

  16

  295

  18

  312

  14

  301

  18

  283

  17

  696
  forestry has changed in (a) the United Kingdom as a whole, (b) Northern Ireland (c) in Ireland over the last 10 years. [17417]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The area devoted to forestry in the United Kingdom has increased by 10 per cent. in the last 10 years. My right hon. Friend, however, has no responsibility for forestry in Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland.

  Prison Service
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the total number employed within the Scottish Prison Service; if he will provide a breakdown(a)for (i) uniformed and (ii) civilian employees and (b) for each institution, in each of the last five years. [17837]

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

  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Ms Roseanna Cunningham, dated 29 February 1996:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your question about the total number employed within the Scottish Prison Service with a breakdown (a) for (i) uniformed and (ii) civilian employees and (b) for each institution in each of the last five years.
  I attach a table which gives the information which I think you are seeking. It is in 2 parts. First, the number of uniformed and civilian staff on 31 March each year from 1991 to 1995. In this table, civilian staff means civilian instructors in the SPS workshops, and civilian staff in typing grades in prisons, and in some prison maintenance jobs, as well as administrative staff in the Scottish Prison Service Headquarters. Uniformed staff include all prison officers, senior officers and principal officers, as well as prison governors (although the latter do not in fact wear a uniform).
  On 1 April 1995, however, the Scottish Prison Service moved to a New Staffing Structure, which abolished the previous grades and incorporated the HQ staff into the SPS Staffing Structure. In addition, a number of posts which were previously filled by uniformed staff are now filled by civilian staff, such as professional nurses or administrative staff in offices or maintenance staff dealing with the prison estate. The most recent figures available as at 1 February 1996 are in Table 2. These distinguish between operational management and staff, and other staff.
  I hope this provides the information which you are seeking.
  697

  Table 1: SPS staffing as at 31 March each year 1991–1995

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Establishment

  Uniformed

  Civilian

  Uniformed

  Civilian

  Uniformed

  Civilian

  Uniformed

  Civilian

  Uniformed

  Civilian

  Shotts

  377

  10

  423

  13

  423

  13

  418

  13

  387

  16

  SPS College

  32

  7

  27

  12

  30

  13

  30

  10

  38

  17

  Stores

  —

  23

  —

  22

  —

  22

  —

  13

  —

  15

  Headquarters

  28

  179

  28

  179

  27

  179

  33

  192

  33

  202

  Total

  3,851

  363

  4,039

  393

  4,249

  388

  4,101

  403

  3,763

  444

  Uniformed staff: governors, officers senior officers and principal officers.

  Civilian staff administrative grades in SPS HQ, typing staff in prisons, civilian maintenance staff and drivers.

  Shotts unit and barlinnie special unit included in main establishments.

  Table 2: SPS staffing as at 1 February 1996

  1996

  Establishment

  Operational management and staff

  Other staff1

  Aberdeen

  123

  20

  Barlinnie

  454

  59

  Castle Huntly

  56

  10

  Cornton Vale

  157

  32

  Dumfries

  143

  23

  Dungavel

  57

  15

  Edinburgh

  376

  67

  Friarton

  42

  4

  Glenochil

  370

  61

  Greenock

  141

  18

  Inverness

  89

  11

  Longriggend

  148

  26

  Low Moss

  139

  22

  NIC

  37

  1

  Noranside

  60

  10

  Penninghame

  28

  10

  Perth

  355

  69

  Peterhead

  204

  39

  Peterhead Unit

  18

  1

  Polmont

  271

  50

  Shotts

  330

  65

  Shotts Unit

  24

  1

  SPS College

  33

  27

  SPS Central Stores

  14

  SPS Headquarters

  24

  190

  Total

  3,679

  846

  1 'Other Staff' includes administrative, nursing, maintenance and other staff.

  Ms Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the total expenditure on the Scottish Prison Service and the component allocated to private security firms; and if he will provide a breakdown by institution in each of the last five years. [17836]

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

  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Ms Roseanna Airdrie Cunningham, dated 29 February 1996:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your question about the total expenditure on the Scottish Prison Service and the component allocated to private security firms with a breakdown by institution in the last five years.
  The total expenditure on the Scottish Prison Service in the last five years, as shown in the Annual Reports is listed below, no part of which was allocated to private security firms.
  698

  Financial year

  Total expenditure (£000)

  1990–91

  125,908

  1991–92

  136,763

  1992–93

  150,027

  1993–94

  154,343

  1994–95

  164,283

  Statistics (Gender Breakdown)
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps his Department is taking to collect statistics broken down by gender where relevant. [17689]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The role of the statistical services in the Scottish Office is to collect and analyse statistics on most aspects of Scottish life. Where relevant, this involves the collection and publication of statistics broken down by gender. As a result, gender is distinguished in a wide range of statistical information handled by the Department.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about sheriffdom and sheriff court district boundaries following reorganization of local government. [18601]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My Department issued a consultation document on 29 December 1995, copies of which have been placed in the Library. As a result of the responses to the consultation paper, I propose to make only minor adjustments to five sheriff court district boundaries as described. As a consequence of these changes, there would be minor changes to the boundaries of the sheriffdoms of Glasgow and Strathkelvin and South Strathclyde, Dumfries and Galloway respectively. My proposals will be brought before the House for approval shortly.

  Sheriff Court District

  Proposed Changes

  Airdrie

  Airdrie will retain its current jurisdiction with the addition of part of Strathclyde Electoral Division 46 (Chryston)

  Arbroath

  Arbroath will retain its current jurisdiction and absorb Tayside Electoral Division 30 (Monifieth)

  Forfar

  Forfar will retain its current jurisdiction and assume responsibility for that part of Tayside Electoral Division 31 (Sidlaw) which is now contained within the Angus Council district.

  699

  Sheriff Court District

  Proposed Changes

  Glasgow

  The only part of Strathkelvin which is not to be absorbed into the new East Dunbartonshire Council is part of Strathclyde Electoral Division 46 (Chryston). This will be transferred from Glasgow to Airdrie Sheriff Court district.

  Perth

  Perth will retain its current jurisdiction with the addition of part of Tayside Electoral Division 31 (Sidlaw)

  Ministry of Defence Joint Working Group
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer 5 February,Official Report, column 90, how many of the meetings of the Ministry of Defence joint working group have been attended by his Department's officials, and what level of officials and which section. [17408]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 27 February 1996]: Scottish Office officials have attended all three meetings of the Ministry of Defence joint working group held to date. One meeting was attended by an official at grade 7 from the area regeneration division of the Scottish Office development department and two by officials at grade 5 and grade 7 from the same division.

  Water Authorities
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many posts within the East, West and North of Scotland water authorities have salary levels above £42,000 per annum; and if he will list these posts and the salary and grading levels for each of these posts. [17574]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 28 February 1996]: Thirty-six posts in the three new water authorities carry salaries in excess of £42,000 per annum. These are as listed.

  West of Scotland Water Authority:

  Chief Executive

  Operations Director

  Finance Director

  Engineering Services Director

  Human Resources Director

  Support Services Director

  Scientific Services Director

  Customer Services Director

  Special Projects Director

  Business Planning Director

  External Services Manager

  Operations Support Manager.

  North of Scotland Water Authority:

  Chief Executive

  Managing Director Finance

  Managing Direct Water Services

  Director of Human Resources

  Director of Corporate Services

  Group Finance Controller

  Head of Information Technology

  Finance Planning Controller

  Director Capital Procurement

  Legal Adviser

  700

  Regional Director, Grampian

  Regional Director, Tayside

  Regional Director, Highlands

  Regional Director, Islands.

  East of Scotland Water Authority:

  Chief Executive

  Director of Operations

  Director of Water Quality

  Director of Corporate Services

  Director of Finance

  Director of Human Resources

  Head of Legal Services

  Head of Information Technology

  Human Resource Manager

  Group Financial Controller.

  Detailed information about individuals' salaries and gradings is not held centrally as these are operational matters for the water authorities. Information on posts carrying salaries of £42,000 per annum or more has been collected and is set out in salary bands in the following table:

  Salary band

  West of Scotland Water authority

  North of Scotland Water authority

  East of Scotland Water authority

  £42,001–50,000

  4

  6

  4

  £50,001–60,000

  5

  5

  3

  £60,001–70,000

  2

  2

  2

  £70,001–80,000

  1

  1

  1

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many posts the East, West and North of Scotland water authorities each expect to have within their organisations when they become operational on 1 April; and if he will provide a further breakdown of these figures to indicate the nature and number of the posts within these organisations' overall structures. [17575]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 28 February 1996]: The information contained in the following table is based on present estimates of staffing levels at 1 April and will be subject to revision. The information is broken down by the functional groupings established within each authority.

  Function

  Estimated number of employees

  West of Scotland Water Authority

  Operations

  2,240

  Engineering Services

  240

  Support Services

  160

  Scientific Services

  140

  Finance

  80

  Special Projects

  80

  Personnel Services

  50

  Business Planning

  20

  Customer Services

  10

  Total

  3,020

  North of Scotland Water Authority

  Water Services

  1,952

  Finance/Information Technology

  50

  Human Resources

  19

  Corporate Affairs

  13

  Chief Executive and support

  2

  Total

  2,036

  701

  Function

  Estimated number of employees

  East of Scotland Water Authority

  Operations

  1,605

  Development

  160

  Water Quality

  140

  Corporate Services

  100

  Finance

  90

  Human Resources

  40

  Total

  2,135

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what have been for each of the East, West and North of Scotland water authorities the amounts so far claimed in expenses and remuneration made to each of the members of the boards of these bodies. [17577]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 28 February 1996]: The information is set out in the table and relates to payments made until the end of January 1996.

  Remuneration £

  Expenses £

  West of Scotland Water Authority

  John Jameson, Chairman

  20,653

  2,198

  Ernie Chambers, Chief Executive

  40,868

  —

  Norman Berry

  3,098

  53

  Mungo Bryson

  3,098

  —

  Sir Robert Easton

  3,098

  218

  John Goodwin

  3,098

  288

  David Gray

  3,098

  —

  Peter Kennedy

  3,098

  —

  Billy Petrie

  3,098

  —

  Robert Reid

  3,098

  307

  Leslie Rosin

  3,098

  —

  Ian Young

  3,098

  —

  North of Scotland Water Authority

  John Robertson, Chairman

  21,746

  4,414

  Alastair Findlay, Chief Executive

  31,761

  4,427

  Denis Addly

  3,242

  693

  Raymond Bisset

  3,242

  399

  Joan Easten

  3,242

  2,528

  Nigel Graham

  3,242

  274

  Andrew Lewis

  3,242

  886

  Alasdair MacCallum

  3,242

  918

  Olwyn Macdonald

  3,242

  1,080

  Nicolas McAndrew

  3,242

  106

  Donald Nicholson

  3,242

  2,372

  David Paton

  3,242

  921

  East of Scotland Water Authority

  Ian Preston, Chairman

  12,968

  1,246

  Rod Rennet, Chief Executive

  40,000

  870

  Disney Barlow

  3,242

  —

  Robin Bell

  3,242

  10

  Ian Berry

  3,242

  103

  Ann Dickson

  1,984

  109

  Ian Galloway

  3,242

  180

  Harry O'Hanlon

  3,242

  52

  Tom Kerr

  3,242

  125

  Pat McCafferty

  3,242

  76

  Sir Francis McWilliams

  3,242

  892

  Roy Summers

  3,242

  200

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the budgets for each of the East, West and North of Scotland water authorities in the financial year 1996–97. [17573]
  702
  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 28 February 1996]: Budget setting is a matter for each of the new water authorities. Among the principal determinants will be the external financing limits which have already been announced and the charges schemes which have yet to be approved.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what training Benefits Agency staff and Benefits Agency medical services doctors receive in mental health problems in assessing applications for incapacity benefit. [15868]

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of incapacity benefit is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Chris Smith, dated 28 February 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what training Benefits Agency staff and Benefit Agency Medical Services (BAMS) doctors receive in mental health problems in assessing applications for Incapacity Benefit (IB).
  BA staff receive training in handling claims from persons suffering from mental health conditions as part of a general IB training course. This course provides instruction in dealing with all aspects of claims to IB, including guidance on identifying when customers may be suffering from mental health conditions; and the appropriate action to take to obtain sufficient information to enable the adjudication officer to give a decision on the appropriate test of incapacity.
  All doctors, full time, contract and sessional, employed by BAMS to carry out assessments for IB have undergone specific training to carry out the mental health assessment. All BAMS doctors attend a four day training course which includes a module designed specifically to cover the assessment of mental health problems.
  In addition all full-time and short term contract doctors attend a two-day medical education conference during which there is a session devoted specifically to the assessment of mental health problems, this session is led by a consultant psychiatrist.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the effect on public revenues in 1996–97 and 1997–98 of extending the linking rule for periods of incapacity for work or interruption of employment from eight weeks to(a) 13 weeks, (b) 26 weeks, (c) one year and (d) two years. [18229]

  Mr. Burt
  There is insufficient information available on which to base estimates.

  Contributions Agency
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the effect of the proposed restructuring of the Contributions Agency on levels of service to customers and expected response times to inquiries and complaints; what savings he expects the restructuring to achieve; and what will be the effect on jobs in Wales within the Contributions Agency. [17829]
  703
  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 the operational matters relating to the Agency.
  I have been asked to reply to your enquiry regarding the assessment of the proposed restructuring of the Contributions Agency and the affect on jobs in Wales within the Agency.
  The proposed reorganisation of the Contributions Agency Field Operations has been the subject of a feasibility study and an extensive trial period in both rural and urban areas. Information from customer satisfaction surveys has also been taken into account to inform on the development, to ensure that the Agency continues to maintain the commitment to serve delivery outlined in its Contributor and Employer Charters.
  Precise details of savings cannot be determined during the planning and development stage of the reorganisation. However it is estimated that there will be significant savings in management costs. Savings in accommodation and related costs will be captured as the reorganisation is implemented.
  In line with the Governments White Paper "Continuity and Change in the Civil Service" the emphasis is to achieve increased efficiency with reduced costs. The new organisation will inevitably operate with a reduced resource allocation. In Wales that will result in a reduction in staffing levels of 14%.
  I hope you will find the reply helpful, if you require anything further please let me know.

  Income Support
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners were in receipt of income support in Wales at the latest available date; what estimate he has made of the numbers of pensioners eligible for income support but not claiming it; and if he will make a statement. [17581]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The administration of income support is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Rhodri Morgan, dated 28 February 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many pensioners were in receipt of Income Support (IS) in Wales at the latest available date; what estimate he has made of the numbers of pensioners eligible for IS but not claiming it; and if he will make a statement.
  The number of pensioners receiving IS in Wales in November 1995 was 92,339. This is the latest available figure. It is provisional and may be subject to change.
  The figures for the numbers of pensioners eligible for IS but not claiming in Great Britain are contained in the publication Income Related Benefits Estimates of Take-Up in 1993/94, copies of which have been placed in the library. A separate figure for Wales is unavailable because the sample size would be too small to give statistically reliable results.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Mortgage Interest Payment Assistance
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the effect on public revenues in 1996–97 and 1997–98 of extending the assistance with mortgage interest payments currently available under 704
  income support to people in work whose incomes would qualify them for housing benefit if they were in rented accommodation. [18230]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Entitlement to housing benefit is dependent not only on income but on eligible rent. Without information equivalent to eligible rents for the owner-occupied sector it is not possible to make such an estimate. The necessary information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the annual number of applications for attendance allowance in Wales for each of the last five years indicating the proportion(a) approved, (b) withdrawn and (c) rejected. [17579]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  This is a matter for Peter Mathison, chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Rhodri Morgan, dated 28 February 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking if he will list the annual number of applications for Attendance Allowance (AA) in Wales for each of the last five years indicating the proportion (a) approved, (b) withdrawn and (c) rejected.

  Claims for AA in Wales are processed at the Cardiff Disability Benefits Centre. The information requested is shown in the following table:

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Claims received

  38,067

  34,301

  30,732

  32,981

  Decisions made:

  Awards

  20,934

  24,867

  20,946

  23,344

  Withdrawn

  n/a

  403

  340

  272

  Refusals

  10,497

  11,601

  8,421

  8,468

  Figures are provisional and subject to change. The difference between the number of claims received and decisions made are the claims that are waiting for adjudication decisions and carried forward in to the next year. The figures requested for the years 1990–91 are not available.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is his estimate of the value, in cash terms, of the savings to the Benefits Agency which have resulted from the contract awarded to BET to provide accommodation and office services to the Benefits Agency; [17754]

  (2) which consultants were employed by the Benefits Agency to review the operation of the contract awarded to BET to provide accommodation and office services to the Benefits Agency; what was the value of that contract; and if he will place a copy of the consultant's report in the Library. [17704]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  This is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.
  705
  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. John Hutton, dated 28 February 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking what is his estimate of the value, in cash terms, of the savings to the Benefits Agency (BA) which have resulted from the contract awarded to BET to provide accommodation and office services to the BA; and which consultants were employed by the BA to review the operation of the contract awarded to BET to provide accommodation and office services to the BA; what was the value of that contract; and if he will place a copy of the consultants's report in the Library.
  The BA has seven contracts with BET for accommodation and office services and the cash savings to the BA resulting from these contracts are estimated as £4.87 million per year.
  The BA keeps all contracts under internal review by monitoring their effectiveness in delivering services while maintaining value for money. The Agency employs a number of consultants to provide technical and contracting advice in support of the Department of Social Security's Competing for Quality programme. The consultants advise on draft contracts and contract variations, the contractual implications of policy and procedural changes and on the best contract practice to secure contained value for money. Although consultants may also be asked to give advice on contracts as they are reviewed, it is not possible to identify a proportion of consultants' costs attributable solely to work relating to the contracts BA has with BET. This is because most of the consultants work concerns issues of general relevance to all the contracts relating to the Competing for Quality Programme.
  Internal consultants have carried out a specific study relating to one BET contract. The approximate cost of this study was £2,500. This study contains commercial information which has been given in confidence, therefore a copy will not be placed in the library.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Statistics (Gender Breakdown)
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps his Department is taking to collect statistics broken down by gender where relevant. [17688]

  Mr. Burt
  Statistics concerning staff employed in this Department are normally based on pay and personnel records which include information on gender. Statistical information about personnel can therefore usually be broken down by gender.

  Information is available by gender for all benefits administered by the Department.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost in 1996–97 and 1997–98 of extending entitlement to non-means-tested jobseeker's allowance from six months to one year. [18236]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Extending entitlement to contributory jobseeker's allowance from six months to one year would be equivalent to restoring the reduction in entitlement to contribution-based benefit from 12 months to six resulting from the replacement of unemployment benefit with jobseeker's allowance in October 1996. The current estimates for the savings from this reduction are £30 million in 1996–97 and £145 million in 1997–98. These figures are lower than previous estimates due to revised forecasts of unemployment and changes to the 706
  transitional arrangement for those in receipt of unemployment benefit when jobseeker's allowance is introduced.

  Notes:

  1. Estimates assume 2.1 million unemployed claimants (GB) and 405,000 unemployment benefit claimants in the absence of jobseeker's allowance.

  2. Savings are estimated using 1991–92–93 FES data and 1994 unemployment benefit statistics.

  3. Savings are rounded to the nearest £5 million.

  4. 1996–97 savings are in 1996–97 prices. 1997–98 savings are in 1997–98 prices.

  5. Figures assume transitional protection in 1996–97.

  Disability Working Allowance
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the effect on public revenues in 1996–97 and 1997–98 of raising the applicable amounts under disability working allowance by(a) £5, (b) £10 and (c) £25, giving figures separately for single claimants, couples and lone parents. [18243]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  Information is not available in the format requested. Available information is given in the table. Costs are given in cash terms, and are net of income-related benefit offset savings.

  £ million

  Cash

  1996–97

  1997–98

  (a) Raising applicable amount by £5

  1—

  1—

  (b) Raising applicable amount by £10

  5

  5

  (c) Raising applicable amount by £25

  10

  15

  1 Represents a figure less than £2.5 million.

  Notes:

  1. Estimates rounded to nearest £5 million.

  2. Information from the "Family Expenditure Survey" (1991, 1992and 1993) is used to estimate the effects of these changes.

  3. Estimates are based on sample data and should be used with extreme caution.

  Source:

  "Family Expenditure Survey".

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the effect on public revenues in 1996–97 and 1997–98 of reducing the taper for the withdrawal of disability working allowance to(a) 65 per cent., (b) 60 per cent., (c) 55 per cent., and (d) 50 per cent., and what would be the effect on claimant numbers in each case. [18109]

  Mr. Mitchell
  The estimated effects of changes in the disability working allowance taper are given in the table. Estimates are expressed in cash terms and are net of income-related benefit offsetting savings.

  Reduce DWA taper to:

  1996–97

  1997–98

  (a) 65 per cent.

  Cost

  1—

  £5 million

  Additional DWA recipients

  1,000

  1,000

  (b) 60 per cent.

  Cost

  £5 million

  £5 million

  Additional DWA recipients

  2,000

  2,000

  (c) 55 per cent.

  Cost

  £10 million

  £10 million

  Additional DWA recipients

  3,000

  4,000

  707

  Reduce DWA taper to:

  1996–97

  1997–98

  (d) 50 per cent.

  Cost

  £10 million

  £15 million

  Additional DWA recipients

  6,000

  7,000

  1Represents a figure less than £2.5 million.

  Notes:

  1. Estimates are rounded to the nearest £55 million.

  2. Estimates of additional DWA recipients rounded to the nearest 1,000.

  3. Information from the family expenditure survey (1991, 1992 and 1993) is used to estimate the effects of these changes.

  4. Estimates are based on sample data and should be used with extreme caution.

  Source:

  Family Expenditure Survey.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what statistics he collects about the range and averages of earnings and hours of work of people in receipt of disability working allowance. [18103]

  Mr. Mitchell
  Information about the range and averages of earnings can be found in the "Disability Working Allowance Statistics Quarterly Enquiry" (July 1995), a copy of which is in the Library.

  No reliable information on hours worked is held.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the effect on public revenues in 1996–97 and 1997–98 of replacing the child care disregard under family credit with a credit of the same cash value, upto a maximum of £42 to be added to the applicable amount of families with paid child care. [18237]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The estimated cost of replacing the family credit child care disregard with a credit of the same cash value up to a maximum of £42 a week is £25 million for 1996–97 and 1997–98. This does not allow for behavioural effects.

  Notes:

  1. Estimates are based on family expenditure surveys, uprated at 1996–97 and 1997–98 levels of prices, earnings and benefit rates, adjusted using the 1993–94 family resources survey data on the use of childcare.

  2. Estimates are rounded to the nearest £5 million.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the effect on public revenues in 1996–97 and 1997–98 of extending entitlement to social fund(a) community care grants, (b) budgeting loans and (c) cold weather payments to families in receipt of family credit. [18244]

  Mr. Evans
  Since the discretionary social fund is cash limited, extending eligibility to community care grants and budgeting loans to families in receipt of family credit without increasing the cash limit would result in a higher rate of refusals but no extra cost, other than for the administration of any additional applications.

  Alternatively, if the cash limit were increased in proportion to the number of families receiving family credit compared with those receiving income support, assuming the same level of demand is met and comparable eligibility conditions apply, we estimate that an increase would be required to (a) the community care
  708
  grants budget and to (b) the net amount available for budgeting loans as shown in the table. However, in a discretionary scheme there would be no guarantee that additional expenditure would all go to family credit recipients.

  It is not possible to estimate the additional cost of cold weather payments, since the number of payments, being dependent on the weather, varies hugely and unpredictably from year to year. However, we estimate that the total number of eligible people and administration costs would be increased by roughly 10 per cent.

  £ million

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Administration costs, yearly

  (a) Community care grants

  10

  10

  2

  (b) Budgeting loans

  15

  7

  5

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the current numbers and proportions of family credit recipients who are(a) lone parents, (b) one-earner couples and (c) two-earner couples. [18096]

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

  Number of cases

  Percentage

  All FC recipients

  626,000

  100

  Lone parents

  277,000

  44.2

  One earner couples

  323,000

  51.7

  Two earner couples

  27,000

  4.2

  Note:
  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand and percentages to one decimal place.

  Source:

  Family Credit Statistics Quarterly Enquiry July 1995.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the effect on public revenues in 1996–97 and 1997–98 of(a) ignoring a spouse's earnings entirely for the purpose of calculating entitlement to family credit and (b) aligning the treatment of a spouse's earnings for the purpose of calculating entitlement to family credit with the rules which apply to a spouse's earnings under the invalid care allowance. [18112]

  Mr. Evans
  The structure of family credit in effect provides a disregard of the first £73 of earned income in the household. The estimated cost of introducing a further complete disregard for spouses' earned income in family credit is £235 million for 1996–97 and £240 million for 1997–98.

  Because of the different structures of invalid care allowance and family credit, it is not possible to estimate the costs of applying a disregard structure similar to that in invalid care allowance to family credit.

  Notes:

  1. Estimates are based on the family expenditure surveys of 1991, 1992 and 1993, and family credit quarterly enquiry statistics (July 1995) uprated to 1996–97 or 1997–98 prices and benefit levels.

  2. Estimates of costs are rounded to the nearest £5 million.

  Dyslexia
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the percentage of the population with severe literacy problems caused by dyslexia; and if he will make it his policy to ensure that they are covered by regulations under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. [17918]

  Mr. Burt
  Information is not held centrally about the percentage of the population with severe literacy problems caused by dyslexia.

  The Disability Discrimination Act defines disability as a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on a person's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. Anyone with dyslexia meeting this definition will be protected by the provisions of the legislation. Effects which are severe would satisfy the requirement that effects should be at least substantial.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the effect on public revenues and claimant numbers in 1996–97 and 1997–98 of reducing the taper for the withdrawal of housing benefit to(a) 60 per cent. and (b) 50 per cent. [18231]

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

  Estimated cost of reducing the housing benefit taper

  Cost (£ million)

  Increase in Housing Benefit caseload (000s)

  Taper

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1996–97

  1997–98

  60 per cent.

  160

  175

  35

  35

  50 per cent.

  550

  595

  160

  160

  1. Estimates based on the family expenditure su0rveys of 1991, 1992 and 1993, uprated to 1996–97 or 1997–98 prices and benefit levels.

  2. Estimates of costs are rounded to the nearest £5 million.

  3. Estimates of caseloads are rounded to the nearest 5,000.

  Home Responsibilities Protection
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the numbers of people in each of the last three years for which statistics are available who(a) were entitled to home responsibilities protection, (b) ceased to be entitled as a result of resuming to pay national insurance contributions, (c) ceased to be entitled as a result of claiming a retirement pension and (d) ceased to be entitled due to other changes in circumstances. [18110]

  Mr. Heald
  The information available is given in the table.

  Thousands

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Total with entitlement1

  2,633

  2,718

  2,773

  Number ceasing due to increased contributions

  267

  192

  199

  Number ceasing due to retirement pension

  1

  1

  1

  710

  Thousands

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Number ceasing due to other reason

  143

  138

  135

  1 Entitlement—HRP used where earnings or credits not sufficient for a real qualifying year for pension purposes.

  Notes:

  Figures are for UK.

  1. Figures for 1992–93 are not complete as some employers tax returns may not have been received at the time of the extract.

  2. Excludes women with a reduced rate option.

  3. May exclude some people with HRP for child benefit where the award date was prior to July 1979.

  Source:

  1 per cent, sample of NIRS records taken at February 1994.

  Earnings Disregard
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the effect on public revenues in 1996–97 and 1997–98 of introducing a disregard of(a) £25 or (b) £50 to be set against a spouse's earnings in two-earner couples for the purpose of calculating entitlement to family credit. [18102]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The structure of family credit in effect provides a disregard of the first £73 of earned income in the household. The estimated cost of introducing further disregards is set out in the table:

  £25 disregard

  £50 disregard

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Total cost (£ million)

  40

  45

  90

  95

  1. Estimates are based on the family expenditure surveys of 1991, 1992 and 1993, and family credit quarterly enquiry statistics July 1995, uprated to 1996–97 or 1997–98 prices and benefit levels.

  2. Estimates are rounded to the nearest £5 million.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are currently the average numbers and proportions of income support recipients who have earnings set against an earnings disregard of(a) £5, (b) £10, (c) £15 and (d) £25, giving figures separately for (i) single people, (ii) married couples, (iii) second-earner spouses and (iv) lone parents. [18070]

  Mr. Evans
  The information is not available in the format requested. The available information is set out in the table. There is no £25 earnings disregard in income support. The £10 couple disregard will be introduced in October 1996 for income support and jobseeker's allowance.

  Claimant group

  Amount of earnings disregarded £

  Number of cases

  Percentage of claimant group

  (i) Single claimants

  0.01–5.00

  32,000

  0.7

  5.01–10.00

  5,000

  0.1

  10.01–15.00

  66.000

  1.4

  Total

  103,000

  2.2

  Of which: Lone Parents

  0.01–5.00

  1,000

  0.1

  5.01–10.00

  4,000

  0.4

  10.01–15.00

  63,000

  5.6

  Total

  68,000

  6.1

  711

  Claimant group

  Amount of earnings disregarded £

  Number of cases

  Percentage of claimant group

  (ii) Couples

  0.01–5.00

  31,000

  3.2

  5.01–10.00

  2,000

  0.2

  10.01–15.00

  23,000

  2.4

  Total

  56,000

  5.8

  Of which: second-earner partners

  0.01–5.00

  —

  —

  5.01–10.00

  —

  —

  10.01–15.00

  —

  —

  Total

  1,000

  0.1

  (iii) All cases

  0.01–5.00

  63,000

  1.1

  5.01–10.00

  7,000

  0.1

  10.01–15.00

  89,000

  1.6

  Total

  159,000

  2.8

  Notes:

  1. All figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand. A dash represents numbers less than 500.

  2. The amounts shown are the actual amounts disregarded. These may be less than the full amount of earnings disregard that the claimant is entitled to.

  3. Self-employed earnings are not shown.

  4. Couples include cohabitees and spouses.

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Enquiry. February 1995.

  Free School Meals
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the effect on public revenues in 1996–97 and 1997–98 of extending entitlement to free school meals to families receiving family credit. [18242]

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the effect on public revenues in 1996–97 and 1997–98 of extending entitlement to free school meals to families receiving family credit. [18234]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The estimated cost of extending entitlement to free school meals to families receiving family credit is £150 million in both 1996–97 and 1997–98.

  Therapeutic Earnings
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate(a) the number and proportion of invalidity benefit claimants in 1994–95 with therapeutic earnings, (b) the current number and proportion of incapacity benefit claimants with therapeutic earnings which are still subject to the rules which applied before 13 April 1995 and (c) the current number and proportion of incapacity benefit claimants with therapeutic earnings. [18069]

  Mr. Burt
  Information on which to base estimates is not available, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the effect on public revenues in 1996–97 and 1997–98 of abolishing(a) the 16 hours rule and (b) the earnings rule for therapeutic earnings under incapacity benefit. [18232]

  Mr. Burt
  There is insufficient information available on which to base estimates.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the number of people in each of the last three years for which statistics are available who(a) were in receipt of invalid care allowance, (b) who ceased to be entitled to invalid care allowance as a result of earnings above the earnings limit, (c) who ceased to be entitled to invalid care benefit due to their age and (d) who ceased to be entitled due to other changes in circumstances. [18115]

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is in the table1

  1993

  1994

  1995

  ICA Recipients,

  230,313

  273,901

  316,353

  Cessations due to earnings

  2,524

  3,119

  4,688

  Cessations due to age2

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Other cessations

  40,341

  44,022

  56,860

  Notes:

  1 Figures are based on a 100 per cent. of cases as at 31 December.

  2 Once entitlement to ICA is established, there is no upper age limit.

  Source:

  Invalid care allowance quarterly statistical returns.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are currently the range and average level of earnings of people in receipt of invalid care allowance and of their spouses, giving figures separately for each; and what are(a) the number and proportion of invalid care allowance claimants with earnings, (b) the number and proportion of married invalid care allowance claimants whose spouses are earning and (c) the number of invalid care allowance claimants who have lost additional payments for (1) one child, (2) two children and (3) three or more children as a result of the level of their spouses' earnings. [18114]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows:

  As at 28 February 1996, the number of invalid care allowance claimants with earnings is 23,252, which represents 7.2 per cent. of the total number of recipients.

  Note: figures are based on a 100 per cent. count of cases.

  Source: scan of invalid care allowance database.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the effect on public revenues in 1996–97 and 1997–98 of extending entitlement to social fund(a) community care grants, (b) budgeting loans and (c) cold weather payments to families in receipt of family credit. [18105]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Since the discretionary social fund is cash limited, extending eligibility to community care grants and budgeting loans to families in receipt of family credit without increasing the cash limit would result in a higher rate of refusals but no extra cost, other than for the administration of any additional applications.

  Alternatively, if the cash limit was increased in proportion to the number of families receiving family credit compared with those receiving income support, assuming the same level of demand is met and

  713
  comparable eligibility conditions apply, we estimate that an increase would be required to (a) the community care grants budget and to (b) the net amount available for budgeting loans as shown in the table. However, in a discretionary scheme there would be no guarantee that additional expenditure would all go to family credit recipients.

  It is not possible to estimate the additional cost of cold weather payments, since the number of payments, being dependent on the weather, varies hugely and unpredictably from year to year. However, we estimate that the total number of eligible people and administration costs would be increased by roughly 10 per cent.

  £ million

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Administration costs, yearly

  (a) Community care grants

  10

  10

  2

  (b) Budgeting loans

  15

  7

  5

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what estimate his Department has made of the amount of money which will be reclaimed under the new rules for prescription charges in respect of men aged between 60 and 65 years; [16945]

  (2) how many pensioners have claimed refunds of prescription charges under the new rules affecting men aged between 60 and 65 years. [16944]

  Mr. Malone
  I have been asked to reply.

  We do not hold figures on the number of men aged 60 to 65 who have paid prescription charges prior to the European Court of Justice ruling. Following our invitation to register a claim we have issued over 187,000 claim forms to men in the United Kingdom. At the close of business on 23 February 132,000—70 per cent.—had been returned.

  To date the prescription claims processing unit has authorised payments totalling £2.6 million to 83,000—63 per cent.—men. At this stage it is not possible to forecast accurately the total cost of likely refunds but they are not expected to exceed £6 million. This does not include the cost of prepayment certificates refunded locally by family health services authorities. Administration costs will be additional.

WALES

  Breast Cancer Services
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the numbers, grades, jobs designations and health authority area of full-time breast cancer staff working in the NHS in Wales for each year since 1990. [16625]

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Chernobyl
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to revoke the various emergency restrictions imposed in response to the Chernobyl disaster. [17051]

  Mrs. Gwilym Jones
  Radiocaesium contamination from the Chernobyl accident continues to affect certain upland areas of sheep grazing in north Wales. Although there has been a general decline in the activity of the radiocaesium the actual rate of decline depends on the interaction of a number of factors such as soil type, vegetation, weather, drainage and sheep grazing preference. The variable interaction between these factors does not enable an accurate forecast to be made of the length of time sheep controls will be required.

  Regular monitoring of radiocaesium levels in sheep, and other relevant information, enables suitable areas to be identified for a comprehensive survey and assessment to determine the prospects for removing controls. Following such work my right hon. Friend was able to lift controls from over 65 sq k in the Snowdon area on 17 January 1996. The area originally affected by sheep controls was approximately 4,100 sq k, but has now been reduced to approximately 580 sq k.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what research he has commissioned to assess the long-term effects of the Chernobyl incident on(a) Welsh agriculture and (b) land use in the affected areas. [17052]

  Mr. Jones
  In Wales land affected by the Chernobyl accident is predominantly confined to certain upland areas of north Wales used for sheep grazing. Other than restrictions on the movement and slaughter of sheep from those areas there have been no long-term effects of Welsh agriculture or land use.

  Research has identified ways to immobilise the transference of radioactivity through certain technical remedies and chemical land treatments. However, the potential adverse effect such land treatment could have on the natural environment of the area and the practical application of the other treatments are not necessarily appropriate to the area covered by restrictions. At present, the mark and release scheme remains the most satisfactory means of securing the protection of food chain safety and ensuring that normal sheep marketing practices within the restricted area continue with minimum disruption to farmers.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning the revocation of the emergency restrictions imposed in response to the Chernobyl incident. [17053]

  Mr. Jones
  General inquiries are sometimes received about the length of time sheep restrictions will be required. Our policy of regularly informing farmers affected by restrictions and their unions of the current position is intended to provide them with a full understanding of the situation. This can be judged by the continued co-operation and patience farmers have shown in the need to retain restrictions and their help in maintaining confidence in the quality of Welsh lamb.

  Departmental Officials (Interests)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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.[16884]

  Mr. Hague
  Staff in my Department faced with a potential conflict of interest must declare the position to senior management who can consider how best to proceed. This requirement is set out in the Welsh Office terms and conditions of service code.

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

  Milford Haven Waterway
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning the designation of the Milford Haven waterway as a special area of conservation; and if he will make a statement. [17375]

  Mr. Hague
  Ministers and officials received nine responses following the public consultation exercise undertaken last year from organisations representing a range of interests. Some expressed concern about the socio-economic effects of the proposed designation, others supported it fully, some suggested that the site was not large enough, while others raised queries about the proposed boundaries. All responses received will be taken into account before a decision is made on whether or not to submit the site to the European Commission.

  Mr. Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to submit his plans for the designation of the Milford Haven waterway as a special area of conservation. [17374]

  Mr. Hague
  A public consultation exercise was undertaken last March on over 280 potential special areas of conservation in the United Kingdom. Two hundred and eleven of these sites—including 34 in Wales—have already been submitted to the European Commission as potential SACs. It is hoped that the remaining sites, which include the proposed Milford Haven and Pembrokeshire islands SAC, can be submitted in due course. No decision will be made until all points raised during the consultation have been fully considered.

  EDS Ltd.
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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. [17459]

  Mr. Hague
  My Department does not currently hold any contracts with EDS.

  Grammar Schools
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of children of secondary school age attend a grammar school. [17500]
  716
  Mr. Richards
  There are no grammar schools in Wales.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many of the new overseas industrial inward investment projects secured by Wales over the past two years were introduced by Invest in Britain. [17229]

  Mr. Hague
  In the financial years 1993–94 and 1994–95 two new inward investment projects were introduced to Wales by the Invest in Britain Bureau.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many inward investment projects have settled in Wales as a result of guidance given by the Invest in Britain Bureau over the past three years; and if he will make a statement. [17734]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In 1992–93, the bureau was significantly involved in two of the 60 projects recorded by Wales; in 1993–94, the bureau was involved in one of the 64 projects recorded; and in 1994–95, the bureau was involved in three of the 51 projects recorded.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many grant-maintained schools there are in each of the counties of Wales; and if he will make a statement. [17502]

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is given in the following table.

  Distribution of grant-maintained schools in Wales by county

  Number of Schools

  County

  Primary

  Secondary

  Total

  Clwyd

  2

  4

  6

  Dyfed

  —

  —

  —

  Gwent

  1

  3

  4

  Gwynedd

  1

  —

  1

  Mid Glamorgan

  —

  —

  —

  Powys

  1

  —

  1

  South Glamorgan

  —

  3

  3

  West Glamorgan

  —

  1

  1

  Wales

  5

  11

  16

  Wind Turbines
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many wind turbines have been erected in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [17501]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Some 224 wind turbines have been erected in Wales with the support of the non-fossil fuel obligation. A small number of turbines have also been constructed outside the NFFO framework; however, details are not held by this Department.

  Drug and Substance Abuse
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures his Department has adopted to combat(a) drugs abuse and (b) substance abuse. [17379]
  717
  Mr. Richards
  A Welsh office consultation paper "Forward Together" which sets out a strategy for tackling drug and alcohol misuse in Wales was launched on 16 October 1995. This paper sets out the measures to be adopted to combat the misuse of drugs and other substances in Wales including the establishment of a new Welsh drug and alcohol unit. The intention is to publish the final strategy document in spring 1996.

  I have also announced our intention to reconstitute the Welsh Committee on Drug and Alcohol Misuse. Membership of the committee will be announced in the coming weeks.

  Deprived Youths (Training)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will initiate training schemes for deprived youth in the Alyn and Deeside constituency. [17503]

  Mr. Richards
  The Welsh Office already guarantees a training place to all young people who are not in full-time education, training or employment through its youth credits and modern apprenticeships programmes. As part of its work in delivering this guarantee in the Alyn and Deeside constituency, the North East Wales training and enterprise council operates, as an integral part of its youth training provision, a bridge to work programme which specially caters for those young people who are disadvantaged in the labour market.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will break down the number of people who were accepted as homeless in the county of Mid Glamorgan over the last five years by(a) sex and (b) age group; and if he will make a statement; [17511]

  (2) if he will break down the number of people who were accepted as homeless in Dyfed over the last five years by (a) sex and (b) age group; and if he will make a statement. [17530]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  A470 Extension
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the construction on the A470 extension of the Cardiff to Merthyr trunk road to the A465 Heads of the Valleys road to Cefn Coed is expected to be completed; and if he will make a statement. [17562]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Pentrebach to Cefn Coed scheme, which extends the improvement of the A470 to the A465, is expected to be completed in spring 1997.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the construction companies currently working on the A470 extension of the Cardiff to Merthyr trunk road to the A465 Heads of the Valleys road at Cefn Coed. [17563]
  718
  Mr. Jones
  The Pentrebach to Cefn Coed scheme, which extends the improvement of the A470 to the A465, comprises two contracts. The main contractors are:Southern Section (Pentrebach to Swansea Road)—Taylor Woodrow Civil Engineering Ltd.
  Northern Section (Swansea Road to Cefn Coed)—Christiani and Nielsen Ltd.

  A465
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the construction on the A465 from Aberdulais to Glyn Neath will be completed; and if he will make a statement. [17566]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Construction on the A465 between Aberdulais and Glynneath is expected to be completed in early 1997.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects the engineering and statutory procedures will be completed on the rebuilding of the A465 Abergavenny to Hirwaun dual carriageway; and if he will make a statement. [17524]

  Mr. Jones
  Work is currently expected to start on this scheme in 1999, subject to satisfactory completion of design and statutory procedures, and the availability of finance.

  Companies (Financial Assistance)
  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many applications have been received by the Welsh Development Agency for financial assistance for companies; and what is(a) the number approved, (b) the total financial value of the approved applications and (c) the average time taken to process and approve these applications in the last three years for which figures are available. [16980]

  Mr. Hague
  I will arrange for the chief executive of the agency to write to my hon. Friend and for a copy of his letter to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Statistics (Gender Breakdown)
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps his Department is taking to collect statistics broken down by gender where relevant. [17692]

  Mr. Hague
  In conducting statistical surveys of, or about, individuals the Welsh Office collects information on gender where this is relevant to analysis of the survey data. Aggregated statistics about individuals are published by gender where appropriate.

  Reservoirs
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 26 February,Offical Report, column 403, on what date his officials were most recently informed by Dwr Cymru and the National Rivers Authority, Wales region, of reservoir levels; and if he will give the percentage level of the water in each of Dwr Cymru's principal reservoirs at the corresponding date. [18204]
  719
  Mr. Hague
  My Department has received information from Dwr Cymru on reservoir levels in Wales most recently as at 26 February 1996. The information requested is shown in the following table.

  Principal Welsh Reservoir Levels as at 26 February 1996

  Percentage full

  North Wales

  Celyn

  53

  Brenig

  86

  Cefni

  100

  Cwymystradllyn

  100

  Alwen

  58

  Cynwch

  65

  South Western Wales

  Brianne

  100

  Cray

  100

  Llysyfran

  100

  Prescelly

  100

  Ystradfellte

  100

  Egnant

  99

  South Eastern Wales

  Usk

  71

  Talybont

  100

  Llandegfedd

  99

  Taf Fechan

  99

  Taf Fawr

  100

  Elan Valley

  93

  Waiting List Initiative Funds
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 16 February,Official Report,columns 732–33 what was the total amount of waiting list initiative funds granted to each family health services authority since 1 January. [18205]

  Mr. Hague
  In the financial year 1995–96, waiting times initiative funding was allocated on a district basis. Within each district, the health authority and family health services authority were asked to agree on the division of the funding. The amounts agreed for family health services authorities are as follows:

  FHSA

  £

  Clwyd

  nil

  Dyfed

  110,200

  Gwent

  50,000

  Gwynedd

  9,000

  Mid Glamorgan

  100,000

  Powys

  nil

  South Glamorgan

  250,000

  West Glamorgan

  520,000

  Total

  1,039,200

  In addition, family health services authorities may receive a share of the residual funding of £125,000 recently notified to health authorities.

  Sea Empress
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what arrangements have been made for the long-term monitoring of the effects of the oil spill on the marine ecosystem around the Pembrokeshire coast. [17970]
  720
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has provided £250,000 to the Countryside Council for Wales to enable it to conduct a study of the entire marine environment, and initiate a long-term monitoring programme, in the area affected by the spill.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what resources he has made available to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds to assist those organisations in their rescue of sea birds and other wildlife affected by oil from the Sea Empress. [18108]

  Mr. Jones
  Compensation for cost incurred and economic loss suffered as a result of the oil pollution damage from the Sea Empress, including the costs of reasonable measures taken to prevent or minimise the damage, are available from the ship owner's insurer and from the international oil compensation fund, which is funded by levies on the oil industry.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) what further assessment he makes of Sir Richard Scott's conclusion in section G13.125, page 1996, in respect of his legal and constitutional responsibility to promote the public interst; and if he will make a statement; [16996]

  (2) what assessment he has made of Sir Richard Scott's conclusions in G13.106 that the brief to Mr. Moses and his submissions to Judge Smedley were inconsistent with the Deputy Prime Minister's views; and if he will make a statement; [16994]

  (3) what assessment he has made of Sir Richard Scott's conclusion in section G13.123 that he must bear responsibility for inadequate instructions to Mr. Moses. [16993]

  The Attorney-General
  The Treasury Solicitor's Department instructed prosecuting counsel in relation to public interest immunity on behalf of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Defence.

  All the Ministers who signed PII certificates in the Matrix Churchill case, including my right hon. Friend the then President of the Board of Trade, were satisfied that there was, in principle, a public interest in non-disclosure of documents within the classes as formulated in the certificates, and that the documents in question fell within those classes.

  Having regard to the law as it then stood, in the light of the President's concerns, I advised him on a specially drafted PII certificate which emphasised that he was doing no more than performing his duty to assert PII, and that it was for the court to decide which documents should be disclosed.

  In the circumstances, as my evidence to the Scott inquiry made clear, the instructions to counsel in relation to the DTI were inadequate and counsel should have been shown my exchange of letters with the President, but these were not matters for my personal supervision.
  721
  Sir Richard Scott's comments on my role derive from the fact that he takes a fundamentally different view of the law and does not believe that the President was under any such duty. I am satisfied that the advice I gave was correct and that the decision on disclosure was for the court, not Ministers.

  Prosecuting counsel, in line with the President's specially drafted PII certificate, emphasised to the court that Ministers were doing no more than performing their duty to assert PII, and that it was for the court to decide which documents should be disclosed. At counsel's invitation the judge read every document covered by all the PII certificates and duly decided which should be disclosed.

  The law has now moved on. Following the decision in ex parte Wiley (1994), Ministers are now able to form their own judgment as to whether material should be disclosed. In the light of that decision, submissions to Ministers on PII are now fuller and take into account Ministers' expanded role.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Attorney-General what assessment he has made of Sir Richard Scott's conclusion in section G18.60 that Government are entitled to authorise the disclosure of its confidential or secret documents; and if he will make a statement. [17005]

  The Attorney-General
  Public interest immunity applies only to disclosure in the context of legal proceedings. Following the decision of the House of Lords in ex parte Wiley, a Minister is entitled to volunteer disclosure where he concludes 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.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Attorney-General what assessment he has made of Sir Richard Scott's conclusion in section G18.58 in respect of Viscount Simon's judgement in Duncan v. Cammell Laird 1942; and if he will make a statement. [17004]

  The Attorney-General
  The decision in Duncan v. Cammell Laird (1942) was overtaken by the decision of the House of Lords in Conway v. Rimmer (1968), which effected a major change in the law as to the function of Ministers in claiming public interest immunity. The Government's approach to PII in the Matrix Churchill case was fully in accordance with the law as it then stood in the light of Conway v. Rimmer and the later authorities. With the House of Lords decision in ex parte Wiley (1994) there has been a further change.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) what assessment he has made of Sir Richard Scott's conclusion in sections G 18.66 that his advice was without sound legal foundation; and if he will make a statement; [16998]

  (2) what assessment he has made of Sir Richard Scott's conclusion in section G18.54 that his views on Ministers' legal duties to claim PII were based on a fundamental misconception of PII law; and if he will make a statement. [16997]

  The Attorney-General
  The advice I gave on PII at the time of the Matrix Churchill trial was entirely in accordance with the law as it then stood. It was based on careful, detailed advice from a team of distinguished independent practitioners, was fully supported by the case 722
  law and has been publicly endorsed by three of the defence counsel and a number of other eminent commentators including the Master of the Rolls.

  Since the Matrix Churchill trial the decision of the House of Lords in ex parte Wiley (1994) has brought about a change in the law on PII.

  For a full analysis I refer the hon. Member to the document entitled "Public interest immunity: Government response to the Scott Report", copies of which are in the Library.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Attorney-General 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 should have had no place in a criminal trial; and if he will make a statement. [16999]

  The Attorney-General
  The class claims made in the Matrix Churchill trial were of a kind which were well established and recognised by the courts. The trial judge held that they had been properly made. The application of PII to criminal cases has been confirmed by the higher courts. For example, the Court of Appeal upheld class claims for material relating to national security and communications with foreign Governments in Ordtec—Rv. Blackledge and others—(1995).

  As to the future, I have announced that the Government are considering carefully the recommendations in the Scott report in relation to PII and are seeking the views of interested parties.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Attorney-General what assessment he has made of Sir Richard Scott's conclusion in section G13.17 that the ability of the prosecution to introduce evidence within a public interest immunity class without making it available to the defence is one-sided. [17324]

  The Attorney-General
  Public interest immunity applies regardless of whether the prosecution or the defence seeks disclosure of the material in question. At the relevant time a Minister was under a duty to claim PII where it applied, except where it was clear that on any view the court was bound to order disclosure—the so-called Makanjuola exception. The Makanjuola exception was not expressly applied to the disclosure of the material referred to in paragraph G13.17 of the Scott report. It is accepted that the prior approval of the Secretary of State for disclosure should have been obtained. However, on the basis that disclosure could in the circumstances have been justified as falling within the scope of the Makanjuola exception, there was no inconsistency between that disclosure and the PII claims that were made in the case.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Attorney-General when he first consulted with other Cabinet Ministers about the contents of the report of the Scott inquiry; and where and when such discussions took place and with whom. [16514]

  The Attorney-General
  [holding answer 22 February 1996]: It is not the practice to give details of ministerial meetings.
  723
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his oral answer of 19 February,Official Report, column 17, (1) when he read the letter from the Deputy Prime Minister dated 11 September; [16990]

  (2) pursuant to his oral answer of 19 February, Official Report, column 17, who in his Department read the Deputy Prime Minister's letter dated 11 September; on what date; and on what date their contents were communicated directly to him; [16989]

  (3) pursuant to his oral answer of 19 February, Official Report, column 17, if the written comments submitted to Sir Richard Scott on his behalf on 6 November 1995 confirmed that he had not read the Deputy Prime Minister's letter of 11 September prior to commencement of the Matrix Churchill trial on 12 October 1992. [16991]

  (4) if he will publish the written comments submitted on his behalf to Sir Richard Scott on 6 November 1995; [16992]

  The Attorney-General
  One of my officials read my right hon. Friend's letter when it was received on 14 September 1992 and immediately sent a copy to the Treasury Solicitor's Department, which was responsible for instructing prosecuting counsel. I was away from my office during the week when the letter arrived.

  The letter was a brief one. Its purpose was to thank me for my advice and for the revised draft PII certificate which I had proposed, and which my right hon. Friend had duly signed. I already knew this. In the circumstances there is nothing at all surprising in the fact that, as the Scott inquiry was informed in written comments submitted on 6 November 1995, the letter was not brought to my attention before the Matrix Churchill trial. I have no plans to publish those comments. Sir Richard Scott intends to publish in due course copies of all documents which he considers relevant to the text of his report.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) what assessment he has made of Sir Richard Scott's conclusion in sections G13.113 and 115 that Ministers should inform the court if they have views on disclosure; and if he will make a statement; [17003]

  (2) what assessment he has made of Sir Richard Scott's conclusion in section G18.101 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; [17001]

  (3) what assessment he has made of Sir Richard Scott's conclusion in section G18.101 that judges may make mistakes; and if he will make a statement; [17002]

  (4) what assessment he has made of Sir Richard Scott's conclusion in section G13.103 that Ministers were given insufficient guidance to come to a consistent view about the class of documents they were protecting; and if he will make a statement. [17323]
  724
  The Attorney-General
  As the law on public interest immunity stood at the time of Matrix Churchill, it was for Ministers to advance a PII claim where they were satisfied that there was a public interest in not disclosing documents within the relevant classes, and that the documents fell within those classes. It was then the judge's function to weigh the public interest in non-disclosure against the public interest in disclosure for the purposes of doing justice. The judge was best placed to know the issues in the case and hence the degree of relevance of the documents in question.

  Following the decision in ex parte Wiley (1994), Ministers can now weigh the competing interests for themselves and volunteer disclosure if they conclude that this is in the overall public interest. But where a Minister is not satisfied that disclosure should be made, the court remains the ultimate decision maker and must balance the competing public interests and rule on disclosure.

  Departmental Officials (Interests)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Attorney-General 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. [16885]

  The Attorney-General
  Comprehensive records are not held centrally for civil servants in the departments and agency for which I am responsible. Civil servants faced with a conflict of interest must declare their interest to senior management in accordance with the staff handbook of each department and agency. Staff who disclose relevant interests do so on the understanding that the declaration, like other employment matters, is confidential between them and their employer. There are no plans to establish a central register of officials' interests.

  Asil Nadir
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Attorney-General what recent discussions he has held, and with whom, on the case of Mr. Asil Nadir. [17161]

  The Attorney-General
  Asil Nadir is the co-accused of Elizabeth Forsyth who is presently standing trial at the Central Criminal court. He has however left the jurisdiction and is the subject of an unexecuted warrant for his arrest. I have discussed the case from time to time with my officials and the director of the Serious Fraud Office.

  EDS Ltd.
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Attorney-General 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. [17450]

  The Attorney-General
  None of the departments or agency for which I am responsible has entered into any contract with EDS, Electronic Data Systems.

  Serious Fraud Cases
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Attorney-General what plans he has to change the procedures governing the investigation and prosecution of serious fraud cases; and if he will make a statement. [17389]

  The Attorney-General
  None. The Serious Fraud Office and the fraud division of the Crown Prosecution Service continue to implement the recommendations of the Davie report as set out in my statement to the House on 31 March 1995,Official Report, column 1309. Copies of the report were placed in the Library of the House.

  Statistics (Gender Breakdown)
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Attorney-General what steps his Department is taking to collect statistics broken down by gender where relevant. [17685]

  The Attorney-General
  Statistics concerning staff employed in the departments and agency for which I am responsible are normally based on pay and personnel records which include information on gender. Statistical information about personnel can therefore usually be broken down by gender.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield.

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Humber Bridge (Debts) Act,
Hong Kong (Overseas Public Servants) Act, Wild Mammals (Protection) Act,
Edinburgh Assay Office Order Confirmation Act.

The Channel Tunnel Ltd: Funding
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether any and, if so, what amount of the total liabilities of the Channel Tunnel Ltd. could fall on the British taxpayer.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, the Channel Tunnel has been constructed, and is operated, entirely by the private sector. The Channel Tunnel Act 1987 specifically precludes the Government from any commitment of public funds, either directly or in the form of a guarantee.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for the most reassuring Answer that I have ever received from him.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, you cannot say better than that.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I live in hope—so far unrealised. However, can the Minister give the House some indication as to whether there is any truth in the reports that have appeared in the press today stating that the project which is to be undertaken in relation to the Channel Tunnel will in fact cost a great deal more than might have been the case if British Rail had been able to undertake a project in partnership with private finance in 1989? Is it likely that the cost of £ 1 billion then—the partnership being with Trafalgar House—is likely to be exceeded by some £ 2 billion as result of the Statement that is likely to be made elsewhere?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, could not possibly expect me to pre-empt the Statement of my right honourable friend which is due to be made in another place reasonably shortly. Those issues will be raised during discussion
1602
on the Statement. Suffice it to say, I am sure that the well-known ability of the private sector to inject funds and expertise into large capital projects will be demonstrated.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, despite the Answer that he gave to his noble friend and bearing in mind the fact that Commissioner Kinnock voted against the Channel Tunnel whenever he could, can I have an assurance from the noble Viscount that there will not be a public subsidy paid for in part by British taxpayers through a subsidy given to the Channel Tunnel by the Commission?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I have outlined the situation. Eurotunnel is a public limited company and there is no injection from Her Majesty's Government of funds. That is very clear within the Act. We fully expect that any financial negotiations will have to take place between the company itself and its own bankers. That is the end of the matter.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in that case, is the Minister saying that the tunnel will close if the money is not forthcoming from the private sector?
Viscount Goschen: No, my Lords; that is not what I am saying at all. The Channel Tunnel operates at an operating surplus. It is very clear to those who finance the Channel Tunnel that the only way that they will get moneys coming back to repay those debts is through the operation of the tunnel. Indeed, closure of the tunnel would not help in any way.

The European Union and Slovenia
3.11 p.m.
Lord Bethell Lord Bethell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they favour the establishment of an agreement between the European Union and Slovenia and, if so, what steps they are taking to achieve this.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we are strongly in favour of Slovenia concluding an association agreement with the European Union. The agreement has been initialled; but not yet signed, because of outstanding differences between Slovenia and Italy. We have encouraged both governments to resolve their difficulties so that the agreement can be signed without further delay.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for that Answer. Does she agree with me that Slovenia has done well in recent years to establish itself as a democratic and prosperous young nation? Further, does my noble friend not think it a pity that relations between Slovenia and the European Union should be held up on such a matter as property rights by one member state? Can my noble friend use her influence with her Italian colleagues in the European Union to try to get the matter resolved?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I certainly agree with my noble friend that Slovenia has

1603
done well. Indeed, she has become one of the most economically developed of the central and eastern European countries; she is politically stable; and she has a pluralist liberal democracy. We believe that Slovenia is entitled to look forward to the day when she will be a full member of the European Union. However, I also agree with my noble friend that it is tragic that Italy and Slovenia have not been able to resolve their bilateral property issue which is preventing this particular signature.
I should stress that we have indeed encouraged a resolution of the issue, but the right is not all on one side. The Italians feel that this is a sensitive, domestic issue, but so do the Slovenians. We are trying our best behind the scenes to resolve the matter.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will there be standard clauses in the agreement regarding human rights in Slovenia, and, if so, what enforcement mechanisms are written into those standard clauses in the event of default by the state concerned? I am not suggesting there is any reason for particular anxiety in the case of Slovenia. However, as I understand it, in all future association agreements there is provision for these clauses to be inserted.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am not sure because it would depend on the drafting date as to whether those clauses have been included in the association agreement. However, I will check that and write to the noble Lord. As he rightly says, I do not think there is any reason for anxiety over Slovenia's progress on human rights. I repeat, she is politically stable and has a pluralist liberal democracy. She is setting a good example to many of the countries around her.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, if the Italian Government's opposition to an association agreement continues, can the Minister comment on the implications for enlargement more generally, given the Government's commitment to unanimous voting in this area?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is important that this problem is kept within context. It is not a huge problem. It does not have anything to do with European membership per se. The problem is that the Slovenians have proposed some amendments to their property laws which the Italians do not like because those laws would not allow their citizens who have lived in Slovenia in the past to buy up property until they had fulfilled the new three years of continuous residence requirement. This matter ought to be capable of being resolved between the parties. Although right is not all on one side, as I have said, I do not believe that it is a matter of such import that it will result in more than hesitation.
As to the wider question of enlargement and the requirement for unanimity on enlargement, I still believe, as a member of the Government, that it is important that we maintain that unanimity. The question
1604
how best to work for a resolution of the problem between Italy and the other 14 members who are in favour of this association agreement.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give the House an undertaking that she will in due course provide particulars of the nature and extent of our involvement in the agreement referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, certainly if there is something further that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, needs, he knows that he has only to ask. I always try to give him as much information as possible.

The Royal Naval College, Greenwich
3.16 p.m.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have received any support for the Secretary of State for Defence's proposal to lease the Royal Naval College, Greenwich, for unrestricted purposes for 150 years and, if so, from whom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe): My Lords, nine proposals relating to the whole site, and three for part use, have been received. At this stage we regard such expressions of interest as commercial-in-confidence. It is for the interested parties to decide whether they wish publicly to declare their interest. Two have so chosen; namely, the University of Greenwich and the National Maritime Museum.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will the Government consider enlarging the remit given to the advisory committee—I refer to the group of four, including Dame Jennifer Jenkins and Sir Jocelyn Stevens—which is at present confined to advising the Secretary of State on the desirability of those who come forward; that is, the nine applications? Will the Government consider enlarging that remit and charging that group with forming an opinion on what are desirable uses and what are desirable classes of persons to have Greenwich, so that the Secretary of State can then actively seek them instead of sitting back and waiting for anyone who comes along?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I believe that the advisory group already has that remit very much in mind. The group was set up to advise my right honourable friend on the expressions of interest which we received in mid-November on the future use and management of the Royal Naval College. The members of the group have been asked to give particular attention to the extent to which the proposals are sympathetic to the status of the building and its wide enjoyment by the public. I believe that they will be conscientious in fulfilling that remit.
Lord Renton: My Lords, how can anyone predict what circumstances will be like in 150 years' time and

1605
be absolutely sure that a letting of the building will be a safe thing to do, bearing in mind the ignorance of the circumstances in 150 years' time?
Earl Howe: My Lords, we are proposing a lease of 150 years. It is necessary to have a long lease to give predictability to a future occupant who may need to invest considerable sums of money in the site. However, if no suitable non-defence use comes forward, we have a longstop. The Defence School of Languages has been identified as a suitable occupant. However, we are keen to find a non-defence use to enable much greater public access and enjoyment, not least the possibility of opening up the grand axis. That vision was very much in the mind of Dame Jennifer Jenkins when she prepared the Royal Parks Review.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the noble Earl will be aware that the Government may propose, but Parliament in this matter will dispose. In view of the fact that your Lordships have not yet had a chance to debate the particular clause in the Armed Forces Bill, why are the Government forging ahead on something which may well not pass your Lordships?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the final decision as to who: should occupy the Royal Naval College rests with my right honourable friend as sole trustee of the Greenwich Hospital Charity. However, I am well aware that, as the noble Lord stated, the Armed Forces Bill contains a clause to widen the scope for my right honourable friend to take that decision. I do not believe that any action that the Government have taken to date pre-empts parliamentary consideration of that clause.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, my noble friend said that the National Maritime Museum was one of the parties which had shown an interest. Wearing my DoE hat of a decade or so ago, I have seen what a wonderful museum that is. Do the Government agree that, if it is interested in doing so, the National Maritime Museum would be the ideal body to look after those buildings?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I quite agree with my noble friend that the National Maritime Museum is to be congratulated on the way it has looked after the buildings in its care. However, I cannot give it any preferential treatment.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: Why not?
Earl Howe: My Lords, for this reason. There are nine expressions of interest for the whole site and three for part of the site. It would be wrong for me to pre-empt the full and considered advice of the advisory group. However, I note my noble friend's remarks, and I am sure that they will find sympathy throughout the House.
Lord Gibson: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the Government regard this group of buildings as one of the noblest and most historic of its kind in this country and possibly in Europe? Will be also confirm
1606
the Government's acceptance of the principle that its use must conform to their character and not merely be protected by planning legislation in future years?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am pleased to take this opportunity to emphasise that the Government are firmly committed to finding an occupancy for this magnificent site which is sensitive to its heritage status and which will allow public access.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, in that case, can the Minister reassure the House that the phrase "unrestricted purposes" on the Order Paper is not a fair reflection of what the Secretary of State has in mind?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord, because that is a point that I had not yet picked up. It would be quite wrong to suggest that the options for the use of the Royal Naval College are unrestricted. There are real constraints, such as those of Grade I listed building status and its status as an ancient monument, which will protect the fabric for the future. There will be major planning constraints on any future use. In addition, my right honourable friend, as trustee, would not hesitate to put appropriate constraints—such as the need for public access—in a lease. That, again, is a real restriction on the uses to which the site can he put.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will the noble Earl agree that the Secretary of State has not yet placed any restrictions on the intended use beyond those of the law in general which apply to any development anywhere? Will be also agree, on reflection, that he did not answer my first supplementary question, which was not about whether the advisory group was likely to stick to its terms of reference but, on the contrary, whether those terms of reference could be changed and widened?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am sure that it is quite possible for my right honourable friend to request the advisory group to expand its remit. Of course I will ensure that my right honourable friend takes note of the noble Lord's comments. However, it is perfectly correct that to date no constraints have been placed on the advisory group in relation to the expressions of interest. Those expressions of interest are considered by the group pari passu, and we shall have to wait and see what the advice is at the end of the day.

Male Fertility
3.24 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their reaction to recently published evidence of a decline in male fertility.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, several studies suggest that there may have been

1607
a decline in sperm count and sperm quality in men over the past few decades, but there is no evidence as to whether those changes have affected men's fertility.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Even allowing for exaggerations in recent reports, if there is a biological change of the type suggested, that raises all kinds of questions, as I am sure the noble Baroness will agree. It has been suggested that excessive amounts of chemicals are being released into the environment. Can the Minister say whether that is likely to have an effect on male fertility? Secondly, it has also been suggested that the large amounts of female hormones which are being released into the water supply have resulted in the creation of what are called hermaphroditic fish. Is that likely to extend to human beings?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, perhaps I may answer first the question concerning the excessive amounts of chemicals. At the moment we are very unsure about this issue. A great deal of research is being undertaken by the Department of the Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Medical Research Council and the Health and Safety Executive. In addition, a working group is exploring what more should be done in other areas. The answer that I have just given also applies to hormones in the water supply. Research is also going on in that field.
Lord Winston: My Lords, I wish to support the Minister totally, on this occasion at least. Is she aware that while there is no evidence of a decline in human male fertility in this country, smoking, drinking, excessive sleep and sitting on leather benches for long periods of time—all of which are prevalent in your Lordships' House—are certainly causes of male infertility?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, as the noble Lord will be well aware because he is an expert in this field, this issue is partly age-related. I understand that those men horn before the 1960s have a much higher sperm count—and looking around at your Lordships—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Elton: My Lords, would not the last supplementary Question have come much better from a hereditary rather than a life Peer?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, your Lordships should be aware that today is 29th February. Noble Lords should be very careful that on this occasion noble Baronesses do not pick their Peer.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware in relation to this subject that the EC is now in the process of trying to dictate what size of condom men
1608
in Europe should use? Can she tell us whether that will be advantageous or whether it will exacerbate the situation?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we are dealing with the subject of fertility, not infertility.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I have no wish to contribute to the levity of this debate, but there is solid medical evidence, of which I am sure the Minister is aware, to indicate that there is an inverse relationship between the temperature of the testes and the level of sperm count and consequent fertility. Because coldness of the testes contributes to an increased sperm count, that has been thought by some to favour the wearing of the kilt.
Is it not also the case that there is increasing international evidence to suggest that the chemicals which may give rise to oestrogen-like substances in the environment have been one of the major factors leading to this decline in the human sperm count?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there is an opportunity here for somebody to do a Ph.D on the fertility of Scottish Peers in particular.
With regard to oestrogen, as I said, a great deal of research is being undertaken. The findings are contradictory and it is clear that this is an area which needs further study.
Lord Annan: My Lords, is it not a fact that with the vast numbers of spermatozoa which are released in the orgasm of the normal male, there is no danger whatsoever for the future of the human race? Would it not be better for research to be directed to other more vital areas in this field?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I understand that one sperm will suffice, so perhaps quality is more important.
For many married couples, this issue is a cause for concern. While I appreciate the noble Lord's view that one should be careful when undertaking research to get value for money, I believe this is an area that ought to be considered, especially since strong environmental factors are concerned.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is growing demand for rather expensive therapies which may or not be efficacious in male infertility? Is there a question of these being available on the health service? I understand that the therapy most likely to succeed costs about £ 10,000.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness refers to ICSI, which is a very new treatment. It was licensed in 1993. It is only now becoming generally available. However, it is for health authorities to decide on their priorities and whether they feel that that specific treatment should have preference over others.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, are the Government aware that in 1967 there was evidence of an increase in oestrogen-like substances in rivers, and that the

1609
junior Minister responsible for water supplies (it was myself) caused certain primitive research to be done? It yielded the result that there was an increase but that a man would have to drink 80 pints of tap water a day for that increase to have any effect on his fertility. Might it not be worth while to go back over that ground to see whether the figure of 80 pints is now somewhat lower?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, much research is being undertaken in this field. As regards the amount of water that men should or should not drink, I shall wait for the result of the research.

Civil Aviation (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
3.34 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Civil Aviation Act 1982 so as to provide for the prosecution of persons committing offences on foreign aircraft while in flight to the United Kingdom; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.— (Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Education (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the Scottish Select Committee on the Bill—
L. Addington,
L. Carmichael of Kelvingrove,
B. Carnegy of Lour,
E. Cromartie,
E. Dundee,
V. Dunrossil,
L. Goold (Chairman),
L. Sempill,
L. Sewel;
That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee shall be printed and, if the Committee think fit, delivered out;
That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place; and
That the Committee do meet on Thursday, 21st March 1996 at a quarter-past four o'clock in Committee Room 3.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Family Law Bill [H.L.]
3.35 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 4 [Marital breakdown]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 31, after ("statement") insert ("which, where the parties' arrangements for the future may include the division of pension assets under section 25B of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 or section 10 of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985, shall be made under the Statutory Declarations Act 1835 or under any statutory modification or re-enactment thereof,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 10, I shall speak to consequential amendments, Amendments Nos. 86A and 116A. Both deal with pension and divorce. I am sure that I speak for many noble Lords tonight when I say how sorry we are to be debating this issue in the shadow of a Royal divorce.
The first amendment standing in the names of my noble friend Lord Mishcon, the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and myself requires a statutory declaration. That overcomes the problem of bogus divorces. The second amendment, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and myself, seeks to establish the principle that courts and couples should have the option of pension splitting on divorce.
Pensions are often the largest single asset in a marriage, especially if the couple have been married a long time. The pension usually belongs to the husband although the amendment is gender neutral. If the pension belonged to the wife, the provision would apply to her. The husband has earned the pension, but so has the wife in supporting him, bringing up their children, perhaps working in a part-time job, and perhaps helping to care for their mutual parents. She, in middle age, faces divorce. If husband and wife cannot share the pension, if it is ring-fenced and cannot be touched, how can you have a fair financial settlement at divorce'? If there is not a fair financial settlement, then it is likely to be the loyal wife and mother who suffers as she faces an old age without a pension of her own and without a share of her husband's pension. She faces poverty in old age.
Pensions professionals and the Law Society have long urged the option of pension splitting, culminating in the 1993 report of the Pensions Management Institute. The Government have stated in the past that such an option was neither wanted nor needed. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Young—I am sure that we all wish to pay a warm tribute to her on this matter—showed in the Pensions Bill last spring that pension splitting was wanted and needed. With support from all round the House, she established the principle of earmarked or

1611
deferred maintenance—in other words, that on retirement the former wife should share the pension income.
What the noble Baroness, Lady Young, did was a welcome step. None the less, pension income on retirement remains a lottery on the husband's life because when he dies his pension income dies with him. The former wife is, for example, 78. She receives a phone call one morning that her former husband who divorced her 25 years before has died. Her pension—let us say £ 7,000 a year—stops. At a time when her own financial needs, perhaps for increasing care, may begin to grow, she is reduced almost overnight to income support. If the pension had been split on divorce rather than at the point of retirement, she would receive the same sum, £ 7,000 a year, but it would not depend on his life, nor would it disappear on his death. It would be hers and she could face the rest of her life with dignity and not in fear.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, established the principle last spring that there was a need for pension sharing. At that time we also proposed pension splitting. However, the argument of the Government against that was essentially financial. At the time the Government produced what I can only describe as banana republic figures which scared us all off. But when we drew out the information by a series of Questions for Written Answer, the huge losses that the Government forecast disappear. As the Government accept in a letter of 27th February, circulated to some noble Lords, including myself, who took part in the debate at Committee stage, the Government accept that one can avoid most of the losses—£ 500 million—by confining pension splitting to funded private occupational schemes. With unfunded pay-as-you-go schemes, whether the Civil Service or SERPS, for example, one does not take the money out. One keeps both fractions in the scheme and there is therefore no loss to the Exchequer. Everyone in industry and the Civil Service agrees that that is sensible. The Government concede that it can be done.
On the other aspect of financial loss, the Government conceded as late as Tuesday, in a Written Answer to a Question by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that by the year 2020 a possible growth figure for the loss of tax revenue is £ 80 million, to be offset by £ 70 million savings in income support—the table refers to £ 20 million, and £ 50 million in the footnote—and £ 10 million in court costs. Eighty million pounds minus £ 8 million is cost-neutral.
In other words, on the two elements of the Government's figures, the first—keeping both fractions in the same scheme—can overcome the loss to the Government as employer; and on the second, the loss to government as revenue raiser, can be cost-neutral. Despite what the Government may perhaps later argue, pension splitting can cost the taxpayer nothing. The administrative costs will properly fall on couples themselves.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. I am sure
1612
that she does not mean to mislead the House, but unless the answer was changed, in the year 2020, in relation to pension splitting, the tax costs are indeed £ 80 million, but the savings are not £ 70 million but £ 20 million from pension splitting. The other £ 50 million is a saving, so to speak, already in the bag from pension attachment. The noble Baroness cannot count that twice. She might also read out the line of figures for 2037, which is a little different.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the figures in the table given yesterday to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, are exactly the same information as was given to myself and those in another place about a month ago. The Government have simply presented them differently. Those people who would save on income support by earmarking will almost certainly go on to pension splitting. In other words, the savings by having a fair division of pensions at divorce will be £ 70 million in income support—as the Government say in the document—set against £ 80 million in loss of tax revenue, together with £ 10 million which is not specified here in court costs. That is cost-neutral.
Lord Elton: My Lords, since I asked the question, I think I might refer to the answer. The figure in the last line is not £ 70 million; it is £ 200 million.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, indeed. I gave the figures for 2020, as stated in the Written Answer. The Government have given figures for 2037. That is some 40 years and some seven governments away. Are we really assuming that tax law, income support and pension law will not have changed?
The Government state:
"An indication of the possible growth path is shown in the following table"—[Official Report. 27/2/96; col. WA 98.]
The table shows an indication of the "possible" growth path. In other words, the figures for 2020 are 25 years away. Those show that the proposal can be cost-neutral.
Secondly, the Government argue that there are a host of technical issues involved. I am sure that there are. No one ever said that pensions were easy. We all "glaze over" at the word. But in meetings on 2nd February between the Department of Social Security, the Inland Revenue and the Treasury and representatives of the pensions industry some 49 technical issues were raised. Notes from the pensions industry show that in relation to 40 of them a resolution was reached. Only nine required further consultation. The industry and the Government meet each other on 40 out of 49 of those issues.
I am sure that the Minister will rehearse some of those 49 points tonight. He may let us off a few. As he rehearses them, I ask noble Lords to remember that the professionals at the sharp end, the Pensions Management Institute, state:
"Most of the problems with pension splitting have already been thrashed out in the Pensions Management Institute's original report and in subsequent discussions with officials".
Those at the sharp end say that most of the problems have already been thrashed out. Even if the Government repeat the problems tonight, the industry has already thrashed out most of the solutions.

1613
Why does the industry want this measure? They want it because it is simpler than the existing arrangement, namely earmarking. There are fewer technical difficulties to this proposal, and that is why they wish it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, showed, the need for pension splitting is there. It can be at no cost to the taxpayer over the next 25 years. I ask the House: is 25 years not a reasonable time over which to look forward as to the likely costs? The Government say that their figures beyond that are only "possible" indicative growth figures.
Thirdly, the technical issues associated with pension splitting are fewer, according to those at the sharp end, than with earmarking. They believe that it is simpler.
In Committee, some 13 speakers were unanimous. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor agreed to consider the proposal sympathetically. We had real hopes. What we are now being offered is a Green Paper, which means that there can be no possibility of addressing the issue of fairness in pensions at divorce this side of a general election, and probably for several years after a general election. Yet, if ever the time was ripe, it is now. We have a Family Law Bill, Clause 14 of which deals with financial settlement on divorce. If you ring-fence the largest single asset so that it cannot be split at divorce, you cannot have financial fairness at divorce. We have in place a large and highly skilled team of civil servants working on pension issues. To delay a decision for four or five years means that they will be disbanded and their skills will be lost.
This is a matter of political will. It is not party political; some of the most effective speeches in Committee came from the Cross-Benches and the Conservative Benches. We ask the House to say today that we believe pension splitting is fair; that those at the sharp end of industry want it now; and women—particularly those loyal wives and mothers who face desertion—desperately need it now; and it can be done without cost to the taxpayer. Consultation can follow on the remaining technical issues. Accepting this amendment today would ensure that it happens and it is not left as an open question. The Government would determine the timetable. The measure would not have to be implemented until the Government were confident that they were ready. But this amendment would ensure that couples could have fairness on divorce. The proposal is decent, just, right and fair. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, in Committee I spoke in support of pension splitting. I need not repeat the detail of the arguments I used. My sole motivation was, and still remains, that if there is complete breakdown in a marriage and that breakdown is irretrievable, justice and fairness should be paramount in any financial settlement that follows.
It is only common sense to recognise that if such a devastating, demoralising and painful situation as divorce is the only possible outcome, the law should in all conscience be such that justice and fairness are the guiding principles, and there should be a clean break. In the aftermath of a divorce, who needs further
1614
uncertainty and recriminations? I suggest that the current method of dealing with the assets tied up in a pension leads to just that; whereas the amendment before the House would overcome that most undesirable continuing situation.
The voice of business is not heard as often in this House as it should be. But business has a deep and continuing interest in the amendment. Business supports this amendment and is quite prepared to shoulder the burden of the one-off administrative cost. Indeed, it would be seen as a short-term cost to guarantee the disappearance of a long-term administrative nightmare.
If these amendments were adopted by the Government, or indeed something like them, each partner in a divorce would have control over the asset in so far as each could elect to have the pension either earlier or later, or even at the same time as the erstwhile spouse. That is yet another advantage. It would restore dignity and self-worth to those who are shattered by the experience of divorce.
Since Committee stage, there has been much discussion on the issue. Support for the principle of these amendments has been strengthened. But I fear that there is still some residual doubt about the principle within the Executive, particularly within the Treasury. I hope that I am regarded as a fair-minded person. I try to abide by the tenet that one should not make judgments about other people's actions or interpret at a distance the motivation behind such actions. But in this case, I have the strongest suspicion that the Treasury's objection is on cost grounds alone.
We have already heard the arguments. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has already made the point. But I feel that it is not unfair of me to ask your Lordships to consider that the Treasury has benefited to the sum of around £ 660 million to date from the National Lottery. I can give a breakdown of that sum to my noble friend the Minister. The sums mentioned by the Treasury are nothing by comparison with what can be described truly as a windfall tax. That may not seem relevant to some people. But to many who are in dire distress it seems relevant and I have letters to prove it. We are supposed to listen to people, and some people are in appalling circumstances because of lack of pension splitting. We are told that there can only be pension splitting if it is done by primary legislation. Parliament must do it. These amendments or something like them will ensure that the objective of pension splitting is put on the face of the Bill.
I am most grateful for the Government's proposal to publish a consultative paper. I hope that going out to consultation is not a deliberate delaying tactic. I submit that the amendments could be accepted and that consultation paper issued. They are absolutely not in conflict. Following the due process of consultation, the machinery will be in place to effect the principle, provided that this amendment is accepted. Let me ask as an aside whether it is possible for the financial implications to be dealt with in the annual finance Bill, as it certainly seems to me to be an appropriate theatre.
The consultation period allows plenty of time to solve all the problems, imagined or real—problems that I may not have thought about and problems that the business

1615
community may not have fully grasped. Similarly, during the consultation period, the Government will have much more time to examine the whole issue and perhaps adopt some of the proposals from the professional bodies which have given us so much information over the past couple of months. I submit that this is not an unreasonable proposal. I support the amendment.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I want briefly but warmly to support the amendment. I shall not go into the details. That has been done excellently by previous speakers. In many ways this seems to me to be quite a simple issue of justice, although it is easy to find all kinds of complexities in it. It is surely only simple justice that a woman who has been married to a man for 20 or 30 years, has looked after him while he built up his career, not having been able to build up her own career, and has thereby contributed to the salary and consequently the pension that he earns, should have a share of that pension. If she is to have a share of that pension, surely it should be arranged and finished with as an agreement at the time of the divorce.
To wait until the ex-husband draws his pension brings into the matter a great deal of uncertainty. It also brings with it the likelihood that, at the time the pension becomes available, the ex-wife will have to deal with her former husband. That is not a satisfactory way to deal with the issue.
I do not wish to sound frivolous about what is a very serious subject hut, as my noble friend Lord Meston said, if it is known to the second wife that the first wife is receiving payments direct from her then husband, it will prove enough to drive him into the arms of a third wife. I hope I have understood my noble friend correctly. The couple want a clean break. They want to be rid of all dealings with each other. To have to come hack at the time of the pension to establish and argue about the right to the pension is surely a most unseemly way of dealing with the matter.
Of course, we shall be told by the Government—it is the only argument that they can put up against the proposal—that it will cost money. I have not done the arithmetic in the detailed way that it was done by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. I am sure that her arithmetic is better than mine. But that is not the point. This is a matter of decency, justice and honour. Is it too much to pay? Whatever the sum, it cannot be very large. Yes, I can tell exactly what the noble Lord opposite will say: that, if he had that money, he could think of many better ways of spending it. Maybe he can do that. But many people believe that an honourable settlement at this point is worth a certain amount of money.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I support what the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, said about the business community. I agree with her. I believe that most employers would support the amendment. Sadly, divorce is so prevalent nowadays that employers regularly come up against this matter. They become involved not only as employers but also as contributors to the pension scheme.
1616
They would prefer to see a clean break, for two practical reasons. First, it reduces the pressure of a divorce on the employee, pressure which undermines the performance of the employee. Employers have a natural interest in ensuring that performance is not reduced. Secondly, an employer does not want to become involved in any possible future dispute over the pension in the case of earmarking. Pension splitting satisfies both those points. It also satisfies the needs of both parties.
There is little problem in calculating the split because the calculation and the administration are very similar to those used when dealing with leavers' benefits. Employers do it all the time. A formula is well established. People come and go in companies all the time. It is relatively easy and it can be taken care of by the company secretary or the firm which manages the company's pension scheme. I do not see any practical reason standing in the way of this proposal. I am sure that most employers would join me in supporting the amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, my name is to the second amendment in this group but I spoke also to the first amendment in Committee. I need not repeat what I said.
This provision is an act of simple justice. It was supported in all parts of the Committee, including two Ministers from the pensions department, one of whom had been head of that department. I said that it is an act of simple justice. In the ordinary way, a wife makes sacrifices during the early years of the marriage, freeing the husband to pursue his economic advancement. In the ordinary way, he shares the emoluments, as he should in justice, with the wife who has enabled him to earn them.
But today, in many cases—perhaps the majority of cases—the emolument, or part of it, is postponed until either after the husband has retired or after the husband's death to be paid to his widow. It is utterly unjust to enable the husband to take that pension away from the wife who has enabled him to earn it and bestow it on some other woman who has found greater favour in his eyes. As I say, it is an act of simple justice.
Since our debate in Committee, those of us who spoke in favour of the amendment received a three-page letter from the Department of Social Security. Those three pages could have been encapsulated into one sentence: "We prefer that this difficult problem be postponed until after the election and if possible to the Greek calends".
Most of us, with shame, have at times signed stonewalling letters. I cannot remember ever having signed or received so palpable an example of stonewalling as the letter we have just received. It would do credit to the great stonewallers of the past like Barlow or J.W.H.T. Douglas.
It is not pretended that the amendment will cost any money for a generation. However, it is now claimed that the matter must be postponed until it can be further considered. This matter arose clearly when the Divorce Reform Act 1969 was before Parliament. Nothing was then done about pensions, though the matter was raised. It was canvassed again last Session on the Pensions Bill.

1617
Again, nothing was done in the way of setting up a consultation process. Why not? Because on both occasions there was a majority for the Government which could be whipped. This time there is not. A free vote has been promised and therefore there is every incentive to try to push off a decision which justice demands until after the Bill is out of the way, and if possible forever.
That brings me to my last point: the free vote. It was promised on any matter of conscience under the Bill. This is pre-eminently a matter of conscience. I trust that there has been no sort of Whip, even unofficially, on the amendment. Indeed, I trust that it has been made plain to every government supporter than he can exercise his conscience with perfect freedom and do what justice demands. I support the amendment.
4 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, perhaps I can ask a question of those who are promoting the amendment. It is clear that everybody has spoken from the angle of the businessman, which presumably means that everyone is talking about occupational pensions. To split occupational pensions is something with which one has great sympathy and it is relatively simple. But if we are to have justice, it must be justice for all.
Those who have personal pensions will be badly affected by the amendment. A young couple who will probably divorce in their 30s may only have started their pension plan a few years earlier. There will be nothing in the plan to split and the wife will receive no future benefit at all. That is a great injustice. There are 3 million personal pensions throughout the country and they too should be considered. For that reason I suggest that we take my noble friend's advice and wait for the Green Paper.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I have great respect for my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale and I seldom challenge his judgment on anything. At this stage—I may well be proven wrong—if he believes that the Whips will not be involved in this amendment, I can only say mazeltov to him. The number of people in the building this afternoon at 1.15, in every conceivable eating spot available, amazed me and is a tribute to their concern for social issues.
I too received a letter from the noble Lord and was grateful for it. It was a remarkable letter. It raises four pages of extremely serious issues. I read it with growing surprise and consternation. When I received it and read it yesterday morning—this is not intended to be churlish—I suddenly thought: "These are major issues. I am interested in this subject and there is not a cat's chance in hell of doing any research into any of the issues raised".
I felt that the Government had made a mistake. They were obviously committing themselves to kicking this issue into touch on the basis of a whole pile of major arguments about which they had never thought before. The picture they give is of a number of serious issues—some more serious than others. One that is raised now and again is of the happily married couple, one of whom, at the conclusion of tonight's debate if we are
1618
successful, will go home and say to his spouse, "Fantastic. They have done it. We can split the pension later on. I have seen George and he said that he can get us a quick divorce and we can reduce the marginal tax rate by 10 per cent.". I am sure the eyes of the spouse will light up at the prospect. The fact is that that is a piece of fantasy.
There are other areas also to be considered. It is said, for example, that there will be great anger among people who are married when they see those who divorce optimising their tax situation. There are many ways in which married couples can optimise their tax situation. If they have a portfolio of investments, they can optimise their tax situation; if they own a small holiday property which they can let out to rent, they can optimise their tax situation; if they have a small business and one of them (I have heard of MPs who do this) employs his wife as a secretary, they can optimise their tax position.
A noble Lord: My Lords, they do.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, the noble Lord says that they do. That is exactly my point. There is nothing unusual about the situation at all.
Something like a dozen areas of concern have been raised which we should consider, including transfer values and cost allocation. All pensions organisations have great experience of providing for situations of frozen pensions. Most pensions provide for widows and when a woman finds herself unfortunately widowed, the company is left to provide administration for her widow's pension.
However, there are wider, deeper areas. The cost allocation is raised. Then there is the sheer scale of the legal implications. I am only working on what the letter says; I have not had the chance to ask anybody about it since receiving it. Those implications are far-reaching. As the letter points out, they affect family law, of course; property law; pensions' law, of course; taxation, and problems of Scottish and Irish jurisdiction. Those are weighty issues. The general picture which is painted is of a legislative ship at sea surrounded by obstacles hidden in the water. It has to stop, change course and find a safe haven where advice can be obtained on where to go next.
This issue has been debated publicly for years and years. There is not a Member of Parliament who has not received a letter about it. There are few Members of this House who at the time of the last Pensions Bill did not receive letters on the subject. The Law Society, certainly since 1961, has been in favour of this legislation. The pension fund managers are in favour and they certainly know about the subject. They would be grossly professionally negligent if they did not. The actuaries are also in favour. After the previous debate I received letters of complaint from a number of actuaries who thought that I was being unnecessarily flip in suggesting that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor should cease listening to the actuaries. I wrote back and said that I was not talking about actuaries in general, because actuaries in general are, through their professional organisation, totally in support of the measure.

1619
Actuaries are very special people. The actuarial examinations are among the most difficult and the most exhaustive of any professional examinations. Their powers are almost unique in this area. The appointed actuary can shut down the company which employs him. I am sure that the Government took advice from actuaries. I am bound to say that their professional organisation is totally in favour of this measure. One of the ultimate oxymorons is common sense. There ain't a lot of it about. But I do not believe that common sense enables anyone to portray this situation as surrounded by unknown obstacles. It just cannot be so.
If the noble Lord says that there are a number of things that are major problems which need to be thought through and considered for a period of time, that must be factual. I should like to know the answer to a simple question. Are the Government at this stage, on the knowledge at their disposal, inclined to be opposed to this measure in principle, or are they, like every other professional group involved in this issue, in a situation where they can accept the principle though, on the other hand, there may be other things with which they have to deal?
There are a lot of unknown areas around this issue. One of my greatest worries is that people will exaggerate the benefits which this measure will bring to them. But for some it will bring benefits. What we are faced with is a possibility that the Government are seeking to kick the thing into touch. It will not work because too many people know too much about this subject. It is public knowledge. The Government are entitled to stand up and say, "We do not believe that the economy can face the costs of this"—whatever those costs arc, and those can be argued about. They are entitled to stand up and say, "We reject this. There are other things we want to spend the money on". But they are not entitled to stand up and expect a serious reception to the argument that they did not know what the problems were until 24 or 48 hours ago.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, many of your Lordships will have received, as I have, letters from elderly married women whose husbands had the anticipation of a substantial pension on retirement and who then go off with a so-called dolly bird and leave them stranded. The Pensions Act made some provision for what might happen when he retired. That, as has been said, is highly speculative. He may die before he reaches his pension age or even when he has his pension. I believe that we have some duty to see what we can do to deal with those problems. Some of the letters I have received have been extremely painful. I feel that I have a responsibility, as we all have, to try to meet the rightful demands of people who would otherwise suffer severely.
The problems of splitting pensions are acute. I understand something of the difficulties. The problem of splitting a pension which is funded may not be very severe. I believe that the pensions industry can deal with those. It is possible for the industry to split it up to provide that on the divorce the wife and the husband each have a fund which will provide the pension. Splitting up things like SERPS and unfunded pensions
1620
is much more difficult. I make no plea for those in this Bill at the present time. With my noble friend, I do not believe it is essential to deal with the whole lot together. If we could in this Bill enable the courts to make proper provision out of funded pensions we would be going a long way to meet the need. No matter that the more difficult problems of the unfunded pension, SERPS and so on had to be dealt with at a later date, it would give a marker and would certainly help some of the hard cases.
I shall hope that my noble friend will be able to give some encouragement here. I shall wait with keenness his reply. I would not accept, as the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, has said, that it is something we can kick into touch until the time comes round when we can look at it again and try to deal with the whole matter. This is an opportunity at any rate to give the courts power in the case and to give them that flexibility to grant some protection for the divorced wife.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Wolfson: My Lords, while there is considerable merit in the proposed amendment, I am not clear on several points. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, could enlighten me further. I shall be brief, although the matters are complex.
First, is the proposed percentage of the pension for the partner to be linked to the length of the marriage and the reasons for the divorce? Secondly, what arrangements are envisaged for subsequent marriage partners, which is a very important point? Thirdly, should not part of the pension sum be set aside for minor children at the sad time of the divorce? Finally, when would the recipient receive payment'? If a working partner were 45 or 50 at the time of the divorce and remained in his existing position—an unlikely event—it would be 15 or 20 years before the pension matured. How then would the partner benefit from that source in the interim? Is any differentiation contemplated between contributory and non-contributory pension schemes?
Clearly, we all wish to see enacted legislation that is fair and equitable to all parties and avoids creating anomalies such as we have seen in many cases of legislation in recent years—and in this case including a disincentive to marriage itself. I hope that the Government's forthcoming Green Paper will comprehensively address these issues.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I rise to make one point and one point only. During the many years of profit to this House that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has graced the Woolsack there is only one occasion that I can remember when I detected real embarrassment when he made a point to your Lordships' House. He made it at the Committee stage of this Bill, and it was—this was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh—that one of the objections to this amendment was that a couple may decide to take advantage of the passing of the amendment by deciding to have a divorce which was a bogus divorce and then plan to remarry. However far-fetched the point may be, when the noble and learned Lord raises it I think we all feel that it must at least he answered and treated with some respect.

1621
I ventured on that occasion to rise in your Lordships' House and suggest that the noble and learned Lord might consider that it was an answer to his point if he saw to it, as he has power to do under the Bill, that the statement which originates the whole of the divorce proceedings by a belief that the marriage has irretrievably broken down should be a statutory declaration made under the Act of 1835, where there is a solemn pronouncement—"I conscientiously believe the same to be true"—that the marriage has in his or her belief irretrievably broken down. The noble and learned Lord did me the great courtesy of saying in reply that it was a thought that had occurred to him.
Noble Lords will have noted that this amendment contains a provision that, where a pension may be involved, the information that will be given to anybody making that preliminary statement is that his or her statement that the marriage, it is believed, has irretrievably broken down shall be a statement hacked Pry a statutory declaration, which means that, if it is falsely made, perjury will have been committed.
Quite frankly, it is my hope that whatever the circumstances, the original statement, because of its solemnity, shall be a statutory declaration. But that is not the amendment that I am pleading for today. It may be that if I hear that it meets with the general approval of those in charge of this Bill I shall take the liberty of moving it at Third Reading. I did want your Lordships to know that in my humble opinion—and it is the only point that I intend to make in this debate—bogus marriage and divorce are firmly dealt with within the wording of the amendment.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord addresses a point which I wanted to come to early, and he has considerably shortened what I need to say. However, I find it difficult to understand how he is so confident that the question of whether there shall be a split pension will always be clear at the beginning of the process. The statement to which the noble Lord referred comes at the beginning of the divorce process. Where there is a contested divorce, the availability or not of a split is likely to be one of the major bargaining counters. Therefore, it will not be open to the parties. I see that the noble Lord is about to rise. Perhaps I may finish this hit and then the noble Lord will be able to intervene. If it is to be a bargaining counter, it will not be known whether there is to be such a split at the time the statement must be made. The amendment says that where there is to be a split, then the statement shall be made. The noble Lord will explain.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble Lord, with his usual courtesy, has allowed me to explain and I am grateful to him. The original statement which has to be made by the party or parties seeking a divorce is one which, under Clause 10 of the Bill, will be dealt with by rules. The answer to the noble Lord is that the statement will presumably include the question—if it does not, information will be given, and that has to be sought before the statement is made—"Is there a pension involved in your matrimonial dispute?" Answer: "There is a pension, yes".
1622
All I am saying is that where there is a pension—one does not have to go so far as to say whether it is going to be split —the statutory declaration has to be made and we have got rid of the bogus divorce point.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. Perhaps I may pass from the paving amendment to what is normally called the consequential amendment, Amendment No. 116A, which is in the group. It strikes at Clause 60 and waves a magic wand over the principal amendment, Amendment No. 86A, and converts it into something entirely different from any clause in the rest of the Bill.
Unlike any other clause, it will have effect in Scotland. That is natural of course since that is where many pension funds are located. But it serves to remind your Lordships of the very great complexity of what is now in these few, simple words proposed. It makes one recall that Scotland has a separate statute book otherwise unaffected by the Bill and at the very least wonder at the effect of the importation of this single provision and whether it may have odd effects on divorces there, which will be unaffected by all the other 60 clauses in the Bill; or will they?
The paving amendment, Amendment No. 10, that we are now discussing will extend the effects of Clause 4 to arrangements made under Section 10 of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985. Yet even if Amendment No. 1 16A to Clause 60 were to be accepted, Clause 160 would still prevent the operation of Clause 4 in Scotland. So we begin in confusing waters.
That reflection in turn prompts another. The principal amendment, Amendment No. 86A, seeks to amend the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973—and raises doubts to which I referred earlier as regards the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985—to empower the courts in most generally stated ways to distribute pension rights between the employed and the dependent spouse.
There is no reference to any other principal or subordinate legislation and I have heard no reference to the host of fiscal provisions within which these schemes operate.
The problem of how to treat the tax benefits accruing to a pension in relation to the earning level of the employed spouse when a proportion of the benefit is transferred to a spouse not in employment is not addressed, nor is the court given guidance on the age at which the split section of the benefit shall come into payment. I inquired, and I got a list of the primary legislation that will have to be amended to bring pension splitting into effect; I understand that it is incomplete—yet these are the rocks which lie in the sea which the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, with commendable lightness but not levity, referred to the ship of state as "bobbing" in, as though it were not at risk. It reminds me of the "Sea Empress" which was in very well-charted and very well-known waters but ran aground with disastrous results.
The list starts with the Pension Schemes Act 1993, the Pensions Act 1995, the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, the Social Security Administration Act 1992, the National

1623
Insurance Act 1965—that is the first statute I refer to which was passed before I had my short, short term of office in the post now held by my noble friend Lord Mackay—the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 and the Finance Act 1989. Those Acts would require reviews of some 200 amendments on their own. But that is only the beginning of the list. There is the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971, the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972—very interesting that—the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1987, the Lord Chancellor's Pensions Act 1832—he has had rather longer to wait—the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993. The list goes on for pages.
It seems to me that this is a real and not an imaginary difficulty dreamed up by a government trying to kick things into touch. In fact, I believe that we have the wrong metaphor. I do not believe that it is a question of kicking into touch. I should have said at the beginning that I want to see fairness in pension arrangements and I share my noble friend's ambition that such arrangements should be in place—hut it should be done effectively. She who wills the end must will the means. We have discussed the financial means to some extent. I leave it to my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish to deal with what my noble friend said at the beginning. It spoils a fine peroration, but I give way.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I take the point quite seriously that the noble Lord makes. But I cannot understand how these problems can appear at this stage in the debate without having been noticed earlier.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I was about to come to that point. Of course it is open to the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, and many others, with varying degree of enthusiasm, to embarrass the Government with that question, but we are where we arc. There is that amount of legislation. I have not yet mentioned the wide-spreading intricate matrix of subordinate fiscal legislation among which all this operates.
If we arc to put this desideratum—that is what it is, something we all want—into the Bill, we arc left with just two choices. One is to have all these issues addressed, agreed and incorporated into the Bill, and that I honestly think is beyond the power of Parliament between now and Royal Assent. The other is to leave them all unresolved to be resolved, as someone suggested, by the courts.
There is a third. It is for the Minister to be left with powers by subordinate legislation to do all that is necessary to make this fit. We have much experience of that. We know all about giving Ministers power to amend primary legislation to make it fit subsequent primary legislation. It is called the Henry VIII clause. Noble Lords have been so exercised about it that your Lordships set up a special committee to prevent it being abused, and I have the honour and duty of serving on that committee. During my life on that committee I have never seen a Henry VIII power so sweeping as this would be for a Minister, or such wide discretion for a court.
1624
The unfortunate beneficiaries of your Lordships' intended generosity—if this were to be left to the courts—would never know what they would receive until the case law had developed. Every new departure would be tested by the courts. That is a delay and an expense which your Lordships would not want to wish upon any of your friends.
If we are to include the matter in the Bill, we are—not so much in grave danger—certain to get it wrong. We should get it right. If my noble friend the Minister will commit himself to a review in terms from which be cannot resile, and with the intention of legislating as a result, I, for one, would go along my way rejoicing, if necessary into the Not-Content Lobby, because I believe that that is the only way we shall obtain what we want; otherwise we shall get what we do not want, and it will be disaster. I hope the noble Baroness will have that in mind and possibly not press the amendment.
Lord Meston: My Lords, for those of your Lordships who are impressed by the practical difficulties and may be tempted by the idea of a Green Paper, perhaps I may reinforce a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh: there have already been numerous reports on this topic over the past 25 years. They culminated in a clear report on pensions and divorce by the Pensions Management Institute in 1993. That was a report produced by a diverse body of experts, including experts from both England and Scotland.
My second point is that this is not novel in this country. Pension splitting already operates in other countries and it operates satisfactorily. This is not, in other words, a problem which has just crept up on us requiring, as the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said, to be kicked into touch. The only substantial argument against pension splitting seems to be fiscal. As far as I can understand, that was demolished comprehensively in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis.
The only other argument we heard advanced in Committee was that people might somehow be tempted into an artificial divorce to obtain the benefit of lower rates of tax. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of the 1970s when tax at the higher rate was 90 per cent. One could obtain tax relief at the higher rate on maintenance ordered by a divorce court, and maintenance could be extended to cover private school fees. It was a tax regime which lasted until 1988. If ever there were a time for cynical millionaires to try to get bogus divorces, it was then. As a practitioner at the time, I was pretty irritated to see some of my clients receiving that level of tax relief, but I was never tempted to go through a divorce to get the housekeeping set against tax.
In the Pensions Act we have earmarking which is very much half a loaf. It has serious consequences for the clean break principle in divorce. The great advantage of pension splitting is that it will facilitate the clean break which is especially important to avoid the hostility and animosity of divorce cases.
Of course the timetabling needs to be looked at, but I suggest that the time has come now to enact this provision. It can come into operation later; otherwise there will not be pension splitting this side of the

1625
21st century. I shall turn briefly to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, about the necessary formality for a divorce statement. I support what he said. There should be some formality in the statement required to initiate a divorce process. Whether it be by statutory declaration, affidavit, or affirmation, there must be some formality.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I know that we want to press on with this matter. I do not intend to speak long. I am president of the Married Women's Association. Since I first became associated with that group I have been approached by many women who have suffered desperately from not having the pension split. I am reluctant at any time to vote against the Government, but I feel strongly on this issue. If this matter is divided upon, the principle is so important that I would have to support the amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, it is important that we get this amendment written into the Bill. It will establish a principle. I say that having heard what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, had to say about the difficulties. If what he was proposing was what happened on the Telecommunications Bill with regard to telephone tapping, that might be something which my noble friend on the Front Bench might consider. What happened was that an amendment to the Telecommunications Bill was tabled to make telephone tapping illegal. It was withdrawn by my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington on the promise from the Leader of the House that the Government would bring forward their own Bill to deal with telecommunications in the following Session or before. That is what happened.
We had an undertaking from the Leader of the House that that would be done. If that is what the noble Lord proposes, I would recommend that my noble friend Lady Hollis give it consideration. But, if that is not forthcoming—I fear that it is not—I would stress that we need to write something into the Bill to establish the principle of pension splitting on divorce.
I want to make one thing absolutely clear, because I have been challenged on it. My support for the amendments depends upon the fact that they are gender neutral. I must have an absolute assurance from my noble friend Lady Hollis when she winds up that I have made no mistake about that, because it is important.
My support is also based on protecting the child-rearer and home-maker, usually but not always the wife, from being penalised on retirement for having sacrificed a career to cherish and care for the family. I believe that that is an important point.
I too have received a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, which has made pretty heavy reading in the short time available. I am afraid that I cannot comment on it in detail, but there is one sentence. the first line of the fourth paragraph, on which I should like to comment. It states:
"Perhaps our concerns can be illustrated by some examples.
"The first is that a pension is deferred pay for an employee".
1626
I thank the noble Lord for taking the trouble to write to me. His letter was extremely useful, but I should like to point out that deferred pay is not only for the employee. It is also for the spouse because the spouse will have had to make the sacrifices in the housekeeping for the 6 per cent., 7 per cent., or whatever the reduction in salary arising from the superannuation contributions. So, we must remember that it is not only the employee who is affected.
I know that the House wants to get on, so I merely repeat once again that we are concerned about the principle. I believe that unless we are given the assurance on which I opened—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, would want the Government to give such an assurance—I hope that the House will vote for the amendment.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, much has been said already on the subject of pension splitting and in a much more witty and more knowledgable way than I am capable of. I am afraid that I belong to the "glazed eye brigade" to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, referred. However, I hope that I can at least identify injustices where they are to be found—and I believe this area to be one of injustice. The present arrangements can undoubtedly lead to hardship, particularly and usually to ex-wives of a certain age. As has been said, it must be unfair that women who have played a major role in the success of their partner's career should be faced with the possibility of that contribution being to all intents and purposes set aside through his remarriage.
I am afraid that it is a fact of life that governments and their advisers will always put up arguments against fundamental changes no matter how reasonable the proposals may be. One of the first knee-jerk reactions—and at first sight an eminently reasonable and democratic one—is to call for a period of consultation, with enough Green Papers to make even an environmentalist twitch nervously. That tactic appeals particularly to the present Government, as we have recently observed, but as I know to my cost in a quite different area from this, periods of discussion do not always take account of the opinions of the majority being consulted. However, on an issue such as this, which commands cross-party support and the total commitment of all the relevant professional bodies, we must go forward to establish the principle in law. Of course, we can have substantive discussions afterwards, and a Green Paper, but let them be set against a background of total commitment to the principle of pension splitting. That can be achieved by supporting the amendment.
Baroness Strange: My Lords—
Viscount Brentford: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I sense that there is a need to press on with the debate. I believe that both my noble friend Lady Strange and my noble friend Lord Brentford wish to speak. Perhaps my noble friend Lady

1627
Strange could speak first, followed by my noble friend Lord Brentford, and we can then listen to the Minister's reply.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. Without wishing to embarrass anybody, I should like to support the amendment on the ground of the principle of fairness. Without being a feminist, I believe in fair and equal treatment for men and women. If the wife has been the chief wage-earner and the chief supporter of the pension, it seems unfair that if the husband has been darning the socks and changing the nappies he should be left on the dissolution of the marriage without his share of the pension, and vice versa. Surely, if they can divide the wedding presents, they can divide the pension.
4.45 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I became convinced at Committee stage that it was right, fair and equitable for pension splitting following divorce to be incorporated into the law. I have no problem with that. In Committee I felt that it was right that the Bill should incorporate provisions to effect that. However, the more that I have thought about it since Committee stage and the more that I have talked to different people, the more the problems have mounted. If a divorced couple is to receive benefits which will include tax advantages, is it morally right that that couple should be put in a more favourable tax position than a married couple? I am sure that the pro-family lobby will argue once again that marriage is being penalised.
Pension splitting is a major change in the law. It will affect many Pensions Acts and other legislation, as my noble friend Lord Elton summarised. I believe that such changes need to be made in primary legislation and should be carefully drafted. The Government have been hammered time and time again for introducing legislation which has not been carefully thought through and carefully drafted. We need more thoroughness in our legislation, even if that costs time. However long many outside organisations have been considering the matter, it is vital that we take whatever time is needed in order to produce the right legislation.
In conclusion, I should be grateful if my noble friend could answer two questions for me. First, when will his department start to prepare the Green Paper? I believe that there is great pressure not only in the House but around the country for this principle to be adopted. That is why I ask when his department will start moving to produce the Green Paper. Secondly, in terms of the time that it will take to implement the pension-splitting legislation, what difference will it make if we pass the amendment now or act in, say, a year's time following the results of the Green Paper?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, this has been an interesting debate which has been understandably strong on principle and occasionally strong on emotion. I venture to say, as my noble friend Lord Brentford has just pointed out, that it has been a little short on detailed consideration. Unfortunately, it
1628
falls to me to bring the debate back to earth with a bump, a bit like the Chinese satellite that we discussed at Question Time the other day, and to look at the legislative, taxation and other issues involved in arriving at a well thought out and properly structured plan to deal with pensions and divorce.
I start by acknowledging the problem and the emotional case of the ex-spouse, usually the ex-wife, who is left in old age without the pension which she thought that she would have either as the wife of a retired husband or as his widow. Indeed, at the request of my noble friend Lady Young and with my full support, the House included in last year's Pensions Act a provision stating that pensions should be taken into account by the courts. We made provision for pensions' attachments, so that when a pension comes into payment, part of it can be paid directly to the ex-wife. That is a simpler and, in my view, more attainable method. That remains my position—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to say so, that works all right so long as there are other means to balance against the loss of pension. The amendment poses the problem of where the pension is virtually the only matrimonial asset.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, which is unusual. If the pension is the only asset, the attachment can be made to it. When the pension comes into the payment, the former wife can receive whatever the court has laid down as her share of it. I do not believe that that is the problem made out by the noble and learned Lord.
Perhaps I may return to the issue before us. In the light of the debate in Committee and the commitment given by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to look sympathetically at the issue, I announced in answer to a Parliamentary Question last week that we would be consulting through a Green Paper. My noble friend Lord Brentford asked whether work had been started on that. I can tell him firmly that we have already started work on some of the detailed considerations which must go into that Green Paper. I hope that the work can be completed and the Green Paper produced in the summertime. That will enable all those involved in the issue to work with us in ensuring that we have a properly worked out plan on which we can make a measured and not an emotional judgment.
The amendment before us today is a simple one. It expresses the principle but it gives no indication to the courts, or indeed to anyone else, as to how that power is to be realised. I hope that my noble friend Lord Boardman accepts the point that it gives no indication to the courts as to how they can realise their desire to split a pension.
This is a wholly incomplete and unworkable way to deal with an extraordinarily complex and sensitive subject, affecting not only those divorcing but also employers, other employees in the pension scheme and the taxpayers. The amendment is silent on the necessary changes in pension, tax and trust legislation. No powers arc given to Ministers and the courts do not have powers

1629
to make those changes, either. My noble friend Lady O'Cathain seemed to believe that if the amendment were accepted, I would have all the powers I needed to make the necessary changes. I must tell her that she must read the amendment more carefully because it does not give me those powers. Indeed, the position of those proposing this course of action today would be at least logical if I were being handed a fistful of Henry VIII powers allowing me to amend primary legislation by secondary means. As my noble friend Lord Elton pointed out to the House, there would be a fair list of primary legislation that I would have to amend by secondary means. We have one-and-a-half pages in the department already and we have not yet looked at Scottish provisions.
Yet if your Lordships pass this enabling clause today, in logic you ought to be prepared to give me extremely wide-ranging Henry VIII powers if you want your wishes on this matter to be translated into feasible action. I would be surprised if your Lordships would be prepared to do that. You certainly did not do so last year when my four Bills were scrutinised most carefully by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee and by the House for unnecessarily wide secondary powers. I believe that the courts and the pensions industry would want a lot more flesh on this skeleton before it would come into life.
Of course, work has been done on this issue by a number of groups. I can single out, for example, the National Association of Pension Funds for special mention. But much of the work has concentrated on the problems of special interest to the group concerned. What is needed is for all the issues to be brought together, looked at, worked upon and considered as a whole picture and not as individual sections.
Perhaps I may turn to a few of the many problems, some of which were raised by my noble friend Lord Wolfson, which must be addressed if the issue is to be treated properly and resolved in a serious and responsible manner. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said that my letter looked like stonewalling. I must tell him that as my middle name is Jackson perhaps that was not too wide of the mark. Be that as it may, it was not stonewalling but a genuine attempt to lay before noble Lords who took part in Committee the problems which I believe must be resolved.
I admired the noble and learned Lord's courage in giving your Lordships an indication of the Whipping position on the House. I must tell him that I am expounding the Government's position on this matter and I expect my noble friends to support the Government. I suspect that the noble Baroness, with the numbers on her side, is expecting her noble friends to support her in the same way. The numbers have declined because several noble Lords have gone for tea, but I have been here before and I know that they will suddenly re-emerge. Perhaps I may tell the noble and
1630
learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that there are other parts of the Bill which are matters of conscience but this is not one of them.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. I and many other noble Lords recall that at the end of the Second Reading debate we were given an assurance that there would be no Whip on any matters of conscience. Why does the Minister now say that he expects his noble friends to be Whipped in favour of the Government's position?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not believe that this is a matter of conscience, and that is the fact of the matter. In most cases—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, will the Minister say whether a matter of conscience is to be decided by the Government or by the owners of the conscience?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I knew that I should not tangle with the noble and learned Lord. I expect that in all votes the same rule applies on the opposite side of the House. Indeed, I look at the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, and I expect that if any of his noble friends feel that they cannot follow his party's guidance on the matter, they will have to make their own decision. I hope that few of my noble friends will decide that they cannot follow the guidance that I am giving on behalf of Her Majesty's Government and follow me into the other Lobby.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, said the issue was gender-neutral. I hate such silly phrases; hut, yes, I believe that it is gender-neutral. In other words, if the woman had a large pension and she and her husband were divorced, the man would get his share of the pension. Therefore it is, in the noble Lord's words, gender-neutral. In most cases, the argument has been put in terms of the man being a member of the scheme and the former wife wanting to have a share of the pension capital.
The man is a member of his employer's scheme, which is set up by the employer as a voluntary arrangement to benefit his employees. As I said in my letter, pension is essentially deferred pay and it is the employment relationship which governs the schemes, related tax reliefs and benefits. Your Lordships can see clearly that divorcing a part of the pension from the employee does not accord well with the basic principles on which schemes, their rules and tax arrangements, are based.
If the pension is split, the former wife becomes a scheme member on a basis entirely different from any other scheme members. She has no employment relationship with the employer, yet he suddenly acquires responsibilities for someone in the pension scheme which has no direct relationship with the firm. So what are the obligations to this new but not qualified member of the scheme? What are the obligations of the trustees or the managers, and what rights and responsibilities does she have in relation to other scheme members? Can she vote for member nominated trustees? Can she pay in AVCs? Does she have survivor's and dependant's

1631
benefits? How would this new class of member affect the tax approval and the contracted out status of schemes?
The amendment also allows for the former wife to transfer her share. But she may not have a suitable vehicle for such a transfer. She may not be in paid employment and may not be able to contribute to a pension scheme. So do we change the tax laws for such cases? That will be a particular issue in the case where the husband has a personal pension. The scheme will have to be wound up, the husband will have to start a new one and the wife will be confronted with what she can do if she is not entitled to start her own scheme. Or, rather, we arc confronted with solving that issue because in all honesty we cannot shuffle our responsibilities on to the wife or the courts.
If we decide to allow a non-working divorced wife to pay into a new type of pension scheme with its inherent tax advantages, what do we say to the still married non-working wife who may rightly ask why she cannot have the same choice? Surely we must avoid appearing to treat more favourably those who divorce than those who remain married or arc widowed.
I turn to that portion of those pensions represented by SERPS for those not contracted out, and by GMPs and protected rights for all those in occupational or personal pensions contracted out.
Take my word for it, SERPS and GMPs are complicated, and splitting them will be even more complicated. They arc based on earnings on which national insurance contributions are paid over one's working life. The national insurance records system used to do this is a huge operation with records for every employee in the country. Splitting SERPS and GMPs will be complex and it will also mean a considerable increase in the administrative burden.
We are currently setting out on a significant upgrading of the system to cope with the changes arising from the Pensions Act. Those changes have to be phased in over the next three years, and I must say to your Lordships in the straightest possible terms that it would be the turn of the century before we could contemplate phasing in the additional changes arising from pension splitting.
And just to complete the picture on the state pension, the amendment appears to include the state retirement pension, which is already dealt with very fairly for divorced people, and it would be a nonsense if the courts could dictate changes in the payments of these pensions.
At the heart of the amendment before us is an attempt to deal with one of the serious difficulties in pension splitting—that arising for unfunded schemes, especially those in the public sector. The schemes like that for the NHS, the teachers and the Civil Service are not funded; they, like the state scheme, work on a pay-as-you-go system. So there is no money in the kitty to draw on for transfers. If transfers out were allowed, the costs would fall directly on the taxpayer and could be up to £5(X) million a year. For unfunded schemes in the private sector, the costs would fall either on the employer or on the other scheme members.
1632
The amendment tries to ensure that the ex-wife cannot take a transfer out unless her ex-husband is taking a transfer, which he might do if he is leaving that employment for another. We would thus be treating ex-wives of members of unfunded schemes differently from those of funded schemes. Is that equitable? And some advocates of change see this proposal as only temporary—to get round my road block, so to speak. I do not see any government accepting a change like this which could immediately add half a billion pounds a year to public spending.
Lastly, I turn to taxation. Pension splitting would give rise to three areas of extra costs to the Revenue. Some men, having seen their pension provision reduced, will take advantage of AVCs and free-standing AVCs to rebuild with costs to the Revenue. These extra invested funds will grow free of tax. Thirdly, when the pensions come into payment instead of being taxed as one against one allowance, a married couple's allowance, the 20 per cent. band and the 24 per cent. band they will be taxed as two, with two allowances—two 20 per cent. and two 24 per cent. bands. As I indicated in answers to parliamentary Questions, the long-term costs to the revenue are estimated to be in the region of £200 million per year, with only £20 million off-setting savings from those ex-wives no longer needing to claim income support, and, as I said in my intervention, not already covered by pension attachment. Many divorced couples will actually be paying less tax than those still married with the same pension. This would give a tax advantage to those who divorce. I wonder whether that is a message that some of my noble friends wish to give?
Now to be fair to those who remain married, still happily the majority, if the same tax treatment were extended to them in order to make the playing field level (as the expression goes) the immediate costs could be of the order of £600 million, rising to £1.3 billion in the longer term.
All these issues and more have to be addressed. They cannot be swept aside as of no consequence. It is important to face up to the additional costs to taxpayers, to employers, to pension schemes—and even to the divorcing couple themselves.
To add a footnote mentioned by other noble Lords—now I should emphasise that I have no personal interest—I am not certain that either of the amendments achieve the desired aim of introducing pension splitting into Scotland because this Bill does not refer to the position in Scotland.
This is an important and far-reaching issue. It deserves proper attention and proper legislation encompassing not just divorce law, but also pensions law and tax law, and probably trust law, inheritance and intestacy law. That is why I propose to your Lordships a Green Paper with proper consultation. As I have said already, my officials and I have started to discuss some of the problems which will need to be aired and some of the alternative solutions which will need to be addressed. As I said at the beginning, I very much hope and expect that that Green Paper can be published in the summer. To accept these amendments would ignore everything which a responsible Government and a responsible legislature cannot ignore.

1633
This House prides itself in the care with which it deals with legislation, and the control it exercises over the Executive's powers of secondary legislation. I urge your Lordships not to let your hearts rule your heads, but to exercise sound judgment; reject these amendments; and accept the wiser path which I am laying before you.
5 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the Minister has repeated most of the arguments that were made by the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and others. Perhaps your Lordships will forgive me if I concentrate instead on what the Minister said in his remarks.
His basic argument is that he fears that this may be unworkable. I merely ask your Lordships to hear in mind that the pension industry, the lawyers, the professionals, those at the sharp end, have already discussed with the department every issue that the Minister has raised this afternoon, and they believe that they see ways forward. They welcome consultation; but, nevertheless, they believe that the amendment is workable and should be supported. They believe that within the framework of the principle, it is possible to deal with the remaining technical difficulties.
Secondly, the Minister said that the amendment is technically flawed. I am willing to accept that. On this side of the House, as Opposition Members, we do not have the same resources as the Minister—for example, the 90 civil servants who helped the Minister on the previous Pensions Act. I remind the Minister that when last spring the House accepted the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in relation to earmarking, by the time the Bill finally returned here from the other place, the Government had totally redrafted every aspect of it. If the political will exists to secure the amendment, the Government can do so, do so and do so all the time.
Thirdly, the Minister went into a series of technical issues. Again, I do not wish to ask your Lordships to sit through a long debate about the minutiae, particularly when so many noble Lords, like the noble Lords, Lord Boardman and Lord Marsh, have much greater expertise in this matter than I do.
Nevertheless, the Minister made three broad points which I wish to address. First he said that there is the problem of the ex-wife who has no relationship with the scheme because she has never been an employee. I am advised by the NAPF and the PMI—the pensions people at the sharp end—that she need he in no different position from deferred pensioners or the widow who has never been employed or, indeed, someone who is temporarily unemployed and therefore cannot pay into the scheme. There are already many different categories of attachment to a pension scheme, and that category can be fitted in with the others.
Secondly, the Minister said that SERPS and GMPs are difficult and we cannot touch them. I agree; but the Minister is criticising us in relation to something that we did not ask for. Again, as the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, said, this amendment is restricted to occupational funded schemes where there is the largest asset and the greatest injustice occurs. The PMI has
1634
advised me this morning that GMPs represent on average about one quarter of the value of occupational pensions. Therefore, compensating adjustments—and I am glad that the Minister reminded me of this—can be made in the rest of the headspace. That is the position as of this morning.
Also on technical issues, the Minister said that this could not apply to unfunded schemes without creating a bill of £500 million. Again, we did not ask for that. We accept that for unfunded schemes like SERPS and GMPs both fractions remain within the same scheme and so there is no leakage out and no cost to public funds.
Therefore, of the three technical issues that the Government have offered us, the first can be resolved by approximating the position of the widow with that of the widow of the deferred pensioner. The other two technical objections of the Minister, we did not seek to cover. We therefore do not seek to include the categories of pensioner about whom the Minister is concerned. We do not seek to make the best the enemy of the good here: we seek to address where the largest injustice lies. These amendments restrict themselves to occupational funded schemes; and the issue of splitting the pension on divorce is no different at all from when a person moves from Boots to ICI and the transfer value has to be calculated so that he can either take the pension with him or leave it behind. It is exactly the same, and the Minister knows it.
A noble Lord: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give way?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am in the hands of the House. On taxation, again we have repeated the argument that we had with the noble Lord, Lord Elton. The Government have not challenged the fact that, on the Treasury's own figures, in the year 2020 the loss to tax revenue of £80 million is precisely offset by the overall savings on income support and court costs. That is 25 years on. I honestly ask your Lordships whether it is reasonable to damn this amendment not by what it may be like in 25 years' time but by what it may be like in 40 years' or 50 years' time, as though the tax law and the benefits law have not changed.
The Government said that this amendment would give privilege to divorce over marriage. I do not think any of us believes that this would produce bogus divorces. In any case I have to remind your Lordships that the Government have already accepted that justice. No one is saying that married couples should be treated as though they were not married. Let me remind your Lordships that as regards state old age pensions the husband gets £59 on his stamp. His wife gets a further £35 as his dependant. If they separate—let alone divorce—he still gets £59 on his stamp and she also gets £59 on his stamp. The Government have built into their pension the very principle of pension splitting that they are denying to occupational funded schemes. The Government do that—and they are quite right to do it—because they recognise that after divorce people are poorer and we all have a public policy interest in trying to make sure that people face old age with dignity.

1635
Finally, I want to quote a letter from the Mothers' Union. It says that the union expresses,
"support for the inclusion of pension splitting as part of the divorce settlements in family law. We believe strongly in the uniqueness and importance of marriage as a lifelong commitment and responsibility. Marriage breakdown and divorce must always be a tragic outcome. However, our objectives always include a deep commitment to helping those whose family life has met with adversity. In consequence, the creation of an equitable settlement, that is pension splitting, is a necessary principle in divorce".
The Mothers' Union is urging us to accept this principle today. It is saying, "Please do not lose that opportunity". It is fair, it is decent. It need cost the taxpayer nothing at all, but it will enable wives and mothers to face old age with dignity. It is an amendment about justice and about honour and we can make that decision tonight. I hope that your Lordships will support this amendment and I should like to test the opinion of the House.
5.14 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 178; Not-Contents, 150.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Dixon-Smith. L.

Addington, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge. L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Dubs. L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Eatwell, L.

Attlee. E.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Bancroft, L.

Falkender, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Falkland, V.

Berkeley, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Birk, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Blackstone, B.

Fitt, L.

Boardman, L.

Freyberg, L.

Borrie, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Gallacher, L.

Brightman, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Broadbridge, L.

Geraint L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Butterfield, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Grey, E.

Carter, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Castle of Blackburn. B.

Habgood, L.

Chandos, V.

Halsbury, E.

Chapple, L.

Hamwee, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hanworth, V.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Harris of Greenwich. L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Harrowby, E.

Cornwallis, L.

Haskel, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hayman, B.

Cuckney, L.

Hayter, L.

Darcy (de Knayth),B.

Healey, L.

David, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Hollick, L.

Denman, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Derwent, L.

Howell. L.

Desai, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Diamond. L.

Hylton, L.

1636

Hylton-Foster, B.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Ilchester, E.

Rochester, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Jakobovits, L.

Roskill, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Runcie, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Runciman of Doxford, V.

Judd, L.

Russell, E.

Kennet, L.

Ryder of Warsaw, B.

Kilbracken, L.

St. Davids, V.

Lawrence, L.

Sandwich, E.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Seear, B.

Lichfield, Bp.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Lockwood, B.

Serota, B.

Longford, E.

Sewel, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Shannon, E.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Shepherd, L.

McCarthy, L.

Simon, V.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

McNair, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

McNally, L.

Stallard, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Stedman, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Marsh, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Strafford, E.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Strange, B.

Meston, L.

Taverne, L.

Methuen, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Milne, L.

Tebbit, L.

Milner of Leeds. L.

Tenby, V.

Mishcon, L.

Torrington, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Monkswell, L.

Thurlow, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Tope, L.

Moran, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Morris of Castle Moms, L.

Walpole, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Nicol, B.

Warnock, B.

Northbourne, L.

Weatherill, L.

O'Cathain, B.[Teller.]

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Oliver of Aylmerton, L.

Whaddon, L.

Oxford, Bp.

Wharton, B.

Park of Monmouth. B.

White, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Wigoder, L.

Pender, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Peston, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

Redesdale, L.

Winston, L.

Renwick, L.

Worcester, Bp.

Richard, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Cadman, L.

Addison, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Ailsa, M.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Aldenham, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Aldington, L.

Carnock, L.

Ampthill, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Astor of Hever, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Barber, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Bethell, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Birdwood, L.

Cockfield, L.

Blake, L.

Coleraine, L.

Btaker, L.

Coleridge, L.

Blatch, B.

Colwyn, L.

Bowness, L.

Courtown, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Brentford, V.

Cross, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Burnham. L.

Darnley, E.

Butterworth, L.

Daventry, V.

1637

De Freyne, L.

Mackay of Clashfem, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

De L'Isle, V.

Denham, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Mancroft, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Merrivale, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Mersey, V.

Elton, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Erne, E.

Milverton, L.

Exmouth, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Faithfull, B.

Montrose, D.

Feldman, L.

Mountevans, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Finsberg, L.

Munster, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Gainford, L.

Nelson, E.

Geddes, L.

Newall, L.

Gisborough, L.

Norfolk, D.

Glenarthur, L.

Northesk, E.

Goschen, V.

Orkney, E.

Gowrie, E.

Orr-Ewing. L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Perth, E.

Hambro, L.

Pike, B.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Hardwicke, E.

Prentice, L.

Harlech, L.

Pym, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Quinton, L.

Hamsworth. L.

Rankeillour, L.

Harris of High Cross. L.

Rawlings, B.

Rees, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Rennell, L.

Harvington, L.

Renton, L.

Henley, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Holderness. L.

Sandford, L.

Hooper, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Howe, E.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Inchcape, E.

Sudeley, L.

Inglewood, L.

Suffield, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Swansea, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Swinfen, L.

Kenyon, L.

Teviot, L.

Killearn, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Kimball, L.

Torrington, V.

Kingsland, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Trumpington, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Tugendhat, L.

Lindsay, E.

Ullswater, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Vivian, L.

Long, V.

Wakeham, L.

Lucas, L.

Westbury, L.

Lyell, L.

Wilcox, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Yarborough, E.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.25 p.m.
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 33, at end insert—
("() in the case of a statement made by only one of the parties to the marriage, the requirements of subsection (1A) below are met:").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, to me, and, I think, to many others like myself, this is one of the most important issues raised in Part I of the Bill for it introduces no-fault divorce and creates a new world of divorce on demand.
I should like to start by giving the apologies to the House of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester. I greatly regret—as I am sure all of us do—
1638
that the right reverend Prelate is unable to be here, but be has sent me a copy of the speech that he would have made had he been able to attend and has asked me to quote from it. I should like to begin by reading two short paragraphs from that speech. The right reverend Prelate has written:
"How can it be just when two people have publicly and solemnly entered into marriage vows—with contractual responsibilities—for one party simply to decide to go off with another person. We hear such people say of the person with whom they are departing, 'I love him/I love her' as if that excuses the requirements of love, commitment, care, concern and responsibility for the partner and family to be so suddenly dumped.
"It wreaks of the old 'I divorce you' spoken three times which our Lord so strongly condemned. It reflects the growing self-first disease which is debasing our society. Emptying responsibility from any real meaning in the marriage contract devalues not only marriage but the standards of public and private life".
I turn to the particulars of the amendment. I believe it is quite clear that the amendment would reintroduce into the Bill the grounds for fault-based divorce taken directly from the 1969 Act. We are all, therefore, familiar with them and I shall not repeat arguments or go over familiar ground again. This afternoon, I should like to make one general point and then bring forward three pieces of evidence on the subject which have, at any rate, been brought vividly to my attention since we discussed the matter in Committee.
First, there is the general point, and I make no apology for repeating the argument. Law influences behaviour and it sends out a very clear message. There would be no point in legislating at all if law did not influence behaviour and, indeed, I believe that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor expects the Bill to influence behaviour. However, this is not an academic argument. We know from recent experience in the fields of gender, of race and of disability where the law has made discrimination a fault— and it is—that it has not only influenced behaviour; it has also profoundly influenced the culture of our time.
The Bill, whether amended or not, will influence behaviour. It will send out a message and it will influence the cultural climate of our society. The message of no fault is clear. It is that breaking marriage vows, breaking a civil contract, does not matter. It undermines individual responsibility. It is an attack on decent behaviour and fidelity. It violates common sense and creates injustice for anyone who believes in guilt and innocence. I believe that it undermines the whole legal framework of marriage and makes marriage less than buying a television licence, or making a tenancy agreement. In the case of a television, if it is broken, there is a fault and that represents the breaking of a contract.
As I have said before, that is the message that is going out to young people in particular. The message is going out that it does not matter if, having made a promise, one does not keep it. Yet all of us who are parents can hear ourselves saying to our children, "If you make a promise, you should keep it. If you think you cannot keep it, you should not make the promise". As regards the most important decision we ever make in the course of our lives—that is, the decision to get married—it seems to me completely contradictory that breaking that promise should now carry no fault at all.
I have received three pieces of information since the Committee stage. First of all, we now know that the department of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor commissioned a MORI poll as part of the consultative exercise on the White Paper. That poll shows that 60 per cent. of the respondents reject the concept of divorce on demand, which this Bill introduces. What conclusions do we draw from that result? Whatever may be the result of your Lordships' deliberations this evening, the proverbial man or woman on the Clapham omnibus does not believe in no fault divorce. I believe they take that view because it is a matter of common sense and common experience. They should be listened to.
The second piece of information I have received concerns the results of a review undertaken by the Scottish Law Commission. My honourable friend Lord James Douglas-Hamilton was in correspondence with a Mr. Colchester. On 9th February this year a letter was sent to Mr. Colchester which stated,
"The Scottish Law Commission reported on the grounds of divorce in Scotland in 1989 … and did not recommend the abolition of fault as ground for divorce".
What are we poor politicians to do when one Law Commission recommends the abolition of fault and another Law Commission does not'? We have two groups of experts giving us completely contradictory advice. I am second to none in my admiration for lawyers hut, as we all know, the truth of the matter is that one can always find a lawyer to support any point of view that one cares to put forward. They do it well and cleverly, and the more one pays them, the better they do it. We all know that. However, those of us in public life have to make a judgment about these matters. I recall that when I was a Minister contradictory pieces of advice were put before me, not from within the same department but from people outside. At the end of the day one has to weigh the evidence and make a decision. I suggest to your Lordships that legal advice at least is completely divided on this subject.
Thirdly, we now have considerable evidence from America on this matter. My noble friend Lady Elles referred to this matter when we were discussing children. We now know that some American states have had no fault divorce since 1953—that is a long time—and others, notably California, have had no fault divorce since 1970. They have had lengthy experience of no fault divorce. In every single American state which has this measure the evidence is overwhelming that once no fault divorce is introduced, divorce increases, on average by 26 per cent. How ironic that at the very moment that we arc introducing no fault divorce in this Bill, there arc Bills pending in the states of Alabama, Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota and Oklahoma to restore fault to divorce law because of their extensive experience of the disastrous effects of no fault divorce.
We also know of the experience in Australia where the introduction of no fault divorce has resulted in a doubling of the numbers of divorces. One should seriously consider that experience. Why should we imagine that somehow what will happen in this country will be quite unlike what has already happened in the
1640
United States—which it now bitterly regrets and is trying to change—and what is currently happening in Australia? This evidence must be taken seriously. If time would allow, I would give far more detail of what I have managed to find out.
Finally, I wish to discuss the arguments which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has used with great eloquence when he has spoken on this matter on a number of occasions. He has told the House that the concept of fault has enabled the so-called "quickie" divorce to take place. Couples use the concept of fault to obtain a quick divorce. But the fact of the matter is that the quickie divorce only became possible by the accelerated procedure which was introduced by statutory instrument in 1977. It was not part of the 1969 Act. It would be relatively easy—if the problem is speed of divorce—to repeal the statutory instrument without repealing the fault provisions. That, of course, is what my amendment is designed to do. As regards the speed of divorce, it is not the concept of fault that causes that but rather the legal procedures which enable people to obtain a divorce by post. The legal procedures have brought that about in a way which I do not believe Parliament has recognised, or ever wanted to see.
This amendment is quite straightforward. It retains the fault element in the present law. It must be read in conjunction with other amendments which I and my colleagues from all parts of the House have tabled in this Bill.
Noble Lords: Which amendments?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 12 and 13. We are not in favour of a quickie divorce. The amendment does not suggest that. Indeed, were it to be incorporated into the Bill, the one-year period would still remain, and therefore the question of the quickie divorce would not arise. Like all the amendments which we have tabled, this amendment is intended to buttress marriage. It is with dismay that I feel that I have to raise this point in your Lordships' House. The amendment is intended to buttress marriage by keeping, and not undermining, something which I regard as extremely important; namely, the moral basis of the law.
I believe that the concept of no fault divorce sends out a bad signal to the young. It is my personal belief—strengthened by literally hundreds of letters and phone calls I have received—that there are many people today who arc looking for ideals. We know about ideals. Speaking for myself, I have them but I fail to live up to them. We all do that. However, not to have an ideal at all means that there is no light on the hill; there is nothing to look up to; and we are taking a completely pragmatic approach to difficulties. I, for one, am not prepared to settle for what I regard as very much a second best option. I hope, therefore, that the House will feel able to support me in what I regard as one of the most important issues arising from this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in supporting the amendments I should like to express my appreciation of the part played by the noble Baroness, Lady Young,

1641
in relation to the Bill. Her commitment throughout to stable marriage has been a wonderful beacon for us to follow. Her leadership during the passage of the Bill so far has been superb. She has spent a great deal of time on it, and I should like to thank her for that leadership.
I have said before, and I repeat, that no-fault divorce is the wrong message to send. There is no question in my mind that it will undermine marriage. It undermines the marriage contract and will encourage cheating, disloyalty and had behaviour in marriage. There is no doubt about that. I feel quite sure that noble Lords will understand that. Furthermore, the institution of marriage itself will be devalued. It will become meaningless, because there will be no responsibility attached to it. Under this Bill that marriage can be terminated by one party with no reason being given and with no sanction for breaking the marriage contract.
No-fault divorce is hound to increase the divorce rate. We arc sliding towards disaster, as we have done so many times with other Bills. We do not seem to understand exactly what will be the result of what is proposed in this Bill. In this country we have a divorce rate which is already the highest in Europe. We were told that the 1969 Act would lead to a slowing down in divorce. Instead, it led to a galloping divorce rate. I fear that this Bill will exacerbate that position further.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, mentioned the position in the United States, where they abolished no-fault divorce. Apparently, in 1969 there was a Happy Divorce Movement. Whoever could have believed that divorce was ever happy? In 1969 that Happy Divorce Movement in California claimed that no-fault divorce would save marriages, exactly as is being claimed now. Instead, as the noble Baroness pointed out, in the United States there is divorce on demand. That has particularly hurt the interests of women, particularly those who gave priority to a home-making and child-rearing role and to the children themselves.
As the noble Baroness also pointed out—hut it hears repeating—the United States is now reversing no-fault divorce because it has been a social disaster. Having experienced it for a period of 30 years the Americans arc moving in the opposite direction from ourselves. As we have heard, nine states are already legislating or proposing legislation to bring hack fault. It is crazy that at a time when the United States, which has experienced no-fault divorce, is going hack to the principle of fault we should now embark on an experiment which has failed there. It is absurd.
I was a great admirer of Ancurin Bevan. He had many good and apt phrases. One was that you do not have to look into the crystal ball when you can read the open hook. The hook is there for us to read—in the experience of the United States and Australia. I hope that this House will heed the message from the United States that no-fault divorce has failed. The Americans want to go backwards. We are told we must go forwards to no-fault divorce. Let us not go forward, those of us who are in favour of marriage.
I appeal to my noble friends, because this is such an important issue. It touches on so many social issues as well as on personal relationships and marriage itself.
1642
I understand from a reading of the press that my noble friends on the Front Bench made a pact with the Government to help push the Bill through. I hope that that is not the case. I believe that it is a mistaken policy. I remind my noble friends that they gave the same green light to the Child Support Bill, which some of us spent day after day, night after night, opposing in this House because we knew that it was not the right Bill for the circumstances which were supposed to be resolved by the Bill. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, was one of those who, in the watches of the night, tried to warn the Government that that was yet another poll tax disaster. And so it proved.
5.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for those remarks. However, I speak and vote for what I believe in.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I take this opportunity to rise and say that there is no foundation whatever in the insinuation made by my noble friend. The fact that the allegations appeared in the press may have given some credence to them. He said that he understood that a pact had been reached between the Government and the Opposition in order to get the Bill through. That is not the case.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I understand that on this amendment there is a free vote on the basis of conscience.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Graham for that assurance. I am sincere about that. I am very glad that no pact has been agreed between the Front Benches on this issue and that there will be a free vote on both sides of the House. I am most obliged for that.
Therefore, in conclusion I hope that noble Lords will vote according to their consciences. I believe that if they do so, the amendment will be passed.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, the purpose of the amendments is to introduce fault into the Bill, as my noble friend Lady Young argued so cogently. The amendments would ensure that one could not get divorced without fault—or without reason, as I prefer to call it. "No reason" seems to be more explicit and accurate than the "no-fault" label that we seem to be using.
Thus the amendments would ensure that one could not get divorced without reason. As marriage involves the most important and solemn contract a man or woman ever enters into, does it not seem surprising that it can be abrogated for no reason? As the Bill stands, unilateral divorce on demand is available after one year, and the innocent party has no protection whatsoever, which can only lead to more injustice in divorce settlements. Notions of right or wrong are already rarely considered where a court decides the division of property and the custody, or residence (as it is now called), of the children. Abolishing fault or reason simply affirms that practice and denies marital responsibility. No fault, or no reason, divorce sends out

1643
a series of signals; namely, that marriage is only a temporary relationship and that fidelity in marriage is of no consequence. It signals that adultery does not matter; and I remind the House that that is the only scriptural reason for divorce. It signals that behaviour does not matter. It signals that desertion does not matter. In short, no one is responsible and no one is accountable.
The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack reminded us at Second Reading that marriage is a divine institution, but Christian ethos and doctrine teach us that we arc responsible for our behaviour and we are accountable for our actions both to our creator and to our fellow human beings.
These are reasonable and just amendments, and I commend them to the House.
Lord Habgood: My Lords, I entirely sympathise with those who have spoken hitherto about their desire to stem the tide of divorce. I cannot imagine that there is anyone in this House who does not have that aim. I also accept that there is an clement of injustice in someone being divorced against their will; and I take that as the main point underlying the amendment.
However, I firmly believe that if the amendment were passed, it would create equally great injustices and cannot achieve its main aim; namely, of decreasing the number of divorces. But because the issues raised by it are fundamental to the Bill, I hope that I may be allowed to take the discussion hack a little to first principles. I speak as an individual, although I speak from the position that was very firmly and fully agreed by the Church of England. Although the noble Baroness in her opening speech quoted the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester, he was speaking as an individual; he was not speaking for the Church of England.
I much regret having missed the Committee stage when 1 was convalescing from an operation. However, during my convalescence I read the whole account of the Committee stage and was much revived by it. I was impressed by the depth and quality of the discussion in your Lordships' House. But I noted that throughout that immensely long discussion there was scarcely any mention of why marriages break down. There was the frequently expressed anxiety that any change would simply increase the divorce rate. That point has been made very firmly by two speakers this afternoon.
It is perfectly true that any change in the divorce law may release a backlog of those who have not been eligible for divorce because of the technicalities of the existing law. But if one looks at the underlying graph of the rise in the number of divorces, it is difficult to tell where specific legislation was passed because the curve is a smooth one. It is quite clear that the rise in divorce has been due more to social and cultural factors than to particular pieces of legislation.
There was a high rate of divorce after both world wars for the obvious reasons that many people at those stages entered into unwise and hurried marriages. The start of the present steep rise in numbers began before the 1969 Act and continued smoothly up through it. There was a blip upwards for a short lime at that point because 40
1644
per cent. of the new divorces in the years immediately following the 1969 Act were those who had been separated for five years or more, with 24 per cent. being those who had been separated for only two years.
The rise after the 1937 Act was largely among those whose marriages were long standing. That is because at that stage the new cause of desertion came in, and one was dealing with couples who were separated anyway. The separation was now legalised through divorce.
I was reading some statistics this morning of the effect of no-fault divorce law in Australia, New Zealand and America. I do not recognise what has been said in the debate so far from what I read this morning. I know that one can prove anything from statistics—and clearly people are trying to prove anything from statistics. However, from what I read—and those involved spoke from positions of responsibility and knowledge in those countries—although the introduction of no-fault divorce law had created a blip, the numbers have since fallen. Since the introduction of the new law, the divorce rates have remained steady and in some cases were falling. I would wish to know what had been happening in those states in the USA to which the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, referred. They may have a quite different form of divorce. They may have a year's gap or mediation. If we are going to argue from statistics, we need to know a good deal more about them.
Why has there been this underlying rise? I wish to suggest three perfectly familiar reasons. One is the increasing financial independence of women. That first became obvious after the 1923 Act when the proportion of divorces initiated by women rose to some 50 per cent. or 60 per cent. That high rate of women petitioners has continued to this day. The fact of independence makes the thought of divorce easier. It also diminishes the scope for passing restrictive legislation. If we insist on legislation which requires couples to stay together for, say, a minimum of five years, what will happen is that they will separate anyway. The vast majority of those divorces are through desertion. Couples have separated and consider divorce after the fact of separation. But if they arc simply kept waiting for five years without the benefit of the kind of help which this Bill could bring them, then none of the issues will be resolved.
The amendment would not stop that desertion. It would not stop couples separating. But it could encourage a long period of conflict, frustration and recrimination. It could encourage vindictiveness in those who felt that they had been wronged and were jolly well going to punish those who had deserted them.
A second underlying factor for the rise in divorce has been the massive cultural change in our society during this century. I shall refer to just one aspect, which I call the culture of immediacy. I refer to the shrinkage of space and time: what people want they want, immediately. We are all under pressure to make quick decisions. We know what is happening now, and in any part of the world; it is immediately in front of us. We are constantly oppressed by the importance of the present moment, the immediate desire, the ephemeral experience. That is not totally new. Carpe them—seize the moment—goes hack a long time. But what our

1645
culture has given us is fresh opportunities for seizing that moment and gratifying that desire. The moment seems to be everything.
Coupled with that are high expectations about personal gratification. We are developing a throw-away society in which people all too easily throw away ideas, values, responsibilities and commitments—and in which they throw away people. We are, alas, in a period of religious decline, when increasing religious burdens are placed on religion substitutes, not least on marriage, and the kind of intense personal relationships that popular culture would have us believe go with marriage and the emotional satisfactions that marriage should bring. Many marriages are simply not able to carry the emotional burden placed upon them.
How do we counter those pressures? Surely the Bill strikes at the right point by giving legal significance to the passage of time. It says, "Slow down. What is wrong is precisely that you do want everything immediately. Time itself is important". And time is important not just for what can be done in it—reflection, negotiation, mediation and all those things, although they are important. Time is important also as a public assertion that marriages arc not easily undone. I am afraid that those who talk about this as though anyone could just walk into a shop and get a divorce immediately misrepresent the whole basis of the Bill, which was properly described by the Law Commission as "a process in time". To take time over something is to take a measure of responsibility. I liked the graffiti which said: "Time is God's way of keeping things from happening all at once". In a society that wants things all at once, to say to people that they can divorce only through time seems exactly right.
That is why, in relation to later amendments, I want to resist the notion of a shorter time for couples without children. That would undermine the main principle; namely, that the undoing of marriage itself, quite apart from children—although children are vitally important—is a serious business which takes time and reflection and requires the acceptance of responsibility for what is done.
The hardship bar is an important safeguard to try to ensure that time is used significantly. In particular, as I said at Second Reading, it provides an opportunity for couples to come to terms with fault where there has been clear injustice. It allows fault to take a proper place in the terms of any settlement.
But fault is also something with which a couple must come to terms between themselves. It is not so much a question of society at large pronouncing judgment on a couple, hut of a couple coming to terms with what they have done to each other and what they might do to their children. That is precisely what can happen in mediation. Indeed, one intention in the mediation process is to give a controlled opportunity by which people can express their feelings about each other outside the context of solicitors' letters and court appearances, outside a judgmental, external context, by which to face each other, and so reach more considered decisions. It is far better that couples should be offered a context in which they can blame each other in the
1646
presence of someone who can help them to move beyond that than that they are locked into a period of five years of conflict and recrimination.
The Bill gives a couple the gift of time, and the help to use it. It gives them an opportunity to relate outside the pressures of having to maintain a marriage or prove that it has failed. It does not impose a single solution on different individuals, but enables them to discover the best solution for themselves in an unforced relationship. I cannot go along with those who dismiss that as an un-Christian betrayal of the ideals of marriage. It seems to me to express Christian ideals very precisely and properly.
I am conscious that I have taken up a lot of your Lordships' time. Very briefly, there is the issue of "divorce-mindedness". It is true that familiarity breeds acceptability. Divorce breeds divorce. Therefore in a society where there is a lot of divorce, one would expect a kind of exponential growth. All that is fed by the media and by soaps in the media. Will it be fed by the law?
What is vital is the way in which this Bill is presented or misrepresented. We are right to worry about how the Bill is perceived, and we need to be careful in our language when we describe it. The way in which it is handled by the courts when it comes into law will be crucial to public perceptions of it. I suggest that a few well-publicised applications of the hardship bar could work wonders on subsequent MORI polls.
The length of the process is also significant. I vigorously oppose any period of less than a year. I am sure that five years, as proposed in this amendment for some, is far too long. I hope therefore that the House will firmly reject these amendments.
6 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I am very glad that my noble friend Lord Ashbourne used the word "reason" in relation to divorce. The word "fault" has become an emotional buzzword used, sadly, almost invariably to describe what is envisaged in the Bill and this amendment. There is always fault when a marriage fails. When a couple come down the aisle, having taken their vows one to the other, they will almost invariably be happy and looking forward to living together and making a success of their marriage. If that marriage fails there is fault on the part of one or the other, or both. It is always there. Therefore, to use the word "fault" in the context in which we use it today is entirely wrong. Within this House and so frequently within the media, it merely misleads.
The Bill does not use the word, and there are a number of reasons why this amendment should be rejected. Is it better to be married unhappily or divorce amicably after 12 months—particularly when there are children whose lives will be affected by the squabbling and disagreements between their parents'? The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, used the phrase, "happy divorce". It is indeed a grotesque concept. But is it not better to have a happy divorce than to have an unhappy marriage?

1647
This is not a no fault Bill. The Bill allows, and only allows, a couple to get divorced for what is described as—I am afraid I must use the phrase myself—no fault. But the guilty party, if guilty party there is (I am still using these wrong words) will suffer as a result of the property settlement that will take place under the Matrimonial Causes Act and to which reference will be made in the courts if the matter has to go to them for settlement. The party who has misbehaved—if that is the word—will come off the worse of the two.
But in this amendment, most importantly, there is a strong inducement to behave badly. If one is good one has to wait five years; if one misbehaves, one can get out of the marriage within a year. That looks to me like a return to the bad old days when there was the arranged adultery. The respondent was placed in a bedroom with a tart; from stories that I have heard no misbehaviour ever took place, but the plaintiff's detectives would hurst in and find them in bed together and give evidence that adultery had taken place—or at least appeared to have taken place. Surely that cannot be what the proposers of the amendment wish. However, it looks to me as though that will happen if their amendment is accepted. Let us he realistic.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will give way. I think that he makes the mistake of assuming that divorce by consent—that is to say, the kind of arrangement that applied with "Brighton divorces" in the past—is in any way excluded by these amendments. The amendments leave entirely in place all the provisions of the Bill which allow parties to agree their own future and arrange their own divorces.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that comment. The fact remains that adultery is one of the main causes given whereby one may obtain a divorce within a year under this amendment. I may slightly have misplaced what my noble friend rightly calls the "Brighton divorces", but I do not believe that that changes the basis of my argument.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he has seen a later amendment which would preclude any divorce within one year?
Lord Burnham: I have, my Lords, but we arc not yet dealing with that amendment. I wish to be realistic. All these provisions—the Bill and the amendment—are written down coldly on a piece of paper. I believe that most noble Lords arc happily married. But if their marriage has been a failure, they know of the personal distress which they and their former wife or husband have suffered. They know that it is not a simple matter of right or wrong and of dealing with that failure through the solicitor or through the courts. It causes immense personal distress. In those circumstances, surely it is better to get rid of the marriage, within reason as quickly as possible—not, I agree, within less than a year but within reason. Divorce, being as we know, in a way, a licence to remarry, the two people concerned may remarry if they wish; hut, in any case, they and their children are separated from the unhappiness of an unhappy couple living together.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, we have come to what is perhaps the main plank in the Bill. But, as I see it, it is a plank riddled with dry rot. Certainly, the Bill, as drafted at the moment and as it is understood outside this House, will provide no-fault divorce on demand after one year's notice with no requirement to give any reason at all, not even that you do not like the way your spouse makes the coffee. There does not have to be any reason given at all.
It seems to me that that message, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said, given to people in the country as a whole, is deplorable. Inevitably, providing for that kind of divorce devalues marriage and makes it, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, less in the way of a contract than something like a car hire agreement. At the moment, faced with the present situation in this country, with so many of our great institutions crumbling and all kinds of enormous social problems, with bands of people, mostly the result of broken marriages, roaming the streets and committing all sorts of terrible crimes, it seems to me entirely wrong that we should bring in such a provision, weakening marriage. As I said at Second Reading, I have the greatest difficulty in understanding why the Conservative Party, with all its traditions, should do so. It seems extraordinary. I strongly support everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said and I support the amendment.
Perhaps I may make one other point. In his amendment to Schedule 8, Amendment No. 137 (on page 24 of the Marshalled List), the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor provides that:
"In considering whether the circumstances … [as there dealt with] the court shall have particular regard, on the evidence before it, to … the conduct of the parties in relation to the upbringing of the child".
That seems to me to be an immensely welcome amendment. When we come to deal with it, I personally shall want to support it very strongly. But the question of fault is evident there. The word "conduct" is simply another word for that.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in that case, why does the noble Lord, with so many others, go on calling this a question of no-fault divorce?
Lord Moran: I do so because essentially, as I understand it, that is the whole basis of the Bill. The later amendment seems to me to run counter to that and very satisfactorily. But the basis of the Bill is still that one does not need to give any reason for requiring a divorce. That is why I support the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and her colleagues. It seems to be a fundamental question and of enormous importance. At the present time we should not send out that message from the Government or Parliament to the country. On the contrary, we should, as I suggested at Second Reading, do everything possible to strengthen marriage.
At Second Reading I quoted from the report of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation to the effect that this Government and others before them have been weakening marriage, mainly by fiscal and taxation

1649
measures, whereas they should be doing the contrary. So I support the amendment. It is one of the most important amendments that we have to consider. I hope that noble Lords will agree to accept it.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I have been trying to speak for quite some time now. The noble Lord said that he did not understand why the party to which I belong supported the Bill. He also said that he understood that no-fault was—
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I hesitate to break into the discussion. I know that these are very weighty matters which excite great passions. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, might speak first and perhaps my noble friend may be induced to come in after him.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount. It was decided earlier that this side of the House would speak next. Having said that, I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House in domestic matters. I should like to reply to one or two comments that have been made.
I find myself in a hit of a pickle. I have read the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. At this point I want to join my noble friend Lord Stoddart in expressing admiration and respect for the way in which the noble Baroness carried out her campaign, for the way in which she has spoken and for the amount of effort that she has put into this difficult Bill. Then I saw the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester and I thought, "Good, we have got the Bishops on our side at last". Then I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Habgood, and thought, "Well, we arc hack where we started. I am as mixed up as I was before".
As I see it, the first part of the amendment relates to adultery. And, simple-minded fellow that I am, I take that to mean the seventh Commandment. I find it strange therefore that yet another Bishop seems to be abolishing the seventh Commandment; it is one of the main tenets, according to the Scriptures, by which a man can put away his wife.
Lord Habgood: My Lords, will the noble Lord distinguish between the attempt to abolish sin, which would be absurd, and regarding a specific form of sin as a ground for divorce? We arc not talking about whether something is right or wrong. Adultery is clearly wrong, at least in my hook. The question at issue is whether the committing of adultery should be a ground for divorce as opposed to irretrievable breakdown.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I am grateful for that intervention; but it only makes the matter worse. I am not arguing about abolishing sin; I am arguing about retaining the respect of the Scriptures. They state quite clearly that adultery is a sin and it is certainly one of the Commandments. Most of us were brought up on the Ten Commandments and therefore take it amiss when somebody who we think should be on our side appears to be trying to evade the issue by bringing in other extraneous matters, such as abolishing sin. We are not
1650
talking about abolishing sin per se; we are saying that we are quite happy to stick with the Scriptures on this and on many other issues.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept the view of St. Thomas Aquinas that human law can neither punish nor even prohibit all that is evilly done?
Lord Stallard: My Lords, of course. I can also quote others. A man called Charles Gore, who gave the 1927 Halley Lecture St. Botolph's Church, Bishopsgate, took up that very point and said that, while we cannot change the act of sin by law, we can erect certain statutes, and by bringing in certain legislation create an atmosphere and environment which encourages the opposite. We can use a number of quotations to justify our point but none of us can unquote the seventh Commandment. That is quite clear and it is on that that the first part of the amendment rests.
Somebody else said that emotion was a fault. Of course we have emotion; if it is a fault, I plead guilty. I cannot discuss this and other similar issues without experiencing a certain amount of emotion, and I pity the fellow who can. To me there is something wrong with him.
There is no doubt that the Bill does away with fault. If one party to an agreement can give notice that the agreement is finished after 12 months, without consent and giving no other reason, argument or discussion—he simply says "12 months from now, that is it"—that is tantamount to divorce without fault, and those who place that interpretation on the Bill arc quite right to do so. It is unjust to the wronged party who wishes to remain married and also unjust to the children.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, has said on a number of occasions that business contracts which can be terminated by one party without reason or sanctions would be valueless. Yet marriage is the most important contract of all and that can be broken in just that way. That is where the emotion comes in. We feel strongly about that situation.
If a quickie divorce can be obtained on the basis of fault, as at present, the answer is not to do away with the "fault" clement; it is to do away with the "quickie" clement. The Government have got it the wrong way round. It is true that the fault clement has been abused. But the answer is to improve it and not abolish it. That should not be outside our capabilities.
We had the USA position quoted and queried. I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Habgood, who queried the statistics. I can happily let him have a copy of the publication, Marriage in America: A Report to the Nation; Counselling Families in America, 1995. It cannot be any fresher than that; it is almost hot off the press. That is from where most of the statistics come—their experience of no-fault divorces and so forth. I shall be happy to let the noble Lord have a copy and he can judge for himself.
President Clinton, at the National Prayer Breakfast on 1st February 1996 said, quoting his wife,
"Hilary said in her hook that 'Till death do us part' has often become. 'Till the going gets tough'. It may be that it ought to be a little harder to get a divorce where children arc involved".

1651
That is what the President said when speaking in a national capacity. That idea has been taken up in one state after another until we reach the position quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, where a number of states are looking seriously at the issue and attempting to introduce legislation to reverse the situation that occurred when they went for quickie, no-fault divorces. That is now in the past.
"No fault", to me, means no responsibility; no commitment and no security. It is a throwaway relationship, with children often the victims. Somebody said that it is an issue of conscience. Of course it is. But the previous legislation was not an issue of conscience and yet was introduced by the same people. We cannot mess about with our conscience in that way. The whole situation very much concerns the conscience and those of us who have a conscience should exercise it in the way in which the amendment suggests. The amendment is absolutely right and I hope that the House will support it.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Moran, a speech ago, said that he did not understand why the Government, supported by the party to which I belong, were introducing this Bill. In response to that I say that the party to which I belong hacked the Children Bill which had as its first clause that the interests of children will be paramount. If we adopt Amendment No. 11, it will not be in the interests of children.
Of course it is in the interests of children that there are fewer divorces. There is no sign in this country that the fact that fault may be a ground for the breakdown of a marriage has reduced the number of divorces. In fact, 75 per cent. of divorces brought that element in as proof of the breakdown of the marriage. There is no sign that it would reduce the number of divorces. If it did, it might help children.
One does not need to look beyond the daily newspapers, week by week, and one needs to use only a small amount of imagination, to understand that the worse thing for children is when their parents decide to break up. The next worse thing is when the parents are arguing about behaviour and adultery. The imagination boggles at what they must suffer when that is happening. I feel that we are forgetting Section I of the Children Act. It operates across everything we do. Whenever we legislate about children, that first section of the Children Act operates.
I have enormous respect for my noble friend Lady Young. I understand totally her motivation in relentlessly pursuing this subject. But I believe she got the answer from the noble Lord, Lord Habgood, when he referred to the question of fault and where it comes in the Bill. This is not a "no-fault" Bill. The Bill puts fault in a different place. It puts it where the hardship lies. The noble Lord, Lord Hahgood, said that people have to come to terms with fault. He did not say that we have to come to terns with sin, but we know that that is what he was meaning. It puts it in a place where the children suffer much less because it is taken into account when the settlement is made, which is a much
1652
easier place for it to be. The headlines will be very different. Sometimes they are quite small headlines in one's local newspaper; sometimes they are much bigger. I ask noble Lords to use their imagination and think what it is like to be in the shoes of those children. I ask the House to reject the amendment.
6.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, is confused by the Bishops. I can understand that. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester is a long-standing opponent of irretrievable breakdown as the sole ground for divorce and it is very understandable that he wants to vote according to his conscience and support the noble Baroness, Lady Young. But I think it was the Church of England, as much as anyone else, which some 25 years ago first introduced the idea of irretrievable breakdown as the sole ground for divorce. The group of Bishops set up by the House of Bishops of the Church of England to follow this Bill through the Lords is broadly supportive of its main thrust; and certainly I am.
In considering the strengths and weaknesses of the amendment before us we also have to take into account the adverse effects of the present divorce law. Just recently I had a letter from a friend of mine, which I have his permission to quote though he wishes to remain anonymous. His wife wanted a divorce. He writes:
"The solicitor advised her that she could get a quick divorce if she went for unreasonable behaviour. This did not include adultery or violence. It did include her view of my failings vastly exaggerated by the solicitor for the purpose of proving that the marriage had irretrievably broken down … When my wife told me she wanted a divorce I had no idea what to expect from the law. I knew nothing about the law. I was devastated to receive the letter from the solicitor. The "faults" did not seem legally serious enough for divorce. An already strained relationship was all but destroyed by the legal process of fault finding for the purposes of the quick divorce which she said she wanted … I can accept that there was fault on both sides when our marriage broke down. I can even accept that I was more at fault than her. But I cannot accept that such an intimate and personal matter should become the subject of drafting by lawyers who are required by parliament to put the worst possible gloss against one spouse or the other … It is counterproductive if the goal is to save as many marriages as possible".
The present law is very flawed, as we have heard from that moving testimony. Because the present law requires one of the divorcing couple to prove fault if they want a divorce in less than two years, this undermines any possibility there might be of saving the marriage. I agree entirely with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that the law influences behaviour. The law is not neutral. There is indeed a moral basis of the law. I entirely agree also with the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, quoting one of my very distinguished predecessors, Bishop Charles Gore. That is common ground between us.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, poses the question: what is the message that the Bill will send out? That question needs to be considered most seriously. But what message is sent out by the present law? That includes fault as evidence for irretrievable breakdown, but we are all aware that that has not deterred divorce. The message sent out by the Bill is that before a divorce

1653
is granted there has to be a whole year of consideration and reflection and there is opportunity for marriage counselling and mediation. Everything in the Bill suggests that couples contemplating divorce have to stop and think very, very carefully. As the noble Lord, Lord Habgood, said, time is built into it for people to stop and think. That, I would suggest, is the message sent out by the Bill. I believe it is a message which underlines the seriousness of marriage and the vows taken in marriage. Therefore, I feel I must support the Bill as it stands and reject the amendment before us.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, at this late hour I desire to make just one short point in opposition to the amendment; and that is to address the interests of the children. A fault based system leads to protracted litigation. It is the adversarial system which, apart from being expensive in terms of public funds and in court time, increases acrimony to the detriment of the children. The children are very likely to feel compelled to take one side or another. Where divorce is not fault based I believe that there is a very much better prospect of the children at the end of the day having a good relationship with both their parents.
Baroness Ryder of Warsaw: My Lords, I completely agree with every word that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has said. She has the courage of her convictions and believes that marriage is a sacrament. She believes too that ideals and the law should be retained. I ask myself the question: where are we going? Do we just accept indifference to God and the secular society? I support the amendments because they will bring justice into the Bill where divorce on demand is available after one year. That is ludicrous injustice.
I commend these amendments to the House, but I feel most strongly that the real solution to our problems can be found if Her Majesty's Government appoint a Royal Commission. That will bring groans and moans to many because, alas, haste seems to be all important in regard to this extremely difficult and serious problem. I support the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in her amendments.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, perhaps I may —
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I wish to —
Noble Lords: Order!
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I know that many noble Lords want to speak. It only delays matters further if there is a kind of competition between noble Lords on both Benches. I am sure the House is anxious to hear both noble Lords. I wonder whether my noble friend Lord Aldington could for once take precedence and then I suggest we go to the Liberal Benches before coming hack to my noble friend Lady Elles.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, this amendment, if we come hack to the words, deals not with the general points that many of us have been discussing but with the one simple point that the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, and my noble friend Lady Young took up —that is, the one of the two parties who does not want a divorce. The
1654
Bill as it stands forces that one person who does not want a divorce to break his or her vow against his or her will. That is a most extraordinary thing for the noble Lord, Lord Habgood, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford to be in favour of. I cannot understand how that accords with the feeling of the Church towards the vows; nor can I understand how it accords with the principle, which I was so glad my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor put into the Bill, that the purpose of the Bill is to save the institution of marriage. That is what this is about.
What the amendment seems to say is that a person who does not want a divorce shall not be put in the position of being divorced against his or her will one year after the application unless there is fault or until five years of separation have taken place. That seems to me to be entirely harmonious with the spirit of the Bill and with my understanding of the Christian attitude to marriage and that of this House to it.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy asked, "Have you thought about the effect of this measure on the children?". I do not see how the children are going to suffer more by having one of their parents who does not want a divorce remaining married, albeit separated, for five years than they would suffer by the actual fact of divorce.
One reason why I have risen to speak is that my parents were divorced when I was 13 years of age. I did suffer and so did my brother and sister. If they had been given time —and that is why I welcome many of the provisions of this Bill —I do not believe that they would have divorced, because when I left to go overseas to the war in 1940 they both told me that they wished that they had not divorced and they hoped that after the war they might get together again. Unfortunately, my father was killed. I feel strongly about the time element and that people should not be forced to break their vows, certainly not within one year of the application of this measure. That is why I fully support all that my noble friend Lady Young has put forward.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I do not pretend to know whether the retention of fault as a basis for divorce will provide any effective control over the increase in divorce. I do not believe that these amendments will strengthen marriage. I do not believe that this Bill will make divorce easy. The great advantage of the procedures under this Bill is that the parties are to be formally confronted with the practical and emotional realities of what they are thinking of doing.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, did not tell us what she wanted to happen in practice. Her amendment properly requires the court to be satisfied of the relevant fault or faults, but to what standard is the fault to be proved? The amendment simply says that the party making the statement should satisfy the court of the particular fault. Fault-based divorce, as it presently operates and as it operated under the modern legislation before the special procedure, requires a fairly minimal standard of proof.
If I were truly supporting the pecuniary interest of my profession I would have supported the noble Baroness in her disapproval of the special procedure. When work

1655
was thin, there was nothing better than going off to court with an armful of briefs for undefended divorces. It was a serious blow in 1977, not just to my pocket, when the special procedure was introduced, but that did not make the procedure that operated before any more dignified than the present procedure. The fact is that fault-based divorce, undefended by the other party, is largely untested by the court. Corroboration is not required, and it is only defective or weak divorce petitions which are held up or rejected.
So what procedure is going to be required? Reference has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, to the old days of hotel evidence which supplemented the income of private detectives and hotel chambermaids. I do not know what is envisaged, but I suggest that it is important that we should understand what procedures are going to be in place; otherwise we do not improve in any way on the present procedure.
One also has to hear in mind that what is proposed in this amendment is an alternative to consensual divorce. These are not going to be divorces in which the other party has agreed that the marriage has come to an end or agreed to a divorce after one year. So it may well be defended. There is nothing more inflammatory or acrimonious than a defended divorce, but facilities there will have to be for the recipient of a divorce petition to defend, which may involve legal aid and certainly will involve valuable court time. Under the present regime legal aid is seldom granted when it is not in issue that the marriage has irretrievably broken down.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, that it is wrong to suggest that under this Bill we are introducing "no reason" divorce. The reason for divorce under this Bill, as under the present law, is that the marriage has broken down and that that breakdown is established to have been irretrievable.
I suggest that fault-based divorce, even under the present law, generates a great deal of heat (or it can do) but not a lot of light. It seldom illuminates the true cause of the breakdown of the marriage. Even adultery, which is so seldom the sole cause of the end of a marriage, is accurately reflected in this way. As one judge very wisely observed a long time ago, it takes three to commit adultery.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford referred to the realities of the modern behaviour petition. It is a trick of the trade, if I may so describe it, to plead a behaviour petition in such a way that it says just enough to get past the eye of the judge but not so much that it provokes the other party into defending. I cannot help thinking that that practice may continue.
Finally, perhaps I may reinforce very strongly the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Habgood, about the five-year requirement, which is to be preserved under this amendment. As I ventured to say at, I believe, Committee stage, there is perhaps nothing more unhappy than a five-year separation-based divorce. It causes enormous resentment and unhappiness if the parties are required to put their personal lives, and often their financial lives, on hold for five years, and the children truly suffer. Therefore, I ask your Lordships
1656
to think hard about the practical consequences of these amendments which, I suggest, need to be addressed. In the circumstances I would not support these amendments.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I was very moved by much of what the noble Lord, Lord Habgood, said and I agree with much of it. I would just like to question the problem that he raised as regards statistics. The Australian, Canadian and American statistics show where no-fault divorce was brought in that there was a slight increase in the number of divorces because of the backlog. That is understandable. I believe that the noble Lord and the House know how dangerous statistics are. What he did not reveal is this.
In the graph that I saw the number of divorces went up by a certain amount but what collapsed was the number of marriages. The graph came straight down. That can certainly he ascribed to the way in which people will view marriage when there is no-fault divorce. I know that we are using the phrase "no-fault divorce", but it is the fact of making divorce easier. It is not a question of what one is putting into the Bill at the moment; it is whether one is making it easier for people who do not want to stay with each other any more or even as regards one of the parties. That is one of the fundamental faults of the Bill. My noble and learned friend knows my views, so I am not expressing anything new to him.
First, the fact is that, whereas the weight shifted from the wife to the husband if the husband had gone away, it is now the other way round. The person who is left at home is in the weaker position. I speak as a woman in this case. It is usually the woman who is left, often literally holding the baby, at home while the man goes off to have his affairs. There is no way in which she can defend herself under the Bill because although he or she may go to an information meeting and make a statement, there is no obligation on either party to go to mediation and, as the Bill stands, at the end of the year the husband can apply for his divorce.
I know about the provisions of Clause 9 and the new amendment which my noble and learned friend has tabled, but, as the Bill stands, it has shifted the weight of responsibility for keeping the marriage together from the person who wants to stay in the home and in the marriage to someone who wants to be completely free to do as he likes. I accept that that party could be the woman. In the case outlined by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, it was the wife who wanted the divorce. This Bill allows the weight of responsibility for the marriage tie to be shifted.
Secondly, those who think that the Bill will remove acrimony arc, frankly, living in a fool's paradise. Anybody who knows a couple who have divorced —whether or not there are children of the marriage —knows that the acrimony goes on and on and on. I know that there are many solid arguments for removing the concept of fault because of the case going through the courts, but feeling that one can discuss fault releases

1657
certain of the pressures of human life. We are talking about relationships between human beings, not about the effect of the law on individuals.
Thirdly and finally, although I know that making divorce easier is not the wish or the objective of my noble and learned friend, the fact is that in the minds of the public the Bill makes divorce both easier and quicker to obtain than is the case with the courts at the moment. That brings an insecurity to the status of marriage, and, as has happened in other countries which have introduced no-fault divorces, that will undoubtedly increase not necessarily the number of divorces, but the number of cohabitations and of illegitimate children because marriage will no longer he respected and afforded a fundamental status in our society.
Lord Jakobovits: My Lords, I should like to salute and to express my admiration for the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for what I can only term her moral leadership in this debate. As she has said, the signal that she wishes to send out is nowhere more clear than in this amendment. I beg humbly to support it.
I have just returned from a three-week lecture tour of the United States, travelling from coast to coast and visiting some half-dozen communities. Although I had very little time to spare for browsing through the newspapers, I saw enough, cast and west, to give substance to the comment made here that many states in the United States are now searching for ways to repeal their earlier shift towards the abolition of the fault clauses and are seeking to reintroduce them. I saw that both in reports and in leading articles in a number of newspapers. I can testify to that evidence from the United States as of the day before yesterday when I was still there.
I find myself in the somewhat invidious position, having listened especially to my dear friends both the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, and to the former Archbishop, in being on the other side in a peculiar way. After all, they belong to a tradition which until not so very recently objected to divorce altogether on the New Testament grounds,
"Those whom God hath joined together let no man put asunder".
That is a conviction which we Jews have never shared. For us, in a way divorce was the easiest thing in the world. If the two parties agreed that the marriage was incompatible, they could easily he divorced, yet divorces were exceedingly rare in Jewish society. What made them rare'? Above all, it was the stigma attaching to them. Divorce was unsocial. It went against the current and against the grain for people to get divorced and to expose their children to all the consequences of divorce; hence until very recent times, divorces virtually did not happen.
I have listened to the debate with intense interest and have heard noble Lords searching for the reasons that have caused the divorce rate to rise so spectacularly to its present alarming proportions. I think that the simple and primary reason is the abolition of every form of stigma. There is no sense of shame. There is no sense of reserve. A society cannot maintain values without attaching some form of stigma to their violation. Therefore, I think that the amendment, even if only
1658
symbolically, restores a sense of stigma by introducing into divorce a concept of fault which might well go a long way towards at least stopping the present rise in divorce, especially at the moment when it affects both the highest and the ordinary. Divorce has become so commonplace that we no longer even feel the damage that is done to ourselves, to our children and to society in general.
Therefore, I think that this amendment —there are others, but notably this amendment —may help to restore that sense of shudder before one enters into a divorce. People should think twice and feel that they owe something, if not to themselves or their partner, at least to their children, to society and perhaps even to the moral law. One should not easily enter into the breaking of the most solemn commitment that one can ever expect to enter in one's lifetime.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, is a seasoned debater and recalled us to the real point at issue. What we are discussing is a situation where one party wants to be divorced and the other party does not. We have heard a great deal so far about the hardship and the suffering of being the party who is forced to divorce against their will. I do not disagree with any of that, but let us consider the alternative. The alternative is that the other party should be forced to be married against their will. To me, that appears not merely a hardship, but actually a contradiction in terms.
I have listened carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and to those who have spoken with her. They have relied heavily on the concept of marriage as a contract in which one may require performance. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, took the parallel of a car hire agreement. You can require strict performance of a car hire agreement because it does not matter in what spirit the job is done. If I owe a car hire firm £400 and I am thoroughly fed up about it and my lawyer says that I do not have a case, it does not matter whether I pay with a good will or a had will. I can still pay.
However, marriage is not like that. It is something a great deal more than that. Marriage is an agreement to love and to cherish. You cannot do that simply in response to a legal requirement. If you are forced to be married where you cannot love or cherish, you have something which is very different indeed. It is recorded that a 17th century couple were so unhappily married that nothing but the power of religion could force them to live as man and wife. I do not think that that is what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford means by "the power of religion", and it is not what I mean. Indeed in a more comfortable case, King James VI of Scotland, who was also King James I of England, and his queen were said to live as well together as a couple who do not converse can do.
I just do not see the point of preserving that sort of union. That is not for the preservation of marriage. I asked the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in Committee —I have not yet had an answer —whether the object of her amendment is to prevent divorce or to prevent separation. I do not see how we can prevent separation in unhappy marriages unless we attach a power of arrest to the marriage contract. But if we are

1659
to allow separation and not divorce, then we will have a steady increase in the number of people who are married to one person but living with another. I do not understand what that contributes to the preservation of marriage.
7 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, —
Lord Elton: My Lords, —
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, —
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, —
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I know that the debate has run for one hour 35 minutes, and I know that a number of speakers still want to contribute. I wonder whether it might be in order for me to hope that their contributions will be relatively brief. I saw that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, was on his feet. Perhaps he should speak, then one of my Back-Benchers, then a noble Lord from the Cross-Benches and then I rather hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will have a chance to wind up the debate.
Lord Harvington: My Lords, I believe that I am the only Member who has confessed that at 88 he is the child of a broken marriage. No one can help marriages breaking down, certainly not a babe as I was. I never saw my father. My mother and my aunt brought me up. I have missed so much in life through not having a father, so whenever I hear of anyone getting married I look to see whether the man will make a good father, and that there is a decent age gap between them. There was only two years between my wife and myself. We had the usual problems through doing things rather quickly.
The faith we have in the vow we took has always stood us in good stead. What we in the House should be trying to do, more than we are doing today, is to bring it home to everyone that it is the vow that counts. We make the vow, and we mean to keep it. People nowadays take vows, but they do not know what they are doing. We should be addressing ourselves to the philosophy and theology of marriage to make people realise that when they make a solemn vow before almighty God they will stay together:
"for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health … till death us do part",
they should try their best to keep that vow.
No one wishes to be downright cruel to anyone. The law is not beyond being able to devise some way to make things fair for any children and for each one of the partners. We stress too much the break-up of a marriage, and the Bill will tend to make marriages even shorter. It grieves me greatly that I should find myself to be not in accord with my noble and learned friend the
1660
Lord Chancellor, whom no one admires more than I do from my humble position as a once briefed, once called barrister of about 50 years.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I apologise if I caused some confusion by rising to ask the noble Earl a question before he sat down. I caused confusion because other noble Lords were rising to speak at that moment, and I apologise to them. The noble Earl said that if we, in effect, deny divorce to someone who wants to be divorced, the parties will merely live separately, with the undesirable result that they will be living in an irregular union and possibly producing illegitimate children. That is precisely what has happened.
As we have loosened the ties of marriage and made divorce easier and easier, we have not reduced illegitimacy. As the rate of divorce has gone up, so the rate of marriage has gone down, so the rate of single parentage has gone up, so the rate of illegitimacy has gone up. For good measure, what has gone down is church-going in the established Churches. That is the first point I was going to put to the noble Earl.
The second relates to the argument about fault on both sides. In any break-up of a marriage, indeed in any subsistence of a marriage, there is likely to be fault on both sides, because on both sides there are human beings and not saints. However, it does not follow from that that it is a case of six of one and half a dozen of the other. My experience as a matrimonial judge is that in the overwhelming majority of cases there was a preponderance of fault on one side even if the other side was not completely blameless.
I have one final point. It has been put starkly that a good divorce is better than a had marriage. Once again, that is looking at the problem as if the only two people concerned are husband and wife. It leaves out of account the children to whom the parents should have a sense of responsibility. If they do, the flame of passion of the early years of marriage may subside to form a warm glow of companionship and a sense of responsibility in the parents one to the other and both to their children.
As I have drawn upon personal experience, perhaps I may recall one of the things that made my parliamentary career delightful. It was in the small industrial town of Thornahy-on-Tees. An active supporter of mine was a widow in modest circumstances. She said to me, "Of course my husband and I used to quarrel from time to time like most married people, but we never went to sleep without having made it up".
We discussed the sense of responsibility of the husband and wife to each other and to the promises that they made much too readily. The truth is that she was sustained partly by what she felt to be right, partly by the fact that she had made promises which she ought to keep and mostly because the focal atmosphere in that place, which was predominantly but not exclusively that of the dissenting Churches, was strongly in favour of the maintenance of marriage and against its facile divorce at the first sign of real trouble in the marriage.
For those three reasons there is a great deal to be said for the noble Baroness's proposal. Some of the arguments that we have heard against it have been all

1661
too reminiscent of the facile optimism that we had during the 1969 debate. Happily, in respect of this Bill, nobody has committed the vulgarism that was then committed, of saying that it was a kiss-and-make-up Bill. But short of that, many of the speeches against the amendment tonight have given that impression.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I hope —
Noble Lords: The Lord Chancellor!
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I feel that I am interrupting this debate rather more than I should. I wonder whether my noble friend Lord Elton could speak and then the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in the light of that reception I shall be exceedingly brief. My noble friend Baroness Young said that law affects behaviour. The noble Lord, Lord Jakohovitz, nicely demonstrated that it is not secular but religious law which affects behaviour. If your Lordships believe that you will preserve real marriage by legislation you are mistaken. You may preserve marriages in which there is conflict.
In Committee and on Second Reading much was made about the Exeter Report, which stated that beyond doubt it was better to be in a bad marriage than a good divorce. That report was based on a survey of 476 children. However, the report of Amato and Keith, published in 1991, dealt with 13,000 children and came to precisely the opposite conclusion. I hope that your Lordships will bear that in mind. I have the quotations in front of me but I shall not delay the House by quoting them.
Five years is half the life experience of a 10 year-old child. I invite my noble friend Lady Young to consider half of her life and imagine how it must be for a child who is doing the same. A fortiori the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, it must seem almost centuries for a child. It follows that the process of divorce, which is painful, should not be extended and that children should not be drawn into conflict. My noble friend's amendment is a recipe for promoting conflict by having fault proved in court. The children will become involved in that and will be damaged.
I dislike taking part in such debates, having myself suffered a divorce. I have always said that there is no such thing as an "unguilty" party in a divorce but that there are measures of guilt. I am pleased to say that that is reflected in the amendment to Section 25 of the previous Act. I hope that when voting your Lordships will remember the children, because you have an opportunity either to extend or to reduce their suffering.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, I see the time and I shall be as brief as possible. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, has argued in favour of the retention of fault in divorce proceedings in its present form. I believe that she has raised an important point which Parliament has not hitherto debated in full.
1662
We have heard what those in the Church have had to say and we know what many of us who were married in church said in front of God. In the civil register office the words are repeated, "I do solemnly declare". As that declaration is made civilly, I wonder how solemnly the parties make that oath in their own eyes and in the eyes of the law, and how binding and long term is that commitment, that contract. Are these commitments to be regarded as genuinely and sincerely entered into, or are they to be regarded as empty phrases uttered without sincerity or honesty? A breach of these undertakings can be regarded as a serious matter or as a matter of little importance.
If we wish to avoid the charge of encouraging dishonesty on the part of those who enter into the commitment of marriage we cannot but retain at least some notion of disapproval if these commitments are flagrantly dishonoured. That is the concept of fault, in effect. We have a responsibility to future generations. We must set an example. We will not achieve that by saying that the easiest way is the best. It is easy for us, most of whom enjoyed the benefit of having two married natural parents, to deny that to the next generation in a cavalier fashion by jettisoning any concepts of fault and responsibility.
No-fault divorce has led to a rise in the divorce rate. In many cases it has resulted in the alienation of one of the parents from the children. It has led to greater post-divorce poverty for one party, often for both. It has led to greater litigation on financial matters. Tragically, it has been linked with an increase in teenage suicides and teenage psychiatric admissions. Those are not the observations of some jaundiced Jeremiah. That information comes from a leading feminist writer, Mrs. Weitzman, in her hook The Divorce Revolution, published in 1985. We have also heard similar sentiments expressed by Mrs. Hilary Clinton.
What is more, in Northern Ireland the same law applies as in England and Wales. Yet there is only one-quarter of the divorce rate. A court appearance is still required and there is no special procedure. Fault-based divorce can be and is being made to work in the Province and there is no clamour for change. A well-known commentator, Janet Daley, stated recently in the Daily Telegraph:
"The reason that the State can require you to account for yourself when breaking up a marriage is precisely because you have made an undertaking not just to each other but to the rest of us as well".
She also stated that those who defend no fault say:
"It will help to reduce recrimination and unpleasantness in the dissolving of marriages, as if recrimination —the casting of blame —was always a bad thing".
Your Lordships have heard many facts and statistics and therefore I shall complete what I have to say as quickly as possible —
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, children are damaged by marital conflict, as no one would deny. The Exeter Family Study showed that and clearly stated that children are damaged by the splitting up of the family home rather than by people being unpleasant to one

1663
another while staying in one particular place. Abolishing fault denies the existence of marital responsibility. It empties the marital promises of any value. It demolishes justice by saying, in effect, "We don't care that you have gone back on your obligations". We do not wish to do that in any other area of the law, and we should not do so in our divorce law.
It is not the concept of fault which results in quickie divorces. It is the short time period in which they can be obtained. If we wish to eliminate quickie divorces, we should get rid of the quickie element. That is a matter of common logic. The introduction of a sacrosanct 12-month or 18-month period eliminates the danger of quickie divorces. The elimination of fault is irrelevant to the ending of quickie divorces. Fast infidelity is a quickie divorce. Infidelity to truth destroys dignity and destroys the divinity of marriage. I support the noble Baroness's amendment.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords —
Noble Lords: The Lord Chancellor.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I am in the hands of the House.
Noble Lords: The Lord Chancellor.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, we have had a full debate on these extremely important amendments which were moved so ably by my noble friend Lady Young. It is right for me to begin by saying that I believe that we share exactly the same objectives in relation to marriage. If we had our way, there would be no divorce at all, or no separations, because we must remember that there are separations and divorces. It is really when the household separates and the father and mother go their separate ways that damage is generally done to the children.
I started life at the Bar at a time in Scotland when divorce was based entirely on fault. I must say that those divorces based entirely on fault did absolutely nothing for the institution of marriage. I must make the point also that from time to time the Bill has been described as a no-fault Bill. That does no justice to these proposals.
I recognise —and I am sure everyone recognises —that there are situations in which the conduct of married people has relevance. That is particularly so in relation to the consequences of breakdown. The two principal areas where those matters are relevant are in relation to the distribution of property and the arrangements for children. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, for pointing out that I have made explicit the reference to conduct in relation to children as a result of your Lordships' discussions in Committee. But fundamental also to the distribution of property on divorce is the law that requires the court to take account of the conduct of the parties when it would be inequitable to disregard it.
When there is a divorce, those elements are affected by the conduct of the parties. There is no question of seeking to eliminate those elements from the provisions. But those are situations in which it is necessary to have regard to conduct for the purpose of doing justice between the parties.
1664
Here we are dealing with a question of what the ground should be on which the divorce order itself is made. There is no connection whatever between the grounds on which the order is made and whether or not conduct may be relevant to questions in connection with children or the distribution of property. A person may be divorced on the ground of unreasonable behaviour and that unreasonable behaviour may be of no significance at all in the context of property distribution. Equally, persons may be divorced on the ground of a five-year separation but conduct may still be relevant in relation to the distribution of their property.
In that connection, I wish to mention something that has been said about facing up to what has taken place in the marriage. I agree entirely that that is absolutely appropriate. Therefore, I was particularly interested in a joint statement issued this month by National Family Mediation and the Family Mediators Association which stated:
"Mediation offers couples an opportunity to communicate face-to-face at a time of stress and discontinuity in their personal relationship. Mediators are accustomed to meeting couples at the most bitter point in the divorce process. It is rare that both partners agree to the marriage being ended, and they often disagree about the circumstances leading to the breakdown. As a result they feel highly, and often justifiably, resentful and critical of each other.
The focus in mediation is on the future, and thus disputes are explored with the aim of reaching consensual agreements. Nevertheless, mediators recognise that these disputes are likely to be influenced and shaped by the past: hurts, wrongs and 'faults' often need to be addressed. A parting couple can rarely move on to reach carefully considered decisions without doing so. Mediation is unique in giving the partners a controlled opportunity to state the underlying issues of fault and blame to each other".
I believe that the words "to each other" are quite important. It goes on:
"During mediation each partner can gain an understanding and appreciation of the other's feelings, anxieties and expectations".
The important matter that I wish to draw to your Lordships' attention is that under this amendment, fault, conduct, will be relevant for one purpose and one purpose only; that is, the length of time that must expire before the divorce is granted. If there is no fault and people have been living apart for five years with no allegations made against their conduct, they must wait for five years. They cannot remarry for five years if there is no fault. On the other hand, if you are at fault, you can remarry immediately. There is of course a year, but there is a year for everybody. But if the divorce is on the ground of separation, that involves a wait of one year plus five years, thus making six years.
What kind of message does that send? What kind of stigma does that attach to fault? It says that a person in fault can remarry immediately whereas the person who is without fault and has had to wait for five years cannot marry until that period has expired. If there is a way of devaluing fault and destroying the stigma which might attach to it, I cannot think of a better way than that.
It has been suggested that fault in some way has a restraining influence on the rise in divorce. We do not need to go to the United States or to propaganda issued on behalf of various groups within the United States because we can see what has happened here at home. Since 1972, the number of divorces relying on the

1665
grounds of two or five-year separations has remained fairly constant. In fact, it has fallen from over 47,000 in 1972 to under 44,000 in 1993. As we all know, the number of divorces has risen considerably in that period and the rise has come almost totally in cases where either adultery or behaviour is relied upon in order to obtain a speedy divorce. That is preserved by this amendment because one must wait five years unless there is fault.
Allegations of fault which are exaggerated and generally uncorroborated lead to bitterness and resentment. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford gave us a moving example of that. A missive of that kind coming to a husband is likely to destroy every vestige of the possibility of reconciliation or good feeling. I cannot think of a better way of annihilating completely the opportunity for reconciliation.
As I said, every breakdown of marriage is sad and damaging. Everything that we can possibly do to prevent that should be done. I believe that in taking solemn vows the parties have that responsibility and nothing proposed in this Bill in any way undermines that.
However, what I do say is that when a marriage has broken down and when it is to be determined by divorce it is of the utmost importance that everything we can do should be done to preserve the relationships between both parents and their children. My noble friend Lady Elles very movingly at the last day of the previous stage pointed out the experience that had been found in Newcastle where so many children had completely lost contact with their fathers as a result of divorce.
The evidence is that that is more likely to happen where a divorce is founded on unreasonable behaviour than on any other ground. If we are anxious for our children and for the children who may be the victims of a divorce, we should do our best to eliminate unnecessary allegations one against the other, when the only purpose of the allegations is to get the divorce more quickly than otherwise would be the case.
Noble Lords have referred to "quickie divorce", whatever that expression means; but in the context of this amendment it means that you can get a divorce in considerably less than five years if you allege fault. We have had a very full debate, and I believe the issues are very clearly before your Lordships.
I should just mention, because it was mentioned by my noble friend in opening, the findings of the MORI poll which we conducted. It was of course referred to in the White Paper which I published in connection with the Second Reading of the Bill. One of the findings of the poll was of considerable importance to me: that 69 per cent. of the general public and 66 per cent. of the divorced public were in favour of a change in the law so that divorce could be obtained only on the basis of a period of time. Therefore, by definition, this cannot be regarded as being divorce on demand. I believe that when divorce on demand was referred to they were thinking of a consensual divorce which did not have any period laid down in it at all.
1666
These are difficult and important issues. They are issues which your Lordships have had laid fully before you. Conduct is relevant in divorce but it should not be relevant, in my submission, to obtaining the order. In this amendment, conduct is glorified by allowing divorce more quickly on those grounds. As I have said, in that sense a quickie divorce is enshrined in this amendment. The number of divorce proceedings have increased in recent years where they relate to conduct; in other words, the increase in divorce in recent years has been on the basis of fault and not on any other basis. Once allegations are forced to be made, as under this amendment, which would otherwise be unnecessary, in my submission any hope of salvaging the marriage is destroyed. Fault in divorce is not a restraining influence on misconduct, and certainly is not of benefit to the children.
This is an entirely free vote. It is clearly a matter of conscience and I hope that your Lordships will feel, in the light of your individual consciences, that this amendment should not be supported.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to start by thanking all those who have supported me this evening. I am particularly grateful for the very kind remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart and Lord Stallard, for whose unstinting support throughout these long discussions I have been extremely thankful. I am also very grateful for the support I have received from the Cross-Benches.
This is not an easy issue for me to take up. I find myself in the astonishing position, the surprising position, of arguing a case of morality against the bishops of the Church to which I belong, and I do not enjoy it. I find myself also having to take up legal issues with lawyers who are far better qualified than myself. I am in that unenviable position of fighting a battle on two fronts—
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I am so sorry to interrupt, but may I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Young, whether she thinks it is quite fair to suggest that she herself has the moral high ground in this debate?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think that that is a very unfair statement. I have never pretended, whether in your Lordships' House or outside it, that I have the moral high ground. But what I have tried to do is to stand up for what I believe, and I will stand up for it in this House and outside. Whatever the outcome of the vote tonight may be, I hope nobody will be under the illusion that the issue of fault will go away. This is the beginning of the argument; not the end.
I now turn in detail to answer some of the very important points that have been raised, perhaps very well put by the noble Lord, Lord Habgood. He questioned the Australian figures, but I think this point was well answered by my noble friend Lady Elles. I can only say to the noble Lord, Lord Habgood, that the figures I quoted arrived only last week from a professor of law in the University of Sydney. They show quite conclusively that the number of divorces in Australia has doubled since "no fault" was introduced. No one —

1667
but no one —in favour of the present Bill has in any way answered the actual facts of what is happening in other countries, including Australia and America.
I now turn to a very important point which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Ryder, who said that she thought marriage was a sacrament. When my husband and I married we thought it was a sacrament, and when my children married they believed it was a sacrament. How can you call marriage a sacrament if, when you break your vows, it is not a fault? I find that a most extraordinary statement, and one to which I have not had a satisfactory answer.
The noble Lord, Lord Habgood, said that much hardship could be avoided by what is called the hardship bar, which is referred to in Clause 9. I hope that when we come to debate that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will explain how this will work. The fact is that it has not worked in regard to the 1969 Act. There has been only one case where it has been used and I hope very much that this will not be the case in the future. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has put down important amendments and they will be debated when the time arrives. However, to rely on it until we have those assurances seems to me to be very difficult.
May I say how grateful I was for the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits. I was most moved by what he had to say and I would like to say to him that in the course of a great deal of consideration of this Bill over the last weeks I have been immensely strengthened by reading the moving book by Jonathan Sacks, Faith in the Future. I would recommend any of your Lordships who are interested in this subject just to read the chapter on the family, even if you do not read anything else. It is beautifully written, beautifully said, and it raises a very great ideal to put before us all.
I am very sorry to have to disagree so completely with my noble friend Lady Carnegy, with whom I am nearly always in agreement. She is very fortunate: she lives in Scotland so this Bill will not apply to her at all. And of course the Scots are going to keep the concept of "fault", so perhaps she is doubly fortunate. May I say that when she spoke so movingly about the Children Act, that is just what does not apply under this Bill. We had a debate only last week on the very point that the needs of the children would be paramount. It was decided that that would not apply because it would put a veto by children on divorce. In fact, it is going to be changed. It is only by the strenuous efforts of my noble friend Lady Elles that we now have a number of amendments which take into consideration the needs of children.
A great many legal arguments have been raised by those who are experienced in the divorce courts. I am thankful to say I have never had that experience and I do not pretend to be able to argue in terms of equality. However, I am reliably informed —and I have taken advice from a number of leading lawyers —that, on the question of acrimony, acrimony does not arise from the divorce but almost always from the endless conversations about the distribution of property, assets
1668
and all of that. That is what causes the acrimony. It is not the divorce at all. Indeed, it is quite wrong to suggest that.
Two misleading arguments have been put forward about the amendment during the course of our debate. First, of course the Bill allows divorce by mutual consent after a year. One should make that point quite clear. But on the question of a five-year wait —that is, when one spouse does not want to divorce —why should the wife or the husband who may perhaps, unfortunately, still love the other spouse not be allowed to have plenty of time in the hope that the couple may get together again? It is quite wrong to say that that would just mean five years of acrimony. I believe that we should be greatly concerned about the person who is being divorced against his or her wishes. That is what can happen under the Bill at the end of a year without any reason being given at all.
I turn now to deal with the arguments put forward by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. I like to believe that both of us share objectives about marriage. I would not have entered into the debate at all if I did not believe that the most serious fact of life today is the great breakdown of marriage and the damage that that is doing to the fabric of our society. Whatever the evidence may be, we know from research about the devastating consequences of divorce on children. It is quite extraordinary when we pride ourselves on our thought for children and on our good social legislation that we can accept the cruelty of divorce over and over again.
Some of my noble friends have spoken of the effects of divorce which they carry with them still; indeed, I believe that that goes on throughout the lives of people whose parents have sadly divorced. We have come to accept that fact because we believe that the most important thing is the happiness of the parents. I do not think that that is a very good moral stand myself, but that is actually what has been said in the very pragmatic arguments that have been put forward today against no fault. In fact, what we are saying is, "This is what life is. If parents do not get on then they are free, in a free society, to live the lives that they want". However, they forget that they have obligations to their children which continue for the rest of their lives. That is not a very good message either.
I realise that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor believes that mediation will be very helpful. I have no doubt that, where people are prepared to go to mediation, it will be helpful. But no one can be made to go to those sessions. Therefore, we are still left with those who do not wish to go to mediation suffering. As a postscript, I should add that there is very considerable evidence to show that women come off worse in mediation than men. That, too, is something to be borne in mind. However, my noble and learned friend and I both believe in reconciliation. That is why I have also tabled an amendment on that very point.
We have had a long debate. I shall not continue it today, save to say that we are discussing a most important issue for society. It will send out a signal. It is not true, as my noble friend Lord Elton said, that law

1669
does not affect behaviour; indeed, as I said earlier, we have endless instances of recently passed legislation on gender, race and disability to show that law does affect behaviour and the culture of society. We need to consider not the minutiae of what happens in court on the issue: we need to consider the message which we give out; namely, that breaking a promise does not matter. I believe that to be a bad message and I wish to test the opinion of the House on the issue.
7.47 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 11) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 65; Not-Contents, 118.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Holdemess, L.

Aldington. L.

Hooper. B.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare.L.

Howell. L.

Ashboume. L.

Iddesleigh. E.

Belhaven and Stenton. L.

Jakobovits . L.

Blaker, L.

Kilhraeken, L.

Boardman. L.

Lauderdale, E.

Bridgeman. V.

London. Bp.

Broadbridge, L.

Longford. E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Massereene and Ferrard. V.

Butterfield. L.

Milner of Leeds. L.

Clanwilliam. E.

Monckton of Brenchley. V.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Monk Bretton. L.

Clifford of Chudleigh. L.

Monson. L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe. L.

Montrose. D.

Coleraine, L.

Moran, L.

Craigmyle. L.

Mowbray and Stourton. L.

Cross, V.

Napier and Ettnck. L.

Ellenborough, L.

O'Cathain. B.

Elles, B.

Pearson of Rannoch. L

Enroll. E.

Pender, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Pender, L.

Feversham, L.

Pender, L.

Fitt, L.

Platt of Wattle. B.

Gainstborough. E.

Rankeillour. L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Robertson of Oakridgc. L.

Griffiths of Frnrestfach. L.

Ryder of Warsaw. B.

Halsbury, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy. Ly.

Hamilton Of Dalzell. L.

Simon of Glaisdale. L.

Harding of Petherton. L.

Stallard, L. [Teller.].

Harris of High Cross, L.

Stoddart of Swindon. L.

Harvington, L.

Taylor of Blackburn. L.

Wilberforce, L.

Young. B. [Teller]

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton. L.

Butterworth, L.

Addington, L.

Cannichacl of Kelvingrove. L.

Addison. V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Camock. L.

Ampthill. L.

Chesham. L.[Teller]

Archer of Sandwell. L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Barber, L.

Coleridge, L.

Berkeley, L.

Courtown, E.

Birkett, L.

Craigavon, V.

Bowness, L.

Cranbome. V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Braine of Wheatley. L.

Cumberlege, B.

Brentford, V.

Darcy (dc Knayth). B.

Brightman L.

David, B.

Browne-Wilkinson, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Burnham. L.

Denham. L.

1670

Denton of Wakefield, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Dixon-Smith. L.

McGregor of Durres, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Drogheda, E.

Mackay of Clashfem, L. [Lond Chancellor.]

Eden of Winton, L.

Elis-Thomas. L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Elton, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Faithfull, B.

McNair, L.

Falkland, V.

Marsh, L

Freyberg, L.

Meston, L.

Geraint, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Monkswell, L.

Gladwin of Clee. L.

Montgomery of Alamein. V.

Goschcn. V.

Mountevans, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Nicol, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Norfolk. D.

Grey. E.

Northesk. E.

Habgood, L.

Oxford, Bp.

Hamwce. B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Hardwicke, E.

Rea. L.

Harlech, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Hannsworth, L.

Runcie. L.

Harris of Greenwich. L.

Runciman of Doxford, V.

Harrowby, E.

Russell. E.

Henley, L.

Seear, B.

Hilton of Eggardon. B.

Scrota. B.

Hoffmann. L.

Shaw of Northstead. L.

Howe, E.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Hylton. L.

Stedman, B.

Hylton-Foster. B.

Strafford, E.

Inglewood. L.

Strathclyde. L. [Teller.]

Irvine of Lairg. L.

Suffield. L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Teviot. L.

Jeffreys, L.

Thomas of Gwydir. L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Thomas of Walliswood. B.

Jenkins of Putney. L.

Tope. L.

Judd, L.

Trumpington,B

Lawrence. L.

Wallace of Saltaire. L.

Lester of Herne Hill. L.

Walpole, L.

Lichfield. Bp.

Warnock. B.

Lindsay, E.

Weddcrbum of Charlton, L

Long, V.

Wilcox, B.

Lucas. L.

Wolfson. L.

Lyell, L.

Worcester. Bp.

Young of Darlington, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.53 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration of the Report Stage of this Bill he adjourned until five minutes before nine o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Health Service Commissioners (Amendment) Bill
7.54 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee. —(Baroness Cumberlege.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Providers to be subject to investigation]:
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 14, at end insert ("or to purchase or commission health services for the population of any Health Authority Area.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. I welcome the Committee to the uncontroversial subject of the National Health Service!
The purpose of Amendment No. 1 is to fill a gap in the health service commissioners' remit so that the activities of local purchasers, or—as they are often called today—commissioners of health services, can be included. At the moment it appears that only providers of health services fall strictly under the commissioners' responsibility. As Members of the Committee will know only too well, in the new organisation of the NHS, a "provider" has a specific meaning. I hardly need tell the Committee that providers are those who directly give services to patients, whether the providers arc family doctors, community services or hospitals.
Those who purchase or commission the services may be GP fundholders, but are also important local health commissioning agencies, or—as they will be under the new arrangements from April 1996—unitary health authorities embracing both the old DHAs and the old FHSAs. They are, and will be, responsible for funding and assessing the health needs of populations. They were described in the original legislation as the "people's champions" and they arc the bodies with the ultimate responsibility for health in each area. This responsibility will become even more important once the statutory regional authorities—the next tier of health authorities which have existed—disappear at the end of next month. I hope the Minister will agree that it is therefore important that they are specifically and explicitly included in the extended powers of the health service commissioners proposed under this Bill.
Decisions about purchasing can have a profound effect on services and care. Purchasing is about choosing priorities for care within finite resources. If, for example, a local purchasing authority makes a decision only to have one MRI scanner within its statutory area, although it may have three provider trusts—three hospitals—that would affect the level of care on offer in that particular health authority's area. If a patient felt that he or she had suffered and wished to make a complaint because an MRI scan was not immediately available as a result of a purchasing decision that only one scanner would be available within that authority, in my opinion, that complaint would surely he more properly directed towards the purchasing authority rather than the provider health trust, which would house the scanner and directly provide care. Yet, as I understand it, the Bill does not explicitly allow for complaints against those purchasing authorities.
Further, as has happened recently, a purchasing authority may decide not to commission any services at all in a particular clinical field. The example is often given—I think correctly—of IVF treatment being
1672
limited to a few specific age groups and a few specific cycles of treatment. Presumably, in those circumstances, an aggrieved woman who sought this treatment should be able to make a complaint. This would be a complaint about a lack of care, rather than a failure of care and would fall—if this amendment were accepted—under the ombudsman's remit. It is important that the activities of purchasing authorities are specifically included on the face of the Bill, particularly as I believe they will increasingly have to take hard decisions about priorities and levels of treatment to be provided in their specific areas. I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege: As I understand it, these amendments are aimed at ensuring that employees of health authorities are covered by the ombudsman's remit. We do not believe there is a need for this amendment. The existing legislation governing the ombudsman already ensures that any health authority employee, and any decision or action taken by or on behalf of a health authority, can fall within the commissioner's remit. Section 7 of the 1993 Act specifically provides that the commissioner may conduct an investigation into matters relating to either NHS contracts, or contracts with the independent sector made by health authorities, boards and trusts.
I can understand that, despite assurances given by my honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place, the noble Baroness may still be concerned that the ombudsman is somehow prevented from investigating decisions by managers, and in particular purchasing decisions. I can assure her that the ombudsman can and does investigate such decisions, provided, of course, the complaint falls within his general remit. For example, he has upheld complaints against health authorities for failing to provide a service which it was the duty of the health authority to provide, such as failure to provide continuing care.
The Bill will also enable the ombudsman to investigate any clinical decisions involved in purchasing services. It will also bring GP fundholders and their purchasing decisions within his remit for the first time.
I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, that we have left no stone unturned in ensuring that the Bill, together with the existing legislation, allows the commissioner to investigate complaints about all NHS services and about purchasing decisions. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will see fit to withdraw the amendment.
8 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. It is an important form of reassurance. Nonetheless, although I understand that much of the commissioner's activities depends on case law and that complaints have been upheld in this area, my concern remains that where there is an amendment to the basic legislation, as intended with this Bill, it would be appropriate to try to make it as specific as possible.
The anxiety that I tried to express in moving the amendment is that, as decisions about prioritising resources become more and more difficult and

1673
prioritisation in itself affects clinical provision and care at every level, there may well be difficulties about where the complainant should go with his or her complaint about what he or she may perceive as a rationing decision which has had an impact on the care and Treatment received.
I would be happier if it were made specific on the face of the Bill that care and treatment under the NHS also include purchasing decisions by commissioning authorities. However, given the clear reassurances from the noble Baroness, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.]
Clause I agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Availability of other remedy]:
Baroness Robson of Kiddington Baroness Robson of Kiddington moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 4. line 18, leave out from beginning to ("after) and insert—
("(1) Section 4 of the 1993 Act (availability of other remedy) shall be amended as follows.
(2) Subsection (1)(b) shall be omitted.
(3)").
The noble Baroness said: The Minister will remember that at Second Reading the whole House welcomed the powers given to the Health Service Commissioner to inquire into clinical judgments. Amendment No. 4 removes Section 4(1) of the 1993 Act, which at present prevents the commissioner from conducting an investigation if the complainant has or had a remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law. Therefore, if the complainant has the possibility of taking legal proceedings, the commissioner will now face no statutory bar to undertaking an investigation. Particularly in cases concerning clinical judgments, there will often be more than one route for redress. However, there is a problem as the Bill stands at present.
I recognise that one of the main aims of extending the commissioner's powers to cover clinical judgment is to ensure that there is less litigation. We welcome the fact that complainants will no longer be forced to go to the courts through lack of options, or be denied access because of the cost of seeking that remedy. However, complainants who want an investigation by the commissioner and also want to seek damages should not be prevented from so doing. The commissioner himself, in his consultation on the extension of his powers, recognised that legal proceedings provide no assurance That any action will be taken to prevent a recurrence of the matter complained about, whereas his investigation can give such an assurance. On the other hand, he cannot award damages. Therefore, the outcome of those two routes is quite different, and often the complainant would like to sec them both implemented. In addition, the complainant may not be certain about the outcome he is seeking.
Research has shown that most patients, when they begin legal action or apply to the health service commissioner for an investigation, are mainly looking
1674
for an apology and want to find out what happened and why it happened and, above all, they want assurances that it will not happen again to any other patient. That may well have been their very first concern. Financial considerations can be a secondary concern. However, at present under the Bill the patient is in an either/or situation, because the commissioner cannot ensure that they receive compensation and the courts cannot ensure that there is redress and that the problem complained of will not happen again.
Secondly, on many occasions it will be difficult for the patient to know whether to opt for legal action in a court. In clinical judgment cases it may often take some time before it becomes clear that there is a case for compensation to be answered in court. Complications resulting from treatment can sometimes take six months or up to a year to manifest themselves. However, a complainant is expected to undertake not to pursue legal action after the commissioner has investigated. Therefore, the complainant has lost his opportunity to go to the courts. I believe that that is not fair.
I hope that the Minister will be able to meet my anxieties on this question and agree to the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege: I understand what the noble Baroness seeks to achieve with the amendment. However, we believe that the amendment goes far beyond the scope of the Bill. It also raises radical questions about the role of the ombudsman in relation to the courts, bringing his health service remit out of line with his parliamentary one. It would seriously undermine the whole objective of the reformed complaints system, which I know the noble Baroness strongly supports, to ensure that complainants are dealt with openly and honestly while being scrupulously fair to the professionals and staff concerned.
The amendment would revoke the provision in the 1993 Act which ensures that the commissioner's role does not usurp the role of the courts. The commissioner is prevented from investigating a complaint where the person has a remedy which could be pursued through the courts, except if the commissioner is satisfied that it is unreasonable to expect the person to resort to the courts. The commissioner's role is not and never has been to determine questions of clinical negligence or to give complainants damages. That is for the courts to decide. His role is and always has been distinct from that of the courts.
What the commissioner can offer is an investigation and explanation of the facts, recommendations for an apology to be made and for matters to be put right both for the complainant and for other patients. We know that that is what the vast majority of complainants warn to achieve, as the noble Baroness said. We hope that the Bill will help some people who otherwise might have felt that the only way to achieve that is through an expensive and stressful legal process. However, the Bill should help to reduce the incentive to resort to litigation.
The commissioner's paper makes it clear that in deciding whether to investigate a case which could have gone to court, he will carefully consider what the complainant seeks to achieve. Where the complainant's

1675
primary concern is to obtain damages, or there is evidence that he is already seeking or considering a legal remedy, he will be unlikely to investigate. It would be quite wrong for people to embark on fishing expeditions and to use the process as a means of trying to build up a case for seeking damages in the courts.
If complainants could have an ombudsman investigation at the same time as taking legal proceedings, the professionals and staff concerned could be put in the impossible position of having to respond to an ombudsman's investigation at the same time as defending themselves against legal proceedings.
I hope that in the light of what I have said, the noble Baroness will not seek to press the amendment.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: I understand the problem with my proposition. However, it seems to me such a tragedy because I know that in most cases, even when a case goes to court, the complainant desperately wants to prevent the same thing happening to someone else. We ought to be able to devise a system whereby that can be achieved. I may be mistaken in thinking that it can be achieved through the health service commissioner. Perhaps the system of judgment in a court case should include a remedy and recommendations to the institution. I am not quite sure which way to deal with the issue. However, for today, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 4, line 32, at end insert (", or
( ) a complainant has elected to refer the action to a Commissioner with a request for investigation before the other procedure is exhausted.").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of the amendment is to give health service complainants the opportunity to refer their concerns to the ombudsman before the earlier complaints procedure has been exhausted. I imagine, indeed I hope, that those would be in exceptional circumstances.
In his extremely helpful paper on his new responsibilities, the commissioner says that he will not normally investigate a complaint until NHS procedures have been exhausted. We all hope that those procedures will go smoothly, with everyone involved happy that the complaint is being considered at the first and second stages on the famous level playing field. Indeed, we would hope that most complaints would be satisfactorily resolved during those local proceedings and would never reach the ombudsman's desk.
However, it seems at least theoretically possible that there will be occasions when a complainant feels that his or her case is not being totally fairly treated: that perhaps because of a history of personal antagonism, the position is being distorted or inadequately represented. We perhaps can all think of situations in which a particularly had personal relationship, possibly between a doctor and a longstanding "difficult" patient, might lead to the difficult patient feeling that somehow his case was not being appropriately advocated. That
1676
potential suspicion is increased by the fact that in the early parts of the complaints procedure the whole process will be in the internal hands of some of the trusts and some of the health service managers who could, in the worst circumstances, be accused of possible collusion with local clinicians and their own colleagues.
The third possibility of concern for the complainant is a potentially difficult and longstanding delay in procedures which in the worst circumstances could be construed as deliberate, leading to a legitimate complaint and a wish on the part of the complainant to accelerate the procedures towards the ombudsman.
In his paper, the commissioner says that he is prepared to act on his own discretion where there are instances of what are described as "unreasonableness". However, as so often in the Bill, there is difficulty about precisely what constitutes "unreasonableness". The amendment gives the discretion, the choice, to the complainant, where I feel that it should surely lie. The amendment would not make it necessary for the ombudsman to investigate every case which might be referred earlier in the complaints procedure. It would simply allow the complainant to choose that route if or she so wished.
I remind the Committee that this proposal was included in the original Wilson Report on which the Government's reform of the complaints procedure has been based.
At Second Reading, I quoted from the 1993 report of the Select Committee for the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration which stated:
"'The complaints system in the NHS seems designed for the convenience of providers of the service rather than complainants"'.—[Official Report. 12/2/96: col. 485.]
At Second Reading the Minister agreed with me that there were aspects of the present system which could be described as an unfriendly maze. Undoubtedly, as all sides of the House agreed at Second Reading, the proposals in the Bill are an important step towards making procedures more accessible and increasing the rights of NHS users when they wish to complain. The amendment simply improves their position still further. I beg to move.
8. 15 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: I support the amendment. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, said, we all know of occasions when there is animosity between a member of the medical profession or staff and the patient going through the complaints procedure. We also know that on those occasions there can often be deliberate, excessive delay. The patient feels that however much we claim to have improved the complaints procedure it will not satisfy him.
I support the amendment because it gives the complainant the right to refer to the commissioner. It does not force the commissioner to investigate, but I am

1677
sure that it would alleviate much of the frustration of some complainants who feel that they are not being properly looked after.
Baroness Cumberlege: The amendment would have the effect of nullifying Clause 5 by allowing a complainant to choose whether or not he should exhaust the local NHS complaints procedures before investigation by the ombudsman. Clause 5 gives the ombudsman discretion to investigate a complaint without the local procedures having been invoked or exhausted. He has to be satisfied that it is not reasonable in the particular circumstances to expect the complainant to have invoked or exhausted them. The ombudsman believes, however, that complainants should normally seek first to resolve their concerns through the local complaints procedures. That is in line with accepted good practice in other parts of the public sector and, for example, in the case of complaints to regulators such as Oftel and Ofwat. In her Citizen's Charter Complaints Task Force report, Lady Wilcox recommended that public services should provide an opportunity for independent review of complaints before they reach the ombudsman. That is precisely what we are seeking to achieve through our reformed NHS complaints procedure. We must give the new system a chance to work properly.
The amendment would remove the ombudsman's discretion and leave it entirely up to the complainant whether or not he exhausted the procedures. We do not believe that to be right or sensible, or indeed fair to NHS staff and professionals. It could cause the ombudsman's office additional operational difficulties.
The ombudsman has given in his paper two examples of cases where he might consider it unreasonable to invoke or exhaust the local procedures: where there has been excessive delay in handling the complaint; or where, in very exceptional circumstances, the complainant's confidence in the local complaints arrangements has completely broken down. There may be other examples. The ombudsman will need to decide each case on its merits. In the light of my remarks I hope that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. There is no potential controversy between us about the need, if possible, to resolve all complaints at the local level, or about our enthusiasm for the extended local procedures which will make that more likely. The concern is precisely that addressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson; namely, where the emphasis lies in terms of who can instigate the exceptional procedures when it is thought that the local situation is not satisfactory. As the Minister mentioned, the two specific examples given by the commissioner relate to excessive delay and to the area of the breaking down of confidence. But that again depends entirely on his judgment and initiative in taking the proposals into his own court.
This amendment may not be in the right position in the Bill. I am sure that the noble Baroness will be able to find a more appropriate section for its inclusion so that it does not annul a provision which I agree with her
1678
is important. But the concern reflected in the amendment is that complainants should be given some rights in instigating those procedures, and some important role, to make them feel that they are at least equal partners in a decision about what may have been a very serious episode in their lives, rather than relying on what I am afraid will appear to be a somewhat remote and distant body, in the form of the health service commissioner's office, to determine precisely at what stage be and his office will enter the proceedings.
I do not feel entirely satisfied with the Minister's reply. Although I understand precisely her points about the inadequacy of the present positioning of this amendment in relation to the Bill, I still feel that, given points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, and myself about the potential difficulty and powerlessness of a complainant faced with the procedures, even under the reformed system, I may need to return to this matter at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Exercise of clinical judgment]:
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 4, line 44, at end insert ("in the course of—

(a) the diagnosis of illness, or

(b) the care or treatment of a patient."").

The noble Baroness said: This is a probing amendment. It is designed to try to clarify and limit those areas that can legitimately be described as "clinical judgment" and be the subject of a complaint about clinical judgment under the extended powers of the ombudsman. I have no doubt in this instance that the wording, or indeed the concept and the placing in the Bill can certainly be improved. However, the purpose at this stage is to ask the Minister to consider the problem of identifying, as it were, ring-fencing the definition of "clinical judgment", which would enable both the complainant and the ombudsman's team to be precise.
I said at Second Reading that I feared it would be very difficult, on the ground, always to distinguish between matters of clinical judgment and maladministration, and difficult for everybody concerned to put complaints and consideration of complaints into the appropriate pigeonhole.
I return to the example of the ever-present—or perhaps never-present—scanning machine. If a doctor makes a diagnosis on the basis of an examination that does not include a scanner because a scanner is not available, and that diagnosis turns out to be disastrously wrong but would have been right had a scan been taken, is the patient to make a complaint about clinical judgment, maladministration, or both?
Equally—as happened in the recently very well publicised case involving the consultant who successfully sued the Daily Mirror for libel—if it is decided clinically that the patient needs an intensive care bed but intensive care is not immediately available, is it legitimate to complain that the clinical judgment about the treatment should have been altered so that the patient

1679
could have been treated in a less intensive way in the local hospital where he was? On the other hand, is it more legitimate to complain about the administrative decisions which may have caused the initial lack of an ITU bed and which indeed subsequently caused the patient to be flown hundreds of miles to another hospital? I suspect that these kinds of case will arise very often. It is clear that many occasions arise when there is a medical emergency in which a very rapid clinical judgment is taken, often in circumstances of extreme stress both to the patient concerned and to the medical staff. In such circumstances clinical judgment will be involved but so also will other issues which could or could not be described as maladministration.
To be fair to the complainants, but also, very importantly, to be fair to the doctors, nurses and any other staff involved in such decisions, we must try at this stage to be more precise about what we call clinical judgment and what we describe as legitimate complaints that fall under that heading.
As the Committee knows, it is an extremely sensitive area of professional practice that the commissioner is entering. The whole area of clinical judgment has always been regarded almost as a matter of holy writ in the medical profession. It is significant that in his useful background paper, to which I have already referred, on his responsibilities, Mr. Reid, the present health service commissioner, does not elaborate at all on this area of what precisely will be deemed to be clinical judgment. He emphasises, rightly I am sure, that he will need significant professional advice to fulfil his new responsibilities in this area.
Certainly, peer group review of complaints of clinical judgment will give confidence to those whose judgment may be complained about and may need to be assessed. Mr. Reid also mentions that he will take account of the balance of judgment in cases where there is perhaps a conflict between those assessing clinical judgment on his behalf. Perhaps the Minister will tell the Committee whether the expectation is that a clearer picture will emerge from the evaluation of the early cases presented to the commissioner about clinical judgment. I feel that we have a parliamentary responsibility to try to give some clear statutory guidance on this new area. I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege: I have considerable sympathy with the aim of this amendment. It seeks to clarify the meaning of the words "clinical judgment" by borrowing words that were used in the 1993 Act to prevent the commissioner from investigating complaints about clinical judgment.
I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, that there are no sinister intentions behind the fact that the parliamentary draftsman has not used those words to limit the meaning of the term "clinical judgment" in Clause 6 of the Bill. The drafting is in fact aimed at making the intention of the Bill clearer. In order to specify decisions that arise from the exercise of clinical judgment, it is not necessary to use all the words that were used in Section 5 of the 1993 Act. The words,
"in consequence of the exercise of clinical judgment",
1680
are quite sufficient to define what is meant.
The amendment would bring us no nearer to a definition of the concept of clinical judgment. It would simply limit the circumstances in which clinical judgment could be said to be exercised. I assure the noble Baroness that the intention of Clause 6 is to cover clinical judgment when it is exercised in the course of a diagnosis of illness or the care and treatment of a patient. But the addition of those words to the drafting of the clause would risk confining, unhelpfully, the circumstances in which clinical judgment can be held to be exercised.
For example, a complaint might be made about the refusal by a health professional to release a part of a person's health records because it contained information which, in the opinion of that professional, was likely to cause serious harm to the patient or any other individual. In such a case, the health professional would have exercised clinical judgment in deciding not to release that part of the record. But it could be argued by a person seeking to challenge the ombudsman's investigation that that judgment was not exercised in the course of the diagnosis of illness or the care or treatment of the patient.
The concept of clinical judgment has not been defined in any of the legislation governing the powers of the health service commissioner. It is, rather like maladministration, a developing concept. It will be for the commissioner to decide, with advice from his professional advisers, whether and which aspects of any given complaint concern clinical judgment. However, a working definition which my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State offered during the passage of the Bill in another place is a judgment which a member of one of the health care professions exercises by virtue of the particular expertise and training of his or her profession and which a lay person would not be able to make.
The vast majority of complaints about the exercise of clinical judgment are likely to involve doctors and nurses. But, again, even the concept of the recognised health care professions is continually developing as new forms of therapy become accepted parts of clinical treatment in the NHS. It will be for the ombudsman to decide when he needs to seek particular professional advice for any given complaint.
I know that that is not a satisfactory answer for the noble Baroness, but I hope that it has gone some way to allaying her fears.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am very grateful to the Minister for that reply. As I said in moving the amendment, I know that this is an extremely difficult area. It is almost one for which one needs some kind of university seminar rather than a piece of legislation. But I still feel that it is helpful to try to make these concepts as clear as possible.
I appreciate that, in a way, what I put into my amendment unhelpfully limited the definition of clinical judgment, although, as the noble Baroness rightly said,

1681
it was drawn from the language of the previous Act. It is certainly not my intention to try to do it unhelpfully but rather to do it helpfully.
I suspect that, as the noble Baroness said in her concluding remarks, this issue will have to depend on case law. I feel that there will be potential difficulties where the two areas of potential complaints—of maladministration and clinical judgment—may (if it is not an inappropriate metaphor) bleed into each other. Difficulties may arise.
Given what the noble Baroness said about the ombudsman's determination to use peer group review and to work on the basis of experience and case law, I hope that we shall have another opportunity to discuss how Parliament may examine those reviews. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Reports]:
[Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.]
Clause 10 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until five minutes to nine o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended front 8.35 to 8.55 p.m.]

Family Law Bill [H.L.]
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 4.
[Amendments Nos. 12 and 3 not moved.]
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 3, line 2, at end insert—
("( ) a statement made under this section has been made by one party and that party has given notice (in accordance with rules of court) withdrawing the statement;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a modest probing amendment which is perhaps appropriate for after dinner. Some noble Lords, and perhaps all, may have noticed that there is no provision in the Bill for a party to withdraw a statement if the statement is made by only one party. To put that another way, if one party makes a statement, it cannot are withdrawn unless both parties agree.
I can see that that would are a strong discouragement to the making of frivolous statements, and that may are the argument for the provision. On the other hand, it may leave a sword of Damocles hanging over the party who made the statement if, after looking into the matter during the 12-month period for consideration, that party
1682
came to the conclusion that an appalling mistake had been made. The other party who had not made the statement would then be able to use it as a threat, particularly during the period between the 12th and 24th month, when negotiating or obtaining agreement on matters of concern between the parties. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can explain why that curious provision was introduced.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is the noble Lord speaking also to Amendment No. 23?
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I apologise to the House. The noble Baroness is correct. I was speaking to both Amendments Nos. 14 and 23. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, under the current terms of the Bill, parties are required to give joint notice of withdrawal of a statement even where only one party has made the statement of marital breakdown. The reason for that is, where the period for reflection and consideration has run for some time, the party who did not make the initial statement may well come to the conclusion that a divorce or separation is the best course of action. That may be because of matters that have arisen during that time which convince the party that the marriage has broken down.
If the party who made the statement of marital breakdown is able to halt the process by withdrawing that statement independently of the other party, then the latter party will be required to make a fresh statement and go through a further period of reflection and consideration before they can apply for an order. It should are emphasised that the initial party may well are with drawing the statement only because they have recognised some material disadvantage which they may suffer and not because the relationship has a real chance of being saved. In order for a reconciliation to be successful, both parties must be willing to attempt it.
If the party who has not made the statement wishes to attempt a reconciliation, then joint notice can be made withdrawing the statement. There is no problem about that. If not, then the period for reflection and consideration already undertaken by the parties, which is likely to have been a very painful time, should not be perpetuated needlessly. Where one party can make a statement and withdraw it at will without the other party's involvement, there is a grave danger of the whole process being misused.
Making a statement of marital breakdown ought to be a serious step, and that is my intention. It should not be used, for example, where one party wants to make a point in a fit of anger or to teach the other party a lesson. It is important, therefore, that a party who initiates the period does so with due consideration and in the knowledge that there is a risk that if they change their minds the other party by then may well have been stirred up into thinking that the marriage has indeed broken down and therefore that the best course is to continue with the period and make an application at the end of it. It is not right that one party should be permitted to play cat and mouse by withdrawing a statement unilaterally without regard to the wishes and feelings of the other party. It could then are reintroduced again, are taken back,

1683
and so on. One can imagine what might happen. Such a situation is bound to lead to hostility and to heightened conflict.
I appreciate that Amendment No. 23, also tabled by the noble Lord, is designed to allow a party who has not made a statement and subsequently decides that they want to continue with the divorce process to join in with that initial statement. However, this would seem to are a rather hit and miss process, as the party who has not made the statement will not necessarily are aware of the intentions of the other party until after the latter has withdrawn the statement. It would then be too late for the party to join in the statement. In any case, it may well not be until the party who has not made a statement is required to consider whether or not they want to make joint notice of withdrawal of a statement that they will come to the conclusion that too much has happened for them to go hack, and that they do in fact wish to continue with the divorce or separation. The party who has not made the statement must are allowed to have some control over the process. It is important that we make the divorce process as non-adversarial as possible and that we stop the situation which exists at present where one party "owns" the divorce and gets his or her divorce against the other party. This is also why, where an application for a divorce order is made by one party, the current drafting of the Bill allows for the party to a divorce who has not made the application to join in that application.
I hope that this explanation indicates to the noble Lord what we have had in mind in the way the Bill is drafted. It gives an importance to the statement which I think would be appropriate.
9 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I wanted to hear what are had to say and to get it on the official record. There is a matter of balance here. An unscrupulous husband might taunt his wife into making a statement which she would subsequently regret and are would then have a considerable power over her during the subsequent 24 months. But I accept what the noble and learned Lord says. The balance is probably correct in the way are has it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 3. line 5. leave out ("six months") and insert ("one year").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I wish also to speak to Amendment No. 16, in respect of which my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale has an amendment.
These amendments relate to the provisions for the time limit on making an application for a divorce or separation order by reference to a particular statement. Amendment No. 15 extends the time limit from six months to one year, after the end of the period for reflection and consideration. I have considered carefully the concern expressed in Committee that a six-month
1684
lapse period, together with the year period for reflection and consideration, may prove for some couples too short a time in which to finalise future arrangements. It is important that such arrangements are considered carefully and I would wish to avoid situations where hasty arrangements are made to the detriment of parties and their children, simply to avoid having to recommence the divorce process. However, as I said in Committee, I believe it is important not to allow proceedings to drag on interminably as this can cause damaging uncertainty for both spouses and children. I also do not think that one party should be able to preserve the period of reflection and consideration indefinitely, just in case they wish to proceed quickly to divorce at some point in the future. Therefore it is important to have a definite period attached to this. I therefore believe that there should definitely be a lapse period, and have tabled this amendment to extend that period to one year, which will result in an overall two-year period being available for couples for arrangements to be made. Couples are of course able to suspend the period of reflection and consideration if they wish time to attempt reconciliation.
I have tabled Amendment No. 16 in response to the concern expressed in Committee by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer. The phrase,
"the earliest time when an application for a divorce order could have been made".
in Clause 4(3)(b) was considered to are ambiguous. I therefore seek to clarify this by referring specifically to the,
"end of the period for reflection and consideration".
In the meantime, I beg to move.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has set down these amendments in response to two concerns which I ventured to express at the Committee stage. I am very grateful. It demonstrates that even on matters of detail our labours are not in vain. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, proposes to move his amendment in relation to this, but I thought it right to express my own gratitude.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I do propose to move my amendment when it is called. But, in the meantime, I associate myself with the thanks that have been expressed by the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Meston: My Lords, Amendment No. 15 is an entirely sensible and valuable improvement to the Bill. I hope your Lordships will support it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment N.). 16:
Page 3, line 5. leave out from ("the") to end of line 7 and insert ("end of the period for reflection and consideration.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I have to say that if it is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 18 by reason of pre-emption. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 16, Amendment No, 17:
Line 2, after ("for") insert ("reconciliation,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I had omitted to notice that today was the 29th February. However, during the supper adjournment I had a proposal of marriage from a noble Baroness whom I greatly admire. I had to decline it though on the ground that the Bill provides for serial polygamy and not simultaneous polygamy.
The amendment that I am now moving to my noble and learned friend's amendment puts in the word "reconciliation" before "reflection and consideration". It is linked with other amendments in the grouping. It should are linked with a great many others. It should also go into amendments tabled after I tabled my amendment. That can be tidied up at Third Reading. The amendment is entirely consonant with the thinking of my noble and learned friend that the year period should are used for opportunities of reconciliation, and it is for that reason that 1 have, wherever the period is mentioned, sought to include the word "reconciliation".
When this Bill was presented it was rather thin both on reconciliation and on children. My noble and learned friend has responded in a number of respects in amendments to concerns that were expressed. In addition to that the insertion of the word "reconciliation" is the sort of guidance that is very useful to a Court of interpretation. It shows the sort of approach that the court is meant to have by the framers of the Bill. As I said, not only is this amendment technically desirable, but I believe and hope that it is entirely consonant with my noble and learned friend's intention. I beg to move.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, on this amendment. I may be right in believing that the word "reconciliation"—although I know that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has it in mind—nowhere appears in the Bill. If I am right in that, then I feel very strongly that the purpose behind this amendment should are accepted.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, certainly what my noble and learned friend has proposed is entirely consonant with what I have in mind. Therefore, I entirely agree with the sentiment behind this amendment and the spirit in which it was put by my noble and learned friend and by the noble Earl, Lord Perth.
In the Bill I have tried to express the idea of reconciliation as clearly as I can in the words that we have used. Their purpose is to see whether the marriage can be saved. It is another way of expressing the idea of reconciliation. The consideration that I have asked for, if there is a happy ending, will be reconciliation as a result of that consideration. Sadly, I cannot are sure that in every case that will are the outcome. Therefore, to use the word "reconciliation" in the manner proposed here may have that kind of slightly misleading context.
I am anxious to do everything I possibly and properly can to promote reconciliation. I know that my noble and learned friend believes it is possible that this amendment
1686
will help in that connection. But, as I have said, I have tried already in the Bill to put that forward as clearly as I can. The period is for the parties to reflect on whether or not the marriage can be saved. That is the process by which reconciliation is reached. So when I speak of "reflection and consideration" I am referring to reflection in the first part as to whether the marriage can be saved. If that has a good outcome it will be reconciliation. So the spirit of this amendment is already in the title of the period as defined in the Bill.
I am reluctant to turn down any verbal improvements that can be made to the Bill, and if my noble and learned friend sees a good answer to what I have just said, I am certainly willing to consider further whether the amendment should are made.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, and with great respect to the noble and learned Earl, Lord Perth, is are not wrong in saying that reconciliation as a concept finds no place in the Bill'? Is it not a fact that in Clause 6 we find a specific provision designed to promote reconciliation, that during the period for reflection and consideration, there is provision for disregarding that period in counting towards the year where the parties desire to attempt reconciliation'? Is not reconciliation acknowledged within the body of the Bill as a worthy objective which the Bill encourages?
9.15 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, when are referred to "the noble and learned Earl, Lord Perth" was referring to me or to my noble and learned friend. I think, from the context, that are was probably referring to myself. I did not say that there was no reference to reconciliation in the Bill as presented. I said that the Bill was rather thin on reconciliation. We have had a number of amendments designed to flesh out that part of the Bill.
I am grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for the conciliatory way in which are has dealt with my amendment. In view of what are said, I think that my proper course is to ask your Lordships for leave to withdraw it. It is the sort of amendment that can properly be made on Third Reading, but I should like to examine closely my noble and learned friend's reasoning and possibly to lobby him in the meantime. However, as of now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to Amendment No. 16, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 16 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 3, line 8, leave out ("to be disregarded in calculating") and insert ("not to count towards").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 19, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 39, 40, 41, 42, 121, 122, 127 and 128.
I have tabled these amendments to address the concerns expressed in Committee with regard to the use of the phrase "is to be disregarded" in reference to a period of time which will not form part of the period of reflection and consideration when the running of the period has been suspended by notice given by the parties.
An amendment was tabled in Committee to what is now Clause 6 by the noble Lords, Lord Meston and Lord Jakobovits, to replace those words with the phrase, "shall not count". The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, also expressed concern in Committee with regard to the interpretation of that phrase. As I understand it, the phrase "is to are disregarded" is considered to be ambiguous because as well as meaning that a period of time may not form part of the period for reflection, the phrase can also are taken to mean that any such period should are ignored and therefore have no effect on the period of reflection in terms of suspending it. I have taken the advice of Parliamentary Counsel and the proposed Amendments Nos. 39 and 41 which redraft subsections (6) and (7) of Clause 6 are intended to make the position clear; namely, where a couple notify the court that they wish to attempt reconciliation and require additional time to do so, the period of reflection and consideration is suspended.
I have also proposed Amendment No. 19 to Clause 4(4) to replace the phrase,
"to be disregarded in calculating",
with the words "not to count towards". The period of Clause 4(3)(b) is a specific length of time and I believe that the words proposed in the amendment make it clear that any period during which an order preventing divorce is in force cannot form part of that specific period.
Amendments Nos. 121, 122, 127 and 128 to Schedule 2 are consequential upon the drafting changes which I propose to Clauses 4 and 6. I beg to move.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I welcome the amendments as providing a great clarity to the Bill which seemed, to me at any rate, to be lacking in the Bill as originally drafted. I would go further and say that there remains a concern at the requirement in Clause 6 that to stop the clock a system of formal notice is required; in other words, if a couple decides within the year to have a reconciliation, which may take up a substantial part of the period, but does not go through the formality of filing a notice with the court, that period of reconciliation does not stop the clock. That remains a fundamental problem with the Bill as presently drafted. That may are something that needs to be considered further on Third Reading. Meanwhile, I welcome the amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Statement of marital breakdown]:
Baroness Elles Baroness Elles moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 3. line 15. after ("state") insert ("the attempts which have been made to promote reconciliation with the other party and").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall be speaking to Amendments Nos. 20 and 21. Amendment No. 21 is almost identical to Amendment No. 20. The noble and learned Lord has his name to both amendments. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, for adding his name to Amendment No. 20.
In Committee, some of us were concerned about the procedures leading to an application for divorce. There appeared to be a glaring vacuum in the proceedings. The proceedings are initiated by one party attending an information meeting. After that there is a gap. The person goes straight to making a statement.
As I understand it, normally if one is going to seek a divorce, one goes to a solicitor. The solicitor may be able to persuade the person not to go ahead with the divorce. The other party will presumably also go to his or her solicitor, are or she may be persuaded not to go ahead with the divorce. There is then a chance for the parties to exchange views before a petition is submitted to the court.
In the Bill, after the information meeting, as I say, there is a gap. One then goes straight into the statement. If the information meeting is to serve any purpose, it will provide the party who goes to it with information about opportunities for mediation and reconciliation. It will explain the procedures and the services available to help that party to go no further. I know that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor shares with us the view that one of the aims of the Bill is to try to save the marriage wherever possible.
Before one goes to the information meeting, marriage guidance and counselling services are invaluable. After the information meeting there should be an opportunity for the party to have are conciliation with the other party. There are three reasons for this. First, saving the marriage is the prime and overriding consideration; secondly, it will make him or her realise that help could be given to have some form of meeting with the partner before going on to the next stage. Thirdly, it would let the other party, who may be holding the baby or sitting at home, know that the spouse has gone to an information meeting and is contemplating divorce.
As the Bill stands, there is no way, opportunity or obligation on the party going to the information meeting to inform the other party that are or she is contemplating making a statement saying that are or she believes that the marriage has broken down. The amendment would provide an opportunity for that to happen before a statement is made. It would also enable the person at the information meeting who is giving guidance to point out, "Look, in the statement you will have to say what attempt at reconciliation has been made". It will therefore draw to the attention of that person that an attempt could or should be made before making the statement. The fact of making a statement shows that one is already well down the road towards a divorce. Having got as far as that, it is much more difficult to withdraw. The strength of the Bill would are to enable reconciliation to be introduced at any stage. My proposal strengthens what is being put forward by my noble friend Lady Young as regards reconciliation,

1689
which takes up the matter after the statement has been made. It might help in assessing the value of the information meeting and the kind of information that is being given. Although it is not foolproof, it might encourage those who run the information meeting to try to bring the situation to a head before the statement is made.
I realise that the wording of the amendment may be defective. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has tabled an amendment to a later part of Clause 5. My amendment may be in the wrong place but I am sure that my noble and learned friend will consider the spirit of it. I hope that are will be able to accept it.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I support the amendment because it addresses a dilemma with which we are confronted. We all agree on the importance of conciliation and counselling. The difficulty is how to introduce a reference to that in the Bill at the point before the statement is made. The statement is one that the marriage has already reached the point of an irrevocable breakdown, so clearly conciliation was needed before that point. However, the Bill can begin to take effect only at the moment when someone invokes the law, which is when are or she files the statement. Indeed, how until then can we know that the conciliation process is necessary?
I believe that we can do two things. First, we can ensure that conciliation machinery is in place for those who wish to avail themselves of it. It is to be hoped that they will do so long before the marriage reaches the stage at which they are considering filing a statement that it has irrevocably broken down. Secondly, we can do what the noble Baroness has suggested and in the Bill ensure that the mind of the party who is intending to make the statement is drawn to the possibility of conciliation and reconciliation before the statement is made. For that reason I support the amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, these amendments are a further attempt to flesh out the references to reconciliation in the Bill. As your Lordships have heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, in his typically clear analysis, there has been general support in all parts of your Lordships' House for reconciliation to play a large part in the processes covered by the Bill. There has also been general support for the concept that reconciliation is most likely to be successful if it occurs at an early stage and less likely when attitudes may have hardened.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, explained, the statement is not necessarily irrevocable but it is certainly a statement that there is something seriously wrong with the marriage. The amendment directs the minds of the parties to the fact that well before the statement is filed there is an opportunity—indeed a desirability is hinted—for reconciliation to be explored. The machinery is that the statement should state what attempts have been made at reconciliation; in other words, looking hack before the statement is filed.
Your Lordships may are puzzled that there are two amendments, to both of which my name is attached. which mean precisely the same with an insubstantial
1690
change of wording. The explanation, for what it is worth, is that I tabled Amendment No. 21 and then in a fit of usual blind enthusiasm for the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, I added my name to hers. For myself, I do not mind which is accepted by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. I very much hope that one of them will be accepted. If I am asked to express a slight preference, it is for my amendment.
9.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, this amendment moves me at one and the same time to both warmth and anxiety. I feel warmth for the underlying purposes of the amendment, with which we all agree. I feel warmth also for the logic with which the case was argued, which appears to me to be impeccable.
My anxiety is concentrated on how it would work in practice. If the noble Baroness is able to ease some of that anxiety, I should be very pleased. It seems to me that, if one is attempting reconciliation in a marriage, there are a great many different ways in which one can attempt that. Some of them may consist of doing things which outwardly seem very small indeed but nevertheless, in their inward significance between the parties, may be very great.
The problem is in specifying the steps taken towards reconciliation. It seems to me that sometimes the truly inward, from-the-heart gestures may be very difficult to express in a statement but one could put down in a statement a series of formal moves that perhaps do not have very much loving content at all.
Therefore, my anxiety is whether the amendment might impose a series of bureaucratic requirements which would not in the end achieve what both the noble Baroness and I would like to achieve. If I can be convinced that that fear is unnecessary, I shall be very glad.
Lord Habgood: My Lords, I feel that the logic of the discussion on these amendments is driving us to the view that there needs to be a preliminary stage before the statement is written. I then wonder how those statements are to be written and whether most of the people who wish to go through the process are adequate to write such a statement and, therefore, to fulfil the law properly.
It seems to me that there needs to be an officer to whom people can go for help in drawing up a statement. It would then be that officer's responsibility to inquire what efforts there have been towards reconciliation. That seems to me to be a logical and practical process.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I support both the amendments. But it seems to me that there are two methods of making a statement and that this kind of wording could probably apply to both. It is particularly important, as set out in Amendment No. 20, where a statement is made by a single party, because that probably indicates that the single party is keener on the

1691
divorce than the other party to the marriage. If that is the case, the one who is keenest should at least show that are or she has made an attempt at reconciliation.
The Lord Chancellor:My Lords, again, the spirit behind these amendments is one that I entirely support. There are questions about precisely how this would work, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said. The problem is that this is a statement about attempts, if any, that have been made about reconciliation. I also must consider what my noble friend Lady Elles said in moving her amendment. It is important in relation to the evaluation of the information meeting. I have been wondering whether this particular form of statement as proposed in the amendment would have any particular effect, except as encouragement. I rather think that my noble friend and my noble and learned friend in their amendments do not expect it to have any particular legal effect but just to be an encouragement to put an attempt at reconciliation into the mind of the person making the statement. I understood from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, that that was in his mind also.
I have been thinking about this in some detail since my noble friend Lady Elles came to see me to explain her view about this amendment. It may well are that to have an encouragement to state all the attempts made to bring about reconciliation might tempt some people into a history of marital difficulty and whatnot, that would not are in accordance with what we are trying to aim at. On the other hand, to indicate what attempts have been made at reconciliation after attending the information meeting might have two effects. One would be to encourage at that stage, before one lodged the statement, the idea that reconciliation was appropriate; and, secondly, to help us to evaluate the information meeting as a means of encouraging people to go to the information session.
The other point I want to make is this. There is a power in the Bill to deal with a form of statement by rules. That might be a way of coping with this that might be more flexible than putting it on the face of the Bill. Certainly I would think it wise to consider a form which enabled a statement to query whether attempts at reconciliation had been made after the information meeting and to put the answer in such a way that it would be yes or no, as it were, to make it quite clear that it was not a condition—because there are some circumstances in which at that stage attempts at reconciliation would are seen as rather hollow. If you try to impose too rigid a framework on these human relationships, you often damage what you are trying to aim at, so one would want a fairly flexible situation so far as that was concerned.
I am anxious to meet this matter and I should like to take advice on whether it would are more appropriate and perhaps in the end more effective to contemplate doing this by the powers in the Bill on the form of the statement, or alternatively on the face of the Bill itself but restricted, for the reason I have given, to attempts at reconciliation made after the information meeting had been attended. If those of your Lordships who have
1692
helped to promote these amendments would be willing to agree to that, I should be happy to take that forward between now and Third Reading.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, first I should like to thank noble Lords who have supported the amendment. Also, I should like very much to thank my noble and learned friend for his reply and for his courtesy in receiving me yesterday to discuss, among other things, the effects and objectives of this particular amendment. It might have been helpful to state that attempts have been made. I think to some extent this would come after the point raised quite correctly by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, when are spoke of his anxiety about bureaucratic attempts.
I did not expect to have a long list such as "a cup of coffee at Lyons" or "a hamburger at McDonalds" or whatever, in order to discuss matters with the spouse; but that when signing the statement they face the fact that some attempt might have been made to effect a reconciliation before signing the statement. I absolutely accept that that would have no legal significance because the statement is not, as I understand it, justiciable; it is merely a declaratory statement without any legal value. I believe that that point was raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer.
I very much hoped that the amendment would be accepted in, as it were, the spirit in which it was moved. Of course, I would prefer such a provision to be on the face of the Bill because I know that one of the objectives of my noble and learned friend is to cut down on the expenses. Many people will actually read the legislation when it becomes an Act in order to ascertain how to proceed. Therefore, if such a provision were in the legislation and people knew that there was a chance to have reconciliation after the information meeting but before making the statement, I believe that that would make them aware of the reality of the situation.
On the other hand, if such a provision were merely placed in the rules—and that, of course, would are quite correct—by my noble and learned friend and his department and appeared somewhere at the bottom of the A to Z of the requirements that one has to meet in the statement, I believe that it would lose its strength and value. It is a most important consideration as regards what could happen between the information meetings, if they are to be of any value at all, and the completion of the statement.
However, I shall leave that to my noble and learned friend and, possibly, those who have supported the amendment. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, and my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale may have another view on that aspect of the matter. On that basis, I am content to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 21:
Page 3. line 19, alter ("state") insert ("the attempts which have been made to promote their reconciliation and").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in saying that I do not wish to move the above amendment, I hope that I may at least add an expression of thanks to my noble and learned friend for the spirit and content of his reply.
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 3, line 23, at end insert—
("() A statement may specify whether the party or parties making the statement wish to apply for a divorce order or a separation order.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I return to a matter that I ventured to question in Committee. If the purpose of the statement is at least partly to notify one party that the other has initiated proceedings, then surely it ought to specify the nature of the relief for which the party is asking, as that may affect how the other partner may wish to respond.
On that occasion, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor spoke of the virtues of flexibility but suggested a middle way; that is, to give the maker of the statement at least a discretion to say what relief was being sought. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord has had an opportunity to reflect on the matter. The purpose of the amendment is to give him the opportunity to tell us. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in Committee I saw the possible advantage of something along the lines suggested. The difficulty is knowing what effect it would have in the sense of being able to come back, so to speak, to the other possible order. The idea is to keep the options open so far as possible. However, I was impressed—and, indeed, I remain so—by the view that, where a party is absolutely clear that are or she does not want anything other than a separation order, it might smooth matters. But, as the noble and learned Lord knows, this could also be the basis later for another type of order. Therefore, there is some difficulty in that respect.
For my part, I do not have too much objection to it but I find it just a little difficult to specify what effect the suggested provision would have in the later stages of the process. Indeed, that remains quite a considerable concern. If the noble and learned Lord could help me to address that, I might well be relieved in a way that I have not been so far and, therefore, able to accept the amendment.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I am grateful for that invitation. As I had understood it—although I have a rather faulty recollection here—the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said in Committee that this measure was not irrevocable, and that the statement could be changed; it is not intended to be the law of the Modes and Persians. If that is so, it seems to me that it cannot restrict what the petitioner—I hope I may call him that, as we do not have a word for the person who files the statement—may wish to do at a later stage if are or she changes his or her mind. What it would do at We outset is at least to give the other party an indication
1694
of the thinking of the maker of the statement. I should have thought that would be helpful in deciding how to react. Like the noble and learned Lord, I do not feel dogmatic about this and I would not lead resistance at the barricades, but it seems to me that the earlier, and the more clearly, the respondent partner knows at least the workings of the mind of the petitioner, the more likely are or she is to know how to react, and perhaps are or she will be less likely to put unnecessary obstacles in the way. I hope that that is helpful. I believe that the noble and learned Lord has just indicated his agreement. I wish to emphasise that this would not be binding in the sense that it could not be amended later.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should say that I am grateful for that indication. If the noble and learned Lord is prepared to withdraw this amendment now, we may be able to consider it further. We have not been able to consult the practitioners' bodies on this matter as fully as I should have liked. If the noble and learned Lord is willing to withdraw this amendment, we can take it forward at the next stage if it appears to commend itself to the practitioners.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, that is an offer which I cannot refuse. I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 24:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
STATEMENT OF MARITAL BREAKDOWN: VIEWS OF CHILDREN TO BE TAKEN
INTO ACCOUNT
(". Parties who—

(a) have made a statement of marital breakdown under the provisions of Part I of this Act; and

(b) are making any major decision which involves fulfilling a parental responsibility or exercising a parental right,

shall have regard so far as practicable to the views (if are wishes to express them) of any child for whom they have parental responsibility, taking account of the child's age and maturity.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 25, 60, 61, 62 and 75. This group of amendments concerns children of the marriage. I seek with these amendments to give appropriate information to the children and to ensure that children are listened to. The amendments also concern the welfare of the children and contain provisions for the representation of the children where that seems to be necessary.
Amendments Nos. 60 and 61 both seek to provide for appropriate information to be given to the children. In addition, Amendment No. 60 aims to secure provision of advice and assistance to children and, where necessary, representation in the children's interests. That is to be achieved by the appointment of a special children's officer attached to all family courts and to divorce hearing centres.
Amendments Nos. 24 and 75 are addressed to the parties, and they instruct the parties to listen to the views of their children. In addition, Amendment No. 75 requires the parties to have regard to the welfare of their child or children. In parenthesis I should say that I understand it is not the intention of these amendments to suggest that the child should dictate to the parents. The intention is only that his or her views should be taken into account.
Amendment No. 62 addresses a slightly different point. Where parents for whatever reason are prepared to agree a solution for the child and for the finances of the marriage which is not in the best interests of the child, there ought to be the possibility for a grandparent, teacher, youth worker, or some other party interested in the welfare of the child, to alert the court to the need for the child to be represented, even though the parents may have agreed a particular solution.
Perhaps I may give an example. Suppose that the wife has fallen in love with an attractive man who is younger and perhaps richer than her husband, and she is longing to go off to live with him in Majorca or Manchester. She may be prepared to agree to the children being kept by the husband, even though the children may hate the husband or are may be an inappropriate person to care for the children because are is violent or addicted to alcohol to a certain extent.
At Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, told us what happens in the courts today in respect of the safeguarding of the interests of the children. I shall be most grateful if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can give the Committee an assurance that the same kind of cursory and inadequate procedures will not be adopted in the future. The noble Lord, Lord Irvine, said:
"48 people will turn up legally unrepresented. They will sit together waiting their turn to be called in to see the district judge .. On average, it takes about five minutes for each couple. In essence. the judge is told what the parties themselves have agreed and that. in practice, is what the judge accepts".—[Official Report. 11/1/96: col. 283.]
The noble Lord went on to say:
"I am not criticising the judges".
I have to say that I certainly am criticising the judges. It seems a most irresponsible and cavalier way to deal with the future of the children of the marriage. However, I may be wrong. I do not know exactly how these things work.
Amendment No. 25 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, provides for all of those considerations to be swept together by providing for the Official Solicitor to represent any child in any proceedings under this part of the Bill. I assume that by "proceedings" the noble and learned Lord means court proceedings. I should like to know whether that amendment would mean that all children of divorcing parents would be represented, including those whose parents have agreed a settlement, or whether that would only be where the matter was taken to court.
Subject to a positive assurance on that point, I urge the Committee to accept either Amendment No. 25 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, or
1696
Amendment No. 60 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, both of which largely cover the points made in the other amendments in the group, including Amendment No. 24 in my name. In addition, they secure advice, assistance and, where necessary, representation for all the children of divorcing parents. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment No. 60, to which I have put my name.
I wish to make three points. I do not believe that children should be involved in the divorce process. That is the wrong approach to the matter, and has been misrepresented in the press. I believe that every child needs somebody to go to who is neither the mother nor the father. However, I believe that any good mother and father, even though they are separating, should be the ones to tell the children what is happening and help them to understand.
The amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Elles is allied to Amendment No. 60. I believe that there ought to be somebody to whom the child has easy access, who can befriend, assist and support the child at the time of the divorce. Sometimes, the more children love their parents, when their parents are in difficulties the less they can talk to them. The children really need to have someone to talk to and to help them. But that person must be known to them and easily accessible to them at the time of the divorce.
I suggest that that person needs to befriend the child because things are not easy afterwards—not for the first year nor sometimes the second year. The children may want to change their contacts and access visits. Boys in particular as they grow older want to see more of their father if they are not living with him.
There then comes the problem: who should that person he? There are 50 county regional centres in the country where children could go. I do not feel happy about that because the child needs easy access to that person. Therefore I am in some difficulty. I have proposed that there should be a special children's officer but I have not come to a conclusion as to who that person should he. However, I believe that the child should have someone to whom are or she can go at the time of the breakdown and subsequently.
Baroness David: My Lords, I have put my name to three of the amendments. I was not happy about the grouping. I think that it is difficult—they are slightly different issues—hut the child is at the centre of them all.
So far as concerns Amendment No. 24, I think we are trying to bring the Scottish law into English law. As we have often said before, the Scottish law is sometimes rather in advance of ours. In Amendment No. 24 the new clause introduces into the divorce process the "Scottish Act" duty of parents to consult children about major decisions affecting them.
Section 6 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 introduces this duty as part of its general definition of "parental responsibility". This new clause is limited to decisions made after a statement of marital breakdown has been filed.

1697
Another argument that I would put in support of the amendment is that, if parents do not agree arrangements for children and the issues come to court, the court must by law consider the ascertainable views of the child. That is in Section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989. So it seems to me completely illogical for the child's views to be a statutory factor at a contested stage but not at the earlier uncontested stage. That is the point I should like to emphasise about Amendment No. 24.
The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, spoke to Amendment No. 60 in her name. However, my name is at the top of the list as regards Amendment No. 75. Much attention has been paid to the child's position in mediation services but little to the child's position when the parties are seeking legal representation. However, the issues are just the same. Lawyers, as much as mediators, should be drawing the parties' attention to their responsibilities as parents for their children's welfare.
Lawyers have arguably an even greater duty to ensure that parents are taking into account children's views since it is only in contested adversarial proceedings that the Children Act requires courts to have regard to children's views. That is Section 1(3) of the Children Act.
There is now some evidence that lawyers are not very alert to children's interests in family cases. This evidence comes from the Centre of Socio-Legal Studies in Wolfson College, Oxford. This amendment might help focus their minds on the importance of this.
This amendment was not discussed at Committee stage, so I hope that the noble and learned Lord will pay particular attention to it.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, therearetwo different problems which inevitably become somewhat conflated, and have, I think, on the discussion of these amendments. The first is ascertainment of the views of any relevant child; and the second is the representation of the interests of any relevant child. The second is raised by the next amendment, in my name, which corresponds to a number of other suggestions as to how the child shall be represented.
As to ascertaining the views of the child, we have the precedent of the Children Act. However, in the context of a divorce, I venture strongly to second the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. The more that children are kept out of the divorce process, the better. I am very strongly against any suggestion that a child should be interviewed in the presence of a parent. That would be a very embarrassing situation and one that would be likely to produce a distorted view of what the child's views really were.
10 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has at a stroke removed a number of my anxieties about this group of amendments. However, one or two questions still cause me anxiety. One crucial point, on which I am not entirely happy with either answer, is whether the parents would know what the child had said when its views were sought. That
1698
question can be intensely interesting to parents. If the parent does know, then the views of the child may not be totally independent. If the parent does not know, then some suspicion may inevitably grow between parent and child. I do not know what the correct answer would be. I shall be glad to hear if there is one.
I also want to draw attention to a small point on which I think the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, might be agreeable to some slight correction. It relates to the wording in Amendment No. 61:
"Any children of the family shall be provided with information appropriate to their age and understanding".
There is nothing whatever wrong with the opinion. However, as I understand it, taken literally, that would mean supplying information to a babe in arms that is relevant to its age and understanding. I do not know how I should set about that. Including an age limit might improve the proposal.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, a variety of matters is covered under this group of amendments. In relation to Amendment No. 24 in its previous form at Committee stage, I mentioned that there were problems in relation to divorce because the parties to the divorce might have parental responsibility in respect of children other than the children directly affected. It would be very strange in a Bill of this kind to impose a duty to consult a child who was not affected by the divorce.
The other point on Amendment No. 24 which is quite fundamental is this. This sort of amendment would be required to have some kind of legal effect. I suggest that such an amendment is likely to make private decision-making extremely difficult and to drag children into parental disputes. I agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Simon and with my noble friend Lady Faithfull. The last thing we want to do is drag children into disputes between their parents.
Subsection (b) of this amendment refers to making a,
"major decision which involves fulfilling a parental responsibility or exercising a parental right".
That is not the kind of situation in which an enforceable legal obligation would seem to be appropriate. We all want parents to make the best possible decisions for their children when fulfilling a parental responsibility or exercising a parental right. I myself prefer the first part—parental responsibility is, I think, the theme of the Children Act—rather than talking about rights. If what is wanted is that the parents should, as a practical and private matter, consult their children in relation to matters affecting the children, I agree that that is eminently desirable, but I do not know that it can easily are put into effect in an amendment of this kind.
I indicated earlier—I have now given effect to this point in Amendment No. I 37—that one way to handle the matter would be to ensure that the remit of mediators specifically addressed that question and that the court, when considering whether or not it was necessary to make an order under the Children Act, should have to consider specific circumstances in relation to children. I tabled Amendment No. 137 to have that effect. As your Lordships know, I tabled additionally amendments

1699
to Clause 9, to make it possible that hardship to the children could be taken into account in considering whether an order should be made under that provision.
With regard to Amendment No. 25, I think it unnecessary to have this kind of provision. The principle is that on the whole the families should look after the children. The public authorities, courts or local authorities should not intervene except where there is good reason, and the court itself should not make an order unless it is satisfied that to make the order would be beneficial for the child.
To have the Official Solicitor representing every child in every divorce in England and Wales would seem to be a terrible waste of extremely valuable resources. The Official Solicitor has great skill and is extremely valuable in representing children in certain types of proceedings. But I submit that to have him engaged in every divorce case would be inappropriate.
The next series of amendments in this group comprises Amendments Nos. 60, 61 and 62. Looking first at Amendment No. 60, this amendment could lead to children becoming more routinely involved in taking sides in disputes with their parents. That might well have long-term implications for the family's relationships in the future. As I said earlier, and have repeated often, it is absolutely essential that we do what we can to preserve the relationship between children and both parents.
The court is already required to regard the child's welfare as its paramount consideration in determining issues in the child's upbringing. However much we might wish to the contrary, what a child wants and what is in its best interests may not always coincide. The difficulty that my noble friend herself found in deciding who should do that is very well founded from the practical point of view. Where the court believes that the parents may be able to resolve issues of dispute for themselves, mediation offers a better opportunity for the voice of the child to be heard than the existing system. I have already mentioned Amendment No. 137 in that connection.
Mediators will always remind parents of the need to take account of the views of their children in reaching agreement as to their upbringing. That is the area in which this point is best put rather than expressing it as a legal obligation in respect of the parents. It is best to make it part of the mediation system that the mediators should remind parents of that position.
I should perhaps mention that court staff are well used to dealing with queries from families; for example, with respect to the arrangements available for children to attend court. Care and family hearing centres in court have dedicated family sections so that staff have specific expertise in that area, although they do not have any type of advisory function in relation to the court.
The court services are currently considering a recommendation by the Children Act Advisory Committee that a liaison officer should be appointed in each court dealing with family matters so that primary responsibility for administrative issues concerning children should be vested in one person. That may
1700
provide the kind of link that would be required in a small minority of cases. Where the court is concerned about the parents' arrangements or where there is a dispute it can, under Section 7(1) of the Children Act, require a court welfare officer to prepare a welfare report to assist in ascertaining what arrangements are in the child's best interests.
The production of the welfare report will often include ascertaining the wishes and feelings of the child. As my noble friend knows, if the court is sufficiently concerned about the welfare of a child, it can consider a supervision or care order in respect of care from the local authority. The court may direct the authority to investigate the child's circumstances under Section 37(1) of the Children Act. The existing arrangements being developed in the way I explained could cope with that problem reasonably well, in cases where it may arise, without further provision.
In relation to Amendment No. 61, I agree with the principle that lies behind the amendment; namely, that children should be informed about what is happening to them, what will happen to them in the future and what they can do about it. The pilot of the information meetings may well help us to see how that can best be done. Those noble Lords concerned in the amendment know only too well from their own experience that the requirements of children in respect of information are quite delicate and different. It would be difficult to envisage satisfactory arrangements in all cases. This is therefore an area that the pilot studies can test for us.
Amendment No. 62 duplicates provisions already available concerning the protection and welfare of children. In some circumstances it could lead to the escalation of hostility and bitterness, not only between the parties, but also between the extended families. Any person who is concerned that the safety of a child may be at risk, can report those concerns to the NSPCC or to the social services. Where they believe that they have an interest in the proceedings regarding the child, the Children Act and accompanying rules enable them to make an application to be a party to the proceedings.
I wish, if I may, to consider Amendment No. 75 further. I tabled Amendment No. 99B, which is concerned to ensure that mediators are in a position to practice in accordance with the principles of the Bill. Specifically, that amendment provides that the Legal Aid Board may not contract with mediators unless they have in place arrangements to ensure that reconciliation is kept under review throughout the mediation and that the parents are encouraged to consider the welfare, wishes and feelings of their children.
On reflection, it does not seem right that mediators should be required to ensure that arrangements are in place with regard to matters such as reconciliation, children and the availability of legal advice, but legal representatives merely need to self-certify whether or not they have discussed mediation and reconciliation with parties. I am minded therefore to bring forward a government amendment at Third Reading which would strengthen the provisions of Clause 10 by requiring legal representatives not only to inform about marriage counselling and mediation, but also about the need for

1701
parents to consider the welfare, wishes and feelings of their children when they are deciding arrangements for the future.
I hope that that is a reasonable response to matters that I regard as extremely important but in which there is a delicacy about how far we should involve children in their parents' disputes. That was a point of general importance in our debate in all parts of the House. In the light of those considerations, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and those who support him will feel able to withdraw Amendment No. 24.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down—I say that in order that are may be able to reply to me if are is willing to do so—I have not fully understood whether are gave me a clear answer on the question of whether the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, was right in the way are described the apparently cavalier attitude which courts at the moment have to the welfare of children and whether that will be different under the provisions of the new Bill.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the position I have in mind is to apply the later amendments in respect of the consideration of the arrangements which are in place as evidenced by the statement put before the court. The court will have an opportunity of considering whether or not to exercise its powers under the Children Act. That is the purpose of this.
One of the great difficulties in this area is to make sure that one is not interfering unnecessarily. There is a terrific waste of effort and an intrusion of unnecessary bureaucracy if matters are interfered with unnecessarily. I have had consultations through my officials with those with specific knowledge of children's matters to sec whether we can develop a system for making sure that the statement which is put in about the children's arrangements will enable the court reasonably easily to ascertain the cases in which there is a real question of whether it should consider the Children Act powers. That is what I have in mind.
It is not easy to know exactly how to do this. I believe it is necessary to do so by reference to the regulations because it is a matter one would learn about and develop over time. It is difficult to fix with any degree of confidence in primary legislation. That is what I have in mind as a way of developing the point which the noble Lord raised.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I congratulate him on and thank him for his enormous sensitivity in dealing with these matters. I am very convinced by that answer.
In regard to Amendment No. 24, the points which the noble and learned Lord made have impressed me and those who have joined me in putting down the amendment. In a moment I propose to withdraw it. 1 was not entirely convinced that Amendment No. 60 could not still be refined in a way which would make it a useful contribution. I particularly endorse the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithful!, that children need a friend or supporter—someone they can
1702
talk to—in this context. It may be that the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, about a local authority may enable us to discuss this further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness David:My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord has spoken favourably of Amendment No. 75, I should like to thank him very much and to say that I look forward to seeing the amendment which I hope are will bring forward at the next stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 25:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
REPRESENTATION OF MINOR BY OFFICIAL SOLICITOR
(" . In any proceedings under this Part any child of the family under the age of sixteen years shall be represented by the Official Solicitor, who shall submit a written report to any mediator or court considering the child, and who may (and shall if so requested by a mediator or a court) make oral representation.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, as I was working on an earlier draft of the groupings, I had not realised that Amendment No. 25 was grouped with Amendment No. 24 and I did not speak to it. In view of the importance of the matter of children in divorce perhaps I may say a brief word on Amendment No. 25. Although there is an overlap between ascertaining the views of the children, where appropriate, and representing their interests, nevertheless I believe that it is just as well to analyse the two separately.
I believe that there is a general consensus arising out of the Committee proceedings that it is desirable that the interests of the children have representation in some way. On this list of amendments there are a number of suggestions—to which my noble and learned friend properly adverted, since are was dealing with the latest grouping—in favour of the Official Solicitor. There is also the court welfare officer, a guardian ad litem, a children's officer and, I believe, one other. They have all been suggested. Despite what my noble and learned friend has said, I tend to favour the Official Solicitor, whose general duty, with his officers, is to represent children where their representation is desired. The court welfare officer is almost certain to are involved, but are is not the suitable person to do the job, as I see it. Are is a probation officer seconded to the court from the Probation Service. Are cannot, where necessary, instruct counsel, whereas the Official Solicitor can.
My own view is that this matter needs to are further considered. My noble and learned friend is bringing forward an amendment at Third Reading and it may are that we shall have to leave this question over to the other place. In view of what my noble and learned friend has said, I do not believe that we have arrived at a proper solution.
In the meantime there is no course open to me except to consider the matter again at Third Reading in the light of the amendment of my noble and learned friend. I am not sure that that covers his reference to the final consideration by the court of the way in which the children's interests have been successfully taken care of before a divorce is pronounced. I assume that my noble

1703
and learned friend was referring to proceedings under Section 41 of the 1973 Act. We shall all want to read what are said so carefully just now and return to the matter at Third Reading, if necessary.
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
Clause 6 [Period for reflection and consideration]:
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 4, line 5, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) The period for reflection and consideration begins with the fourteenth day after the day on which the statement is received by the court and comprises—

(a) one year where a statement has been made by both parties and there are no children of the family; or

(b) 18 months otherwise,

and during the first six months of the period for reflection and consideration, neither party shall be open to criticism for failing to consider arrangements for the future.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a very late hour to start what I regard as an important issue. I very much regret that we are considering the amendment at this particular time. I hope that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will feel able to consider the amendment. It is intended to area compromise. The amendment proposes the extension of the year for reflection and consideration to 18 months where children are involved. That is the same principle as applies in the Bill as now drafted. At the same time, it provides for the opportunity for reconciliation throughout that time, something with which both I and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor agree and wish to see. I do not think that the amendment conflicts with the principles which are has advanced.
The amendment is a compromise, in that it retains the one-year period for reflection and consideration for those couples without children both of whom consent to the divorce. At an earlier stage in our proceedings, there was quite a lot of discussion about the different provisions for those couples who have children and are divorcing and those couples who do not have children and are divorcing. This is an attempt to draw a distinction between the treatment in each case. As I had understood it from our earlier discussions, that is what your Lordships would like to see.
The amendment also provides that a court could not hold it against a spouse for failing to make an informal agreement. It therefore takes the pressure off a couple facing mediation for at least six months. Coupled with some of the subsequent amendments, it creates in effect a kind of free zone for the first six months although reconciliation could take place.
The principle of the extension of the time limit from one year—one must recall from our earlier debate that at the end of that year either spouse can divorce the other without his or her consent—has the support of Cardinal Hume in a remarkable article in the Tablet and of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York.
I believe that the amendment is a compromise. It is intended to be helpful and constructive. We know that in Scotland nearly 60 per cent. of divorces take between
1704
two and five years and that in Northern Ireland the proportion of divorces taking that time rises to 73 per cent. Of course, there are special circumstances in Northern Ireland, in that the accelerated procedure does not apply. However, so far as I know, there has been no public demand for a shorter period in either Scotland or Northern Ireland. The period which I and my colleagues are proposing in the amendment is considerably shorter than the period which applies generally in either Scotland or Northern Ireland and in at least 25 per cent. of all divorces in England and Wales. To my way of thinking, the longer period is much fairer to the spouse who does not want a divorce. At present, 25 per cent. of divorces in England and Wales take between two and five years. In this Bill, why should we not consider the spouse who does not want a divorce but who, under the terms of the Bill, can be divorced against his or her wish?
I also think that the longer period for reflection and consideration is important, in that we know that today between 20,000 and 30,000 couples come to the brink of divorce, but then drop the divorce proceedings and do not complete them. We also know that a high proportion of those who do divorce subsequently regret it. Surely we should are trying to help couples in both those circumstances by encouraging them to think again right up to the moment when the divorce is granted. I also believe that, now that we have decided that there will are no fault, it becomes even more important to protect the interests of the spouse who does not want a divorce, and to take more time.
According to the poll quoted by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, to which I have referred previously, 60 per cent. of the respondents support the present two-year period of separation where both parties consent to a divorce. Those who support a period of reflection and consideration favour a period of 20 months, which is approximately what is suggested in the amendment.
This is an important issue. I hope that my noble and learned friend will consider it in the spirit in which it is offered. For those of us who are deeply unhappy about the Bill and its effects, I hope that this is one way in which we might find some common ground and make progress. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, if Amendment No. 27 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 28 to 31 inclusive on account of pre-emption.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I strongly support the amendment. The existence of children, especially teenage children, will have a great effect on whether a divorce takes place. To put it in the simplest terms, teenage children are powerful marriage counsellors. They have a great effect on what their mother and father are about to do.
Secondly, I support the proposed lengthening of the time to 18 months where there are children, because there is the hope that where there are children the

1705
divorce may not take place. I have said before that I have read somewhere that 90 per cent. of children regret the fact that their parents divorced.
I am talking about children and the length of time needed to counsel a couple to stay together. Counselling is vital and we shall be talking about it later. It is different from mediation. Mediation is in the hands of lawyers. Mediators should in no way be confused with counsellors. Counsellors belong to the organisations about which we know and which we hope will are supported with much more money in the hope that they might avert the divorce.
The children's grandmothers and grandfathers, and possibly the older brothers and sisters of the couple whose marriage is in difficulties may have to return from abroad. All that demands much more time to help save the marriage. The period of 18 months suggested by my noble friend Lady Young is wise. It is not a long time. I have known of cases where older brothers and sisters are in Australia or America. They have to come hack and they might have a great deal of influence on the family. I hope that my noble and learned friend will think about this carefully. The suggestion of an 1 8-month period is a valuable one that my noble friend has put into the minds of noble Lords.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. The House will be aware of my views about the Bill generally. Of course, I was extremely disappointed that the amendments retaining fault were not carried. The amendment may are the next best thing. As has been pointed out, the position should are different where the couple is agreeable to a divorce from the case where only one partner to the marriage wishes to have a divorce. As was pointed out by the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, in the case of children more time is needed to make settlements which are satisfactory to them.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that a year is a long time. In actual fact, a year is a very short time when you have such arrangements to make. Furthermore, in relation to reconciliation and to second thoughts it is a short time too. Therefore, in a case in which only one party has given notice of a divorce, or where children are involved, an extension of time to 18 months would are most beneficial. I would have thought that when we are making such a huge difference to the divorce law, and when there is no great public demand for it, the least we could do would are to pass this amendment.
That would go some way to assuage the fears not only of Members of this House but of people outside about I he. effects of the Bill on marriage generally, and about the messages which are being sent in particular to young people about marriage and lasting and loving relationships. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the
1706
Lord Chancellor will give serious consideration to the amendment. If are does not and it is voted upon tonight, I hope that it will receive the support of the House.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I support the amendment for the reasons that have been advanced in the three speeches that your Lordships have heard.
Lord Shaw of Northstead: My Lords, I have listened to the whole debate today and the one thing that has become clear, if it was not clear already, is that, we are dealing with a Bill in which there are no absolutes. Distress is inherent in the whole Bill. The variety of ways in which distress can be shown to arise is infinite. In my opinion, one will never find a perfect answer to the many problems.
I am afraid it is in that light that I look at the amendment. I understand the deep feelings that arise, in particular when children are involved. However, I find it difficult to believe that the extension of the period to 18 months where children are concerned is appropriate. It is not easy to decide the matter. I approached a counsellor and put it to her. She agreed with me that one must do one's best to reach a resolution on such a painful matter as quickly as possible. By dragging it out one would do more harm than good.
There may well are exceptional cases and my noble friend raised such possibilities today. However, surely in most cases the attempt to obtain a divorce does not come suddenly out of the blue. The desire has been building up and building up with it have been thoughts about what will happen to the children. I believe that once the process of divorce has begun and the situation has reached that stage the matter should are dealt with as quickly as possible in the interests of the children. Having said that, I understand the deep feelings that there are on all sides of the House and the different views that are expressed. At present I must confess that I believe that the single year should apply in all cases.
Lord Monson: My Lords, it seems to me that the merits of the amendment lie partly in its probable practical consequences which were spelt out so clearly by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in her introduction but also in the strong signal that it would send to the nation at large; namely, that while the state of marriage is always important and significant, where dependent children are concerned it is doubly so.
Accordingly, while there should never are any question in a free society of preventing the dissolution of such a marriage, dissolution should nevertheless are discouraged by the erection of an extra hurdle, even if it is only the relatively low hurdle which this amendment proposes.
However, there is one very small problem. As drafted, the amendment does not refer to dependent children but to the children of the marriage. Clause 19, the interpretation clause, defines children of the marriage as being identical to the definition contained in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. I looked at that Act and it was rather unclear and ambiguous. I then went to look at Halshury's Laws of England, which thankfully was not ambiguous at all. That states categorically that the

1707
word "children" in Section 5(2) of the Matrimonial Causes Act means "offspring of the marriage, regardless of age". The important words are "regardless of age". It may are that this amendment is meant to embrace children who are older than the age of 16, but I suspect that it may not are meant in that way, and it may be inappropriate were it to do so.
That is a relatively minor point which could be put right on Third Reading and it should not prevent us supporting the amendment this evening.
Lord Northbourne: I speak to Amendments Nos. 29 and 36 in my name and I also support the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in respect of Amendment No. 27.
There is very little on the face of this Bill to distinguish clearly between a marriage which has children as against a marriage without children. I have maintained before and I maintain again that spouses or partners who decide to bring a child into the world, or even where they bring a child into the world through carelessness, bring upon themselves a grave responsibility. They take upon their marriage and take upon each of them an additional responsibility.
If that is true, I ask myself whether it can make sense for the Bill to treat the young childless couple experimenting with marriage in the same way as a couple who have taken upon themselves the responsibilities of parenthood. I think not.
I have considered the various ways in which the Bill can send out the message that children matter. The conclusion that I have reached, perhaps wrongly, is that the best way in which that can are done is that the period for reflection should are somewhat longer when there are children because the decision is that much graver.
1 admit that I was tempted to extend the time to two years but I constrained myself. When an extension of the period for reflection was suggested at an earlier stage of the Bill, a certain amount of play was put on the idea that it was punishment. I do not think that it is punishment but I believe that it may are discouragement. It will certainly not save all marriages but it may help to save some.
There is usually a moment in any marriage when one of the partners wonders whether the grass may are greener on the other side of the fence. If a third party comes on the scene, the marriage can be in trouble. Extra time for reflection gives more time for the new romance to show itself as a brief encounter. If there is longer to wait, there is a very real possibility that the intruder may get bored and go away. A marriage is more than just a relationship; it is also a partnership. It is a partnership formed to do two jobs: to bring up children and to support one another into old age. Relationships will always have ups and downs—they will always have blips—but if the partnership holds to its purpose in very many cases the relationship will work itself out again, perhaps changed, perhaps even enriched. But it takes time.
I must beg to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Shaw. I have been advised by an expert in this field that it takes a great deal of time for a couple to
1708
learn to communicate again, to learn to relate to one another again; and 18 months perhaps gives a better chance, even if it is only a marginally better chance, than one year. It gives more time and more help. In my amendments I have met the objection that a longer waiting period might be damaging to the children because my amendment provides that where this is the case the court can order the period to be reduced to 12 months, but no less.
Finally, this amendment, with the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, would have the effect of doing something to confound those who say that this Bill is making divorce easier.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I am sorry to inject a note of feminism into this debate, because I strongly support the amendment introduced by my noble friend Lady Young to extend, where there are children, a period of waiting to 18 months. I referred to a note of feminism because it is mostly the men in this House who have spoken, and they perhaps forget that after the first year of marriage women are apt to have babies; and if you are a woman with a small child or newborn baby the chances of disruption of the marriage at that stage are of course very great. If you are a woman with a small baby trying to manage on her own or with her husband away, you can get great disturbances between husband and wife, particularly at that early stage of marriage. How a wife with a small baby can be expected to attend mediation meetings and deal with attempts possibly to be divorced by her husband is difficult to understand. I do not want to go at great length into this, but I think I have made the point that where a woman is at home with a baby and trying to look after that child at an early stage of her married life, that is the time when a great many difficulties as between husband and wife arise. I would have thought this was exactly the case where some extension of time should be granted. It would apply there as well as to our other examples where there are children of the family up to the age of 16 or 18. I very much hope that my noble and learned friend might feel that this rather "housebound" view might be taken into account as regards the extension of the period from one year to 18 months in such cases.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I take the view that a year for reflection and consideration is enough in all cases, which I understand to have been the Government's considered conclusion in all cases. The argument that it shouldare18 months in cases where there are children cannot be justified on the basis that divorce should be made more difficult for its own sake in such cases, as distinct from the argument that a further six months is required in these cases where there are children for better reflection and consideration.
I noted that when the noble Baroness, Lady Young, argued for fault-based divorce earlier in our proceedings today, as distinct from divorce based on irreparable breakdown, she argued that even if fault—a remedy she recommended—was made out, a "quickie" divorce shouldareprecluded—that is to say, a party who was genuinely at fault who made out that fault-based remedy

1709
should be kept out of that remedy and not granted it promptly by the courts. As I recall, she even recommended that regulations for the aid of the expedition of court proceedings should be repealed. If your Lordships had acceded to that, it would have been a unique legislative contribution to the law's delays.
The proposition is that there should be an extension of the period of one year, "for reflection and consideration", to 18 months where children are involved. I can agree with the noble Baroness to this extent: there is very much more to reflect and consider about when children are involved than when they are not. But I am unpersuaded that a further period of time is required for that purpose when there are children of the marriage. On the contrary, I believe that the further delay entailed in an extension of six months would are likely to prejudice the children by increasing the uncertainty of what is to happen to their parents' lives. Therefore, as I said, I am unpersuaded and oppose the amendment.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, we have heard quite a few statistics this evening; indeed, we have already heard about the findings of the MORI poll commissioned by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I should like to reiterate what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said earlier about the 20,000 to 30,000 people who each year petition for a divorce and then, before going through with the process, turn hack because they have had a period in which to reflect.
I should like to make one further small point. Most noble Lords present seem to have forgotten the findings of the Exeter child report. Who are noble Lords to say that a year is enough'? If noble Lords had only read that report, they would have seen that children would far prefer to stay within a family household. We are quibbling about a period of five years, but children would far prefer to stay in the family household. Possibly they would see their mother and father quarrelling but at the same time they would feel secure. Noble Lords are adults, not children. They should listen to the findings of those people who were commissioned to take the feelings of the children on hoard. They are in writing. If noble Lords had the time to look at the report, they would learn before opening their mouths in this Chamber.
It has been said, and repeated quite often, that mediation is not reconciliation. It is in fact a kind of quasi-litigation. The mediator will mediate for the parties in settling the contact with the children and the property of the marriage. It is true to say that the Bill allows for the mediation period to come to a halt in the event that reconciliation becomes a possibility.
In addition, I should like to welcome the recently tabled amendment of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor which will require the mediators to give much more thought and consideration to the possibility of reconciliation. Nevertheless, there remains the need !Or a period specifically devoted to reconciliation so that the parties have time to reflect and to consider in the knowledge that no property or financial orders will are made—except, of course, interim orders which might render reconciliation
1710
difficult or even impossible. With all those facts in mind, I totally support everything put forward by the noble Baroness in her amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I may, first, assure the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, that I have read the Exeter study with a great deal of interest and care. However, I am not persuaded by its statistical methods. I have discussed that point with the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, both inside and outside the Chamber. I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not do so again at this time of night.
I wish to draw attention to one point in the drafting of Amendment No. 27. In paragraph (a) there is a reference to where,
"there are no children of the family".
Does this mean minor children, or does it also cover children of 25 or 30 years of age? That is a point which I think ought to are clarified before the House ultimately comes to decide on this matter.
The new thing about this Bill is that it imposes a year's delay. That is a point of some importance. I understand that the purpose of that is to prevent divorce in hot blood. There is something relative about the passage of time. Any of your Lordships who have been, as I have, at the wheel of a car whose brakes have failed unexpectedly will know that in those circumstances 10 seconds can be a long time. Equally, I am sure the noble and learned Lord will confirm that in the drafting and preparation of a parliamentary Bill one year can be a short time. The question is: what is the appropriate clock'? I was advised when I was a young man that should I wish to break off an engagement or similar relationship, the length of time I needed to keep out of the person's way would be about six months—I think there was sense in that advice—which would then give a further six months for working out what I really felt when left to myself. I really do not see that the extra six months on top of that are necessary and I would rather the Bill remains as it is.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, in the grouping we are discussing I much prefer Amendments Nos. 29 and 36 which have already been spoken to by my noble friend Lord Northbourne. Turning to Amendment No. 27, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, may have explained the last three lines of that amendment. That explanation is not immediately apparent on the face of the amendment. Had it been suggested in the amendment that the time could be used for efforts at reconciliation or for marriage counselling, or for something of that sort, I would have understood it, but in the stark form in which it appears it seems to me to be something like an incentive for doing nothing.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I prefer the one-year period to the 18 months for two reasons. First, uncertainty is a bad thing for children, particularly at times of distress and worry. Secondly, that period will not mark the beginning of the period of distress. There will have been trouble and uncertainty for long before that—probably a year, perhaps even longer. I prefer to

1711
keep the period of one year. Perhaps we should be more flexible and give the court the option of extending the period in certain circumstances.
Lord Moran: My Lords, at Second Reading I said I was not worried about couples who did not have dependent children divorcing but that I was deeply concerned about the effects of the Bill on children. It is important and useful that these amendments draw a distinction between couples with children and those without. I should not mind reducing the period for couples without children below one year, but for couples with children it is important that they should have time both for reconciliation efforts to are made to save the marriage and for the requirements of mediation and all the business of dealing with custody and the division of the assets. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, argued persuasively, 18 months is a reasonable compromise, which I support. I am also attracted by the case for Amendment No. 36 put persuasively by my noble friend Lord Northhourne. I think 18 months is the right period and I hope that we shall go for it.
Lord Habgood: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken has neatly illustrated my fear about this amendment; namely, that it traduces us to the concept of two classes of marriage—a marriage in which people are willing to consent to dissolve it when they have no children and a marriage in which there are other responsibilities. That seems to me to put us on a very slippery slope. The noble Lord has just illustrated that by saying that in the first category we can reduce the period below one year.
I believe that the Bill ought to indicate that a marriage is a marriage is a marriage, whether or not one has responsibilities for children. It takes time to dissolve any marriage. The fact that the period is the same for all marriages—whether it is a year or 18 months—says something very important about the status of marriage itself, quite apart from the additional responsibilities marriage may give us.
Lord Burnham: I should like to follow up the thesis of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, concerning the relative period of time of which we are speaking in every case.
With the exception of a few of my noble friends on the Front Bench, your Lordships are all old and grey. As a result, to us a year is a very short time. To the child, a year is a very long time indeed. As my noble friend pointed out, the trauma, unpleasantness and difficulties that arise out of a divorce do not begin at the moment when the period of a year or 18 months starts; they have been going on for a long time. The children are in distress. They are unhappy about the relationship between their parents. They have probably been unhappy for a long time before the period starts. From that point on, a year is an age to them. It is quite enough.
11 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: As my noble friend Lady Young explained, the amendment is put forward in a
1712
constructive spirit. I appreciate that. On the other hand, we ought to seek to be guided so far as we can by principle in this matter.
I submit to the Committee that the question of whether a marriage has broken down is one that ought to be tested by a given period of time. It is true that where there are children there will be a need to make arrangements for the children. The Bill proposes that those arrangements must be made, in general, before a divorce is granted. Therefore, where time is required to make the arrangements that time is provided for in the Bill. It may well be longer than a year in some cases. It certainly cannot be less than a year, because the minimum period is the year for reflection and consideration. I submit that there is a proper period for that purpose, which one has to decide upon. That purpose applies to all marriages. It is not affected by whether or not there are children of the marriage.
I agree entirely that where there are children of the marriage there are additional responsibilities, as the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, pointed out. The Bill takes full account of that in requiring that arrangements for children have to are made before the divorce is granted.
One of the matters we have to take into account is the effect of uncertainty upon children. This is a matter which has already been the subject of a good deal of comment by the Committee. In that situation, it seems to me as a matter of principle that it cannot are right to require that, just because there are children, those children should are subjected to a longer period of stress than is necessary for the purpose of determining that the marriage has broken down irretrievably. One has to try to are guided by principle in this matter. I, of course, had this in mind when we consulted on the Green Paper as a result of taking up this problem. I had the impression from the consultation that a clear majority of our consultees did not favour the imposition of a longer period if there were children. These are matters of judgment.
Your Lordships may have received briefing circulated on behalf of OneplusOne, the marriage and partnership research charity, in which Dr. Jack Dominian plays a very important role as an experienced researcher and adviser in this area. Writing on behalf of OneplusOne, and of the director of the Jewish Marriage Council, the chief executive of Relate, the director of the Tavistock Marital Studies Institute, and Mary Corbett, the chief executive of Marriage Care, the director comments on the amendment to extend the period to 18 months where the statement of marriage breakdown is made by one party or where there are children of the marriage:
"The proposal for a period of reflection sends out a very important message—that the decision to divorce is a serious step and has profound implications for the parties and their families.
"Given this opportunity to consider the future, many couples will need the skilled help of marriage counselling and mediation to help them".
I wish particularly to emphasise the third point:
"There is no right time for all couples: however, the law must provide a justifiable definition of the length of this period".
That is the period during which to decide that there is irretrievable breakdown.

1713
The briefing continues:
"One year seems to us to are long enough for couples who are unsure about divorce to reconsider their position and explore the possibilities of reconciliation and not too long for those (especially children) who are caught in an intolerable situation as a result of marital breakdown".
In the light of those considerations, and as a result of the consultation which we undertook, I feel that the period of a year which ultimately we decided upon is right.
I also point out that my amendments embrace the early part of this amendment, which makes the period of reflection and consideration begin on the 14th day after the statement was received by the court, as Amendment No. 27 proposes.
So far as concerns the last part of the amendment, I submit to your Lordships that the period is one which ought to have a purpose throughout and any encouragement not to use the period fully for the purposes for which it is provided might well detract from its success for those purposes.
Accordingly, I invite your Lordships to hold to the period as stated in the Bill. This is, of course, very much a matter of conscience, and, therefore, it is a matter, so far as we are concerned, for a free vote.
Baroness Young: My Lords, despite the late hour, I think we have had a very good debate on the amendment. I am grateful to the many noble Lords who have supported me in what I said.
Perhaps I may deal with some of the questions raised. I was asked the meaning of "children of the family". That refers to the natural children of the couple; and it could are other children—an adopted child, for instance, or a stepchild. I would define the word "child" as I believe it is generally defined as someone under the age of 16. I do not think there is anything unusual in that.
I recognise that whether we settle on a period of a year or of 18 months is very much a matter of judgment. Those who spoke against the amendment did so, if I may sum it up, on the grounds that a year is a long time in the life of a child and one should not allow uncertainty to continue longer than a year. A year of quarrelling parents is a very long time in the life of a child.
There has been much discussion on the evidence regarding the effect of divorce on children. There is no doubt whatever that divorce is very had for children, however it is dressed up in this Bill with reconciliation, advice, help, social workers and anyone else we care to name. The statistics relating to children of divorced parents show conclusively that they have more ill health, do worse at school, are more likely to take to crime and repeat the pattern of their parents' marriages. I have said this before, but it should are repeated and borne in mind. There is extensive research that shows it to be fact.
Lord Elton: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will allow me to remind her of something I said in a compressed sentence in an earlier debate. There is a very much larger body of research summarised by Amato and
1714
Keith in 1991, based on 13,000 children. It comes to the conclusion that the outcomes are better for children in divorce than in intact, conflict-ridden families.
Baroness Young: My Lords, of course I took that point. I do not base this argument on the Exeter study. There is considerably more evidence than that. However, that is one piece of information. We could argue for a very long time about divorce. But I draw to my noble friend's attention the very important book, Families without Fatherhood. It is based on research by, I believe, two members of the Labour Party, so it is not some Conservative handbook. It is very important reading for anyone concerned with this subject.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give way? I wonder whether she will explain, even at this late hour, to the House what is her intellectual difficulty in comprehending the proposition that it is the breakdown of marriages that causes all these problems for children, not the subsequent divorce.
Baroness Young: My Lords, as I have already said, I believe there is evidence that it is the divorce. Of course children are unhappy when parents quarrel. I do not dispute that statement. But we have already heard evidence from noble Lords who spoke about the effects of their own parents' divorce who obviously, years later, have not really recovered from it. We delude ourselves about this matter. I can only speak from my own experience. I think I was 14 before I met anybody who had ever had anything to do with divorce.
Baroness Elles: I am most grateful to my noble friend for giving way. On this point, a recent Home Office report, of which I know she is aware, indicated that all the major offences by young people are committed by those who come from broken homes. That is after the divorce. One of the points being made by my noble friend is this. Where there are children, it is more important to have a longer period in which to take measures to try to get over a breakdown, try to stop it happening and try to save the marriage. It is not necessary to turn to the Exeter study. The facts in the Home Office paper regarding children who suffer from broken homes are that those who commit serious offences and those in care are all from broken homes.
A noble Lord: My Lords, will the noble Baroness—
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I remind the House that this is Report stage. My noble friend Lady Young was winding up. She should be allowed to complete her remarks.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Elles very much for her intervention. I was of course aware of the Home Office report. I am quite certain that, if we were to look at a lot of the 16 year-old children sleeping rough on the streets of London tonight, we should find that most of them are from broken homes, with step-parents who have turned them out.

1715
So it is a very serious matter. That is the consequence of divorce. The point that is made over and over again by Jonathan Sacks in his hook on the family, to which I referred, is that there are numbers of families now without fathers and sons without fathers and without a male role model, who are suffering acutely.
In this Bill we are saying that we must pander to the modern concept that if you do not like what you have got, you can trade it in or change it for something better. That will make the parents happier and we shall do what we can to pick up the pieces for the children, who are the ones who will suffer. It is a policy of despair to say that couples cannot consider these matters for 18 months. After all, they might change their minds; people do change their minds. If they had a little longer they might have a great opportunity to do so. Some will not and sometimes it will be difficult. I cannot prove that anybody will be more likely to change their mind any more than anybody else can prove that they will not change their mind. The law can only give the opportunities, and a longer, opportunity in this case.
I was very surprised to hear the argument that we should not draw a distinction between couples with children and couples without children. It seems to me that there is a very clear difference. For couples without children, when they both consent, I accept that a year would are quite long enough. But where there are children, a great many other considerations apply and we should consider those.
I say to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor that in all these things we must always hope for reconciliation. A longer period of time makes that more likely to be considered. I am grateful that—asarepointed out—later in the Bill are has made provision to ensure that, where arrangements for children need to are considered, the time of one year can are extended. I welcome that.
1716
I am very disappointed that are has felt quite unable to meet me on any of those points. But the hour is late. I shall consider what are said, and particularly the drafting of this amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may ask, in relation to that last remark, that she consider at Third Reading bringing this matter before the House again, since it is of such vital importance. The number of noble Lords who are present tonight is not able truly to represent the feeling of the House.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 29:
Page 4, line 5, after ("is") insert ("a minimum or).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 29 and 36. However, I should like to say that I was tremendously disappointed by the noble and learned Lord's response. I shall not repeat all the remarks of the noble Baroness Lady Young, but I shall add one comment.
I for one, and I think she also, attempted to help the noble and learned Lord to deal with a very real problem; namely, the message that this Bill sends out to the world. The press tells us that this is a Bill to make divorce easier. We need to try to devise some way to send a message that it does not make divorce easier and that couples who bring children into the world have an additional responsibility. Having said that, I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 29 trot moved.]
House adjourned at nineteen minutes past eleven o'clock.

  Grenada, Dominica and Solomon Islands: Loans
  Grenada, Dominica and Solomon Islands: Loans
  Flea Collars: Child Safety
  Flea Collars: Child Safety
  Greece: Control of CAP Expenditure
  Greece: Control of CAP Expenditure
  Agriculture Council, 26th February
  Agriculture Council, 26th February
  Arable Area Payments
  Arable Area Payments
  Multi-media and Information Technology
  Multi-media and Information Technology
  Local Government Reorganisation: Lord Lieutenants
  Local Government Reorganisation: Lord Lieutenants
  UK Forces under US Command
  UK Forces under US Command
  Arms Exports: Public Information
  Arms Exports: Public Information
  Bulk Carrier Losses
  Bulk Carrier Losses
  Holding Centres: Independent Commissioner's Annual Report
  Holding Centres: Independent Commissioner's Annual Report
  Secure Training Centres
  Secure Training Centres
  Public Interest Immunity Claims
  Public Interest Immunity Claims
  Matrix Churchill Case: Public Interest Immunity
  Matrix Churchill Case: Public Interest Immunity
  Prosecution Policy
  Prosecution Policy
  The Royal Parks Agency
  The Royal Parks Agency
  Beaufort's Dyke: Survey Work
  Beaufort's Dyke: Survey Work