Sitting of 26 February 1997

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

  NATO
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
  9.34 am
  Mr. Bill Walker: I welcome this opportunity to debate the expansion of NATO. Like others of my generation, I remember how the United States air force went home after the second world war had ended. I remember the Berlin blockade, how the Berlin airlift was initiated and how the US air force—God bless them—returned to the United Kingdom bases. I also remember how the north Atlantic treaty came into being, and I remember vividly Churchill's iron curtain speech.
  I remember all those things because I was a young service man at the time. I look back on almost 50 years of successful NATO activity. I remember such things because my generation paid expensively for the mistakes that had been made in the 1920s and 1930s.
  "This innocent" is how I was described in The Sunday Times by a fellow named Simon Sebag-Montefiore, who must be important with a name like that. If I am an innocent, many of my generation are also innocents, and we care deeply about the mistakes that were made in the 1920s and 1930s, especially the 1930s.
  I cannot forget that NATO was the commitment made largely by the US Government to send hundreds of thousands of US service men to Europe. That is what gave NATO its deterrent capability and made the alliance meaningful. That credibility enhanced the security of all the member states. The Washington treaty declared that an armed attack on the territory of any member state would be regarded as an attack on all: to wage war on one was to declare war on all—article 5 left no doubt about that commitment.
  In the beginning, only the United States was a nuclear power. Britain and France were also to become nuclear powers. Throughout its life, Britain's strategic nuclear deterrent capability, carried first by aircraft and later by submarines, has been committed to NATO. The same has been true of our theatre nuclear weapons. Thus, the British—but not the French—nuclear capability was committed to the defence of the territory of our NATO allies in Europe: the British nuclear umbrella offered protection to our NATO allies throughout Europe.
  Anyone who has studied the structures of NATO will recognise that NATO operates in two fields—the political field, where the French have remained, and the military field, which the French left. I shall deal first with the military field, as I believe that NATO's success has been due mainly to its military credibility, which has
  258
  been recognised by friends and foes alike. That credibility was brought about in part by the massive US presence in Europe. Without that presence, NATO would have been seen as a political alliance without teeth.
  The presence of the US forces has been critical. The command and control structure has worked. Without it, NATO would not have been an effective military force. Without a heavy lift capability provided by the United States, NATO would have been unable to deploy its military assets successfully, where required. The United States' contribution to command and control—and, to a smaller but still important extent, that of Britain—is an important factor. The co-operation paid off first in the Gulf, where military operations were largely built upon NATO command and control activities, and later in Bosnia. Put simply, the United States has provided the military leaders, and Britain has provided the deputies. We must examine carefully anything that may threaten NATO military command and control or the US commitment to Europe. That is why I called for the debate this morning.
  I am concerned about the expansion of NATO. Like everyone else, I wish to enjoy any dividend that may follow the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact military threat. You will notice, Madam Speaker, that I do not talk about the peace dividend. I believe that we have enjoyed the peace secured by a powerful and a credible NATO: peace over the years is the real dividend. The House should address the risks involved in NATO expansion. I accept that all change involves an element of risk, but we must assess the level of risk and decide whether it is acceptable. If it is not, we must think again.
  There are five basic criteria for NATO membership: an established democracy, respect for human rights, a market-based economy, armed forces under full civilian control, and good relations with neighbouring states. I understand that 10 countries—Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia—have submitted discussion papers on membership.
  We must ask: against whom is the bigger NATO directed? I believe that it is directed against no one, but those pushing for its expansion claim that it is necessary for the security of Europe. I cannot be the only one who believes that opening up trade opportunities is the most effective way of making the "Partnership for Peace" work. That is the real way to peace: it cannot be achieved through military alliances. A free trade area throughout Europe, including free trade with the former Warsaw pact countries, would do more to maintain peace than signing any military agreements. That is why it is important to recognise that NATO is in two parts: political and military. I am concerned that the political wing of NATO—which is a defence alliance—is confusing what should be urgent free trade discussions. That is putting at risk this most successful military alliance.
  Does anyone seriously believe that a defence alliance around the perimeter of Russia, from the Balkans to Moldova and the Ukraine, will not have an impact in Moscow? I judge that it could create an atmosphere from which extreme politicians might emerge as the next leaders of Russia. I accept that Russia poses no threat at present, but I remind the House that no one had heard of Hitler in 1930. By 1940—in 10 short years—he had created the largest military machine seen at that time and occupied most of Europe. Who can say what the next

  259
  10 years may bring. History tells us that the actions of today sow the seeds of the harvest that we shall reap in the next 10 to 15 years. I also remind the House that Britain entered the second world war because we had a treaty with Poland. NATO expansion would recreate such treaties.
  We should discuss the prospects of a free trade area covering the north Atlantic and embracing the United States, Canada, Mexico, the European Union and the former Warsaw pact countries. That is the road to peace. I oppose using NATO for a purpose for which it was not intended. NATO is a defence alliance, and I want it to remain intact. I also want the American presence in Germany to continue, as its removal would put NATO's military credibility at great risk.
  Mr. Peter Viggers: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, especially as I will not be able to stay for the whole debate because I must attend a meeting of the Defence Committee. I apologise to the House. I share my hon. Friend's concerns. Does he accept that there is a strong, and perhaps unstoppable, movement towards expanding NATO that has started in the United States—it may be fuelled by expatriate communities—and is supported by the countries of eastern and central Europe? Perhaps Russian fears could be assuaged by placing more emphasis on "Partnership for Peace" which, with the trade links that my hon. Friend has urged, is a way of keeping in touch with central and eastern European countries without expanding NATO.
  Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend, whose experience and interest in this area spans many years, expresses the views of many. "Partnership for Peace" is not the same as a defence alliance, but it is a meaningful and positive way forward. I am concerned that forces within the United States—some of whom have never understood properly why it was necessary to maintain a huge American presence in Europe—are motivated by hopes of reducing military expenditure. That is always a problem during times of peace when there is no obvious threat. They want to see the so-called peace dividend, although I have never supported that idea.
  I think that we are now entering a period similar to the 1930s: if we get it wrong, our grandchildren will have to put it right. All of my life, I have been determined that the mistakes made by my father's and my grandfather's generations would not be repeated while I was in public life. That is why I am in public life and, if I am an innocent, so be it, but my innocence is the result of military experience, where I learnt to my cost and that of many colleagues what happens when one is ill prepared and has the wrong weapons systems.
  We should discuss the prospects of a free trade area covering the north Atlantic and embracing the United States, Canada, Mexico, the European Union and the former Warsaw pact countries. That makes sense for us now, because the expected growth of the Pacific rim countries, and future competition from that part of the world, will hit us hard. It makes sense for the old industrial nations of the west and the former Soviet Union to get together to decide how to address those challenges.
  I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that the British should argue, whatever our friends in the United States say, that the matter be discussed in greater depth.
  260
  We believe that NATO should remain as it is, with command and control and the US presence in Europe intact. The US heavy lift capability should remain intact and be committed unreservedly. Without that capability, we cannot deploy our military assets.
  We should have meaningful discussions about collaboration, but we should also give deep and serious consideration to the risks and the practicalities of allowing former Warsaw pact countries to be members of a defence alliance. We know that their equipment will not fit in initially, and it will be many years before it is compatible. Does anyone seriously believe that those countries could provide meaningful contributions with their armed forces? We must think it through carefully and fully.
  Problems may well result from bilateral negotiations that have taken place between Russia and the former Warsaw pact countries, and possibly with some members of NATO since the Berlin wall has come down. All of that has to be considered carefully before we sign up to bringing people into a defence alliance that has worked and which must continue if we are to continue to enjoy the real peace that comes from having the ability to deter. I remind the House that, if we accept former Warsaw pact countries as members of a defence alliance that makes an attack on one an attack on all, we are back to where we were in 1939.
  9.50 am
  Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I congratulate the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) on securing this very important debate, which should have taken place a long time ago. It is ironic that, rather than the Government initiating a free-standing debate on the enlargement of NATO at least two years ago, it has been left to a Back Bencher to secure a debate on a Wednesday morning.
  From the number of articles that have appeared recently in various newspapers, it is clear that there is growing speculation and, in some cases, concern about the enlargement of NATO. When I visited NATO headquarters last year, during the all-party annual visit to NATO, which I always find very revealing—in fact, I get more answers from NATO than I do on the Floor of the House of Commons—it seemed as though enlargement was being accepted as a fait accompli. I am opposed to the enlargement of NATO, for many of the reasons that the hon. Member for North Tayside mentioned. I do not agree entirely with his analysis, but I agree with the main thrust of his argument.
  I shall put some of the arguments against enlargement. I suggest that it is likely to antagonise Russia and jeopardise peaceful co-operation with the west, as is becoming clear. NATO's raison d'etre has always been the creation of a security alliance in opposition to Russia. Consequently, not only Russia's political elite, but the population at large, perceive expansion as a threat and are overwhelmingly opposed to it. As many of us who have monitored Russian elections and have been there know, there has been a significant rise in anti-democratic, anti-western forces and nationalist sentiments, which may be encouraged by NATO expansion, creating a Russia and a President with whom the west may not be able to negotiate. It is doubtful whether current efforts and proposals for co-operation will be sufficient to reassure those elements.

  261
  I maintain that expansion will remilitarise the Russian-western relationship. That relationship has, since 1989, been based on arms transparency. A change may encourage the development of an alternative Russian-centred security alliance to the east, thus creating again two blocs and a cold war Europe. Likewise, efforts to improve controls on nuclear weapons and the conventional forces in Europe agreement could be undermined as Russia becomes increasingly paranoid and unco-operative.
  Since the end of the cold war, many of us have been concerned about the former Soviet Union and what will happen to the people who worked in its nuclear installations and secret cities. Their skills, possibly, may no longer be used in their own countries, but they may be required by countries that we would not like to develop a nuclear capability.
  NATO is currently stronger than Russia militarily by three to one, but that will increase to four to one after expansion. There is no current security threat to central and eastern Europe, so why destabilise the existing relationships that appear to work? I maintain that expansion will weaken NATO, because it already takes a considerable time to mobilise and reach agreement among 16 members. It will be much harder with 19-plus members. Likewise, the new members will be weaker in their capacity and may prove to be a burden.
  Expansion will prove costly to NATO, and carry dubious benefits. According to The Times, NATO expansion will cost $35 billion over the next 12 years. Figures from the US congressional office estimate the cost to be between $61 billion and $125 billion. The UK's current share of the NATO budget is 10 per cent., so expansion will have considerable cost implications for the United Kingdom.
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: The hon. Lady quoted a figure of $35 billion, but the assumption is that military bases financed by NATO will not be placed in some of the countries that join. The $125 billion figure takes into account the serious problems of interoperability and the higher costs of trying to fuse all the different armies together. The cost, as has been pretty well agreed, will be at the lower end, and nuclear weapons and military bases will not be positioned in the new member countries. It is the lower end that we have to consider—$35 billion to $40 billion over 10 years.
  Mrs. Clwyd: The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but the cost will be much greater than he suggests. The problem is that the House has never debated the cost of expansion. It is essential that we fully understand the implications. He says that the cost may be at the lower end, but I think that it will be closer to the higher end. None of us knows. That is why we should have a proper debate in the House.
  I think that expansion will prove costly to new members, because they lack the financial resources, have limited skilled personnel and have poorer communications and logistical structures. One recent estimate suggested that military spending in those countries would increase by 60 to 80 per cent., placing a further strain on the budgets of countries that need the money for economic and social reforms. Ironically, expansion may undermine plans for economic reform and jeopardise the domestic stability that it is attempting to encourage.
  262
  Expansion would also increase the insecurity of states that are excluded. Ukraine in particular has expressed fears that it may be placed in a compromising position and face pressure from Russia to join an eastern security alliance. Ironically, expansion would not cover the main countries that need a security cloak, such as the Baltics, whereas those that do not need it are most likely to be included.
  NATO expansion is merely an excuse for not proceeding at a speedier rate with European Union expansion. Some Conservative Members may have views on that. Unfortunately, what the region needs most is the economic and social benefits of EU membership, not the potential burden of a western security alliance. There was an interesting letter in the Financial Times a few days ago from James Eberle, former director of the Royal Institute of International Affairs. He had just returned from Moscow and wrote:
  "as a former Nato commander, I feel it is abundantly clear that, unless there is a substantial breakdown of the political and social order in central and eastern Europe, the principal threats to European security will not be in the military field. It is thus also clear where our priorities should lie."

  He went on to say:
  "The initial Nato enlargement decision in January 1994 was made without proper preparation; and there is still no unifying vision among member countries as to its strategic purpose. There has been no public debate. Ratification of the entry of each new member will be required in due course by allied parliaments, and this will be a difficult process … it will not be easy to reach an agreement that will give Russia the status and participation that she is seeking, yet which does not surrender Nato's freedom of action to a Russian veto."
  People with considerable experience in international affairs have very real concerns.
  The timetable and the process of enlargement have largely been set by the United States domestic agenda to deliver President Clinton's 1999 promise. That has been the driving force behind this undue haste. There has not been a rational consideration of the pros and cons.
  There are other ways in which NATO could develop as an alliance. A recent edition of the Washington-based "Defense Monitor" suggested:
  "The US should end its military domination of Europe and should exercise wise political leadership to facilitate Russia's inclusion among the states joining a transformed and renamed European military alliance."
  The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe is another possibility. It is a natural security organisation that includes Russia and central and eastern Europe. Why not devote funds to boosting that arrangement instead of the present proposals?
  Many analysts believe that the greatest threat to western security is the north-south divide. I have put that argument in the House many times in the past. Growing inequality, environmental disasters, mass disempowerment and poverty force the south to take ever more desperate measures to compel the west and the north of the world to notice. Economic inequalities will probably lead to increases in terrorism and sub-state terror, with which NATO is not equipped to deal.
  Expansion of NATO will exacerbate the differences between the north and the south of the world. It will turn Europe into a fortress that views the rest of the world as a high-risk area, and attempts to cut itself off. NATO may not be well equipped or correctly focused to deal with

  263
  those issues. Expansion will encourage instability, because of the increased availability of military hardware, when we should be moving towards demilitarisation.
  10.3 am
  Mr. John Redwood: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) on his choice of subject for this important debate. I compliment him on his excellent introductory speech, which set out many of the crucial issues. I should like to reassure him that he has many sterling qualities; honesty and bravery are two or them, but innocence does not spring to mind. Many of his hon. Friends know him better than the odd journalist in the odd diary column.
  NATO has kept the peace. NATO is an outstanding alliance. It is NATO that has stood up for democracy. It is NATO that stands up for the self-determination of peoples. It is NATO that has kept the peace in which we in western Europe have been privileged to live since 1945. I want the alliance to maintain its strength. I want it to remain true to those central principles. I want it to have another 50 years of spectacular success to match the past 50 years, which we have enjoyed or read about.
  I hope that the Minister will answer five crucial questions, which the Governments of the west must answer before embarking on the expansion of the NATO alliance. My hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside and the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) referred to the first question at some length: what will the Russian reaction be to our proposed expansion? Russia is militarily weak compared with NATO and the United States. Militarily, we could expand the borders of NATO a long way east, and we could achieve that without any untoward Russian reaction.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside and the hon. Member for Cynon Valley said, we must ask whether the expansion of NATO is worth it, or whether it would so sour relations with Russia that it would undermine our aim for that country, which is the establishment of a stable, peace-loving democracy committed to free enterprise and the mixed economy that it is now developing. The best prize of all for the west to win is the creation of conditions in which the Russian peoples become ever prouder and more confident of their democracy, and through that become ever keener on peaceful relations and prosperous trade and commerce with the west.
  The second question that we should ask is whether the applicant countries have stable frontiers. There has been much diplomatic work recently to resolve actual or potential tensions and conflicts between many of the countries that would like to join NATO. Before pressing ahead with any applicant's membership, we must satisfy ourselves that it has stable frontiers with its neighbours, and that there is unlikely to be a resumption of the conflicts and tensions that disfigured our continent in the 1920s and 1930s, of which my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside made such eloquent mention in his opening remarks.
  I welcome the progress being made to settle the problem of the Sudetenland. I welcome the progress being made between Hungary and Romania on the presence of the Hungarian peoples beyond the borders of their
  264
  country. I welcome the progress being made on Romania's borders further east, and I welcome the progress being made on the Polish border and the future of the Baltic republics. The big tensions in those areas before the second world war were snuffed out by the communist iron grip that took over in the post-war period. We need to ensure that those old tensions and conflicts have been resolved peacefully before we take on responsibility for those countries in our alliance.
  The third question that we should ask is: what contribution will the new members make to our alliance? We will extend to them a most important security guarantee. I do not believe that countries can be half-members of the NATO alliance. If countries join, we are responsible for their frontiers and for the tensions and conflicts in which they may be involved. We must take care of them, just as we expect them to be responsive to our requirements. We must ask what military contribution they will make, given that they will extend the borders of NATO a considerable distance east, and that they will thereby add to the problems that the security guarantee presents. Were the world to change and were hostile powers to emerge to the east or south, we would be required to stand by that security guarantee.
  The fourth question that we must ask arises from the previous question: can we defend each and every one of those applicant nations if we bring them into our alliance? That requires a clear military as well as a political assessment of any potential conflict or threat.
  It is no good saying, "Today we are fortunate, because the countries bordering us are democratic and peace-loving; or, if they are not democratic, they are peace-loving; or, if they are neither democratic nor peace-loving, they do not have the military strength or capability to do us harm." I trust that all that is true, but we must ask ourselves what the position would look like in 20 or 30 years' time if things changed dramatically—if some of those countries developed more hostile intentions, if they rearmed in a way that could be more threatening, if they gained the capability to move troops, weapons or even nuclear explosives over long distances. Might we then need ever stronger defences to meet the guarantees, and provide the security that each of those countries wants?
  The fifth question that we should ask is: what have we in mind for NATO's ultimate borders? The United States Secretary of State is talking in terms of inviting three of the countries that are currently geographically closest to NATO. I think that Russia will want to know whether we have it in mind to go right up to the Russian border, or to fall short of it. We should consider whether we intend to extend NATO membership ever more widely, so that we do reach the Russian border, or whether we think that consolidating our borders somewhere in central or eastern Europe is the right approach. I do not believe that the "salami" approach is a good one; I think that we need a strategic vision of how big NATO will eventually be, and that we should be prepared to speak now, whether or not we are going to invite all those countries in the first instance.
  I am not entirely happy with the idea of a half-price NATO for the new members. I am not sure that a country can be a strong member of an alliance such as NATO if it does not deploy all the weapons that it might need, or that it has in reserve, throughout the NATO area. I am not sure that there should be parts of that area, particularly

  265
  those on a country's eastern frontier, where it does not exercise its troops, or occasionally practise against the evil day when it might need to use them. We have to say that, if a country belongs to NATO, it must belong fully. It must protect the confidences and secrets of the club, and show us that it can do so. We, in turn, must be prepared to conduct joint exercises, and to put in place any weaponry that might be needed to back up the full guarantee that we shall be offering by way of security protection.
  The United States Secretary of State recently made an important statement through the columns of The Economist, and I welcome much of what she said. I particularly welcome her statement that NATO is the means by which the United States is involved in the security of western Europe, and will remain so. American support is crucial to the freedom of western Europe, and I strongly welcome it. The Secretary of State also said, however, that an enlarged NATO would mean a bigger European contribution to the European end of that defence, and I do not think that is right.
  Looking at the balance of risks and contributions from the applicants for membership, I think that, if anything, their immediate entry into the alliance would weaken rather than strengthen it. That is the issue that we must consider before rushing pell-mell into NATO expansion. The alliance is still most important to our security, and we must defend and protect that. We must keep the United States engaged in western European defence, but Britain must be the voice at the table that says that every new member brings risks and responsibilities as well as a contribution. It must insist that there is a balance between those risks and responsibilities and that contribution.
  In that way, we could proceed to some enlargement of NATO; but we could also guarantee that NATO remains the pillar of our defences, and remains strong enough to do the job.
  10.13 am
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) on bringing this matter to the House's attention. The Government should have done so. I have repeatedly asked the Leader of the House during business questions for a full-scale debate devoted exclusively to the issue of NATO's expansion, and I hope that—rather late in the day—he will accede to my request, because many hon. Members would like to speak about such an important matter.
  I agree with some of what has been said this morning about the importance of trade and commerce. I hope that a number of applicants for NATO membership will also become members of the European Union: not only would that make sense in terms of trade and commerce and the cementing of those countries' market economies, but the countries joining the European Union—whether we like it or not—will as a consequence enjoy some security guarantees. Although there is no security element in the European Union's treaties, it is inconceivable that external aggression on one member state would not be deemed aggression on the whole European Union. Such aggression could not be tolerated.
  All that will come in time. Meanwhile, we have the immediate lining up of countries that wish to be considered for NATO membership. Today, hon. Members
  266
  have made the mistake of talking in general terms, as if all the states involved were equal in terms of size, geographical location, the contributions that they can make to NATO and the development of their democracies. Some states would, I think, be disqualified on the last count, because democracy has not developed and flourished in those states. I feel that we have an obligation to look at each application on its merits, and I want to concentrate on the countries that should logically be the first to join NATO—those whose case for membership is the most powerful and compelling, not only in their interests but in ours. I am thinking particularly of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovenia.
  It is a matter of fact that those countries will be given membership first, and I welcome that. I do not accept that their membership will impose additional costs or burdens on the United Kingdom taxpayer which should disqualify them. I shall return to that point shortly. I am shocked and horrified that the House of Commons should contain Members of Parliament who ignore the moral obligation that we owe to the people of the central European states, particularly Poland.
  The hon. Member for North Tayside referred to Winston Churchill's speech at Fulton, Missouri, 51 years ago. He said that he remembered it. I remember the words: "From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across Europe behind which we must refer to it as the Soviet sphere." Churchill implied that, for the next half century, we would say to the people of central and eastern Europe, "Look over the wall. See how wonderful things are in the west: look at the wonderful market economy. Is it not a tantalising prospect?" Those who believed our propaganda must have thought that the sun always shone and the rain never fell in the west.
  What happened? Communism collapsed, the wall came down, the barbed wire was wound up, and the former communist countries developed democracies. Now they are saying, "Please may we join?" and we reply, "Not so fast; hang on a moment." That came through in some of the remarks of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). However, when he listed his criteria for membership—criteria with which, to a large extent, I did not disagree—he spoke of the principle of national self-determination, and of free peoples. Well, the people of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic are free peoples, and they want to join a free association of democratic states. We will need pretty powerful and persuasive arguments to say that they should not join—bearing it in mind that Turkey, which I do not consider to be a democratic state, is also an existing member. The membership of those countries would guarantee their democracies, although they are already robust and flourishing and, indeed, we can learn from some of their modern parliamentary institutions. We must recognise that they have a powerful case.
  Poland is a nation of nearly 40 million people, and has a large land mass. It has a thriving market economy and a robust democracy. Given that it is a former Warsaw pact country, it has some pretty sophisticated armed forces, which collaborated with the British Army in training last summer. It has much to contribute in defence and military terms. We must consider the question of interoperability. Enormous strides are being made in bringing Poland into line with the NATO technology and communications systems, for instance. That can and will be achieved in a

  267
  relatively short time. Those arguments about interoperability were never raised when Spain joined. They are trotted out now to disguise the other objection, the overriding one, with which I disagree but nevertheless view as a legitimate point: what will be the impact on Russia if we expand NATO?
  I return to Winston Churchill's speech in Fulton, Missouri, when he said that we must refer to the region behind the iron curtain as the Soviet sphere. Have we fought the cold war for half a century to see the defeat of the Soviet Union, only to concede a Russian sphere of influence and right of veto over free democratic peoples? I have not, and that is why I view it as a moral issue. We should recognise that these people are entitled to come in and to enjoy collective security.
  The security guarantees are important. I do not wish to devalue the guarantees under article 5 of the NATO treaty. If we took in all the applicant countries at this stage, it would devalue NATO. I am not advocating that. I am saying that we should consider their entry on their individual merits. We can extend security guarantees to Poland. Even if the House cannot be persuaded about the moral issue of admitting Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, there are overriding selfish reasons why we should do so. Demonstrably, if there ever was a day when we were threatened from the east—although, to be candid, logically it is not likely; we just have to look at the map of Europe to see that—it makes sense to move the borders of our interests eastward.
  I listened to the hon. Member for North Tayside and his recollection of history. I think that his argument was that it was because of a treaty that we had to go to war in 1939. Of course, that is a matter of fact, but is he saying that it would have been better if we had not had that treaty and that, without it, we would not have had to go to war with Hitler? The problem is that it was his predecessors on the Conservative Benches who brought a new word to the English language—appeasement. He is saying today that we should appease the threat of potential aggression.
  Mr. Bill Walker: For the sake of the record, I served with Polish service men. I have a high regard for the Poles. During the second world war, the Polish armoured division was based in my constituency and many of the service men in that division who returned still live there. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that it is never difficult to sign treaties? What is difficult in life is to honour what we sign. It is important that we recognise the dangers, the risks, the hazards and the commitment. If another act of aggression takes place, his children and grandchildren will have to go to war, not the hon. Gentleman. That is what happened in 1930. That is the only point that I was making.
  Mr. Mackinlay: The problem was that we did not tackle aggression. We did not have sufficient treaties in place. We allowed Hitler to move on and to take slices of Europe until such stage as we had to say, "Thus far, no further." I agree with the hon. Gentleman that treaties should not be entered into lightly or frivolously and we should not make commitments that we cannot fulfil, but I return to the thrust of my remarks on Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic and Slovenia, with its geographical position on the Adriatic. It makes military and defence sense for us to have them in NATO.
  268
  In his criteria, the right hon. Member for Wokingham mentioned the need for sensitivity with regard to borders. In relation to the states to which I have referred, that is old hat. Poland, for instance, is one of the countries in Europe that has the fewest minorities. It has fewer minority problems than the United Kingdom, if we regard the problems of Northern Ireland as a minority situation. It is a matter of fact that Poland's borders are agreed with the Federal Republic of Germany. There is, frankly, no problem there.
  Notice that I do not say that Romania should be in the first wave—because it is deficient in terms of democracy, the market economy and so on—but Hungary has reached new agreements and accords with Romania, which are welcome. The Czech Republic identifies in terms of trade with the Federal Republic of Germany, looking westwards, and Slovenia has recently reached agreements and accommodation with its larger Italian neighbour, so great strides have been made. Those new treaties, new agreements and new arrangements make some of the problems that we have had and still have in western Europe look much worse. For instance, Spain has problems with the Basques and the Catalans and we have problems in Northern Ireland. In contrast, there are no problems now in those other states, and that should be acknowledged.
  I hope therefore that Her Majesty's Government and the next Labour Government will robustly pursue the principle of expanding NATO, ensuring that the democracy criteria for membership are adhered to. That is very important. The countries to which I referred can contribute to collective security and enhance NATO. We should not find bogus reasons or appease anyone, because that is not in the interests of ourselves, the countries of central Europe to which I referred, or Russia. It is important that we are sensitive to Russia's involvement, but it would not be in Russia's interest if we gave it the right of veto over the development and fulfilment of free democratic peoples, who were subjugated for so long in central Europe.
  10.25 am
  Mr. Christopher Gill: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) on obtaining the debate, which has brought forward some thoughtful and useful contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. I invite the House to consider yet another proposition.
  Western policy is now predicated on the assumption that there has been discontinuity in Russian long-term strategy, and on a naive willingness to believe that, with the resignation of Mikhail Gorbachev in December 1991, everything changed. In fact, nothing changed, other than the west's incredible abandonment of reasoned analysis and caution.
  In the autumn of 1989, the Soviets launched their treaty offensive, as a result of which bilateral treaties were made between Russia and, first of all, Finland in October 1989; Canada; Czechoslovakia; France in February 1992, replacing a treaty signed by President Gorbachev in October 1990; Germany; and Greece in July 1991. Incidentally, the Greek treaty was accompanied by three parallel intergovernmental agreements, one of which covers
  "the prevention of dangerous military activity",

  269
  which probably explains the Greeks' refusal to allow NATO access to Greek airfields at the outset of the Bosnian campaign, notwithstanding the fact that Greece is a full member of NATO. There were bilateral treaties also with Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Romania, Spain, Norway in March 1992 and ourselves in June 1992.
  I wish to make three points in relation to these bilateral treaties. First, the dates of the bilateral treaties demonstrate that there was no discontinuity of Soviet foreign policy following the resignation of Gorbachev and the supposed ending of the cold war. Secondly, the text of the treaties follows a similar pattern, which is hardly surprising given that they were all drafted in Moscow. Thirdly, they complete the entrapment of the countries involved in what can be described only as a collective.

  It may surprise the House to know, for example, that article 3 of the treaty between the UK and the Russian Federation states:
  "They—
  the contracting parties—
  "affirm that relations between them will be governed in particular by their commitments under the documents of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, including the Helsinki Final Act, the Charter of Paris for a new Europe and the Helsinki Document of 1992."
  Time prevents me from attempting to explain the relevance of other treaties such as the Franco-German treaty of 1963, but, from what I have already said, it should be apparent that the Russians have created a veritable spider's web of treaty obligations, which, taken together with the proposed enlargement of NATO, effectively prevents individual nations, in deference to or by dint of the collective thus established, from acting in their own national interest. By definition, a collective can act only in its own interests, not in the interests of its component parts—a fact that is amply demonstrated by the difficulties and frustrations that are experienced as a result of our membership of that other collective, the European Union.
  In making up its mind on this crucial issue, the House will want to consider to what extent the protagonists of NATO enlargement have understood, or misunderstood, the dialectic. Has there perhaps been a failure to recognise that the ending of confrontation that was the cold war—the thesis—has given way to the antithesis of apparent peace out of which the synthesis, that is, the collectivisation of western security, is now emerging, and that the synthesis represents everything that the Russians have striven for—the neutralisation of NATO, which is the most successful defence alliance of all time?
  In a similar debate on 8 June 1995, I warned the House about the dangers of collectives. That warning is contained in column 367 of the Official Report of that date. I warn the House again and conclude by citing in support of my argument Sergei Rogov, director of the Russian Academy of Sciences Institute of the United States and Canada. He writes of
  "advancing from confrontation to demilitarisation and on to collective security … to create a Euro Atlantic security area or, in other words, the comprehensive collective security system which has long been discussed in our country as the highest goal of our foreign and defence policy."
  Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will say whether he entirely rejects the words of Mikhail Gorbachev, as reported by Sir William Stephenson, who was formerly Sir Winston Churchill's personal representative and
  270
  director of British security co-ordination in the western hemisphere. Addressing the Politburo in November 1987, Gorbachev said:
  "Gentlemen, comrades, do not be concerned about all you hear about glasnost and perestroika and democracy in the coming years. These are intended primarily for outward consumption.
  There will be no significant internal change within the Soviet Union, other than for cosmetic purposes. Our purpose is to disarm the Americans and let them fall asleep".
  10.32 am
  Mr. Julian Brazier: My hon. Friends are right to say that it is essential to discuss this important matter before the events that are likely to take place in a few months. We should heed the warnings of George Kennan of the United States, whose experience goes back to the last war and who perhaps understands the issues better than anyone.
  In 1995 I was privileged to visit the Vladimir region of Russia. I saw prostitutes on the streets with babies, and workers sitting in factories not because they were on strike but because they had not been paid. I also met police officers who had not been paid for several months. The leader of the communist group on Vladimir regional council said to me, "Mr. Brazier, you panicked in the west 10 years ago because of one piffling explosion in a nuclear power station. Imagine what could happen to this country with 40,000 nuclear weapons."
  The Russian people feel insecure. They have been invaded four times this century—by Japan, Germany and Poland, and then again by Germany. To the south they face the threat of Islamic fundamentalism and the Chinese are on their border. They are also concerned and confused about Russia itself. In the words of one of my hosts, "How can it be right that we are now asked to produce a passport to visit Aunt Nellie in the Ukraine?" Kiev was once a Russian capital. Indeed, the Cossacks come from there and today the Crimea is the home of the Black sea fleet.
  People persist in the politically correct notion that democracy is a buttress against war, but it is wholly untrue. After his military coup, Napoleon was endorsed by the largest popular vote ever given to a French leader and he plunged Europe into war. The German conquest of Belgium in the first world war was overwhelmingly endorsed by the German Parliament and all of Germany's local governments. Hitler came to power through the precarious and unhappy democracy of the Weimar republic.
  Three conditions need to be fulfilled to buttress peace. The first is prosperity and, above all, prosperity based on trade between the NATO powers. My hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) spoke about that. Secondly, there must be constitutional depth and stability, which is precisely what is missing from a country whose President had to order tanks to fire on his own Parliament within the past two and a half years. Thirdly, there must be armed strength in those countries which are stable and are currently members of NATO.
  Time is short, so I shall not repeat the cogent arguments made by other hon. Members, but I should like to stress three final points. First, if we are not willing to go to war for the extra countries, we should not admit them. Secondly, if we are willing to do that, it means drawing a line to exclude those countries most likely to be the

  271
  victims of a dictator, if one were to arise in Russia or eastern Europe. Thirdly, we must always remember Teddy Roosevelt's dictum:
  "Speak softly and carry a big stick."
  Alas, we are in danger of doing the reverse.
  Despite the Minister's close interest and the constructive meetings by the Secretary of State for Defence just before Christmas, the expansion of NATO is seen by the Russians as us shouting at them while at the same time throughout NATO, and especially among our European partners, we are steadily involved in whittling away the stick. The priority and the balance are wrong. We must think again—and the American whose words we should heed is George Kennan, not Madeleine Albright.
  10.36 am
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: I shall continue where the. hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) left off by saying that if he is correct, it may be a shame that Madeleine Albright is the Secretary of State in President Clinton's Government because that is the Government with whom we have to deal and not nonagenarian commentators in the wings.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) on this timely debate. The comments about the need for a more protracted debate were well made and I hope that the Minister will confirm that the matter must return to the House. Certainly, an enlargement of NATO would need the assent of the House and that of legislatures throughout NATO.
  Before I rose to speak, my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) said to me that in view of the alliances that have been forged this morning in the House, it might be possible for any kind of alliance to come into being in Europe. Hon. Members agree that over the 50 years since the last war, NATO has been the cornerstone of our defence system. Labour certainly sees NATO in that role. We support, with qualifications, the enlargement of NATO by the inclusion of some other countries. I concede that many of the fears that have been expressed in the debate are real, but they can be dealt with and they simplify the reality of our life in Europe.
  None of us can predict the future of Russia or its internal security, but it is a historical fact that more people have died in Europe over the past five years than in the 45 years that preceded them. We must treat seriously the importance of providing a security framework which considers not just the possibility of conflict on the classical post-war scale, but the kind of conflict that broke out in the former Yugoslavia and which has cost not only those who were directly involved but the world so dearly.
  Within that framework, it is almost extraordinary to say that we would cede a veto to Russia because of Russian fears of NATO enlargement. Such a veto would prevent us creating the future security architecture of which enlargement is a part. I endorse the words of the Defence Select Committee, which said in its report:
  "We are determined to ensure that NATO is, if not enhanced, at least not weakened by enlargement: and that it remains manageable, decisive and coherent, with a minimum level of interoperability."
  Those comments are central to this debate. We must insist that NATO's future is,
  272
  "if not enhanced, at least not weakened by enlargement".
  That is a primary point.
  Labour believes that we should also ensure that the enlargement process takes account of Russia's very real fears. Enlargement will be pointless if it is not conducted with the necessary sensitivity and in a manner that breaks down barriers and the sources of division. We should insist that enlargement does not create new barriers. As hon. Members on both sides the House have said, we should create not only a more widely embracing framework to promote peace and stability, but one which includes a clear role for Russia, not simply as a peripheral bolt-on extra but as a central player. We must ensure that Russia is included in the wider European security framework.
  I should like to express a few observations on the wider security framework. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have correctly mentioned the need for economic engagement, but such engagement of itself will not be sufficient. All the heady talk of half a dozen years ago about the ability to reconstruct former eastern bloc economies, particularly Russia's, was not matched by an equivalent effort. We should return to that theme and recognise the need in Russia for a relatively successful level of economic progress to underpin its future. We should also examine opening our markets and the roles of the International Monetary Fund and of the European bank for reconstruction and development. Those factors are central to the process.
  As I have said, we must consider Russia's very real fears. In 1995 Russia began to talk about a "cold peace", having clearly heard warning bells in relation to expanding NATO in the wrong way. I also do not think that we can take it for granted that the opinion of the Russian Government will automatically be the same as that of the Russian people. We should take that factor into account and be realistic in ensuring that we do not begin a destabilisation process.
  Russia obviously regarded the collapse of the Warsaw pact as the collapse of its own defence system. It regarded the dismantling of its air defence system in a similar manner and feels particularly vulnerable to attack from the west. It saw how the conventional forces in Europe treaty of 1990 became hopelessly outdated as the balance of power shifted. With the possibility of NATO expansion, the former allies of the then Soviet Union became firmly locked into the NATO system and Russia saw a massive change in the balance of power.
  Mr. Redwood: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why he thinks that a threat to Hungary should be taken seriously and that we should offer it the protection of a security guarantee, whereas a threat to Lithuania should not be similarly treated?
  Mr. Lloyd: The tone of my comments in this debate has been to emphasise that NATO enlargement is a component of the European peace structure, but that it is no longer the only or even the central part of that structure. We should realise that Russia would have very different reactions to the inclusion in NATO of Hungary, for example, and of the Baltic states. The forthcoming Helsinki summit between Presidents Yeltsin and Clinton will be of paramount importance in ensuring a proper dialogue so that NATO forces can allay Russia's fears.

  273
  I endorse the article by Madeleine Albright in The Economist, which was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). She said:
  "Russia would have no veto. But its voice would be sought and heard."
  She made it clear, and we endorse the view, that NATO's position must be to include Russia in the closest possible dialogue. It is not a matter of NATO versus Russia, as that is an outmoded part of the European framework. Such a framework was relevant in the cold war era, but it is not relevant in the current era. Russian participation must be central—not as a bolt-on extra, but as an essential player—in the NATO-Russian council and in NATO's overall planning structure. NATO should make permanent Russia's role within NATO headquarters. I believe that that is inevitable. We should also ensure that the charter—although we may quibble over its exact legal status—establishes clear principles by which consultation and participation will occur between NATO and the Russians.
  Although I do not think that we can give any permanent guarantee, in practice the idea of nuclear deployments on the territories of potential new NATO states is unrealistic. After next year, the only land-based nuclear weapons will be those of the French and will be on French soil. I do not think that it is realistic to talk about siting nuclear weapons in Hungary, Poland, Slovenia or the Czech Republic. It is also unlikely that NATO troops will be permanently stationed in those states, although it must be said that NATO troops have recently been through—among other places—Hungary, when they were on their way to Bosnia. British troops have also engaged in exercises in Poland with Polish troops. Therefore, the mere presence of NATO troops need not concern the Russians.
  We should go beyond the agenda of NATO enlargement and examine the agenda of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. At the December 1996 Lisbon summit, the Russians made clear the importance with which they regard the OSCE as a part of the overall security apparatus.
  We should also consider a proper arms control agenda. I welcome Madeleine Albright's comments in The Economist on that aspect. We should first examine carefully the need to renegotiate the conventional forces in Europe treaty and consider lower levels of troop involvement across Europe. We must also realise that we can both achieve lower troop levels and provide mechanisms whereby long-term stability and transparency become part of the troop deployment issue.
  A challenge for the British Government is to examine the role of nuclear weapons and the possibility of a third round of strategic arms reduction talks. The alternative would be to play on the concern expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House that Russia's fears could lead to a very different climate in Moscow and throughout Russia. For instance, the Russians could both refuse to ratify the current CFE treaty—in its current terms, that is quite likely—and begin a non-ratification process over START 2. The process could go into reverse. None of those consequences is necessary if enlargement is handled well by NATO and by the Russians.
  If NATO is considering—realistically, I think that it is—including Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovenia, those inclusions of themselves will not pose a threat to Russia. We cannot allow a Russian veto over
  274
  that type of NATO expansion, but we must ensure that we take proper account of Russia's legitimate fears. NATO enlargement would then be simply one part of a process to enhance overall security across Europe. Russia's role and position could be greatly enhanced if the Russians were to engage in the dialogue in which we wish to engage them.
  10.49 am
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Sir Nicholas Bonsor): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) on bringing up this extremely important subject. It is clearly time that the House debated the expansion of NATO and I am pleased to have an opportunity to make some short comments on the subject.
  Before dealing with the specific points raised by hon. Members on both sides, I should like to make some general comments on enlargement. Why should we enlarge? With the greatest respect, my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside put the question the wrong way round. I see no way in which we could not enlarge NATO. I do not believe that it would be right for us in the west to deny the countries of central Europe the right to join an organisation which, had they not been under the boot of Soviet oppression for so many years, they would unquestionably have joined at the outset. We cannot deny them a guarantee for their security that they desire and desperately need. They have all been subjected to the traumas of war, as my hon. Friend so admirably said, and they are fearful of being so condemned again. NATO can offer a valuable cover for them; it is the best assurance for peace in that region, as it has been in ours since its foundation 50 years ago.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside rightly stressed that the importance of NATO is not only military, but political. It offers an opportunity to the countries of central Europe to expand their security, stability and prosperity. We can already see signs of the benefits of the proposed NATO enlargement. Great efforts are being made in all 12 aspirant countries to establish democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They are also trying to deal with the border disputes that many of them have had in the past. There have been great successes on that: Hungary and Romania have dealt with their dispute; Romania and Ukraine are in the process of sorting out theirs; and in many other instances, some of which have been mentioned today, the difficulties are being resolved. The pressure of the potential expansion of NATO has been effective in ensuring that efforts are made to resolve disputes.
  Efforts are also being made to bring the armed forces of those 12 countries under full democratic control with transparency in defence planning. I do not believe that that would be the case were it not for the prospect of joining NATO as a result.
  In the short time available, I will deal with some of the specific points that have been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside said that he did not think that military alliances or treaties were the way to establish peace. He preferred trade. I agree that the establishment of free trade internationally is a guarantor of peace and one way in which we can try to get rid of poverty and the rivalry between countries that is so often the cause of excessive nationalism, leading to war. However, as my

  275
  hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) rightly said, trade is not adequate, any more than democracy is, in itself, adequate. Military strength and the military alliances necessary to create that strength are a vital third pillar for the establishment of lasting peace.
  I understand entirely the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside about what happened in Poland and our having to go to war in 1939, but it is wrong to draw the conclusion that he appears to draw that we should not have had a treaty with Poland in 1939. That would not have resulted in peace. The apparent weakness of the allies and the fact that Hitler did not believe that we would go to war over Poland caused the war, not the treaty, in which we made a guarantee that we ultimately honoured.
  The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) mentioned several points—some of which I have already covered—and focused particularly on cost. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) that the cost is more likely to be in the $35 billion bracket than the $125 billion bracket. However, that is in the hands of NATO and it has not yet resolved how to go ahead. We shall have to watch the cost of expansion closely.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) asked five questions, which I shall try to deal with briefly. What will the Russian reaction be? Mr. Primakov's many talks with my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and with Mr. Solana and others lead me to believe that Russia will accept a limited and reasoned expansion of NATO in the first wave. Although there will be some rhetoric against it, I do not believe that there is genuine hostility to that reality, which I think that Russia accepts. However, there is genuine and understandable fear among the Russian people, who have been brought up on years of Stalinist propaganda to believe that NATO is an aggressive potential enemy. We must move with great care to ensure that those fears are assuaged and that the Russian people understand that NATO is no threat to Russia and is never intended to be so.
  My right hon. Friend asked whether the applicant countries had stable frontiers. I agree that that is a primary criterion on which we shall have to decide whether any aspirant country is allowed to join. I have said that one of the advantages that we have reaped so far is that many countries are desperately trying to solve their frontier disputes so that they can join.
  My right hon. Friend also asked what contribution the new members will make. That is another very important point. We make it clear to all the countries that wish to join that this is not a one-way street. There is no free guarantee given by existing NATO members. The new countries will be asked and expected to play a full role in NATO operations, and particularly peace-keeping operations. We expect them to increase defence
  276
  expenditure when necessary, to bring their armed forces up to the level of NATO armed forces and to ensure interoperability. We are making great progress on all those fronts. The many joint exercises, such as Ulan Eagle with Poland last year, show how we are moving forward on that. The value of potential NATO membership is already becoming evident.
  Can we defend the applicant countries? I agree with my right hon. Friend that that is a vital criterion. We must ensure that that is a realistic and feasible guarantee for every country that we allow to join NATO. We must not give a guarantee that we cannot honour. Nothing would weaken NATO more. We shall have to examine that closely.
  I disagree with my right hon. Friend's comment that we should have an ultimate aim of a specific number of new NATO members. We must have a specific long-term aim to establish freedom and peace throughout Europe. That aim has never been crystallised in the past. NATO has expanded three times and I believe that it will expand again on a number of occasions. NATO is evolving continually—it is not a static finality—and we should recognise that fact in the way in which we take the matter ahead.
  Many other points have been raised, and I am sorry that I do not have time to answer them all. We must expand NATO, taking great care not to antagonise Russia or to make it unnecessarily fearful. We must have a partnership with Russia and with the Ukraine reflecting their different, but equally important, concerns about their position after the first step of NATO expansion. Those processes should go ahead in parallel, and all the NATO countries are working hard on that.
  We must develop other security alliances which overlap NATO. It important not to go back to a cast iron dividing line between east and west, with NATO on one side and hostile or fearful countries on the other. We must consider the OSCE, the Council of Europe, the "Partnership for Peace" programme, the status of the Western European Union and the council of Baltic sea states, all of which can play a valuable role in ensuring that NATO is not seen as the only security guarantee, with Russia and her allies outside it and some countries that we cannot allow in standing between the two blocs. That must not happen again. The only way to ensure that it does not is by enhancing and building up other security arrangements so that the dividing line is blurred until it disappears.
  The American proposal that we should form an Atlantic partnership council for "Partnership for Peace" members would be a useful step forward. We must bring in Russia and the Ukraine and make sure that the Baltic states do not feel insecure. We must expand NATO cautiously, as the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) said, and make sure that there is no final status whereby some countries are left out. That is extremely important.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. We must now move to the next debate.

  Care of the Elderly (Scotland)
  11 am
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: I raise a subject of serious concern to us all. Our elderly citizens deserve our abiding support. In their day, they helped to produce the wealth of our nation, and they and members of their families fought and defeated Nazism. They now deserve to be treated with respect, so that they may live out their years in dignity and comfort.
  My concern is shared by many hon. Members. Some of us believe that pensions should be linked to earnings, but our leaders inform me that that might involve higher taxes, and we should never underestimate the self-interest and greed of the middle classes. We, for our part, must continue to campaign on behalf of elderly people. The Opposition have a good record in that respect, and many Conservative Members also fight similar campaigns.
  Recently, the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) introduced a debate in which she spoke powerfully about the need for a more compassionate and effective cold weather payment scheme. In advocating a better scheme, she was joined by a number of my hon. Friends.
  The commitment to a belief that our elderly citizens deserve a more comfortable and decent life is shared by numerous voluntary and professional associations in Scotland, including Age Concern Scotland, one of many organisations that brief us on what needs to be done, especially for frail and vulnerable elderly people.
  I am sure that all hon. Members will echo my sentiments when I say that the Inverclyde elderly forum runs a formidable campaign, ably led by the remarkable Nell McFadyen and its secretary, Donald MacDonald. We can be sure that, if they have issues to bring to our attention, and criticisms of this place and its failure to concern itself with elderly people, they will not miss us and hit the wall.
  The campaign must continue, because many of our elderly people live in poverty. Some of them live in private homes that are a disgrace. I wish to focus my speech, which will not be too lengthy, as many of my hon. Friends are anxious to speak, on the residential and nursing home care of elderly people. As I said a moment ago, in some respects it is a lamentable and disgraceful affair.
  Again, our concerns are shared by numerous professional and voluntary associations. I have no doubt that many of them have submitted evidence to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, which, under the able chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey), is conducting a study into community care. I look forward to debating the findings of his report, and, perhaps more importantly, its recommendations at a meeting, or perhaps a couple of meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee. I hope that those recommendations will lead to legislative change.
  Yesterday, when we were considering the legislation on the Department of Social Security compensation recovery unit, I received a briefing from Jim Eadie of the Royal College of Nursing, saying, inter alia:
  "Elderly people who have paid national insurance all their lives are now having to pay for long term nursing care which they thought the NHS would fund, causing distress and anxiety to elderly people and their families."
  278
  The Royal College of Nursing argues for the provision of
  "nursing and social care under one roof regulated by a single system".
  There is much to be said for that.
  The briefing continues:
  "Instead of receiving care either in a residential care home or a nursing home, care homes to meet individual social and nursing care needs under one roof should be encouraged."
  It stresses the need to
  "overhaul the existing regulatory system so that new types of homes are registered and inspected by an independent nationally trained inspectorate made up of people with health and social care skills."
  A similar view was expressed in "The Dementia Manifesto for the 1997 General Election" produced by Alzheimer Scotland Action on Dementia. That excellent manifesto also argues for the unification of registration and inspection. Under the heading "Legislation to unify registration and inspection arrangements for residential homes and nursing homes", it states:
  "The abolition of the distinction between residential and nursing homes would enable more flexible care to be delivered without subjecting the person with dementia to distressing moves."
  That is an important consideration. The Minister and his officials have a poor, if not disgraceful, record in the regulation, management and inspection of homes. In respect of the provision of residential and nursing homes, it is my view that the Scottish Office is being subjected to sustained lobbying by the private sector, which has sought to secure its position at the expense of local authority provision before the general election. I believe that the Minister and his officials are susceptible or receptive to lobbying and proposals for the complete privatisation of such provision.
  I remind the House that the Public Accounts Commission is almost ready to commence a comprehensive study into the commissioning of such services; among other issues, it will examine the relative costs of provision. I understand that the report is due in the autumn. Any action that the Government take to swell the private sector and hence diminish local authority provision before the report is published would be politically motivated.
  Some private sector nursing and residential homes are well managed. The residents are treated rightly and properly by trained staff who have good terms and conditions of employment. Other private homes, however, are entirely different, and the profit motive in all its nakedness reigns supreme. I was pleased that one such home in Port Glasgow was closed down. The Minister is aware of the case. It was an utter disgrace, and I was angry and ashamed to be part of a nation that subjected 18 of its elderly citizens to the behaviour of the owner of that home, who acted as general practitioner to the residents. I shall return to that point. The Minister knows that I have been pursuing it for a long time. I believe that he, his officials and his colleagues could be indicted on a political charge.
  I remind the House of the appalling scandal at the Glasgow home, Glenglova. At a fatal accident inquiry into the death of an elderly resident, the sheriff was scathingly critical of regulations governing the ownership and management of such homes. As a direct result of that scandal and others throughout the land, the Minister set up a working group on residential care homes registration

  279
  procedures. He knows that I kept a very close watch on that working group's report. The report was published in the early summer of last year.
  In a letter to me dated 24 July 1996, the Minister said:
  "Following on your interest in the progress of the Working Group, I am pleased to be able to tell you that … the Report has been received.
  As you will see from the enclosed copy of the Report, a large number of recommendations have been made. The Government have a duty to ensure that people in residential care are properly looked after and that high standards of care prevail and we therefore propose that work be put in hand now to take forward a substantial number of these recommendations straight away."
  The House should note what the Minister said. I took that letter at face value, yet I am afraid that what the Government then proposed has just not happened.
  A month before I received the letter, I asked the Secretary of State
  "what plans he has to modify the regulations governing the ownership and management of privately owned nursing and residential homes for elderly people."
  He replied:
  "I can happily assure the hon. Gentleman that the report should be available to Ministers in three weeks' time, and I will come forward with our final recommendations for action with all possible speed."
  He went on to say, in a fairly lengthy answer:
  "We will come forward with recommendations as soon as possible."—[Official Report, 5 June 1996; Vol. 278, c. 606.]
  Three weeks ago, I asked the Minister an identically worded question. As it is identically worded, I do not need to repeat it. Seven months on, the answer that the Minister gave was:
  "The Scottish Office is currently consulting publicly on the standards and practice in nursing homes and is considering the recommendations made by the working group on registration procedures in residential care homes."—[Official Report, 5 February 1997; Vol. 289, c. 621.]
  The Minister should be arraigned on the charge of neglect of the interests and needs of many vulnerable and frail people. In the summer of last year, he promised speedy action, yet three weeks ago, he talked in terms of consultation. Meanwhile, some of our elderly people—not all—in private nursing and residential homes are being neglected.
  I hate the thought of another Glenglova on the Minister's hands in the near future. There is to be no legislation between now and the election that would bar a professional from ownership and management of a home where he or she provides professional services to residents. No general practitioner should own, manage or be involved in the ownership or management of private homes. I would argue that the same holds for an accountant or a lawyer. Can the Minister confirm that, following that terrible scandal in Glasgow, the two services are separate, and professionals are not involved in the running of some homes of ours in Scotland?
  It is full ahead on the expansion of the private sector and the reduction of local authority care. However, on the need rigorously to regulate the ownership and management of private nursing and residential homes, the Minister and his officials move at the proverbial snail's pace, which is a disgrace, and reflects very badly on the
  280
  Minister. I would argue that, in this regard, his conduct is unbecoming of his office. In the seven to eight months to which I have referred, and in the period from the fatal accident inquiry until today, action could have been taken to ensure, by way of rigorous inspection and tough regulation of ownership, management and staffing of homes, that elderly people enjoyed a decent, dignified existence.
  I look forward to the day when we have a more caring and sensitive Administration, who will treat the elderly as they manifestly deserve. The Government have let them down badly. I sincerely hope that the Glenglova scandal is unique, but we all know of lesser scandals that are continuing each day of every week. Our elderly people deserve more, not only from the Government but from all representatives in this place.
  11.15 am
  Mr. Bill Walker: I suppose the term "elderly" means people who are in receipt of the old-age pension. As I qualify for that, I must declare an interest.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) on securing the debate, and I agree that the elderly, particularly those who are for some reason not as fit as they would like, should be well looked after. They deserve, to use his words, to live in dignity and comfort.
  I would not wish it to be imagined in this debate that people, certainly the vast majority of people of my age group and older in North Tayside, are not living in dignity and comfort. I mean the vast majority. There is no question whatever but that people of my generation and older are enjoying a quality of life of which our grandfathers and fathers could only dream. That does not mean that there are not some with problems and difficulties. There will always be some such people, and there are those with special health problems who require, quite properly, special health care. No one would dispute that.
  I want to strike a sensible balance. It is nonsense, for instance, for people who claim to speak on behalf of pensioners to imagine that they are speaking on my behalf, when they never consult me about what they want to say. I believe that 90 per cent. and more of pensioners retiring retire with incomes from pensions linked to their former employment, just as we shall when we retire from this place. That is important, because it makes an enormous difference to the quality of life of the vast majority.
  Ms Rachel Squire: Where does the hon. Gentleman get his evidence that 90 per cent. of pensioners have earnings-linked occupational pensions to support themselves in their life styles? That is certainly not my experience from contact with pensioners in Dunfermline, west Fife and elsewhere in Scotland.
  Mr. Walker: I am sorry: I shall repeat what I said. I said that 90 per cent. and more of those retiring now are retiring with such pensions. I am talking about people of my age group and younger, rather than people whom I think the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow was probably addressing, who must be at least 75 years old or older to fit into the category to which he was referring.

  281
  We have a duty and a responsibility to address such people—there is no question about that—but it is nonsense to suggest that they are the vast majority; they are not.
  Dr. Godman: I did not say that.
  Mr. Walker: I am not suggesting that the hon. Gentleman said that; I am responding to the intervention by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire), and choosing my words carefully.
  We should recognise that voluntary bodies have an important part to play. Long may they continue to play it. I commend those who regularly look after the elderly through many and varied voluntary bodies in every constituency.
  The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow concentrated his remarks largely on residential and nursing homes. I make no apology for the fact that I was partly responsible for initiating the inquiry into nursing care provision in Tayside. I wanted that done, because I knew that the nursing and residential homes provided by the local authorities were much more expensive than the private ones.
  I visited every home in my constituency—I can speak with authority only about North Tayside—and in my judgment those in the private sector are superb. However, if the situation had arisen in my constituency that arose in that of the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow, I should have done exactly as he did, and drawn attention to it. It is unacceptable for anyone to run a home as he described, and no one would defend it.
  The local authorities have a responsibility to monitor the situation, and to ensure that the private sector provides facilities of the right quality that meet the statutory requirements. If there has been a failure, it may be that the local authorities did not discharge their responsibilities as positively and accurately as they could.
  We may want to tighten the regulations, and I would support any efforts to ensure that general practitioners did not own and run homes whose residents were their patients. The point about accountants was a good one. No one should operate on the inside, both making and monitoring the rules. The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow and I know that the GP plays an important part in monitoring and balancing what is being provided to his or her patients.
  On value for money, we should remember that taxpayers' money is involved. It is not our job in the House to have preconceived views on the only way in which provision can be supplied. Local authorities can and should provide good quality of service where possible, but where that quality can be provided for £200 per person per week less by the private sector, as it is in Tayside, it is crazy to waste taxpayers' money. We can help many more people with the same amount of money.
  Surely that is the point: are we concerned with caring for old people or with making narrow political points? I agree with the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow that it is our duty to ensure that taxpayers' money, where it is used, is used to the best value.
  The military often have splendid arrangements for looking after old people. I again declare an interest, as I am involved with provision in connection with the
  282
  Royal Air Force, through the benevolent fund. The Army and the Navy have similar arrangements. I have been able to get help and assistance for the very category of individuals to which the hon. Gentleman drew attention: those who served in Her Majesty's forces—or His Majesty's forces, as they were in the second world war. No one with an ex-service background will ever be debarred from help.
  There are always avenues to be explored. A great deal of money is available through military benevolent funds, and the tragic tales about ex-service people often come about simply because no one has gone to the trouble of making sure that the military knew the situation. Substantial help is available to anyone who has served in Her or His Majesty's forces.
  No individual lives on the state pension alone. If any individuals in any constituency have only the state pension and no other source of income, they are missing out on all the other benefits to which they are quite properly entitled. I deliberately say "entitled", because I am astonished when people suggest that one should live on the state pension alone; we all know that rent can be paid through housing benefit, and that there are allowances for council tax, heating and other expenses.
  We should recognise that it is part of our job as Members of Parliament to see to it that individuals in our constituencies get everything to which they are quite properly entitled, but not to suggest that the vast majority are suffering, when the opposite is the truth.
  Anyone who comes to the Probus club—especially the Christmas dinner, as lunch is known there—at Forfar, or other pensioners' clubs in my constituency, will see that the quality of life in Tayside is high. Yes, there are some people with problems and some matters need to be addressed, but we should not get it out of proportion.
  If we concentrate on dealing with the case that the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow mentioned, and any others that may exist—there are none that I know of in North Tayside, because if there were, I would be doing something about it—we can then focus our efforts on securing the best value for taxpayers' money, to the benefit of all our people.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Walker: I am about to sit down; I believe that I have been on my feet for 13 minutes.
  The local authorities should become enablers and monitors rather than providers.
  11.28 am
  Mr. Michael J. Martin: The debate is not about service veterans, but I must say that many people in my constituency who served in the forces get no help from the organisations described by the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker).
  Mr. Bill Walker: Tell me their names.
  Mr. Martin: Some ex-service men are too proud to go to such organisations and say that they served in the war. Some people who left the services in 1945 are now suffering from dementia. I know someone in that situation. How can his wife apply to the British Royal

  283
  Legion, or other service organisations, when she does not get more than four hours' sleep at a time, because the man she married and has spent a lifetime with is now like a child and will not go to bed at night? The situation is not as clear cut as the hon. Member for North Tayside tries to suggest.
  I declare an interest, because my father-in-law suffers from dementia. He lives in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe). On my wife's birth certificate, his profession is given as bombardier in the Royal Artillery. At one stage, we thought that he was entitled to claim for deafness, because he worked with the great guns in the desert during the war. The poor soul could not even remember his Army number to make a claim. When someone needs day-to-day provision, applying for charity is not the simple option.
  I have a high regard for the military, and their work at Erskine hospital is excellent, but that is achieved through the voluntary work of men and women who have never served in the forces. As usual, the hon. Member for North Tayside is talking utter nonsense when he says that everything is fine.
  The dedication of some men and women to the care of the elderly is amazing. We hear bad news from our communities easily, but we never hear the good news about the dedication that people display to the care of the elderly.
  A dementia group in my constituency provides respite for those who care for the elderly. Every day, it provides lovely meals at a club in the multi-storey flats. On Saturday, in the workers' free time, it held a sale of work to raise money to take the people it cares for to Scarborough during the summer. It is good that such kindness is displayed in our communities, but we are failing as a society if friends and neighbours have to raise funds at sales of work for the men and women who fought against fascism for our right to free speech.
  The way in which local authorities are attacked in the House is a disgrace. It is easy for us to say that they have gone over their budgets and are not spending their money properly, but the local authorities are in the front line of providing care for the elderly. The homes for the elderly in Glasgow are second to none, and could be filled three times over. The waiting list is enormous, because of the standard of care that is provided.
  Our local authorities have built up a home help service that provides the elderly with meals and help with housework. The home helps also provide companionship for the lonely. The hon. Member for North Tayside said that most elderly people have second pensions, but it would not matter if they had three pensions if they are lonely. It is a disgrace that we allow such loneliness to continue. The only people who ever go into some pensioners' homes are the home helps. It is a disgrace that we attack local authority budgets for such vital services.
  Every home help I speak to says the same about the terrible pressures on them. Sometimes they have time only to go to the post office for their patients, and to collect some messages. They have little time for conversation, but some home helps, in their own time, go back to their patients' homes at night to provide the companionship that should be provided at the taxpayers' expense. We do not need lectures from the hon. Member for North Tayside
  284
  about remembering that taxpayers' money is being spent. The elderly made provision for us when we were children by paying taxes. They paid into the community, and it is time they got something out.
  Some 10 years ago, the railway workshops in my constituency were closed. We have high unemployment in the area, and the men in their 50s who lost their jobs did not work again. The railway industry is well known for providing a pension, but the pensions that those men receive at 65 will not be as good as the pension that I and other hon. Members will receive.
  The Springburn elderly forum in my constituency meets to discuss the issues that it will raise with me and with councillors. The hon. Member for North Tayside said that he had not been consulted, but my local elderly forum does not consult every pensioner. I as Member of Parliament do not consult every pensioner before I speak, but every pensioner knows that they are entitled to consult me.
  Pensioners ask me, "Michael, what is the point in getting a rent rebate when our houses are freezing?" The Barlornock and Barmulloch estates were built in 1945 and 1947 for the ex-service men the hon. Member for North Tayside mentioned. Those young men and women brought their families up in those houses, which contain four or five apartments. No two-apartment houses have been built to allow those people, who are now elderly, to stay in the communities they love. They are stuck in big houses that they cannot afford to heat, and there is no point in giving them rent rebates. Every elderly person should have a properly heated home.
  We keep hearing attacks on local authorities. My local authority has introduced combined heat and rent programmes, in which elderly people in certain houses pay rent which includes payment for heating. They no longer have to worry about the gas or electricity bill, but the Government are cutting the funds to expand that programme. We are all guilty of saying that we want to do more for pensioners, but we cut funds for the very organisations that help pensioners.
  I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) has raised this issue. The care of the elderly should be a non-party political issue. Each and every one of us should unite to try to ensure that we provide our elderly with the dignity that my hon. Friend described.
  11.39 am
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham: I congratulate the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) on obtaining this debate, because he does a service to the elderly in Scotland by insisting on the matter being debated in the Chamber. I, too, have had the briefing from the Royal College of Nursing, and I shall refer briefly to some of its points. No one could regard the RCN as a radical organisation; it is certainly not one given to hyperbole and exaggeration. It is concerned about three aspects of what is happening in the care of the elderly.
  First, the RCN points to a serious shortfall of resources for community care in Scotland, which damages care for older people. Secondly, it is concerned about the funding system for long-term care, which undermines a central part of the welfare state. Thirdly, it is worried about the

  285
  need to provide nursing and social care under one roof and regulated by a single system. Those points should be kept in mind.
  I see that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) is here. I understand that the RCN gave evidence to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs inquiry into community care, which drew attention to the many models of good practice in Scotland that can highlight how we can bridge the gap between health care and social care for the benefit of the patient. I understand that many of those initiatives are entered into a database of good practice that has been set up by the Nuffield Centre for Community Studies.
  It would benefit us all to consider such examples. In my constituency, the Perth night care service helps people with dementia, and their carers. The project involves collaboration between social workers and community psychiatric nurses. It aims to offer help and respite to carers to prevent the breakdown of support networks—which are needed if a family member has dementia—and thereby contribute to establishing a package of care flexible enough to suit the people suffering from dementia and their carers.
  I echo some of the points made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin). Like him, I speak with family experience. It is all very well to talk about the care of the elderly when it involves the able elderly, but if it involves elderly people with serious problems such as dementia, doors close. That is the experience of us all. I must tell the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) that, regrettably, that includes his wonderful military doors.
  Mr. Bill Walker rose—
  Ms Cunningham: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman spoke for a long time, and I want to finish my speech quickly.
  The difficulty that results when an elderly relative is diagnosed as suffering from dementia is a concern for anyone who has seen it at close quarters in their family. There are problems in getting the care necessary at the different stages of dementia. The tragedy of dementia is that it is progressive. At the beginning of the disease, people may be able to cope at home, but gradually it becomes impossible.
  The hon. Member for North Tayside was right to say that many people who retire now may have extra pensions. However, those people will not always be 65. In our day, people live considerably longer. The older they get, the more they are faced with such long-term problems. It is precisely those long-term problems that pose the biggest difficulty for care of the elderly. Quite apart from anything else—I do not mean this pejoratively, because my father was in this position—they are the most difficult people to deal with if one tries to keep them at home, which is what most people try to do for as long as possible.
  Our society and politicians have not yet thought about the implications of the increasing number of people suffering from dementia, and other problems, and the enormous stress that that is starting to cause for families, especially daughters. It generally turns out to be daughters who end up caring in the long term, once the healthy spouse has died. We need to think carefully about the matter.
  286
  In our family, we found that the situation had become so severe that my father could be admitted to a national health service bed because he could not get into any of the residential homes which then provided places for dementia sufferers. They would provide places for dementia sufferers only in the early stages of the disease. It was not until he got an NHS place that he got any real care. There was an enormous gap in provision, and that gap continues.
  Bed blocking is part of the same problem. There is a mismatch between the health service and social care. In my area, some 50 people are assessed as needing residential or nursing home care but are kept in hospital because there are no places for them. That means that the NHS is put under more strain. We are getting into a vicious circle, because we have not yet grasped the nettle of care of the elderly. The situation is unacceptable, but the difficulty is that only so much funding is available. It is only when places come up that someone can be moved, because there is not the flexibility to allow expansion of the places available.
  Community care should be a priority. We all know that there is much anxiety about the impact of local government reorganisation and reduced funding for the new unitary councils on the future of the voluntary sector. Regardless of what Conservative Members say, that is having a real effect on services. When I listen to Conservative Members, I sometimes feel that I am listening to ambassadors from a parallel universe, because I do not recognise much of what they are talking about. I wonder whether we are discussing the different care of the elderly in Scotland and care of the elderly on the plant Zog. For all that they say relates to reality, we may as well be. I am concerned about that.
  Much has been made of private sector involvement, and monitoring. I have often heard the hon. Member for North Tayside talking about the report into the community care on Tayside. It is true that it said that private homes could provide a cheaper service than local authorities, but it did not emphasise that that would be at the cost of the pay and conditions of the people who work in the service. That is the difficulty. Ultimately, that means trying to provide care—
  Dr. Godman: On the cheap.
  Ms Cunningham: Indeed; I am indebted to the hon. Gentleman.
  Local authority pay is one of the major factors in attracting and retaining staff with appropriate skills. They are paid approximately £5.20 per hour. In the private sector, it is unlikely to be more than £3 per hour, and in many places considerably less. In the private sector, staff often receive little training and have little prospect of advancement, but they are expected to carry out the most intimate and personal tasks for frail and vulnerable home residents. That represents savings perhaps, but only at the cost of employees' pay and conditions, and at the probable cost of the single-room standard, which is immensely important to elderly people. Their privacy is immensely important, and that cannot be guaranteed in the private sector.
  There is great concern about monitoring standards. I understand that nursing agencies are subject to statutory regulation, but that does not necessarily extend to other

  287
  types of employment agency dealing with unqualified staff. That adds another element of risk in the places that have become homes for the elderly. The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow cited an especially worrying example of what can go wrong, and such cases will continue to arise unless regulation is addressed with great seriousness.
  The private sector is expanding rapidly, but in many cases that comes at the price of lower quality. In many areas, our local authorities have provided excellent care; however, they are effectively being told that they can no longer provide that excellent care themselves, but must go out to the private sector, regardless of whether the care is as good. Local authorities are being penalised for trying to maintain high standards, and as a result our elderly people may also be penalised.
  11.50 am
  Ms Rachel Squire: I shall speak as briefly as possible, because I know that some of my hon. Friends are anxious to make a contribution to this debate.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) on obtaining the debate. I pay tribute to his constant campaign on behalf of the elderly for high standards and quality in community care. I share his and other hon. Members' belief that the care of the elderly, and the way in which society in general and the Government in particular approach that care, is a yardstick by which we should all be judged. Given the way in which they have dealt with the elderly in our community, the Government should hang their heads in shame.
  I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) and applaud her excellent points about the provision of residential care. She referred to the social work services inspectorate report entitled "Community Care Services For Older People in Angus, Dundee City and Perth & Kinross". I agree with her remarks about pay rates: a recent survey by the Association for Residential Care found that some of its members said that even a minimum wage of £2.50 an hour would result in a substantial rise in their costs. That gives an indication of pay levels in some private homes. If we value our elderly people, we should show our appreciation of those who care for them on our behalf.
  I shall concentrate on two specific issues: choice and information. My first point is about housing: community care is built on choice, and many, if not all, of us would choose to live in our own homes for as long as possible. However, all too often the Government's actions have meant that choice is restricted to going into either a nursing home or a residential home. The Government's actions on housing have made it difficult for many people to continue to live in the community.
  Let me give the example of one of my constituents. An elderly lady who had been living in the community was admitted to my local hospital for acute care. She wanted to be discharged to the community; her family supported that, as did the hospital, but it was agreed that she needed level accommodation. She was happy to give up her three-bedroomed council house to a family that desperately needed it and to move into sheltered accommodation.
  288
  The problem, of course, was that no sheltered accommodation was available, because of Government policy on the provision of public housing by local authorities, Scottish Homes and housing associations. I had intended to quote appalling statistics on the gross lack of sheltered and very sheltered housing in Scotland, but that would take up valuable time.
  My second point relates to the crucial importance of information to enable people to remain in the community. The hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) commented on how no one should be allowed to exist—and it would be mere existence—on a basic state pension, but the Government have done little to encourage elderly people to claim the benefits to which they are entitled.
  It is reckoned that there is £14.10 a week in unclaimed income support for every pensioner in this country, and that between 12 and 15 per cent. of pensioners who are entitled to housing benefit fail to claim it. To make matters worse, housing benefit forms have increased in length, from four pages in 1988 to 16 pages today, and the single short claim form for attendance allowance has been replaced by two different forms of 12 and 24 pages respectively. Even the Clerks of the House might feel that that amount of paperwork was excessive.
  Many Opposition Members were deeply disappointed by the Government's failure to extend the Community Care (Direct Payments) Act 1996 to people over 65 and so assist them in independent living. I pay tribute to Scotland's 700,000 carers, of whom 600,000 care for elderly people. Of those carers, 28 per cent. are themselves elderly—for example, in my constituency, I met a 70-year-old lady who cared for her 81-year-old disabled sister and her sister's blind husband.
  Mention was made of the issues of dementia and general practitioners. The Government have ensured that GPs are increasingly overworked through having to provide GP care and cover to nursing homes that house hundreds of people who would previously have been in hospital. I applaud the remarks of the hon. Member for North Tayside about the importance of early diagnosis, especially of dementia and Alzheimer's disease.
  Mr. Bill Walker: It was the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) who said that.
  Ms Squire: I apologise to the hon. Lady for that mistake.
  Yesterday, I was pleased to learn of the announcement of United Kingdom licence approval for the drug Aricept, which is the first ever drug treatment for the symptoms of Alzheimer's disease. However, it is not a cure, and its effective use depends on early diagnosis by GPs. Given that GPs are already overworked, that will be extremely difficult.
  I agree with the remarks about registration and inspection. I was shocked to discover that Tayside health board does not make nursing home inspection reports available even to local authorities, let alone to the families and individuals who are facing one of the most difficult decisions of their lives.
  When does the Minister intend to ensure that inspection reports on residential homes and nursing homes are freely available and accessible to members of the community? Which of us would take a major decision—one that will affect our lives and our finances—without being able to

  289

  pick up detailed reports and information documents on the subject, take them home, look them over and discuss them with our families?
  I shall end my speech there, so as to allow my hon. Friends to make their contributions; but I would add that I look forward to being part of a Government who are truly committed to community care, and to decent and dignified care for the elderly people of our country.
  11.59 am
  Mr. William McKelvey: I shall be brief, because I know that my colleagues wish to speak. I join those who have congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) on securing this important debate. It has raised many issues, and we would have liked more time, but we are doing our best to make our point.
  The Select Committee on Scottish Affairs is studying community care in Scotland, a great deal of which is devoted to the elderly. All our evidence is now in, and will be published. I hope that we have time to finish the report, but if not, I hope that the new Government will pick up the evidence and produce the report. It is important for our elderly and for the disabled.
  I will cut my remarks because of a lack of time, but I want to put on record what has been said in "Kaleidoscope of Care", a publication from Her Majesty's Stationery Office. In just a few words, it gets to the heart of what is important about care for the elderly. It says:
  "Officially, what most would consider admirable policies are in place. The aim is to support carers, encourage independence, foster co-ordination, and emphasise comprehensive but responsive assessment. But if these aims were really being achieved, would it be so difficult to achieve home help? Would the supply of occupational therapists be at its current low level? Would the systems for discharging the elderly patients from hospital be as haphazard as they now appear to be? Would so many old people continue to have what, by the standards of most in our population, are very low incomes and poor housing? Much good work is done in the community care of old people, but it is patchy. Unless resources for community care are considerably increased, the patchiness will remain and reforms will merely benefit one group of old people at the expense of another. We have seen that effective community care for elderly people is possible. Is there the political will to provide it?"
  That publication is well worth reading and considering.
  I do not have time to go into detail or to mention all the figures, but I want to give hon. Members an understanding of the extent of the problem. It is a general problem, but I will give the figures for the whole of Ayrshire.
  In Ayrshire, 6,332 people are receiving home help. Drastic cuts in the provision of home help are likely to occur at the next budget of all the councils in that area. That will leave many people without that essential help. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) said, some people see nobody from week to week, or even year to year, and their only contact with the outside world is their home help. It is an essential part of their life.
  Ayrshire has a larger share of people in nursing homes than other areas, because many people wish to come to our nursing homes. Many large buildings have been turned into nursing homes. There are 2,174 people in nursing homes, and 1,017 in residential homes. The total of those receiving community care services in Ayrshire is
  290
  about 24,000. I cannot give an exact figure, because some people are listed twice if they are receiving different types of care. That is a large part of our population. When one considers the extent of that care and the many people it helps, one can see that any cuts in expenditure would be sad.
  I understand that I walk a tightrope between what I can discuss here and what has been heard in evidence to the Select Committee. Much of the evidence received by the Select Committee is private and cannot be mentioned now. However, the report will be worth reading by those interested in this matter.
  On the day on which the Minister of State, Scottish Office, the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), was giving evidence to the Select Committee I was handed a letter from Maggie McLeod of Edinburgh Voluntary Sector Community Care Alliance. The letter said:
  "Edinburgh city social work department has stopped assessing people for care services"—
  all people, not just the elderly—
  "and has a waiting list of 1,372 people."
  That list includes those who might need admission to residential homes. The letter said that, currently,
  "admissions to residential homes have been frozen."
  I wonder whether the Minister took that up in his constituency, or whether he has any further information. The fact that 1,372 people in Edinburgh are on a waiting list for an assessment, which may take between 12 and 16 weeks before they receive the care they need, is something that any civilised society should find unacceptable. Edinburgh city council would say that that has happened because of cuts in its budget. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that.
  I would have liked to say much more, but time does not allow me. It is only fair that I should sit down and allow others to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  12.5 pm
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) gets some answers from the Minister this morning. I shall be brief, so as to allow the Minister to respond.
  On residential care, we have heard about the disgraceful incident at Glenglova. I believe that there should be national minimum standards for residential care to ensure healthy eating, suitable heating and opportunities for entertainment beyond a television parked in the corner of the lounge. I agree with the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) that decent pay for the employees is important in the standard of care.
  I want to take an unusual step and congratulate the Prime Minister on helping to warm up a pensioner in Maryhill. She telephoned me to say that she woke up in her cold house and opened her morning mail, only to find a letter inviting her to contribute £20 to the Tory party election fund. She was so indignant that she warmed up immediately. She pointed out that £20 is equivalent to the Christmas bonus for two years. I agree with the pensioners charter that that whole issue should be looked at once again.
  Transport for the elderly has not had an airing yet. Local authority provision for bus passes varies widely across the country. We should aim to achieve minimum

  291
  standards for the transport of the elderly at low prices. If people are to keep in touch with the community and enjoy life to the end of their days, transport is important.
  There are clear signs that an overwhelming majority of the population feel that it is wrong that elderly people should be cold in the winter. They are prepared to pay to ensure that our elderly are not cold. They do not mind paying the taxes. The hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) talked about taxpayers' money, but I have never met a taxpayer who objected to old people being warm in the winter, and who was not prepared to pay a fair share.
  12.8 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) on securing this rare debate on Scottish health and community care on the Floor of the House. It is the first such debate during the eight months that I have been on the Front Bench and for many months before that.
  Our thoughts this morning as we discuss this subject are with the elderly people in Leith who are ill with E. coli. I am sure that all hon. Members want to send them and their relatives their best wishes this morning.
  The latest shocking outbreak highlights the urgent need for an all-out war against E. coli in Scotland. First, research must be supported and prioritised. Secondly, the recommendations of Professor Pennington must be implemented in full, including the recommendations on butchers' shops. Perhaps the Minister could assure us this morning that the full report will be completed soon, and that there will be a debate on it on the Floor of the House in March.
  One of the lessons from Lanarkshire was that information must be made available at the earliest possible moment. I have been asking questions about that last night and this morning, and shall continue to seek more detailed information about possible delays on Monday and Tuesday in Leith.
  The conflict between commercial considerations and the interests of consumers was evident in Lanarkshire and elsewhere, and makes even stronger the incontrovertible case for an independent food standards agency, as advocated by the Labour party.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow raised many important issues. He referred to payment for nursing home and residential care. We believe that that issue is so important that it will be referred to a royal commission when Labour comes into government. Nothing less will do.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow and the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) raised the possibility of bringing nursing and social care under one roof, regulated by one system. That is supported in the dementia manifesto. The suggestion must be given serious consideration, as it seems a helpful way forward.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow and the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) homed in on the Tayside report into the provision of residential care in the council and private
  292
  sectors. The Government are trying to make the running on the matter, and suggest that local authorities could save money if they spent more in the private sector.
  I welcome the fact that the Accounts Commission is studying the matter. Judgment should be reserved until that report is available. At present we can consider two factors—first, that quality is the key aspect, and secondly, that staff wages and conditions must be taken into account, as they appear to be the most significant factor in the cost variation. We should remember that the Tayside report makes it clear that there could not be a quick transfer to the private sector, even if it was desirable. We must also bear in mind the fact that, if all provision was in the private sector, the private sector could hold a council to ransom. The rates charged might be much higher in that situation.
  There has been significant growth in the private nursing home sector, and it has been unplanned and unregulated. There are no common standards across Scotland, and there is no common registration and inspection framework. The problem was recognised by the Scottish Office as far back as January 1994, in response to a sheriff's verdict in the Highland region. The sheriff stated that there was no common standard that he could apply when giving a verdict on a particular nursing home.
  In January 1994, the Scottish Office set up a working group to consider criticisms of the Nursing Homes Registration (Scotland) Act 1938, and to consider how the problems might be overcome by the issue of a national standards document, accompanied by client-specific guidelines. It is hard to believe that, after more than three years, we have no conclusions from that working party. We still do not have a regulatory framework that is applied consistently throughout Scotland and seeks to provide quality and protect the vulnerable. Perhaps even more shockingly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) pointed out, the reports that are compiled regularly on nursing homes are not available to the public or to local authorities.
  The Government like to run on the health versus local government issue, and keep telling us that they are prioritising health rather than local government. The debate reminds us that the distinction is unrealistic, because local government is crucially involved in the delivery of health via community care. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West alluded to housing, which is also crucial to the delivery of health. The distinction between local government and health is phoney and worthless.
  Social work is crucially involved in community care. This year £42 million was taken out of the grant-aided assessment figures for social work by the Scottish Office. Next year £55 million-worth of new burdens in community care must be met by councils across Scotland, at a time when their cash grant from the Government is being reduced. That has resulted in the current problems in community care. There is the dead person's shoes policy, whereby people cannot get places in nursing homes unless someone in the nursing home dies. There are further problems, such as the delays in community care assessment and the decline in home help.
  Bed blocking has arisen because of the pressure on social work and community care budgets. That problem is exacerbated by the decline of almost 3,000 in the number of acute hospital beds in Scotland this decade,

  293
  the lack of step-down beds even partially to fill the vacuum, and the cut of almost 2,000 this decade in the number of long-stay beds available. Furthermore, there are no clear eligibility criteria for those beds. We shall address the problem as a matter of early priority.
  We are not opposed to all bed closures. The theory of community care is that certain beds should be closed, with the transfer of resources into the community. That is welcome in respect of people with learning disabilities and of many psychiatric beds, although there are problems with the number of acute psychiatric beds. However, the transfer of resources should be made more transparent. There should be a standard method of recording resource transfers to make them transparent and traceable.
  The scale of the bed closures, combined with the bed blocking problems, has led to the many health stories this winter about pressure on acute hospital beds. Ten days ago, we were told that all hospitals in Lanarkshire were having difficulties in coping with medical admissions. Throughout January, there was a red alert in Lothian, where only emergency cases were admitted to hospital, yet throughout that month it was openly stated in Lothian that 100 beds were blocked because it was impossible to find a place in nursing homes for those people. Bed blocking affects not only people who want to get into hospital and people who should be in another, more appropriate place; it also affects waiting lists, because surgical beds must be used to provide extra medical beds.
  That is one reason why the most recent health statistics, which came out in December, show that waiting lists in Scotland were at record levels, at more than 82,000. The Government message on waiting lists is quite the contrary, but that is just one of the many phoney claims that they make about the health service. It is as empty as their claim to be cutting bureaucracy in the health service. I am glad that the Secretary of State and the Minister for Health have been a little more coy about making that claim since the health statistics were published in December.
  The annual health statistics made it clear that bureaucracy in trusts soared last year by more than £13 million, or more than 5 per cent. Perhaps even the Government are now a little shy of claiming that they are cutting the costs of and the waste in NHS bureaucracy caused by their internal market.
  We want a full debate on the health service to discuss bureaucracy and the Government's plans to increase privatisation and commercialisation in the health service in Scotland. We had a new angle on that at the Scottish Grand Committee last Monday, when the Health Minister admitted that the Government would not rule out plans to privatise clinical services under private finance initiative arrangements.
  We press the Government for a debate on the Scottish health service before the general election. We do not seem to be able to secure such debates under the present system of government. This is the first debate on Scottish health on the Floor of the House that I can remember. If we had a Scottish Parliament, we would ensure that Scottish health received the attention that it deserves.
  Let us have a health debate at least in the Scottish Grand Committee before the general election, so that we can return to the important issues that have been raised this morning, and discuss the waste of bureaucracy and the threat posed by further privatisation and commercialisation. I ask the Minister to confirm this
  294
  morning that the Government will grant that debate. If the Prime Minister wishes to appear before the Scottish Grand Committee, he may lead that debate. If the Government do not allow time for that debate before the general election, everyone will conclude, correctly, that they have nothing to boast about and everything to hide.
  12.20 pm
  The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): There have been several health debates, and we will welcome others whenever the opportunities arise.
  This morning the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) referred to the three cases of E. coli 0157 in Edinburgh. I extend my sympathies to the patients and families concerned, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman's three constituents make a speedy and full recovery. The hon. Gentleman has had the benefit of a briefing from the local consultant in public health medicine and the deputy chief medical officer at the Scottish Office, so he should be familiar with the up-to-date facts.
  I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the latest cases have been taken seriously by Lothian Health and by the city of Edinburgh council environmental health department. Urgent investigations are in hand to identify the source. As a precautionary measure, a butcher in Leith, from whose premises all three patients bought cold meat, has agreed to close his shop. Anyone who had bought cold meat products from the shop since 10 February was advised through a press release last night to dispose of them. A helpline has been established to give advice to anyone who is worried about the situation.
  The hon. Gentleman asked whether there had been delays in informing the public. The first case was confirmed on 20 February, the second on 24 February and the third yesterday, and action was taken to investigate each case as it occurred. It was possible to identify a likely common source only after all three cases were studied, which is what occurred. As soon as the possible source was identified, immediate steps were taken to inform the public in the way that I have outlined.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the implementation of the interim Pennington report. I assure him that the comprehensive action announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretry of State to the House on 15 January is well in hand. Although the debate is not about E. coli, I shall mention some of the on-going action.
  First, a consultation paper on selective licensing of premises handling raw and cooked meat products was issued. Secondly, a committee under the chairmanship of Dr. Cairns Smith is reviewing the existing Scottish Office guidance on the investigation and control of outbreaks of food-borne disease in Scotland. Thirdly, the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food is reviewing its guidance on cross-contamination.
  We are also taking urgent action to improve our arrangements for surveillance, data collection and analysis. I appreciate the other points that the hon. Gentleman made, and there will be a further statement to the House as soon as the Pennington inquiry reports its final recommendations.
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: As this is a particularly Scottish problem and Professor Pennington is one of the world's leading experts in this area, will the issue be researched properly, so that we may get to the root of the problem?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Professor Pennington recommended further work in two areas: knowledge of the prevalence in livestock of the type of E. coli that caused the central Scotland outbreak, and more accurate laboratory methods of typing E. coli strains. We are pressing ahead urgently with turning those recommendations into research projects, in consultation with the relevant research bodies, including the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food. United Kingdom health departments have also initiated a programme of research, costing more than £2 million.
  I must respond to the points raised in this significant debate. We have heard some good speeches. An additional £15 million was allocated to health boards on 9 December 1996 to alleviate the problem of bed blocking, and I believe that it helped considerably. The findings of the acute services planning assumptions review showed that beds were being blocked principally because of delays in care assessment processes and budgetary pressures on social care.
  I have the figures for local authorities in Scotland. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) referred to the position in Edinburgh. Edinburgh's community care provision has increased by 9 per cent. this year, which is above the national average of 8.5 per cent. Substantially more resources have been allocated to community care in 1997–98.
  Research shows that most elderly people wish to remain in their own homes where practicable. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) asked about national standards. A working group is in the process of developing national standards for nursing homes, and guidance on standards in residential care is being prepared and will be issued for consultation very soon. I am glad that the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs is studying the matter, and we shall respond to its report as soon as we receive it.
  I assure the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) that our aim is to provide a safe, seamless service to the user, involving care and support from a multi-disciplinary team, multi-agency working and the private and voluntary sectors, in order to meet the needs of constituents. We believe that the mental illness specific grant, which includes dementia and head injury cases, is important. Some £18 million has been allocated in that area in support of 370 projects.
  We believe that it is important to develop respite care, and we have increased funding to £5.1 million. We are assisting organisations such as Alzheimer's Scotland and other voluntary organisations with a grant of almost £300,000.
  The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) raised the issue of choice of accommodation. We encourage local authorities to improve choice by increasing the number of providers. Following consultation with local authorities, we shall issue directions on information that we hope will enable them to make the best decisions. The hon. Lady mentioned the
  296
  publication of inspection reports. That is currently a matter for health boards, but there is no bar to such publication. I shall reflect upon the hon. Lady's comments. I would prefer that the maximum amount of information be made readily available, but I shall consider that point further.
  The hon. Lady said that the Community Care (Direct Payments) Act 1996 does not extend to those aged over 65. It was considered that authorities should not be overburdened in the development of direct payment schemes in the first instance. However, we have undertaken to review the matter during the first year of operation. People who are already receiving direct payments will continue to do so after their 65th birthdays.
  The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), who initiated the debate, raised some extremely important matters arising out of Glenglova. Ministers have responded positively by setting up a working group comprising representatives from local authorities and the voluntary and private sectors, as well as user representatives. It has made many recommendations, but I make it clear that many of them—notably, preventing a general practitioner from being a home owner as well as a resident's GP; a single registration system of residential and nursing homes; and improving the registration system—require legislation. They also raise some complex issues.
  I give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking that we shall make a statement next month about our intentions regarding many of the working group's recommendations and related matters. We have in hand draft guidance to authorities covering the many topics noted in the group's report, which will go out to consultation next month.
  The hon. Gentleman also referred to consultation on core standards. That matter is separate from consideration of the issues arising from Glenglova. The Government have issued model guidelines for the registration and inspection of nursing homes for the elderly, for people with dementia and for those with learning disabilities. All health boards are expected to comply with the national guidance.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) raised the issue of carers and respite services, and I acknowledge the debt of gratitude that we owe them. The sums made available have increased to £5.1 million for this year.
  The hon. Member for Leith mentioned charging. I can tell the House that we intend, in the near future, to issue for consultation the draft Community Care (Residential Charges) Bill, which will enable those who require residential care immediately, or who may require such care in the future, to protect more of their capital above the current disregard limit of £10,000.
  We intend the Government to act in partnership with those who wish to protect their assets, and we are committed to the principle of cascading wealth within the family. The Scottish Office issued guidance to authorities on 16 January about discretionary charging—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. We must move to the next topic.

  Ice fall (Aircraft)
  12.30 pm
  Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me this opportunity to raise an important issue concerning the responsibilities of the Department of Transport and the Civil Aviation Authority.
  It is part of the historic traditions of the House that a Member of Parliament can raise on the Floor of the House an injustice that has befallen one of his constituents. This is just such a case.
  On 15 June 1993, at 9 o'clock in the morning, my constituent, Mr. Constantinos Kashieris, was in his garden in Isleworth when a block of ice the size of a sack of potatoes fell from an aircraft. He subsequently suffered a serious injury. His general practitioner, Dr. Kaikini, of 19 Harvard road, Isleworth, reported that when Mr. Kashieris
  "was in the back garden of his house and was about to enter the house through the back door … a huge piece of ice fell off a passing aircraft and crashed on to the spot he was standing moments before."
  The ice shattered.
  Dr. Kaikini continued:
  "The shock made him jerk violently and fall against the back door, injuring his right shoulder."
  All shoulder movements were limited thereafter. Mr. Kashieris
  "was given a course of NSAID and was … referred for Physiotherapy."
  As a result of persistent pain in the shoulder and limitation of movement, he was referred to
  "Mr. G. E. T. Raine, Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon at the West Middlesex University Hospital, on the 30th of November 1993. X-ray of the right shoulder taken on 23.11.93 was reported as showing a translucent line running along the upper surface of the glenoid fossa,"
  resulting in a fracture.
  "Mr. Kashieris was seen by Mr. Raine on 24.12.93 confirming the limitation of the range of movements of the right shoulder. He was offered M.U.A. of the shoulder. He was reviewed again but the movements of the shoulder did not show any improvement."
  Because of his complaint, he was seen again in the surgery on 27 March 1995 and 24 April 1995.
  Now nearly in his 80s, Mr. Kashieris has been battling with the CAA and British Airways for more than three and a half years to get compensation and recognition of his injury. What has been the reaction of the CAA, which should have been more assiduous in pursuing this case? In a letter dated 15 September 1993, the CAA told him:
  "I am pleased to advise you that our investigation is now complete.
  Examination of the relevant Air Traffic Services movements record identified a number of aircraft in the vicinity of Isleworth at the reported time of the event. It has now been established that one of those aircraft had a defect which could have resulted in the build-up and subsequent shedding of ice in flight. The operator has now taken appropriate action to prevent a recurrence.
  The aircraft in question was a Boeing 747, registration G-AWNA, which was operating British Airways flight no. BAW218 into London Heathrow Airport on the morning of 15 June 1993. Therefore, any further correspondence regarding this event should be addressed to British Airways".
  298
  Much to my surprise, I then received a letter from British Airways on 27 February 1995, referring to Mr. Kashieris's case, saying:
  "It seems that the information given in the Civil Aviation Authority's letter of 15 September 1993 is incorrect in that the CAA were referring to a fault found on one of our aircraft which arrived at Heathrow on 15 July 1993. A technical log is completed following every flight and it seems from the logs of aircraft operated by BA and in the vicinity of Isleworth at the relevant time on 15 June 1993, there is no record of any reported fault which could have caused a large block of ice to fall."
  I find that very unsatisfactory. In effect, Mr. Kashieris has been told that he is not entitled to compensation because he did not note the aircraft's registration number as it passed over. That is mind boggling. Aircraft do not have their registration numbers on their undercarriage or the underside of their wings—only on their side and tail. Was Mr. Kashieris expected to carry a pair of binoculars while suffering from the shock of a large block of ice that fell near him, injuring his shoulder, to look at the aircraft's tail fin to try to get the registration number?
  The CAA says that it cannot identify the offending aircraft. Of course it can. At Heathrow airport, the landing and take-off times of each aircraft, its route and guide path, are logged. National air traffic control services have a recording system to determine—the gap between each aircraft is one to one and a half minutes—which aircraft is coming or going, on which route and at what time. Additionally, because of the need for environmental protection, noise monitoring systems and microphones are placed all over the airport and its surroundings to monitor at precise times the aircraft that are flying overhead. All those aids should have been used to identify which aircraft was responsible for the block of ice.
  As well as having his arm broken, my constituent has suffered from poor nerves, stress and sleepless nights since the incident. I repeat that he is an elderly gentleman nearly in his 80s. His case has been going on for the past three and a half years. The time taken to-ing and fro-ing between solicitors afterwards—all to no avail—has not helped either.
  The CAA initially said that it was able to identify some 30 aircraft and that it was a British Airways flight. British Airways has denied that. The CAA should be able to identify exactly which aircraft was to blame, because the exact time of the incident was recorded by the Metropolitan police from the call that was made to report it. They have an official logged entry, recording the time the areoplane flew over Mr. Kashieris's garden in Isleworth. Just how many areoplanes could have been responsible? Surely it cannot be beyond the wit of the CAA to find out which one.
  My constituent has been told that he would have to identify the aircraft before trying to claim compensation, but that is akin to telling the victim of a hit-and-run accident that the police cannot do anything to help unless the victim gives them the registration number of the car. If one is to apply commonsense logic or common law logic to this matter, to ask Mr. Kashieris to give the registration number of the aircraft, which is what the CAA is telling him—that is impossible for him to do—is absurd.
  As things stand, Mr. Kashieris has been denied justice, and the same thing could happen again. How is anyone to identify an aeroplane when they have just been knocked to the ground by something that has fallen from it? I must

  299
  put on record the letter that I received from Sir Malcolm Field, chairman of the CAA, dated 4 December 1996, which is what prompted me to ask for this Adjournment debate. I was incensed by it, and by the fact that Mr. Kashieris had been battling on his own with some help from me for the past three and a half years.
  The letter says:
  "Dear Mr. Deva,
  Thank you for your letter of 15 November 1996 concerning your constituent, Mr. Kashieris.
  The Civil Aviation Authority believes that it has done everything reasonably possible to assist your constituent in this matter and accordingly does not propose to take any further action."
  Mr. Kashieris had got fed up and had tried to take the CAA to court. Sir Malcolm Field says:
  "Since your constituent has commenced proceedings against the Authority in relation to this matter, I do not believe it would be appropriate for me to comment in any more detail."
  The CAA had more than three years to find out who was responsible for this accident, to enable Mr. Kashieris to obtain compensation. It did nothing except give the wrong date, the wrong time and the wrong flight when it accused British Airways of being responsible. That is not good enough.
  I have also received letters from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport regarding this matter. I would argue vigorously that the Civil Aviation Authority exists not only to promote the aviation industry, but to protect the people who live around airports and who suffer injuries because of aircraft. I speak as an aeronautical engineer: I am not anti-aircraft. I am one of the few people in the House who understands the constraints and difficulties of running an airport or an airline, but I recognise that people have suffered as a consequence of living near a huge airport such as Heathrow. It brings benefits to the locality, but it also brings disbenefits.
  The CAA should strike a balance between the promotion of the aviation industry and its attendant benefits, such as jobs, and its responsibility to safeguard the local community and to protect it against the disbenefits of pollution, noise and ice falls. In one of his letters, my right hon. Friend said that 20 such incidents have been recorded, one or two of which have resulted in injuries being sustained.
  As a Member of Parliament for a constituency in which many people have to put up with overflying aircraft, I appeal to the Minister and to the House to ensure that the CAA either is empowered to do more in this regard or, if it has the power to make inquiries, does so efficiently and carries out its remit according to legislation.
  12.42 pm
  The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. John Bowis): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva) for raising this important issue. We are sorry to hear of the distressing incident that affected his constituent, Mr. Kashieris, and his difficulties in seeking compensation. My hon. Friend has been zealous on behalf of his constituent, and I congratulate him on that. He is right to suggest that when public bodies, be they Government or other agencies, deal with members of the public who have problems, or with Members of Parliament,
  300
  a degree of sympathy and courtesy is in order. I am sure that those who need to do so will have heard the message that my hon. Friend has put on the record.
  My hon. Friend said that Mr. Kashieris has instituted legal proceedings against the Civil Aviation Authority, so he will understand that I cannot go into the details of the case. Nevertheless, I can address the general points that he has raised, and attempt to explain the cause of the phenomenon of ice falling from aircraft, the frequency of such events and the risks that such occurrences pose to third parties on the ground. I shall also refer to the investigation of ice falls to try to identify the aircraft responsible, and will set out the steps being taken to reduce the number of such incidents.
  My hon. Friend referred to a figure, which I must update, because it has risen a little. In the past 10 years, the average number of ice falls has increased from 21 a year between 1986 and 1989 to 25 a year until 1996—that was probably the figure to which he referred—when there were 33. We do not know whether that is due to increased public awareness of the need to report ice falls or to a genuine increase in the number of incidents. However, aircraft movements since 1980 have risen steadily from about 2 million a year to more than 3.5 million, and the underlying rate of ice falls has been fairly steady in the past six years.
  Apart from the problems experienced by my hon. Friend's constituent, my Department is aware of only one incident in which an ice fall resulted in injury. On that occasion, the damage was second-hand, in that the householder was struck by debris falling from the roof of her house after it had been hit by ice, and she suffered bruising as a result. I should like to assure my hon. Friend and his constituents, who have a great number of aircraft passing over their homes, that the risks posed to third parties from ice falls, although real, are very remote.
  Ice falls occur when ice that has built up on the outside of aircraft breaks free and falls to the ground. The main cause of ice build-up is faulty water systems on board large public transport aircraft. Leaking fluid from such systems gradually seeps out and freezes in the very low temperatures encountered at the normal cruising altitudes of large aircraft. When an aircraft so affected descends through the freezing level on its approach to land, any ice that may have built up during the flight begins to thaw, and consequently breaks free and falls to the ground.
  Ice build-ups can also be caused by water in the atmosphere coming into contact with aircraft in certain meteorological conditions. Such build-ups can become detached, either by the activation of the aircraft's de-icing systems or as the aircraft descends or passes through a layer of warmer air.
  The latest figures on ice falls were published by the Civil Aviation Authority in December 1996. They show that two thirds of reported ice falls involve the type of ice associated with aircraft lavatory installations, otherwise known as "blue ice", and that the remaining incidents involve other water system leaks or atmospheric water.
  Owing to their potentially hazardous nature, ice falls are reportable occurrences under the Air Navigation Order, so they must be reported to the CAA when they occur. The problem is that people inside the aircraft—the crew or maintenance personnel—are seldom aware of an ice fall. Most reports of ice fall incidents come from members of the public who either have witnessed the result of an ice fall or, like my hon. Friend's constituent, have been affected by it.

  301
  Until last year, the CAA investigated all reports of ice falls when a specific time and location were given. Those investigations have, however, had a fairly low success rate, owing in part to inaccuracies in the information given regarding the time of the event, and, in part, to the difficulties of identifying aircraft water and waste system defects.
  Although the CAA is satisfied that when leaks are identified on UK-registered aircraft they are recorded in the aircraft technical log, it is clear that a proportion of possible defects are not identified. There are several reasons for that. Some faults cannot be identified on aircraft while they are on the ground, because the aircraft are not pressurised. In other instances, the servicing agencies employed to empty water and waste systems do not have enough technical expertise to identify evidence of leakage or ice accretion. Because of those difficulties, and despite the considerable time and effort spent on attempting to trace the aircraft responsible for ice falls, the success rate has been only about 8 per cent.
  In an attempt to improve the investigation process, and in recognition of what my hon. Friend rightly described as the potentially very serious nature of ice fall incidents, investigation of such events is now carried out by my Department's air accidents investigation branch. My hon. Friend will appreciate, however, that no investigation can be undertaken unless an accurate time for the ice fall is known. Even then, successful identification of aircraft responsible for ice falls depends on a number of factors, such as the amount and nature of air traffic at the time of the occurrence. The task of identifying responsible aircraft is not made easier by the fact that ice falls occur at times when many aeroplanes are waiting in holding patterns to land at the larger airports.
  As my hon. Friend pointed out, it is difficult to identify aircraft—and that is certainly true when the person concerned is lying on the ground, having been knocked over. As my hon. Friend said, that person cannot be expected to have a pair of binoculars to hand, enabling him to identify the number on the aeroplane. Even if he gets the time spot on, as may well have happened in this instance, it is not always simple to identify an aircraft that may have been in the vicinity at that time.
  As with any other accident, if those affected by ice fall can identify a party responsible for the accident, compensation may be sought through the civil courts. Under section 76 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, claimants do not have to prove negligence by the airline concerned; insurance can, and for the most part does, provide cover for damage to property.
  The CAA is responsible for the safety regulation of aircraft registered in the United Kingdom. Before aircraft can be entered on the UK register, the CAA must be satisfied that they meet the appropriate standards for design and construction. For new aircraft, those standards are set by the European joint aviation authorities. Responsibility for the safety regulation of foreign-registered aircraft rests with their own state of registry, but they must comply with the internationally agreed minimum standards set by the International Civil Aviation Organisation.
  Where problems with ice fall are likely to have safety implications for aircraft themselves—problems such as a leak in a forward lavatory on certain types of aircraft, which could result in the shedding of ice into an engine—the CAA has issued mandatory airworthiness directives on
  302
  maintenance and inspections. The CAA also recommends that investigations of water and waste system leaks should be included in routine inspections.
  Aircraft constructors and operators are well aware of the potential implications of ice falls, and that is taken into account in the design of water and lavatory systems. For example, there is now a tendency to use vacuum systems on new types of aircraft, as service experience has shown them to be more reliable than the recirculation systems more commonly used in the past.
  With respect to aircraft currently in service, CAA airworthiness directives have been issued for a number of aircraft types, requiring mandatory leak checks to be carried out regularly by operators, and, where necessary, appropriate remedial action to be taken. The CAA has advised all UK air operators certificate holders of the importance of taking preventive maintenance measures to minimise the likelihood of ice falls. Other steps being taken include the fitting of manufacturers' modification kits to improve resistance to water leaks at servicing points, routine visual inspections by airline engineers for evidence of ice accretion after an aircraft has landed, unannounced inspections by CAA surveyors checking airworthiness standards—including inspections for ice accretion and water leakage—the recording of occurrences by the CAA, and investigation of serious events by the air accidents investigation branch.
  We recognise that ice falls have the potential to cause death or serious injury to third parties on the ground, but there are no reports of that in the United Kingdom, and the risk to people on the ground, although real, is very remote. Nevertheless, I well understand my hon. Friend's concern on behalf of his constituent, who appears to have been one of those "very remote" examples. He will be reassured by the fact that my hon. Friend has raised the matter here today, and that it is taken seriously by the Government, the Department of Transport and the CAA. We will certainly ensure that the record of today's proceedings is drawn to the CAA' s attention.
  The issue has been raised in the past with the Select Committee on Transport, and is kept under review. The best reassurance that I can give my hon. Friend and his constituents is that the aviation industry is taking practical steps to combat the problem, and to prevent such incidents from happening at all. When they do happen, ways must be found of identifying who is responsible—that does not necessarily mean "culpable"; it means that someone somewhere is in charge of an aeroplane that has deposited the ice.
  I repeat that those aboard the aircraft concerned may be the last to know about such incidents. We should not jump to the conclusion that the captain and cabin crew should be aware that something has happened, and report it; that is not a practical solution. Whenever possible, however, people should be able to identify the aircraft that is likely to have caused the problem, so that it can be pursued—not literally pursued through the air, of course.
  The CAA believes that current operating procedures, combined with good maintenance practice, will be sufficient to control the hazard posed by ice falls. I join my hon. Friend in hoping that that is the case, and in expressing sympathy to his constituent.

  Hedgerow Protection
  12.59 pm
  Mr. Peter Hardy: The House will probably agree that, through the generations, the English landscape has brought pleasure and inspiration to many thousands of people. Our literature and our art have benefited from it and the quality of life of many millions of people has been enhanced. The hedgerow is an important part of that landscape and, given the confusion that exists and has existed for some time, it is reasonable that the House should consider the matter carefully.
  I first became interested in hedgerows long ago, but in the early years of my parliamentary service, I took a particular interest in the protection of species. I then began to realise that it was no good protecting species if the habitat was destroyed. For almost 10 years, I served as chairman of a committee concerned with the natural environment in Europe and I played a part in setting up the Berne convention, which most civilised countries in Europe have signed and begun to implement, and which the Government ratified quickly and implemented through the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
  During the deliberations on that Act, my hon. Friends the Members for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and I sought hard to persuade the Government to ensure that hedgerow protection was included in the measure, but they declined. Just before then, I had made one attempt to secure hedgerow protection, by urging the Government to extend tree preservation orders, for what they are worth, to cover important and significant hedgerows. The Government declined. [Interruption.] I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow has just returned. I mentioned him a moment ago.
  After the 1981 Act, I secured and prepared a Bill with the assistance of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds to protect some hedgerows—those that we felt were significant. It had all-party support; frequently, such initiatives have not been of a partisan nature. Only the Government have been obstructive. That Bill would have provided a sensible framework for protection, but it was rebuffed by the Government. It would have protected the skeleton of hedgerows that we needed to safeguard—all hedgerows by highways, footpaths and bridleways, and hedgerows that were boundaries of farm and of parish—but the Government said that the problem had ended, that the destruction of hedgerows had virtually ceased and that there was no need for legislation. Destruction went ahead. Thousands and thousands of miles of hedgerow have gone since then.
  At about that time, Mr. Colin Seymour was conducting research in west Yorkshire and I did some in south Yorkshire. I then realised, as did he and other people, that the pre-1840 Inclosure Acts were significant and important and had been foolishly disregarded. If one assumes that the average area in each of the 4,000 parishes was 1,500 acres, that means that there were almost certainly 45 miles or so of hedgerow in those inclosed fields, formed from the commons. The invariable requirement in those Acts was that the fields formed from the common land and given to local landowners—fields taken from the people—were to be surrounded by thorn fences or hedgerows, and protected from then on and for ever.
  304
  Obviously, changes have been required, but Parliament allowed those Acts to be neglected. When I first raised the matter in the House, a junior Minister with responsibility for agriculture said that those old Acts no longer applied, but they do, because only that which Parliament says can be taken away can be taken from that which Parliament gives. Some time later, I asked the Minister to declare locus standi or to issue a statement to clarify the matter, because people should not be left in confusion.
  I said to one of the Ministers responsible for agriculture at the time—Earl Ferrers, who is now a Minister in the Department of the Environment—"I suspect that, in the 20 or 30 years until now—from the time of the Agriculture Act 1947, I think—it is highly likely that taxpayers' money has been given to people to grub out inclosure hedgerow, which the law says should be protected." The Minister was quick on his feet and replied, "Yes, but it is not our fault. It is the applicant's fault. The applicant for such a grant should be satisfied that he is entitled to remove the hedge." I suspect that many of them received grant when they were not entitled to it. One should be a little more careful with public money.
  The laudable scheme to give people grant to replant hedgerows may have been used to remove them, when they had been protected by the House—the protection was given a long time ago, but it is still valid. I hoped that the Government would see sense and come to an arrangement with the conservation bodies and hon. Members on both sides of the House who were concerned about the matter.
  I was on the council of the RSPB when its centenary celebrations began at King's Cross station. British Rail had named a railway engine "The Avocet", the emblem of the society. The society inappropriately invited the then Prime Minister to be the guest speaker, and what a splendid speech she made. She called in clear and specific terms for us to recognise that we were the custodians of our natural heritage and that hedgerows should be protected as a matter of importance.
  I was delighted because I was presenting my Bill again, amended to suit the wishes of the Country Landowners Association and the National Farmers Union, that very afternoon. I did not go off to the junket tea that followed the session at King's Cross station, but came to the House to present the Bill, with the words of the Prime Minister echoing in my ears. Conservative and Labour Members alike gave support. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith), who has been stalwart in defence of the proposal.
  The Bill came up for Second Reading, and guess what happened? On the instructions of the Prime Minister, the Whips were instructed to block the Bill. Hon. Members may imagine that there was some acrimonious correspondence, and comments were made in Committee afterwards.
  Therefore, hedgerow protection continued to be ignored. Destruction continued apace, with the Government's encouragement, and some ruthless landowners let their side down badly, but the Government recognised that their position was not particularly popular, so in 1992 they presented in their manifesto, as the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment will confirm, a clear pledge to introduce hedgerow protection. Nothing happened.

  305
  Then the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) was drawn in the ballot. Although he did not secure all-party support and did not try, he presented a Bill. Unfortunately, some Conservative Members who are not here today savaged the Bill in Committee. The Bill was defended by my colleagues and me. It came back to the House and it was talked out by Conservative Members. I was accused of making a bad-tempered speech, and I did, because I did not like the way in which a few people were apparently defending their rights and privileges against the interests of the majority of this generation and past generations, and those to come, who should continue to have the uplifting of spirit that the hedgerow in Britain provides as part of our essential landscape.
  In 1987, I tried again and presented a Bill, again with the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House. The Government were going to take a neutral position, but the Bill was blocked on two occasions by individual Conservative Members, one of whom—a Welsh Member and former Minister whose constituency I have forgotten—when challenged by conservationists in his constituency, said that my Bill would have stopped people trimming their garden hedges, which was completely untrue. I retaliated in Committee shortly afterwards, by objecting to his presence on the ground that he was illiterate.
  Some years before those events, I invited conservation bodies to mount an inclosure hedgerow case, because the last relevant one was in the 1920s. It was Pratt v. Garrett and it confirmed our position. The national bodies did not embark on a test case, but Yorkshire wildlife trust, of which I am patron, assisted by Mr. Seymour, or the other way round, started an action to safeguard a clearly protected inclosure hedgerow in Flamborough. In July, the judge declared locus standi. Some time before that, the Government refused to make a declaration, which would have saved much money and bother. As I was sure that we would win the case, I asked the Government to consider the position if the judgment on the Flamborough hedge confirmed our view and whether draft regulations, which were being prepared, would take proper account of a favourable judgment. Unfortunately, they did not.
  The judgment was delivered in December. The Minister is a barrister and must have respect for that judgment, which was a masterly piece of historical appraisal. It was superb in law and should be highly regarded. That distinguished judgment confirmed that 4,000 Inclosure Acts relating to 4,000 parishes invariably required that the common land be inclosed in fields and be perpetually surrounded by hedgerows, which should be properly maintained. Instead of properly respecting that judgment, the Government said that every case would have to be fought separately.
  Does the Minister want 4,000 Flamboroughs before the courts? Unless the Government are reasonable, I shall encourage every county trust and every local naturalists group and conservation group to carry out some homework in their libraries. That is already happening because of the Government's inertia. Let us have 10,000 Flamborough judgments. The legal system does not want that and there is no need for it. The commonsense approach that I urged in 1982 should have been applied before and ought to be applied now.
  Sir Dudley Smith: The hon. Gentleman is aware of my support for his general
  306
  thesis. Is he aware that, although we have not reached the end of the second month of the year, in Warwickshire 3,500 m of hedgerows have been stripped away in a very short time, some of them in Sherbourne in my constituency? Warwickshire wildlife trust, an admirable body which works hard, thinks that some farmers and landowners are deliberately trying to pre-empt Government moves in the right direction.
  Mr. Hardy: I think that that is the case. The Government made their promise in 1992 and have not done anything about it other than to offer the recent proposals. As a result, much of what the hon. Gentleman mentions has been going on. I am glad that he referred to his county trust. I hope that it is checking to see whether any of the hedgerows that he mentions are inclosure hedgerows. If they are, legal action of the type that I mentioned could be taken.
  The Government thought long and hard and it took them years to produce draft regulations. I am worried about them because, for example, they give local authorities 28 days to decide whether a hedgerow is worth having. It seems to have escaped the Government's notice that local authorities do not have much fat. By and large, they are leaner and more efficient than the Department of the Environment, but their officers are not able to drop everything and spend up to 28 days checking hedgerows. What on earth are those officers to do when there is snow on the ground? How can they carry out an ecological assessment and check the plant species in a hedgerow when they cannot see them? Has it escaped the notice of the Department of the Environment that many plants die down in winter and cannot be counted?
  As I said, council officers are supposed to carry out an ecological assessment, to see whether a hedgerow and the number of species in it are sufficient to meet the requirements, but there are other silly requirements. Tree species in hedgerows have to be pure bred. The Minister knows south Yorkshire and has made some unsuccessful political forays into it in his time. In that area, the hedgerow oaks tend to be hybrids of pendulate and sessile oaks. Although they are hybrid, they are natural to our area. Unfortunately, I cannot find any pure-bred oaks in my constituency. I walk the footpaths regularly and I think that the oaks there are hybrid.
  Sycamore cannot be included, but that species has been growing in Britain for many years. I think that chestnuts are also excluded. Some imported plants can be counted, but not native brooms or currants. It is absurd that we have waited so long for regulations, which are defective and which place local authorities in an impossible position. I pay tribute to my local authority. I understand that it met Yorkshire wildlife trust a few days ago, when it recognised the law and appreciated that it has a responsibility to comply with it. I hope that local authorities in Yorkshire and elsewhere will draw up lists of inclosure hedgerows within their metropolitan or county boroughs. Such action would be useful and responsible, and it would assist and provide guidance for future generations.
  Although I am not a conservation scientist, I urge the Minister to have detailed conversations with the learned and expert conservation bodies, to ensure that some of the farcical measures in the draft regulations are put right. The Government have days—it should be hours—until the election, to act sensibly and at least seek to fulfil their

  307
  1992 promise. In the five years since then, hedgerow destruction has proceeded apace, and perhaps illegal action, to which the Government have turned a blind eye, has been taken. We do not want any more blind eyes: far too much damage has been caused to the British landscape over the past 40 or 50 years, and the Government bear a heavy responsibility for much of it. I hope that in their last few days they will act in a way that will allow us to breathe at least a slow sigh of relief.
  1.16 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): I welcome the opportunity to respond to this debate, on an important subject. I appreciate the long-standing interest and experience of the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) in the subject.
  I am grateful for the chance to outline the stage that the Government have reached on the regulations to protect important hedgerows. I shall deal first with inclosure hedgerows and the case involving Mr. Colin Seymour. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the recent court case over an inclosure hedgerow in Flamborough, which sparked some public interest and involved Mr. Seymour as a plaintiff.
  I understand that the Flamborough hedgerow was widely acknowledged to be of little value as a wildlife habitat and in poor condition. His Honour Judge Cracknell, to whom the hon. Gentleman paid generous and accurate tribute and who is a distinguished judge, described the hedgerow as "a singularly undistinguished hedge". Nevertheless, Mr. Seymour obtained the judgment that he sought, that Flamborough parish council remains bound by the terms of the Flamborough Inclosure Act 1765 and the subsequent award to maintain the hedge for ever.
  There was a great deal of speculation at the time that the judgment confirmed that all inclosure hedgerows are protected. That is far from the case, according to a reading of the judgment. A number of factors must be taken into account. First, because the parish council withdrew from contesting the case, the judge heard only one side of the argument. Secondly, in the case, there was no disagreement between the plaintiffs and the parish council that the hedgerow was the subject of the Inclosure Act, nor was there argument over its location and ownership.
  More significantly, although the judge made it clear that the obligation that was created by the Flamborough Inclosure Act 1765 and the subsequent award still existed, it is worth quoting from the closing words of his judgment:
  "Can I, before granting this relief, express one word of caution. As I indicated, there are over 4,000 such Acts and each one may be expressed in subtly or seriously different ways. Whether a provision is binding as I find this one to be, has to be judged in each individual case. It would be wrong therefore to read too much into this case in terms of its significance for roadside hedgerows generally or for the ability of individuals or organisations to claim the support of the Courts for a particular hedgerow."
  Mr. Hardy: I have examined many inclosure measures, and, although I accept that there could be individual variations, every single one that I have seen and every single one that I know about—over the years, many have
  308
  been drawn to my attention—specifically and clearly contained the Flamborough conditions, which I mentioned. I would not dream of suggesting that every one of the 4,000 measures contains the conditions, but every one that I know of does.
  Mr. Clappison: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's experience in those matters. However, the judgment demonstrates that obligations arising under Inclosure Acts and awards may still be enforceable and that, in appropriate circumstances, the court may find that a local resident has sufficient interest to challenge the failure of an owner to carry them out.
  The hon. Gentleman also referred to hedgerow regulations. The Government's policy on hedgerow protection is based on the results of a survey of hedgerow changes in England and Wales between 1990 and 1993, which the Department of the Environment published in July 1994. The survey showed some welcome trends. The rate of hedgerow removal, for example, more than halved, to approximately 3,600 km per year, compared with 9,500 km per year between 1984 and 1990, which was the period covered by a previous survey. Furthermore, the rate of gain from new planting increased to 4,400 km per year, so that gains now more than balance losses from removal. The Government therefore wish to focus protection on the most important hedgerows, for which no new planting is a substitute, and which remain vulnerable to removal. One example is an ancient parish boundary hedge.
  The Government therefore took powers, under section 97 of the Environment Act 1995, to introduce regulations for the protection of important hedgerows. The views of both environmental and conservation bodies and of those who would be subject to the regulations were considered, and research was commissioned to develop and field test a set of evaluation criteria that could be used in the scheme. Draft regulations were consequently published—on 21 October 1996—for consultation, with a closing date for responses of 2 December 1996. In announcing the publication, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment said that he considered that the proposals struck the right balance between providing effective environmental benefits and minimising the impact on farmers.
  The proposal was for a notification system, under which landowners would be required to notify the local planning authority of their intention to remove a hedgerow. It would then be for the authority, using the set of evaluation criteria, either to give or to refuse consent to the removal. There were provisions for a right of appeal for the applicant against an authority's decision and for criminal offences relating to hedgerow removal in contravention of the regulations.
  A fundamental component of the protection scheme is the set of criteria that authorities are to use in identifying hedgerows of significant historic, wildlife or landscape value. For the scheme to operate in as transparent a manner as possible, and to limit objections to any decisions made, it is important that the criteria be applicable on a national basis and not rely on local discretion. A degree of detail is necessary if those who will be affected by the regulations are to have confidence in them.
  Concerns have been expressed over the percentage of hedgerows likely to be identified as important under the system. We have said that the figure is likely to be about

  309
  20 per cent., although I must acknowledge that that estimate is based on a limited field study. Therefore, a more realistic figure will become apparent only once the scheme has been established.
  Many of the bodies representing environmental and conservation interests have said that a higher percentage of hedgerows should be protected, or even that protection should be extended to all hedgerows. Conversely, bodies representing landowning interests have suggested that the percentage should be lower. It would be wrong to put a percentage on the number of hedgerows that we should like to be protected. The number will become apparent only once the scheme is in operation. We are far more concerned to ensure that the removal of important hedgerows is controlled.
  More than 500 responses were received to the consultation, representing a wide range of views and raising a number of issues, which the Government have had to consider carefully. Differences of view were inevitable over the proposals, although we have been encouraged by the fact that most respondents supported the framework of the proposed notification system.
  There are detailed matters to be considered, and we must take them into account when making any necessary amendments to the draft regulations. We are also mindful of the fact that the primary aim—to protect important hedgerows—should not be compromised. The effort to define the terms of protection for hedgerows, in a manner that is sufficiently precise to provide certainty for both landowners and local authorities, has proved significantly more difficult than expected. In the very near future, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State hopes to make an announcement of our proposed way forward. Meanwhile, today's debate has made a positive contribution.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: What is the difficulty with the definitions in the 1981 Act? My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and I were involved in that 100-hour Committee stage.
  Mr. Clappison: The responses that we received in the consultation period identified some important questions on detail in the regulations. It is necessary to examine the criteria very carefully, because a great deal rests on their detail. However, I am sure that, in its way, today's debate is an important contribution.
  Mr. Hardy: I started my speech by mentioning the landscape. I should like to make a point that is concerned less with the landscape than with general ecology.
  310
  The Minister will be aware that a vast number of bird species—such as the song-thrush and, this week, the bullfinch—have been recorded as suffering enormous decline. Many of them are hedgerow species. The Government say that their measure might be relevant to only 17.5 per cent. of our hedgerows. If we are to concern ourselves with only 17.5 per cent. of our hedgerows, arresting the decline in species that were once common in England will not work, and there will be a continued decline and perhaps a disappearance of many species that our grandparents regarded as common, but which our children and grandchildren will never see.
  Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman certainly makes his point on the wildlife conservation value of hedgerows. In framing the draft regulations, we believe that we have borne that value in mind.
  Sir Dudley Smith: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the point that I made about those who are trying to pre-empt the scheme? I very much welcome the scheme. Will he do something about those who wish to pre-empt it?
  Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend again makes an important point. However, I think that he will agree that, on such an issue, it is important to get the details right. We have made it clear that, through the regulations, we aim to protect important hedgerows.
  Mr. Dalyell: I tabled a question on songbirds to the Department of the Environment. Consequently, after limited publicity, I received letters from across the country. There is great public concern about the disappearance of familiar songbirds. Other than a lack of food—especially a lack of food before winter—and differences in stubble treatment, the vast increase in sparrowhawks seems to be a factor in their disappearance. Hedgerows give some protection against sparrowhawks.
  Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We are certainly concerned about the songbird population and are dealing with its decline in a number of ways. He will know that, on a wider plane, our biodiversity action programme embraces some songbird species. He will also know of the work that we are conducting through the pesticides forum, to give one example, to address that issue, which may affect songbirds.
  We have had some well-informed contributions today, which have moved forward the debate on this important subject.

  Pensions (Mr. Reg Vincent)
  1.29 pm
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity to raise this important debate about my constituent, Mr. Reg Vincent. The purpose of my debate is twofold: first, to consider his old-age pension contributions and secondly to look at the value of his former Rhodesian—now Zimbabwean—police pension.
  To put everything into perspective, it is important to consider Mr. Vincent's history. I should like to run quickly through his war service and the years that he spent in the British South Africa police in Rhodesia. In 1940, as a young man of 18, Reg Vincent volunteered for the Royal Air Force. He was accepted into the RAF on 11 June, when France was in the process of falling and Britain was standing alone. They were desperate, bleak times, but, like many other determined, patriotic young men and women, Reg wanted to fight for King and country. That is why he volunteered. He did his basic training and, in November 1941, he was posted to South Africa to help train the South African and Rhodesian pilots and ground crews. He set sail from Liverpool, wearing a red poppy, on 11 November 1941.
  In due course, Mr. Vincent was posted to 27 Air School at Bloemfontein, where he served for a number of years. On 20 December 1944, he was involved in an unfortunate and tragic accident. Along with other ground staff, he was working on an aircraft that had been on some trestles. Mr. Vincent and his colleagues had carried out that routine procedure hundreds of times. On that occasion, due to the negligence of the senior corporal in attendance, a trestle was removed prematurely and Reg was crushed under the aircraft frame. Due to the negligence of a mechanic, the tail oleo leg had not been topped up with hydraulic oil, which meant that when the aircraft crashed down on Reg Vincent, the damage and injuries were worse than they would otherwise have been. He suffered bad fractures to his first and second lumbar vertebrae, resulting in him being hospitalised for eight months. For five months, he was encased in a full-length plaster of Paris cast an inch thick. Imagine that in the hot, humid South African climate.
  Mr. Vincent has borne the legacy of that terrible injury for the rest of his life. He returned to the United Kingdom after the war, much later than he would otherwise have done. His demobilisation was delayed until 6 September 1946. His great ambition after the war was to join the Kent police. He had set his heart on that, but unfortunately he failed his medical, which was a devastating blow.
  Reg then saw some advertisements that were in police stations and other public places to join the British South Africa police in Rhodesia. The Government wanted a large number of service men to seek posts in colonies to take pressure off jobs and housing in the United Kingdom. He applied and had three days in which to agree to take up the post. In those three days, he had to sort out his life and all his personal arrangements before setting sail for Africa once again.
  Mr. Vincent arrived just before Christmas 1946. After his training, he was posted to Bulawayo. He then entered a period of tough policing in the former colony of Rhodesia. During that time, he had a number of traumatic experiences, which the Minister knows about. I shall not
  312
  go through them in detail, save to mention that he shared a room for a while with a sergeant who was charged with a jewellery theft. That sergeant was convicted, but he committed suicide, as did the inspector in charge of the case. We should consider the impact of that on a young police officer who had gone abroad to serve the Crown. At about the same time, his engagement to his fiancée, who was waiting in England to come out to marry him, was called off. He then married a local girl in Rhodesia. Unfortunately, that marriage broke down—although I am pleased to say that he is now happily married again—and he then went through a difficult time in his personal life, the relevance of which will become clear.
  We should bear it in mind that this was no ordinary policing assignment. It was a difficult, remote posting where the responsibilities and demands of policing were different from those in other parts of what was then the British empire. In due course, Mr. Vincent was transferred to Umtali, where he served until 1967. He had a distinguished career in the British South Africa police in Rhodesia and was awarded a number of medals, in addition to those that he won during the war.
  The unilateral declaration of independence was made on 11 November 1965. We must consider the position of officers such as Mr. Vincent and other servants of the Crown at that time. The British Government—and, indeed, the world—were stunned by that unilateral declaration of independence. The Governor of Rhodesia remained the lawful Government of the colony and issued a directive calling on the judiciary, the armed services, the police and other public services to carry on with their duties, maintaining law and order and the normal functioning of Government services. The then Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, said in the House:
  "I believe that the Governor has made this statement in Rhodesia—that it is the duty of public servants to carry on with their jobs, to help to maintain law and order".—[Official Report, 11 November 1965; Vol. 720, c. 362.]
  He repeated that several times, as did Lord Pearce, in the judicial committee of the Privy Council.
  Before the granting of independence to Zimbabwe in 1980, when Her Majesty's Government re-established the lawful colonial status, the public services had operated under a tacitly accepted compromise in which they retained their loyalty to the Crown and worked under the directive of the Governor, which was never rescinded, but were paid by the illegal regime of Ian Smith. Reg Vincent, like many others, decided to obey the suggestions and instructions of the then Prime Minister to stay in Rhodesia and to maintain law and order. If they had not done so, there would have been a complete breakdown and lawlessness in that country, and the ultimately smooth transition to independence for the relatively successful country now called Zimbabwe would not have been possible.
  Reg Vincent left the police in August 1967. After a period as a deputy sheriff, he returned permanently to the United Kingdom in 1982. Rather than coming straight back to the UK, he decided to stay in the country that he loved and tried to help the police in the exercise of their duties.
  Let us consider Mr. Vincent's pension contributions. He is now aged 75 and receives 71 per cent. of his old-age pension. He missed the years 1948 to 1968. He first contacted the Department of Social Security overseas

  313
  branch in October 1974, when he first realised that he should have paid national insurance contributions in the intervening years.
  The Minister will be aware that matters relating to the number of contributions an individual makes are decided by the Secretary of State, through a senior officer in the office for the determination of contributions. Reg Vincent had a great deal of correspondence with me and with the Members representing constituencies where he previously lived. He wrote to his Member of Parliament in Wallasey, now Baroness Chalker, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies). To cut a long story short, the Secretary of State took the decision on 26 September 1994. There was a formal determination under section 17 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 and the statement of grounds of the decision was published on 19 April 1995.
  The decision was devastating for Reg Vincent. It found that there had been ignorance and error which was attributable to Mr. Vincent's failure to exercise due care and diligence. In June 1995, Reg Vincent, a representative of the citizens advice bureau and I met the then Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who is now Secretary of State for Wales. In fact, it was his last day at the DSS, although my right hon. Friend did not know that and nor did we, but we examined the case in great detail and had a valuable and constructive discussion.
  The case was then taken over by my hon. Friend the Minister and we had a meeting about nine months ago. On 3 May, he wrote me a letter stating:
  "In his submission of 8 March 1996 Mr. Vincent has indicated that he was prevented from exercising due care and diligence because of his ignorance of the National Insurance scheme and the communications problems which existed in Rhodesia at the time he entered the country. However, reasons as to why he could not exercise due care and diligence are irrelevant as the question to be considered was whether due care and diligence was exercised or not."
  It took me some time to work out what that meant. Anyone reading it objectively would probably have the same difficulty. The letter concludes:
  "Mr. Vincent did not take any positive action to find out by enquiry the conditions of entitlement to pension. He therefore failed to exercise due care and diligence".
  I do not accept that. The Minister states that Mr. Vincent has a right of appeal to the High Court. How can such an individual appeal to the High Court when he is not eligible for legal aid and he is aged 75? The trauma, stress and huge expense are prohibitive, so it is not a practical solution.
  We have to consider whether Mr. Vincent exercised due care and diligence. The DSS informs me that when the compulsory national insurance scheme was introduced in 1948, there was a huge amount of publicity. All the colonial administrations were told, there were broadcasts and people in public service in those countries were told exactly what the requirements were for participating in the new scheme of compulsory national insurance.
  Reg Vincent has assured me that he did not hear the news. He was posted in Bulawayo and then went on to Umtali. He had difficulties in his personal life at the time and was shouldering his responsibilities as a police officer, upholding law and order in remote locations.
  We are talking not about a police officer in Australia, New Zealand or Canada where communications were better and there was ready availability of news from the
  314
  United Kingdom, but about someone serving in remote locations in Africa. Reg Vincent has assured me that he did not receive any information whatever during the period up to UDI. The Minister has accepted that, during the period of UDI, Mr. Vincent would not have heard what was going on in the United Kingdom because there was a news blackout. He asked about the previous period and asserted that Mr. Vincent should have heard about the scheme had he exercised due care and diligence.
  I have discussed the matter at great length with Mr. Vincent. He is a man of great honour and integrity. Had he known, he would have taken the relevant steps. He did not know and, as a police officer serving in very difficult locations, he was never given the opportunity to find out. UDI was declared in 1965 and there was a communications embargo. Radio stations were jammed and there was absolutely no way that he could have received the relevant information that would have prompted him to take the necessary steps to make up his contributions.
  My constituent has served his country with bravery and courage. During the war, he suffered an appalling injury, the legacy of which he carries to this day and has plagued him all his life. He wanted to join the Kent police. Had he done so, he now would be a relatively well-off retired man with a good police pension. However, he did not. He went to serve the Crown in Rhodesia. He might well have been excused for believing that, as members of the armed forces had their contributions paid, so did the police force who also wore the Crown on their service dress hats and helmets. Incidentally, had Mr. Vincent decided to ignore the Prime Minister's advice to stay in Rhodesia after the declaration of UDI, he would have joined a number of fellow police officers and returned to the UK, and in turn obviously paid his contributions.
  We have to consider the circumstances surrounding the case. That is why I am asking my hon. Friend the Minister to review the decision. There is a compelling case for him to send it back to the Office for the Determination of Contribution Questions. I am asking him to show common sense and compassion on a matter within the remit of his Department.
  Mr.Vincent also receives a former Rhodesian, and now Zimbabwean, police pension, worth 1,750 Zimbabwe dollars per month. It was worth a reasonable amount in 1980 when the Zimbabwe dollar was worth 80p. Mr. Vincent was getting about £16,800 a year, which is a reasonable pension. Since then, the Zimbabwe dollar has fallen dramatically. It is now worth precisely 4p. So his Zimbabwean pension, instead of being worth £16,800 per year, is worth £1,152. That is a loss of £15,648 a year. The loss of his Zimbabwean police pension since 1980 because of the fall in the exchange rate, in addition to what he has lost by not receiving a full pension here, comes to a staggering sum amounting to more than £17,000 a year. In total, Mr. Vincent has lost some £250,000.
  I am keen that my hon. Friend the Minister should consider as a matter of urgency the Government's attitude towards Reg Vincent and the other Zimbabwean pensioners who are resident in the UK. I understand that the figure that we are talking about is approximately 1,800 people, including widows. It is very strange that, when the constitution of independent Zimbabwe was enacted in 1979–80, the Government did not require a public officers agreement, which had been an essential requirement for

  315
  the granting of independence to other colonies and which invariably contained a guarantee of the sterling value of pensions. I cannot blame myself for that; I was not a Member of Parliament at the time. Nor was my hon. Friend the Minister. The matter should have been considered at the time, looked at during the Lancaster house negotiations and addressed in the drafting of the constitution of the new Zimbabwe.
  I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to take up the matter with his colleagues in the Foreign Office—I shall certainly be doing the same. Although from a strictly legal point of view, Her Majesty's Government may have no liability to Zimbabwean pensioners, there is an extremely strong moral case. Under the provisions of the Overseas Pensions Act 1973, the Government took over payment of pensions of overseas pensioners in India and virtually every other former colony. It would have been perfectly legally possible for the Government to enter into an arrangement with the Zimbabwean Government under that Act. Such an arrangement would not cost a great deal of money—probably about £3 million. As we are paying a very large amount of aid to Zimbabwe—we paid about £30 million a year over the past four years, considerably more before then and probably more in the future—I urge the Minister to consider the strong moral case for rectifying the grievance of this proud and honourable man.
  I have never raised an individual constituent's case in an Adjournment debate before. It is quite rare for that to happen. I would not do so unless I felt very strongly about Mr. Vincent and believed that he was an honourable, honest man. There is a chance to correct the problem. Mr. Vincent is a proud 75-year-old; he is asking not for handouts but simply for justice.
  1.51 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Oliver Heald): My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) has raised the issue of Mr. Reg Vincent with me personally, in correspondence and at a meeting, and with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales when he was Minister of State in the Department of Social Security. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his success in obtaining this debate to raise the issue once again. No one could have pursued a constituency case more vigorously. I join him in paying tribute to all those who served so bravely in the second world war. Nobody should ever underestimate what they gave to this country.
  It is worth considering first how a person establishes a claim for a contributory pension such as a retirement pension. There are two aspects to it: first, the need to satisfy the statutory conditions appropriate to the benefit, which in the case of Mr. Vincent does not raise any issues, and secondly, the establishment of contribution conditions—that a person has paid sufficient national insurance contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk set out much of the procedure.
  Questions of contributions are reserved for determination by the Secretary of State for Social Security. His power to make such determinations is contained in section 17 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. Such decisions are made on his
  316
  behalf by the Office for the Determination of Contribution Questions, which acts under the principles set out in the well-known case of Carltona. The Secretary of State delegates the responsibility to senior officers in the way in which my hon. Friend described. Such determinations by the Secretary of State are binding on the independent adjudicating authorities, and the right of appeal to the High Court lies by way of case stated on a point of law. In a suitable case, judicial review may be sought.
  Mr. Vincent was abroad when the present national insurance scheme started in 1948. He did not return to live permanently in England until 1982, although he visited the United Kingdom in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. While abroad, he was not required to pay national insurance contributions, but was entitled to pay voluntary contributions for a retirement pension. No inquiries were made of the Department until October 1974.
  There are strict time limits for voluntary contributions. Mr. Vincent was advised that he was entitled to pay arrears of contributions from December 1968, which he paid. He continued to pay contributions until he reached pension age in March 1987. On his 65th birthday, he was awarded a retirement pension at the reduced rate of 69 per cent. An adjudication officer decided that he was not entitled to a full retirement pension because of the deficiency in his contributions, which was at that time thought to have been between July 1948 and December 1968. Mr. Vincent challenged that, and on 23 March 1994, asked the Secretary of State to make a formal determination under section 17 of the 1992 Act. He asked whether he might pay contributions for any weeks in the period from July 1948 to 1 December 1968, and whether he satisfied the contribution conditions for a basic retirement pension.
  Before a decision is given, there is a full investigation. The applicant is advised of the facts that the Secretary of State is minded to take into account, and the legislation is set out. The Secretary of State has discretion to extend time limits for the payment of voluntary contributions, but only when the failure to pay by the due date is because of ignorance or error on the part of the insured person and the ignorance or error is not due to any failure on the part of the person to exercise "due care and diligence". Although the wording appears in the 1979 contribution regulations, it replicates wording that has been used since 1967.
  Mr. Vincent wrote to the Department in October 1974, but final action was not taken in adjudicating his case until March 1975. The later date was used to calculate the date from which he could pay the arrears. That was wrong; it was an error because the date of application is the relevant date. He was therefore invited to pay contributions for an extra 12 months, which he did and which increased his entitlement to 71 per cent. of the standard rate. As my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk has said, in September 1994, the question raised by Mr. Vincent was determined: he could pay, and had paid, contributions between 4 December 1967 to 1 December 1968.
  A person who is aggrieved by a decision made by the Secretary of State may ask for a statement of grounds, and Mr. Vincent did so. The decision made by the Secretary of State can be reviewed if new facts are brought to his attention or he is satisfied that the decision was given in ignorance of the facts. Mr. Vincent applied for a review and provided additional information, but there were no

  317
  facts relevant to the issue of due diligence. He did not provide any further grounds to allow the decision to be reviewed.
  My hon. Friend made the point about the amount of publicity about the new scheme. When the national insurance scheme was implemented in 1948, very great efforts were made to ensure that individuals who lived abroad were aware of it. A leaflet was published and sent to all the consulates, the BBC was involved through its overseas service in publicising a statement of the then Minister calling attention to the benefits of the scheme and inviting people to write to the Ministry for information, and advertisements were placed in all the major newspapers that were circulated abroad. It has of course been accepted that some people abroad remained in ignorance of the scheme. Mr. Vincent has said that he was unaware of it, and that is accepted.
  Mr. Vincent believed that he was prevented from exercising due care and diligence because of the nature of his employment and his family circumstances, but the view taken by the Secretary of State was that due care and diligence had not been exercised between 1948 and 1974. It is the responsibility of the individual to maintain his records. Although the Department tries to make
  318
  information very widely available, it is not under an obligation to make an individual aware of the legislation. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr. Vincent made any attempt to approach either the then Ministry or the Department, either in person while he was visiting this country or by letter to seek advice before 1974, although he had ample opportunity to do so. Legal remedies were available to Mr. Vincent which were not exercised.
  I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk may feel that the circumstances are very unfortunate—some tragedy has tinged Mr. Vincent's life—but I do not have the discretion to override, interfere with, or circumvent a valid determination of the case. Mr. Vincent has not suggested that the Secretary of State has exercised his discretion unreasonably or in bad faith, and there is no new—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order.
  It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapse, without Question put. Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

    Job Insecurity
    Mr. Grocott: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent assessment she has made of the impact on employees of job insecurity. [16052]
    Mr. Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the extent of job insecurity in Britain. [16064]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): A healthy and efficient labour market minimises job insecurity. In the United Kingdom, over the past four years, nearly 900,000 jobs have been created and unemployment has fallen by more than 1 million.
    Mr. Grocott: I thank the Secretary of State for her Department's courtesy in advising me that my question was linked with Question 12. I was startled to receive that information in a letter from the parliamentary business section signed by one John Major. I knew that there was job insecurity among Tory Members, but I had not realised that it had reached such crisis levels.
    Has the Secretary of State seen the International Survey Research survey that shows that, whereas 10 years ago three quarters of people in work felt that their jobs were secure, the figure is now less than half, at 43 per cent.? Has she further seen the evidence in the British Medical Journal showing—as anyone with common sense could have guessed—that people whose jobs are threatened by privatisation or reorganisation are more likely to report symptoms of ill health than those in secure jobs?
    Can I say to the Secretary of State—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."]—and to the many hon. Members behind her, who will not be with us for much longer, that problems of job insecurity are among the key reasons why people in Britain have no feel-good factor?
    Mrs. Shephard: A number of people rejoice in the name John Major, including an official in my Department; all of them have great cause to feel perfectly secure in their jobs.
    I am aware of the survey that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but the majority of employees in this country have been in the same job for five years or more, and the average is eight years. The biggest cause of job insecurity is unemployment. Opposition Members do themselves no credit, and the unemployed no service, by ignoring what the rest of Europe knows: that because of British enterprise and the economic policies pursued by the Government we have in the past four years created more jobs here than France, Italy, Spain and Germany have, put together.
    Mr. Burden: Surely the Secretary of State knows that, since 1992, in the west midlands, there has been a 50 per cent. increase in the number of people in temporary jobs. Is she aware that the figures show that people coming off
    320
    the dole today stand a 50 per cent. or greater chance of being on it again within 12 months? Does she agree that, against that background, only a fool would describe job insecurity as a state of mind or a myth, that people are sick and tired of the Government's complacency on job insecurity, and that that is the message that will be given by the people of Wirral, South tomorrow?
    Mrs. Shephard: I am disappointed by the hon. Gentleman's question. He might have been gracious enough to refer to the fact that unemployment in his constituency has fallen by 17 per cent. in a year, thanks to the Government's policies. He should admit that the policies that he and his party espouse—the national minimum wage and the European social model of employment—would threaten this country with levels of unemployment like those in Germany, at 4.3 million, and in France, at 3.1 million.
    Mr. David Nicholson: Is it not the case that studies have shown that claims that job insecurity is considerable and increasing are false? Is it not the case that Britain has the lowest proportion of people in temporary work of any country in Europe? Is it not a betrayal of the success of industry, commerce and the Employment Service to claim that the statistics are fudged? The facts show that they are not, and that this country is doing better than any country in Europe.
    Mrs. Shephard: Yes. The facts show that, among the major European economies, the United Kingdom has the lowest proportion of its employees in temporary work. It is sad that Opposition Members cannot welcome the fact that the United Kingdom has a higher proportion of people in work, and a lower proportion out of work, than any other major country in Europe. That is good news.
    Mr. Garnier: Is my right hon. Friend aware that unemployment in my constituency has recently fallen yet again, and now stands at just over 1,350—a 50 per cent. reduction since 1992? Is she also aware that every reliable survey in the east midlands demonstrates that business confidence has never been better, that order books are getting longer and thicker, and that what my constituents fear most is people such as the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott)—who was insufferably cocky a few moments ago—forming a Government?
    Mrs. Shephard: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for the success story from his constituency. I agree that it is time for Opposition Members to congratulate British business and British workers on the fact that unemployment fell again this month, in all regions, for men and women.
    Mr. Beggs: Does the Secretary of State agree that we must all accept that the rapid changes in industry and commerce mean that we can no longer expect the lifelong employment that past generations enjoyed? Does she also agree that those entering employment, especially those leaving schools and universities, should be advised to expect three, four or more career changes during their working lives, and that the best way to avoid job insecurity is to gain qualifications and continue to upgrade personal skills?
    Mrs. Shephard: All major economies are facing rapid changes in their labour market. Young people are well

    321
    aware of that, and they understand the necessity of leaving school, college and university equipped and trained to cope with those changes. True job security can be created only by fostering the conditions that encourage and allow employers to create jobs. We have attracted a third of all European inward investment because the Government's successful economic policies have been designed to do just that.
    Mr. Congdon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that recent reports show that, despite perceptions to the contrary, the average length of time that people spend in jobs is similar to what it was a decade ago? Does she agree that the biggest danger to job security would be the implementation of the minimum wage and the social chapter, which would destroy jobs?
    Mrs. Shephard: Yes. The majority of employees have been in the same job for five years or more, and the average length of time spent in a job is eight years. The policies espoused by the Opposition—the minimum wage and the European social model—would strike at the heart of the job security that we have.
    Mr. Byers: In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott), the Secretary of State said that the greatest cause of job insecurity was unemployment. Can she confirm that some 10.25 million people—one in four of the population of working age—have experienced at least one spell of unemployment since the general election? Is she aware that some 14,000 of those were registered through Bebington jobcentre, which covers the constituency of Wirral, South? In the light of those figures, does she agree that that provides 14,000 extra reasons why the voters of Wirral, South will tomorrow reject the Conservative party and ensure job insecurity for Tory Members?
    Mrs. Shephard: Well, well, here is one I prepared earlier. Eight million people change jobs every year. I am delighted that the people of Wirral, South have enjoyed the same drop in unemployment and increase in jobs as people in every other part of the country.

    Assisted Places Scheme
    Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on her plans to expand the assisted places scheme. [16053]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Cheryl Gillan): This morning, I announced further assisted place allocations to more than 200 independent schools, details of which have been placed in the Library. The 10,900 entry places that we are providing from this September will help double the opportunities for children through this excellent scheme.
    Mr. Hawkins: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will she confirm that excellent independent schools such as Arnold school have achieved consistently good results? I thank her for the announcement that 25 extra assisted places have been made available at that school. Will she confirm that there will be an opportunity—for which I have lobbied her and her colleagues—for assisted places at Elmslie school, another excellent independent school?
    322
    Is not it sad that the Labour party, which once believed in increasing opportunities for less well-off families, now believes only in providing opportunities for its own children? Is not it a case of, "We're all right Harriet, Jack and Tony, kick away the ladder?"
    Mr. Sheerman: Hypocrite!
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman is a hypocrite.
    Madam Speaker: Order. I just heard the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) twice call the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) a hypocrite. I ask him to withdraw that remark.
    Mr. Sheerman: If that is unparliamentary language, I withdraw it unreservedly.
    Mrs. Gillan: My hon. Friend is right. Labour believes in choice for itself but not for other parents. I am pleased to be able to tell him that Elmslie girls school is among the schools that are today being informed that their bids were successful. From September 1997, it will able to offer 20 assisted places, including five places to children aged eight to 11 and four to sixth formers.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: Will the Minister confirm that to maintain an assisted place costs about twice as much as an equivalent place in the maintained sector, and that there is a huge deadweight cost in the scheme because it subsidises people who would otherwise pay for their children's private education? Will she further confirm that, by the Government's own standards, the scheme does not appeal to working-class children despite the protestations of Conservative Members? Will she conclude, as we have, that a far better and more cost-effective way to use Government expenditure would be to improve quality at key stage 1 rather than subsidising the few in independent schools?
    Mrs. Gillan: The hon. Gentleman must be hallucinating if he thinks that I will agree with one word of that. More than 42 per cent. of assisted pupils come from families whose income is below the threshold for a free place, and more than 80 per cent. are from families that earn less than the national average household income. Independent schools are a vital part of the school system. Rather than peddling the old line of abolishing assisted places, which are good value for money, the hon. Gentleman should tell us what is his party's attitude to independent schools. Is it true, as he wrote in the magazine Prep School, that the Labour party will abolish charitable status for independent schools?

    Grant-maintained Schools (Cheshire)
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many schools have so far applied for grant-maintained status in Cheshire; and if she will make a statement. [16054]
    Mrs. Gillan: Eleven schools in Cheshire have applied for grant-maintained status. Eight of those applications have been approved and the schools concerned are operating as grant-maintained schools.
    Mr. Winterton: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. The Macclesfield constituency boasts excellent primary

    323
    and secondary schools, including five grant-maintained schools: Pott Shrigley Church of England school, Mottram St. Andrew junior school, Kettleshulme St. James junior school, Henbury county high school and Fallibroome county high school. In the House today I lunched with four pupils from Fallibroome county high school who have won a national competition. These are excellent schools, with super governors, wonderful staff and a history of success. Am I correct in assuming from what I hear from Opposition Members that they will abolish grant-maintained status and push the schools back under the responsibility of the county? That would be disastrous—the schools would lose their status, despite being highly popular schools with a super record of success.
    Mrs. Gillan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is well known for championing grant-maintained schools and small village schools in particular—in fact, several of the grant-maintained schools in his constituency are highly successful small village schools. I hope that he will tell the story loud and clear to the thousands of parents whose children attend those excellent schools that they are safe only under a Conservative Government and that Labour would abolish the schools' status, causing disruption, chaos and grief to governors, head teachers, teachers, parents and—most of all—pupils.
    Mr. Jamieson: Will the Minister confirm that, of the 491 schools in Cheshire, only one has held a ballot in the past year and that parents voted no? Is that an overwhelming endorsement of going grant maintained from the people of Cheshire?
    Mrs. Gillan: The Government's grant-maintained policy is working in Cheshire. There are a number of GM schools spread across Cheshire which give parents an added element of choice and diversity. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make it clear to the electorate in his constituency that he will abolish grant-maintained schools in Cheshire. Parents should know, head teachers should know and governors should know. Chaos will result from the Opposition's policy.

    Local Education Authority Administration Costs
    Sir Irvine Patnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the average proportion of local education authority budgets which is spent on central administration and services. [16055]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Robin Squire): For 1996–97, English LEAs collectively were planning to retain 9.5 per cent. of the potential schools budget for central administration and other services.
    Sir Irvine Patnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that Sheffield keeps a largish chunk of its funding for central services? I see in the Chamber two former leaders of Sheffield city council. Is not the situation in Sheffield one of the worst in the country? Head teachers are sick and tired of Sheffield keeping back funding for their schools. Two years ago—I am aware that, in Labour politics, two years is a long time—the hon. Member for Sheffield,
    324
    Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said that 90 per cent. of the funding should go to schools. Is it not time that Sheffield started practising what the hon. Gentleman preaches?
    Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend puts his question well. I can confirm that, in the current year, Sheffield lies 114th out of 119 local education authorities, having delegated 87.4 per cent. of its budget. Only five authorities are worse. However, I have good news for my hon. Friend: one of the early pieces of legislation in our fifth term in government will be an education Bill to enact last summer's White Paper, whereby we shall require authorities to delegate 95 per cent. of their budget. That will be good news for head teachers in my hon. Friend's constituency because, on this year's figures, it would mean another £11 million going into schools.
    Mr. Turner: Is the Minister aware that, in Wolverhampton—my local authority—we are delegating 93 per cent. of the budget to schools and retaining 7 per cent. for central administration but, after several years of cuts, we find that, once again, this year, the Minister has slashed our standard spending assessment, and now we find that our revenue support grant settlement is the worst of the 36 metropolitan districts in England?
    Mr. Squire: I can confirm that Wolverhampton delegates a significant percentage of its budget to schools—slightly below the 93 per cent. mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. On the substance of the question as it developed, I remind the hon. Gentleman that, for the forthcoming year, SSAs—education support—increased nationally by 3.6 per cent. on average. That average will be affected across every local education authority in accordance with any increase or reduction in the number of pupils. The question that parents and teachers in Wolverhampton must be asking is how, year after year, Wolverhampton is proposing cuts in services while we, at the centre, are proposing further increases in support.
    Mr. Pawsey: I was dismayed by the implications of the exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick) and the Minister. It seems that substantial funds are being diverted from the classroom and the teacher to the bureaucrats in council offices. That must be to the substantial disadvantage of the children of Sheffield. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is now time to re-examine the role-of-local education authorities? We should undertake a root-and-branch examination of their powers and responsibilities. It is time that we looked hard to see what they do and the costs that are incurred.
    Mr. Squire: I can confirm that, in the current year, the range of budget delegated, on precisely the same definition, ranges from 85.1 to 96.1 per cent. Hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber can see what a significant difference it would make if all authorities delegated at the average of about 90 per cent.
    My hon. Friend will remember our White Paper in which we set out two or three essential tasks for local education authorities, particularly lending support to schools that may be failing or which are seriously weak. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is important that,

    325
    year by year, local authorities look to see what more they can delegate to schools rather than waiting for legislation to force them to do so.
    Mr. Don Foster: When local education authorities delegate funds to individual schools, does the Minister believe that any part of that money should be used to support the Conservative party? Is the Minister aware that, at the beginning of this month, the Huntingdon Conservative constituency association wrote letters to all the schools in the Prime Minister's constituency urging them to contribute to the Conservative party's fighting fund? What advice would the Minister give those schools on how to respond to the letter?
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Positively.
    Mr. Squire: I am not sure that I can improve on the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). Leaving aside the fact that the schools in question must benefit from the nature of the right hon. Member who represents them, I suppose the response that many of them might make is the same as I make when I get unsolicited mail from the Liberal Democrats.

    School Discipline
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures she is taking to enforce discipline in schools. [16057]
    The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): The current Education Bill, now in another place, includes a package of measures to strengthen schools' ability to take action in the face of poor behaviour and discipline, to help ensure there is proper support for schools in dealing with pupils with behavioural problems, and to promote effective provision for such pupils out of school where necessary.
    Mr. Thompson: Bearing it in mind that good classroom discipline and structured teaching are essential to a successful education, can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government's welcome new approach to teacher training will give every new teacher rigorous instruction in classroom skills and handling techniques? Will he take this opportunity to accentuate the positive and pay tribute to those teachers who are now achieving good disciplinary standards in the classroom?
    Mr. Forth: Throughout his many distinguished years of service in Parliament, my hon. Friend has a long and distinguished history of fighting to bring this matter to the attention of the Government and the House. As usual, he has accentuated two important points. First, the annual Office for Standards in Education inspection of schools and Her Majesty's chief inspector's report always emphasise that the vast majority of our schools and classrooms are orderly and disciplined places in which pupils learn and education is effectively carried out. Secondly, the Teacher Training Agency's current proposals on improving initial teacher training, which are out for consultation, emphasise the need to ensure that all
    326
    newly qualified teachers have a firm grasp of classroom management techniques and the role that good discipline plays in good education.
    Mr. Sheerman: Is it not important to get the relationship right in schools? I was pleased to hear the Minister congratulate the majority of teachers on being competent and having good discipline in their classes. Perhaps a better example would be set if the Government could show a little more discipline in the way in which they organise themselves.
    Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman makes a typically ungracious contribution to the day's proceedings. I will join him in the first part of his comments and welcome the fact that there is common ground in acknowledging all that is good in education—there is much that is good. I will leave the latter part of his rather sad comments unresponded to.
    Mr. Rowe: My right hon. Friend will remember that, in the inspector's report on The Ridings school, one of the comments was that, in classrooms where children were engaged in what was being taught, there were no disciplinary problems. That is clearly the beginning of discipline. Does my right hon. Friend agree that schools that make imaginative use of children in the enforcement of discipline throughout the school are making extraordinary strides towards achieving it?
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Our recent experience demonstrates clearly that when a school develops a discipline policy, and when it involves the teachers, parents and staff to give them all a sense of ownership of that policy, unsurprisingly the discipline record is vastly better than it is in schools that do not follow those practices. We in the Department are disseminating those good practices and urging all schools to follow them, when they consider it appropriate to do so in their own circumstances.
    Mr. Dafis: Does the Minister agree that adequate provision for pupils with emotional and behavioural difficulties is essential? Has not that been a Cinderella service in the past? Does he also agree that the too inflexible imposition of the national curriculum can create difficulties for schools that deal with children with such needs, and that primacy must be given to the therapeutic element of their education? Will the Department agree to continue discussions with the National Association for Therapeutic Education, which has considerable experience and knowledge of the matter?
    Mr. Forth: I hope that the Department will always engage in dialogue with bodies of the kind the hon. Gentleman mentions, and that it will be a mutual learning process. That is an important part of what the Department does and will continue to do. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that we should expect any less of young people with emotional or behavioural difficulties or any other learning difficulty, or that we should expect them the less to meet the needs of the curriculum. I believe that there are other effective ways of dealing with the issue. We have the aspirations and objectives of the curriculum in place. What we must do and are doing—not least through the special educational

    327
    needs code of practice, for example—is to identify the needs of each pupil and ensure that we provide pupils with the support that they need in order to meet the requirements of the curriculum. That, I think, is the right way round.

    Grant-maintained Schools (Bournemouth)
    Mr. David Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many schools in Bournemouth are grant maintained. [16058]
    Mrs. Gillan: One primary school, four secondary schools and one special school.
    Mr. Atkinson: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the increased flexibility in funding, free of local authority controls, has enabled the six grant-maintained schools in Bournemouth, as elsewhere, to become even better schools? Is she aware that the Lib-Lab-controlled Bournemouth council, shortly to become a local education authority, is committed by resolution to the elimination of those grant-maintained schools? Can she confirm that grant-maintained schools in Bournemouth and throughout the country will remain safe only under a Conservative Government?
    Mrs. Gillan: All the Bournemouth schools that conducted ballots to go grant maintained have returned yes votes, and my hon. Friend is correct to describe them as excellent schools. We heard earlier that there would be no choice under new Labour. There would be no choice under the Liberal Democrats either. Both new Labour and the Liberal Democrats would grab those schools back into local education authority control. They obviously consider the boards of governors, the head teachers and the teachers at those schools incapable of coping with the self-determining status that we have given them, and they wish to take decisions for those schools. No, grant-maintained schools are certainly not safe under the Liberal Democrats.
    Mr. Gunnell: I know that Hampshire plays at Bournemouth but, for the sake of confusion, I added together the number of schools in Dorset and Hampshire that have held ballots. I found that only three out of almost 1,000 schools had held ballots, and one of those had said no.
    Madam Speaker: Order. That was a very good try, but we are dealing with Bournemouth. Only two Members of Parliament represent Bournemouth constituencies: we have heard from one, and the other is not present.

    Class Sizes
    Mr. Chris Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will estimate the
    328
    number of (a) eight-year-olds, (b) nine-year-olds and (c) 10-year-olds being taught in classes of more than 30 pupils. [16059]
    Ms Lynne: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on class sizes in primary schools. [16060]
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: Figures are not collected by age group, but evidence shows that the quality of teaching, rather than the size of the class, is the key factor in determining pupils' achievements.
    Mr. Davies: Is the Secretary of State aware that on Monday councillors in Oldham had to slash the schools budget for the coming year by some £600,000? Is she aware that the parents whom I represent are tired of hearing the Government claim that they are giving more money to education, when schools budgets are being cut and class sizes are rising? Will she give a commitment to press for additional funding to ensure that local education authorities can reduce class sizes below 30 for all primary school children? If not, why not?
    Mrs. Shephard: All local education authorities have had an increase this year which should allow them to prioritise and to reduce class sizes if they see fit.
    Ms Lynne: Does the Secretary of State accept that the Government have grossly underfunded primary education, which has led to an increase in class sizes? Is she aware that the Labour-run local education authority in Rochdale is allocating less in its first year of administration than the Liberal Democrats allocated in their first year? Does she agree that only the Liberal Democrats are committed to funding primary education properly in order to pay for a reduction in class sizes?
    Mrs. Shephard: It is indeed the case that the average class size in Rochdale is higher than that in many other parts of the country and I am sure that the hon. Lady will take the matter up vigorously with the Rochdale local education authority which, as she says, is Labour controlled.
    Mr. Riddick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the surest way to reduce class sizes is to encourage local education authorities to spend less money on central administration and central services and to pass more funding to individual schools? For example, is she aware that Kirklees council in my area passes only £103 million to individual schools out of a total schools budget of £140 million? Will my right hon. Friend join me in urging Kirklees to do much better, because local head teachers know how best to spend school budgets?
    Mrs. Shephard: It is certainly important for local education authorities to make what goes on in the classrooms a priority, which should be reflected accordingly in their funding arrangements.
    Sir Alan Haselhurst: Is not the main thrust of the question oddly directed? If there are to be greater resources in primary education, should they not be concentrated on classes for five, six and seven-year-olds?

    329
    If we look after those age groups properly, children of eight, nine and 10, given good teaching and proper classroom assistance, will reap the benefits.
    Mrs. Shephard: Some interesting facts surround these matters. Her Majesty's chief inspector says that smaller class sizes are of benefit in the early years. He also says that the selection and application of teaching methods and forms of class organisation have a greater impact on learning than class size. An interesting example is provided by the Kingston LEA, which has the largest primary classes and the best GCSE results.
    Mr. Blunkett: Will the Secretary of State confirm that there can be no greater example of diverting resources from lowering class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds, targeting literacy or ensuring that teachers are able to instil the basics than diverting further resources into the assisted places scheme and away from the classrooms into which our children go to learn the basics? Instead, the Government are prepared to divert that money to the interests of a few and away from the interests of the many.
    Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman's prejudices are showing. He talks about the diverting of resources, but the Sheffield LEA, with which he once had a great deal to do, is doing a marvellous job of diverting resources from schools in Sheffield to administration and bureaucracy in the town hall. Will he come clean and admit that his so-called plans to use money diverted from the assisted places scheme to reduce the sizes of early primary years classes have been condemned as unworkable by his advisers, the National Foundation for Educational Research, and the Institute of Public Finance, which has shown that the so-called savings would not amount to the sum that he claims and would yield one extra teacher for every nine schools? How would he divide up that teacher?

    Marriage and Christian Values
    Mr. Hargreaves: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations she has received regarding amendments to the Education Bill relating to marriage and Christian values. [16061]
    Mr. Forth: We have received one such representation, in the form of a letter from my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who replied yesterday.
    Mr. Hargreaves: Will my right. hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench accept that there was widespread support on the Conservative Benches for the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), and that there is rising concern among Christians, of both the Anglican and Roman Catholic faiths, about the position of Dr. Tate and the direction of the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority? Does he further accept that we look to our right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench actively to promote and support Christian values and the model of marriage in our education policy?
    Mr. Forth: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has undertaken to await
    330
    SCAA's establishing beyond doubt the views of the key religious denominations in this matter to ensure that SCAA and my right hon. Friend know exactly the Churches' views when determining this very important matter. My hon. Friend may also wish to know that my right hon. Friend will shortly meet Mr. Guy Hordern, among others, to discuss these matters.
    Mr. Corbett: Does the Minister recall the Prime Minister meeting people from the ethnic communities in London earlier this month and claiming that he and his party supported and embraced the multicultural and multi-faith aspects of our society? How does that square with what the Minister just told the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) about ignoring the other religions and concentrating solely on the Christian religion?
    Mr. Forth: That is simply not the case. The main point at issue is the explicit role of marriage in the education curriculum and in the teaching of our young people. I am not aware—I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not implying this—that any of the main faiths, Christian or otherwise, do not give the same central core respect to marriage.
    Mr. Alison: Although my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend must necessarily be reactive in responding to the SCAA national forum initiative on values in education, the Government as a whole can be thoroughly positive and proactive in supporting and promoting, not least in schools, the Christian ideal of marriage, as was vividly demonstrated by the Lord Chancellor's significant speech on 11 February during national marriage week.
    Mr. Forth: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend. I remind the House that, in that excellent speech, our right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor said:
    "The first thing we can all do is to promote a positive and realistic image of marriage among the public in general and especially among young people who may be contemplating marriage."
    That, surely, is a typically elegant and succinct expression of the view that Conservative Members share.
    My right hon. Friend expressed some reservations about the role of the forum that is advising SCAA on this. In my view, the forum that really matters in the end is the House of Commons.

    Unemployment (Cumbria)
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals she has for new training and enterprise measures to deal with the problems of unemployment in Cumbria. [16062]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. James Paice): Unemployed people in Cumbria will have access to all the Government's new national programmes, especially national traineeships for young people and pre-vocational training for adults.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I enter a plea to the Minister that in his reply he does not merely parrot off totally spurious fiddled figures on unemployment in west

    331
    Cumbria, because my constituents simply do not believe him? Has he seen the Labour party's significant policy document called "Opportunities to Earn: Labour's proposals to tackle long term unemployment"? That document includes a raft of employment and training policies, many of which will be funded by Labour's windfall tax, which will raise billions of pounds from the former public utilities and privatised companies. It offers the first opportunity in years for many people in west Cumbria to secure employment and training.
    Mr. Paice: The hon. Gentleman suggested that I had used figures in my answer, but I did not refer to any figures. I recognise that unemployment in his constituency is higher than the national average, and higher than either he or I would wish it to be. To suggest, as he does, that we could dispense with unemployment through the windfall tax is to perpetrate an immense con trick on the people in his constituency and in the rest of the country. Labour proposes to get rid of unemployment with a one-off measure from a one-off tax. Besides the cost of the windfall tax to his constituents through their pension funds and shares, we all know that that proposal could not possibly work.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Has my hon. Friend made any assessment of the job losses that would result from the lack of investment by the utilities if Labour were to implement the windfall tax? How many people in Cumbria would become unemployed because of the windfall tax before Labour even started to create the make-work schemes and spurious training schemes outlined in that stupid Labour party document?
    Mr. Paice: As my hon. Friend knows, it is impossible to calculate how many people would be put out of work, because the Labour party is not prepared to say how much it would seek to raise from the windfall tax, how it would be levied and who precisely would pay it. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that it would cause a reduction in employment levels, for the simple reason that, contrary to what Labour says, there is no pot of money waiting to be taxed. If the utilities were forced to pay the tax, they would have to put up prices, cut dividends or, most likely, as my hon. Friend suggests, cut jobs.

    Temporary Employment
    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the implications of the increase in the number of temporary employees since spring 1992 for Government employment policy. [16063]
    Mr. Forth: The proportion of temporary employees in the United Kingdom has risen from between 5.5 per cent. and 6.5 per cent. in 1992 to between 7 per cent. and 8 per cent., compared with a European Union average of 11.5 per cent. We shall continue with the policies that allow jobs of all kinds to be created.
    Mr. Barnes: Why cannot we have a full-time Government who create full-time employment—as is proposed in the document to which my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) referred—rather than this pathetic, part-time, temporary Government, who provide only temporary, part-time work
    332
    of an insecure nature? Should not the Government have some sympathy with people who are in insecure positions, as at the worst they have only nine weeks to go before they are out on their ears? We can start then to implement our policy.
    Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his typically optimistic and happy contribution. What he did not tell the House is that if this country sought to emulate the countries on the continental mainland that he and his Front-Bench colleagues seem to admire so much—countries which have statutory minimum wages, have adopted the social chapter and do all the other things that the rather silly document to which he referred would doubtless urge us to do—one of the results might well be that we would end up with the sort of youth unemployment, and overall unemployment, that those continental countries have.
    The substance of the hon. Gentleman's question concerned those in temporary employment. In this country, about 6.8 per cent. of the work force are in temporary employment, compared with 10.3 per cent. in Germany, 12.2 per cent. in France and 35 per cent. in Spain. Those are the figures that people should ponder when comparing the document cited by the hon. Gentleman with our excellent track record.
    Mr. Alexander: Are not even temporary jobs better than no jobs? My right hon. Friend mentioned what might happen if we adopted the social chapter. If we did that, we would not have even temporary jobs, because the cost of taking people on would be prohibitive for employers. Surely even the Labour party does not want that.
    Mr. Forth: I might go even further than my hon. Friend, although of course I agree with him. Most people in temporary work choose to be in temporary work because, for various reasons, it suits them better. All the surveys show that only a minority of temporary workers would prefer permanent jobs. As ever, Opposition Members want to force people into a straitjacket and make them accept the kind of work that the Opposition think that they should do. We, on the other hand, respect choice. People should be able to choose whether to work part time or full time, and choose between temporary and more permanent work.
    Mr. Hain: The Minister is insulting the people of this country when he says that the majority choose temporary work. His own figures disprove that. Is he defending the increase of more than a third in the number of temporary workers in Britain since the last general election? Those workers are joining the many millions experiencing the job insecurity that is stalking the whole nation. Will the Minister brush up on the subject? After all, we currently have an insecure Government plagued by temporary Ministers.
    Mr. Forth: We have now had the same soundbite recycled at least four times. I should have thought that Opposition Members would at least have the ingenuity to produce different soundbites rather than rely on regurgitating the same one over and over again. However, if regurgitation is to be the order of the day, I will simply repeat to the hon. Gentleman what I said a few moments ago to the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire

    333
    (Mr. Barnes), who seemed to expect us to believe that what he had said was a revelation. As I said in my reply to him, the proportion of temporary employees in this country has indeed risen from about 5.5 or 6.5 per cent. to a massive and stunning 7 or 8 per cent. of the work force, but what has the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) to say about the figures for countries on the continental mainland, which Opposition Members seek to emulate at every possible opportunity? In those countries, between 10 and 34 per cent. of the population are on temporary contracts. That is the threat that the Opposition would pose if we were ever to adopt their policies.

    Employment (European Union)
    Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she next expects to meet her European Union counterparts to discuss the prospects for employment in Europe. [16065]
    Mr. Paice: At the informal meeting of the European Union Social Affairs Council in March, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will again emphasise that prospects for employment in Europe will be best served by the development of efficient, flexible and competitive labour markets.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Is it not instructive to compare the unemployment level here—1.8 million and falling—with that in Germany, which is 4.5 million and rising? Does my hon. Friend agree that if unemployment here increased by 500,000 in a single month—as Germany's did in January—the Opposition would be in uproar, Opposition Members on the Front Bench below the Gangway would be on their feet and the sitting would have to be suspended? Is it not extraordinary that the same Labour party supports the social chapter, the national minimum wage and all the burdens on business that have needlessly brought the misery of unemployment to many more millions in Europe—approaching 20 million at the last count?
    Mr. Paice: I suspect that my hon. Friend's estimation of what might have happened if we had had those figures in this country is entirely right. I am constantly amazed that after 18 years in opposition the Labour party has not yet taken on board the fact that, however well meaning a measure may be to protect jobs or to improve people's working conditions, its effects are counter-productive. As the Labour party found in the 1970s with its Rent Acts, when we increase protection, we destroy opportunity. That is the lesson that we have learnt and which is now, sadly, being learnt throughout the rest of Europe. We are not prepared to go back to that.
    Mr. Mackinlay: The Minister will be aware that the Secretary of State's attention has been drawn to a table in the Red Book which shows that the Government project that there will be a substantial increase in cyclical social security expenditure between now and 2001. Bearing it in mind that the table shows that the Government project a substantial increase in expenditure on unemployment between now and 2001, will the Minister explain why the Government have proclaimed that they are not in the business of increasing unemployment?
    Mr. Skinner: That man can think on his feet.
    Mr. Paice: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) says that the hon. Member for Thurrock
    334
    (Mr. Mackinlay) can think on his feet, but the hon. Gentleman will have to think again because the conclusions that he has drawn from the Red Book are totally wrong. The Government intend to continue with the policies that have seen unemployment fall dramatically since 1992 and we anticipate unemployment continuing the downward trend that it has followed for so long.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that the real problem is that the Opposition think that Governments can create jobs? Is it not also the point that in Europe they still have the vestige of the leftovers of the idea that Governments can somehow create jobs? Producing the Labour policy document this afternoon has more to say about Labour Members wanting permanent employment on the Government Front Bench and has nothing to do with creating permanent jobs outside.
    Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is a message that we cannot emphasise too much. Jobs are created by successful businesses which produce goods or services that other people want to buy at a price that they can afford. Governments can create the conditions for business to prosper like that, but no Government can create the jobs that the Labour party seems to believe that they can. The Government will go on creating the conditions for business to create jobs.
    Mr. Bryan Davies: Has the Minister read today's report from the Employment Policy Institute? Does he appreciate that it states that there is no evidence that the social chapter would cost jobs, and that Tory claims are overblown, inaccurate and unresearched? Is not the real issue that withdrawal from Europe, the agenda of so many Conservative Back Benchers and quite a few members of the Cabinet, would cost 3.5 million jobs?
    Mr. Paice: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that withdrawal from Europe is not part of the Government's approach to Europe, but on the social chapter, the people whom I prefer to listen to are the businesses that have to live with the burdens of the policies that this country could be faced with if we committed ourselves to the social chapter. I would far rather listen to German businesses that are disinvesting in Germany and coming to this country or elsewhere to escape those burdens, and to British businesses—as indeed I and other colleagues did yesterday—that are located throughout Europe and that say that they cannot expand because of the burdens of the policies caused by a social chapter approach to life. I would much rather listen to those people than to some spurious report that is clearly at odds with all the experience of businesses throughout Europe.
    Mr. Mans: Will my hon. Friend give some reassurance to constituents in my part of Lancashire, and particularly to students and to people who work in the tourism industry, that the Government have no intention whatever of introducing a minimum wage, as such a device would cause havoc in the tourism industry, increase local unemployment, decrease wealth creation in the tourism industry and prevent students at local universities from taking jobs to help the economy and to help themselves through university?
    Mr. Paice: I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government have no intention whatever of introducing a

    335
    minimum wage, for precisely the reasons that he describes, but also because of the implications that it would have for wage escalation. If a minimum wage at anything like the level described by the Labour party or its paymasters were introduced, everybody would seek to maintain differentials, at least to some degree. That is where huge wage and price inflation would come from, and so would unemployment: at least a million jobs would be lost.

    Nursery Vouchers
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she estimates that every four-year-old with a voucher will have access to a pre-school place. [16066]
    Mr. Robin Squire: I am confident that, over time, existing and new providers in the maintained, private and voluntary sectors will bring forward the places that parents want in exchange for nursery education vouchers.
    Mr. Cunningham: When will the Secretary of State honour the Prime Minister's pledge to the Tory party conference in 1994 when he said that he would give a cast iron guarantee that all four-year-olds would get pre-school places? Is the Minister aware that the pilot schemes show that when the voucher system is used, the shortfall in the maintained sector will not be made up for four-year-olds?
    Mr. Squire: The hon. Gentleman did not complete the quotation. The Prime Minister spoke about ensuring that all four-year-olds will have a nursery place, and we have made a start during this Parliament. It is a question not of theory, but of what is happening. If the hon. Gentleman looks at what is happening under phase 1, he will see that extra places have been created not just in the local education authority sector but in the voluntary sector. [Interruption.] There is a net increase in the voluntary sector in Norfolk alone of more than 300 places. [Interruption.] The Opposition do not like the answer. Not only is there an increased number of places, but more than 1,000 four-year-olds in Norfolk are enjoying longer sessions—five sessions a week instead of three as a result of vouchers. There is a choice. The Government have given parents of all four-year-olds a greater opportunity for nursery education through vouchers. Labour would take that away from them.
    Mr. Lidington: Does my hon. Friend agree that the expansion of pre-school education, which we want to see, would be most likely to take place if, building on the encouraging experience of the pilot authorities, there continue to be a constructive partnership between the maintained and the voluntary sectors in providing additional places?
    Mr. Squire: Not only is my hon. Friend right in emphasising partnership, but the voucher makes that partnership more profitable for all providers. In particular, I urge any local authority or school which feels that by pressuring parents, especially those of young four-year-olds, to take those children to reception classes earlier than would otherwise be in their interests is somehow doing them a favour, to think again and work in partnership as my hon. Friend has said.
    Mr. Spearing: Would not the Minister make a distinction between a pre-school place and a pre-school
    336
    place in a nursery school? What have the Government done since the Prime Minister's announcement about three years ago to increase the number of places and expenditure for the training of qualified nursery teachers? What figures does the Minister have on that?
    Mr. Squire: The first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is about an area that he knows well. There is a range of provision which, separately, the Audit Commission and Her Majesty's chief inspector have praised over the full range, showing that each type of provider can offer good-quality pre-school provision. As for the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, it is of course a responsibility of local education authorities, and has been for some time, to ensure that teachers are given continuous training, whether in the nursery or the post-five sector. One of the other advantages of the voucher is that significant extra sums are being realised to enable more similar training to take place in the voluntary sector than has been possible in the past.

    Selective Secondary Schools (Kent)
    Mr. Dunn: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to visit schools in the county of Kent in order to discuss the future of selective secondary provision. [16067]
    Mr. Robin Squire: My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans, but I shall be making one of my regular school visits tomorrow, when I will visit three schools in Kent, including Chatham boys' grammar school.
    Mr. Dunn: When my hon. Friend the Minister is visiting schools in Kent, will he take the opportunity to remind them that Kent's selective system is guaranteed only so long as there is a Conservative Government, or a Conservative-controlled county council based at Maidstone? The current Labour-controlled county council would close our grammar schools tomorrow because, in its orthodoxy, it owes more to Joe Stalin than to the cosmetic changes patched on to the Labour party in recent years.
    Mr. Squire: Of all the somersaults on education policy that we have had visited upon us by the Labour party in recent years, none is less credible than its statement that grammar schools are somehow safe in its hands. Throughout the years that I have been a Member of Parliament, and before, leaders of Labour-controlled councils and chairmen of education across the country have assured us that grammar schools will go if and when there is a Labour Government. Labour's current position is almost as if a crocodile came up to you, Madam Speaker, and said that it was now a vegetarian. You might believe that there is a faint theoretical possibility that it is telling the truth, but you would not shake its hand, and you would not turn your back on it.
    Madam Speaker: On that note, we come to the end of Question Time. Thank you.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that you, Madam Speaker, are against parliamentary sleight of hand in any form in which it might appear. There is a widespread rumour that, at 9.30 on Friday morning, the Government will slip in what is commonly called the conspiracy Bill, which is a very controversial measure—[Interruption.] Well, it is a matter of freedoms, and of rather essential liberties. Whatever view one takes on the Bill, it is a matter of some consequence that it should be put in—I think, Madam Speaker, that you are taking some advice. You may be able to cast some light on the matter.
Madam Speaker: I do not deal in rumours. However, if I remember correctly, Friday's business will be not Government business but a private Members' day. Nevertheless, I shall keep my eyes and ears open.

BILL PRESENTED
  DARTFORD-THURROCK CROSSING (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay presented a Bill to amend the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Act 1988 in respect of the tolls levied on vehicles using the crossing: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 28 February, and to be printed [Bill 119].

National Lottery (Regionalisation)
3.32 pm
Mr. Ian Pearson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that equitable regard shall be had to the interests and needs of the regions of England in so far as the distribution of monies, decision taking, administration and other matters affecting the National Lottery are concerned.
The national lottery is the largest single lottery in the world, attracting 13 million regular players and producing average weekly ticket sales of nearly £70 million. According to the latest figures from the national lottery's web site, since the lottery was launched in November 1994, ticket sales have totalled over £8 billion, and more than £3 billion has been awarded to almost 19,000 successful applicants.
The national lottery has already made a substantial impact on Britain's public life. Notwithstanding legitimate concerns about gambling, it clearly has the potential to make a long-lasting contribution to improving the quality of our lives through the substantial sums it raises for good causes. It has virtually doubled public spending on sport, art, heritage and culture. Charities in the voluntary sector have also benefited—although, for well-publicised reasons, the impact on them has been more mixed.
It is essential that all that money raised for good causes is redistributed fairly. However, clear evidence shows that our regions are losing, and there is widespread concern that the different distributing bodies are too centralised, are poorly co-ordinated and have little sense of strategic purpose. The Bill is designed to address those failings. I am pleased that it has secured cross-party support, and support from hon. Members from almost all the English regions.
Lottery income is the people's money. People in the west midlands feel badly short-changed by some of the decisions of the distributing bodies, particularly the Millennium Commission, the national heritage memorial fund and the Arts Council. Losing to Greenwich for the right to stage the millennium festival still rankles with many in the west midlands, as does losing to Wembley for the new national football stadium. Recently, to add insult to injury, the bid of Birmingham Botanical Gardens and Glasshouses to create a millennium plantatarium has been turned down, and a highly imaginative animal conservation and regeneration project from Dudley zoo development trust has been rejected.
The strong feeling in the west midlands is that we have a lottery with a corrupt croupier. That feeling is backed by hard facts. In the recent third round allocation of millennium funding, according to the commission's figures, the west midlands has £14.2 million and Greater London has £88 million-worth of projects proceeding for detailed analysis. In the reserve list, Greater London has £72 million and the west midlands only £1.9 million.
The situation with the national heritage memorial fund is similarly unfair. The lottery's figures show that, up to the end of last year, the west midlands had received £1.50 per head—the lowest figure for any region, and a paltry sum compared with London's £21.70 per head. Every region has lost out to the capital, with 45 per cent. of heritage money going to London institutions or projects.

339
The same is true of Arts Council funding. Figures to December 1996 show that the east midlands has received just £3.20 per head and Merseyside £3.70, compared with £46.90 for London. This is not a moan or a whine. It is not about the politics of envy—it is about fairness. Every region contributes to the national lottery, and every region should expect to benefit from it.
Last week, the London Evening Standard pontificated:
"The greatest peril facing the lottery today is the danger that, in the name of 'fairness', far too much of its money is being given to dubious regional projects."
Excuse me! Far too much money? Dubious projects? I do not want to be churlish, but we in the west midlands are being robbed. We want our fair share of lottery cash, and we are capable of deciding for ourselves what is a good or a bad project. We do not want matters to be decided for us by some bunch of London-based, London-biased, over-privileged, arrogant so-called experts with a myopic metropolitan mentality that does not extend beyond 0171 country. Nor do we need smug, supercilious editorials applauding a system that is so clearly rigged in favour of London.
The Bill will focus on four areas. First, I want greater fairness in the distribution of lottery proceeds. I do not think that many people object to the principle of funding projects of genuine national significance separately, but the current regional disparities are too wide. I would favour a system that top-sliced budgets for national projects but then had specific regional allocations for each distributing body, based on a formula related to needs and population, as is the case with the National Lottery Charities Board.
The Government issue formal policy and financial directions to the distributing bodies through the Secretary of State under section 26 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993. The directions encourage distributing bodies to
"achieve a reasonable spread of expenditure across the regions."
That does not go far enough. Over the past two years, those directions do not seem to have been followed. The Bill would therefore amend the Act to provide for regionalisation of the distribution of lottery proceeds.
Secondly, the lottery's decision-making structures need to be reviewed, because they are too centralised. The distributing bodies are not permitted to delegate decision making on applications—some clearly do not even want to. Some boards appoint local assessors as their local eyes and ears and receive advice from their own regional bodies. However, centralised boards cannot hope to have a proper understanding of the wider context within which those seeking funds operate. They are simply not close enough to the ground.
The Bill would not just permit delegated decision making; it would require it, by providing that decisions should be taken at a regional level. It would also consider
340
the scope for integrated decision making through regional lottery partnership boards with business and local authority representation and ring-fenced allocations for each worthy cause.
Thirdly, while I accept entirely the merits and implications of a bid-driven system, I believe that the current way in which money is allocated is insufficiently strategic. Each distributing body has its own strategy of sorts, but there is little linkage between them, and little obvious connection with the strategies of other organisations. To maximise the impact of lottery money, a strong argument can be made for linking it to the totality of resources available for regeneration in a region, including the single regeneration budget, European funds, private finance, training and enterprise council funds, and local authority resources.
The Bill would require the regionalised lottery bodies to take account of area and regional economic development strategies when making decisions on awards, thereby ensuring that money is allocated within a coherent framework.
Fourthly, the final matter that the Bill will address is what happens when the Millennium Commission is wound up. There is a compelling case for new regionalised commission structures, specifically focused on funding regional economic development measures and initiatives. They could support a wide range of projects, and the commissions would be required to work closely with the other distributing bodies to avoid duplication.
The national lottery has been a major success story in raising money for good causes. The way in which the money has been distributed, however, has created widespread concern. There is a growing feeling that the regions are losing to London and the south-east. If there is no change in the way in which the lottery operates, it runs the risk of losing the confidence of the British public, which is so vital to its future success. Greater fairness in the regional distribution of lottery cash should be a priority, and I therefore seek leave to bring in my Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ian Pearson, Mr. Richard Alexander, Mr. David Clelland, Mr. Jim Cunningham, Mr. Harold Elletson, Mr. Nick Harvey, Mr. John Heppell, Sir Robert Hicks, Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe, Mr. Matthew Taylor, Mr. Paddy Tipping and Mr. Nicholas Winterton.

NATIONAL LOTTERY (REGIONALISATION)
Mr. Ian Pearson accordingly presented a Bill to provide that equitable regard shall be had to the interests and needs of the regions of England in so far as the distribution of monies, decision taking, administration and other matters affecting the National Lottery are concerned: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 February, and to be printed [Bill 120].

Points of Order
3.42 pm
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. No doubt you will be fully aware of the statement by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces about events in the Gulf, how individuals suffering from Gulf war syndrome may have been affected, and how information may well have been withheld from him when he came to the House to make that statement.
As the House's only proper avenue has always been through Ministers who hold responsibility, and as there is a possibility that an individual may have deliberately withheld information from such a Minister, will you guide me and the House as to whether it would be possible for individuals in that Department, if they subsequently were proved to have deliberately withheld information, to be called to the Bar of the House to explain why they deliberately withheld information from the House—which would be an abuse of the House, as our only way of obtaining information is through the Minister? If they have done so, surely they have abused the privileges of the House.
Madam Speaker: To adopt such a procedure, the matter would first have to be accepted by the House, then go to the Privileges Committee and come back before we could take such action.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. We know that you are ever vigilant, and that there is no time when your ears and eyes are not fully open, but I may not have explained that the Bill to which I referred earlier is technically a private Member's Bill, in the name of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson). It is of such importance, however, that, had it been implemented in the past, Nelson Mandela, for example, would not have been able to come to Britain—to say nothing of such people as Karl Marx and others. In such circumstances, could you possibly offer guidance on what techniques are available for slipping in private Members' Bills at the very last moment, on highly important and controversial subjects, on a Friday morning?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I was one of those present the other Friday when, fortunately, myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) forced a vote on the Third Reading of the Jurisdiction
342
(Conspiracy and Incitement) Bill. The supporters of the so-called private Member's Bill, which is a Government Bill that has been taken off the shelf and handed over to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), were defeated on a technicality because they got only 26 votes. The result of such a defeat is that any private Member's Bill, from wherever it comes, must go to the back of the queue. It was not given a Third Reading.
I would find it astonishing if what is technically a private Member's Bill that had lost its place in the queue suddenly found itself at the head of the queue, to the disadvantage of other private Members' Bills that are due to be debated on Friday. That would not only break many precedents, but would be very shabby practice on the part of a Government who were trying to protect what in practice is their own Bill, even though, in theory, its promoter is one of the Tory Back Benchers. I hope, Madam Speaker, that you will look very closely at this issue, and ensure that the Bill in question takes its proper place in the queue and other Bills remain undisturbed.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is absolutely right. It is my understanding of the procedures of the House that private Members' Bills have to take a strict order. If the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), has heard by rumour that something is about to happen, would it be appropriate and of great help to you and the House if he said where he heard that rumour? Rumour—we know what it is; you know what it is. Can you help us?
Madam Speaker: As I said in my answer to the original point of order, I cannot deal in rumour. If hon. Members would only tell me where the rumour came from, I could probably investigate rather more.
The Jurisdiction (Conspiracy and Incitement) Bill to which the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) referred—he did not make it clear in his point of order to which Bill he was referring, and I was therefore not too sure about it—is of course, as he says, a private Member's Bill. I was in the Chair a week last Friday when the debate on it began, and I watched very carefully what happened to the Bill. It is among the remaining orders, it has been debated in the House, all procedures are being correctly followed, and it will be before us on Friday. I assure the House that no precedent is being broken. The Bill is being dealt with normally.
If Members want to deal with the Bill as they think fit, they should be here on Friday to do so. I remember distinctly that there were only two hon. Members in the House who were opposed to the Bill when I was in the Chair a couple of Fridays ago.

European Communities (Economic Information)
3.47 pm
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Philip Oppenheim): I beg to move,
That this House takes note with approval of the Government's assessment as set out in the Financial Statement and Budget Report 1997–98 for the purposes of section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.
The motion seeks parliamentary approval of the Government's assessment of Britain's economic and budgetary position in order to allow treaty obligations to be fulfilled in relation to the excessive deficits procedure and the broad economic guidelines. The assessment is contained in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report"—the Red Book—parts of which are relayed to the European Commission. The "Financial Statement and Budget Report" describes the Government's tax and spending plans and explains how they are related to their economic and political objectives. The front cover of the Red Book states that it forms the basis of submissions to the European Commission for the purposes of multilateral surveillance of economic policies.
In sending the information, the Government are continuing to co-operate with the long-standing practice of sharing information on economic matters with our partners in the Community. Most of that information is already in the public domain.
Approval today would allow the Government to participate in this year's surveillance exercises in the same way as in previous years. There is no question whatever of information submitted being used to make policy recommendations with any binding effect on the United Kingdom.
Surveillance by the Commission is nothing new. Formal surveillance at Community level has been in place for more than 20 years, and we have also signed up to the independent examination of our economic performance by international bodies such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the International Monetary Fund and G7.
Participating in such surveillance exercises has enabled independent international bodies to proclaim the United Kingdom's economic record to a wide audience, helping to promote the Government's economic policies. For example, the Commission's recently published annual economic report noted that unemployment in the United Kingdom is much lower than the European Union average, and that our strong performance can be attributed directly to the Government's deregulatory labour market measures.
The Commission also noted that the UK recovery has been of a longer duration than that of the rest of the EU, and that it has been sustainable, with inflationary pressures subdued. The Commission cited the Government's policies as the cause of that favourable outturn, in particular applauding the UK's macro-economic policy framework and supply-side reforms.
The Commission noted that the Government's prudent monetary policies are expected to keep inflation within its desired range, and that the Government should reach their target of 2½ per cent. for underlying inflation. I should add that those are all the very words used by the Commission.
344
The House may also note that inflation has been below 4 per cent. for more than four years, the longest time for more than half a century; that public finances are under tight control, allowing tax to be cut in the past two Budgets, with Government borrowing on a clear downward trend; and that interest rates remain at historically low levels.
However, the debate is primarily about transmitting information to the European Commission to comply with our treaty obligations, and I hope that the House will support the motion.
3.50 pm
Mr. Mike O'Brien: What does all this mean, and does it matter, especially if the Government are hostile in any event to a single currency?
Last week, the Foreign Secretary appeared to tell us on the "Today" programme that he was hostile to a single currency. Then we heard from one of our national newspapers that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) had contacted Conservative party central office to ask whether he could call that a significant change of policy, and got official blessing.
At about 11 am, the Chancellor said that the Foreign Secretary had made a slip of the tongue, and that there was no change of policy. By lunchtime, the Foreign Secretary had said that it was not a slip of the tongue; therefore, presumably it was a change of policy. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister had issued a statement saying that there had been no change of policy. Nobody seemed to know what the policy was.
The Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary were clearly at odds. The Prime Minister tried to settle that adult Punch and Judy show by organising a meeting between the two that evening. I understand that the two combatants met at about 10.30 pm and issued a press release at about 2 am the following morning, saying that the Government were hostile only to a fudged single currency. They may say that, but does anyone seriously believe it?
The following day, the former Chancellor, Lord Howe, said on the "Today" programme:
"Yesterday's spat didn't do any good for the Conservative Party or the country … many people will feel reluctant to give continuing support to that Government."
The Daily Mail leader simply said, "What a pantomime". It was indeed a bizarre performance. The Government are confused and at times confusing; they are at odds over Europe, and it appears that certain Ministers are positioning themselves not for the general election but for the leadership election that is to follow.
Confusion over Europe has been replicated on economic policy. This is, after all, the Government who sent Britain spinning ignominiously out of the exchange rate mechanism, and the Prime Minister is the former Chancellor who recommended that we joined the ERM at an exchange rate that became unsustainable. That is history.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: As the hon. Gentleman has touched on the moment when we left the exchange rate mechanism, will he clarify on the record exactly what his colleagues' position was at that time? Did they want us to stay in the ERM or to leave; to hike interest rates or to lower them? It is important to get that on the record.
Mr. O'Brien: As I have just said, that is history. Our view was that, if we were going to enter the ERM,

345
we should do so at a sustainable level, for the right reasons and at the right time. The then Chancellor, who is now the Prime Minister, decided to enter for the wrong reasons, at the wrong time and at the wrong exchange level. He decided to enter because, as everybody knows, he had managed to convince the then Prime Minister, who was on her uppers, to accept entry.
That was the political reasoning behind the economic judgment. The decision was made not in Britain's economic interest, but through concern about the future of the Conservative party. That is how economic policy and European policy have been approached in the past decade.
Mr. Tony Marlow rose—
Mr. Richard Shepherd rose—
Mr. O'Brien: I know that many hon. Members want to speak, so I will give way once more to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd).
Mr. Shepherd: Does the hon. Gentleman not recall that the entire leadership of the Labour party at that time, including the late lamented John Smith, passionately believed in membership of the exchange rate mechanism? At the time of the difficulties caused by the rate, the Labour party passionately espoused our continued membership, and argued that interest rates would go up if we left. That time should be remembered in that context. Members of the Labour party are the greatest arguers now for entry into a form of ERM that would be set in concrete—monetary union.
Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman should remember that the leadership of his party said that sustaining membership of the ERM at the rate in question was the basis of its whole economic strategy, and it failed. The economic strategy on which the Tories went to the country in 1992 failed a few months later. It failed in many ways. Yesterday, the Library published an interesting and amusing snapshot analysis that showed that Britain would not hit the criteria for monetary union. It suggested that only Luxembourg and Ireland are on course for a single currency. Some single currency.
The Government have made great claims for their economic performance in their attempts to meet the Maastricht criteria. The reality is different. On inflation, last year we were 11th out of 15 in Europe: we were in the bottom half, and below the European average. On gross domestic product per person, we were ninth in Europe. On growth, between 1979 and 1995, we were 13th in Europe. On industrial production, in the same period, we were 12th out of 14 countries. On investment, we were at the bottom. Indeed, for the first 14 years of Tory government, we were at the bottom of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's league of 25 countries. On interest rates, we were 11th. On unemployment, we were eighth out of 11.
The Prime Minister promised to make Britain the enterprise centre of Europe. Like his promises on tax, that promise has been broken. A recent report by economists Ray Barrell and Nigel Pain shows that foreign investment
346
in France, between 1991 and 1995—the period that the Government like to look at—was $19 billion, or £12 billion, compared with Britain's $17 billion. At the same time, British firms invested $25.4 billion in Europe and abroad, making Britain a net outward investor. France, with the social chapter and an increased minimum wage, was more attractive than Tory Britain to many foreign investors.
The divisions in the Conservative party mean that it is incapable of advancing Britain's national economic interest. The Tories have failed on the economy, and have failed to get the best deal in Europe. The civil war in the Tory party means that it has put at risk the 3.5 million jobs and the huge investment that depend on our membership of Europe.
The re-election of the Conservatives would bring an influx of more Euro-sceptic Members to continue the civil war over Europe, and the victim would be British interests in Europe. Some Tories have gone dangerously far. For many of today's Euro-sceptics, being pro-British seems to mean being anti-European. They seem to think that, if someone is pro-European, he is un-British. Their rhetoric continually assails EU institutions as some sort of doomed failure. How can we make Britain successful in Europe when the Conservative Government continually undermine our involvement?
Euro-sceptics in the Conservative party seem to be of two sorts: those who plain do not like Europeans and want Britain to be detached and isolated; and those who regard the European Union as a free trade area, want no further integration, and want Britain to move from being a close participant to being a loose associate. Both aspirations are unrealistic.
In the modern world, nations are more interdependent than independent. Trade between nations is increasing at double the rate of growth among nations. The idea that Europe's future lies in a loose free trade area was the illusion of the 1950s. We had to admit that it did not work, and we traded in membership of the European Free Trade Association for membership of the Common Market.
Mr. Christopher Gill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. O'Brien: I shall not, because many hon. Members wish to speak. I have already given way twice. It would be better if hon. Members sought to catch the Chair's eye in due course.
We traded in EFTA membership for the Common Market because EFTA alone was not working. Today, the European single market goes beyond a free trade area. It includes policies for social cohesion that make it acceptable. It has a co-ordinated external policy that gives us clout in world trade negotiations. It gives us a common competition policy and standards of safety that benefit working people. Moving from full participant to loose associate would deter inward investment, prejudice our position in financial services and harm the City of London.
Many in the Conservative party are seeking to repeat Labour's mistakes of 1983. Then it was suggested by the Confederation of British Industry that Labour's policy of disengagement would put 2.5 million jobs at risk. That was when 44 per cent. of our exports went to our

347
European neighbours. Our trade and jobs links to the EU have increased: more than half our trade and 3.5 million jobs would be put at risk by the policy of a Euro-sceptic Conservative Government.
I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer shares our view that the Euro-sceptics in the Conservative party are job destroyers, who would put at risk British business relationships with Europe. Continued EU membership is essential for open access to Europe's markets. Leaving would horrify our business community and create new obstacles to European markets. It would cause job losses and shrinkage of inward investment. Being pro-British does not require us to be anti-European, but it can require us to lead in Europe for Britain.
The prosperity of Britain depends on the skill of its Government in making a success of our membership. We export more goods to Germany than to the United States or Japan; more to Holland than to all the new economies of the far east. Britain's membership of the largest, most prosperous market in the world gives us powerful leverage in trade negotiations with the rest of the world that we would not possess in isolation.
We can get more out of the European Union by co-operation than by confrontation. We cannot be a success in Europe if we reduce Britain to the margin of the debate and become hecklers from the sidelines. That is why the bosses of Unilever and Toyota are so concerned about the lurch to anti-Europeanism in the Tory party. Niall FitzGerald of Unilever said that continuing the current negative approach to Europe would lead to
"reconsideration of certain investment decisions. If the UK was gently floating off into the Atlantic, we'd have to reconsider things."
In the modern high-tech, fast-moving global economy, the Conservative world is still rooted, in many ways, in the model of independent nations that belongs to the last century rather than the next. In their hearts, many Conservatives know that; certainly the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows it. I thought that the Prime Minister knew it. Before the Euro-sceptics put an armlock on him, he began this Parliament by saying that it was wrong for Britain to stand on the outskirts of Europe as an island tossing bricks into it. Today, he is finishing the Parliament trying to prove that he is better at tossing bricks than the hon. Members for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) or for Stafford (Mr. Cash).
Our relations with our European neighbours are in crisis because there is a crisis of leadership in the British Government. The Prime Minister and Cabinet repeatedly give priority to pandering to the prejudices of their party rather than to serving the interests of British business or the British people. That is why both the people and business are realising that they would rather trust the judgment of a Labour Government, based on a hard-headed assessment of economic reality, than risk being taken by the Conservatives down a path dominated by hysteria and prejudice. So concerned are they that they see the internal civil war in the Conservative party becoming much worse if the Government are re-elected to a fifth term.
Increasingly, and despite the Chancellor, the Tory party is the anti-European party. If anyone had said in 1972 of the Conservative party which took us into Europe that, in 1996, senior Tories would be seriously contemplating leaving Europe, few would have believed it. Labour's view is clear. We cannot afford to hover half in and half
348
out, heckling from the sidelines and sending out search parties to find issues on which to attack Europe, purely for domestic propaganda; failing to take participation seriously and leaving empty chairs at negotiations on social legislation.
Mr. Marlow: Shall we just take our orders from Brussels?
Mr. O'Brien: I tell the hon. Gentleman that Labour opposes a unitary, federalist or centralised European state—a sort of united states of Europe. We seek co-operation between member states, based on a common enterprise. We believe that subsidiarity can decentralise power. We do not believe that the European Union presents any threat to our culture, our institutions, our language or our character.
Labour believes that the Maastricht treaty should remain a treaty between independent nations that pools sovereignty by agreement, rather than represent the consolidation of some sort of European super-state. We want an inclusive union. We prefer greater subsidiarity to the large-scale extension of the competence of any of the European Union institutions.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. O'Brien: I have said that I will not give way, for the reasons that I have stated.
There is no danger of a European super-state—the different cultures and national histories in Europe are too strong. I agree with the Prime Minister's assertion that to see the single currency as a step towards federalism is "unrealistic". The dire warnings of some Euro-sceptics are often hyperbole bordering on the absurd. There is and ought to be a debate about the nature of Europe, whether there should be a single currency and the relationship between the nation states and the Union; but the terms of that debate as reported in our national media have so far produced more heat than light.
The fact is that Labour's position on the single currency is almost entirely the same as that of the Chancellor—I cannot say that it coincides with the Cabinet's view, because members of the Cabinet seem to have several different versions of the policy. Both the Chancellor and the Labour party are pro-European, but not federalist. We are not opposed in principle to a single currency, but we understand the practical difficulties. The Chancellor and Labour disagree on the social chapter, but we are not far apart on monetary union.
Mr. Marlow: What about Ted Heath?
Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman asks from a sedentary position about the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). I was delighted to hear—
Mr. Oppenheim: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. O'Brien: Let me respond to the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow); then I shall give way.
I was delighted to hear the comments of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup at the weekend that he, as the last but one Conservative Prime Minister,

349
endorses Labour's views on the social chapter, devolution and the minimum wage. Both the Chancellor and Labour want to keep this country's options open on a single currency.
Mr. Oppenheim rose—
Mr. O'Brien: I wonder whether the Minister can say that he is not a Euro-sceptic, and that he agrees with his Chancellor on the Government's policy. I suspect that he will not.
Mr. Oppenheim: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, 16 minutes into his opening remarks in a one-and-a-half-hour debate. He said earlier that the Government's position on economic and monetary union was confused and confusing, and he has just stated the Labour party's policy. In the debate on this subject almost exactly a year ago, he said:
"Unlike the Government, Labour has a clear principle to guide it".
He also said:
"The position of the Labour party on European economic and monetary union is quite clear. We approve the principle of economic and monetary union".
Does he still stand by that statement?
Mr. O'Brien: The Chancellor has repeatedly said—
Mr. Oppenheim: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. O'Brien: Will the Minister sit down and let me answer his question?
The Chancellor has repeatedly said that he does not oppose the single currency in principle, and I say that we have made our position clear all along. The Labour party and I take the view that we are not opposed in principle to a single currency. I understand that that is the view of the Government, and it is the view of the Labour party.
Mr. Oppenheim: I will read the words again carefully, so that the hon. Gentleman can give a straightforward answer about whether it is still the Labour party's policy and his own view. He said:
"The position of the Labour party on European economic and monetary union is quite clear. We approve the principle of economic and monetary union".—[Official Report, 12 February 1996; Vol. 271, c. 772.]
Does the hon. Gentleman stand behind those words? Is that still Labour's policy?
Mr. O'Brien: Is it not also Government policy? Is it not the Government's policy to say that they are not opposed to a single currency in principle? The Labour party is saying clearly that we are not opposed to a single currency in principle. There are many advantages to a single currency, such as reducing transactional costs, stability in the currency in the long term, and many others.
We must also be aware of the practical difficulties. The Labour party has set out quite clearly the fact that there are some practical difficulties that we have to bear in
350
mind. Labour has made it clear that any decision will not only involve applying the Maastricht criteria: does the Minister agree that there should also be British criteria?
Let me set out the criteria clearly. What is to be the likely impact on investment by British firms in Britain and Europe and on inward investment into Britain? What would be the effect on our financial services? Are the various European countries at different stages of the economic cycle, and what impact would that have on our economy? Is there sufficient flexibility to respond to any problem that may arise? What would be the impact upon employment? The jobs issue is crucial for Labour; is it crucial for the Government? Unfortunately, so far the European Union has talked about employment but has not done enough.
Europe cannot be well placed to be a successful union on the backs of 17 million unemployed. Our vision is not of a Europe of bureaucrats or politicians, nor just of a Europe for business—although we want business to succeed and prosper. Our vision of Europe is of a community for ordinary people. That means jobs for people.
We want workers to have rights at work, and that is why we will sign the social chapter and join our European partners in having a minimum wage. That is why we have made it clear how we will determine what is in Britain's national economic interest. We will take a hard-headed look at the economic practicalities of the single currency and how it will affect the ordinary people of Britain.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. O'Brien: I have said repeatedly that I am trying to make progress. The Minister has already suggested that I am taking too long.
Mr. Kennedy rose—
Mr. O'Brien: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but this is the last time. I am about to finish.
Mr. Kennedy: I have been listening with great interest to the hon. Gentleman, and, although I do not disagree with the general pro-European sentiments being expressed, I am less than enamoured with the manner in which they are expressed. The hon. Gentleman set out the British criteria under a putative Labour Government. Is it the Labour party's negotiating stance for the completion of the intergovernmental conference that those criteria should be part and parcel of any subsequent decision that is taken?
Mr. O'Brien: The single currency issues will be determined apart from the IGC.
Mr. Kennedy rose—
Mr. O'Brien: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would clarify his question, because I do not understand it.
Mr. Kennedy: Perhaps I am not making it clear. Although the single currency issue is not folded into the IGC discussions, is the hon. Gentleman saying that

351
the Labour party's stance would be that there could be no agreement at the IGC without those criteria being met subsequently?
Mr. O'Brien: I think that the hon. Gentleman is still, to some extent, confusing the single currency issues with the IGC.
We are setting out criteria by which we will judge whether to enter a single currency, and, if so, at what time. That is the purpose of setting out the criteria. I still do not quite follow the hon. Gentleman's question, but perhaps he will talk to me afterwards, when I can explain the difference between the IGC and the single currency.
No sensible Chancellor could close down the options, especially in an area which has over half our trade and 3.5 million jobs dependent upon it. Getting it right is more important than getting it quickly. That is why there is a triple lock on any decision. Not only the British opt-out, but the vote of the British Parliament and the referendum of the British people make up the triple lock. The decisions will be made by Labour in Britain's interests, to meet British needs, after a cool and hard-headed assessment of our national economic interests.
Within three months, the people of this country will decide on the Government to take Britain into the 21st century. The choice will determine the shape of Britain's relations with our European neighbours for a generation. The choice is whether Britain will go forward with Labour to be a leading force in shaping the future of Europe, or turn in on itself with the Conservatives to become a country at the margins, for ever left behind.
4.14 pm
Mr. Quentin Davies: We have just heard the most extraordinary speech from the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien). Not only is he apparently incapable of giving a straight answer to any question, but he could not even tell the House whether he stood by his own words in the Chamber a year ago.
The British people cannot possibly be tempted to put the government of this country in the hands of politicians who conduct themselves in that way. I have never heard a less inviting prospectus for any candidate for the government of Britain than the hon. Gentleman's speech. Such indecisiveness and mealy-mouthed ambiguity are the hallmark of so many speeches that we hear from the Labour Front Bench.
It comes a bit rich from Labour Front Benchers to deliver homilies in favour of the European Union and the European single market, when we know perfectly well that had the British people elected Labour to power in the 1980s—in their wisdom, the British people did not do so—we would not have been part of the European Union. There never would have been a single market. Even the present Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), fought the 1983 election on a programme of getting out of the European Community, as it then was.
I must not use unparliamentary language, but there must be real doubts in the minds of the British people about the sincerity of a great many statements made by Labour Front Benchers. It is clear that the Labour party's new-found enthusiasm for the European Union and the single market is just part of the parcel—of a purely
352
cynical attempt to gain power at any expense, and to change Labour's marketing strategy to embrace the whole range of Conservative policies, because those policies have so obviously worked and carry the confidence of the country.
The only way in which the Labour party can hope to form a Government again is by trying to persuade the electorate that it has adopted our policies and is capable of implementing them. That is a thoroughly implausible proposition, and the hon. Gentleman's speech today gives little confidence that the Labour party would be capable of pursuing any consistent line of policy on any subject, if ever it came to power.
The decisions of Conservative Governments at the relevant time, to enter the European Community, as it then was, in the 1970s, to establish the Single European Act, which set the framework for the single market in the 1980s, and to sign up to the Maastricht treaty in the 1990s, have been magnificently vindicated by events. Britain has gained enormously from the single market.
I have not yet seen any trade figures for the whole of 1996, but the figures for 1995 showed that our exports to the rest of the single market increased by 18 per cent. In the first year of the single market's full operation in 1993–94, our exports had risen by 11 per cent.—vastly more than our trade as a whole.
When I go round businesses in my constituency in Lincolnshire, as I do almost every Friday, I see how many small and medium-size businesses, especially in manufacturing, food processing and food wholesaling, are for the first time selling across the water, particularly in the Benelux countries and often in France and Germany. If Britain has had a fine economic record over the past several years, the single market has played a major part.
The single currency is a highly emotive issue. Therefore, it is extremely difficult to debate the subject rationally either in the House or elsewhere. I regret that, as it will be necessary for the British people to take a careful, cool and rational decision in a referendum—which is what we have promised them—on this important matter. A single currency clearly has considerable benefits for trade, business, the development of a single market and travellers. Those facts are not in dispute. However, the essence of the whole monetary union programme is that we would give up the option of devaluing in the future and commit ourselves indefinitely not to run fiscal deficits above the level of excess deficits as defined in the treaty—it may be 3 per cent. or perhaps 2 per cent. under a stability pact.
I understand that some people do not want to give up those freedoms. Others believe that it would be splendid to resist those temptations—it would be rather like an addict giving up heroin, which would be locked away permanently. We shall have that argument in the next Parliament, I hope in a cool and a detached manner. The British electorate will have to evaluate the considerable economic stakes very carefully when the time comes. It will be important to listen to the voice of business: to those who are responsible for their companies' fortunes and who take decisions about investment patterns that will determine our prosperity and employment opportunities.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: In dealing with these matters in a calm and rational manner, the hon. Gentleman achieves what most hon. Members can

353
only attempt to do. Does he agree that economic and monetary union involves two aspects: first, the principle itself; and, secondly, the convergence criteria, which he has touched upon—the 3 per cent. and the 60 per cent.? We heard yesterday about the proposed privatisation of London Underground. The Secretary of State claimed that public investment would "score", but that private investment would not. The hon. Gentleman is knowledgeable in such matters. Will he explain why Treasury money that might be invested in London Underground would count against the 3 per cent. and the 60 per cent. convergence criteria limits, but private borrowing would not? If that is so, how would precisely the same work on the same trains in the same tunnels in the same city prevent our joining EMU on the one hand, but favour our joining on the other? If my description is correct, is that rational?
Mr. Davies: If I may return the compliment, the hon. Gentleman has always played a particularly distinguished role in discussions on this subject in the House. I always enjoy debating the matter with him. I have never known him to turn up to a Committee without first doing his homework—and one cannot say that with confidence about many hon. Members. If it is possible to say that I shall regret the departure of a Labour Member of Parliament, I shall regret the fact that the hon. Gentleman will not be participating in future debates on this subject.
I refer to public and private investment—and I think that my answer will not surprise the hon. Gentleman. There is all the difference in the world between investment undertaken in the public sector and that undertaken in the private sector. Public sector investment is not necessarily undertaken according to commercial and economic criteria. The resources used for investment in the public sector are drawn compulsorily from the public through taxation—no one has any choice in the matter. In the private sector, if one wants to invest, one must persuade one's shareholders, lenders or other stakeholders to provide the money. There is a natural discipline that is absent from the public sector.
It follows that it is potentially dangerous to allow Governments to spend large amounts and to call it investment expenditure. If we allow the private sector to undertake commercial investments of the kind that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, in London transport or in any other field, we may be certain that those investments will be justified according to economic criteria. If they are not, the financial markets will not make the money available. There is a real conceptual distinction and a sensible discipline that is reflected in the way in which we have always taken public spending—whether as investment or consumption—into account in the public sector borrowing requirement. I believe that Eurostat will do the same for the purposes of calculating public expenditure under the convergence criteria.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) referred to my reference to the fiscal deficit rule as merely part of the convergence criteria. It is, of course, one of the essential convergence criteria, but the obligation permanently to maintain fiscal discipline is at the very essence of monetary union. It is necessary to underwrite the stability of monetary union. It is extremely
354
important. We shall argue on future occasions whether it represents a net gain or a net loss to economies to give up that particular freedom.
Mr. Spearing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Davies: No. I know that the hon. Gentleman would like to catch your eye, Madam Speaker, later in the debate to pursue these important matters.
Before I leave monetary union, it is important to emphasise that although it implies constraints on Governments' borrowings, absolutely no constraint is implied at all on what Governments can spend or tax. By definition, as the deficit is limited, if Governments wish to spend, they will have to raise the current revenue to finance that spending. To some of us, that is a great gain not only for the economy, economic stability and sound finance, but for democratic accountability, because Governments will not be able to return to the habits of the 1970s, when the Labour Government made entirely irresponsible spending promises to the electorate, and delivered them not merely by increasing taxation—heaven knows they did that, and by more than enough—but by borrowing and running the public sector borrowing requirement up to more than 12 per cent. of gross domestic product. That was a scandalous level. We now hear self-righteous speeches from both sides of the House, denouncing the Italians for running an irresponsible public deficit that is half the level that the Labour party had in the 1970s.
The purpose of today's debate is to approve the Government's sending to the European Commission the analysis of the British economy contained in the Red Book. It is clearly a matter on which the hon. Member for North Warwickshire was not going to touch, because the Red Book presents the most formidably successful story of any economy in living memory in western Europe. We have had five years of constant growth. Unemployment has fallen by more than a million in the course of three years. I challenge Opposition Members to tell me of another western European country that has been able to reduce unemployment by that amount in that period.
We have been able to reduce unemployment without running into inflationary or balance of payments constraints, which always happened when a Labour Government were in power, because as soon as demand increased steadily for a year or two, the British economy could not supply the goods and services demanded, so we sucked in imports. There has been a genuine supply-side revolution in this country, and that is testified to by the extraordinary way in which the balance of payments has not gone into significant deficit, despite five years of continuous growth.
Mr. Mike O'Brien rose—
Mr. Davies: I shall give way briefly to the hon. Gentleman, because I referred to him.
Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman is indulging in a pantheon of success for the Conservative Government, but does he accept that the level of unemployment is almost double what it was when the Conservatives came into office in 1979?
Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the structural level of unemployment throughout

355
western Europe has increased substantially over the past 20 years. I hope that we shall have the support of the Labour party in taking the measures that are likely to reduce the structural level of unemployment in this country, particularly reform of the benefits system. So far, all that we have had from the Labour party is a lot of promises that would make the position far worse and increase structural unemployment in this country, particularly by introducing the minimum wage. I cannot think of a more disastrous and ill-conceived policy, either from the humane or from the economic point of view.
I commend the report to our partners in the European Union. They will find it extremely interesting reading, and it will be one more piece of evidence likely to persuade them that the British model under Conservative Governments delivers employment, delivers prosperity, and delivers investor confidence in modern conditions better than any others currently on offer.
4.29 pm
Sir Teddy Taylor: It was interesting to hear a series of soundbites about Europe from the Opposition, rather than specific answers to specific questions. We must put the Labour party right on its view that Britain is alone in having doubts about the way in which Europe is going on economic affairs. All the evidence shows that throughout the continent there is a sudden awakening of concern and alarm about what the European Union is doing to people.
I can do no better than to quote from one of the splendid papers that I am sure Labour Members read, called The Guardian, in which it was reported today that 77 per cent. of the people of Germany are now opposed to economic and monetary union. That is not 10 per cent., 20 per cent. or merely a handful: the great majority of the people of Germany do not want it.
I was also interested to read in that article that a gentleman called Gerhard Schroder, who is an important person—he is a state premier—is planning to challenge Mr. Kohl for the chancellorship next year on a Euro-sceptic platform. In today's Der Spiegel, which is an important magazine, he said:
"You have to be able to stop a train which is running in the wrong direction."
The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) shakes his head. He can have this article: that is what the bloke said, and that is the truth.
Mr. Denis MacShane: I do not want to enter into a discussion about Mr. Schröder's politics, but he is a nationalist. His speeches in Germany are profoundly nationalistic, and he alarms many people, although he is in our sister party.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in the early 1980s, every opinion poll showed that three out of four British people wanted to withdraw altogether from the European Community, as it then was? That was official Labour party policy in 1983. Does the hon. Gentleman recall which party won the election in 1983, when the British people, according to opinion polls, were wholly opposed to the European Community?
Sir Teddy Taylor: That is the most depressing thing I have heard in a long time, and I have been in the House for 30 years. The hon. Gentleman is saying that we should
356
go along with what people seem to be thinking so as to win elections. It is scandalous if the hon. Gentleman has come to Parliament only to support what he thinks people are saying today. I am not making a personal attack on him: I just hope that he will wake up, think about telling the truth and give guidance on what is right.
Mr. MacShane: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Teddy Taylor: No, get lost. I am trying to make a brief speech on important issues.
We must wake up to the fact that throughout the continent of Europe, people are realising that something nasty is happening to them. The hon. Member for Rotherham may laugh, but it is not funny for the 5 million people on the continent of Europe outside the United Kingdom who have lost their jobs in the past five years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) referred to our trade success. What about the facts? The plain fact is that since we joined the EC, we have had a deficit of £100,000 million, which is a lot of money. I wish that, instead of making European slogans, people would wake up to what is happening.
I have great respect for the hon. Member for Rotherham, but I wish that people would listen to what the bunch of people who come along to these debates, in which no one is interested, have been saying for some time. We may not be terribly clever, but a small group of us—almost all of us are here now—voted against the exchange rate mechanism, because we believed that it was a recipe for mass borrowing and unemployment. People said that we were nuts and silly. We all know what happened: our pathetic Ministers pleaded that they were terribly sorry, that they could not borrow any more money or add to unemployment, and had to chuck the ERM.
We should realise what is happening in France. It is a lovely country, but more unemployment is being created every day because of the absurd nonsense of an artificial exchange rate. Surely Conservatives, of all people, accept that if we pretend that something is worth what it is not, we create distortions. As we see from the Red Book, the greatest problem of all is the distortion created by the agriculture policy, which does not allow food to find its normal price. Clever people in their blue ties, probably supported by public opinion polls, say, "Let us decide what the price of beef and sugar will be." All that we do is spend more and more each year on destroying food and forcing up prices for low-income households who have suffered enormously from the effects of the common agricultural policy.
When I hear representatives of the Labour party talking about "the Europe of the people", I ask them, in all sincerity—as people whose party used to justify democracy—what the blazes people in Europe can do if they think that the CAP is a foul protection racket that is costing enormous sums in waste and destruction, which gives them no entitlement and no rights. Destroying democracy is particularly bad for this country.
Let me make two brief points. The Minister said, "We must tell them what they are doing." I read through the articles in these wretched treaties: that is probably why I do not sleep well at night. The trouble with European treaties is that they can always be stretched a great deal further. According to article 103(4) of the Maastricht treaty, the European Union is not just interested in what

357
we are doing, and how brilliant the Government's economics are; it wants to find out whether our economic policies are inconsistent with the broad guidelines, and may jeopardise the proper functioning of economic and monetary union.
What on earth does that mean? Does it mean that the Government have an obligation—as I believe they have, under the treaty—not only to run the economy in accordance with the principles that have been laid down, although that means deliberately creating unemployment, but to implement policies that will not in any way frustrate the operation of economic and monetary union? To some extent, our policies are doing that. Unemployment in all the other European countries is rising, while ours is falling, and our sound pound is probably having a frustrating effect. That is not helping those countries at all.
It is clear that, under another funny little clause—paragraph 7 of article 104c—Her Majesty's Government do not tell the House of Commons what the Europeans say about the information that we have sent to them. I think that that is the least that the House of Commons is entitled to: surely, when we send our annual information bulletin to Europe, we should be told what the Europeans say in reply to the Government. If, for example, they say to the Government, "We think that you are spending too much on this or that, or borrowing too much," or, "We think that your promises will lead to all kinds of problems," should not the House of Commons be told? I hope that the Government will give an assurance that, notwithstanding paragraph 7 of article 104c, they will endeavour to report back to Parliament any recommendations made by the European Council on the management of the United Kingdom economy. If the Minister can say yes to that, I shall be very grateful.
Will the Government also give an undertaking that Her Majesty's Government will seek to initiate a review within the European Union, of the merits of seeking economic advice from nations that have created an economic nightmare and massive unemployment in their domestic economies?
I have quite a lot to do with Sweden. Being a Tory, I have a massive number of important business interests, one of which is a directorship of a wonderful company called Ansvar Insurance. Ansvar Insurance insures total abstainers from alcohol, a cause that I have always promoted because I signed the pledge in Glasgow when I was six—and, like all Conservatives, I have kept my promise ever since. We do not pay the directors a great deal of money, but we give a great deal of support to the temperance movement.
I am astonished at what has happened in Sweden. The people there were told by the clever people—the equivalent of our silly Confederation of British Industry—"Let's vote yes in the referendum to safeguard employment and prosperity." Of course, the poor old Swedes voted yes, by 51 to 49 or thereabouts. I just wish that the EU enthusiasts would visit Sweden today. The situation there is tragic: everything is going wrong. Taxes are rising, public spending is being cut, and things have gone from bad to worse since the Swedes listened to the clever people and voted yes. Their friends from Norway go over to laugh at them, and to say, "You were daft." I am well acquainted with public opinion in Sweden, and
358

I know that the massive majority believe that getting involved with the European Union is the worst thing that they have ever done.
The final point that I hope the Minister will bear in mind is that the people who loathe and despise the European Union are in no sense anti-European. Basically, the Euro-sceptics are probably more pro-European than some of the people who shout for Brussels. Basically, we like Europe. We like the comforts of Europe and we deplore what the Europeans are doing to themselves. I just hope that people in all the parties will wake up to what is actually happening in Europe today. There is the absolute tragedy in Germany, where the Germans have created a massive nonsense of unemployment because of a single currency there. They never seemed to consider what would happen. They said to the poor people in East Germany, who of course had lots of problems, "We shall give you the special privilege of making the deutschmark equal to the currency of East Germany." It did not help East Germany. It simply created mass unemployment. It was nonsense and it was silly.
There are also tragedies in France, Italy, Spain, where things are particularly bad, and Belgium, probably the worst of all. I just wish that people would wake up to what is happening, stop trying to convince themselves of silly slogans and realise that what is happening in the European Union is not only bad for Europe and for its people, but destroying democracy and jobs. Some time, people must wake up.
4.40 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: One sometimes goes to public meetings and there is a discussion afterwards. Someone gets up and says, "Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to contribute to this meeting before I came into the hall." I had not intended to take part in the debate until we heard a couple of speeches, particularly that of the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies). Unusually, not many Labour Members wish to contribute. I took his invitation to add a few words. I thank him for his kind words. Although I disagree with him profoundly on politics, dependent on his successor, any non-return of him to the House would be a loss of someone who has, in a sphere other than finance, brought distinction to a particular Select Committee. I shall leave it at that.
I wish to take up the fundamental points on which the hon. Gentleman and I had a brief exchange. The reason why I did not intend to participate was that I intended to listen to a Select Committee that is discussing investment in London Transport, but that is a good illustration of the fundamental issues that we are discussing—economic and monetary union and the criteria with which, to keep their option open, the Government must comply.
I challenged the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding to make a distinction on the source of borrowing for much needed replacements of tunnels, wiring or signalling—the capital investment that everyone in the House, whatever their party, wherever they sit, whatever they think of the Common Market, recognises is badly needed for the people of London, as no doubt it is required in Paris, Berlin, Stockholm, Copenhagen or anywhere else. Therefore, we are talking about the extent to which, if at all, the criteria that we are discussing—my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) mentioned them and the progress towards

359
the convergence criteria—affect fundamental and democratic choices, in this case, of the people of London or of the people of Great Britain, in respect of other forms of public investment.
The hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding did not contest my point that such investment would be virtually identical, wherever the money came from—whether from the Treasury, which would then borrow on the markets by way of gilts or whatever, or from a private firm buying capital or indeed receiving money indirectly from the Treasury, which the Government proposed yesterday. It would be identical investment in identical infrastructure for broadly the same purpose, that is, the transport of people by underground railway in London.
My understanding is—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding did not, so I suspect that I am right—that, if those millions of pounds were added to public expenditure, they would count against the 3 per cent. gross domestic product limit, which is part of the convergence criteria, as expenditure would be to the 60 per cent. GDP limit in relation to total Government borrowing. Those details are in the Red Book.
Chapter 5 of the Red Book, headed "Public Spending", makes it clear that public expenditure is being enhanced by the private finance initiative. Paragraph 5.17 contains an interesting phrase:
"Public services benefit not just from direct public sector investment but also from capital spending by the private sector under the Private Finance Initiative … Table 5.4 shows total capital spending sponsored by the public sector"—
the next bit is important—
"including the increasingly significant contribution through the PFI."
The paragraph refers to
"capital spending sponsored by the public sector".
However, table 5.4 makes it clear that the PFI will play an important part in future. In the estimated outturn for 1996–97, the total public sector capital expenditure is £19.7 billion and the PFI is £1.1 billion. Those figures change to £17.7 billion—that is a drop, presumably at constant prices—in 1999–2000 and £4.3 billion respectively. Perhaps in his winding-up speech the Minister will confirm those figures.
While total public sector capital expenditure will count towards the criteria ceilings, the additional amount via the PFI, which will be substantial if the Government are returned to office and continue with their programmes—and another Government might be forced into them—will not. Effectively, it is all investment in public sector areas. The lack of a fundamental distinction between those two figures is clear in paragraph 5.18 of the Red Book, which states:
"even these figures can give a misleading picture of the level of investment … When the Government buys services from the private sector, investment undertaken by the companies that provide the services is not counted as public sector investment; very often, however, it involves the formation of assets which are deployed to meet public needs."
That means that if a public body has a high proportion of contractors, the capital for those contractors will come from the private sector. Although it may be devoted entirely to public works, it will not qualify for the
360
expenditure criteria. My supposition goes further, because the Red Book states:
"The boundary of the sector has shifted. The privatisation programme has brought significant qualitative and quantitative benefits from capital investment in industries which used to be predominantly in the public sector."
My remarks are fundamental to our debates, and relate especially to hon. Members who may prefer public and private expenditure in any combination. Is it not true that the nature of the criteria for qualifying for economic and monetary union, about which one can argue—it is either a necessity or the limit—is distinct from the principle? I maintain that these are two different but complementary issues. Will they not affect the degree of public and private investment and control, and the boundary of which the Red Book speaks? However, they do not alter, as in the case of London Underground, the sums that are involved, or—given that they are roughly equivalent—the degree to which they affect the country's economy.
Why are the criteria there? I can only conclude, as the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding made fairly clear, that those who set the criteria and who sustain and believe in them, understand that they press one way or the other on that boundary between public and private capital. They therefore control the mixture and believe that, inherently, private capital is more efficient and must be maximised, while public investment must be minimised. That is his doctrinaire thesis—although a Marxist would have it the other way round.
The Labour party and many Opposition Members have believed in a mixed economy, and in the most beneficial mixture of both sources of capital. It looks as if the European Monetary Institute's criteria—regardless of whether one is in favour of them—are pressing unfairly in one direction, thus constraining the democratic right of the electorate to choose the balance that they wish.
4.49 pm
Mr. Barry Legg: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the significant progress that he is making in meeting the Maastricht convergence criteria. The inflation level set in the Red Book certainly meets the criteria as defined in the Maastricht treaty, our debt to GDP ratio is one of the most satisfactory in Europe and the projections for our budget deficit as a percentage of GDP are well within the 3 per cent. level, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) mentioned earlier in the debate.
My right hon. and learned Friend's progress in achieving the convergence criteria leads me to the recent remarks of Jacques Santer, the European Union President. He said:
"We have never had such convergent policies in the economic fundamentals, inflation rates, interest rates and so on."
In one sense, he is absolutely right; in another, he is absolutely wrong. The United Kingdom is certainly achieving some of the Maastricht convergence criteria, such as that on inflation, and it is making considerable progress towards meeting the debt to GDP criteria. Clearly, the UK will also achieve the overall debt to GDP ratio. In another sense, however, we are in no way convergent with many of the economies of Europe.
I draw particular attention to the fourth criterion, on the currency, under article 109j of the Maastricht treaty. I recommend that hon. Members visit the Library, obtain

361
a copy of the February 1997 inflation report and examine chart 213, which shows the movement of sterling against the deutschmark over the past 14 months. In that period, sterling has appreciated by 22.5 per cent. against the deutschmark. The chart also shows sterling's appreciation, at 4 per cent., against the dollar.
I urge hon. Members who support the idea of a single currency and those who are agnostic—those who do not know whether it would be a good thing and cannot make up their minds on the matter—to examine the chart and to ask themselves two questions. First, what would have happened to the German and UK economies if there had been no exchange rate and they had had the same currencies? What adjustments would have to be made in those economies if there was no exchange rate flexibility? Such an exchange rate movement reflects a realignment of the exchange rate, which reveals underlying pressures within the individual economies.
Mr. Giles Radice: Rubbish.
Mr. Legg: If we did not have an exchange rate, there would be considerable regional booms and slumps and there would have to be significant transfer payments. The chart clearly shows that the German and UK economic cycles are not synchronised, and that the UK economic cycle is much closer to that of the US.
Mr. Quentin Davies: I am afraid that the currency fluctuations to which my hon. Friend referred prove a point opposite to his argument. Sterling fell out of the exchange rate mechanism at a parity of DM2.95. The rate fell at one time to DM2.17 and is now back to, I think, DM2.72—it is certainly over DM2.7. Those fluctuations do not make sense. They do not correspond to fundamentals. We are back almost to where we started, but in the meantime, enormous and gratuitous uncertainty about costs has been caused to traders and to business.
Mr. Legg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He has added to my arguments. He has shown that we need considerable exchange rate flexibility. The rate has floated, varying freely in accordance with the market since we left the ERM. The United Kingdom economy has benefited substantially from that. I am afraid that my hon. Friend has strengthened my case.
We have heard that there should not be fudging of the criteria. I urge my hon. Friends to think carefully about that. Many of them say that joining the single currency should be our objective; but when exchange rate fluctuations are pointed out, they say that they do not want to be judged by the fourth criterion. They want to put the exchange rate stability criterion aside. That is a considerable fudge. We should be saying that we need exchange rate flexibility, which is good for our economy. That is one reason why we should not envisage joining a single currency.
The Red Book and the inflation report give a good idea of some of the convergence criteria that we are achieving, but they also show that in no way is the UK economy so convergent with the German economy that they should have the same currency. There are considerable structural differences between the two economies. Can anyone
362
argue that this would be a good time for the UK and Germany to have the same currency when Germany clearly has to deal with substantial structural problems in its economy? The social costs in the German economy are high. Unemployment has recently gone up by 500,000. There are 4.7 million unemployed in Germany, with another 2 million on make-work schemes, and there are very few real jobs in east Germany. It would be economic nonsense for Britain and Germany to have the same currency at the moment.
Those are the economic arguments. However, too much concentration on the convergence criteria obscures what economic and monetary union is all about. Historically, states have adopted single currencies for political reasons, because of a perceived common interest in those states that justified having one Government and one currency. Looking at the convergence criteria obstructs that view. Having a single currency is not just another step in the process of achieving greater economic co-operation, as the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) seems to think; it is a step that inevitably leads to a single state and a single Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding seemed to swallow that line. He thought that, if we joined a single currency, we would have financial prudence for ever and a day—no longer would it be possible not to have prudent financial policies. He was wrong. The wording of the convergence criteria is flexible. There is no 3 per cent. limit. The deficit qualification says—
Mr. Radice: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Legg: I have very little time. I have already given way. I should prefer to continue making my points.
The deficit qualification says that, if the deficit is only exceptional and temporary, the 3 per cent. limit can be ignored. As we have not yet achieved the holy grail of a 3 per cent. deficit, in which of the four years of this Parliament that we have not been able to achieve a 3 per cent. deficit does my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary consider the excess to have been "exceptional and temporary"? That phrase provides the let-out for the European single currency.
Economies cannot operate in a formulaic way. Political judgments will have to be made. In respect of the single currency, political judgments will be made by European institutions. The economy cannot run on autopilot. Bureaucrats and politicians will have to make political judgments. That is why the single currency is becoming more unpopular in the United Kingdom and why more of my hon. Friends feel that we should not go ahead with it.
One would think that the fact that we were achieving the criteria set out in the Red Book would lead to greater confidence on the Conservative Benches that we should go for the single currency, but the reverse is happening: there is more scepticism about the single currency among my hon. Friends, because they realise that a political project lies behind it. They have seen many examples over the past four years of political power having been given up to European institutions. They now understand the political power that would have to be given up along with the currency. The regulations before Christmas concerning the stability pact made that absolutely clear.
Under the conditions in those regulations, it was clear that no delay from national institutions in implementing the excess deficits procedure would be countenanced.

363
That means that the House would have to comply with the directions that it received from Europe concerning levels of spending and taxation, and the ancient rights of the House would be taken away. I believe that the single currency is becoming more unpopular among my hon. Friends because of that wider realisation. They can see the political consequences that lie behind it.
Mr. Marlow: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Legg: No. I am coming to the end of my speech.
I remind the House of what my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the Treasury Select Committee in December. He said:
"The single currency is a one way option".
If we take the single currency, there is no going back.
Last week, the House debated devolution and whether powers could be removed from a Scottish Assembly or Parliament once it had been set up. On the single currency, we have the answer: it is a one-way option and there is no going back. It represents an irreversible transfer of power from the House to European institutions, and for that reason alone it will never go ahead with the United Kingdom participating.
5.2 pm
Mr. Denis MacShane: I enjoyed the speech by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg), but I could not for the life of me work out whether the convergence criteria were a straitjacket, as we heard previously, or some type of rubber corset inasmuch as they were indefinitely expandable. I was curious about the hon. Gentleman's scenario on what should happen. In effect, he was saying that Europe should disintegrate into 15 separate states, each with its own currency, monetary and, ultimately, trade policy. I do not believe that the single market for which I expect he voted, as did most Conservative Members present, is achievable without a level of co-operation and, ultimately, a single currency. Getting there will be difficult; that is for sure.
I rise in particular to respond to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who gently invited me to get lost. That is strong parliamentary language. I am Irish and I rise to such suggestions. The hon. Gentleman is friendly on many other issues, but when he used the language of loathe and despise, I found that much more worrying than a passing ad hominem remark. That language, like the language of hostility from the Foreign Secretary last week, reveals something deeper and more worrying in the Conservative party. I shall be interested to hear whether the Exchequer Secretary confirms the Euro-scepticism of which he was boasting in a debate in the House before Christmas, aligning himself with the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), or whether he chooses to side with his nominal boss, the Chancellor.
One would think from the remarks of the hon. Member for Southend, East that the past 18 years had been a miracle of low unemployment in this country, but some of us who may not have been sitting on the Conservative Benches at the time have memories of when unemployment went through the roof before entry to the exchange rate mechanism. Some of us believe that the lowered unemployment that we have today may not last.
364
There is also the problem that, if one measured unemployment in this country using the same criteria as Germany and France—the International Labour Organisation criteria—it would be higher. If one included the criteria used by the American Bureau of National Labor Statistics, which includes people who would like a job but cannot get one, a further 2 million people would have to be added to our unemployment total. Those are inconvenient facts; facts washed away by a diatribe against the problems that Europe faces on unemployment.
The fusion of two countries—a third-world country with a third-world economy such as East Germany and a successful West Germany—was bound to cause problems. The hon. Member for Southend, East seemed to imply that Germany should have run with two currencies in one country. I have heard of the Chinese one country, two systems but never of one modern economy with two competing currencies, as he seemed to imply should have been the choice of the German Chancellor and the Bundesbank in 1990.
I invite the hon. Member for Southend, East to be careful about quoting opinion polls. He completely misunderstood what I said. In the early 1980s, every opinion poll in this country showed that a majority of people were for withdrawal from the European Community. That was the policy adopted by my party in 1983, and a fat lot of good it did us. What people say in opinion polls and how they vote are two very different things. When the British people are invited in the forthcoming election to decide between a party that has set forward clear positions to defend British interests but advance in Europe and a party that is full of the language of loathing, despising and hostility, we shall see which way they vote, just as we shall see which way people vote in future elections in Europe. The people of Europe do not want to break themselves down into competing, rivalry-driven states, which is the avenue and vision offered by Conservative Members.
5.7 pm
Mr. Oppenheim: I particularly enjoyed the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), especially the part when he managed to say something to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) that many of us have longed to say for a long time: get lost. I also particularly enjoyed his comments on the common agricultural policy, with which I agree 100 per cent. He asked about paragraph 7 of article 104c and whether we publish the Commission's response. The answer is yes—in the form of a written answer, which is placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East also suggested that Sweden has suffered as a result of European Union membership. I suggest that the cause of major problems in Sweden is the cumulative effect of years of socialism—very high spending, borrowing and debt. It now has to adopt monetarist policies and policies of fiscal prudence and deregulation to try to turn its economy round.
My hon. Friend also correctly argued that one can like Europe very much but be against the European Union. Those who are pro-European Union often try to tar Euro-sceptics, or those who are hostile to the EU, as hostile to Europe, but that is not always the case.
The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) is always an assiduous contributor to these debates. He made an excellent point about the nature of public and

365
private investment and how they relate to the public sector borrowing requirement. His comments were absolutely right, except that borrowing by public corporations is excluded from the general Government financial deficit, which is the definition of Government borrowing for Maastricht and convergence purposes, as indeed are privatisation proceeds; so, for the purposes of the general deficit, it makes no difference whether borrowing is private or public.
The same applies to borrowing under the private finance initiative, which would be counted in the private sector, but, even if it was public sector, it would not count as public borrowing for Maastricht or convergence purposes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg) made several points about convergence, with which hon. Members of all parties would broadly agree. He rightly said that convergence had not yet been achieved and that many would argue that it was unlikely to be achieved if European economies continued on their current course.
Mr. Marlow: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Oppenheim: My hon. Friend will forgive me if I proceed for the moment, as I do not have much time and I want to respond to a number of points made during the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West also made the point that to proceed would ultimately be a political decision, regardless of whether the convergence criteria had been met. That is right, because the Maastricht treaty gives scope for the Economic and Finance Council that will meet next spring, followed by the Council of Heads of Government, to take a political decision; they are not bound by the Maastricht criteria. After that, the stability pact will have a political element. It will not be totally bound by treaty.
Mr. Marlow: We know that the Government are, on balance, hostile to monetary union. If a group of other European countries seeks to go ahead with it on fudged criteria, will the Government seek to block that in the Council of Ministers, as they are entitled to do?
Mr. Oppenheim: No. If other countries wanted to go ahead, even with muddled criteria, it would not be our job to prevent them from doing so. We must go into the negotiations, as we have done, and try to ensure that economic and monetary union is a success, because, in or out, it will affect us in a variety of ways. If our advice is not heeded, and EMU goes ahead without us, it is not our job to block the will of other countries.
The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) spoke for 24 minutes. Apart from some platitudes about Europe, he spent most of that time criticising our economic performance. I welcome his concentration on the British economy. If it is now so awful, how come new Labour has copied all our policies? The unique selling proposition of new Labour spin doctors seems to be, "Those guys over there have made such a mess of things that we have copied all their policies."
366
The Labour party has good reason to copy all our policies: we have the lowest debt of any European Union country except Luxembourg and the lowest unemployment by far of any major European Union country.
Mr. MacShane: The figures are not comparable.
Mr. Oppenheim: The hon. Gentleman is wrong, because my figures, which are used for Eurostat purposes, are based on the labour force survey, approved by the International Labour Organisation, and the Trades Union Congress has said that they are wholly reliable.
Our borrowing is lower than that of any other major EU economy. We have the highest growth of any major EU economy. Our current account is close to balance and is in a better state than Germany's. Those points were made well by my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies).
The hon. Member for North Warwickshire said that our inflation rate was higher than that of some other European countries. He is right: it is 1 per cent. higher than those of Germany and France, which is not surprising, bearing it in mind that our economy is booming, whereas theirs are in a slump. If only Labour could have achieved an inflation rate 1 per cent. higher than the German and French rate, it would have had something about which to boast.
Since 1979, our growth in manufacturing productivity—the crucial indicator of competitiveness—has been the highest in any Group of Seven major industrial country; it has been 50 per cent. higher than the Japanese rate, twice the French rate and nearly three times the German rate. That is why a recent independent report stated that, since 1979, Britain has closed more than three quarters of the competitiveness gap with Germany.
We export twice as many cars as in 1979 and four times the steel. We are now the world's leading pharmaceutical exporter, and we have overtaken France to become the second largest aerospace producer and exporter.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: The Minister keeps referring to 1979. Can he explain why unemployment is double what it was then?
Mr. Oppenheim: My hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding has already answered that point: structural unemployment is growing throughout the developed world, not only in the European Union but in America, where unemployment is far higher, and in Japan. The difference is that, whereas in the 1970s—when, let us not forget, unemployment doubled under Labour—our unemployment was far worse than the European average, today it is far better, and falling. Relative to our main competitors we are doing far better.
The hon. Member for North Warwickshire mentioned the minimum wage as one of new Labour's great Euro-friendly policies, but he cannot tell the House at what level it would be set under a Labour Government.
Mr. MacShane: Very wise.
Mr. Oppenheim: The hon. Gentleman smiles and says, "Very wise," but through his smiling face we can see the con that is being perpetrated on the low-paid. It is no good

367
his throwing kisses at me across the Chamber: that will not get him very far. He is trying to convince the low-paid that there is some easy, no-cost solution to low pay.
We all want higher wages for everyone, especially the low-paid, but to pretend that there is some easy option and that politicians can dictate levels of pay with the wave of a magic wand is an unpleasant and dishonest con. The only way to increase the pay of the low-paid is to improve education standards and the competitiveness of the economy. That is why pay at all levels since 1979 has risen rapidly in comparison with what happened under Labour, when pay for the lowest-paid stagnated.
I am pleased that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire concentrated on the economy, because the economy will win us the election. Most people realise that, although the Government have made some mistakes, by and large we have got things right. That is why, since 1979, we have closed four fifths of the competitiveness gap with Germany, and why new Labour's unique selling proposition is that we have got so much wrong that Labour has copied all our policies.
Amusing and enjoyable though this diversion across the economy has been, the purpose of the debate is to take note of the Government's assessment. There is nothing sinister in the surveillance that it outlines, and I urge the House to support the motion.
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14B.
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note with approval of the Government's assessment as set out in the Financial Statement and Budget Report 1997–98 for the purposes of section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.

Contract (Scotland) Bill
Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered. Order for Third Reading read.
5.16 pm
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill will reform what the Scottish Law Commission has identified as three bad rules in contract law. Consultations by the commission established that there was strong and widely held support for reform and that the rules should be abolished as soon as a legislative opportunity arose.
The draft proposals for legislation were published by the Secretary of State in September and have been generally welcomed. They have the support of the Law Society of Scotland and the Confederation of British Industry (Scotland) among others. I was grateful to hon. Members of all parties for their strong support for the Bill on Second Reading and in Committee.
The three rules to be reformed have been responsible for instances of obvious injustice in the past. There is no justification for their continued existence and widespread approval for their abolition. The Bill will reform the law in three important respects and will be of benefit to both the legal profession and the general public. I commend it to the House.
5.18 pm
Mr. John McFall: I thank the Minister for his comments, which are welcomed by the official Opposition. As he said, the three bad rules in contract law were an impediment to the law in Scotland. It is commendable that the Scottish Law Commission report has sent us on our way to making better contract legislation. I commend the Minister on the way in which the Bill was introduced. The draft Bill was produced in September and sent to interested parties for their comments. That is the proper way to do it, and if other legislation were treated in the same way, we might get better laws.
The Bill will make the Scottish legal system more cogent. The Minister mentioned the Law Society of Scotland, which has been closely involved in the Bill. The Law Society's secretary, Michael Clancy, has commented to me that the society is happy with the Bill, especially the provisions on
"the admissibility of extrinsic evidence to prove an additional term of a contract or unilateral voluntary obligation; the supersession of a contract by a deed executed in implement of it; and the obtaining of damages for breach of contract of sale."
The principle of the Bill is sound, its passage has been commendable, and it will improve Scots law on contract.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman and Commissioner for Local Administration in Scotland Bill
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman and Commissioner for Local Administration in Scotland Bill
  Clause 1

    FUNCTIONS AND POWERS OF OMBUDSMAN
    5.20 pm
    Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 42, leave out from 'and' to 'the' in line 44.
    The Bill is largely uncontroversial. It clarifies and extends the existing powers of the legal services ombudsman, and gives extra powers to the local government ombudsman. We welcome the new power for the legal services ombudsman to recommend that a professional organisation—the Law Society of Scotland or the Faculty of Advocates—should pay compensation of up to £1,000 to a complainant who has suffered loss or distress because of its poor handling of his complaint. The amendment is motivated by our concern about the handing over of confidential information or documents to the ombudsman.
    The issue was first raised in the Scottish Grand Committee by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and myself. The Minister tried to reassure us by saying:
    "The ombudsman can require bodies to produce such information only if he considers it to be relevant … The ombudsman is concerned only with the Law Society's handling of a case—confidential papers from solicitors' offices are not relevant … I am a lawyer … I have no desire for the ombudsman to be involved with confidential papers".—[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 9 December 1996; c. 74.]
    Therefore, we were surprised that a Government amendment was tabled in Committee that provided that the supplying of confidential documents to the ombudsman could not be legally challenged on grounds of breach of confidentiality. To be fair, the amendment contained other changes that we welcomed, but we were surprised by the inclusion of the words:
    "notwithstanding any duty of confidentiality owed to any person by the professional organisation as respects any such information or, as the case may be, documents, the organisation shall comply with such a requirement."
    We take the view that it would be better to leave that open to legal challenge so that the greatest possible care would be taken in handing over confidential documents. To be fair, the word "relevant" provides some check. Clause 1 also states:
    "the ombudsman … may require the professional organisation … to provide him with such information, being information which is within the knowledge of the professional organisation, as he considers relevant to his investigation; or … to produce to him such documents, being documents which are within the possession or control of the organisation, as he considers relevant to his investigation".
    The question of who decides what is relevant still arises, and the answer is that the ombudsman decides. In Committee, the Minister also told us:
    "the Secretary of State for Scotland will direct the ombudsman to use only information or documents that are obtained in the exercise of his powers in connection with his statutory functions."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 28 January 1997; c. 5.]
    370
    That may provide some small comfort, but other checks are necessary.
    I considered tabling an amendment to provide that the consent of the complainant should be required before documents were released. If our amendment is accepted, it would be wise for the consent of the complainant to be obtained before confidential documents are handed over, because that would give the Law Society and the Faculty of Advocates some protection. However, the wording "with the consent of the complainant" would not have covered every eventuality, because the confidential documents could belong to someone else, as the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East pointed out in Committee.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: He did a good job.
    Mr. Chisholm: I agree. The hon. and learned Gentleman made a helpful speech in Committee. Although I accepted the substance of his amendment, I was not entirely happy with the wording, which is why I have tabled my amendment today.
    The amendment is partly about protecting the interests of third parties. In Committee, the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East gave the example of an accident involving two passengers in a car. The complainant might agree to his medical documents being handed over but the other passenger might not. The example of medical records is the most obvious type of document that some people might not want handed over, because they contain confidential information about previous medical history.
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, although I do not know why, after this morning's performance. The Minister's performance was even worse. They both talked about E. coli 0157, when they should have been talking about the care of the elderly.
    If the amendment is not accepted, could the ombudsman overrule a complainant's legitimate objections about confidential documents and acquire them anyway?
    Mr. Chisholm: That is precisely the point. The Bill would give the ombudsman the power to do so, if it is not amended. The Minister tried to answer the point about medical records in Committee. He said:
    "Medical records could be released only with the consent of the individual concerned … consent is implied when a complaint is made".—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 28 January 1997; c. 14.]
    That may sound contradictory, but it amounts to saying that consent would not have to be specifically asked for because it would be implied when the complaint was made. In other words, the power of the ombudsman will override confidentiality. That power is not held by the local government ombudsman or the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. Indeed, the Parliamentary Commissioner must seek the agreement of a complainer before confidential documents are handed over.
    In Committee, it was suggested that if an amendment such as this were passed, it would obstruct the ombudsman in the course of his necessary and welcome

    371
    duties. The last thing that we want is to obstruct the ombudsman going about his duties. Before Committee, we had many representations from the Consumers Association and other bodies saying that they wanted the Bill. The point is that the ombudsman would still have recourse, if documents that he thought were essential for an investigation were withheld, to apply to a sheriff by way of summary procedure for an order determining whether such information should be provided.
    5.30 pm
    Mr. Norman Hogg: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is some logic in all the ombudsmen having precisely the same powers and remit, so that there is no confusion in the public mind? I can see no argument at all for this ombudsman having powers greater than those of, say, the Commissioner for Local Administration in Scotland. I do not understand what the Government are doing.
    Mr. Chisholm: My hon. Friend makes a good and pertinent point. Consistency is not a hallmark of the Government, but perhaps the Minister can rise to the challenge of that point when he replies. It is up to the Government to explain the discrepancy between the powers of the legal services ombudsman under the Bill and those of other ombudsmen.
    Those concerns were expressed on Second Reading and in Committee. We approached the matter in various ways. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East suggested one formulation that was not successful. We suggest the simple expedient of deleting the words that mean that confidentiality will be overridden. Our amendment would mean that the ombudsman would have to be much more careful about demanding confidential documents. If he must get such documents, there will still be recourse in law. The amendment provides the necessary protection for individuals whose records are held by lawyers or the Law Society.
    I am sure that my hon. Friends wish to speak because they have concerns. The amendment does not mean that we want to water down the powers of the legal services ombudsman or the scope of Bill. We welcome the Bill and the new powers, and we do not believe that the amendment will damage them. However, it is important to write safeguards into the Bill for those whose confidential records may be held by the legal profession.
    Mr. Norman Hogg: I listened with interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm). I want to return to the point that I made in support of the amendment.
    It is not very helpful to look at the amendment because it simply deletes some words. I hope that, when the Minister replies, he will be able to say exactly why this ombudsman should have a remit different from those of the other ombudsmen in Scottish statute. The public could become confused about the powers of ombudsmen if we give each of them different powers. I understand that they operate in different areas and that this ombudsman operates in a specialist area relating to one profession, whereas the local government ombudsman deals with many professions and many functions discharged by local authorities. To a lesser extent, that is true of the health service ombudsman. The Bill deals with a specialist
    372
    ombudsman who is to have different powers. Why do we always seem to be giving lawyers different and better regulations from the ones that we give to everyone else?
    Dr. Godman: Quite right.
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) says that I am quite right. I am encouraged to proceed further. I hope that the Minister, who is himself a distinguished lawyer—
    Dr. Godman: He is an advocate.
    Mr. Hogg: The Minister is no less than a Scottish advocate—someone who is really to be respected. I hope that he will say why lawyers are, as usual, being treated differently. Why should the regulations that affect this ombudsman be more extensive than those for other ombudsmen who cover professions of equal status and of equal importance to Scottish society? If he does that, he may be able to convince me that this Bill has merit as it stands. At present, I think that the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Leith is sound.
    Dr. Godman: I have no doubt that the Minister will employ all his legal skills to defeat the amendment but, even though he is a lawyer, he must agree that complainers must have complete trust in the handling of complaints by the ombudsman. He will have received complaints from constituents—not many; they do not come along very often—and, like the rest of us, he will have sent to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration complaints that have been raised with him. I recently sent one. I explained the position in detail to my constituent, who believes that he has a complaint against a Department of State—not the Scottish Office, I hasten to add. It is welcome to have such an ombudsman, because, God knows, lawyers need to be monitored.
    Lawyers are the most conservative profession in the land. They are as conservative as the medical profession. It is right and proper that people can take complaints to an ombudsman. The Law Society and the lay observer perform important functions, but the question of confidential documents is important. I raised the matter in Committee with the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch).
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Kynoch)indicated dissent.
    Dr. Godman: Perhaps I raised it with the Minister of State.
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton)indicated assent.
    Dr. Godman: I might add in passing that the Minister of State is far more handsome than the other Minister—not that he behaved very handsomely towards me in this morning's Adjournment debate. This question of confidential documents is important. It is all very well for the Minister of State to laugh—he is behaving like a typical Edinburgh lawyer.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, had the hon. Member for

    373
    Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) not asked so many questions, I would have spent much longer answering his points? However, the hon. Member for Leith raised serious issues, which I answered.
    Dr. Godman: You see what I mean, Madam Deputy Speaker—a typical Edinburgh lawyer. I suspect that he was trained in the Edinburgh faculty and not in Glasgow—he has not got that Glasgow look about him.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I had better give the hon. Gentleman a gentle warning that—interesting though his observations are—he is now going rather wide of the amendment.
    Mr. Norman Hogg: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that my hon. Friend is out of order, I really do.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Would the hon. Gentleman like to come and do my job?
    Mr. Hogg: Who told you that that was what I wanted?
    Dr. Godman: You are famous for your gentle reprimands, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall not stray again, but I could not resist having a wee go at the Edinburgh lawyer opposite.
    To return to a serious point, there are legal cases involving medical records that deal with matters that are not only confidential but extremely intimate. The Minister knows that I have been seeking to assist several women in my constituency who suffered grievously because of the malfunctioning of the Inverclyde cervical smear programme. Those women had to seek legal advice in order to pursue, rightly and properly, their case against Argyll and Clyde health board. I have spoken to the Minister about those cases, which illustrate perfectly the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm).
    The women—there are, thank heavens, few of them—have had to give all kinds of information to their legal representatives. If one of those women wanted to raise a complaint and approach the legal ombudsman, she should have the right to say, "Yes, by all means you may have access to all of my confidential records." Conversely, she should also have the right to say, "No, there are certain documents that I do not want to be released to the ombudsman." In addition, I do not like the ombudsman being able to appeal to the Secretary of State.
    All kidding aside, I appeal to the Minister of State to treat the amendment with the seriousness that it deserves. If he cannot accept the amendment, I ask him to give an assurance that the leaflets that go out to citizens advice bureaux and libraries telling people how to apply to the legal ombudsman will contain a paragraph on the issue of confidential documents.
    Mr. George Foulkes: It has been a long time since I participated in a Scottish debate. Not only does being here give me a feeling of déjà vu, but the Minister of State's presence doubles that sensation. Not only is he an Edinburgh
    374
    lawyer, as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) said, but he is a former Edinburgh councillor. He and I crossed swords in another chamber on many occasions and I have great respect not only for his legal ability, but for his wit and perception. I know that he will be able to deal with all the points raised.
    I want to raise a serious point, but I will not keep the House long in doing so. It follows on from the remarks that my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) made earlier about lawyers being treated differently, because one of the matters that concerns me is the method of self-regulation. Admittedly, the legal services ombudsman is outwith the legal system, but until a complaint reaches that stage all complaints against lawyers are dealt with by lawyers and by the Law Society in particular.
    5.45 pm
    I do not know about other hon. Members' experience, but I have found that when complaints are made by Members of Parliament on behalf of constituents who have experienced problems with lawyers and legal firms, the Law Society does not deal efficiently and effectively with those complaints. I have engaged in long correspondence with the Law Society about several complaints against lawyers. I shall not mention all the cases—to do so would take far too long and would be far too tedious—but I want to refer to two in order to illustrate the problems. The issue of confidentiality comes into those cases.
    I do not know whether the Minister remembers the case of the crooked lawyer, Graeme Adam, who practised in Ayrshire during the 1980s, at a time when many miners were receiving large redundancy payments. I know that my hon. Friends will remember the time when the current Deputy Prime Minister was closing pits that were allegedly uneconomic, but which would still be running today had he not shut them down. Various individuals and organisations rushed in to give the miners advice on how to invest their redundancy money. One of those was the solicitor Graeme Adam, who was subsequently imprisoned for having embezzled the money paid to miners for their long periods of service in the mines.
    What had happened was clear to the miners, to me as their representative and to people with whom I discussed the case, but when I raised the problems with the Law Society, I found that the presumption which applied within that organisation was that the lawyer was automatically innocent and that that sort of thing could not happen. That attitude was displayed throughout the organisation, all the way up to the then secretary, Kenneth Pritchard. The Law Society was dismissive of the miners' complaints.
    That has happened on several occasions when I have raised constituents' complaints about lawyers. The Law Society's presumption is always that such problems cannot happen and that lawyers do not do that sort of thing—they are honourable men and women who cannot possibly involved in wrongdoing. As a result of that presumption, many people have had to fight hard to get justice out of the Law Society, which takes a great deal of time and effort.
    Dr. Godman: In view of his criticism of the Law Society, does my hon. Friend nevertheless agree that those

    375
    persons who have performed the role of lay observer have done so with remarkable distinction and that that role is close to that of the ombudsman?
    Mr. Foulkes: I certainly accept that, but I would be straying from the amendment if I pursued the point.
    What worries me is that the people whom I represented were not getting all the information. Disclosure of information and issues of confidentiality are extremely important in such cases. At one point, I had to take a deputation of legal clients to the Law Society to get it to look into the problems relating to Graeme Adam. The Law Society's attitude was unbelievable—implying that it was the clients who were mistaken and that the lawyer was in the right. In the end, in the case of Graeme Adam we found that the opposite was true.
    I hesitate to go into detail, but confidentiality is also important in cases of child abuse or sexual abuse. Such cases are being highlighted currently by the Daily Record. I have great respect for that newspaper, but it is ironic that it is now highlighting the problems of child abuse and the threat to young children from convicted paedophiles. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow will remember the Ayrshire child abuse case, which I dealt with some months ago. On that occasion the Daily Record took the other side of the argument. I suppose that it is the privilege of the fourth estate to take such a contradictory line.
    I have made a complaint to the Law Society about a Glasgow lawyer, Mr. Paul Burns, who made statements during the Ayrshire child abuse case which were critical of social workers in Ayrshire and which I believe were unjustified. The Law Society has rejected that complaint and said that I now have the opportunity of going to the Scottish legal services ombudsman, which I am considering.
    When one complains about a lawyer, there is always the feeling that one will not get anywhere and that the Law Society will not look at the case in detail. As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow said, the legal profession in Scotland is a relatively small and closed profession. There is no better example of a closed shop, especially the advocates.
    Mr. Thomas Graham: My hon. Friend will know that I worked in a law company for five years and I saw one side of it. However, as a regional councillor and now as a Member of Parliament, I have met many people who feel that the legal profession is a fortress that cannot be penetrated and that one needs to be towing the Bank of Scotland to be able to afford to purchase justice. Using the ombudsman is the right course for folk with a problem, but ordinary men and women in the street are terrified; they believe that lawyers are God's gift to man and that one cannot have a go at them. In my constituency, there was a horrifying case of a person who was impoverished by over £100,000; he was totally innocent, but the Law Society could not do anything about it.
    Mr. Foulkes: I understand only too well the problems that my hon. Friend has experienced.
    I just want to express my concerns. One puts a great deal of trust in a lawyer, whether one is buying a house or dealing with other legal issues. The profession is a
    376
    closed shop and we have to go to lawyers to get things done. Therefore, it is of paramount importance to trust a lawyer. I believe that that trust has broken down in Scotland in a number of cases in the past few years. Many of my constituents are concerned about the legal profession. It needs to pull its socks up.
    The Law Society needs to ensure that complaints against solicitors are dealt with quickly, efficiently and effectively, and its consideration of them must be seen to be as fair as possible. That means something different from self-regulation. An independent element needs to be introduced in a decisive way. I hope that the Minister will take account of my points when dealing with the amendment.
    Mr. Ian Davidson: In view of the criticisms about lawyers and the Law Society, will the Minister accept that one way of resolving the difficulties would be to abolish the Law Society's powers to exercise self-regulation over the profession? We may have reached a point at which we accept that for lawyers self-regulation can be shown to have worked not in the public interest but only in the interests of the profession.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: This has been a useful debate and many important points have been raised. In answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson), I should say that we wish to avoid excessive regulation. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) raised some important points in that connection. It has been the view of successive Governments that the legal profession should police itself. Under the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980, the object of the Law Society is the promotion of the interests of the solicitors' profession in Scotland and the interests of the public in relation to that profession.
    As has been said, we do receive complaints, but in general we are satisfied that the system works well. I am encouraged by the fact that the Scottish legal services ombudsman supports the present system of self-regulation and suggests that few advantages would be gained from wholesale change.
    The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley will be assisted if I say that the Law Society's three complaints committees all have four lay members out of a total of 14. A lay member is regularly called on to prepare the report on a complaint for the committee to consider, particularly when it is clear that a lay person's perception of events may differ markedly from that of a member of the profession.
    Mr. Foulkes: Can the Minister say who chooses the lay members? Is it the Law Society?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes, but they must be independent of the Law Society and the legal profession. The Scottish legal services ombudsman must be a lay person and is prevented by statute from being a solicitor, advocate or other member of the legal profession. There is no special pleading on behalf of my profession. The lay person is able to have a different perspective to oversee the process and to ensure that it works fairly.
    The hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) raised important issues about whether there is a discrepancy in the ombudsman's powers. The legal

    377
    services ombudsman looks at how a professional organisation handles a complaint, not the complaint itself. The local government ombudsman and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration look at the complaint itself, so the remits and powers are different.
    The legal ombudsman must be able to look at all the papers that a professional organisation has considered. The handling of the complaint must be relevant. The hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth asked for consistency. I can confirm that the local government ombudsman and the Parliamentary Commissioner may require any member or officer of the body being investigated or any other person who in their view is able to furnish information or produce relevant documents to do so. There is no suggestion that confidential documents or information would be considered exempt.
    In Committee, I told the hon. Gentleman that I had no desire for confidential material to be produced. I was talking about confidential material that was not relevant to the handling of the complaint. The amendment would remove the provision that the professional organisation's duty to provide relevant information or documents supersedes any duty of confidentiality that the organisation owes to another person. The provision is essential to ensure that the ombudsman has access to all relevant information.
    The important word is "relevant". The ombudsman investigates the organisation's handling of a complaint, not the actual complaint. Any information or documents required have to be relevant to the consideration of the complaint. It is right that the ombudsman should have access to all relevant documents so that he can investigate the matter properly. The current provision in the Bill puts the existing practice on a statutory basis and provides protection for the professional organisations.
    The complainer who has asked the ombudsman to investigate the handling of a case would have no reason to complain that the ombudsman had seen documents which would otherwise be confidential. It is in the interest of the complainer that the ombudsman should have access to the relevant information. Documents containing confidential information relating to third parties—a point raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm)—would be unlikely to be relevant to the way in which the organisation handled the complaint. They are therefore unlikely to be required by the ombudsman.
    I understand hon. Members' concern to prevent confidential information obtained by the ombudsman from being misused. I give an undertaking to the House that the Secretary of State for Scotland will issue the ombudsman with a direction that he should use such
    378
    information or documents only in exercising his powers in connection with his statutory functions, and should ensure that his staff do likewise.
    Dr. Godman: What size staff is envisaged for investigations? Will the Minister advise the ombudsman to ensure that leaflets are published which can be given to people—for instance, in citizens advice bureaux?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The staff will be sufficient to handle matters effectively. An annual report will be published in due course.
    I hope that the hon. Member for Leith will not press the amendment.
    6 pm
    Mr. Chisholm: I thank the Minister for his reply. I agree with him that the word "relevant" is relevant. We hope that it will never be necessary for confidential documentation to be handed over.
    I thank my hon. Friends for their valuable contributions. I support everything that was said by them, with the possible exception of the remarks about Edinburgh by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). I have a certain Edinburgh solidarity with the Minister of State, the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), who represents a neighbouring constituency to mine and is poaching some of my constituency for the general election, although I do not think that he will get many votes from that area.
    We shall keep a close watch on the way in which the Bill operates, and pay particular attention to problems with confidential documents.
    Mr. Davidson: I endorse the welcome given by my hon. Friend to the contributions made by our hon. Friends. I take it that he agrees with the criticisms of the Law Society. It can be said that professional self-regulation by lawyers has now received a yellow card. It will be closely monitored during the term of the next Labour Government, with a view to possible abolition.
    Mr. Chisholm: I am not sure how wide a topic was covered by my hon. Friend's remarks, so I shall be careful in replying. It was an interesting point.
    I do not intend to press the amendment to a Division.
    Amendment negatived.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    6.2 pm
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    I could speak at immense length, but I think that we have given the subject a general airing.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Flood Prevention and Land Drainage (Scotland) Bill
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Flood Prevention and Land Drainage (Scotland) Bill
  New clause 1

    EMERGENCY POWER OF ENTRY
    '.—(1) Section 8(2) of the 1961 Act shall be amended by inserting at the beginning, "Subject to the next following section".
    (2) After section 8(2) there shall be inserted—
    "(2A) Notwithstanding any provision of this section, any person authorised by a local authority may for the purpose of exercising the duty conferred on that local authority by section 4B above enter any land at any time if he is satisfied that such action is required in a case of emergency.".'.—[Mr. Chisholm.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    6.3 pm
    Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    New clause 1 deals with emergency powers of entry with reference to clause 2, which deals with cleansing, repairing and otherwise maintaining watercourses. We welcome the Bill in general and the fact that duties are to be imposed on local councils with reference to the maintenance of watercourses and flood prevention.
    The Bill changes the "can" of the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961 into a "must". However, if councils are to fulfil their duties properly, they must have the necessary powers and resources. One issue that we raised in Committee with reference to powers related to fines for dumping. One of the main causes of flooding is dumping in rivers. We argued that the maximum fine should be increased from £1,000 to £2,500. Councils need that power to do their duty, but the proposal was rejected by the Government. That shows, once again, that the Labour party is prepared to be tough on anti-social behaviour.
    To do their job properly, councils also need powers of access in an emergency—access to a building or land that causes a serious flood problem. Councils want that power, yet the Government deny it to them. I raised the issue on Second Reading, as did the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie)—I seem to be quoting Liberal Democrat Members rather a lot this evening. The hon. Lady said:
    "Such powers could be needed in an emergency such as that which occurred recently in Dunoon. Then, equipment had to be diverted a considerable distance to gain access to a watercourse in flood because a private landowner would not allow access over his stretch of land."—[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 13 January 1997; c. 65.]
    The matter was also raised by me in Committee, as part of a large group of amendments, and it did not merit a great deal of the Minister's time when he replied. He said:
    "We, too, want to allow for quicker access to land but we do not consider that access without a warrant is necessary or appropriate."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 11 February 1997; c. 18.]
    Today, the Minister has an opportunity to amplify that remark.
    Section 8 of the 1961 Act provides that admission to any land shall not be demanded as of right by councils, unless 14 days' notice of intended entry has been given
    380
    to the occupier of the land, but that, on application to a sheriff, the sheriff may warrant the council to enter that land if he is satisfied that there is a case of urgency. That has been extended slightly in the Bill through a Committee amendment, which allows a justice of the peace to grant the council the power to enter the land. That does not go far enough.
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: Might it not be the case that the justice of the peace who gives authorisation is a member of the council?
    Mr. Chisholm: I thank my hon. Friend for that interesting point, which should be noted by the Minister.
    The Bill places a new duty to act to clear watercourses if that would substantially reduce the likelihood of flooding. Blockages of culverts, in particular, can occur very quickly as a result of natural debris, such as broken branches, or irresponsible dumping in watercourses. I have referred to the problems that that can cause councils in pursuing their duties.
    There can be no guarantee that a regular maintenance programme would necessarily detect such hazards before a storm or flash flood. On occasions, blocked culverts have rapidly caused significant flooding of property. If councils are to carry out their duty effectively, it is essential for them to be able to access blockages in an emergency, before the flood waters rise to dangerous levels.
    For example, in Paisley, which was badly affected by floods in the winter of 1994, a light engineering company called Tercet, which makes high-quality products for the electronics industry, was badly flooded. The flooding arose from a blocked culvert on an adjoining vacant site, which was owned by a private development company, whose whereabouts were not known at the time. Ownership had changed and was initially denied. The flooding rose to a depth of 0.5 m within two hours. The company closed its operations for about six weeks and the damage cost £1.5 million to repair.
    Although it is not usual to allow emergency access without a warrant, the speed of flooding and the gravity of the consequences make this an exceptional case. The new clause would allow emergency access without a warrant only if, in the view of the responsible officer, waiting for a warrant would result in significant flooding of property. In those circumstances, the measure is reasonable and necessary. It should be noted that, in paragraph 18 of the original consultation paper, the Government suggested:
    "Authorities would be able to carry out work at their own expense with similar access arrangements as obtained in the 1961 Act with the addition of a power to act in an emergency without service of notice."
    The Government should explain why their original intentions as embodied in the consultation paper have not taken shape in the Bill.
    The simple fact is that, without this emergency access power, there would be a risk of unnecessary flooding occurring in certain cases. I have said that we support and welcome the extra duties for councils conferred by the Bill—indeed, Labour Members pressed for those powers during debates on environment legislation two years ago. However, if councils are to exercise their duties properly, they must have the tools to do the job. One necessary tool is the emergency access power.

    381
    The other essential tools, which are not mentioned specifically in an amendment tonight, are the resources to do the job. Hon. Members may raise that issue on Third Reading. There are clearly serious problems, particularly in relation to clause 3, because the plans cannot be realised without funding. Perth has applied for challenge funding, but there are many more applicants than there is money available for the work required.
    It is good that councils should have those duties, but they must also have the resources and the powers to perform them properly. Emergency access is an essential power. The councils want it, so why will the Government not grant it to them?
    Mr. Norman Hogg: Madam Deputy Speaker, like me, you have served in the House for a long time. You will remember a time when Tories were toffs. Unfortunately—with the exception of the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who is undoubtedly a toff—they are not toffs any more. They used to know a thing or two about land. However, present Tory Members do not know very much about that issue—although they often sell it in small parcels as estate agents. When they knew about land, they would contribute to debates such as this, and they would have been able to tell us why the new clause is inappropriate.
    I do not understand why the Government should resist our new clause, as it seems to be eminently sensible for all the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) offered. I do not understand why restrictions should be put on local authorities when dealing with emergencies. I do not see why a justice of the peace must be involved. It has always been a great source of irritation to me that I was never made a justice of the peace. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] I did something to offend Willie Ross, which was a grotesque mistake for a young man in politics to make. As I was never a justice of the peace, I do not really know what their powers involve. However, such restrictions amount to impediments that will prevent authorities from taking the proper action at the right time to avoid difficulties.
    This House and the other place will go to great lengths to defend landowners. We have discussed defending the lawyers—we can be relied on to do that well—but the defence of land is everything to some hon. Members. I notice that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch), will reply to the debate. I hope that he will explain why the new clause is not sound, because it seems to be an eminently sensible idea. The local authority or the three water authorities—the strange creation of the present Administration—are the appropriate bodies in Scotland to deal with such emergencies. I cannot wait to hear the Under-Secretary explain why the new clause is not a good idea.
    Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman should bear it in mind that land is a finite resource and water is not.
    6.15 pm
    Mr. Hogg: I have always known that the hon. Gentleman is a philosopher. I may not be able to sleep tonight, because I will be thinking about that interesting idea. I shall look for him tomorrow to tell him my thoughts on it.
    I believe that we should agree to this reasonable new clause. Goodness knows why the Government always think of reasons why they should not be sensible. I am sure that they will run true to form tonight and resist our new clause. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Leith will not cave in, as he did on a previous occasion. I urge him to press the matter to a Division.
    Mr. Thomas Graham: As many hon. Members will know, my constituency was devastated by floods in 1994. Many people suffered an unbelievably horrific winter: they were forced from their homes, their houses were ruined and their lives were destroyed. Those folk have now returned to their homes, but they continue to fear further flooding. At the time, my constituents did not know who would come to their rescue—they expected some Government help, but this Government certainly did not provide it. It was said at the time that the Government had left them high and dry. Assistance from central Government was certainly a long time in coming.
    The local councils did their best. They did not know where the money would come from or how they would deal with the problems created by the floods. [Interruption.] I hope that the Minister is listening—he seems to be paying more attention to his hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker), who talks with finesse about water.
    My constituents had to wait a long time to receive assistance. On one occasion, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) and I visited a family at 1.30 am. We waded through 2.5 ft of stinking sewage which surrounded my constituent's house. Families could not get out and about. The fire service was doing its damnedest to assist people: it was pumping water, but was making little progress as the rain was torrential and the drains were blocked with debris. The Minister must give local authorities real powers and real finance.
    Just a week ago, a constituent of mine was going bananas because the river outside her house had nearly reached flood level, and she was imagining what it would be like when the water came over. Madam Deputy Speaker, you are a woman. You can imagine how my constituent felt when she got up and saw sewage all over her house, her carpets and kitchen stinking of bog and human dirt.
    The Minister knows about that case, because I have written to him a number of times. I plead with him not to let my constituents suffer that indignity once again. Surely the local authority should be given the power to act quickly in an emergency. However, it takes intensive manpower. Last weekend, dozens of men came out with sandbags. That cost money, but the people who are living in fear of flooding cannot but look to the Government and to local government to give them some security.
    I shall finish, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I promised to speak for only five minutes, although I could speak for five hours on this subject. The folk who

    383
    get flooded live in my village, in Linwood. I saw them all the time. It broke my heart to see people at Christmas whose toys and everything else for which they had worked had been ruined.
    Sir Hector Monro: I am interested in the compelling case that the hon. Gentleman is making, but what practical advantage does the new clause give for emergency access to prevent flooding?
    Mr. Graham: I am speaking about new clause 1. I ask the Minister to consider the points that I am raising on behalf of my constituents, to ensure that the local authority has meaningful powers so that it can spend money to do the job.
    Mr. Bill Walker: That is not what it is about.
    Mr. Graham: The hon. Gentleman said something from a sedentary position. If he stands up, I will give way.
    Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman should read what the amendment is about and what the powers are for. It is not about spending money.
    Mr. Graham: I could respond to that, but I have manners. The hon. Gentleman is just being provocative. That man should understand the suffering of my constituents.
    I went on record and said that I welcomed the Bill. It is a step in the right direction. I welcome it in every way, and so do my constituents, my local authority and the people who are worried about the threat of flooding. I ask the Minister to go a stage further: give us rock solid assurances so that local government does not need constantly to look over its back, so that it can do the job properly. We are asking for strong emergency powers to deal with the problem. I hope that the Bill will help us in the long term. That is the message that I want the Minister to give my constituents.
    I congratulate the Minister on introducing the only decent Bill that I have seen in the past 10 years.
    Dr. Godman: May I point out to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you are fortunate in one respect and I am unfortunate in another? My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) is a neighbour of mine; you just come across him occasionally. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) may laugh, but he was being deliberately provocative when he intervened on my hon. Friend's passionate speech.
    Talking about provocation, I wish to say mea culpa, that I was not being provocative when I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) a question concerning a justice of the peace in the scheme of things. The JP approached by a local authority may in fact be an elected representative of that authority. My question was prompted by the fact that, most weekends, I meet up with a delightful woman in Scotland who is both a JP and a councillor. Far from criticising Edinburgh—if I can catch my hon. Friend's attention for a moment—I love that city. I lived for 14 years just off the new town.
    The new clause is important. A local authority should have the power to take decisive action to defend our constituents where, say, a neighbour—be it a large
    384
    company or, perhaps, Clyde port authority—is acting irresponsibly. Many people complain about local authorities acting in a cumbersome, bureaucratic way, but in these circumstances, outlined so graphically—I would not say elegantly or even eloquently—by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde, a local authority has to act promptly. I know of many councillors and local authority officials who would not dream of abusing the powers in the new clause, but decisive action may have to be taken occasionally to deal with some riparian owners, and I refer to Clyde port as a riparian owner.
    I am grateful to the Minister for his letter dated 25 February, which was delivered almost by his own fair hand, in which he gave a substantive answer to a serious question that I asked him in Committee. As he said in his letter, he has sent copies to other members of the Committee. There is an important issue here, and with respect to what the Minister says in his letter, a local authority along the Clyde might need to take decisive action against a landowner. When I say "landowner", I am not talking about someone who owns an estate or a farm. We could be talking about an industrial enterprise such as Clyde port. I am not saying for one moment that Clyde port would neglect its obligations to the authorities and the people who live along the Clyde, as my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde and I do. Nevertheless, elected representatives and their officials should have the power to deal with negligent riparian owners or landowners who fail to honour their obligations to their neighbours.
    The new clause would strengthen a Bill that will be welcomed by my constituents. Sometimes it is almost impossible to drive through Port Glasgow after heavy rain, as the Minister and the hon. Member for North Tayside know. In other areas in Greenock and Port Glasgow, the water runs heavily off the land. Perhaps Inverclyde council needs to take decisive action. Who can imagine someone like Bailie Tricia Godman behaving ultra vires, behaving badly, if the powers in the new clause were to hand?
    We have to trust our local authorities and our much-maligned elected representatives. I know that every hon. Member would rather be a Member of this place than a member of a local council. Members of local councils have many onerous duties. They are much more amenable where their constituents are concerned. We are down here, 400 or 500 miles away from our constituents. Because of the damage that flooding inflicts on people's homes—on their carpets, furniture and so on—a local authority should have the right, through the new clause, to act decisively and expeditiously on behalf of the people in the community.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Like the hon. Gentleman, I too have had sad experience of flooding. I do not want the House to debate this matter without my placing it on record that I believe that the record of Harry Robertson and his emergency team in Perth and Kinross is exemplary. They have done a tremendous job, and will continue to do so. It is the officials and not the elected representatives who run the show when things go awry.
    6.30 pm
    Dr. Godman: I am sure that Harry Robertson and the other officials do a first-class job. The overwhelming majority of local authority officials, from Shetland to the

    385
    borders, do a first-class job in emergencies, as they did during the dreadful disaster in the Dumfries constituency. I was thinking about that the other day when my wife and I drove past Lockerbie. Heaven forbid that such a disaster should happen again—I never want to see it. The everyday problems of flooding have implications for ordinary people who have saved to make beautiful little homes of their houses.
    I believe that first-class officials and first-class elected representatives at local level—the Minister may say that I would say that, because I am married to one, but I hope that it will earn me some brownie points—act judiciously in 99.99 per cent. of cases against a negligent and careless neighbour. We have a first-class new clause.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Kynoch): As I explained in Committee when we debated this issue, I understand the motivation behind the proposal of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm). We also want to allow for quicker access to land, but we do not consider that access without a warrant is necessary or appropriate. That was why the Government tabled an amendment in Committee, which provided for a justice of the peace to sign warrants for access. We consider that to be appropriate and sufficient in the circumstances.
    The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) raised the issue of justices of the peace who are also councillors. So be it. Justices of the peace, on appointment, must swear an oath of allegiance in court to Her Majesty the Queen. They have to swear that they will act independently. There is a distinct separation between their duties as justices of the peace and their duties as councillors.
    Dr. Godman: I have great trust in and respect for justices of the peace. In a modest way, their role is analogous to that of a Government Law Officer. As councillors and justices of the peace, they perform two roles, and they do so honourably.
    Mr. Kynoch: My point was that there is easy access to justices of the peace, so they are the right people to make access easy. Both in Committee and tonight, the hon. Member for Leith said that, on occasions, blocked culverts have quickly caused significant flooding of property. The hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) was not there in the Committee, although he was a member: unfortunately, he was ill at the time and we did not have the benefit of his, I would say, eloquent contribution, even though the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow did not recognise it as such. The hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde referred to the misery caused by flooding in his constituency last year.
    I want to get on, because we have covered much of that ground in Committee. The hon. Member for Leith referred to Tercet, which is a light engineering company that was affected by the 1994 flooding in Paisley. As with all victims of flooding, it is of great concern to me that that company suffered, as did the constituents of the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde. The Paisley flooding was one of the events that led to the Government's decision to review existing flood prevention legislation.
    386
    However, it is fair to say that the floods in Paisley and elsewhere in Scotland in 1994 and 1995 were exceptional. They occurred at a time when some councils were not doing enough to prevent flooding. I am on record as saying that there is evidence that the situation has improved since local government reorganisation. I hope and expect that, when the Bill is enacted, the situation will be further improved.
    I accept that there will always be exceptions: no legislation can cover all eventualities. The Bill will make flooding less likely than before. This part of the Bill will ensure swift action using justices of the peace, and I believe that is sufficient.
    The hon. Member for Leith referred to the consultation with councils and others on the proposals. It may interest him to know that only 8 per cent. of councils said that they wanted a provision without service of notice. I believe that we have responded to the consultation exercise, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the motion.
    Mr. Chisholm: We welcome the extension of the role to justices of the peace. I do not think that we have had an entirely satisfactory explanation of why the emergency power has not been granted. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
    Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  Clause 3

    DUTY OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO PUBLISH REPORTS
    Mr. Chisholm: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 2, at end insert—
    'Guidelines and consultation
    6B. The Scottish Environmental Protection Agency shall publish guidelines as to the content of reports made pursuant to section 6A(2) above; and in preparing any such report the local authority shall consult the Agency.'
    This is an important amendment, because it deals with serious concerns about the Bill. In general, the Bill has been widely welcomed. However, it fails to adopt a catchment area approach, and to deal with the wider environmental implications of flood prevention. There are various ways of taking a more holistic approach to flood prevention. A simple way that was suggested in Committee is to require riparian owners to seek planning permission before undertaking flood defence work that may affect other parts of the river. That is an example of how flood defence work can have knock-on effects.
    Another way of achieving a more holistic approach is to have flood appraisal committees, so that councils come together and co-ordinate their activities. That is allowed for under national planning policy guideline 7. We actively encourage and support the formation of such committees, so that local authorities can co-ordinate their work. Beyond that, there is a strong case for an independent body to have a strategic overview of flood control, particularly with reference to the reports about flood control under clause 3.
    Two years ago, during the passage of the Environment Act 1995, Labour argued strongly that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency should have such a strategic role, and we continue to hold that view. SEPA's duties are already relevant. Under section 24 of the 1995

    387
    Act, it has a consultation role before drainage work is carried out. Under section 25 of that Act, it has a remit to access flood risk. Under section 32, it has general duties in respect of water, such as promoting the conservation of flora and fauna that are dependent on an aquatic environment.
    In Committee, the Minister said:
    "SEPA has no responsibility for, or specialised knowledge of, watercourse maintenance."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 11 February 1997; c. 25.]
    SEPA has already produced some best management guidance on flood alleviation works. It has reissued a small document that the previous river boards produced, which warns about the risk of certain flood defence activities. I am told that SEPA has also produced a video on soft engineering flood alleviation techniques, about which I hope to say more shortly.
    In its submission to the Scottish Office on the Bill, SEPA highlighted some of those issues. It said:
    "The powers given to local authorities under Section 2(1)(a) of the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961 are expanded under Section 3 of the same Act and allow various activities both within and on the banks of a watercourse (removal and deposit of mud, gravel, bush and timber) which might lead to serious pollution of a watercourse or damage to conservation, or other wider interests both within the watercourse and on associated land. We are particularly concerned, for example, about increased aquatic and riverbank herbicide spraying.
    We expect the exercise of these powers to be subject to statutory consultation with SEPA … It would be appropriate for SEPA … to develop and make available guidance on best management practice relating to any works within and alongside watercourses."
    Later in the submission, SEPA says that the report referred to in clause 3
    "should also record any instances of non-compliance with comments offered as statutory guidance and with any best management practice guidelines provided by SEPA".
    The flood defence schemes referred to in clause 3 can clearly have knock-on effects, such as siltation, erosion and acceleration of flow, and can damage not only the watercourse itself but the plant and animal species that depend on it for food and shelter.
    "Increasingly"—
    according to the World Wide Fund for Nature—
    "Scotland's rivers are suffering incremental damage from these activities".
    Equally, what happens in the wider catchment area can have profound effects on the river. For example, drainage of forestry land upstream can produce increased run-off, increased land erosion and an increased risk of flooding. All that highlights the need for a strategic overview, a catchment area approach and a role for an environmental organisation such as SEPA.
    Flood defence schemes often unnecessarily straitjacket rivers, fill in wetlands or remove islands, damaging rivers and their own ability to absorb flood impact. The so-called soft engineering techniques to which I referred a moment ago can provide long-term flood alleviation, while at the same time enhancing the natural heritage. Such techniques are now widely accepted. I am told that there are now examples at Stenton in central Fife, where wet and dry ponds have been created, and that there is a new pool system near Beattock following motorway developments there. Not much information on such techniques is available, however. It could be provided by SEPA.
    388
    I look forward to watching the SEPA video in the near future; I have been promised a copy, and I am told that it covers not only some of the examples that I have given, but other examples from Europe and America.
    The point is that we must have the benefit of expertise in regard to the broad issue, as well as narrow specifics such as the effects of spraying and dredging river banks and upsetting buffer zones between agricultural land and the river. There must be an holistic approach that takes account of the wider ecology, which means that SEPA must be involved in terms of both being consulted and giving guidance. As I said at the outset, we want co-ordination among local authorities, and we welcome the establishment of the flood appraisal committees; but, beyond that, there must be a role for SEPA. It must be able to provide an environmental overview, and to ensure that an holistic approach to flood prevention is adopted.
    Dr. Godman: If the Minister refuses to accept the amendment, will he assure us that the Scottish Office will provide guidelines for our local authorities? As he may recall, I spoke of the difficulties that some smaller authorities may have in producing reports. We seek expert guidance, enabling even the smallest authority to act in a realistic, purposeful way when dealing with the problems that have been outlined so often during the Bill's passage.
    6.45 pm
    Does the Minister agree that, if he accepted the amendment, the Bill as amended would not place an onerous burden on SEPA's officials? Indeed, I think that those officials might well be pleased to undertake such a task on behalf of local authorities. As I said earlier, I have every confidence in both the elected representatives and the officials of Inverclyde council, but I am sure that they would welcome guidelines issued by SEPA or, if that was not possible, by experts commissioned by the Scottish Office. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us proudly that the Scottish Office has such experts in its own ranks, and that it can produce the guidelines.
    Problems such as this occur from time to time in constituencies such as mine and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham). If the Minister is going to reject the amendment, I appeal to him at least to give local authorities such as Inverclyde an assurance that guidelines will be issued, as the amendment requires,
    "as to the content of reports made pursuant to section 6A(2) above".
    The principle of the amendment is essential—that authorities, large and small, should be helped to deal with these troublesome matters as realistically, effectively and efficiently as possible.
    Mrs. Maria Fyfe: The Forth and Clyde canal is an important facility in my constituency. As the Minister knows, the millennium fund has come up with a large sum for its improvement. We want to know how far the provisions of clause 3 would relate to the canal, and whether there could ever be any difficulty in future in regard to who was funding what. If the Minister cannot answer tonight, I should be glad if he wrote to me later.
    Mr. Kynoch: An amendment along similar lines was tabled in Committee, this time by the hon. Member for

    389
    Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith). It was one of three amendments proposed by the Opposition, which sought to involve SEPA in flood prevention activities. As I explained then, the Government feel that it is best for councils to deal with the matters involved in the Bill. Councils will be able to determine, on the basis of local circumstances and priorities, what should go into reports.
    SEPA is not a flood prevention agent. Its main role is to deal with pollution matters, although it will also advise councils on flooding risk. That said, I also explained in Committee that we are interested in reviewing from time to time whether new developments are reflected in existing policies and objectives. In that connection, I said that we expected the publication soon of a European Commission proposal for a water resources framework directive. It would be premature to anticipate the content of the directive and the implications for catchment management, but we offered to reconsider how that might impact on flood prevention activities, including consultation between interested parties. However, our view is that we should do that outwith consideration of the Bill. Meanwhile, as I further explained in Committee, there is the continuing possibility of voluntary arrangements, and I remain confident that councils, along with SEPA and Scottish Natural Heritage, will approach those issues in a spirit of co-operation.
    I hope that the House will accept the assurance that I gave in Committee, that I do not oppose the principle of effective, wider communication on the subject, but in the context of the continuing discussions on this and related matters, it would be premature to act at this stage.
    The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) referred to communication from the Scottish Office. As with all new legislation affecting the powers or duties of local authorities, the Scottish Office will issue a circular as soon as possible after Royal Assent, explaining the main provisions of the Act. Obviously, that will include reports.
    Therefore, on the understanding that the Government are prepared to consider the principle of the matter in drawing up any future legislation, I ask the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) to withdraw his amendment.
    Mr. Chisholm: As the Minister pointed out, there was a similar amendment in Committee, but, first, it was not pressed to a vote and, secondly, it was not identical. That amendment, which was supported by my hon. Friends the Members for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) and for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), did indeed refer to consultation, but there was no amendment in Committee about guidelines with reference to the reports in clause 3, so amendment No. 1 builds considerably on the amendment in Committee.
    The Minister repeated his claim that SEPA has no remit in that area, but all the evidence that I gave from the Environment Act 1995 and from SEPA's submission to the Scottish Office showed that that is simply not true. SEPA has the expertise on the environment rather than councils and, in saying that, I make no criticism of councils. We welcome the Minister's undertaking that he will consider the matter in principle in future, and we welcome the new duties for councils, but there is a gaping
    390
    hole in the Bill, because there is no catchment area approach, there is no holistic approach and no account is taken of the environmental implications of flood defence works. Because the environmental principle is so important for Labour Members, we shall press the amendment to a vote.
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 174, Noes 223.

    Division No. 85]

    [6.52 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Fyfe, Mrs Maria

    Allen, Graham

    Galloway, George

    Alton, David

    George, Bruce

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Armstrong, Ms Hilary

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Graham, Thomas

    Austin-Walker, John

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Barnes, Harry

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Barron, Kevin

    Grocott, Bruce

    Battle, John

    Gunnell, John

    Bayley, Hugh

    Hain, Peter

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Harvey, Nick

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Henderson, Doug

    Bell, Stuart

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Hoey, Kate

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Berry, Roger

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

    Blunkett, David

    Hoyle, Doug

    Boateng, Paul

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Byers, Stephen

    Hutton, John

    Caborn, Richard

    Illsley, Eric

    Callaghan, Jim

    Ingram, Adam

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Jamieson, David

    Campbell-Savours, D N

    Jones, Dr Lynne

    Canavan, Dennis

    (B'ham Selly Oak)

    Chidgey, David

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Liddell, Mrs Helen

    Cohen, Harry

    Litherland, Robert

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Livingstone, Ken

    Cousins, Jim

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

    Loyden, Eddie

    Cunningham, Ms Roseanna

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    (Perth Kinross)

    Macdonald, Calum

    Dalyell, Tam

    McFall, John

    Darling, Alistair

    McGrady, Eddie

    Davidson, Ian

    McKelvey, William

    Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Dobson, Frank

    McLeish, Henry

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Maclennan, Robert

    Dowd, Jim

    McWilliam, John

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Madden, Max

    Eastham, Ken

    Maddock, Mrs Diana

    Etherington, Bill

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Fatchett, Derek

    Martlew, Eric

    Faulds, Andrew

    Meacher, Michael

    Fisher, Mark

    Michael, Alun

    Flynn, Paul

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Milburn, Alan

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Foulkes, George

    Morgan, Rhodri

    391

    Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Mudie, George

    Strang, Dr Gavin

    Mullin, Chris

    Straw, Jack

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Olner, Bill

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Pearson, Ian

    Thurnham, Peter

    Pike, Peter L

    Timms, Stephen

    Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)

    Touhig, Don

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Tyler, Paul

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Radice, Giles

    Watson, Mike

    Raynsford, Nick

    Welsh, Andrew

    Rendel, David

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Williams.Rt Hon Alan

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    (Swansea W)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Wilson, Brian

    Rowlands, Ted

    Winnick, David

    Ruddock, Ms Joan

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Sheerman, Barry

    Worthington, Tony

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Wray, Jimmy

    Simpson, Alan

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Skinner, Dennis

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Smith, Chris (Islington S)

    Soley, Clive

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Spearing, Nigel

    Mr. Thomas McAvoy and Mr. Eric Clarke.

    Spellar, John

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Conway, Derek

    Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)

    Alexander, Richard

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Amess, David

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Couchman, James

    Arbuthnot, James

    Cran, James

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Boothferry)

    Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Devlin, Tim

    Bates, Michael

    Douglas-Hamilton,

    Bellingham, Henry

    Rt Hon Lord James

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Dover, Den

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Duncan, Alan

    Booth, Hartley

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Boswell, Tim

    Dunn, Bob

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    Dykes, Hugh

    Bowden, Sir Andrew

    Elletson, Harold

    Bowis, John

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)

    Brazier, Julian

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Bright, Sir Graham

    Faber, David

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Fabricant, Michael

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Burns, Simon

    Forman, Nigel

    Burt, Alistair

    Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

    Butcher, John

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Butler, Peter

    Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Butterfill, John

    French, Douglas

    Carlisle, John (Luton N)

    Gallie, Phil

    Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Carrington, Matthew

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Cash, William

    Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Chapman, Sir Sydney

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Clappison, James

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    (Rushcliffe)

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

    Coe, Sebastian

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Colvin, Michael

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Congdon, David

    Hannam, Sir John

    392

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Pawsey, James

    Harris, David

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Haselhurst, Sir Alan

    Pickles, Eric

    Hawkins, Nick

    Porter, David

    Hawksley, Warren

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Hayes, Jerry

    Rathbone, Tim

    Heald, Oliver

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Richards, Rod

    Hendry, Charles

    Riddick, Graham

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Robathan, Andrew

    Hicks, Sir Robert

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

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

    Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (Grantham)

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Horam, John

    Rowe, Andrew

    Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Sackville, Tom

    Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildf'd)

    Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Shersby, Sir Michael

    Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)

    Sims, Sir Roger

    Jessel, Toby

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Johnson Smith,

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)

    Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Knox, Sir David

    Sproat, Iain

    Kynoch, George

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Stephen, Michael

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Stewart, Allan

    Legg, Barry

    Streeter, Gary

    Leigh, Edward

    Sweeney, Walter

    Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

    Sykes, John

    Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Lidington, David

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Thomason, Roy

    Luff, Peter

    Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)

    MacKay, Andrew

    Tracey, Richard

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Tredinnick, David

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Trotter, Neville

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Malone, Gerald

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Marlow, Tony

    Walden, George

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Waller, Gary

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Ward, John

    Merchant, Piers

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

    Watts, John

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Wells, Bowen

    Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

    Whittingdale, John

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Needham, Rt Hon Richard

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Nelson, Anthony

    Willetts, David

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Wolfson, Mark

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Wood, Timothy

    Norris, Steve

    Yeo, Tim

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Paice, James

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Patnick, Sir Irvine

    Mr. Roger Knapman and Mr. Richard Ottaway.

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Kynoch.]
    7.6 pm
    Ms Roseanna Cunningham: I agree with hon. Members who have said that there is little in the Bill to criticise. As it stands, it imposes duties to assess watercourses, publish reports and so on, and that is worth while.
    I should like to mention some studies that have been carried out in Perthshire in the past couple of years. There has been a River Tay catchment study and rural communities flood studies at Bankfoot; at Bridge of Earn; at Milnathort; at Comrie-Dalginross; at Auchterarder; at Aberfeldy; and at Birnam. There have been flood studies on the benefits and costs of flood defences at Aberfeldy and Birnam, which were separate from the two individual studies, and there was a study on the benefits and costs of flood defences at Almondbank.
    Those studies were all carried out between 1994 and 1996 and they related only to the rural part of Perthshire. The list does not include the detailed work on the Perth flood prevention scheme, about which the Minister knows a fair amount. The floods in Perth in 1993 were most spectacular in the city, but the rural areas were also flooded, and it is those areas that I should like to speak about. People live in fear of further floods. All the coverage and publicity is of the most spectacular images, and they are to be found in the built-up urban areas. However, sometimes the rural areas suffer just as much, but do not get the same coverage.
    I was in Comrie on Wednesday night, when parts of it were flooded. Roads were closed and I was wearing wellington boots as I looked at homes that had been flooded. That was a small flood and was unlikely to attract the cameras, but it was important for those who were affected. I spoke to people in Bridge of Earn on Saturday. During the week, they had anxiously watched the river rising because they had been badly flooded early in the big flood, and they were worried because it looked as if they would be flooded again, especially when they heard the news from Comrie.
    On Saturday, people in Comrie had words of praise for Perth and Kinross council's response, and they said that many changes had been made since the flood. During the week, they certainly did not have any criticism of the response to the imminent threat. However, they want more than a response—they want prevention. When rain has fallen for more than an hour, they do not want to have constantly to look out of their windows and worry whether it will be another occasion on which they are flooded. The people of Comrie were flooded very badly. I saw a home video that had been made in the previous bad flood. They have a very anxious time when rain falls heavily and the rivers rise. They worry that there will be another such flood, and they cannot understand why prevention work has not been done.
    Perth and Kinross council—in both its previous and its current incarnation—has not shirked its duty on reports. When speaking to new clause 1, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) mentioned that one or two hon. Members might like to talk about the issue of finances. I am one of those hon. Members. The council in my area has not shirked its duty on reports, even when that duty had not been imposed on it by legislation.
    Mr. Kynoch: The simple answer to the hon. Lady's question on why the measures have not started is that there are still two objections. I am very surprised that she is not
    394
    aware of that. My hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker), who is ardently in support of speedy action in such matters, is certainly well aware of the objections. This afternoon, he spoke to both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and myself on that very subject.
    Ms Cunningham: I appreciate that comments are being made. Unfortunately, however, when one speaks to constituents, they simply do not understand why the work cannot be done. The delay cannot go on indefinitely. We are not short of reports showing the work that needs to be done; we are short of the financial resources that are required to do the work.
    Mr. Bill Walker rose—
    Ms Cunningham: The Minister knows that Perth and Kinross council has been able to place the Perth flood prevention scheme under the challenge fund. The sums required for the scheme are so great that it cannot be funded by the capital allocation. As he knows, rural schemes do not come under it. In this debate, I am talking specifically about rural schemes—about such areas as Bridge of Earn, Comrie and others. About £1 million-worth of work is required. Under current legislation, it is possible to obtain grants from central Government to finance such work, and the grants would be about 50 per cent. of eligible scheme costs. However, in the years indicated, councils would be required to fund the remaining costs from the block capital allocation, which would require section 94 borrowing consent.
    One of the difficulties is that we cannot allow the Perth scheme to proceed unless the rural works are done first. If the scheme proceeds without completion of the rural works, the effect on places such as Bridge of Earn will be even worse. Will the Minister reassure the council and my constituents that borrowing consent will be forthcoming for those rural works?
    Mr. Kynoch: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way once again. Very briefly, no scheme has yet been submitted for the rural areas. Until such a scheme is submitted, my officials in the Scottish Office clearly cannot consider it. She should know that I have been full of praise for Perth and Kinross council and its predecessor, for the work that they have done so far in developing schemes. I am disappointed that she seems to take the attitude that she does towards measures that are intended to try to help both her constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside. He at least realises that such things must be done properly, and that there is no half-measure.
    7.12 pm
    Mr. Bill Walker: I shall be very brief. I should first like to thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister for meeting me earlier today. That meeting was a follow-up to others that we have had on the same matter. I should tell the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) that the Secretary of State was very sympathetic to the case that I made. I only wish that some of the councillors were not quite so keen to jump into the public debate on the matter, because I believe that the work record that we have achieved together is worth noting. I should also like to say again that all those involved have the highest respect for Harry Robertson and his team.

    395
    As the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross should have known and probably does know, the scheme for rural Perthshire is incomplete. That is what I am concerned about. The damage sustained in the upper reaches of the River Tay when it breaks its banks is horrendous. I have been discussing that aspect, the challenge fund requirements and other matters. All I can tell the hon. Lady is that, like her, I want things to happen. Unlike her, however, I think that I have been attacking the matter in a structured and organised way. I believe that the results that I have achieved in the past could well be repeated.
    7.14 pm
    Dr. Godman: I shall speak for even less time than the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker), and I shall stay away from the situation in Perthshire—that beautiful county where my wife and I have spent so many happy holidays, particularly in Kenmore, where the fishing is good. If the Bill improves matters for our constituents who suffer flooding to any extent, obviously it must be welcomed by both sides of the House.
    In response to a comment made earlier in the debate by the hon. Member for North Tayside, I should like to say that I am utterly confident that, with this legislation, Councillor Harry Mulholland, leader of Inverclyde council, his fellow councillors and officials will act expeditiously in dealing with such problems. I was pleased that the Minister, when I asked him about guidelines, promised a circular. Matters will be improved for our constituents if such advice is forthcoming to Inverclyde and other councils—heaven knows, they deserve no less. There is nothing worse than a flooded house, with treasured possessions ruined. My local council—Harry Mulholland and his team, officials and elected representatives—will be able to use the legislation to improve matters for people in the communities across Inverclyde.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    PROFESSIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO MEDICINE
    That the draft Professions Supplementary to Medicine (Arts Therapists Board) Order of Council 1997, which was laid before this House on 6th February, be approved.

    LEGAL AID AND ADVICE (SCOTLAND)
    That the draft Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 7th February, be approved.
    That the draft Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 7th February, be approved.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
    Question agreed to.

    DEREGULATION
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14A(1) (Consideration of draft deregulation orders),

    BETTING LICENSING
    That the draft Deregulation (Betting Licensing) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 27th January, be approved.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
    Question agreed to.

  Drug Abuse Resistance Education (Nottinghamshire)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
  7.17 pm
  Mr. Graham Allen: I have initiated this debate to request that the Government help to extend Nottinghamshire's highly successful DARE—drug abuse resistance education—scheme across the United Kingdom. Nottinghamshire pioneered the scheme, and it should be extended, because it has been such a success and because it is helping young people to say no to drugs.
  Any disappointment that I might have because the Government's reply will not be made by the Lord President of the Council—who is meant to co-ordinate the Government's anti-drug strategy—is more than made good by my pleasure in learning that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment will reply. She has established a reputation as a fierce advocate of anti-drugs activity. Moreover, but for her generosity and accessibility, I could not have prepared for the debate as constructively as I hope I have. I also pay tribute to her civil servants, who were extremely helpful in answering one or two of the most important questions ahead of the debate.
  The drug problem in the United Kingdom is one of the worst problems afflicting our society. It registers very high in everyone's concerns, and in all the polls. All parents care very much about the issue, and they want something to be done about it. The DARE programme provides a clear and effective way in which to tackle the problem.
  I shall not spend a lot of time on the detail of the project, but, in a nutshell, a police officer visits a school weekly for 17 weeks and talks, acts out role plays, and has fun with the nine-year-olds to educate them in the risks of drug taking, giving them the knowledge and skills to resist those who would push drugs at them. It makes the children more confident, and has a massive positive effect, which is difficult to quantify, on the rest of their education.
  Having seen the joy and enthusiasm that the scheme generates among the kids, the police, the teachers and the parents, I can honestly say—even having been in politics for some years and having perhaps grown quite cynical about many things, particularly those that we come across in this place—that I have never been more inspired by anything during my years in politics than I have by the enthusiasm and keenness of everyone from the police officers to the nine-year-olds who get so involved in the anti-drugs campaign.
  A vast team of people work to make DARE happen in Nottinghamshire: the infectiously enthusiastic Police Inspector David Scott; WPC Diane Curly and Geoff Stafford, the first of Nottinghamshire's DARE officers; the many teachers who give their time, some of whom I met recently at Brocklewood school in my constituency, where I first saw DARE in action; and the local councillors who are committed to the project—Councillor Sue Scott was the first to point out the project to me.
  The list continues, with officers from the United States who flew in to help train the first British police authority to operate a DARE project. There are seven officers from
  398
  different American forces in the United Kingdom today. Phillip Ridyard has done a great deal of voluntary fund raising and publicity work. Dozens of local businesses throughout Nottinghamshire deserve credit for their role. Colin Bailey, the chief constable of Nottinghamshire, had the courage to back his judgment and his officers in this bold initiative.
  Above all, we should remember the children, whose confidence grew before my eyes as I sat at the back of a classroom while they were going through their paces with the local bobby. DARE is an unalloyed good thing. National Government must now take another step to give it the boost it deserves and the clout it needs.
  Every nine-year-old in Nottinghamshire participates in the DARE programme. That includes 342 schools, 700 classes and 15,000 kids. The impact has been terrific. It is said that cautions to young offenders have been slashed by half in Mansfield, where the first pilot project has been running since 1993. I hope that the Minister will be able to press for more thorough research, so that we can quantify the benefits of the project.
  Everybody knows that DARE works, but it is easier for hard-pressed chief constables and head teachers to target their limited and valuable resources if they can present hard statistical evidence to their paymasters. I hope that the Minister will consider the possibility of the Department's research programme statistically underpinning the good effects of the DARE programme.
  The idea was piloted in Los Angeles in 1983, and was quickly adopted throughout the United States of America. It is now compulsory in all elementary schools. Federal funds were invested in its start-up year, and the programme was then taken up by local government, giving each scheme its own flavour. Television stations helped by showing anti-drugs cartoons, and all manner of celebrities and companies aligned themselves with it. Presidents signed up to it in the United States. I entertain hopes that perhaps princes will do so in the United Kingdom. The DARE logo is displayed on "Power Rangers" and "Baywatch" merchandise. The kids see it reflected in many of the sports, activities and entertainments that they participate in.
  Fifteen years later, DARE is still spreading in America, and has been adopted in 41 other countries. A long-term evaluation to consider its progress over 10 years was commissioned in 1986, showing a 65 per cent. reduction in drug experimentation and misuse among children who finished school and went into employment. DARE in the United Kingdom is franchised from America to the trustees, based in Nottinghamshire, and has developed practical methods to teach a generation of children how to say no to drugs.
  The programme is aimed at children between nine and 13, and is taught in the classroom by a DARE-trained police officer for one hour a week over 17 weeks. Lessons focus sharply on the development of personal skills and the strategies that young people need to resist the increasing pressures on them to experiment with drugs. There is nothing quite like seeing the local bobby, tunic off and sleeves rolled up, playing and having great fun with nine-year-olds, communicating with them and participating in the development of their awareness of the many ways of saying no to drugs, drink and cigarettes.

  399
  Seeing the programme in action is exciting, but it is not enough to see it in action just in Nottinghamshire—we need to see it in action throughout the United Kingdom. I hope that I sound relatively enthusiastic about the programme.
  The Minister would be welcome to visit Nottinghamshire and see a DARE class at first hand. I shall take the liberty of asking the chief constable to invite her. During the next two weeks would be a good time for her to go, because seven policemen from seven different United States forces are currently over here working closely with the Nottinghamshire constabulary, training police officers from West Yorkshire—which covers 61 classes and 2,000 kids—and the City of London police force, where today, I believe, the Sir John Cass school became the first DARE school in London. The next group to be trained in Nottinghamshire could include officers from the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Metropolitan police and the Merseyside police.
  DARE is part of the development of rounded human beings. It could therefore fit smoothly into the national curriculum and its programme of personal and social education, particularly as targeted on primary schools. I understand that the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority is looking at the life skills and personal development in the national curriculum and will present its report to the Secretary of State. I hope that the Minister has made or will make representations to the authority on drug awareness aspects of the programme.
  DARE gives pupils facts about the harmful effects of tobacco, alcohol and other drugs. It emphasises the benefits of a healthy life style, and teaches young people to make informed and responsible choices. They then make the decision to say no. That is far more important than any number of lectures and slide presentations, giving children the confidence, the nerve and occasionally the courage to resist when some in their peer group—their fellow pupils, for example—are making lots of different and ingenious offers to get them started on the road of smoking, drinking or drug abuse. Children carry that personal inoculation with them, as many of us did from our parents, by drawing in those values and making their own assessment. That is the best inoculation, and that is what DARE provides.
  Parents, who in many areas feel anguished and powerless about the threats that drugs pose to their children, are very involved in the programme in Nottinghamshire. They feel that it is for them, as well as for their youngsters. They are involved in the meetings with teachers and with the DARE police officers. They are involved right up to the graduation ceremony, at which children perform plays, poems and songs that they have written from their experience through the DARE programme. At the end of the 17-week process, it is not just back to school. There is a prize giving, so that children have not only a certificate, but a sense of achievement that will encourage them to respect and look after what they have achieved in those 17 weeks, which will live with them for the rest of their lives.
  The publicity that DARE has generated means that the message has reached a wider community through press coverage and the media. I pay particular tribute to Blue Peter and other television and radio programmes. DARE has been successfully piloted in Nottinghamshire for three years, with the backing of the police, local authorities, hundreds of local businesses, parents, school governors
  400
  and national companies. It is a registered charity, with nine trustees and 350 members. We all owe those trustees and members a massive "thank you" for being unpaid volunteers, creating and sustaining the initiative.
  In addition, the chief constable in Nottinghamshire has committed 24 constables and one inspector to the project full time. More than 15,000 nine-year-olds—the entire year group in Nottinghamshire—will move on to their senior schools in the summer with self-confidence, high esteem, pride, values and morality that will allow them confidently to walk away from most of the pressures—particularly the inevitable offer of drugs—that sadly are part and parcel of young people's lives today. It was never so in my school days, but it is now part and parcel of the experience of young people in schools to be offered drugs. They need the protection and the assertiveness that DARE provides to enable them to say no when faced with peer pressure.
  In order to assess the success of DARE, North Nottinghamshire Health Promotion was commissioned to evaluate the short-term effects on children of the pilot programme. Its two-year evaluation is due to be published in March, and I understand that it is most complimentary. It shows that, after children have completed the DARE lessons, they know at least one practical way of saying no to drugs, they identify cigarettes and alcohol as drugs, they know that drugs can be harmful and that drink-driving is illegal, and they understand the difference between prescribed drugs and harmful ones.
  The report also concluded that the whole-community approach had many benefits for individual organisations involved and for the children, and played a significant part in the success of the project. The report is a ringing endorsement of the DARE project.
  The effectiveness of DARE has also been noted in individual Office for Standards in Education reports that comment on the positive contribution it has made to pupils' welfare and guidance. The lessons are there to be learned. The Ofsted report on drug education in schools throughout the United Kingdom is to be published in the near future, and I very much hope that, when the Minister has had a chance to digest the report, she will drop me a line with her considered view on whether DARE can be applied nationwide. I am very grateful that the Lord President of the Council has found time to listen to the debate.
  The DARE project in Nottinghamshire has been an outstanding success by every possible measure. The Government—of whatever political complexion; this is a non-partisan debate—should consider whether the experiment can be applied further afield. The inoculation of the DARE programme works. DARE has clearly harnessed an incredible amount of energy and imagination from local communities.
  All those to whom I have spoken in the police force, the Prince's Trust, the local education authorities, the county council and local schools are united in agreeing that its benefit could be expanded nationwide. All those who have personally seen DARE in action, from the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the Home Secretary and their shadows, all commend DARE.
  There has been enough commending: let us start promoting. What can we do at national level? There are many opportunities for the Minister to enhance DARE's already high reputation. Action on even one of the seven points that I shall raise would certainly help.

  401
  First, it would be great for morale if the work in Nottinghamshire of the DARE trustees and members of the charity were recognised and commended in the House. DARE needs ministerial support, particularly from the Department for Education and Employment, to promote it within schools throughout the nation. Perhaps the Minister will consider issuing a guidance note to local authorities to help spread best practice and facilitate matters for local education authorities that want to pick up DARE.
  I was a little disappointed by the Minister's response to my parliamentary question in October, when she said:
  "No estimates of requiring the DARE programme to be implemented nationwide have been made … it is for the individual schools to decide".—[Official Report, 28 October 1996; Vol. 284, c. 35.]
  Of course it is, and there are a number of good schemes around. But surely, on such a vital issue as anti-drugs strategy, we need to make up our minds which programme is the most effective and works best. We should make it clear as part of the national curriculum. We should be prescriptive, as every day we linger, hundreds of youngsters go astray. Knowing the Minister's deep commitment to the issue, I hope that she will use her influence and weight to press for nothing less.
  Secondly, Ministers could seize the political lead and co-ordinate involvement of the Education and Employment Department, the Health Department, the Home Office and the Lord President's Office to extend DARE's success nationwide. As the Lord President is in his place, let me take the opportunity to ask the Minister to table DARE in Nottinghamshire and its success at the Cabinet Sub-Committee on drug misuse which is chaired by the right hon. Gentleman.
  "Tackling Drugs Together" should be a strategy for prevention as well as the title of a document. While a "drugs Tsar" may not be necessary, a political figurehead and a champion for DARE at ministerial level certainly is.
  Thirdly, as teacher and police time is allocated from existing budgets, and course materials are paid for by local sponsors, costs are very low. However, the Department could promote business involvement in a more systematic way. In Nottinghamshire, local and national businesses provide a DARE pencil, a DARE ruler and a DARE course book. I do not know whether I am allowed to use props, but course books like this one are provided and sponsored by businesses at no cost whatsoever to the council tax payer or to the taxpayer. Every child who graduates from the programme is given a party courtesy of McDonald's, the local bus companies in Nottinghamshire contribute to the transport costs, and the local press have printed a centre spread roll of honour for every graduation. Much more will be necessary if DARE is to go nationwide.
  If the scheme goes nationwide, I hope that the Ministers present today will be prepared to take the lead in co-ordinating private sector involvement. For example, perhaps the Minister or her officials could meet the sports shoe company, Converse, and the Prince's Trust, both of which have expressed an interest in supporting the scheme on a wider basis.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I intervene
  402
  not to pre-empt my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary's speech, but simply to express my appreciation of the way in which the hon. Gentleman is addressing the House on a subject that is important to hon. Members of all parties; and to underline the fact that I very much share his emphasis on improving the effort in schools. I shall carefully examine everything that he has said. I have been putting a considerable effort into encouraging private sector involvement throughout the country in various ways, including the drugs challenge fund, which has proved very successful.
  My intervention provides me with an opportunity both to give the hon. Gentleman a pointer and to express my thanks in another direction. One of Nottingham's major economic features is Boots the Chemist. The company has done a great deal, including running its own anti-drugs information weeks in its stores throughout the country. It is a good example of what the hon. Gentleman and I wish to encourage.
  Mr. Allen: I am very grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's intervention. I am also pleased to see the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), in his place.
  Tremendous linkage with local business in Nottinghamshire has been one of the features underpinning the project's success. Opportunities are available to cast the net more widely, to make good the very small amount of income necessary to produce the basic materials, such as T-shirts and badges which, through celebrity endorsement, make DARE recognisable to a child, not merely in the classroom but on Saturday morning television when their favourite pop star wears a DARE logo, as has happened in the United States, where, for example, famous basketball players endorse the DARE campaign.
  Fourthly, for DARE to spread, we need a core group of DARE-trained police officers seconded either to the Home Office or, if the Home Office cannot or is unwilling to handle it, the Department for Education and Employment, to form a national unit for DARE training and a central resource for best practice in all DARE work. That requires a tiny reallocation of the central budget, but would give the most tremendous signal to chief constables, who would be far more willing to use resources to staff the scheme with local police officers as a result. After all, the commitment by the chief constable of Nottinghamshire, for example, of £650,000 a year for the 24 officers involved in DARE is sizeable.
  Another appealing thing about DARE in these stringent financial times is that it does not drain public resources. Apart from the fact that it saves taxpayers millions of pounds in the long run, DARE uses existing resources allied to private sector funding. Having said that, I pay tribute to the £6 million per annum committed by the Minister and her Department to the grants for education support and training scheme and other anti-drug funding, which is very welcome.
  Fifthly, an area that falls very clearly within the Department's remit is the need to conduct proper long-term research along the lines of the 10-year evaluation in the United States to assess and continue to improve the effectiveness of DARE. I wrote to Lord Henley about that on 25 June 1996, and he promised an evaluation of one of the anti-drug programmes by the end

  403
  of the year. Perhaps the Minister could write to me about the outcome of that evaluation, and comment in broader terms about the Department's research into the effects of DARE.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Cheryl Gillan): The hon. Gentleman might like to know that we will be publishing an evaluation document covering all the GEST projects, including the DARE programme carried out by Kirklees local education authority, which I believe is the one he is discussing. It is not available as I speak but will be shortly, and I shall be very happy to send it to him.
  Mr. Allen: I thank the Minister for that very helpful reply. The £65,000 spent on that survey is an incredibly small investment, but will have a tremendous multiplying effect if we can learn the lessons of the Kirklees project and the Nottinghamshire example.
  Mrs. Gillan: The figure is £80,000.
  Mr. Allen: I stand corrected—£80,000. It is going up as we speak.
  Sixthly, how can we take the tremendous work done for nine-year-olds—let us imagine that we can do it nationwide—into secondary schools? People need a refresher. I understand that the key age for a booster to young people's resistance to drug offers would be 15 years old. In Nottinghamshire, the county council is working with the police and health promotion officers to develop such a follow-up. The Department may want to call for papers on that and request that officials discuss how it is going.
  Seventhly, I wonder whether the Minister and the Leader of the House—I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman is present—feel that we should knock some heads together on the budget process that police forces have to go through, which is a serious problem for chief constables. I know that the process is part of the Home Office's empire, but I should like to explain why it has appalling consequences for young people's education and health.
  Putting bobbies into the classroom through a DARE project prevents thousands of crimes and saves billions of pounds-worth of drug-related crime. Such prevention means that we do not have to chase the drug abusers, lock them up, put them through the courts, build prisons or pick up the human pieces consequent to drug-related crime. Yet the statistics upon which chief constables' budgets are based and allocated give greater weight to one burglar being caught than all the drug-related crime being prevented, making it more and more difficult for chief constables to allocate resources to drug programmes. That is complete stupidity, and must end.
  Many chief constables are eager to experiment with a DARE project but are not able to show on the bottom line that it prevents crime. By definition, since the crime has not occurred, it cannot be quantified. Nottinghamshire's 24 DARE officers would doubtless enable chief constables to say that they had caught X burglars. Such budgeting is therefore counter-productive. I do not want to destroy the way in which the police account for their activities, but I hope that the Minister will be able to take that point away and discuss it with her colleagues and the chief constables, so that we can arrive at a prevention strategy.
  404
  Eighthly, I would like the Minister to use her muscle and authority to end the nonsense of the misuse of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994. I shall explain how. The drug confiscation fund, with which I know the Leader of the House is very familiar, is made up of the proceeds of drug crime, which is a good idea. That fund can be used for drug-related policing—so far, so good—but I understand that the Home Office's interpretation of such policing relates only to enforcement not prevention. I understand that that is an interpretation of the statute, not a requirement of it.
  I therefore very much hope that, if the Home Office cannot see that money spent on prevention yields many more times its value than chasing the symptoms, the fund will be made available to other Departments—perhaps the DFEE—or some other distribution body.
  It is perfectly sane, indeed quite ironic, to take money from the drug barons—their ill-gotten gains that they have squeezed out of our young people—and turn it against them by educating young people, so that the drug barons' market is not provided in future. I hope that that very nice irony appeals to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  It is not acceptable for Members of Parliament, Ministers and shadow Ministers to wring their hands and whinge about how difficult and intractable the problems are; that is not an acceptable posture for anybody in Parliament or the Executive.
  DARE proves that the problem is tractable if we have the political will to tackle it. The evil of drug abuse must be tackled seriously. Removing its market—uneducated young people—is the biggest contribution we can make. If we merely pursued the consequences, it would be nothing short of a dereliction of duty, as we have it in our power easily and cheaply to inoculate our youngsters against this evil infection.
  DARE in Nottinghamshire shows the way, and the effort must go nationwide. I know that the Minister, along with the Lord President, can give real leadership to DARE. If she does so, she will inspire even more teachers, police officers, parents and children in their fight against drugs. I wish her well in that.
  7.49 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Cheryl Gillan): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on his success in the ballot. I am pleased that he has chosen to raise an issue of such importance to the Government and to the country.
  I was delighted that my right hon. Friend the Lord President could be present for most of the debate, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), who, as Nottingham's sponsor Minister, has taken a close interest in the drugs prevention programme in Nottingham; I believe that the DARE—drug abuse resistance education—project visited by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was in his constituency.
  I also thank the hon. Member for Nottingham, North for his kind remarks, and especially for his invitation to visit the DARE project in Nottinghamshire. Sadly, he will know that I cannot give a commitment, but I shall look as sympathetically as possible at any invitation that may arrive on my desk, and, if at all possible, take it up. He will understand that that will probably be impossible in the coming two weeks.

  405
  We all know, from the familiar names of individual tragedies, that preventing drug misuse and protecting our young people from drugs cannot be anything but a national priority. As the hon. Gentleman has so recently become a father—he and both mother and child have my very good wishes and congratulations—he is doubtless more aware of the problem than most.
  Before I deal with the Nottingham DARE project and the hon. Gentleman's comments, I want to offer a little background on the Government's overall approach to drug prevention. I hope that that will cast some light on some of his specific points and demonstrate that much action is already in hand.
  "Tackling Drugs Together", the Government's three-year strategy for combating drug misuse, puts new emphasis on preventing young people from taking drugs. On the prevention front, it brings together the resources of the Home Office, the Department of Health and my Department in a concerted effort to prevent young people from being drawn into the world of drugs. Therefore, the whole ethos of the White Paper is to put a new emphasis on education and prevention, to reduce both the availability and acceptability of drugs to young people.
  The great value of the strategy is that it has set up a mechanism to ensure that the title of the White Paper, "Tackling Drugs Together", is followed through in practice. We lay great stress on the value of co-ordinated action under the leadership of the Lord President and his Cabinet Sub-Committee on drugs, as well as the officials in his central drugs co-ordination unit.
  Colleagues in the Department of Health oversee a £5 million-a-year campaign to alert young people to the risks of taking drugs and to inform parents about the effects and dangers. The campaign has recently targeted Ecstasy, LSD and speed in radio and magazine advertisements. It has also produced a booklet, "A Parent's Guide to Drugs and Solvents", which was launched by the Prime Minister last May. In less than a year, 1.7 million copies of the booklet have been distributed, equipping millions of parents with the facts. The Department of Health also supports the national drugs helpline; in the two years since it has been operating, it has answered more than 500,000 calls.
  The Home Office central drugs prevention unit supervises the operation of a series of local and regional projects through its 12 drug prevention initiative teams, which show what effective drug prevention action local people can take in partnership with others in the community. All DPI projects are fully evaluated and the resulting good practice is made available nationally. That research will help to inform future programmes of drug prevention work in line with the hon. Gentleman's expectations. The east midlands team, which includes Nottingham, works closely with local agencies to develop those aims, including a project to devise culturally appropriate drug prevention materials within schools; I consider that particularly important.
  My Department has made available £6 million in each year of the strategy to enable local education authorities to train teachers and to develop innovative approaches to drugs education. Those projects have been evaluated and we shall publish a document summarising the findings of the reports.
  406
  We shall also have the reports from the Office for Standards in Education on drug education in schools and on the contribution of the youth service. Ofsted has found that, in response to guidance issued by the Department to schools in May 1995, around a third of primary schools and three quarters of secondary schools have introduced policies for drugs education and for dealing with drug-related incidents.
  All those documents, I am pleased to say, will be published on Monday. They will be distributed widely to professionals and made available free of charge to schools. I hope that the booklet will provide a useful pointer to those seeking to develop drugs education programmes as to the range of options that exist. We shall also look terribly carefully at the conclusions of the Ofsted report to see how we might build on our existing work programme in the coming 12 months of the "Tackling Drugs Together" strategy and beyond.
  That clearly demonstrates that schools share our concern to ensure that the issue of drugs is not ignored. They have not shirked their responsibility to address what is a sensitive educational issue. Schools have a clear role to play and the evidence shows that they are playing it with increasing conviction.
  One way in which schools often choose to tackle the issue is through the involvement of outside professionals in the classroom. When conducted in a reasonable way, complementing existing provision, such partnerships epitomise the spirit of the White Paper, which places great stress on the need for close co-operation.
  The DARE scheme in Nottinghamshire is a worthy example of such partnership. Bringing together all elements of the community, and especially schools and the police, its benefits can go much wider than the vital focus of drug prevention. I have been impressed by all that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North has had to say in praising the scheme in Nottinghamshire and I shall take careful note of his words. The scheme promises better relationships with the police, improved self-esteem and healthier decisions by our young people. Above all, it promises to make a significant impact on drug misuse in the east midlands.
  I know that the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary were suitably impressed on their visits to the scheme. I am pleased to be able to take this opportunity to applaud the valuable work of the DARE trustees in Nottinghamshire. Other police forces and local education authorities will no doubt want to look closely at the emerging results of the Nottinghamshire programme as they consider whether DARE has a contribution to make in their work.
  Local needs and circumstances will always, quite rightly, determine the best course in any particular area, but I am pleased that the agencies in Nottinghamshire have been able to agree a way forward that they consider meets the needs of Nottinghamshire and its pupils.
  I am especially pleased to note the widespread involvement in DARE of private business. I was grateful to my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council for his intervention on that point. That involvement demonstrates that the problems associated with drugs affect all of society. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North was quite right to pay tribute to the role of the private sector. My Department fosters private sector input in a number of drug education programmes. McDonald's

  407
  is one such firm, and it complements its contribution to DARE by funding a drugs training programme for governors jointly with the Department for Education and Employment. I have myself been closely involved in a current drug prevention initiative sponsored by Iceland Foods.
  My right hon. Friend the Lord President has confirmed his interest in attracting private sector support. His drugs challenge fund, which matches Government funding to private sector finance raised by local drug action teams, is a prime example of the efforts we are making.
  Mr. Allen: The private sector has done tremendous work raising money to assist the development of the materials necessary to spread the word. However, I am sure that the Minister is aware that we would enter a quantitatively different ball game if we were to extend DARE to 42 counties and many more police forces. The effort of co-ordination needed compared to the current level would be like comparing collecting money with a tin can to a highly organised, systematic fund-raising strategy. I hope that the Minister will take away from the debate tonight the need for some real muscle to be put behind fund raising by the private sector by the Government nationally.
  Mrs. Gillan: I shall take away a lot from the debate. I have been very pleased by the success of the drugs challenge fund. In the first year, it successfully raised more than £1 million from the private sector for local drug prevention initiatives. I note the hon. Gentleman's point and I shall draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Lord President.
  This evening, we have talked a lot about the DARE approach, but there is no one simple or magical answer to drug prevention. There are other approaches. Other professionals will have a contribution to make in the delivery of drug education. Schools can choose from a range of materials. While I know that guidance from my Department, not least on ensuring the helpful contribution of outside agencies and on selecting materials, has assisted schools in those choices, it is quite right that schools must have those choices. Beyond the requirements of the national curriculum, which lays down what must be taught about drugs at each key stage, schools must look at their own needs and circumstances to determine what will be best for them. I noted the hon. Gentleman's comments about potential changes to the national curriculum, but he will be aware that there is a moratorium on altering it until 2000.
  The Government have provided leadership. They are taking a responsible approach to ensuring that the needs of all our pupils are appropriately addressed. That applies equally to the police and, quite rightly, it is for chief officers to determine the approach of their forces in light of local needs and priorities.
  Drug education is an area where schools may, initially, feel a little lost. Teachers may not feel confident in dealing with a subject about which they know very little, and whose jargon and subject matter can change rapidly. It is all too tempting for schools to learn to rely on other agencies to deliver their drug education for them. As I have said, schools have, generally, grasped the nettle of drug education and been prepared to overcome their fears and sensitivities to give it the attention it deserves, but
  408
  leaning too heavily on others will not help our young people. Even in schools enjoying the support of programmes such as DARE, drug education must have a place in the curriculum before officers visit, and again after the programme is completed.
  Mr. Allen indicated assent.
  Mrs. Gillan: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees. So long as that message is recognised, and outside involvement is acknowledged to be a strong sharing of responsibility and not an abdication of responsibility, such partnerships can be a powerful force for good. I am full of praise for the contribution that the police forces in England are making to education in their areas. Alongside the pioneering Nottinghamshire force and its use of the DARE approach, police forces in Derbyshire, Hampshire and Staffordshire, among others, are working with schools on other comprehensive drug education schemes, such as "Getting It Right".
  Elsewhere, police forces have produced policy documents and materials for use in schools. There is much evidence of the commitment that the police show to effective drug prevention work in our schools. It is a partnership that, at every level, can have only positive benefits. As the recent inspection of force drug strategies by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary noted:
  "Police forces have responded with commitment and enthusiasm to drug prevention and education in schools, in consultation with local education authorities."
  Mr. Allen: Although the word drug appears in the title of DARE, the programme is not only, or even mainly, about drugs. It is about giving young people the ability, as well-rounded and educated young people, to make decisions and choices, instead of having those decisions and choices forced on them. That is what DARE brings to the equation and its approach is applicable to drugs, drink and cigarette smoking. It is also applicable to many other areas, and it is an important part of the social education of young people. It is worth repeating that DARE' s impact goes well beyond its effect on the drug culture. It helps to develop human beings who are capable of interacting with other people rationally and productively.
  The head teacher of my local school has told me about young people in the class that was taken by the local bobby. Before, their ability to communicate, even with children in their class, had atrophied. They were not stimulated at home, but they were stimulated by the police officer so that they started to interact with others in their class and to develop a wider range of social skills. That is a wonderful example of the work of DARE.
  Mrs. Gillan: I am prepared to let an intervention continue for a long time when it is so agreeable. The hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm is a joy to see, and I share it.
  The inspectorate of constabulary continued:
  "Many varied approaches have been adopted, reflecting the needs of differing communities and environments".
  It was noticed how well police forces had responded.
  The hon. Gentleman made several points about police budgets and the distribution of resources confiscated from drug traffickers. The Home Secretary has provided an extra £20 million in 1996–97 for 1,000 more police

  409
  officers and a further £40 million in the coming financial year for 2,000 more officers, but it rightly remains for chief officers to decide how to allocate their resources. I make no apology for the fact that strong enforcement measures remain a key element of our strategy. Nevertheless, I was interested in the hon. Gentleman's comments and I am prepared to pass them on to Home Office Ministers. My right hon. Friend the Lord President listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman had to say. We are, after all, pursuing the same ultimate goal.
  DARE, in common with other approaches to drug education, aims to equip our young people with the skills to make informed, healthy choices. Ultimately, all the efforts expended on drug prevention and education depend on individuals and the choices that each of us makes. It goes further than health education; it centres around young people's personal and social development. We shall consider carefully all those matters when the School Curriculum Assessment Authority presents its replies to the Secretary of State shortly.
  Mr. Allen: The Minister has been very positive in replying to the debate. Governments do what they can, regardless of party, but the ball is in the court of those outside this place who read the debate and who care about tackling drugs. Be they chief constables, parents, teachers or even children, if they happen to read the debate in Hansard, I hope that they seize the opportunities offered by the Minister to move forward on the DARE agenda. I am grateful for your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker and that of the Minister. The debate must not end here. The people who care about the initiative must help the
  410
  Minister and the Lord President of the Council to ensure that we join together, regardless of party, to attack the evil of drugs.
  Mrs. Gillan: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is not simply about personally rejecting drugs but about not turning a blind eye, not casually accepting drugs as someone else's problem or some other family's tragedy. It is about making it plain, whatever the short-term high and whatever the style gurus say, that drugs are damaging to the individual, the family, the community and the country. It is about confronting drug misuse and making it clear that it is not tolerable and not worth it. It is about explaining rationally not only the risks that the individual misuser is toying with, but their wider social impact. They feed local crime and provide a market for greedy opportunists.
  Ecstasy misusers may regard their drug taking as a bit of harmless fun, but their decision to take the drug not only places their health at risk but places them at the end of a chain of supply that is inevitably involved in criminality. It is the sum of those individual decisions that nurtures the greed and feeds the misery that drugs bring with them. All the Government's efforts on drugs are focused on defeating that greed. Any other approach is simply the efficient management of moral decline—an approach that the Government will never countenance.
  I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this important subject. I hope that I have replied to him fully. I am comforted that we are in full agreement about the way in which to go about tackling drugs together.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Eight o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisoners (Rehabilitation)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how much time per month since January 1992 was spent by prisoners undergoing rehabilitation aimed at addressing their offending in(a) each prison, (b) each prison type and (c) the whole prison estate; [15988]

  (2) how many rehabilitation courses aimed at addressing the causes of prisoners' offending were available in each month since January 1992 in (a) each prison, (b) each prison type and (c) the whole prison estate. [15969]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. George Howarth, dated 26 February 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the availability of offending behaviour courses in prisons.
  The information you requested on offending behaviour programmes by month and prison is not available. The Service provides core offending behaviour programmes which are designed centrally and delivered across the estate. The national totals of these programmes delivered each year are recorded centrally. The available figures are listed in the attached tables.
  As well as the core programmes there are other offending behaviour programmes run in prisons according to need and resources. Records of these are not kept centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.
  The Prison Service has a key performance indicator for the number of prisoners completing offending behaviour programmes which have been accredited as being effective in reducing offending behaviour. The sex offender treatment programme and the cognitive behaviour programmes have been accredited and the numbers of prisoners completing these programmes are being recorded for counting towards the key performance indicator. There is a continuing process of accreditation of offending behaviour programmes and as new programmes achieve accreditation records will become available of the details of these courses and the numbers of prisoners completing them.
  Additionally, a wide range of educational and vocational courses are run which are designed to increase the skills and job prospects of offenders, thus assisting with their rehabilitation.
  212

  Prison service core offending behaviour programmes—completions since 1992–93

  Year

  Number completed

  Hours per programme

  Total hours

  Sex offender treatment (SOTP) core programme—programme revised and extended with effect from April 1995

  1992–93

  284

  80

  22,720

  1993–94

  439

  80

  35,120

  1994–95

  554

  80

  44,320

  1995–96

  406

  180

  73,080

  SOTP relapse prevention/booster programme—piloted in 1995–96

  1995–96

  33

  56

  1,848

  Enhanced thinking skills—piloted in 1993–94—revised in April 1996 to 40 hours

  1993–94

  46

  28

  1,288

  1994–95

  241

  28

  6,748

  1995–96

  631

  28

  17,668

  Reasoning and rehabilitation—piloted in 1993–94

  1993–94

  63

  70

  4,410

  1994–95

  44

  70

  3,080

  1995–96

  115

  70

  8,050

  Prison Ship
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the decision was made to purchase a prison ship; what account was taken of experience in using ships for detaining asylum seekers; when Parliament was notified of the decision to purchase; what are(a) the total purchase costs and (b) the estimated running costs; and if he will make a statement. [15782]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 26 February 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking when the decision was made to purchase a prison ship; what account was taken of past experience in using ships for detaining asylum seekers; when Parliament was notified of the decision to purchase; what are the total purchase costs and the estimated running costs.
  In order to respond to the rapid rise in the prisoner population several options were considered including the purchase or charter of a prison ship. The decision to purchase the prison vessel "Resolution" (to be renamed the "Weare") was made on 15 January.
  We are aware of the difficulties experienced in using the "Earl William" for immigration detainees at Harwich in 1987. However, the "Earl William" was a converted ferry: the "Resolution"/"Weare" is a purpose-built vessel. It has been decided not to use the "Weare" to hold immigration detainees.
  Parliament has not been formally notified of the decision to purchase the prison vessel, however Ministers have been kept fully informed. The cost of purchasing the floating prison is about £3.7 million and the cost of transporting it to the UK is about £800,000. It will provide a total of 400 places. We expect the cost per prisoner place to be approximately £16,200 which compares with an average figure for the category C estate of £16,500 (for the period April—September 1996).
  213

  Leyhill Prison (Escape)
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will order an immediate inquiry, reporting in public, into the escape of James Mynott from Leyhill prison. [16740]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Michael Stern, dated 26 February 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the abscond of James Mynott from Leyhill prison.
  In accordance with our normal practice the governor of Leyhill prison has been instructed to conduct an inquiry into the abscond of James Mynott on 14 February 1997. The reports of such inquiries are not normally made public.

  Military Corrective Training Centre
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Health and Safety regulations will still apply to the military corrective training centre after its partial conversion to a high-intensity regime. [16868]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Crown's responsibilities under health and safety law are unaffected by the establishment of Colchester young offender institution at the military corrective training centre. Those responsibilities are the same in both the military and Prison Service parts of the site.

  Prisoners (Ethnic Background)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current prison population by ethnic background for remand and convicted prisoners. [16870]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. George Howarth, dated 26 February 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking what is the current prison population by ethnic background for remand and convicted prisoners.
  The information requested is contained in the attached table.

  Population of Prison Service Establishment by Ethnic Origin, 31 January 19971

  Ethnic origin

  Remand

  2Sentenced

  Total

  All ethnic groups

  11,500

  46,100

  57,600

  White

  9,310

  38,030

  47,340

  Black

  1,530

  5,540

  7,070

  South Asian

  330

  1,310

  1,640

  Chinese and other

  330

  1,220

  1,550

  1 All figures are provisional.

  2 Figures include those committed in default of payment of a fine.

  Prisons (Drugs Testing)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 214
  29 January, Official Report, columns 211£12, when he intends to write to the hon. Member in respect of mandatory drug testing; and if he will make a statement. [16983]

  Miss Widdecombe
  I hope to write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Roisin McAliskey
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if Ms R. McAliskey will be able to have her child with her in HM prison, Holloway should it be born while she is still remanded in custody in the United Kingdom. [17410]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The matter is being carefully considered.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the recent report by Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary on No. 5 area (south-west) of the Metropolitan police. [17971]

  Mr. Maclean
  Yes. I have today placed in the Library a note of the recommendations from the report, together with the responses of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and the police authority responses, which take into account the advice my right hon. and learned Friend and I have received from the Metropolitan police committee.

  Special Secure Units
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints have been made in each month since September 1994 by prisoners within special secure units concerning(a) alleged ill-treatment and (b) sleep deprivation. [16354]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 20 February 1997]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Kevin McNamara, dated 26 February 1997:
  The Home. Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about complaints by prisoners in special secure units.
  Prisoners may make complaints through a variety of channels. The detailed information required to answer your question could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Strip Searches
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, (1) further to his answer of 23 January,Official Report, column 736, at what level of the Prison Service the decision was made to introduce a closed-loop video system for use in the prisoners' strip search room at Long Lartin prison; what external legal advice was sought prior to its introduction; and at what date Ministers were informed; [16629]

  (2) who carried out the evaluation of the closed-loop video system for use in the prisoners' strip search room at Long Lartin prison; and if he will list the principal conclusions of that evaluation; [16630]
  215
  (3) pursuant to his answer of 23 January, Official Report, column 736, when prisoners who had their earnings stopped or deducted on adjudication for refusing to undergo video-recorded strip searches received (a) an explanation and (b) an apology following the quashing of the adjudication; [16631]

  (4) when prisoners at HM prison, Long Lartin were informed of the discontinuation of the closed-loop video system introduced for use in the prisoners' strip search room; when the cameras were removed; and how many prisoners were subject to disciplinary measures for refusing to be strip searched on the grounds that the search would be video-recorded; [16632]

  (5)on what precise date video tapes recording random strip searches of prisoners at HM prison, Long Lartin in 1996 were destroyed; on what dates their destruction was ordered; and what grade of officer was instructed to supervise this process; [16633]

  (6) if he will conduct an inquiry to establish whether unauthorised copies of the video recording of intimate body searches at Long Lartin were made. [16659]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answers 20 February 1997]: Responsibility for these matters has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Kevin McNamara, dated 26 February 1997.
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the use of video recording during the strip searching of prisoners at Long Lartin prison, its withdrawal from use and disciplinary measures taken against prisoners who refused to under video-recorded strip searches.
  The Woodcock and Learmont reports indicated that much greater use should be made of CCTV and video in prisons as aids to security and safety, including during searching procedures.
  The use of video during the strip searching of prisoners at Long Lartin was one of a number of new uses of video and/or CCTV introduced as part of the upgrading of dispersal prisons recommended by Sir John Woodcock. The overall upgrading programme was approved by me. Legal advice was not sought before the introduction of any new uses of video or CCTV. Ministers were kept informed in general terms of progress on the implementation of the Woodcock recommendations. They were not advised on the detailed operational aspects of implementation including the specific uses of video and CCTV.
  The use of video during the strip searching of prisoners at Long Lartin was evaluated after four months of operation. The evaluation, carried out by the Directorate of Dispersals and Security Group at Prison Service Headquarters, concluded that the use of video recording did not provide sufficient improvement in the degree of protection to prisoners or staff to justify its continuance at Long Lartin or its introduction elsewhere.
  The first prisoner to challenge his adjudication and have the result quashed was given an explanation on his complaint and request form in October 1996. The procedure for informing prisoners was then reviewed and each subsequent prisoner received a letter during December 1996 explaining that the Director of Dispersals had reviewed their case and since the study was a pilot the disciplinary awards had been quashed.
  Each prisoner was also contacted to inform them what this would mean in their individual case.
  A general notice to prisoners concerning the discontinuation of video recording during strip searches was not published. Prisoners were informed of the discontinuation on an individual basis. The cameras have not yet been physically removed, they have been disconnected and the recording facility has been removed. The system is therefore inoperative.
  216
  Ten prisoners were subject to disciplinary measures for refusing to be strip searched on the grounds that the search would be video recorded.
  The video tapes which recorded the strip searches have not been destroyed. The tapes have been properly stored in a sealed bag and placed in a safe. The tapes will be incinerated in due course under properly supervised conditions.
  No unauthorised copies of video recordings were made at Long Lartin prison. The authorised video recordings which took place were of strip searches not of intimate body searches.

  Immigration Detainees
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many immigration detainees have been transferred from HM prison Haslar to HM prison Rochester in each of the last three months; and if he will make a statement on the factors underlying the transfers. [17401]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 24 February 1997]: During the period 1 November to 31 January, a total of 10 immigration detainees were transferred from Haslar to Rochester. There were two such transfers in November 1996, three in December 1996 and five in January 1997.

  Detainees may be transferred for a variety of reasons, but a number of transfers in early February resulted from planned refurbishment work at Haslar, which has now been postponed.

  Magistrates Courts (Psychiatric Reports)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases heard in magistrates courts in England and Wales during 1995 and 1996 were adjourned for psychiatric reports; and in how many instances applications for adjournments were turned down. [16871]

  Mr. Streeter
  I have been asked to reply.

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

ENVIRONMENT

  Hazardous Materials (Departmental Buildings)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment his Department has made of the presence of(a) hazardous materials and (b) ozone-depleting substances within those buildings his Department occupies; and if he will make a statement. [16309]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Registers recording the presence and treatment of asbestos, and any other hazardous materials, are maintained in the Department of the Environment's buildings. Assessments are carried out in accordance with current regulations.

  Our procurement policy requires that no products containing ozone-depleting substances are purchased, and this was one of the aims of the contracts let in relation to the Department's two new headquarters buildings. Both buildings have been designed to achieve the highest standards in environmental performance; Eland house was recently awarded a very good BREEAM—Building

  217
  Research Establishment environmental assessment method—rating, and Ashdown house is also expected to achieve a similar rating in due course.

  British Agrochemicals Association Ltd.
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what meetings he has had with British Agrochemicals Association Ltd. in the past 12 months; what was the subject of the meetings; and if he will make a statement; [16290]

  (2) what representations he has received from British Agrochemicals Association Ltd. in the past 12 months; what was the subject of those representations; and if he will make a statement. [16285]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has not met nor received representations from the British Agrochemicals Association in the last 12 months.

  At the initiative of the BAA, officials in my Department and the Health and Safety Executive have met and corresponded with the BAA on a number of occasions in the last 12 months. Topics covered include organophosphate insecticides, the annual pesticide incidents report and the review of the European Community fifth environmental action programme. HSE officials also meet representatives of BAA at regular tripartite meetings under the aegis of the Health and Safety Commission and at other meetings on the operation and funding of the pesticide approval arrangements.

  Energy-Efficient Housing
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what action he proposes in respect of dwellings identified by the English house condition survey as not physically capable of being made energy efficient at reasonable cost; and if he will make a statement; [16580]

  (2) what steps he is taking to ensure the replacement of the least energy-efficient housing stock; and if he will make a statement. [16613]

  Mr. Clappison
  It is the responsibility of housing authorities and other owners to determine whether replacement is the best course of action for the least energy-efficient housing stock, having regard to its efficiency and other physical and social factors. However, the survey indicates that for most dwellings, including many of those not capable of being brought up to current building regulation standards, improvement to a more moderate level of energy efficiency is likely to be the most cost-effective course.

  Environmental Protection and Water
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what factors underlie the increased provision for environmental protection and water in the spring supplementary estimates; and if he will make a statement. [16881]
  218
  Mr. Clappison
  A spring supplementary estimate has been proposed to take provision of £500,000 to cover pressure on rural water and sewerage grants, £76,000, and assisted areas sewerage grants £424,000, which are demand led. In addition, it is proposed to vire £578,000 from environmental publicity and the small company environmental and energy management assistance scheme into rural water and sewerage grants.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much his Department estimates it cost to establish each executive agency set up by his Department since the start of April 1992. [16967]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The only executive agency for which the Department of the Environment is responsible which has been set up since the start of April 1992 is the Planning Inspectorate executive agency. It was set up on 1 April 1992 to continue the duties already being carried out by the Planing Inspectorate. The only costs involved were administrative costs. These would have been minimal; no figures are available.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each financial year from 1994–95 to 1997–98 the change in the level of grants paid to Wolverhampton metropolitan borough council by the Government due to changes in the formulae used for standard spending assessments since the 1993–94 distribution(a) expressed in pounds, (b) divided by the band D tax base for council tax setting and (c) as a proportion of that tax base and scaled by ratio of each tax band to band D. [17212]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The effect of changes of methodology in the formulae for the revenue support grant is approximated by the effect of such changes on the standard spending assessment. The SSAs are adjusted to be comparable with the SSA of the subsequent year. Changes in methodology also give rise to SSA reduction grant which reduces the effect of changes on council tax payers. The amounts for Wolverhampton are given.

  Effect on SSA

  SSA reduction grant

  £ million (a)

  £/Band D property (b)

  £ million (c)

  £/Band D property (d)

  1994–95

  -14.5

  -219

  10.6

  160

  1995–96

  -1.0

  -15

  6.4

  96

  1996–97

  -0.8

  -12

  3.0

  44

  1997–98

  -0.2

  -2

  0

  0

  The figures in columns (b) and (d) are then multiplied by the standard ratios 6/9:7/9:8/9:11/9:13/9:15/9:18/9 to derive equivalent figures for property bands A:B:C:E:F:G:H respectively.

  219

  Effect on SSA

  Year

  Band A

  Band B

  Band C

  Band E

  Band F

  Band G

  Band H

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  1994–95

  -146

  -170

  -195

  -219

  -317

  -365

  -438

  1995–96

  -10

  -12

  -13

  -15

  -21

  -25

  -30

  1996–97

  -8

  -9

  -11

  -12

  -17

  -20

  -24

  1997–98

  -2

  -2

  -2

  -2

  -4

  -4

  -5

  SSA reduction grant

  Year

  Band A

  Band B

  Band C

  Band E

  Band F

  Band G

  Band H

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  1994–95

  107

  124

  142

  160

  231

  267

  320

  1995–96

  64

  74

  85

  96

  138

  159

  191

  1996–97

  30

  35

  39

  44

  64

  74

  89

  1997–98

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Fire Safety
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects a suitable large-scale fire test for large insulated sandwich panels to be developed. [17281]

  Mr. Clappison
  I expect such a test, providing a harmonised European method, to be available in about two years. The International Standards Organisation is developing a still larger scale test, but I understand this may take three to five years to perfect.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to approve the removal of any fire safety legislation currently within local Acts of Parliament only where he is satisfied that there is equivalent national legislation affording the public the same degree of protection from fire. [17282]

  Mr. Clappison
  Fire safety provision in local Acts will be repealed where these overlap or conflict with the provision of the building regulations.

  Local Authorities (Legal Costs)
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance he has issued to local authorities on the use of their funds for the legal costs of councillors or officers criticised by the district auditor; and if he will make a statement. [17637]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  None. The use of funds to meet such costs is a matter for individual authorities.

  Abondoned Mines (Water Pollution)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to consult on the contents of pre-abandonment notices which mine operators will be required to prepare when section 58 of the Environment Act 1995 is brought into force. [17910]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I have issued a consultation paper today, inviting comments on our proposals for regulations.

  These proposals are designed to enhance the Environment Agency's ability to tackle water pollution from abandoned mines. They set out the precise contents
  220
  of the notification, which mine operators will have to send to the agency at least six months in advance of any intended abandonment.

  The notification will include a range of information including the operator's opinion as to the consequences of the proposed abandonment. Variations to the timing and information requirements of the notice will apply where abandonment follows an emergency, and in certain cases of insolvency.

  The prior notification to the agency of any intended abandonment will allow measures to be identified and implemented at the appropriate time to prevent or reduce water pollution after abandonment. Where a phased programme of abandonment is planned, this could be notified at one time, so as to reduce the burden of notification on the operator.

  The scale of the problem of discharges from abandoned mines had to be set in context. Some 200 km of river length is affected by discharges from abandoned coal mines and some 400 km by discharges from abandoned metal mines. This, though, only represents 0.5 per cent. and l per cent. respectively of total river length monitored by the Environment Agency. Pollution caused by abandoned mines is a rather specialised and local problem but, where it occurs, its impact on the aquatic environment can be serious.

  British Waterways Board
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to change the 1996–97 external financing limit for the British Waterways Board. [18136]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Grant in aid to the British Waterways Board is being increased by £1.233 million for 1996–97 to enable it to carry out additional major repairs to the canal network and other urgent maintenance. This increases the British Waterways Board's external financing limit to £51.033 million. It will be funded by savings on the vote and therefore does not represent an increase in public expenditure.

  Noise Pollution
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the nature and terms of reference of the work commissioned by his Department
  221
  to study the impact of noise pollution in the countryside; who has the contract for this work; when it commenced; and when he expects a report to be (a) completed and (b) made public; [16850]

  (2) at which locations and for which activities testing for noise has taken place in South Yorkshire as part of his Department's investigations into the impact of noise pollution in the countryside; [16851]

  (3) what plans his Department has to consult local environmental groups in areas where his Department is testing for noise pollution. [16852]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answers 24 February 1997]: In March 1996, the Building Research Establishment was contracted by my Department to recommend a suitable technique for the measurement and assessment of noise from clay target shooting, taking into account its impact on local communities. The recommended technique will be incorporated into a new code of practice on minimising noise from clay target shooting being prepared by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, the Clay Pigeon Shooting Association and the British Shooting Sports Council.

  The research involves the measurement of noise from 16 shooting sites in England, together with surveys of the reaction to the noise of residents living close to the sites. In South Yorkshire, measurements and surveys have been undertaken in Grenoside, Sheffield. The research does not involve consultation with local environmental groups.

  The work is expected to be completed by the end of March 1997. My Department's policy is that, unless there are overriding reasons to the contrary, research findings are published as soon as possible after completion of the project.

  Groundwater Levels
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on current levels of groundwater in the United Kingdom; and what assessment he has made of the possibility of water shortages in summer 1997. [17273]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 24 February 1997]: The main aquifers are in England and north Wales. January 1997 levels in the sandstone were commonly the lowest on record. Levels in the chalk were also very depressed. Levels in the small aquifers of Scotland and Northern Ireland are within normal variation.

  My Department receives weekly reports from the Environment Agency on the water resources position in England and Wales. In view of the predominantly dry weather during much of the winter, we have commissioned from the Environment Agency a report on the prospects for public water supplies this year, to be based on the water resources position at 28 February. We expect to receive this in mid-March.

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what new proposals he has for improving the home energy efficiency scheme. [17430]
  222
  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 24 February 1997]: My hon. Friend the Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency announced last December that this popular grant scheme, which has already improved more than 2 million homes occupied by the most vulnerable families, is to be upgraded. The changes, due to take effect in July this year, will make the scheme more flexible and capable of delivering even greater social and environmental benefits. The key feature of the new scheme will be the ability of eligible householders to select a package of work best suited to their own homes from a wider range of energy-efficiency measures.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Government Contracts
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list Government contracts and commitments which are(a) contractually and (b) non-contractually linked to the retail prices index. [17359]

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is not held centrally, and may be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Prince's Trust
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he is taking to increase the participation of civil servants in Prince's Trust volunteers schemes. [18077]

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government are committed to increasing the civil service contribution to the Prince's Trust target of 25,000 volunteers annually by the year 2000. To this end, I have set a civil service-wide benchmark of 3 per cent. of civil servants aged 16 to 25 participating in PTV schemes by the same year. This compares to current participation running at a little under 1 per cent.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  New Parliamentary Building
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) of 3 February,Official Report, columns 458–59, on the new parliamentary building, what estimate he has made of the additional costs arising from the delay. [17197]

  Sir Raymond Powell
  There are too many imponderables at this stage to be able to give a reliable forecast of the costs.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Parliamentary Answers
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many questions were tabled for reply by his Department in each Session since 1979–80; in how many instances in each year the reply
  223
  has been that providing the information involved disproportionate cost; and in how many instances in each year questions have been given the reply that the information was not available centrally. [16797]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  A list of the number of written and oral parliamentary questions answered by this Department in the Sessions 1982–83 to 1995–96, as supplied by the parliamentary on-line information service unit, has been placed in the House Library. Figures for 1979–80 to 1981–82 are not available.

  The rest of the information requested could be provided only at disproportional cost.

  United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will pursue again with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees the question of a further tranche of funding for the programme for national persecutees by the German Government referred to in the answer of 30 June 1993,Official Report, column 497. [17143]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The UNHCR wound up its indemnification hardship fund for national socialist persecutees in 1993. We do not intend to pursue the question of further funding with the UNHCR or the German Government.

  UK Students (Foreign Residence Restrictions)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what restrictions apply to the length of time United Kingdom students may reside in(a) Australia, (b) Canada, (c) New Zealand and (d) South Africa; and what permits are required. [17354]

  Mr. Hanley
  Visa and immigration policy is a matter for the Governments of the countries concerned. I recommend that questions on entry clearance matters should be addressed to the appropriate high commission.

  Albania
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many projects in Albania and at what cost have been supported by the Westminster Foundation on application from the Conservative party. [17285]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 19 February,Official Report, column 579–80.

  Internal Market Advisory Committee
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the specific complaints his Department has raised at the Internal Market Advisory Committee since May 1995. [17111]

  Mr. Nelson
  I have been asked to reply.

  My Department's action single market—formerly the single market compliance unit—has arranged for 22 new cases to be raised at the Internal Market Advisory Committee since May 1995. These have covered:
  224

  Greek restrictions on cruises involving yachts registered and flagged outside Greece;

  delays in the refunding of VAT by the Luxembourg authorities;

  French refusal to accept international quality assurance certification;

  restrictions on the organisation of sales and markets in Spain;

  German ban on azo pigments;

  Greek restrictions on the television advertising of toys;

  German "Ü" marking requirements for steel construction products;

  German re-testing requirements for engineering equipment;

  French fire resistance certification requirements;

  alleged ineffective enforcement in other member states of a directive concerned with dangerous imitations of foodstuffs;

  French restrictions on the use of certain fuel tanks on commercial vehicles;

  German "GS" marking requirements for medical products;

  Irish mutual recognition failure in respect of plug standards;

  discriminatory operation of the Finnish alcohol monopoly;

  additional testing requirements for mobile cranes in several member states;

  a discriminatory Finnish confectionery tax;

  Dutch restrictions on the sale of blended edible oils;

  non-recognition in France of British ski instructor qualifications;

  Spanish marking of fuel for fiscal purposes;

  a Dutch prohibition on the marketing of a particular type of saw;

  Belgian restrictions on the use of air cleaning equipment;

  Spanish type approval requirements for glass etching equipment.

  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the outcome of the single market complaints raised by his Department's single market compliance unit raised by his Department's single market compliance unit with the Internal Market Advisory Committee. [17112]

  Mr. Nelson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Of the 36 cases raised by action single market—formerly the single market compliance unit—at the Internal Market Advisory Committee, 12 have been resolved. The resolved cases are those concerned with:

  Italian taxation of cars over 2 litres;

  Dutch waste water regulations;

  requirements for stack gas analysers to be tested to German standards;

  Greek regulations on the content of soft drinks;

  Dutch requirements involving the double-testing of electric fencing;

  Portuguese requirements concerning lighting devices on tractors;

  German requirements for re-testing of samples for liquid density standards;

  delays in the refunding of VAT by the Luxembourg authorities;

  French refusal to accept international quality assurance certification;

  German "Ü" marking requirements for steel construction products;

  French fire resistance certification requirements;

  French restrictions on the use of certain fuel tanks on commercial vehicles.

  225
  Action single market is continuing to press for the successful resolution of the other cases which it has raised at the Internal Market Advisory Committee.

SCOTLAND

  Easterhouse Police Office
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on Strathclyde police's statement regarding an alleged assault in a cell in Easterhouse police office on 14 February. [17114]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I understand that a man has been charged with attempted murder following the assault and that a report has been submitted to the procurator fiscal in Glasgow and that the matter is under further investigation. It would be inappropriate, therefore, to comment further at present.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much his Department estimates it cost to establish each executive agency set up by his Department since the start of April 1992. [16970]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The work involved in establishing my Department's executive agencies has been undertaken mainly by officials as part of their

  Deaths in Scotland by month 1987 to 1996

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  All ages

  January

  5,741

  5,609

  5,976

  6,884

  6,014

  5,894

  5,762

  6,008

  5,793

  6,607

  February

  5,197

  5,385

  4,944

  4,958

  5,218

  5,274

  4,913

  4,884

  4,964

  4,817

  March

  5,943

  5,539

  5,507

  5,091

  5,046

  5,343

  6,084

  5,355

  5,507

  4,570

  April

  5,112

  5,088

  4,827

  5,276

  5,451

  5,040

  5,361

  4,744

  4,722

  4,893

  May

  4,704

  5,387

  5,328

  5,144

  4,974

  4,666

  5,049

  4,937

  5,232

  4,742

  June

  5,109

  4,825

  5,010

  4,685

  4,466

  4,962

  4,948

  4,706

  4,684

  4,066

  July

  4,758

  4,488

  4,689

  4,805

  4,861

  4,684

  4,571

  4,345

  5,663

  4,689

  August

  4,585

  5,075

  4,823

  4,734

  4,500

  4,630

  4,921

  4,753

  4,571

  4,325

  September

  4,753

  4,689

  4,622

  4,198

  4,453

  4,710

  4,722

  4,786

  4,371

  4,219

  October

  5,137

  4,891

  5,158

  5,211

  5,328

  4,960

  4,930

  4,854

  5,046

  4,818

  November

  5,191

  5,329

  5,659

  4,960

  5,024

  5,117

  6,531

  4,710

  5,086

  4,364

  December

  5,784

  5,652

  8,564

  5,581

  5,706

  5,657

  6,257

  5,246

  5,861

  5,350

  Total

  62,014

  61,957

  65,017

  61,527

  61,041

  60,937

  64,049

  59,328

  61,500

  57,460

  Age 65 and over

  January

  4,399

  4,332

  4,509

  5,425

  4,771

  4,692

  4,597

  4,802

  4,576

  5,339

  February

  4,047

  4,171

  3,841

  3,858

  4,142

  4,228

  3,908

  3,853

  3,970

  3,828

  March

  4,605

  4,298

  4,327

  4,027

  4,001

  4,204

  4,885

  4,274

  4,408

  3,611

  April

  3,863

  3,953

  3,762

  4,078

  4,314

  4,000

  4,269

  3,776

  3,797

  3,828

  May

  3,563

  4,117

  4,131

  3,972

  3,863

  3,639

  4,005

  3,883

  4,105

  3,671

  June

  3,914

  3,668

  3,854

  3,603

  3,449

  3,830

  3,840

  3,638

  3,672

  3,172

  July

  3,628

  3,410

  3,618

  3,665

  3,757

  3,630

  3,615

  3,356

  4,663

  3,635

  August

  3,457

  3,828

  3,667

  3,636

  3,447

  3,623

  3,862

  3,694

  3,555

  3,349

  September

  3,610

  3,503

  3,592

  3,231

  3,431

  3,634

  3,657

  3,737

  3,399

  3,270

  October

  3,955

  3,771

  4,018

  4,082

  4,179

  3,886

  3,905

  3,812

  4,002

  3,727

  November

  3,924

  4,051

  4,316

  3,928

  3,957

  4,043

  5,377

  3,691

  4,041

  3,446

  December

  4,455

  4,320

  7,134

  4,422

  4,470

  4,528

  5,031

  4,202

  4,787

  4,237

  Total

  47,420

  47,422

  50,769

  47,927

  47,781

  47,937

  50,951

  46,718

  48,975

  45,113

  226
  normal duties. Estimates of the effort involved could at this stage be calculated only at disproportionate cost. In the case of the Fisheries Research Services, which is to become an agency on 1 April 1997, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for industry and local government to the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) on 15 January 1997, Official Report, columns 277–78.

  Mortality Rates
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what have been the excess winter mortality rates in Scotland for each of the past 10 years in terms of(a) numbers and (b) percentages for (i) people over the age of 65 years, (ii) single parent families, (iii) people in receipt of income support, (iv) people with disabilities and (v) other; [17202)]

  (2) what have been the excess mortality rates in Scotland for each of the past 10 years expressed (a) in excess numbers and (b) as percentages. [17442]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There is no universally accepted definition of excess winter deaths and it would not be possible to calculate a rate for these. Details of family status, income support and disability are not collected at registration of death, the source of these statistics. The total number of deaths, and the number of deaths of those over the age of 65 years, by month for each of the past 10 years are given in the tables. The figures for 1996 are still provisional.
  227
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many deaths there were in each January from 1992 to 1997 from(a) influenza, (b) pneumonia and (c) bronchitis. [17116]

  Deaths in January from selected causes, 1992–96

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  (a) Influenza1

  12

  3

  5

  3

  27

  (b) Pneumonia2

  469

  401

  508

  420

  742

  (c) Bronchitis3

  43

  38

  33

  30

  32

  1 WHO International Classification of Diseases, code 487.

  2 WHO International Classification of Diseases, codes 480–486.

  3 WHO International Classification of Diseases, codes 466, 490–491.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what have been the excess weekly mortality rates in Scotland for(a) December 1996 and (b) January 1997 in terms of numbers; and what were the average weekly figures for similar periods in the previous five years. [17204]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There is no universally accepted definition of excess mortality. The number of deaths in Scotland in December and January for the years 1992 to 1997 are given in the table. The 1996 and 1997 figures are still provisional. The average weekly deaths for 1992 to 1996 are also given.

  Deaths in Scotland in December and January by week 1992 to 1997

  Week beginning

  Number

  1991–92

  2 December 1991

  1,127

  9 December 1991

  1,235

  16 December 1991

  1,313

  23 December 1991

  1,357

  30 December 1991

  1,335

  6 January 1992

  1,388

  13 January 1992

  1,275

  20 January 1992

  1,297

  27 January1992

  1,351

  1992–93

  7 December 1992

  1,217

  14 December 1992

  1,237

  21 December 1992

  1293

  28 December 1992

  1,403

  4 January 1993

  1,354

  11 January 1993

  1,454

  18 January 1993

  1,391

  25 January 1993

  1,283

  1993–94

  6 December 1993

  1,296

  13 December 1993

  1,389

  20 December 1993

  1,498

  27 December 1993

  1,454

  3 January 1994

  1,494

  10 January 1994

  1,368

  17 January 1994

  1,293

  24 January 1994

  1,242

  31 January 1994

  1,267

  228
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The total number of deaths in January from the specified causes is given in the table. The figures for 1996 are still provisional and figures for 1997 are not yet available.

  Deaths in Scotland in December and January by week 1992–1997

  Week beginning

  Number

  1994–95

  5 December 1994

  1,213

  12 December 1994

  1,189

  19 December 1994

  1,245

  26 December 1994

  1,323

  2 January 1995

  1,330

  9 January 1995

  1,301

  16 January 1995

  1,281

  23 January 1995

  1,229

  30 January 1995

  1,194

  1995–96

  4 December 1995

  1,296

  11 December 1995

  1,399

  18 December 1995

  1,454

  25 December 1995

  1,738

  1 January 1996

  1,823

  8 January 1996

  1,541

  15 January 1996

  1,364

  22 January 1996

  1,293

  29 January 1996

  1,207

  1996–97

  2 December 1996

  1,127

  9 December 1996

  1,195

  16 December 1996

  1,281

  23 December 1996

  1,364

  30 December 1996

  1,594

  6 January 1997

  1,626

  13 January 1997

  1,593

  20 January 1997

  1,401

  27 January 1997

  1,271

  Average weekly deaths in Scotland 1992 to 1996

  1992: 1,172

  1993: 1,232

  1994: 1,141

  1995: 1,163

  1996: 1,150

  Cold-related Illnesses
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people in Scotland received treatment by NHS doctors for cold-related illnesses for the periods December 1996 and January 1997; and what was the average figure for similar periods in each of the past 10 years. [17216]
  229
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what have been the excess winter treatment rates for cold-related illnesses in hospitals in Scotland for(a) in-patients and (b) out-patients for each of the last 10 years. [17215]

  Admissions to hospital with a main diagnosis of influenza, pneumonia or bronchitis for the periods March 1985 to February 1986 to March 1995 to February 1996

  Influenza Number of admissions

  Pneumonia Number of admissions

  Bronchitis Number of admissions

  Period March to February

  Rest of year March to November

  Winter period December to February

  Excess winter admissions ratio1

  Rest of year March to November

  Winter period December to February

  Excess winter admissions Ratio1

  Rest of year March to November

  Winter period December to February

  Excess winter admissions ratio1

  1985–86

  174

  155

  2.7

  5,193

  2,669

  1.5

  3,185

  1,839

  1.7

  1986–87

  121

  96

  2.4

  5,232

  2,088

  1.2

  2,322

  1,739

  2.2

  1987–88

  118

  32

  0.8

  5,293

  2,111

  1.2

  2,472

  1,074

  1.3

  1988–89

  98

  99

  3.0

  5,286

  1,982

  1.1

  2,894

  1,339

  1.4

  1989–90

  202

  451

  6.7

  5,544

  2,981

  1.6

  2,130

  2,294

  3.2

  1990–91

  114

  56

  1.5

  5,501

  2,499

  1.4

  2,040

  1,295

  1.9

  1991–92

  83

  123

  4.4

  5,739

  2,606

  1.4

  2,662

  2,297

  2.6

  1992–93

  77

  56

  2.2

  5,638

  2,447

  1.3

  2,229

  1,902

  2.6

  1993–94

  501

  90

  0.5

  7,158

  2,822

  1.2

  3,257

  2,114

  1.9

  1994–95

  78

  34

  1.3

  6,323

  2,846

  1.4

  2,019

  2,139

  3.2

  1995–96

  163

  237

  4.4

  6,772

  3,481

  1.5

  2,331

  2,574

  3.3

  Total 1985–96

  1,729

  1,429

  2.5

  63,679

  28,532

  1.3

  27,541

  20,606

  2.2

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people in Scotland received hospital treatment as(a) in-patients and (b) out-patients for cold-related illnesses for the period December 1996 and January 1997; and what was the average figure for similar periods in the past 10 years. [17219]

  NHSiS—Admissions to hospital with a main diagnosis of influenza, pneumonia or bronchitis

  Periods December and January 1985 to 1996

  Influenza December

  Pneumonia December

  Bronchitis December

  Year

  December

  January

  December

  January

  December

  January

  Total

  1985–86

  42

  79

  847

  1,041

  596

  350

  2,955

  1986–87

  9

  35

  662

  713

  226

  435

  2,080

  1987–88

  11

  12

  736

  742

  155

  173

  1,829

  1988–89

  46

  39

  771

  676

  522

  229

  2,283

  1989–90

  369

  58

  1,413

  913

  590

  798

  4,141

  1990–91

  14

  16

  848

  923

  230

  236

  2,267

  1991–92

  23

  57

  831

  960

  654

  634

  3,159

  1992–93

  12

  11

  791

  862

  331

  492

  2,499

  1993–94

  47

  35

  1,098

  990

  846

  613

  3,629

  1994–95

  12

  6

  994

  1,044

  717

  627

  3,400

  1995–96

  143

  72

  1,414

  1,244

  903

  761

  4,537

  Ambulance Service Training Courses
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in respect of the Scottish ambulance service management training courses at Barony castle,(a) how many people have participated in the courses, (b) what guidelines are issued to those participating, (c) what provision there is for opting out of courses or part of courses and (d) what equipment is available in the event of medical emergencies. [17134]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is as follows:
  230
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In-patient admissions with a main diagnosis of cold-related illness—influenza, pneumonia and bronchitis—for the months of December to February and for the rest of each of the past 10 years are given in the table, together with the ratio of the December to February figures to the three-monthly average for the rest of the year. Information on out-patients is not held centrally.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information on in-patient admissions with a main diagnosis of cold-related illness—influenza, pneumonia or bronchitis—for December 1996 to January 1997 is not yet available. The table provides information for the 10 year period to January 1996. Information on out-patients is not held centrally.

  (a) Forty-two operational managers have completed 10 or 12-day classroom-based management training courses, which include a two-day outdoor module; a further 20 operational managers participated in the most recent course, which was suspended on 15 February.

  (b) Course participants receive a comprehensive two-hour briefing for the two-day outdoor module. This includes guidance on safety, communication arrangements, map reading skills and the country code.

  (c) The Scottish Ambulance Service NHS Trust attaches the highest priority to the need for formal management training where previously there was none. Accordingly, it would normally expect operational ambulance managers to take part in its management training programme. The leadership element of the course was designed by external consultants

  231
  to be physically achievable, even by those of moderate fitness. Despite this, students are encouraged to express any doubts or concerns they may have about participating in the outdoor activities and there have been occasions when alternative arrangements have been made at the request of individuals unable to complete this element of the course.

  (d) During the outdoor module each of the walking groups is accompanied by a safety supervisor who has a first aid kit consisting of dressings and plasters, a walkie-talkie radio, mobile phone, flares, strobe light and portable cooker. Every member of each group is also equipped with various items of survival equipment. The groups use as a base a cottage equipped with modern amenities and a patient transport vehicle carrying emergency response equipment and drugs, a stretcher and blankets. A 4-wheel drive vehicle is also available at the cottage.

  The trust has suspended the course and is carrying out a full review of it, in light of the death of one of the participants on 15 February.

  M74
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 17 February,Official Report, columns 481–82, on junctions on the M74 motorway, how many entry-exit junctions are planned to be included over the proposed M74 route from Carlisle to Glasgow. [17046]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There will be a total of 19 junctions on the completed motorway between the M6 junction 44 at Carlisle and the Maryville interchange, inclusive.

  Braer Oil Spill
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current estimate of the costs incurred by his Department and agencies for which his Department is responsible in the clearing-up operation which followed the grounding of the MV Braer on Shetland in January 1993. [17699]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The clearing-up operation was undertaken on behalf of the Government by the Department of Transport. The costs incurred by my Department related primarily to testing and monitoring for traces of oil and amounted to some £900,000.

  Electoral Register
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the current number of electors in each parliamentary constituency in Scotland. [17539]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  For the latest information held centrally I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) on 6 February 1997,Official Report, columns 690–93.

  Law Reform Projects
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals the Scottish Law Commission has for future law reform projects. [18210]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Lord Advocate has recently agreed with the Scottish Law Commission a fifth programme of law reform. This was presented to Parliament yesterday and is published today. Copies have 232
  been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The new programme, which supersedes the existing four programmes, describes the short, medium and long-term projects on which the commission will be working between now and the end of 1999. Timetables are set for the short and medium-term projects.

  The centrepiece of the projects in the fifth programme is the commission's work on property, including feudal tenure reform and reform of the law of the tenement. Recommendations on the law of the tenement are expected before the end of 1997 and on feudal tenure reform before the end of 1999. Other matters on which recommendations are expected before the end of 1997 include diligence on the dependence and admiralty arrestments and unjustified enrichment.

  The Government welcome this programme which concentrates on a number of important ant timely law reform projects. The fixing of priorities and timetables is particularly welcome and will help all of those with an interest in law reform to keep track of and prepare for changes in the law which the commission might recommend.

  Leasehold Casualties
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of state for Scotland what plans he has to reform the law on leasehold casualties in Scotland. [18244]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  In view of the difficulties which are being caused to some tenants by the operation of the existing law on leasehold casualties, my right hon. Friend has formally written to the Scottish Law Commission asking commissioners:"To consider the law on leasehold casualties and advise on possible reforms".
  I hope that the commission will be able to consult and report by March 1998.

  Homelessness
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people were accepted as homeless by each local authority in Scotland for each year since 1990. [17230]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The available information is set out in the table.

  Households accepted as homeless under the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987

  Local authority

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Berwickshire

  15

  22

  30

  36

  21

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  22

  33

  49

  51

  38

  Roxburgh

  58

  44

  80

  92

  126

  Tweeddale

  31

  36

  42

  30

  31

  Clackmannan

  206

  131

  116

  70

  81

  Falkirk

  613

  400

  606

  486

  510

  Stirling

  284

  322

  423

  448

  586

  Annandale and Eskdale

  57

  27

  47

  52

  32

  Nithsdale

  256

  186

  152

  88

  85

  Stewartry

  85

  55

  81

  85

  78

  Wigtown

  101

  123

  120

  152

  84

  Dunfermline

  191

  295

  294

  169

  162

  Kirkcaldy

  492

  659

  581

  439

  331

  233

  Households accepted as homeless under the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987

  Local authority

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  North East Fife

  187

  253

  247

  259

  193

  Aberdeen

  941

  1,296

  1,354

  1,243

  713

  Banff and Buchan

  202

  302

  347

  357

  272

  Gordon

  183

  249

  239

  227

  220

  Kincardine and Deeside

  44

  33

  81

  108

  117

  Moray

  101

  127

  155

  135

  352

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  19

  31

  15

  32

  16

  Caithness

  6

  11

  12

  22

  9

  Inverness

  174

  141

  121

  155

  331

  Lochaber

  46

  63

  66

  49

  58

  Nairn

  19

  26

  38

  17

  27

  Ross and Cromarty

  80

  101

  119

  83

  49

  Skye and Lochalsh

  22

  32

  30

  17

  18

  Sutherland

  7

  14

  5

  2

  —

  East Lothian

  328

  324

  314

  237

  238

  Edinburgh

  2,195

  2,364

  2,704

  2,635

  2,342

  Midlothian

  71

  76

  148

  148

  220

  West Lothian

  200

  486

  804

  440

  575

  Argyll and Bute

  164

  138

  156

  164

  112

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  51

  24

  34

  32

  39

  Clydebank

  207

  233

  224

  133

  57

  Clydesdale

  188

  301

  292

  233

  118

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  219

  228

  178

  178

  141

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  47

  54

  81

  96

  88

  Cunninghame

  230

  258

  227

  187

  168

  Dumbarton

  449

  474

  439

  301

  334

  East Kilbride

  350

  382

  373

  364

  408

  Eastwood

  8

  9

  8

  9

  17

  Glasgow

  4,609

  5,429

  5,881

  6,629

  6,145

  Hamilton

  192

  176

  251

  206

  97

  Inverclyde

  143

  140

  121

  139

  137

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  118

  106

  110

  98

  77

  Kyle and Carrick

  308

  316

  245

  251

  239

  Monklands

  112

  138

  102

  199

  225

  Motherwell

  254

  134

  165

  231

  218

  Renfrew

  694

  923

  753

  583

  513

  Strathkelvin

  237

  287

  233

  217

  166

  Angus

  212

  239

  281

  224

  227

  Dundee

  430

  380

  350

  339

  400

  Perth and Kinross

  303

  332

  815

  468

  327

  Orkney

  21

  19

  25

  32

  87

  Shetland

  39

  102

  55

  47

  35

  Western Isles

  35

  90

  124

  167

  143

  Total

  16,856

  19,174

  20,943

  19,891

  18,433

  Notes:

  1. The term "accepted" has been taken to include households assessed as homeless or likely to become homeless within 28 days for whom the local authority secured that accommodation was available. The figures given include cases where the authority has taken action to ensure that the household can retain or return to its present or previous accommodation.

  2. The figures given are taken from detailed individual case returns which are available for around 95 per cent. of applications, though the proportion varies between local authorities.

  Source:

  Local authorities.

  Offshore Installations
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals the Government have to require operators to clean up the sea bed around offshore installations on the UK continental shelf. [17000]
  234
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 24 February 1997]: Removal of installations and any debris will be addressed at end of field life in the abandonment programme approved by the Department of Trade and Industry. In addition, part II of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 includes powers to take action in response to instances of illegal dumping.

  In relation to operational discharges from offshore installations, a recent study funded jointly by the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association and the Department of Trade and Industry identified a range of options for dealing with drill cuttings piles at the decommissioning stage. All the options require further investigation and the Government are considering how this might best be undertaken.

  Human Growth Hormone
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people in Scotland(a) before 1 July 1977 and (b) after 1 July 1977 have (i) received human growth hormone treatment, (ii) died as a result of human growth hormone treatment, and (iii) been diagnosed as ill as a result of human growth hormone treatment; and how many court actions have been raised, or are currently pending, as a result of death or illness following such treatment. [17261]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 25 February 1997]: The Institute of Child Health holds and is continuing to develop a UK register of patients treated with pituitary-derived human growth hormone. The current register does not identify separately whether treatment took place before or after 1 July 1977. In total, 144 patients received pituitary-derived human growth hormone at treatment centres in Scotland. Four of these have subsequently died from Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. None of the remaining patients is currently known to be suffering from the disease. I am not aware of any legal actions on this mater raised in the Scottish courts. Two actions including an appeal are currently pending at the High Court in England.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Rape and Sexual Violence (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Attorney-General what factors underlie the recent decline in prosecutions for rape and sexual violence; and if he will make a statement. [16656]

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service's case work statistics do not separately record the number of prosecutions for offences of rape and sexual violence. The table shows the Home Office statistics for prosecutions of offences in rape, indecent assault on a female, unlawful sexual intercourse and buggery in England and Wales. The total number of prosecutions in 1995 was 5,715, compared with 6,276 in 1994.

  The reason for this reduction is not known. The Home Office is conducting a major research project into rape cases.
  235

  Table A: Persons prosecuted at the magistrates' courts for specific casual offences—1985 to 1995

  England and Wales

  Buggery

  Rape

  Indecent assault on a female

  USI1 with girl under 13

  USI1 with girl under 16

  1985

  289

  844

  2,556

  138

  407

  1986

  266

  927

  2,592

  129

  368

  1987

  329

  1,048

  3,131

  155

  360

  1988

  423

  1,288

  3,414

  165

  345

  1989

  376

  1,400

  3,646

  139

  290

  1990

  413

  1,467

  3,804

  146

  292

  1991

  402

  1,711

  3,659

  155

  254

  1992

  426

  1,648

  3,627

  112

  254

  1993

  371

  1,704

  3,639

  97

  189

  1994

  410

  1,782

  3,794

  88

  202

  1995

  245

  1,641

  3,557

  77

  195

  1 Unlawful sexual intercourse

  Source:

  Crime and Criminal Justice Unit (CCJU), Home Office.

  Parliamentary Answers
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Attorney-General how many questions were tabled for reply by his Department in each Session since 1979–80; in how many instances in each year the reply has been that providing the information involved disproportionate cost; and in how many instances in each year questions have been given the reply that the information was not available centrally. [16792]

  The Attorney-General
  A list of the number of written and oral questions answered by my Department in the Sessions 1982–83 to 1995–96, as supplied by the parliamentary on-line information service unit, has been placed in the House Library. Figures for 1979–80 to 1981–82 are not available.

  The number of replies given by my Department stating that information could be provided only at disproportionate cost, or was not available centrally, was eight in the Session 1995–96, plus five instances where part of the information requested was available. Details of replies given in previous Sessions could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Equipment and Furniture
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the cost and number of items of equipment and furniture that(a) have been stolen and (b) are otherwise unaccounted for from his Department and its agencies during the past 12 months, listing by name any such items valued at £5,000 or more, and showing information technology material separately. [17059]

  The Attorney-General
  Information on items stolen or otherwise unaccounted for during the 12 months to 31 January 1997 is as follows for my Departments and agencies:Crown Prosecution Service

  1. Non-IT equipment and furniture:

  Eleven items were stolen, at a total cost of £1,884.

  Five items were otherwise unaccounted for, at a total cost of £85.

  2. IT equipment:

  Fifteen items were stolen (including one file server valued at £5,000), at a total cost of £21,755.

  236

  Serious Fraud Office

  Two non-IT items were reported as stolen or otherwise unaccounted for, at a total value of £140.

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  Two non-IT items were stolen, at a total value of £60.

  Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers

  One lap-top computer was stolen, cost £2,000.

  Government Property Lawyers

  Nil.

TREASURY

  Short-term Financial Assets
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present total of short-term financial assets held by the Government; if he will list the major categories of such short-term financial assets held; and if he will make a statement. [17183]

  Mr. Jack
  Identifiable short-term financial assets of central Government were over £8 billion at the end of September 1996. These assets consisted of sterling bank deposits, £6.7 billion; foreign currency bank deposits, £500 million; and holdings of short-dated bills by the issue department of the Bank of England, £900 million. Non-identifiable short-term financial assets include a proportion of the official reserves—the total value of which was £28½ billion at the end of September 1996—and of Government holdings of local authority and public corporation debt—£42 billion and £21 billion, respectively. Figures for the maturity structure of these assets could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Government debt, net of financial assets, was reduced by nearly £6 billion in January. This was the largest repayment of debt in a single month for eight years.

  Money Supply and Inflation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his assessment of the relationship between the money supply and the future rate of inflation. [17647]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Government consider all the relevant information when assessing the prospects for inflation up to two years ahead. The growth of the money supply is just one of the many indicators examined when making this assessment. The relationship between money growth and inflation has varied considerably in the past, for instance when financial markets were liberalised in the 1980s.

  Privatisation (Advertising)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost has been of advertising each privatisation since 1979. [17642]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 25 February 1997]: The table shows the cost to the Government of advertising in each privatisation or secondary sale since British Telecom, in 1984. The overall cost represents 0.29 per cent. of aggregate proceeds from these sales. Information on advertising costs of earlier sales is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  237

  Advertising costs in privatisations

  Share offer

  Year

  Costs (ex VAT) £ million

  BT1

  1985

  9.7

  Britoil

  1985

  3.0

  Cable and Wireless

  1985

  2.2

  British Aerospace

  1985

  1.7

  British Gas

  1986

  21.4

  British Airways

  1987

  2.8

  Rolls Royce

  1987

  1.6

  BAA

  1987

  4.9

  BP

  1987

  18.3

  British Steel

  1988

  4.9

  Water

  1989

  17.3

  Regional Electricity Companies

  1990

  20.6

  Generating Companies 1

  1991

  8.1

  Scottish Electricity Companies

  1991

  5.3

  BT2

  1991

  14.7

  Northern Ireland Electricity

  1993

  1.1

  BT3

  1993

  11.9

  Generating Companies 2

  1995

  8.0

  Railtrack

  1996

  4.4

  British Energy

  1996

  4.1

  Deaths (Respiratory Illness)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 17 February,Official Report, columns 376–77, on what approximate date he expects the completed figures for January 1997 deaths from pneumonia, influenza and bronchitis to be available; and if he will make arrangements for the completed figures to be placed in the Library. [17254]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 24 February 1997]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Rhodri Morgan, dated 26 February 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply, as Director of the Office for National Statistics, to your recent question concerning the approximate date when he expects the completed figures for January 1997 deaths from pneumonia, influenza and bronchitis to be available, and whether he will make arrangements for the completed figures to be placed in the Library.
  Final figures on monthly deaths from pneumonia, influenza and bronchitis will not be available in published form until the end of 1998. Reasonably usable (unpublished) data for deaths in January 1997 from these conditions should be available by the end of March 1997. These should differ only slightly from the definitive figures to be published next year.
  Whereas it would be possible to give a virtually complete figure for deaths registered in January 1997, figures for actual occurrences in January would be low because of the delay between the event and its registration. The registration figures for January would include deaths that occurred in the preceding December and earlier.
  I hope this reply has been helpful.
  238

  Full-time Permanent Jobs
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many full-time permanent jobs have been(a) lost and (b) created in each of the past 10 years; [17455]

  (2) what is his Department's estimate of the number of full-time permanent jobs which will be created over the next five years. [17468]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 24 February 1997]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Nick Ainger, dated 26 February 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent questions in which you asked about the number of full-time permanent jobs lost or created in each of the last ten years together with projection for the next five years.
  Information is available only for the net change in employees between 1986 and 1996. This is provided in the attached table. The Office for National Statistics does not produce projections of employment levels.

  Full-time permanent employees in Great Britain: at spring

  (Unadjusted, thousands)

  Level

  Net change

  1986

  15,792

  —

  1987

  15,750

  -42

  1988

  16,316

  566

  1989

  16,704

  388

  1990

  16,879

  175

  1991

  16,529

  -350

  1992

  15,626

  -904

  1993

  15,322

  -303

  1994

  15,232

  -91

  1995

  15,355

  123

  1996

  15,451

  97

  Source:

  ONS, Labour Force Survey.

  Gastroschisis
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list the incidence of gastroschisis per 1,000 births for each health authority area for the most recent year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement; [17276]

  (2) if he will list the number of cases of gastroschisis per 1,000 births in each year since 1970. [17278]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 24 February 1997]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. John Austin-Walker, dated 26 February 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply, as Director of the Office for National Statistics, to your recent question concerning the number of cases of gatroschisis per 1,000 births in each year since 1970.
  The table below shows data for Anomalies of Abdominal wall (International Classification of Diseases 9th revision code 756.7) which include exomphalos, gastroschisis and prune belly

  239
  (syndrome). Gastroschisis figures are only available separately at a disproportionate cost. The data are shown from 1979, as before then it was not available on a comparable basis. The rates are calculated per 10,000 live/stillbirths.

  Number of cases and rates1 for anomalies of abdominal wall in England and Wales, 1979 to 1993

  Year

  Number of cases

  Rates1

  1979

  188

  2.9

  1980

  184

  2.8

  1981

  166

  2.6

  1982

  162

  2.6

  1983

  168

  2.7

  1984

  122

  1.9

  1985

  126

  1.9

  1986

  125

  1.9

  1987

  134

  2.0

  1988

  147

  2.1

  1989

  133

  1.9

  1990

  174

  2.5

  1991

  165

  2.3

  1992

  144

  2.1

  1993

  149

  2.2

  1 Rates per 10,000 live/stillbirths.

  You also asked for the incidence of gastroschisis per 1,000 births for each health authority area for the most recent year for which figures are available. This information is available in Table 4A of the Annual Reference Volume publication: Series MB3 no. 9 Congenital Malformation Statistics 1993, a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library.
  The table shows data for Anomalies of abdominal wall (International Classification of Disease 9th revision code 756.7) under the heading of exomphalos, gastroschisis. Again, figures dealing solely with gastroschisis are not available except at disproportionate cost.
  I hope this reply has been helpful.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Civil Disturbances (Deaths)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons were killed in Northern Ireland due to the civil disturbances between 12 August 1970 and 11 February 1992; and how many of these deaths have been attributed to the Provisional IRA. [15341]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Deaths due to the security situation between 12 August 1970 to 11 February 1992 totalled 2,952.

  Attribution to specific organisations is not available, but 1,746 of the above deaths have been attributed to republican organisations.

  Hazardous Materials (Departmental Buildings)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment his Department had made of the presence of(a) hazardous materials and (b) ozone-depleting substances within those buildings his Department occupies; and if he will make a statement. [16313]

  Mr. Moss
  The policy statement on green housekeeping for all Northern Ireland Departments published in March 1993 requires the removal of all materials containing asbestos products from Northern Ireland civil service buildings whenever they present a240
  hazard and also requires the use of alternative materials in all future building projects carried out for the service. It also requires that the use of products containing chlorofluorocarbons, halons, carbon tetrachloride or 1.1.1. trichloroethane are eliminated in the Northern Ireland civil service. Additionally, suppliers of goods and services are required to comply with the guidance set out in the publication "Selling to Government" produced by the Department of the Environment. This contains specifications about hazardous materials and ozone-depleting substances and all Departments are obliged to comply with these requirements.

  Departments have in place safety management systems which promote the concept of risk assessment. Within this system, premises are assessed for hazardous materials.

  Specific assessments include compliance with:

  1. COSHH
  Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995.

  2. Asbestos
  Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1988.

  The assessments are reviewed on an annual or bi-annual basis to ensure that they are valid.

  The policy of NI Departments on ozone-depleting substances is that they are no longer purchased and that they be reduced and ultimately their use in government buildings eliminated. Fire extinguishers containing halon are being removed, disposed of safely and replaced with ozone-friendly alternatives. There is a programme of replacement of fridges and freezers which contain CFCs and only CFC-free insulation materials are used.

  Parliamentary Answers
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many questions were tabled for reply by his Department in each Session since 1979–80; in how many instances in each year the reply has been that providing the information involved disproportionate cost; and in how many instances in each year questions have been given the reply that the information was not available centrally. [16786]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Figures for the Sessions 1979–80 to 1981–82 are not available. A list of the number of written and oral Parliamentary questions answered by this Department in the Sessions 1982–83 to 1995–96, as supplied by the parliamentary on-line information service unit, has been placed in the Library.

  The rest of the information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Area Plans
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 5 November 1996,Official Report, column 478, when the reviews and work on the area plans in respect of the Down and Newry and Mourne district council areas will take place. [16992]

  Mr. Moss
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Planning Service under its chief executive, Mr. T. W. Stewart. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  241
  Letter from T. W. Stewart to Mr. Eddie McGrady, dated 26 February 1997:
  Mr. Moss has asked me to reply to your Question about when the review and work in respect of the area plans for the Down and Newry and Mourne District Council areas will take place.
  The Area Plan programme for 1997/98 has not yet been finalised. However, I can assure you that the matter is being actively considered, and a decision is expected shortly. I will, of course, write to you when the programme has been agreed, to let you know the position.

  Mortality Rates
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what have been the excess weekly mortality rates in Northern Ireland for(a) December 1996 and (b) January 1997 in terms of numbers; and what was the average figure for similar periods in the past five years; [17205]

  (2) what have been the excess mortality rates in Northern Ireland for each of the last 10 years expressed (a) in excess numbers and (b) as percentages; [17433]

  (3) what have been the excess winter mortality rates in Northern Ireland for each of the past 10 years in terms of (a) excess numbers and (b) percentages for (i) people over

  Table 1: January and December excesses in average weekly mortality rates

  Rates per 1,000 population

  Year

  December average weekly mortality rate

  January average weekly mortality rate

  Annual average weekly mortality rate

  Excess December rate

  Excess January rate

  Winter 1994–95

  0.19

  0.20

  0.17

  0.02

  0.03

  Winter 1993–94

  0.22

  0.21

  0.17

  0.05

  0.04

  Winter 1992–93

  0.19

  0.18

  0.18

  0.01

  0.00

  Winter 1991–92

  0.19

  0.19

  0.17

  0.02

  0.02

  Winter 1990–91

  0.22

  0.23

  0.17

  0.05

  0.06

  Your second and third questions (359 and 363, tabled on 20 February) asked, what have been the excess mortality rates in Northern Ireland for each of the last 10 years expressed (a) in excess numbers and (b) as percentages, and, what have been the excess winter mortality rates in Northern Ireland for each of the past 10 years in terms of (a) excess numbers and (b) percentages for (i) people over the age of 65 years, (ii) single parent families, (iii) people in receipt of income support, (iv) people with disabilities and (v) all other people not included in the above.
  The mortality rates requested are shown in Tables 2, 3 and 4 below. For the purpose of this exercise winter has been taken to mean the four month period extending form December to March.

  Table 2; Excess winter mortality rates—all persons

  Rates per 1,000 population

  Year

  Average mortality rate for Winter period December to March

  Average mortality rate per 4 month period

  Excess mortality rate over Winter period

  Excess Winter deaths as a percentage of 4 monthly average

  Winter 1994–95

  3.34

  3.06

  0.29

  9

  Winter 1993–94

  3.4

  3.06

  0.35

  11

  Winter 1992–93

  3.19

  3.18

  0.01

  0

  Winter 1991–92

  3.38

  3.07

  0.31

  10

  Winter 1990–91

  3.66

  3.09

  0.57

  18

  Winter 1989–90

  4.11

  3.15

  0.96

  31

  Winter 1988–89

  3.38

  3.40

  -0.02

  -1

  Winter 1987–88

  3.69

  3.30

  0.39

  12

  Winter 1986–87

  3.43

  3.26

  0.16

  5

  Winter 1985–86

  4.01

  3.39

  0.62

  18

  242
  the age of 65 years, (ii) single-parent families, (iii) people in receipt of income support, (iv) people with disabilities and (v) others. [17472]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Statistics and Research Agency under its chief executive, Mr. E. F. Jardine. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from E. F. Jardine to Mr. Alan Simpson, dated 26 February 1997:
  You recently tabled three questions asking the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for information on excess deaths in Northern Ireland as a result of winter hardship.
  The first of these questions (347, tabled on 19 February) asked, what have been the excess weekly mortality rates in Northern Ireland for (a) December 1996 and (b) January 1997 in terms of numbers; and how these compare with the weekly death rates for the same period in each of the previous five years.
  As deaths data from 1996 onwards have still to he finally collated, I am unable to supply you with the information you have requested for the months of December 1996 and January 1997.
  Average weekly mortality rates for the months of December and January in the five years previous to those specifically requested are shown in Table 1 below. This table also details the annual average weekly mortality rates over the period in question and the resultant excess rates for January and December.

  Table 3: Excess winter mortality rates—persons over the age of 65 years

  Rates per 1,000 populations

  Year

  Average mortality rate for Winter period December to March

  Average mortality rate per 4 month period

  Excess mortality rate over Winter period

  Excess winter deaths as a percentage 4 monthly average

  Winter 1994–95

  22.26

  19.98

  2.28

  11

  Winter 1993–94

  22.4

  19.81

  2.59

  13

  Winter 1992–93

  20.95

  20.66

  0.30

  1

  Winter 1991–92

  22.38

  20.07

  2.31

  11

  Winter 1990–91

  24.28

  19.98

  4.30

  22

  Winter 1989–90

  28.57

  20.88

  7.69

  37

  Winter 1988–89

  22.53

  22.74

  -0.21

  -1

  Winter 1987–88

  24.70

  21.65

  3.05

  14

  Winter 1986–87

  22.88

  21.44

  1.44

  7

  Winter 1985–86

  27.41

  22.39

  5.02

  22

  Table 4: Excess winter mortality rates—persons aged 0–65 years

  Rates per 1,000 population

  Year

  Average mortality rate for Winter period December to March

  Average mortality rate per 4 month period

  Excess mortality rate over Winter period

  Excess Winter deaths as a percentage of 4 monthly savings

  Winter 1994–95

  0.77

  0.76

  0.01

  2

  Winter 1993–94

  0.83

  0.79

  0.04

  6

  Winter 1992–93

  0.78

  0.81

  -0.03

  -4

  243

  Table 4: Excess winter mortality rates—persons aged 0–65 years

  Rates per 1,000 population

  Year

  Average mortality rate for Winter period December to March

  Average mortality rate per 4 month period

  Excess mortality rate over Winter period

  Excess Winter deaths as a percentage of 4 monthly savings

  Winter 1991–92

  0.81

  0.78

  0.04

  5

  Winter 1990–91

  0.89

  0.82

  0.06

  8

  Winter 1989–90

  0.95

  0.86

  0.09

  11

  Winter 1988–89

  0.91

  0.91

  0.00

  0

  Winter 1987–88

  1.00

  0.95

  0.05

  5

  Winter 1986–87

  0.96

  0.96

  0.00

  0

  Winter 1985–86

  1.08

  1.01

  0.07

  7

  The mortality rates shown in these tables are based on date of occurrences of death and broadly take account of deaths registered within one year of death. In Tables 2, 3, and 4 1996 death registrations for deaths occurring in 1995 have been estimated.
  There is no information available on death rates for single parents, people in receipt of income support or people with disabilities.
  I trust this information is sufficient and if I can be of further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me.

  Prospect Downs Development
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when work commenced on the housing development known as Prospect Downs, Carrickfergus; and when house building on this estate was completed. [17047]

  Mr. Moss
  The information requested is not held centrally by the Department or by any of its agencies. Information received from the building control department of Carrickfergus borough council, however, indicates that development in the Prospect area of Carrickfergus commenced late in 1975 and continued through to late 1994. The works were carried out in several phases by a number of different developers.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will publish a breakdown of expenditure by the(a) Department of Education, (b) Department of Economic Development, (c) Department of the Environment, (d) Department of Health and Social Services and (e) Department of Finance and Personnel in each parliamentary constituency in each of the past three months; [17303]

  (2) if he will publish a breakdown of proposed expenditure by the (a) Department of Education, (b) Department of Economic Development,
  244
  (c) Department of the Environment, (d) Department of Health and Social Services and (e) Department of Finance and Personnel in each parliamentary constituency for the next two months. [17304]

  Sir John Wheeler
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Nature Reserves (Contracting Out)
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the impact on(a) job numbers, (b) consistency of management, (c) management expertise, (d) the United Kingdom's commitment to biodiversity made at the Rio summit and (e) accountability of the contracting out of the management and maintenance of Northern Ireland's national nature reserves. [17387]

  Mr. Moss
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Environment and Heritage Service under its chief executive, Mr. Robert C. Martin. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Robert C. Martin to Mr. Eric Illsley, dated 26 February 1997:
  As Chief Executive of the Environment and Heritage Service, I am responsible for operational aspects of the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland's work on nature reserves.
  I am therefore responding to the Parliamentary Question which you put down in the House of Commons:
  "To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, what assessment he has made of the impact on (a) job numbers, (b) consistency of management, (c) management expertise, (d) the United Kingdom's commitment to biodiversity made at the Rio Summit and (e) accountability of the contracting out of the management and maintenance of Northern Ireland's National Nature Reserves."
  The Prior Options Study leading to the creation of the Environment and Heritage Service (EHS) as a next steps agency took into consideration the four strategies published in January 1994 as apart of the government's follow-up action to the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development at Rio de Janeiro. The Study determined that it was not inconsistent with those strategies to explore whether any non-government body would have the expertise to manage and maintain Northern Ireland's National Nature Reserves.
  Management/Operational plans for each Reserve are currently being devised following which those bodies which have declared an interest will be assessed to determine whether they have the expertise to carry out the plan effectively, efficiently and economically. No property will be transferred unless I and my Directors are satisfied that the transferee has the necessary expertise and capacity to care for the property. Accountability for management and maintenance will remain with the EHS.
  No jobs will be lost as a result of any transfer.
  245

  Electoral Register
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the current number of electors in each parliamentary constituency in Northern Ireland. [17538]

  Mr. Ancram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) on Monday 24 February 1997,Official Report, columns 95–96.

  Magheramorne Landfill Project
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to which individual or organisation his Department is paying the costs associated with the hire of the consultant mentioned in his answer to the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) of 27 January,Official Report, columns 53–54; and what those costs are. [17628]

  Mr. Moss
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Environment and Planning Service under its chief executive, Mr. Robert C. Martin. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Robert C. Martin to Mr. Jim Dowd, dated 26 February 1997:
  As Chief executive of the Environment and Heritage Service I am responsible for all operational aspects of the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland's environment policies.
  I am therefore responding to the Parliamentary Question No. 376 which you put down in the House of Commons:
  "To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, to which individual or organisation his Department is paying the costs associated with the hire of the consultant mentioned in his Answer to the honourable member for East Antrim of 27th January, Official Report, columns 53–4; and what those costs are."

  The successful competitive tender for the contract for the provision of Preliminary Waste Strategy and Site Audit Specification was Haul Waste Ltd who nominated a single consultant to carry out the work. Payments for the services of that individual are made to Haul Waste Ltd at a rate of £9,500 per four months.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Swan Hunter (Privatisation)
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade under what statutory basis the Swan Hunter shipbuilding yard was privatised; and if he will make a statement on the degree of indemnity given to(a) the new owners, (b) the shareholders and (c) the new company officials against claims for (i) faulty design and (ii) poor construction conducted on vessels built during the period of public ownership. [15567]

  Mr. Greg Knight
  The Swan Hunter shipbuilding yard was privatised under the terms of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977, as amended by the British Shipbuilders Act 1983, which regulates the activities of British Shipbuilders. An indemnity was given 246
  by British Shipbuilders to the purchasers of Swan Hunter Shipbuilders Ltd. on 20 January 1986. This indemnity, in brief, relates to demands, claims, liabilities, costs and expenses relating to vessels constructed by Swan Hunter Shipbuilders Ltd. prior to completion of privatisation, and other work carried out prior to completion, excluding work in progress. The indemnity does not cover the new company officials at Swan Hunter.

  Low Pay
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the proposal of the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) in relation to low pay expressed in the debate on the Queen's Speech of 23 October 1996,Official Report, column 87. [16070]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Government share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton that statutory pay fixing, such as a national minimum wage, would destroy many thousands of jobs. However, the proposal that low-paying employers could face legal sanctions would also place an unacceptable burden on companies and damage employment. We believe that pay is a matter to be decided by the parties concerned in light of their particular local circumstances. Businesses are best able to judge what they can afford to pay and what rates are needed to recruit, retain and motivate suitably qualified staff.

  Overspill Surveillance Flights
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the overspill surveillance flights carried out on behalf of his Department. [18139]

  Mr. Page
  For the month of January 1997, no oil at all was detected by the surveillance aircraft employed by the DTI. Two hundred and eighty-four installations were surveyed during this time with aircraft and equipment capable of detecting, by day or by night, spills as small as a few litres. These results are confirmation of the offshore industry's continued good environmental performance.

  The total amount of oil from positive detections in 1996 from 3,336 overflights was 5.67 tonnes. This is to be compared with natural seepage into the North sea of 1,000 tonnes each year and discharges from rivers amounting to about 30,000 tonnes.

  Balance of Trade (European Union)
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade with which European Union countries the United Kingdom had a surplus in trade in goods and trade in services, transfers and investment income in each of the most recent three years for which figures are available. [15935]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 14 February 1997]: The information requested is given.
  247
  Countries with which the UK had a surplus in each of the past three years and the year(s) of surplus:

  Trade in goods

  Years of surplus

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Greece

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Ireland

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Netherlands

  —

  —

  1995

  Portugal

  1993

  —

  1995

  Spain

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Austria

  —

  1994

  1995

  Source:

  ONS—Geographical breakdown of the balance of payments economic trends October 1996.

  Trade in services

  Years of surplus

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Denmark

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Germany

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Ireland

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Italy

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Netherlands

  1993

  —

  1995

  Sweden

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Finland

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Source:

  ONS—Geographical breakdown of the balance of payments

  Transfers

  Years of surplus

  Germany

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Greece

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Sweden

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Finland

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Source:

  ONS—Geographical breakdown of the balance of payments economic trends October 1996.

  Investment income

  Years of surplus

  Denmark

  —

  —

  1995

  Germany

  —

  1994

  1995

  Greece

  1993

  —

  —

  Ireland

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Italy

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Portugal

  —

  1994

  1995

  Sweden

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Finland

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Source:

  ONS—Geographical breakdown of the balance of payments economic trends October 1996.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will rank the European Union countries by their balance in trade in goods with the rest of the European Union, based on figures for the latest available year (i) in pounds sterling and (ii) as a percentage of gross domestic product. [15936]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 14 February 1997]: The information requested is in the following table. For completeness, information is also included on the UK's balance of trade in services and in goods and services combined. For trade in services, data are not yet available for 1995 and the figures shown relate to 1993, which is the latest year for which an analysis of services earning by partner country is available. The country composition
  248
  of the tables reflects EU membership at the time. Overall, the current account is close to balance and at its strongest for a decade.

  EU countries balance of trade with other members of the European Union

  Trade balance in goods (1995)

  Ranked according to:

  £billion

  As a percentage of GDP

  Netherlands

  28.6

  Ireland

  18.4

  Germany

  19.8

  Netherlands

  11.4

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  11.4

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  6.3

  Ireland

  7.5

  Finland

  3.3

  Italy

  5

  Germany

  1.3

  Finland

  2.6

  Sweden

  1.2

  Sweden

  1.8

  Denmark

  0.9

  Denmark

  1.0

  Italy

  0.7

  Portugal

  -3.7

  France

  -0.5

  UK

  -4.2

  UK

  -0.6

  France

  -5.3

  Spain

  -1.8

  Spain

  -6.4

  Austria

  -5.4

  Greece

  -6.8

  Portugal

  -5.9

  Austria

  -7.9

  Greece

  -9.3

  Trade balance in services (1993)

  £billion

  As a percentage of GDP

  Spain

  6.9

  Greece

  4.2

  France

  4.8

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  3.1

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  4.6

  Spain

  2.1

  Greece

  2.0

  Netherlands

  0.9

  Netherlands

  1.8

  Portugal

  0.6

  Italy

  1.3

  France

  0.6

  Portugal

  0.3

  Italy

  0.2

  Denmark

  —.1

  Denmark

  -0.1

  UK

  —1.0

  UK

  -0.2

  Germany

  -15.2

  Germany

  -1.2

  Ireland

  n/a

  Ireland

  n/a

  Trade balance in goods and services (1993)

  £ billion

  As a percentage of GDP

  Netherlands

  19.4

  Netherlands

  9.4

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  13.1

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  8.9

  Italy

  6.8

  Denmark

  2.2

  France

  2.1

  Italy

  1.0

  Denmark

  2.0

  Spain

  0.5

  Spain

  1.6

  France

  0.3

  Portugal

  -3.6

  Germany

  -0.5

  Greece

  -3.6

  UK

  -0.8

  UK

  -5.3

  Portugal

  -6.2

  Germany

  -5.8

  Greece

  -7.4

  Ireland

  n/a

  Ireland

  n/a

  Sources:

  Eurostat Intra and Extra EU Trade.

  Eurostat International Trade in Services.

  HM C and E Business Monitor MA20.

  OECD Main Economic Indicators.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will rank the European Union countries by their balance in trade in goods with countries outside the
  249
  European Union based on figures for the latest available year (i) in pounds sterling and (ii) as a percentage of gross domestic product. [15937]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 14 February 1997]: The information requested is in the following table. For completeness, information is also included on the UK's balance of trade in services and in goods and services combined. For trade in services, data are not yet available for 1995 and the figures shown relate to 1993 which is the latest year for which an analysis of services earning by partner country is available. The country composition of the tables reflects EU membership at the time. Overall the current account is close to balance and at its strongest for a decade.

  EU countries balance of trade with countries outside the European Union

  Trade balance in goods (1995)

  Ranked according to

  £ billion

  As a percentage of GDP

  Germany

  22.2

  Finland

  5.5

  France

  12.8

  Sweden

  5.3

  Italy

  12.2

  Denmark

  2.1

  Sweden

  7.7

  Italy

  1.8

  Finland

  4.4

  Austria

  1.7

  Austria

  2.5

  Germany

  1.5

  Denmark

  2.3

  France

  1.3

  Ireland

  0.1

  Ireland

  0.3

  Greece

  -2.1

  Spain

  -0.8

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  -2.5

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  -1.4

  Portugal

  -2.5

  UK

  -1.5

  Spain

  -2.9

  Greece

  -2.9

  UK

  -10.4

  Portugal

  -4.0

  Netherlands

  -17.4

  Netherlands

  -6.9

  Trade balance in services (1993)

  £billion

  As a percentage of GDP

  France

  7.2

  Greece

  4.1

  UK

  7.1

  Denmark

  1.9

  Greece

  2.0

  UK

  1.1

  Denmark

  1.7

  France

  0.9

  Spain

  1.5

  Spain

  0.5

  Portugal

  0.2

  Portugal

  0.4

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  -0.1

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  -0.1

  Netherlands

  -0.8

  Italy

  -0.2

  Italy

  -1.1

  Netherlands

  -0.4

  Germany

  -16.3

  Germany

  -1.3

  Ireland

  n/a

  Ireland

  n/a

  Trade balance in goods and services (1993)

  £billion

  As a percentage of GDP

  France

  13.0

  Denmark

  4.2

  Italy

  7.4

  France

  1.6

  Denmark

  3.8

  Italy

  1.1

  Germany

  -0.8

  Germany

  -0.1

  Greece

  -1.4

  Spain

  -0.6

  Portugal

  -1.8

  UK

  -1.2

  Spain

  -1.8

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  -1.5

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  -2.1

  Greece

  -2.8

  UK

  -7.3

  Portugal

  -3.1

  250

  Trade balance in goods and services (1993)

  £ billion

  As a percentage of GDP

  Netherlands

  -10.3

  Netherlands

  -5.0

  Ireland

  n/a

  Ireland

  n/a

  Sources:

  Eurostat Intra and Extra EU Trade.

  Eurostat International Trade in Services.

  HM C and E. Business Monitor MM20.

  OECD Main Economic Indicators.

  Reinsurance Companies
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what inquiries the Serious Fraud Office has carried out(a) on its own behalf and (b) on the behalf of non-United Kingdom police and regulators into the affairs of Dai Ichi Kyoto, Kobe Reinsurance, North America Fidelity and CRM Insurance Services. [16946]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 24 February 1997]: I understand that it is the policy of the Serious Fraud Office not to give operational details of inquiries it may make or be asked to make pursuant to mutual legal assistance arrangements relating to alleged fraud.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many managing agents for reinsurers are located in the United Kingdom. [16942]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 24 February 1997]: A figure for the number of managing agents of reinsurance companies is not readily available.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what investigations his Department has carried out into the London managing agency CRM Insurance Services; and what conclusions were reached; [16945]

  (2) what investigations his officials have carried out into the reinsurance companies, Dai Ichi Kyoto, Kobe Reinsurance and North American Fidelity; and what conclusions were reached. [16947]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answers 24 February 1997]: My Department will always consider carefully any information brought to its attention which may be relevant to its regulatory responsibilities for insurance; but it is the Department's policy not to confirm or deny whether it has carried out an investigation into the affairs of particular companies.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) which bodies have regulatory responsibility for the London reinsurance industry and its managing agencies; and by what means they report to Parliament; [16943]

  (2) what recent reviews he has conducted of the regulation of United Kingdom managing agents for offshore reinsurers. [16941]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answers 24 February 1997]: Reinsurance companies which carry on insurance business in the United Kingdom in the terms of the Insurance Companies Act 1982 are required to be authorised and regulated by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who is directly accountable to Parliament. Managing agents are not subject to regulation separate from that applied to the reinsurance company or companies they

  251
  represent. Agents who are registered brokers are, however, subject to control by the Insurance Brokers Registration Council, which is an independent statutory body. There is no requirement on it to report to Parliament but the Secretary of State has responsibility for approving its rules and for the appointment of five of the 17 members of the Council. Members of Lloyd's and Lloyd's managing agents are regulated by the Council of Lloyd's under the Lloyd's Acts 1871 to 1982.

  My Department is currently considering what, if any, further measures might be appropriate in relation to the provision of insurance in the UK by overseas reinsurers or insurers which are neither authorised under UK legislation nor entitled to provide insurance in the UK on a services basis on the basis of an authorisation issued in another European Economic Area member state.

  Success rates percentage

  AFRC project1

  AFRC programme1

  BBSRC project1

  BBSRC programme1

  SERC

  EPSRC

  ESRC1

  MRC project1

  MRC programme1

  NERC2

  PPARC1

  1979

  45

  1980

  41

  1981

  33

  1982

  37

  1983

  58

  31

  1984

  51

  39

  1985

  54

  35

  1986

  26

  53

  29

  1987

  36

  44

  34

  1988

  40

  50

  30

  37

  1989

  33

  47

  29

  40

  1990

  27

  35

  34

  39

  1991

  33

  36

  27

  40

  1992

  30

  34

  40

  27

  35

  1993

  32

  31

  38

  24

  30

  62

  27

  1994

  30

  28

  37

  20

  26

  36

  23

  50

  1995

  24

  36

  44

  27.5

  30

  59

  23

  60

  1996

  334

  42

  1 Data are for financial years.

  2 NERC does not classify grants as project/programme. The figures given are for non-thematic grant applications.

  3 Provisional.

DEFENCE

  Range Facilities
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 14 January,Official Report, columns 228–30, if the calculations of income, operating cost and range use were prepared on the same basis for both the Eskmeals and Shoeburyness ranges; and if he will make a statement. [16955]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Dr. John Cunningham, dated 25 February 1997:
  I have been asked to reply to your follow-up question about the income, operating cost and range use figures for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) ranges at Eskmeals and Shoeburyness, since as Chief Executive of DERA this is a matter for which I am responsible.
  The figures which I gave in my letters of 14 January on these issues were prepared on the same basis.
  I hope this is helpful.
  252

  Research Councils
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the success rates for applications for project and programme grants to each research council in each year since 1979. [17364]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 24 February 1997]: This information is not available for all councils for some of the earlier years. There has been some increase in the number of grant applications, fuelled by the increase in numbers of researchers in the system, both as a result of the change of status of the "new" universities and increasing numbers of contract researchers drawn into the "old" universities by the growth in research funding in the university system. The success rates by number of grant applications are as follows:

  Gulf War-related IIlness
  Mr. Tracy
  To ask Secretary of the State for Defence when he expects to make available to the House the findings of the further investigation into the advice given to Defence Ministers concerning organophosphate pesticide used during the Gulf war, announced by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces on 10 December 1996,Official Report, column 122. [18140]

  Mr. Soames
  The further investigation has now been completed. It came to the following conclusions:

  (a) The answers to six PQs in 1994 concerning pesticide usage during Operation Granby were incorrect because Ministers were given flawed advice by Service and Civil Service staff, who had obtained and used inaccurate information when preparing the draft answers.

  (b) The submission of flawed advice concerning pesticides to Ministers in July 1994 and again in November 1994, together with repeated submissions of the same inaccurate information at later dates, constituted a fundamental failure of the working practices adopted by Service and Civil Service staff within the area of MOD concerned.

  253

  (c) As a result of internal confusion about the subject, MOD gave incomplete information to the HCDC in a memorandum dated 9 December 1994 concerning the non-OP pesticides which had been used during Operation Granby.

  (d) In the course of 1995, MOD Service and Civil Service staff received a number of indications that during the Gulf War British troops might have obtained locally and also used some OP pesticides, but this information was neither assessed nor followed up properly.

  (e) No later than early June 1996, some MOD Service and Civil Service staff knew that OP pesticides had been used more extensively during Operation Granby than had previously been reported and that this new information would embarrass the Department. However, appropriate action was not taken.

  (f) Although new information concerning OP pesticide usage during Operation Granby had emerged much earlier, MOD Service and Civil Service staff failed to provide Ministers with appropriate written advice on the subject until 25 September 1996. Thereafter Parliament was informed at the earliest opportunity that incorrect statements had been made.

  The investigation also identified an additional occasion, in March 1995, when a ministerial private office received advice which included material relating to possible OP pesticide use in the Gulf war. A memorandum concerning the investigation is being published today and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House, together with a copy of my letter to the Chairman of the Defence Select Committee dated 20 February 1997.

  Taken together, the six conclusions constitute serious failures in the formulation of advice within the MOD. I must once again apologise for the way in which flawed advice was presented to Parliament.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy on seeking costs in respect of action for compensation for undiagnosed Gulf war-related illnesses taken by ex-service men and women; what plans he has to review that policy in respect of Gulf war veterans ineligible for legal aid; and if he will make a statement. [17675]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department's general policy is to seek to recover its costs where a case is successfully defended only where claimants are not legally aided. There are no plans to review this policy in respect of Gulf war veterans. However, if illness or injury can be shown—to the satisfaction of a court if necessary—to have resulted from MOD negligence in individual cases which are legally aided, and the same particular circumstances can be shown to apply to non-legally aided claimants, those individuals will not be forced by the MOD to enter into litigation to establish their own right to compensation.

  Mr. Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to publish the terms of reference of his organophosphate pesticide investigation team; and if he will make a statement on its work. [17676]

  Mr. Soames
  I wrote to the right hon. Member on 18 February, enclosing a copy of the terms of reference of the organophosphate pesticide investigation team. A copy of that letter was also placed in the Library of the House.
  254

  Pilots (Flying Hours)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the average number of hours flown by RAF fast jet pilots in each of the last three calendar years; and how many hours are funded for 1997. [16805]

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is shown. Funded hours are calculated on the basis of financial years; total funded hours per pilot for 1996–97 are therefore given.

  Calendar year

  Aircraft type

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Funded in 1996–97

  Harrier

  203.25

  210.89

  212.18

  232

  Jaguar

  225.53

  201.21

  189.89

  222

  Tornado F3

  214.59

  211.94

  190.09

  222

  Tornado GR

  224.36

  222.35

  212.93

  222

  Hawk: 100 Squadron only

  n/a

  n/a

  291

  280

  The Hawk fleet is primarily used for fast jet pilot student training at RAF Valley. Hours flown by students and instructors are dependent on the length of the training programme. The figures shown above for Hawk refer only to 100 Squadron, which provides a target towing capability; data prior to 1996 are not readily available in the form requested and could be collated only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the average number of hours flown per annum by Royal Navy Sea Harrier pilots in each of the last three calendar years; and how many hours are funded for 1997. [16804]

  Mr. Soames
  The average annual number of hours flown per pilot by Royal Navy Sea Harrier pilots in each of the last three calendar years is as follows:

  1994: 170 hours

  1995: 160 hours

  1996: 165 hours.

  The funded level for financial year 1996–97 was 215 hours. The funded levels for 1997–98 have not yet been finalised.

  Joint Service Command and Staff College
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the cost of providing a joint service command and staff college at Shrivenham. [17056]

  Mr. Soames
  The estimated cost of contractor-provided permanent facilities and services for the joint service command and staff college at Shrivenham, as proposed by the Defence Management Consortium, is approximately £500 million—undiscounted and VAT inclusive—for a 30-year period. This covers provision of teaching and residential accommodation for some 650 students at a time—to meet a total annual throughput of over 2,000 students—facilities management and some academic support.

  Cadets
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current level of funding for the air cadets. [17427]
  255
  Mr. Soames
  The level of funding for the air cadet organisation for the financial year 1996–97 is £18.735 million.

  Submarine Reactor Cores
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been average annual running cost of transporting used submarine reactor cores over the past 10 years. [17635]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The average annual running cost to MOD of transporting used submarine reactor fuel, using used core transport packages prior to 1992, was approximately £200,000 per year. The average cost after that time is higher at approximately £780,000 per year. The cost increase is due both to the smaller capacity of our current fuel transport flasks, and an increase in reactor core movements.

  New fuel transport flasks being constructed by British Nuclear Fuels, which are larger than the current design, will be introduced into service at the end of 1998.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress being made towards introducing the new core transport package flasks for the transport of submarine reactor cores.[17634]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I refer to the hon. Member to the answer I gave on the 6 June 1996,Official Report, columns 521–22, to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). Satisfactory progress is being made towards introducing the new used core transport package flasks for the transport of submarine reactor cores at the end of 1998.

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Financial year 1994–95

  1995–96

  11996–97

  EDS

  58

  66

  72

  47

  31

  Andersens

  9

  6

  1

  nil

  2

  BMI

  nil

  1

  nil

  nil

  nil

  Capita

  nil

  1

  nil

  6

  nil

  Sema

  9

  6

  6

  6

  3

  1 To January.

  The data do not include contracts placed by MOD agencies. I have asked chief executives to write to the hon. Member separately if they hold relevant information.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Alan Howarth, dated 26 February 1997:
  I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) to your question asking for a list of contracts awarded to EDS, Andersons, BMI, Capita and Sema since 1992 together with the function of the contractor and value of contract in each case.
  I am afraid that it is not our practice to give details of individual contracts, either by function or value, as this information is commercially confidential but I list below the numbers of contracts placed by DERA with Anderson, Capita, EDS and Sema since 1992 and the approximate total value of the contracts for each company. DERA has placed no contracts with BM1 since 1992.
  256
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the location of each of the used reactor cores from his Department's nuclear-powered submarines. [17636]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Currently, 45 used submarine reactor cores are held in long-term storage at BNF plc Sellafield and three are held in temporary storage—one each at Rosyth dockyard, Devonport dockyard and the naval reactor test establishment at Dounreay.

  MOD policy is to remove all used submarine reactor cores to long-term storage at BNF plc Sellafield as soon as possible after defuel. The cores currently in temporary storage will be removed at the first available opportunity.

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the contracts awarded by his Department to(a) EDS, (b) Andersens, (c) BMI and (d) Capita and (e) Sema since 1992 and the broad function to be carried out by the contractor and the value of the contract in each case. [17611]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The table summarises the number of contracts recorded on my Department's headquarters contracts database for each of the companies and each of the years requested. Because of the way in which the information is recorded, this is shown by financial year ending 31 March, rather than calendar year. I am withholding under exemption 7 of the code of practice on access to government information details of individual contract values and, when there are only a few contracts, total values.

  To list each contract individually and research even the broad function of each could be carried out only at disproportionate cost.

  Company

  Number of contracts

  Total value £ million

  Anderson

  2

  0.2

  Capita

  6

  0.2

  EDS

  412

  39.0

  Sema

  126

  8.0

  I hope this is helpful.

  Letter from J. C. R. Hunt to Mr. Alan Howarth, dated 26 February 1997:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about contracts awarded to EDS, Andersens, BMI, Capita and Sema since 1992, as this falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Meteorological Office.
  Of the companies you list the Meterological Office has, since 1992, awarded:-

  (a) a software development contract to EDS Defence Ltd valued at £27K, VAT exclusive

  257

  (b) a contract for consultancy support for the introduction of a new Management Information System placed with Capita Recruitment, with a value of £72K, VAT exclusive.

  I hope this answers your question.

  Letter from Michael R. Pack to Mr. Alan Howarth, dated 26 February 1997:
  1. You recently asked the Secretary of State for Defence a Parliamentary Question about contracts awarded by the Ministry of Defence to a number of commercial companies.
  2. For the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office Defence Agency, the issues raised fall within the responsibilities delegated to the Chief Executive, Rear Admiral J P Clarke. In the normal course of events, Admiral Clarke would have replied to you personally but he is at present absent from the Office on official duty so I am replying on his behalf.
  3. Before 31 March 1996, contracts were not let by the Hydrographic Office but by the appropriate contract branch within the Ministry of Defence. Since becoming a Trading fund on 1 April, however, we have let one small contract with EDS to provide training in a software package for the management of geographic data; and a more substantial contract to provide post design services for the document management and geographic management systems themselves. The former is complete; the latter ongoing.
  5. As regards the value of the contracts I am sure you appreciate that such information is commercially sensitive.

  Ion Exchange Resin
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many modified magnox flasks and resin catch tanks are being used at Rosyth and Devonport to store ion exchange resin. [17633]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Ships Support Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from R. V. Babington to Mr. Alan Simpson, dated 26 February 1997:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the numbers of modified magnox flasks and resin catch tanks presently being used at Rosyth and Devonport to store ion exchange resin, as this is related to my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Ships Support Agency.
  The details you have requested are:
  Rosyth Royal Dockyard: Thirty nine resin catch tanks are presently being used;
  Devonport Royal Dockyard: Twenty eight resin catch tanks and eleven modified magnox flasks are presently being used.

  Territorial Army Centre, Cardiff
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much was spent on the recent refurbishment of the Territorial Army centre in central Cardiff; and what compensation arrangement has been negotiated as a result of the changes required by the proposals for the new national stadium. [17411]

  Mr. Soames
  The total cost of the rebuild of the Territorial Army centre at Park street, Cardiff, which was completed in July 1994, was £2.041 million. In return for our vacating this site to allow for the redevelopment of the national stadium, the Welsh Rugby Union will make provision for facilities for the Army cadet force detachment within the new stadium complex and construct a new TA centre elsewhere within Cardiff. This will be larger than the current site and will, therefore, be capable of housing an additional unit. Its construction will 258
  be at no cost to the Ministry of Defence. The Welsh Rugby Union has also indicated that it will provide an advertising hoarding within the national stadium for reserve force recruiting for a period of 10 years.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Mark Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the performance of grant-maintained schools. [16069]

  Mr. Forth
  The performance of pupils attending grant-maintained schools has improved year on year.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many applicants for the jobseeker's allowance have been denied benefit since the inception of the allowance. [16071]

  Mr. Forth
  An estimated 96,000 claims for jobseeker's allowance have been refused since 7 October 1996.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people currently in receipt of jobseeker's allowance have placed restrictions on their availability for work by virtue of(a) physical and mental limitations and (b) caring responsibilities. [17601]

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

  Letter from Robert Horne to Mr. Alan Howarth, dated 26 February 1997:
  The Secretary of State has asked me, in the absence of the Chief Executive, to reply to your question about the number of people who are currently claiming Jobseeker's Allowance and who have placed restriction on their availability for work by virtue of physical or mental condition or caring responsibilities.
  Unfortunately, we do not hold information on the number of people, with either a physical or mental condition or who have caring responsibilities, who have agreed with an employment adviser a pattern of availability which included restrictions. The only information held is on the number of claims referred to the adjudication authorities where there is a doubt on availability because of a restriction and the number of decisions made.
  This information, together with statistics on the other adjudication officer decisions and disallowance rates, is contained in a published document entitled "Analysis of Adjudication Officer Decisions". This provides information on all the main entitlement questions arising on claims. The latest information related to the quarter ending 30 September 1996. The first information relating to Jobseeker's Allowance will be in the publication for the quarter ending 31 December 1996. This is expected to be published by the end of March 1997 and copies will be placed in the Library.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what benefit sanction will be imposed on a jobseeker's allowance claimant who is given a jobseeker's direction to apply for a specific part-time vacancy of less than 24 hours per week if(a) he refuses to apply for the vacancy in question, (b) he agrees

  259
  to apply but is not offered the job and (c) he is offered the job which he then refuses; and if she will make a statement. [17624]

  Mr. Forth
  A fixed-length sanction of loss of benefit for two weeks—or four weeks if a separate fixed-length sanction has already been imposed within the previous 12 months—will be imposed if, without good cause, a JSA claimant refuses or fails to carry out a reasonable jobseeker's direction to apply for a particular job of less than 24 hours per week. No sanction will be imposed if the jobseeker carries out the direction but is not offered the job, nor if he is offered the job and then refuses it.

  Guidance is issued to Employment Service jobcentres that staff should be particularly careful before giving a jobseeker's direction in respect of a job of less than 24 hours a week. Jobseekers should be directed to apply for such jobs only if this would improve their prospects of finding further work, or the job is sufficiently well paid to enable them to leave JSA altogether.

  Schools Funding (East Sussex)
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on schools funding in East Sussex in 1997–98. [16072]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  East Susssex's 1997–98 education standard spending assessment is £151.4 million—an above average increase of some £7 million, or 4.8 per cent. It is up to the authority to ensure that the increase in spending power that we are providing reaches its schools.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Brian David Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what has been the change in the number of children in primary classes of over 30 since 1992; and what is the current figure as a percentage of all children in primary classes. [16073]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  From 1992 to 1996, the number of children in single-teacher primary classes of over 30 rose by 358,000. In 1996, 31.8 per cent. of primary children were in such classes, compared with 35.3 per cent. in 1979.

  Grammar Schools
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make it her policy to increase the number of grammar schools. [16074]

  Mr. Forth
  The Government's policy is to encourage more grammar schools wherever parents want them, because that will promote choice, diversity and higher standards.

  Mr. Bernard Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations she has received regarding the future of grammar schools. [16082]

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend receives a range of views on this as on other matters. The Government welcome the high standards which many grammar schools achieve. They are committed to retaining the existing 260
  grammar schools, and supporting the development of new ones, as an important element in promoting diversity and choice for parents.

  School Repairs
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to tackle the repairs backlog in schools. [16075]

  Mrs. Gillan
  It is for local education authorities and school governors to assess the need for maintenance work in respect of school premises which they own and maintain.

  Employment Policy
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the implications for employment policy of the changing balance between part-time and full-time work. [16076]

  Mr. Forth
  Both full and part-time jobs are increasing. We shall continue with the policies under which 900,000 more jobs have been created and unemployment has fallen by over 1 million since 1992.

  Dyslexia
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what provisions she has made for the proper teaching of children with dyslexia. [16077]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The special educational needs code of practice offers guidance on the assessment of a dyslexic child. The Department supports training for teachers of dyslexic pupils through the grant for education support and training programme and is consulting over the national curriculum for initial teacher training, which has a particular focus on literacy.

  School Transport
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations she has received from education authorities on the provision of school transport under the recent standard spending assessment settlements; and if she will make a statement. [16078]

  Mrs. Gillan
  None.

  Capital Borrowing Allocation (Birmingham)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the capital borrowing allocation to Birmingham(a) for 1997–98 and (b) 1996–97.20. [16079]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Birmingham's annual capital guideline for education for 1997–98 is £1.06 million, and for 1996–97 is £5.38 million.

  In addition, the authority has received a supplementary credit approval of £0.1 million for 1997–98, and £1.28 million for 1996–97.
  261

  School Discipline
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps she is taking to ensure that high standards of discipline are upheld in schools. [16081]

  Mr. Forth
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson).

  School Performance (Harrow)
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the performance of maintained schools in the Harrow East division of the London borough of Harrow in respect of the league table system and exam and assessment measurements. [16083]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The 1996 secondary school performance tables show that 53 per cent. of pupils attending the six maintained secondary schools in East Harrow obtained five or more A*-C GCSE grades, against an England average of 44.5 per cent. National curriculum assessment results are not published centrally for individual schools, although key stage 2 results will be published shortly in the primary school performance tables.

  Premature Retirement (Education)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards premature retirement in educational institutions. [16085]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The Government's policy is that education employers should be accountable for the cost of their decisions on premature retirement. The Government intend premature retirement to continue to be available as a management tool, and have made funds available for that purpose.

  Grammar School Leavers (Unemployment)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the number of people who have left grammar schools in the last three years who are registered as unemployed. [16087]

  Mr. Paice
  The Department does not collect the information requested.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the assisted places scheme in enabling poorer parents to provide their children with a private education; and if she will make a statement. [16088]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The assisted places scheme gives able children from low-income families the opportunity of an independent education that they would not otherwise have had.
  262

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the impact of the jobseeker's allowance on rural areas; and if she will make a statement. [16089]

  Mr. Forth
  We have commissioned a full evaluation of JSA policy from the centre for research in social policy at Loughborough university. The Employment Service itself will be carrying out local monitoring of delivery.

  Lone Mothers
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to extend job opportunities for lone mothers. [16090]

  Mrs. Gillan
  A flexible labour market without unnecessary regulations creates job opportunities for all groups, and the United Kingdom has more of its people in work than any other major EU country.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the level of unemployment as measured by the claimant count. [16068]

  Mr. Forth
  Claimant unemployment has fallen by over 1.1 million since December 1992.

  Permanent Jobs
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps she is taking to encourage the creation of more permanent jobs. [16091]

  Mr. Forth
  This Government will continue with the policies of reducing burdens on business and creating the framework for economic growth, which have resulted in the creation of nearly 900,000 jobs and a reduction in unemployment of over 1 million since the recovery began in December 1992.

  Parliamentary Answers
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many questions were tabled for reply by her Department in each Session since 1979–80; in how many instances in each year the reply has been that providing the information involved disproportionate cost; and in how many instances in each year questions have been given the reply that the information was not available centrally. [16806]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  A list of the number of written and oral parliamentary questions answered by the Department in the Sessions 1982–83 to 1995–96, as supplied by the parliamentary on-line information system unit, has been placed in the Library. Figures for 1979–80 to 1981–92 are not available.

  The rest of the information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  263

  Education (Humberside)
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment the Office for Standards in Education has made of the quality of education delivered by the former Humberside county council, relative to the national average. [17045]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This is primarily a matter for Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools. However, I understand that the former Humberside county council was not among the authorities which have been reviewed by Ofsted, and it has not therefore made any assessment of this kind.

  Items of miscellaneous equipment/furniture not accounted for

  Items of IT equipment stolen

  Items of IT equipment not accounted for

  Total value £

  Items valued: £5,000 or over

  DfEE HQ

  2

  6

  1

  8,845

  nil

  Employment service

  0

  269

  0

  484,000

  4 network fileservers

  Computer Software Courses
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will conduct a survey of employers' attitudes to the quality of computer software courses available at different educational institutions. [17645]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  No. This is the responsibility of the institutions and examining bodies concerned.

  Pupil Exclusions
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State forEducation and Employment what information she has collated on the number of children excluded from(a) primary and (b) secondary schools (i) in the United Kingdom and (ii) in other OECD countries; and if she will make a statement. [17662]

  Mr. Forth
  The latest figures on exclusion from schools in England relate to the school year 1994–95. These show that 1,365 pupils permanently excluded from primary schools, and 9,197 from secondary schools; a further 522 were excluded from special schools.

  Data on exclusions from schools in other parts of the United Kingdom are a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales and my right hon. and learned friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Information on exclusions in other OECD countries is not available.

  Teachers (Staffordshire)
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many teachers were employed by Staffordshire county council in each of the past 15 years. [17509]

  Mr. Forth
  The number of teachers employed by Staffordshire LEA are shown in the following table. Staff in grant-maintained schools are excluded.
  264

  Equipment and Furniture
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the cost and number of items of equipment and furniture that(a) have been stolen and (b) are otherwise unaccounted for from her Department and its agencies during the past 12 months, listing by name any such items valued at £5,000 or more, and showing information technology material separately. [17061]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following information details the number of items stolen or otherwise unaccounted for during the 12-month period from 1 February 1996 to 31 January 1997:

  Full-time equivalent (fte) numbers of teachers in the LEA maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special education sector

  January

  Fte

  1982

  10,380

  1983

  10,170

  1984

  10,070

  1985

  9,800

  1986

  9,480

  1987

  9,130

  1988

  9,120

  1989

  9,030

  1990

  9,100

  1991

  9,290

  1992

  9,250

  1993

  8,740

  1994

  8,430

  1995

  8,400

  1996

  8,500

  Early Retirement (Teachers)
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many teachers in East Sussex retired before the age of 60 years other than for reasons of health or disability in each of the past six years. [17598]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Teachers from the maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special sector in East Sussex, who took premature retirement on grounds other than ill-health or disability from 1990–91 to 1995–96, are shown in the following table.

  Financial year

  1Number of premature retirements

  1990–91

  61

  1991–92

  41

  1992–93

  47

  1993–94

  67

  1994–95

  46

  1995–962

  58

  1 Excludes those last recorded in sixth form colleges.

  2 Provisional.

  265

  Jobmatch Scheme
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate she has made of(a) the costs and (b) the numbers gaining if the national jobmatch scheme for under 25-year-olds was available on the same basis to (1) unemployed people of any age who have been unemployed for (i) at least six months, (ii) at least one year and (iii) at least two years and (2) unemployed people over the age of 50 years who have been unemployed for (A) at least six months, (B) at least one year and (C) at least two years. [17600]

  Mr. Forth
  The jobmatch programme is an intensive measure designed to help very long-term unemployed people to leave unemployment for a part-time job. We have developed a range of measures designed to meet the diverse needs of unemployed people, with the most intensive such as jobmatch targeted on those who need the most help to get back to work. It would not be a cost-effective use of the taxpayer's resources to make jobmatch available to shorter-term unemployed people.

  From April, jobmatch will be available to those young people aged 18 to 24 who have been unemployed for two years or more. We estimate that the costs of making jobmatch available, on the same basis, to all people unemployed for two years or more would be some £47 million in 1997–98; and the costs of making it available to those aged over 50 who have been unemployed for two years or more would be some £11 million in 1997–98.

  It is not possible accurately to estimate the programme costs of a national jobmatch scheme for groups of people who have been unemployed for less than two years. That is because jobmatch has been piloted only among very long-term unemployed people, and it cannot be assumed that take-up of the scheme among shorter-term unemployed people would be the same.

  Hearing-impaired Children (London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many schools in each London borough provide specific teaching for children with hearing difficulties; and if she will make a statement. [17589]

  Mrs. Gillan
  There are five special schools maintained by local education authorities in London which cater specifically for children with hearing impairments—one school in each of Camden, Haringey, Lambeth, Waltham Forest and Wandsworth. The majority of hearing-impaired children are educated in mainstream schools, with specialist support. Records of this provision are not maintained centrally.

  LEAs have a duty to place children with special educational needs in mainstream schools where this is compatible with the wishes of parents, the needs of the child, the needs of other children at the school, and with the efficient use of resources. The Government also recognise a continuing need for special school provision where that is necessary and where parents want it.

  Nursery Vouchers
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many new nursery 266
  voucher places for four-year-olds have been created in each of the four pilot local education authority areas; at what cost; and if he will make a statement. [16139]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The nursery education voucher scheme has already stimulated an encouraging expansion of places in the phase 1 areas, as described in paragraphs 8.21 to 8.25 of the Department's report on phase 1, copies of which have been placed in the Library. I expect that expansion to continue in phase 2.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what advice she plans to issue to pre-school providers on the admission of four-year-olds who do not have a nursery education voucher from April 1997. [16056]

  Mr. Squire
  The Department has sent advice to all providers who will participate in the nursery education voucher scheme from April, and additional guidance to LEAs and maintained primary schools.

  Foreign Language Teaching
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to encourage the teaching of foreign languages in primary schools; and if she will make a statement. [16080]

  Mrs. Gillan
  We have promised no further change to the national curriculum until 2000. Primary schools which have the necessary staffing and other resources are free to teach foreign languages now, and many do. For the present, our priority is to ensure that all secondary schools pupils learn a modern language to a worthwhile level of competence. This is where available resources must be directed for the time being.Your second and third questions (359 and 363, tabled on 20 February) asked, what have been the excess mortality rates in Northern Ireland for each of the last 10 years expressed (a) in excess numbers and (b) as percentages, and, what have been the excess winter mortality rates in Northern Ireland for each of the past 10 years in terms of (a) excess numbers and (b) percentages for (i) people over the age of 65 years, (ii) single parent families, (iii) people in receipt of income support, (iv) people with disabilities and (v) all other people not included in the above.
  The mortality rates requested are shown in Tables 2, 3 and 4 below. For the purpose of this exercise winter has been taken to mean the four month period extending form December to March.

HEALTH

  Oral Contraceptives (Safety)
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the report on the role played by the Committee on Safety of Medicines in his announcements on the safety of third generation combined oral contraceptives in October 1995. [17141]

  Mr. Malone
  The announcement to which the hon. Member refers was made by the Committee on Safety of Medicines. The role of the CSM is as an expert advisory committee to the licensing authority, as embodied in the Medicines Act 1968 There is no report on its role in the announcement. The advice given by the CSM in October 1995 still stands and is published in the British National Formulary.
  267

  Lariam
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 13 February,Official Report, column 284 what proposals have been made by the Medicines Control Agency to end the delay in reporting full details of the degree of severity of side effects of the drug Lariam; [17208]

  (2) if he will list the terms of reference and membership of the Malaria Advisory Committee; what reports have been made to the Medicines Control Agency and his Department since 1990 by this committee (a) involving and (b) not involving the use of the drug Lariam; and when the latest malaria guidelines were published by this committee. [17206]

  Mr. Malone
  The guidelines of the use of malaria prophylaxis are prepared by an informal group of experts who have no formal terms of reference or fixed membership. The group does not report to the Medicines Control Agency The guidelines are aimed at health professionals and have been published in the British Medical Journal—most recently, 1993; 306:1247–1252 and 1995; 310: 709–7144—where they are available to all those with an interest. These reports include advice on the use of mefloquine, Lariam, and give the names of those who have collaborated in drawing up the guidelines. Copies of the journal are in the Library.

  Residential Care (Coventry)
  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 11 February,Official Report, columns 161–62, if he will ascertain the occupancy rates of local authority homes, voluntary sector residential homes and private sector residential homes in Coventry; and if he will henceforth publish data on occupancy separately for private and voluntary sector nursing homes. [17055]

  Calender year

  IT items (number)

  IT items (estimated cost)

  Other items (number)

  Other items (estimated cost)

  1996

  131

  £35,410

  10

  £1,065

  Vacant Consultant Posts
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many consultant posts were vacant in the Northern and Yorkshire regions in each specialty according to the medical and dental work force census in September 1994, 1995 and 1996. [17486]

  Mr. Malone
  Information on hospital medical and dental consultant vacant posts by region and by speciality for 1994 and 1995 is available in "Hospital Medical Staff—England and Wales: Consultant, Staff Grade, Senior Registrars and Senior House officers—Regional Whole Time Equivalent and Vacant Posts, Table R5", copies of which are available in the Library. Data for 1996 will be available later this year.

  NHS Audits
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of NHS audit activity was devoted to probity audits in(a) 1990 and (b) 1996. [17685]
  268
  Mr. Burns
  The latest information with which to calculate occupancy rates of residential homes was published in "Residential Accommodation Statistics 1996"—Statistical Bulletin 1996/25—and is summarised in the table. Data collected centrally do not separately identify private and voluntary sector nursing homes.

  Registered beds, occupied beds and occupancy rates in residential and nursing homes in Coventry, at 31 March 1996

  Numbers and percentages

  Residential homes

  Local authority homes

  Voluntary sector

  Private sector

  Nursing homes

  Registered beds

  490

  160

  1,280

  570

  Occupied beds

  450

  150

  1,160

  480

  Occupancy rate

  92 per cent.

  91 per cent.

  91 per cent.

  84 per cent.

  Note:

  The number of registered and occupied beds are shown here rounded to the nearest 10. Occupancy rates are calculated on the unrounded figures.

  Source:

  Department of Health annual statistical returns RAC5, KO36.

  Equipment and Furniture
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the cost and number of items of equipment and furniture that(a) have been stolen and (b) are otherwise unaccounted for from his Department and its agencies during the past 12 months, listing by name any such items valued at £5,000 or more, and showing information technology material separately. [17064]

  Mr. Horam
  For the purposes of the table, items of equipment and furniture stolen and otherwise unaccounted for are combined because it is not possible in all cases to distinguish one from the other. There are no items valued at £5,000 or more. The Department constantly reviews its security measures in the light of losses.

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not held centrally. The examination of probity forms one part of the work carried out by internal and external auditors, and cannot readily be quantified.

  NHS Waiting Lists (Patients off Sick)
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of days patients are off sick while waiting for treatment on the NHS in each of the last five years. [17863]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  NHS Hospitals
  Sir George Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS hospitals there were in the
  269
  United Kingdom in (a) 1994–95 and (b) 1995–96; and how many cottage hospitals there were in each of those years. [17532]

  Mr. Horam
  The information is not collected centrally.

  Blood Pressure Control Products
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the expenditure per head of population in each health district on blood pressure control products prescribed by GPs and recorded in the prescribing analyses and costs systems for the last three years for which information is available. [17537]

  Mr. Malone
  The available information has been placed in the Library.

  Strokes
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the incidence of(a) stroke and (b) death from stroke in each health district in England in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [17597]

  Mr. Horam
  Information on deaths from stroke—cerebrovascular disease—in 1993, 1994 and 1995 for each health authority in England is published by the Department of Health in the "Public Health Common Data set 1996" copies of which have been placed in the Library. Data on the precise incidence of stroke are not collected centrally.

TRANSPORT

  Parliamentary Answers
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many questions were tabled for reply by his Department in each Session since 1979–80; in how many instances in each year the reply has been that providing the information involved disproportionate cost; and in how many instances in each year questions have been given the reply that the information was not available centrally. [16791]

  Mr. Bowis
  A list of the number of written and oral parliamentary questions answered by my Department in the Sessions 1982–83 to 1995–96, as supplied by the parliamentary on-line information service unit, has been placed in the Library. Figures for 1979–80 to 1981–82 are not available.

  The remainder of the information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Greenwich Exhibition Site
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the additional costs of constructing the station at the Greenwich exhibition site so that it can cater for visitors to the exhibition. [17646]

  Mr. Bowis
  The additional road traffic arising from the development of the millennium exhibition site requires the access road to the station to be constructed to dual carriageway standard, at an additional cost of £700,000.270
  This cost will be met from developer contributions. No design changes to the station itself are expected, based on current forecasts for demand arising from the exhibition.

  Coaches and Minibuses (Seat Belts)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will review his policy in respect of children's travel on school trips on coaches built prior to 1988; and if he will make a statement. [17687]

  Mr. Bowis
  From 10 February next year, coaches first used before 1 October 1988 will have to be provided with seat belts if they take children on organised trips. These older coaches have been allowed an extra year to have belts fitted for children because it was recognised that some of them would require extensive strengthening work in order to meet the new requirements. Minibuses and coaches already have one of the best safety records of any form of road transport and the new seat belt regulations will improve this even further. I have no plans to review the policy.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce an inspection system to ensure that seat belts used in coaches and minibuses comply with EEC directive EEC/76/115. [17688]

  Mr. Bowis
  No. Not all seat belts in coaches and minibuses have to comply with the seat belt anchorage directive EEC/76/115.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the inspection regime in respect of recent seat belt legislation applicable to coaches and minibuses. [17689]

  Mr. Bowis
  We take the issue of the adequacy of seat belt installations very seriously and have issued technical advice on what we consider to be "best practice" for seat belt installers. We have also stressed the importance of good installation in advice we have issued for users and operators.

  I have decided that these belts should be examined as a part of the annual MOT test and we shall be consulting on the details of this. I have also decided that the Vehicle Inspectorate will include the condition of minibus and coach seat belts in the other enforcement checks they carry out during the year.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce a requirement for new minibuses and van conversions to be fitted with seat belt anchorage systems which have passed Vehicle Certification Agency witnessed teats to M2 level. [17690]

  Mr. Bowis
  Manufacturers of line built vehicles already have seat belt anchorages approved using a destructive test on an example of their vehicle. Such an approval requirement would be inappropriate for low-volume or specialist conversions.

  Road Network (Dual Carriageways)
  Mr. Garrett
  To ask the secretary of State for Transport how may towns and cities in England with a population of between 75,000 and 100,000 are connected by dual carriageway to the national motorway network; and if he will list them. [17310]
  271
  Mr. Watts
  There are 30 towns and cities with a population of between 75,000 and 100,000 that are connected via a dual carriageway to the national motorway network. They are:

  Ashford

  Barnsley

  Birkenhead

  Burnley

  Cheltenham

  Chester

  Chesterfield

  Crawley

  Dartford

  Darlington

  Gateshead

  Gillingham

  Gloucester

  Gravesham

  Grimsby

  Hove

  Lewes

  Redditch

  Rochdale

  Salford

  Scunthorpe

  Stevenage

  Stockton

  Taunton

  Wakefield

  Watford

  Welwyn Hatfield

  Wigan

  Worcester

  Worthing

  Mr. Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the roads in England which have been designated part of the trans-European networks which are not currently dualled; and what percentage these non-dualled roads are of the total mileage of the trans-European networks within England. [17311]

  Mr. Watts
  The trans-European road network within the United Kingdom is 4,111 miles long. Of that length, 1,220 miles—29.7 per cent.—are single carriageway. Figures for the constituent parts of the United Kingdom are not readily available.

  Mr. Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many towns and cities in England with a larger population than that of Norwich are not connected by dual carriageway to the national motorway network; and if he will list them. [17312]

  Mr. Watts
  There are two towns with a population larger than that of Norwich which are not connected by dual carriageway to the national motorway network. They are Huddersfield and Poole. The trunk road programme includes schemes to complete the dualling of the All to Norwich.
  272

  North London Railway Line
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what is the total planned investment in track renewal, bridge repairs and station refurbishment on the Barking to Gospel Oak branch of the North London line; [15997]

  (2) what reports he has received on the condition of bridges on the Barking to Gospel Oak branch of the North London line; and if he will make a statement. [15998]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 14 February 1997]: These are operational matters for Railtrack. However, Railtrack has confirmed that the bridge over the River Lea at South Tottenham was closed for safety-related repair work during the period 7 to 10 February. Further information can be obtained from Railtrack.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Correspondence
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire will receive a reply to his letter written in response to the Minister's letter, reference 095/23361/1355l. [16917]

  Mr. Sproat
  A reply will be sent to the hon. Member shortly.

  National Lottery Grants
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list for each county in England and Wales and each region of Scotland, the total amount of national lottery grants awarded, expressed as an amount per head of population. [15245]

  Mr. Sproat
  To date, 12,657 awards totalling more than £1.9 billion have been announced for projects in England, Wales and Scotland. The list for amount per head of population is as follows:

  Amount per head of population

  Population

  County

  Total amount £

  £ per head

  England

  968,094

  Avon

  108,061,143

  111.62

  543,483

  Bedfordshire

  6,710,452

  12.35

  770,308

  Berkshire

  12,131,727

  15.75

  669,212

  Buckinghamshire

  26,888,719

  40.18

  698,368

  Cambridgeshire

  47,800,351

  68.45

  982,342

  Cheshire

  10,108,422

  10.29

  556,220

  Cleveland

  19,673,233

  35.37

  487,612

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  13,263,066

  27.20

  493,459

  Cumbria

  20,697,508

  41.94

  953,301

  Derbyshire

  9,722,129

  10.20

  1,059,887

  Devon

  23,706,467

  22.37

  676,739

  Dorset

  14,558,982

  21.51

  603,539

  Durham

  9,792,761

  16.23

  727,615

  East Sussex

  13,241,143

  18.20

  1,573,758

  Essex

  12,024,318

  7.64

  547,335

  Gloucestershire

  20,145,207

  36.81

  2,578,000

  Great Manchester

  144,138,497

  55.91

  1,603,935

  Hampshire

  92,482,563

  57.66

  699,072

  Hereford and Worcester

  26,315,782

  37.64

  999,759

  Hertfordshire

  19,418,043

  19.42

  885,693

  Humberside

  12,106,463

  13.67

  273

  Amount per head of population

  Population

  County

  Total amount £

  £ per head

  126,881

  Isle of Wight

  5,181,576

  40.84

  1,559,630

  Kent

  16,009,050

  10.26

  1,424,924

  Lancashire

  39,407,384

  27.66

  914,376

  Leicestershire

  12,846,303

  14.05

  608,598

  Lincolnshire

  9,818,129

  16.13

  6,933,000

  London

  712,559,631

  102.78

  1,441,000

  Merseyside

  31,372,831

  21.77

  773,747

  Norfolk

  12,430,983

  16.07

  741,501

  North Yorkshire

  21,938,940

  29.59

  606,123

  Northamptonshire

  8,883,261

  14.33

  310,232

  Northumberland

  4,524,150

  14.58

  1,031,671

  Nottinghamshire

  28,832,643

  27.95

  592,260

  Oxfordshire

  11,017,405

  18.60

  419,955

  Shropshire

  10,190,117

  24.26

  480,251

  Somerset

  8,322,893

  17.33

  1,306,000

  South Yorkshire

  88,429,729

  67.71

  1,064,481

  Staffordshire

  28.609,281

  26.88

  670,843

  Suffolk

  12,323,008

  18.37

  1,034,568

  Surrey

  17,116,585

  16.54

  1,138,000

  Tyne and Wear

  64,345,205

  56.54

  2,102,000

  West Yorkshire

  49,971,022

  23.77

  494,168

  Warwickshire

  5,972,310

  12.09

  2,634,000

  West Midlands

  155,465,585

  59.02

  729,540

  West Sussex

  4,817,727

  6.60

  596,166

  Wiltshire

  31,728,011

  53.22

  Scotland

  105,300

  Borders

  3,668,909

  34.84

  272,900

  Central

  5,946,806

  21.79

  147,900

  Dumfries and Galloway

  4,390,051

  29.68

  351,200

  Fife Region

  8,678,082

  24.71

  528,100

  Grampian

  20.592,282

  38.99

  206,900

  Highland

  43,961,585

  212.48

  753,900

  Lothian

  91,709,918

  121.65

  19,760

  Orkney Isles

  4,863,270

  246.12

  22,830

  Shetland Isles

  397,018

  17.39

  2,286,800

  Strathclyde

  103,302,676

  45.17

  395,200

  Tayside

  15,557,328

  39.37

  29,410

  Western Isles

  1,827,102

  62.13

  Wales

  415,900

  Clwyd

  19,514,221

  46.92

  351,500

  Dyfed

  45,414,923

  129.20

  450,300

  Gwent

  5,815,737

  12.92

  240,200

  Gwynedd

  14,386,880

  59.90

  544,300

  Mid Glamorgan

  11,057,187

  20.31

  119,900

  Powys

  7,189,213

  59.96

  413,200

  South Glamorgan

  56,868,014

  137.63

  371,200

  West Glamorgan

  6,680,958

  18.00

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the contracts awarded by her Department to(a) EDS, (b) Andersens, (c) BMI, (d) Capita and (e) Sema since 1992, and the broad function to be carried out by the contractor and the value of the contract in each case. [17612]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Department of National Heritage has awarded one contract to Sema Group from 1993, for outsourced IT service provision, valued at about £1 million per annum, and one non-IT consultancy contract to Capita in 1994 worth about £30,000. The Department has not awarded any contracts to the other companies mentioned.
  274

  University and College Sport
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many universities and colleges have applied for lottery funding in order to improve their provision for sport. [17406]

  Mr. Sproat
  To date, 96 applications have been made for a total of £162 million. These figures include successful, unsuccessful, withdrawn and lapsed applications, and those currently under consideration.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many universities and colleges have successfully applied for lottery funding in order to improve their provision for sport. [17407]

  Mr. Sproat
  To date, the national lottery distributing bodies have announced 43 awards for the provision of sport in universities and colleges, for a total of £26.2 million.

  British Academy of Sport
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the current position of the planning of the British Academy of Sport. [17413]

  Mr. Sproat
  We announced on 25 February that the preferred site for the British Academy of Sport will be chosen from three contenders: the Central Consortium, the Heyford Consortium and the Sheffield Consortium. These proposals will now be considered in more detail by the United Kingdom Sports Council and my Department.

WALES

  Minimum Age Requirements
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the minimum age requirements enforced by his Department. [15926]

  Mr. Hague
  There is no specific legislation for minimum age requirements which applies only to Wales.

  "Government Expenditure and Revenue, Wales, 1994–95"
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will provide a breakdown of the £3.5 billion described as "All Other Revenues" raised by the Government in Wales in section 6 of the Welsh Office publication "Government Expenditure and Revenue, Wales, 1994–95", allocating the revenues to the headings set out in appendix B of that document. [16270]

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is shown in the following table:

  Estimated general Government receipts, Wales, 1994–95

  "Other revenues" by source

  £ million

  Corporation tax

  924

  Capital gains tax

  39

  Inheritance tax

  50

  Stamp duties

  65

  Petrol, derv, etc.

  562

  275

  Estimated general Government receipts, Wales, 1994–95

  "Other revenues" by source

  £ million

  Cigarettes and tobacco

  388

  Alcoholic drink

  238

  Betting and gaming

  62

  Customs duties

  84

  Agricultural levies

  7

  Air passenger duty

  4

  Motor vehicle excise duty

  174

  Other taxes and royalties

  244

  Interest and dividend receipts

  213

  Gross trading surpluses and rent

  223

  Imputed charge for capital consumption

  176

  Other receipts (including insurance premium tax)

  52

  Total

  3,505

  Powered Wheelchairs
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make available powered wheelchairs to all those disabled in Wales who request them. [16620]

  Mr. Hague
  An additional £500,000 will be available each year from 1 April 1997 to provide indoor-outdoor powered wheelchairs. Up to 300 will be provided in 1997–98. The artificial limb and appliance service will be consulting relevant bodies about the criteria for their issue.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will inform family doctors in Wales that they should draw to the attention of their patients' possible entitlement to disability living allowance; and if he will make a statement. [16624]

  Mr. Hague
  Family doctors are independent contractors—responsible for providing general medical services only. However, family doctors have access to a wide range of information about possible entitlement to social security benefits through leaflets, which are available in both English and Welsh, and may if they wish bring these to the attention of patients.

  Community Hospitals
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many community hospitals there were in the NHS in Wales in April 1992; what is the current number; and what will be the numbers, on the basis of current plans, in April 1998. [16626]

  Mr. Hague
  There were 93 NHS community hospitals—excluding major acute, psychiatric and specialist hospitals—in the NHS in Wales in April 1992, the number at present is 88. It is not possible to speculate on the number of community facilities that will exist in 1998.

  Inward Investment (South-west Wales)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what incentives he proposes for companies to locate new projects in(a) the south-west of Wales and (b) the western part of the coalfield valleys; and if he will make a statement. [16625]
  276
  Mr. Hague
  Significant incentives are already available to companies wishing to locate in these areas through regional selective assistance, the Welsh Development Agency's various programmes and its promotion of the area for inward investment.

  I want to see the benefits of our success in attracting inward investment spread more widely and have therefore announced that I shall be setting new and more demanding targets for the agency with the aim of securing a greater proportion of jobs and investment in those areas of Wales which are outside the eastern M4 and A55 corridors. I have also said that I will be asking the agency, within European Commission and other limits, to recognise the extra cost of locating in those areas.

  Ysbyty Glan Clwyd Cancer Facility
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the cost to public funds of the cancer facility for Ysbyty Glan Clwyd; and what additional finance will be made available by the Welsh Office to the North Wales health authority to meet these costs. [16616]

  Mr. Hague
  The capital cost of the centre is estimated at £20 million and will be met by the Welsh Office.

  North Wales health authority estimates that, over the first 17 years of operation, the revenue cost of the cancer centre at Ysbyty Glan Clwyd will be £92.3 million, at 1996–97 prices. The Welsh Office will contribute an additional £36.9 million through revenue support and capital charge funding.

  Parliamentary Answers
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many questions were tabled for reply by his Department in each Session since 1979–80; in how many instances in each year the reply has been that providing the information involved disproportionate cost; and in how many instances in each year questions have been given the reply that the information was not available centrally. [16787]

  Mr. Hague
  A list of the number of written and oral parliamentary questions answered by my Department in the Sessions 1982–83 to 1995–96, as supplied by the POLIS unit, has been placed in the House Library. Figures for 1979–80 to 1981–82 are not available.

  The rest of the information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much his Department estimates it cost to establish each executive agency set up by his Department since the start of April 1992. [16969]

  Mr. Hague
  No executive agencies for which the Welsh Office has sole or lead responsibility have been set up from that date.

  Bryn Y Neuadd Hospital (Advocacy Schemes)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will re-establish direct Welsh Office funding for
  277
  advocacy schemes at Bryn Y Neuadd long-stay hospital for those with learning difficulties; and if he will make a statement on the future of the schemes. [16958]

  Mr. Hague
  Local authorities have for some time had flexibility in determining which local projects should receive funding under the Welsh mental handicap strategy. In 1997–98 we are beginning the process of transferring financial accountability for these funds to authorities. This underlines our view that decisions as to which projects for people with a learning disability should be supported from the funds available are best taken at the local level. This is not a principle with which I would now wish to interfere.

  Health Expenditure
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the latest planned expenditure for Health in Wales for 1997–98; and how this figure differs in real terms from that planned for 1997–98 when the figure was first included in the Welsh Office forward financial programme. [17187]

  Mr. Hague
  Planned expenditure for 1997–98 for health and personal social services was first included in the Welsh Office departmental report 1995–96 to 1997–98 (Cm 2815). This was £2,321 million at 1995–96 prices and including forecast gross domestic product inflation as at November 1994. The 1997–98 provision for health and personal social services is £2.368 million at 1997–98 prices, including forecast GDP inflation as at December 1996. On a common price basis, 1997–98 provision represents a real-terms increase of £53 million over the earlier plans figure.

  Equipment and Furniture
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the cost and number of items of equipment and furniture that(a) have been stolen and (b) are otherwise unaccounted for from his Department and its agencies during the past 12 months, listing by name any such items valued at £5,000 or more, and showing information technology material separately. [17069]

  Mr. Hague
  For the Welsh Office and its agency the information is:

  Non IT

  IT material

  Number

  Value

  Number

  Value

  (a) Items of equipment and furniture stolen:

  1996–97

  3

  £8,778.03

  nil

  —

  (b)Items of equipment and furniture unaccounted for:

  1996–97

  3

  £138.11

  nil

  —

  There were no individual items valued at £5,000 or more.

  River Dee Estuary
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the environmental protection measures he has taken in respect of the River Dee estuary. [17533]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The River Dee estuary has been classified as a special protection area under the EC wild birds directive in recognition of its internationally 278
  important populations of wintering and passage wildfowl, and designated as a wetland of international importance under the Ramsar convention.

  Power Station Vapour Plumes (Deeside)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the impact on Deeside of power station vapour plumes; and if he will make a statement. [17507]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  None. The regulation of emissions from power stations is the responsibility of the Environment Agency.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Cash Limits
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what changes are proposed to the cash limit for class III vote 2, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for 1996–97. [18138]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The cash limit for class III vote 2 for 1996–97 will be reduced by £20,000,000 from £912,586,000 to £892,586,000 to offset increased non-cash limit expenditure for class III vote 1—the Intervention Board executive agency. This reduction comes from a mixture of savings on BSE-related schemes in the current financial year.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Policy Initiatives
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security to which policy initiative he has devoted most funding in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement on progress with each initiative. [15243]

  Mr. Burt
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's priorities are: to ensure that the overall cost of delivering the social security programme does not outstrip the nation's ability to pay; to bear down on fraud and abuse; to focus benefits on those who need them most; to improve incentives to work and save; and to encourage personal responsibility.

  In order to meet these priorities, the following key initiatives have been launched over the last five years.

  The Child Support Agency was launched in April 1993 to ensure both parents take financial responsibility for their children whenever they can afford to do so and is now securing consistently higher levels of maintenance for many thousands of lone parents.

  Incapacity benefit was introduced in April 1995 to simplify the structure of provision for the sick and disabled and improve the targeting of resources on the long-term sick. The reforms are expected to reduce benefit expenditure by over £2 billion in the long term.

  In July 1995, my right hon. Friend launched the security strategy to combat benefit fraud, putting new emphasis on prevention and deterrence whilst continuing to strengthen detection measures. The strategy has

  279
  produced year on year record savings and, under the "spend to save" initiative in the Budget, we expect to save a total of £7 billion over the next three years.

  The Pensions Act 1995 introduced major reforms to both state and private pensions. The equalisation of state pension age at 65 for men and women will strike the right balance between working population and pensioners. The reforms in private pension provision, most of which will come into force in April, will improve the security of pension funds without placing excessive burdens on employers, and strengthen the whole system of pension provision.

  Jobseeker's allowance was introduced in October 1996 to help people back into work by providing more assistance in their search for a job and work incentives such as the back to work bonus, and to target resources on those most in need.

  The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 is the first legislation of its kind anywhere in Europe. From 2 December 1996, the Act makes it unlawful for an employer with 20 or more staff—employers with fewer than this number are exempt from the Act's employment provisions—unjustifiably to treat a disabled employee or prospective employee less favourably than other people for a reason relating to his or her disability and for service providers to deny disabled people access to their services. The Act also creates new powers to set minimum access standards for new buses, taxis, trains and trams. The Act also established the National Disability Council to advise the Government on matters relating to the elimination of discrimination against disabled people and the operation of the Act.

  A three-year pilot of the earnings top-up scheme was launched in October 1996 to help people without dependant children enter and remain in work. We are also investing £20 million in our "parent plus" initiative which, from April, will offer help and advice to lone parents who want to work. A range of options will be tested over three years, including the involvement of the private sector.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of(a) the number gaining and (b) the annual cost of extending payments of incapacity benefit for four weeks once a claimant has found a job. [15796]

  Mr. Burt
  Information on which to base such an estimate will not be available until early 1998 when results are due from the current survey of people leaving incapacity benefit.

  Benefits (Effects of Study Rule)
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of(a) the annual cost and (b) the numbers gaining, broken down by benefit for (i) under-19-year-olds, (ii) those between 19 years and 25 years and (iii) over-25-year-olds of allowing a 21 hours per week study rule across all means-tested contributory and non-contributory benefits. [15868]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  There is insufficient information on which to base an estimate.
  280
  Allowing a 21-hour study rule would affect only the income-related benefits and both the income-based and contribution-based routes into jobseeker's allowance because other benefits already allow study of up to 21 hours without loss of entitlement, or place no restrictions on hours of study generally.

  Minimum Age Requirements
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the minimum age requirements enforced by his Department. [15920]

  Mr. Burt
  The minimum age at which social security benefits become payable, and liability for national insurance contributions commences, is usually 16 years. Other minimum ages are given in the table.

  Benefit description

  Minimum age (years, unless stated otherwise)

  Category A and B retirement pension; graduated retirement benefit

  65 (men)

  60 (women)

  Category C and D retirement pension

  80

  Age addition

  80

  Widow's pension

  45

  Attendance allowance

  65

  Disability living allowance:

  Care component;

  three months

  Mobility component.

  five months

  Jobseeker's allowance (JSA)

  116

  JSA pensioner premium

  Claimant or partner aged 60

  JSA enhanced pensioner premium

  Partner aged 75

  JSA higher pensioner premium

  Partner aged 80 if awarded on age grounds, or claimant or partner aged 60 if awarded on disability or incapacity grounds

  Industrial injuries disablement benefit

  No minimum age specified

  Retirement allowance

  65 (men)

  60 (women)

  Industrial injuries benefit

  No minimum age

  Income support

  18—available from age 16 for certain vulnerable groups

  Income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit pensioner premium

  Claimant or partner aged 60

  Income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit enhanced pensioner premium

  Claimant or partner aged 75

  Income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit higher pensioner premium

  Claimant or partner aged 80 if awarded on age grounds, or 60 if awarded on disability or incapacity grounds

  War disablement pensions: age allowances

  65

  War widow's pension: age allowances

  65, 70 and 80

  Higher rate of war widow's pension

  40, if childless and capable of self support

  War pensions: higher allowance to child "over the age limit" and incapable of self support

  18

  Child benefit

  None

  One parent benefit

  None

  281

  Benefit description

  Minimum age (years, unless stated otherwise)

  Guardian's allowance

  None

  Earnings top-up2

  18

  Council tax benefit

  18

  1 For income-based jobseeker's allowance 16 to 17-year-olds have no entitlement to benefit as such because the Government guarantee a place on training or in education. Certain vulnerable 16 to 17-year-olds are able to claim under the severe hardship provisions.

  2 Earnings top-up is being piloted in eight areas of the country, for three years from October 1996. It is an income-related benefit for those without dependent children (single people and couples) who work 16 hours a week or more.

  Housing and Council Tax Benefits
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on representations received by the Social Security Advisory Committee about the changes announced on 26 November 1996 in housing benefit and council tax benefit; and when he expects to announce his conclusions on this consultation. [16170]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The Social Security Advisory Committee will be reporting by the end of this month on the housing benefit changes which were announced on 26 November 1996. We will consider carefully the report before taking final decisions.

  Free School Meals
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest estimate of(a) the cost and (b) the number gaining if free school meals were extended to those in receipt of family credit. [16672]

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

  Cost and number gaining from extending entitlement to free school meals to families receiving family credit 1997–98

  Estimated cost

  £150 million

  Number of families gaining

  540,000

  Number of dependants gaining

  1 million

  1. Costs are rounded to the nearest £5 million.

  2. Gainers are rounded to the nearest 5,000

  Income Support
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what has been the number and value of(a) overpayments and (b) underpayments of income support in each year since its introduction; and what projections he has made of future errors; [17524]

  (2) what action has been taken to correct incorrect income support payments; and what amount has been(a) recovered, and (b) compensated; [17525]

  (3) if he will list his Department's estimate of the extent of incorrect income support payments by (a) region and(b) area. [17526]

  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.
  282
  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Alan Milburn, dated 25 February 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking what has been the number and value of (a) over-payments and (b) under-payments of Income Support (IS) in each year since its introduction; and what projections he has made of future errors; what action has been taken to correct incorrect IS payments; and what amount has been (a) recovered, and (b) compensated; and if he will list his Department's estimate of the extent of incorrect IS payments by (a) region and (b) area.
  The number and value of over-payments and under-payments of IS in each year since its introduction and future projections are shown at Appendix A.
  Incorrect IS payments are identified and corrected by means of routine checks and case-reviews, or in response to customer queries and appeals.
  In addition to routine procedures outlined above, there have been a number of special exercises, both national and local, to identify and correct errors made in specific categories of cases. Two major exercises for which specific records have been kept are a scrutiny of all mortgage cases and as a result of this exercise £77,865,018 million was recovered and £7,640,614 refunded to customers; and a scrutiny of live cases with potential entitlement to Severe Disability Premium and as a result of this exercise arrears of approximately £90 million were paid to customers.
  Since April 1991, the total of IS overpayments recovered is £345,180,580. These figures apply to overpayments resulting from a variety of causes, including fraud and customer error. Overpayments arising solely from official error are not normally recovered.
  Compensation is given for many reasons including misleading advice and delayed payment of benefit. Records were not kept prior to the inception of the Benefits Agency in April 1991. Since April 1991, the Agency has issued compensation of £18,659,361.87 to IS customers over and above normal benefit entitlement.
  Figures are provisional and subject to change.
  The estimate of the extent of incorrect IS payments by (a) region and (b) area is not available in the format requested. Information is available by Benefits Agency Area Directorates and Territories not by regions and is shown at Appendix B.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Appendix A: National Audit Office figures for income support error

  Overpayments £ million

  Underpayments £ million

  Total number of cases found to be in error

  1988–891

  125

  35

  587,925

  1989–90

  87.6

  57.2

  626,256

  1990–91

  115.5

  69.7

  609,008

  1991–92

  231.7

  86.8

  850,070

  1992–93

  465.2

  136.2

  925,025

  1993–94

  540.1

  76.6

  972,888

  1994–95

  546.1

  182.7

  925,911

  1995–96

  485.4

  167.5

  879,357

  1996–97

  363.5

  131.7

  —

  1 These figures include income support errors, classed by the National Audit Office, as "non-cash" errors, which represent no overall financial loss or gain to the department, as they are offset by under or overpayments of another benefit. Figures for subsequent years exclude non-cash errors.

  Figures for 1988–89 to 1995–96 are National Audit Office estimates.

  Figures for 1996–97 are a benefits agency projection.

  Figures are provisional and subject to change.

  283

  Appendix B: Percentage of income support payment found to be accurate (1996–97 year to date)

  Area directorates (AD)

  Accuracy performance Per cent.

  AD 1 East London and Anglia

  76.4

  AD 2 Chilterns

  78.0

  AD 3 London South

  76.3

  AD 4 West Country

  80.1

  AD 5 Mercia

  81.6

  AD 6 West Midlands

  82.0

  AD 7 Wales

  85.3

  Southern territory total

  79.4

  AD 8 North West Coast

  80.9

  AD 9 Greater Manchester

  81.2

  AD 10 Yorkshire

  81.5

  AD 11 Tyne Tees

  84.1

  AD 12 West of Scotland

  83.6

  AD 13 East of Scotland

  84.8

  Northern territory total

  82.6

  Estimates of monetary value of error are not statistically valid at area level. Figures are provisional and subject to change.

  Monetary value of error for 1996–97 projected by the benefits agencies quality support teams

  Underpayments £ million

  Overpayments £ million

  Total £ million

  Percentage of programme expenditure

  Southern Territory

  100.6

  287.3

  387.9

  3.5

  Northern Territory

  31.1

  76.2

  107.3

  1.6

  National

  131.7

  363.5

  513.4

  2.8

  Figures are provisional and subject to change.

  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the conclusion of his review of income support direct payments announced on 19 July. [17970]

  All recently retired pensioner units average income breakdown by quintile

  Quintile 1

  Quintile 2

  Quintile 3

  Income source

  1990–91 £

  1992 £

  11994–95 £

  1990–91 £

  1992 £

  11994–95 £

  1990–91 £

  1992 £

  11994–95 £

  Investment income

  4.50

  21.80

  4.70

  8.10

  9.10

  7.20

  18.10

  23.20

  11.20

  Occupational pension

  5.70

  9.40

  7.20

  12.70

  14.10

  21.50

  33.40

  37.50

  41.00

  Gross income

  96.60

  121.80

  105.60

  114.00

  124.70

  137.70

  162.50

  176.10

  170.00

  Net income

  84.70

  95.90

  97.20

  102.60

  115.20

  127.10

  143.40

  158.60

  156.50

  1 Denotes a small sample size these estimates should be used with particular caution.

  1. The figures provided are subject to statistical variability and should be used with caution.

  2. All incomes quoted are rounded to the nearest 1op, at July 1994 prices. All average amounts are means except where otherwise stated. Components may not sum, due to rounding.

  3. A pensioner unit is defined as a single person over state pension age or a couple where the man, defined as the head, is over SPA. A recently retired pensioner unit is defined as a pensioner unit where the head of the benefit unit is less than five years older than SPA.

  4. Due to inadequate sample sizes, information cannot be given for recently retired pensioners by decile groups and recently retired pensioner couples for 1992 and 1994–95.

  5. The family expenditure survey does not separately identify income from either personal pensions or state earnings-related pensions. Any personal pension details are recorded as investment income.

  6. Quintiles have been constructed based on the equivalised before housing costs net income distribution. This is consistent with table 5 of "The Pensioners' Income Series 1994–95."

  7. Comparisons of estimates from different years may not give reliable results. It is recommended that these estimates are used to indicate trends over time and that year on year comparisons should be avoided.
  284
  Mr. Lilley
  I have completed my review of direct payments for fuel and water, which included consultation with over 60 interested groups including the regulators, utility companies and consumer groups.

  I have concluded that the direct payments scheme continues to play an important role in protecting benefit recipients who might otherwise be at risk of having their fuel or water supply disconnected, and for whom no alternative payment methods are suitable, but it is clear that the scheme is used by some people who are capable of making their own arrangements with the utility company. Those who are capable of managing their own financial affairs should be encouraged to do so. I therefore intend to maintain the scheme for the foreseeable future, as a last resort measure to avoid disconnection, but to make more explicit the circumstances whereby direct payments remain appropriate.

  I intend to introduce amending regulations to define more clearly the eligibility conditions for the scheme, and to agree with each utility industry a new code of practice on the application of the new rules.

  Copies of the report of my review are available in the Library.

  Pensioner Incomes
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate for newly retired(a) pensioners and (b) pensioner couples in 1990–91, 1992 and 1994–95 (i) average nvestment income by quintile and by decile, (ii) average occupational pension income by quintile and by decile, (iii) average personal pension income by quintile and by decile, (iv) average state earnings-related pension scheme income by quintile and by decile and (v) average income from all sources by quintile and by decile. [17474]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.
  285

  Income source

  Quintile 4

  Quintile 5

  Total

  1990–91 £

  1992

  11994–95

  1990–91

  1992

  11994–95

  1990–91

  1992

  1994–95

  Investment income

  42.00

  42.50

  27.20

  146.80

  130.30

  118.10

  43.80

  45.30

  33.50

  Occupational pension

  63.10

  68.90

  78.00

  131.60

  169.30

  186.50

  49.20

  59.80

  66.60

  Gross income

  234.80

  242.90

  238.20

  462.80

  507.70

  529.80

  213.90

  234.50

  235.60

  Net income

  201.20

  215.80

  210.00

  370.00

  411.50

  418.80

  180.20

  199.30

  201.40

  1 Denotes a small sample size these estimates should be used with particular caution.

  1. The figures provided are subject to statistical variability and should be used with caution.

  2. All incomes quoted are rounded to the nearest lOp, at July 1994 prices. All average amounts are means except where otherwise stated. Components may not sum, due to rounding.

  3. A pensioner unit is defined as a single person over state pension age or a couple where the man, defined as the head, is over SPA. A recently retired pensioner unit is defined as a pensioner unit where the head of the benefit unit is less than five years older than SPA.

  4. Due to inadequate sample sizes, information cannot be given for recently retired pensioners by decile groups and recently retired pensioner couples for 1992 and 1994–95.

  5. The family expenditure survey does not separately identify income from either personal pensions or state earnings-related pensions. Any personal pension details are recorded as investment income.

  6. Quintiles have been constructed based on the equivalised before housing costs net income distribution. This is consistent with table 5 of "The Pensioners' Income Series 1994–95."

  7. Comparisons of estimates from different years may not give reliable results. It is recommended that these estimates are used to indicate trends over time and that year on year comparisons should be avoided.

  Recently retired pensioner couples average income breakdown by quintile, 1990–91

  Income source

  Quintile 1

  Quintile 2

  Quintile 3

  Quintile 4

  Quintile 5

  Total

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Investment income

  6.00

  14.20

  23.20

  50.40

  171.40

  53.00

  Occupational pension

  8.40

  18.60

  44.20

  74.40

  179.70

  65.00

  Gross income

  112.30

  147.60

  198.90

  276.20

  563.30

  259.50

  Net income

  97.80

  132.60

  175.90

  237.20

  450.80

  218.70

  Notes:

  1. The figures provided are subject to statistical variability and should be used with caution.

  2. All incomes quoted are rounded to the nearest lop, at July 1994 prices. All average amounts are means except where otherwise stated. Components may not sum, due to rounding.

  3. A pensioner unit is defined as a single person over state pension age or a couple where the man, defined as the head, is over SPA. A recently retired pensioner unit is defined as a pensioner unit where the head of the benefit unit is less than five years older than SPA.

  4. Due to inadequate sample sizes, information cannot be given for recently retired pensioners by decile groups and recently retired pensioner couples for 1992 and 1994–95.

  5. The family expenditure survey does not separately identify income from either personal pensions or state earnings-related pensions. Any personal pension details are recorded as investment income.

  6. Quintiles have been constructed based on the equivalised before housing costs net income distribution. This is consistent with table 5 of "The Pensioners' Income Series 1994–95."

  7. Comparisons of estimates from different years may not give reliable results. It is recommended that these estimates are used to indicate trends over time and that year on year comparisons should be avoided.

  Divorcees' Pension Rights
  Sir Roger Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish his proposals for the treatment of pension rights on divorce. [18137]

  Mr. Lilley
  The Government published a Green Paper on this topic in July 1996. We promised that, following the consultation period, a White Paper would be published in the spring. I have today published the White Paper "Pension rights on Divorce" (Cm 3564). Copies are available in the Library.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to make changes to the administration of the discretionary social fund. [17969]
  286
  Mr. Roger Evans
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is introducing minor amendments to his directions and guidance on the help available from the discretionary social fund. These changes, which will take effect from 7 April, include amendments in consequence of the introduction of the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, in England and Wales, and the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. They also include a range of other minor improvements, the need for which we have identified in the course of our routine monitoring of the social fund.

  Details of these changes have been placed in the Library.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester.

Lord Bagri
Raj Kumar Bagri, Esquire, CBE, having been created Baron Bagri, of Regent's Park in the City of Westminster, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord McColl of Dulwich and the Baroness Flather.
Lord Lloyd-Webber
Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber, Knight, having been created Baron Lloyd-Webber, of Sydmonton in the County of Hampshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Palumbo and the Lord Owen.

Sight Tests: Charges
2.56 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the cost of eye examinations has had an adverse impact on people over the age of 60.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, more people than ever before are having their sight tested. There is no evidence that people over the age of 60 suffer poorer eye health if they are not eligible for a free NHS sight test.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is she aware that some organisations cannot totally agree that older people are not suffering? Indeed, it has been shown that people over the age of 60 are at risk from developing eye disease. This can be prevented by testing. However, if they feel they have to pay to have their eyes tested, they do not bother to go. This is a serious situation and I beg the noble Baroness to have it examined.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there are a lot of exemptions to the eye test charges. Forty per cent. of the population are exempt. Those who are suffering a disease—diabetes or glaucoma—or have a member of the family who suffers from glaucoma, are automatically exempt. We believe that the diseases are being picked up. As I have said, more people than ever are having their eyes tested.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that, although there are free eye tests
1180
for those suffering from diabetes, more than half of those who are registered blind with diabetes do not take advantage of the free eye tests? Is it not perhaps a priority for the Department of Health to make sure that those who are most vulnerable to disease take up those free tests?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am not sure where that statistic arises from. We do not believe that people suffering diabetes are in any way adversely affected by these arrangements. We know that diabetes is a high risk and therefore immediately it is diagnosed we have made certain special provision for sight testing.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, is it not a fact that some diseases can be recognised as a result of an eye test? That has very often happened. Is it not penny wise and pound foolish not to give people free eye tests but then to spend the money through the National Health Service on complaints that might have been recognised earlier?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, if we removed all charges for eye tests it would cost the National Health Service £140 million. If we removed the charge for those over 60 years of age, it would cost £32 million. Translating that figure of £32 million, it is the equivalent of 4,000 cataract operations, which we know is an extremely effective way of preserving sight.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say what is the make-up of the 40 per cent. who are exempt?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, that 40 per cent. comprises children, students—that is those under 19 in full-time education—the registered blind or partially sighted; people who are diagnosed as having diabetes or glaucoma; those over the age of 40 with a close relative who suffers from glaucoma; recipients of income support; people on income-based jobseeker's allowance; recipients of family credit or disability working allowance; holders of a charges certificate for full help under the NHS low-income scheme and people who have been prescribed complex lenses.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, the Minister said that it would cost £140 million to provide everyone with a free eye test. Can she tell the House what is the cost to the National Health Service of treating people with glaucoma, which has not been detected because they have not had an eye test? Can she also say what is the cost to society of the blindness which results from the lack of early treatment of glaucoma?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is impossible to find those figures. The eye test costs about £16 and, as I have said, there are exemptions for those who cannot afford it. From the point of view of the National Health Service, I believe that the country as a whole would prefer to see cataracts corrected and other treatments offered to people rather than have to supply that money to those who can well afford £16 for an eye test.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the Royal National Institute for the Blind—which

1181
is an organisation that I am sure she will acknowledge comprises very serious people who do wonderful work—states that over half a million people over 60 years of age are not having their eyes tested? Does she agree that that should be looked at as a very serious situation? The RNIB is very greatly concerned. I hope that the House will also share that concern, which is also expressed by our Royal British Legion and ex-servicemen—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Molloy: My Lords, what is wrong with the Royal British Legion? I am very proud to belong to it—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Molloy:—and I always will be. Having got that off my chest, perhaps I may now ask the noble Baroness whether she will be good enough to look at this awful problem of people who might be going blind because of the service that they have given to this great nation? Can that now be considered?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, of course I always consider anything that the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, puts to me, within reason. I believe that the concern of the RNIB has more to do with the frequency of tests than with those who are not coming forward for them. The RNIB believes that there are people who are eligible for free tests who are not coming forward as often as they should. We all recognise the affection that the noble Lord has for the Royal British Legion. Some of those people can claim the money that they spend on eye tests.

Nuclear Arms Reduction
3.3 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are ready to enter into discussions with other states with nuclear weapons capability with a view to defining the conditions under which all such states would be prepared to contemplate adopting or continuing the present reductions of such weapons towards an ultimate aim of their elimination.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we have regular contacts on these issues with relevant states. The continuation of the START process should, in our view, remain the priority. We have already made clear the conditions under which we would join in multilateral talks on the global reduction of nuclear arms.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that Answer. Is she aware that there seems to be a lack of urgency among the nuclear powers in their desire to get rid of nuclear weapons?
1182
Does she believe that her own Government are also lacking in a sense of urgency? The dangers that exist while the world is covered with nuclear weapons have been impressed on the House by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and internationally by the Canberra Commission, the Washington gathering of generals and so on.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, there is no lack of urgency on our part or on the part of our NATO partners. But there is no doubt that the most effective reduction in the number of nuclear warheads worldwide will come through further progress on the bilateral START process. We all know that the United States and Russian arsenals are still by far the largest, and until we get Russian ratification of START II I do not believe that we shall be going forward as fast as we would like. But in the meantime, as I reminded the noble Lord on 31st October last, and then again on 11th February, the UK has already taken steps in line with the goals established by the Non-Proliferation Treaty. We have eliminated our maritime surface tactical nuclear capability; we have withdrawn our nuclear artillery and Lance missiles, and the WE-177 free-fall bomb will be withdrawn by the end of the next year. Our deterrent will then be 21 per cent. smaller in terms of warheads and 59 per cent. smaller in terms of explosive power than in the mid-1970s. There is no lack of urgency on the part of this British Government.
Lord Carver: My Lords, will the noble Baroness agree that the world would be a safer place if it were possible to persuade the nuclear weapon states, both declared and undeclared, that, pending the reductions of which she spoke, they should remove all their nuclear weapons from alert status and separate the warheads from the delivery vehicles and have that verified as recommended by the Canberra Commission?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, in one sense the noble and gallant Lord is right. But what I doubt—and what I believe most people who study such matters these days doubt—is that all the nuclear weapons-holding states would actually do that. Therefore, for some—namely, the West as the noble and gallant Lord would advocate—to reduce their defences at a time when others are not reducing theirs would be foolhardy.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, following what the Minister has just said denying that there is any lack of urgency on the part of the Government, and following the commitment in the Queen's Speech to pursue negotiations on a convention to ban the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons, can she tell the House what, if any, proposals the Government have made at the conference on disarmament in Geneva to secure a fissile material cut-off agreement?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I understand that there is some internal discussion going on about the question of the fissile material cut-off treaty. We

1183
have certainly supported calls for negotiations and have been working on that. But I cannot give the noble Baroness any more information at the present time. The matter has not been discussed in public. It may happen in a few months.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, given the importance of persuading the Russians to ratify START II, as the Minister has accepted, can she explain to us how negotiations between Russia and the West about NATO enlargement and CFE get in the way of the ratification process for START II? Do we have to find a package for dealing with the Russians or can we deal with things one at a time?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is very difficult to tell at the present time because, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, will surely know, there are a number of conflicting comments coming out of Russia from Mr. Rodionov, Mr. Baturin and Prime Minister Chernomyrdin. They do not seem to chime together. Therefore, it is difficult to be exact. In this process of negotiation it is probably dangerous to formally link any aspect because we need to work in parallel on every aspect of achieving disarmament.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell us in what possible circumstances would the United Kingdom use this terrible weapon?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, as I have said many times before in this House, it would be under very extreme circumstances and only in self-defence, but that does not undermine the importance of the role of deterrence. This House has discussed the matter on numerous occasions in the past. I cannot think that there is anything new to be said on this subject. I recommend that the noble Lord reads the speech that my right honourable friend the then Foreign Secretary made on 18th April 1995, when he went very thoroughly through the review and extension conference of the parties to the non-proliferation treaty on nuclear weapons. It will prove very good reading.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, will my noble friend also remain mindful of the threat that comes from possibly less stable powers than Russia, such as those in the Middle East, and the rising power of China? Does she agree that it would seem inopportune to render ourselves defenceless when others are increasing their capacity for nuclear war?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend is right. It is not only the former Soviet Union of which one must be mindful but, as I said in answer to Questions last October and on many other occasions in your Lordships' House, the Middle East remains an
1184
unstable area. There are those there whom we believe to have a nuclear capacity. There is also the question of South Asia, let alone China.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, it would be churlish to deny that progress has been made, but does the Minister share my hope that after the general election even faster progress will be made?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I always look for faster progress. However, I am quite sure of one thing: one does not make progress sensibly and in the best interests of the nation by giving away things before getting something in compensation from other states which should also be giving up their warheads, as Britain is doing.

"Sea Empress" Inquiry: Report
3.10 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to publish the inspector's report on the "Sea Empress" accident.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, subject to the completion of the consultation process required by the accident investigation regulations, the chief inspector expects to submit his final report to the Secretary of State at the end of next month. The report will then be published as soon as possible thereafter.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will the noble Viscount bear in mind that we have now had a number of versions from him and his colleagues about the date of publication? On 27th November, we were told that the report was supposed to be submitted in February. On 18th February, the Minister's colleague, Mr. Bowis, said in another place that it would be submitted in a month. But then on 25th February he said in Committee that he did not know when to expect the report to be published. Bearing in mind it is now over a year since that very serious accident occurred, are not Parliament and the country entitled to see the report, to measure its conclusions and to learn the lessons from it before the House is prorogued, which, one assumes, is likely to be round about the end of March?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I agree that it is important that the report is published as soon as possible. That has always been the Government's position and that remains our position. However, the independent investigation is being conducted by the marine accident investigation branch. It is not under the control of the department or Ministers. It is for the chief inspector to conduct the investigation and to come to his conclusions and at that point to follow the statutory process for consultation with those who are affected.

1185
Different estimates of when we expect the report to be published have been given, but I can only give the House the information that is currently available.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, whatever the conclusions of the report, does the Minister accept that what transcends anything else in the view of the people of the area is the question of who will meet the cost of the huge bill for that remedial treatment? Can the Minister give an undertaking now that the Government will ensure that none of the cost is forced on to the local authorities in the area and therefore on to the local people?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, as the noble Lord and the House will know, there is an international regime to cope with compensation for exactly such occurrences. I refer to the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund. That fund has already paid out a considerable sum of money. I understand that it is currently in the region of £6 million. Claims are submitted to the fund which then evaluates their validity. At the moment, the fund is paying 75 per cent. of claims.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, will the Minister give the undertaking for which I asked? He has not yet given it.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I have described the international regime which provides exactly the compensation the noble Lord seeks. It is the Government's view that the limit will not be breached and that all relevant and valid claims will be met by the fund.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, in reality is not the Minister telling the House that the report will not be published before the House is prorogued—that is, before the general election?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I have neither said one way nor the other. I do not know when the House will be prorogued so I cannot give the noble Lord or the House that information. Once the statutory processes are over and the chief inspector has submitted his report to the Secretary of State, we shall publish it as soon as possible thereafter. It is clearly in the Government's interest so to do—and in the interests of the wider maritime community.
Lord Parry: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the fouling of the haven (with which he is familiar, having been there and spent time there) is a very real and desperate tragedy, and that the time that it has taken to resolve some of these legal and legalistic problems only exacerbates the difficulties? That beautiful area of our land has some of the highest unemployment in the country. It is in the region of 33 per cent. in real terms. The area's basic economic survival now depends on people in both Britain and the world rapidly understanding that the area's tourism potential has not been permanently affected. We are all anxious to see the
1186
problems resolved and to be able to return to promoting Pembrokeshire, in all its beauty, as an attractive area for tourists.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord's concerns and the thrust of his remarks. The clean-up operation was extremely successful. Over 1,100 people worked on it, and the main amenity beaches were open by Easter 1996. I believe that the clean-up has been better than most people envisaged would be possible. Tremendous efforts have been made. I agree that the first priority now is to get the accident investigation completed and the report in the public domain so that we can learn its lessons as soon as possible. Secondly, we must make sure that we talk up the tourist potential of the very beautiful area the noble Lord described.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, but does not my noble friend recognise that whatever the conclusions of the report, the accident will cost somebody a lot of money and that that should not be the responsibility of the local authority? My noble friend said that other sources contribute, but he has not ruled out the possibility (under the laws that we have established) of making that the responsibility of the local authority. I do not think that it should be the local authority's responsibility.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, local authorities have a significant role in this process. They are there on the scene, often with considerable expertise and assets at their disposal, to assist with the clean-up operation. I certainly commend the local authorities' work in this respect. They did not look for payment beforehand, but went straight ahead with the work in hand. They worked extremely hard and long hours in order to achieve the clean-up. However, as I have said, there is an international regime specifically to cater for exactly such expenses. After having performed an analysis of the total amounts that will be involved, it is the Government's view that all valid claims will be met and settled by the compensation fund.
Lord Clinton-Davis: But meanwhile, my Lords, is it not the case that the local authorities are bearing at least 25 per cent. of the financial cost? I hope that the Minister will convey to the chief inspector the disquiet that has been expressed in the House today about the urgency of the publication of the report. It should not simply be laid on the Minister's desk. Does not the Minister recognise that if there are criticisms—perhaps major criticisms—to be made of the Government's actions or inactions, it might not be in the interests of this Government to see the report published before the election?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I should think that I would be in the best position, as the Minister most directly involved, to say that the Government believe that the report should be published as soon as possible. We want to learn its lessons. It is an independent report. Ministers have not influenced—of course, we would not

1187
want to influence—the contents of that report. We want to see it in the public domain as soon as possible. However, statutory processes have to be followed to give those who are criticised in any way full opportunities to make sure that there is no injustice.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, what contribution will the owners of the "Sea Empress" make?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the owners of the "Sea Empress" were insured and their insurers will pay the contributions up to the limit of the liability, as set out in international law, for the tonnage of the "Sea Empress".
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Minister stated that the Government believe that the financial shortfall which is currently being borne by the local authorities will be met by the appropriate funds from outside. In the event that that is not the case, will the Minister give the House an assurance that those local authorities which acted immediately and without thought of the eventual cost—and have been praised by the Minister for that—are not left with the bill for any part of that operation?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am not able to give that assurance; but I can repeat what I have said. We have looked carefully at the figures involved. Those figures are in the public domain. I shall be happy to write to the noble Baroness and provide detailed estimates of each category of claim: tourism, local authorities' preventive measures, and so on. We firmly believe that on the estimates that have been produced in the course of time the local authorities will be able to claim in full the costs that they have incurred. The Government have also incurred very substantial costs but they are prepared, as in the case of the incident involving the "Braer" to place their claim at the back of the queue.

Learner Drivers: Identification
3.20 p.m.
The Lord Campbell of Croy The Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proof of identity is now required to be produced by learner drivers when they take their driving test.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, at present a candidate for the written driving theory test and the practical driving test has to produce a valid signed driving licence to the examiner at the start of the test and on both occasions sign a form. The examiner checks the signature against that on the candidate's driving licence. From 1st March all test candidates will also have to provide photographic confirmation of their identity at the start of both tests.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. It is good news that a
1188
photograph is now necessary, as was foreshadowed in reply to my similar Question in May 1994. Does my noble friend now feel more confident that an episode at that time, when a learner driver failed the driving test 25 times and then arranged for an impersonator to take his place for the 26th test, will not occur again and that our roads are likely to be safer than they were?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it is important to tackle this problem with whatever measures are at our disposal. We believe that the new photo-identity check will deter candidates from attempting such fraud and foil it if they do.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, while, on behalf of the Opposition, I express support for what has happened, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, was not suggesting that Rory Bremner was one of those impersonators. I am quite sure that he would have been able to do it. Clearly, any attempt to ensure that fraud of this kind does not occur is to be thoroughly welcomed.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, yes.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that a watertight system is required to deter corrupt driving schools from continuing the practice about which I have complained?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am not sure that any system can be completely watertight. If people are determined to commit fraud, albeit a very dangerous one in these circumstances, there is always a possibility that they will succeed. However, I am sure that a proper photo-identity check will help in the war against crime.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is the Minister able to finish the story begun by his noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy? Did the individual concerned pass on the 26th attempt?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, as my noble friend tells the story, in that case the driving test was performed by an impersonator. Whether or not the individual passed the test will, I believe, require further detailed research.

Business of the House: Debate this Day
3.23 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Earl of Carnarvon set down for today shall be limited to five hours.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business of the House: Debates, 6th March
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The effect of this Motion is that the Motion of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, which currently appears at the bottom of the Order Paper on Thursday 6th March, will be taken before my noble friend Lord Henley's first Motion in the dinner break. This follows agreement within the usual channels.
Moved, That Standing Order 38(4) (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Thursday 6th March to allow the Motion standing in the name of the Earl Russell to be taken immediately before the first Motion standing in the name of the Lord Henley.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

London Government
3.25 p.m.
The Earl of Carnarvon The Earl of Carnarvon rose to call attention to the case for a strategic authority for London; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, like other noble Lords I very much look forward to the maiden speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Hankey and Lord Tweedsmuir. In particular, I shall be interested to hear the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, since his father's greatest book Greenmantle was based upon my great uncle Aubrey Herbert.
I should begin by explaining why I seek to bring the case for a strategic authority for London to your Lordships' attention. During 1994 and 1995 the All-Party London Group of your Lordships' House, of which I have the honour to be chairman, heard presentations from a wide range of bodies concerned with London about the work they were doing and the problems they were facing. One of the common themes, which was mentioned again and again, was the difficulties which were arising from the absence of a strategic authority for the capital. This point was strongly made by people from the business sector as well as from the voluntary and public sectors.
The London Group decided to address directly the question of creating a London-wide authority. During the first six months of 1996 we concentrated our attention upon it. As an all-party group, the London Group did not see it as its function to put forward a particular solution, which would inevitably be politically contentious, but felt that there was a case to be examined. We believed that the best contribution we could make was to seek an opportunity for your Lordships' House to debate the matter and provide a briefing paper which would assist peers wishing to take part in the debate. This paper, The Question of a Strategic Authority for London, has been available from
1190
the Printed Paper Office since July, and I hope that many of your Lordships will have found an opportunity to read it.
In the introduction to the paper I expressed the hope that discussion would concentrate on certain matters of principle whose resolution would determine whether a new strategic authority should be established and, if so, provide a basis for defining the body's powers and functions. These matters of principle would be relevant whether the authority took the form of an assembly, council, a group of commissioners, a mayor or any variation of these options. I expressed the key principles in three propositions. These are not recommendations by the London Group but they are expressed in positive form in order to give a focus to the debate. First, there should be an authority, whatever its form, responsible for dealing with those issues which affect London as a whole and that authority should be directly elected by, and be accountable to, the citizens of London. Secondly, the functions of the authority should be defined precisely and its powers drawn from those currently exercised by government departments and agencies, not those currently exercised by individual London Boroughs. Thirdly, the authority should have control of adequate financial resources.
The arguments for and against the creation of a new authority are summarised fully and, I hope, fairly in the paper. I believe that the principal argument in favour is that under the present arrangements there is no single body able to speak and act on behalf of all the people of London, and be accountable to them, across the whole range of issues which concern them; and there is no single body which can represent London in its dealings with the Government, other parts of the United Kingdom, the agencies of the European Union and other world cities. If we can trust opinion polls—obviously, that is a problem—this deficiency, which has been referred to as the democratic deficit, is felt by the people of London to be detrimental to their interests. It is also felt to be detrimental by many bodies that are currently concerned with promoting the well-being of London, notably London First and the London Government Association, which is the body that represents the London boroughs.
The principal arguments against a new body are that the present arrangements are working well, and that a new body would be an additional, unnecessary and expensive tier of administration. However, as I have indicated, some of the organisations most intimately involved in the operation of the present arrangements do not find them satisfactory.
If there is to be a new authority or group of commissioners, the fundamental matter to be determined is what, precisely, its functions are to be. There is general agreement among those advocating the creation of a strategic authority or executive that its powers should be powers which are currently exercised by the Government, by government-appointed agencies or quangos, or by London-wide bodies nominated by the London boroughs, such as the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority or the London Planning Advisory Committee, and that powers currently exercised by the boroughs individually should remain with the boroughs.
Most lists of functions produced by those favouring the creation of a new authority include strategic planning and transport, economic regeneration and promotion, tourism and support of the arts, information services, and public safety, including the oversight of the fire service and the police. When this last point was raised with the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, we found that he was not averse to it. Last week, the London group interviewed Mr. Robinson, the Chief Fire Officer for London. He was of the same opinion.
Transport seems to head everybody's list, but it illustrates the difficulties which must be faced if the new arrangements are to be successful. The organisational structure for handling transport matters in London is extremely complex, and has become more so with the introduction of rail privatisation. The multiplicity of interests is such that much of the complexity would inevitably remain, even if a strategic authority with a transport role were to be created. The crucial questions are whether such an authority could more effectively discharge many of the responsibilities now exercised by the Department of Transport, the Department of the Environment and the Home Office, and how far the government of the day would be prepared to allow the strategic authority to determine the scale and priorities of expenditure on transport in and for London.
In strategic planning a viable balance would have to be found among the roles of the new authority, the London boroughs and the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Transport and planning are especially pertinent to a point I particularly wish to make as chairman of SERPLAN, the London and South East Regional Planning Conference. While it may be appropriate to consider London as an entity whose government in strategic matters should be entrusted to a single authority, it would in my view be a gross mistake to regard London as a self-contained region. London's relationship with the counties of South East England—in transport, planning, waste disposal, business and employment, and culture and the arts—is too complex for that. Whatever new arrangements may be adopted they must provide for London to continue to work closely with the other authorities of South East England. The previous strategic authorities, the London County Council and the Greater London Council, fully recognised this important matter. They were prominent in creating and sustaining SERPLAN, to which all the London borough councils, the county and district councils, and the new unitary authorities of South East England belong. Any new strategic authority for London must be just as fully conscious of, and just as fully committed to, its role within the wider region of which London is the vital heart. This point has been well taken in Paris, where the arrangements for managing affairs which concern both the metropolis and the Paris Basin as a whole are well established and strongly supported. In fact the population of the Paris Basin region (18 million) is the same population as covered by SERPLAN.
I turn now to finance. London expenditure is about 14 per cent. of the UK total—a figure of £35 billion. It is self-evident that if a new authority were not adequately resourced to carry out the functions assigned to it, it would have no chance of success. Those opposed to a new authority argue that it will cause additional expenditure and indeed some say that the advocacy of a new authority is, in reality, a concealed demand for additional public expenditure. Those who favour a new authority argue that no net increase in expenditure is involved, since resources should be transferred to it along with its functions.
Members of the London group, and others, have argued that it is misleading to talk of "local government expenditure" in a situation in which 82 per cent. of the finance required is provided, and the remainder tightly controlled, by central government. I have much sympathy with this view, and would like to see the business rate returned to local government. This is an issue wider in its implications than the governance of London, but it cannot be ignored.
I should like now to say a few words about the form which a new authority might take. Opinion seems to have hardened in favour of a directly elected body but there are a number of options for its form. It could be an assembly, similar in form to its predecessors, the LCC and the GLC, and to existing local authorities. It could be a commission, of elected commissioners, each with a defined portfolio, or it could be a mayor, perhaps with supporting commissioners. At the moment, I favour this option, under which one scenario would involve an elected mayor, possibly two or three commissioners nominated by London First, two or three commissioners nominated by the Association of London Government, and two or three commissioners nominated by the elected mayor. The election of the mayor could be on the familiar basis of geographical constituencies or on a London-wide basis. He or she would not conflict with the Lord Mayor of the City, as the new mayor would be executive and have no ceremonial role.
I would not wish to recommend to your Lordships' House a particular format for a new authority, but I would hope the opportunity would be taken to consider fresh possibilities, rather than merely adopting the familiar format of an assembly of councillors elected from geographical constituencies.
There is support for a consultative forum, whose composition would include representation of the business and voluntary sectors, to work with the new authority.
Perhaps I may be permitted a personal comment. I love London: I was born in London and I lived there in the 'thirties and spent two or three years at Knightsbridge Barracks just after the war. Although my direct involvement in local government was in Hampshire, I worked closely with the LCC and, later, the Greater London Council in the development of Basingstoke and Andover under the Town Development Act. I was chairman of the South East Economic Planning Council for nine years, with an office in Marsham Street, which included London, and I am now chairman of SERPLAN. These appointments therefore

1193
have kept me keenly aware of London issues, and of the importance of London in the life of South East England and of the nation as a whole.
As chairman of SERPLAN, I have made official visits over the past two years to 19 London boroughs and I was very impressed with what I saw. It was these relationships, over many years, which in 1993 led me to convene the All-Party London Group of Peers and, with their support, to put down the Motion which is before you today. Whatever view one may take about the need for a new London-wide authority, it cannot be denied that the question has once again become highly topical and requires full and careful debate.
I conclude my remarks by simply listing the matters which need to be addressed in considering the case for a strategic authority for London, both in the debate which is about to take place and in the wider debate to which it will be an important contribution. Very briefly, those matters are: the functions, the format and the funding of a new authority; the mode of election; the geographical area to be covered; the function and organisation of a consultative body to work with the new authority; and the relationship between the new authority and the existing organisations and agencies concerned with London. I beg to move for Papers.
3.40 p.m.
Lord Plummer of St. Marylebone: My Lords, I would first like to express my thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, for inaugurating the debate. It was due to him that the All-Party London Group was first set up and continued from strength to strength. He is uniquely experienced in the problems of London and the South East, having been chairman of the South East Economic Planning Council and chairman of the London and South East Regional Planning Conference. I had the pleasure of working with him many years ago.
In making a case for a strategic authority for London, I should perhaps commence by declaring my past interests. Starting as a London Borough Councillor, I was subsequently also elected a member of the London County Council. As the LCC came to an end, I was elected to the Greater London Council and the Inner London Education Authority. This resulted in one unusual year when I served on all four at the same time. Later I had the honour to hold the office of leader of the council for six years and, due to unfortunate democratic pressure, leader of the opposition for two years.
In order to avoid any misunderstandings, I must make it quite clear that I am not saying, "Bring back the GLC". While I was leader of the GLC I was made well aware that its powers and responsibilities required amending or delegating elsewhere. But the drastic and unnecessary step to abolish the GLC has allowed a decline in many areas of London. The experience gained by staff and councillors over nearly 100 years was thrown away, and assets so carefully put together for long-term improvements were disposed of in a sale labelled "Everything must go". That is not the right way to get the best value. But now we must look forward and try and find a way of creating for London an authority which it undoubtedly needs.
1194
For millions of people London is a home. It also provides employment for millions, many from a huge area out side. Indeed, almost a quarter of the population of the United Kingdom is, in one way or another, London-oriented. It is one of the world's great financial centres and a concentration of wealth creation. London is a cultural magnet and a focus for tourism, and, in a unique way, the media capital. The Evening Standard and Mr. Simon Jenkins in The Times are to be congratulated on their efforts to bring to the attention of the public the urgent need to tackle the problem. I hope that they will continue.
It has become increasingly clear since the demise of the GLC that London, like so many other great cities, is threatened not only with the worldwide problems of city life, but also with specific difficulties. One has only to leave the central area of London and visit some of our suburban centres north, east, south and west, to see how tawdry, run down and depressing they have become, and how the physical and social environment is deteriorating. As part of that, private and public transport has become more congested and less reliable year by year.
Many Londoners do not like living here any more, but feel powerless to do anything about it, or know where to go to get action. To deal with those and other matters, numerous anonymous co-ordinating committees and other disparate bodies with partial responsibilities for them have been set up, but are increasingly regarded as lacking the necessary clout.
Two energetic bodies have emerged to fill the gap and in particular London First and London Pride, with my noble friend Lord Sheppard of Didgemere at the helm, have carried out valuable work in conjunction with others to identify and promote action. But these bodies in the long run cannot be a substitute for a democratically elected authority.
London needs a body which speaks with authority and responsibility for the interest of those who live and work there, and to fight for its share of resources. Too often in recent years London's interests have gone by default, a point made by the Lord Mayor of London, but the City cannot speak for the whole of London.
It is essential to create a body where citizens, the professions and business can go to obtain information and obtain answers which affect the whole region. The London boroughs are large and powerful, but inevitably they are more concerned with their own cabbage patch than the strategic needs of the region. What kind of organisation can be created which, to be successful, must deal with a limited number of important subjects, not to be in conflict with central government and London borough responsibilities and yet speaks with authority and responsibility for London?
A new body is urgently required for improved co-ordination and management of the capital: first, to study London's problems and needs; secondly, to bring forward solutions after consultations; thirdly, to fight for London's fair share of resources; and, fourthly, to set up an independent London information and intelligence centre. This is to be a centre for the continuous

1195
collection of the current facts about London. A government office for London will never break free from the Whitehall machine.
In addition to the London Planning Advisory Committee, several excellent bodies have evolved to fill the vacuum since the demise of the GLC and they have given evidence to the All-Party London Group. In particular, London First, London Pride and the Association of London Government have identified a number of key objectives, and drawn up a comprehensive and costed programme to promote the competitiveness of London as a world city, emphasising the importance of London to the United Kingdom as a whole.
The CBI London strategy group told our committee that London's economy is, in fact, larger than either Wales or Scotland, and whereas those countries are net recipients of public money London provided a surplus which is shared in the regions. Is that what the Government Office for London finds convenient, and what else does it do?
It has been suggested in some quarters that London should have an elected mayor with sweeping powers to rule the capital. In my experience, I believe that both suggestions, if implemented, would lead to trouble. The title "mayor" is ancient and well-known to everyone, being largely ceremonial. During their years of office, most mayors go out of their way to keep out of politics. The ancient office of the Lord Mayor of the City of London occupies a unique position with special powers and privileges but he cannot speak for London as a whole. There is also the Lord Mayor of Westminster and the mayors of all the London boroughs. Therefore, it would be very confusing to have someone called "mayor" running about all over London with executive powers and a strong political bias. I do not mind what he is called but he should not have the label "mayor".
It was clear from the evidence submitted to our committee that there is much preliminary work to be done before any new organisation can be established. I shall have a shot at the four main issues which have first to be decided. Should the new body be elected and on what basis? I cannot see how real public participation can be achieved unless it is elected. To ensure a strategic approach, representatives must not be elected on a borough basis. Secondly, how will it be financed and how will spending be tightly controlled?
What functions should it control? In that regard, I am wary of the long list of suggestions made by the ALG. If the new authority is to be kept to a small size, its responsibilities must be restricted or, as the noble Earl said, defined precisely, otherwise it will be the new GLC. Fourthly, where should the boundaries be fixed? Should they be the same as the old GLC? Should they be over the area of continuous urban development; but where does that stop? Or should they be within the area of the M.25?
There are many other hurdles to jump which require discussion and debate. But we should not be too long in doing that as London urgently needs its own strategic authority.
3.52 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, first, I too am most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, for introducing the debate this afternoon. That is not merely a formal compliment, one of the usual compliments which we pay on such an occasion. My gratitude is wholly sincere because we have not had a debate on London for some time. Perhaps I may say that it was introduced with great conviction and eloquence by the noble Earl and I too look forward to the two maiden speeches which we are to hear this afternoon.
I should like to spend the greater part of my limited time on my party's position on local government for London but it would be wrong if I glossed over entirely the problems which our proposals are designed to meet. Perhaps your Lordships will bear with me for a moment or two while I briefly put those problems into two categories: the first is what I might call the present condition of London, following the noble Lord, Lord Plummer; and the second is what we regard as the unsatisfactory nature of London governance as it exists at present.
First, I take the present condition of London. As the noble Lord, Lord Plummer, pointed out, in many areas it is not good. I am well aware, as we are continually being told, that London is the fashion centre of the world, a magnet for tourists without parallel, and a truly delightful place to live. London, we are told, is—I use the current expression—"hip". But if your Lordships look below the surface, the reality is somewhat different. London is not healthy. The fact is that London has not come well out of the recession. Compared with other parts of the UK, London lost more jobs when the recession hit and has recovered fewer jobs in the interim. What has come to the rescue is the tourist trade; but there is nobody who knows anything about London who thinks that tourists move outside the central area of the city.
Leaving aside the tourist trade, which includes—in the sense of financial tourism—the City of London, there is at present little encouragement for those who actually live in London or, indeed, for those who come from outside London to work there. I hope I do not even have to mention the plight of London Underground; I hope that I do not have to cover yet again the catastrophe of the health and hospital services in London; I hope that I do not have to describe the pollution of the air that Londoners have to suffer. And those are only some of the burdens for Londoners. There are many others—homelessness, the need for new housing to meet the existing need, the high percentage of long term unemployed compared with the rest of Britain, the fall in manufacturing employment, the crime rate, the feeling of discrimination among ethnic communities. The list is long and, if I may say so, rather solemn. Outside the glitz, London is not in very good shape.
Now, to be fair the present Government seem to have come, albeit latterly, to a dim recognition of the London problem. Over the past few years or so there has been some understanding that there are many concerns which cannot be met by London boroughs acting alone. The

1197
solution offered has been that of a Cabinet sub-committee, comprising government Ministers representing their own departments. Underneath that committee, there is the Government Office for London. Then, apparently below that, there are the Joint Committees of the Boroughs and the Association of London Government. Interspersed between and alongside these bodies are a number of advisory forums of varying degrees of formality, such as the London Pride Partnership and the recently established Joint London Advisory Panel. Moving, as it were, in the interstices of that rather complicated structure, there is a largish group of quangos controlling, so I am told, some £9 billion of public expenditure.
I am sure that all those bodies do valuable work, and we must all be grateful for their efforts. But the problem is that Londoners have no means of approving or disapproving the decisions which are being made on their behalf beyond mute and sometimes incoherent protest. Above the level of the borough council, direct democracy ceases to exist. Whatever Londoners might try to do, they know that the final determination of strategic policy for London rests with the Cabinet sub-committee for London on advice from the Government Office for London and individual Whitehall departments.
Therefore, the real problem, apart from the complexity of the arrangements I have described, is one of legitimacy; and it is very simple. The future of London must lie, not with appointees—however distinguished—but with those who are elected on a democratic basis of one person one vote. And that is precisely what we shall propose. We believe that London needs, and should have, an elective voice of its own. But we go further. We recognise that there should be no monstrous bureaucracy. "Subsidiarity", to use that rather unpleasant word, should in our view apply not just between Brussels and Westminster, nor just between Westminster and a future London County Hall, but also downwards to the London boroughs and should, indeed, embrace those businesses and voluntary organisations which are involved in London's future. Those services for which the new authority will take responsibility, like the regular policing functions of the Metropolitan Police or the London Fire Brigade, might well be run by boards at arm's length from the authority itself.
We also accept—and here I take up a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, and the noble Lord, Lord Plummer—that the boundaries of the new authority's writ cannot be set in stone today. There will have to be much consultation and deliberation before any view on that is sufficiently firm to be put into legislation. Your Lordships will, I am sure, be aware that my party put out a consultative document on all these matters, and we are still in the process of considering the replies.
There are, however, two points on which I feel it would be right to move our position a little further. The first is on the matter of an elected mayor. For avoidance of doubt, as they say, I do not refer to the Lord Mayor of the Corporation of the City of London (whose electoral
1198
process, by the way, would certainly not pass any reasonable United Nations supervision). Your Lordships will be aware that the Leader of my party has advocated a directly elected mayor for London, with executive powers. This has not yet become the official policy of my party, as there are various formal procedures which are required for that to happen, but it seems, if I may say so, and in the context which no doubt your Lordships will appreciate, very likely that the proposal will be adopted as policy, although no firm decision has yet been taken.
Nevertheless, and this is my second point, it is no good any party trying to thrust ideas down the unwilling throats of Londoners. The transformation from centrally directed government to a broad consensus cannot be achieved simply by government fiat, whatever government may be in power. We will therefore be putting our proposals, when they have been properly considered and the process of consultation is complete and if (or rather when) we form a government, in their final form to Londoners for their direct approval.
I have no doubt that the Government's response to the noble Earl's debate will be to say that everything is all right as it is. We are getting used to such responses to any proposal for change in any direction, from whatever quarter it comes. But, as I look at the clock, I see that my time is up. I am comforted by the thought that, as I look at the polls, so is theirs.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I start, as other speakers have done, by thanking the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, first, for instituting today's debate, which I think promises to be a most interesting one; and secondly, I should like to thank him most sincerely for the way in which he introduced the debate. If I may say so, it was a most balanced and measured speech which very succinctly summarised all the major issues which we need to consider in London. However, I should like my thanks to go beyond that. I am particularly grateful to the noble Earl for starting and for so ably leading the London Group of Peers. It does very useful work; indeed, the fact that we are having this debate today is an example of that work, but it by no means represents all of it. I have to say that the existence of that group and the work that it carries out contrasts very sharply with the absence of any similar group in the other place—a gap which I believe should long since have been filled but which I fear may never be filled.
We have today many well-informed and very experienced speakers who are knowledgeable in these matters. I fell to wondering what contribution I could make. I believe that I have perhaps one unique contribution to make in the debate; namely, that I can say without fear of contradiction that I shall be the only current London borough council leader to speak today, although my friend and long-time political opponent the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, (who, I am pleased to say, will speak later) has, I believe, slightly longer experience, although sadly no longer current, as a London borough council leader. Much though we agree on matters European, we have long disagreed on matters concerning London government.

1199
I have been a London council leader by coincidence exactly since the time of the abolition of the GLC. Prior to that I served 12 years as an opposition leader on a London borough council during the existence of the GLC. Therefore, I believe that I am fairly well placed to understand life with the GLC and life since the GLC. However, I do not want to dwell on that issue. My concern is that the debate has been so characterised by the battles and arguments of the 1980s and we are now at last moving into the 1990s.
London government has changed and changed significantly in recent years. The first message that I should like to bring as a London borough council leader is that London borough government is alive and well. Much though I opposed the abolition of the GLC—incidentally, my party was calling not for saving the GLC or abolishing it; but for reforming it—inevitably, in that polarised argument, it came down to an argument of "keep or abolish".
London borough government has done well. Although I hesitate to say that it has flourished in recent years, it is now, despite all the difficulties imposed upon it, in a stronger and healthier state than it was some years ago. What has changed most particularly is that real partnerships have developed. I have in mind real partnerships with business, with the voluntary sector and with local communities. No longer do London borough councils believe that they could or should do everything; indeed, they have learnt to work together with other representatives of the community and, in so doing, have learnt a great deal. It is fair to say that most business leaders involved in that process would accept that they, too, have learnt a good deal about the nature of local government and local government in London in particular.
I should like to stress what the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, said is vitally important. If there is to be a strategic authority, then it must take its powers from central government not from London boroughs. It is vital that the strategic authority adds value to London government and does not detract from what is already there and working surprisingly well. If I say that as a London borough leader, why is it that the overwhelming majority of London borough council leaders feel so strongly in favour of a strategic authority? The system works reasonably well up to a point, but local government has an extraordinarily good record of making things work. Indeed, local government even came very close to making the poll tax work.
Local government works but it does not work as well as it should. London borough government works in a strategic vacuum. Others have said what is wrong but I shall not add to that, save to say that such as might pass for strategic government is hopelessly fragmented. I speak as a member of the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority, one of the joint boards to which speakers have referred. It is remote from the next tier of government—central government—in the form of a Cabinet sub-committee which, perforce, meets in secret. We do not know its agenda; we do not know its future agenda; and, indeed, we only know what
1200
decisions it may have reached when they are announced. That has been improved a little by the establishment of the Joint London Advisory Panel, but that is no answer.
So we now have a Minister for London whom I know. I sincerely believe that he cares deeply about London; indeed, I acknowledge that fact. However, when we see the Minister speaking about London on London regional political programmes, he is speaking either from his front garden in Suffolk or from the Ipswich television studio. That is not the place where a Minister for London needs to be.
We have seen a number of bodies established which are doing good work. For example, the London Pride Partnership in particular has carried out excellent work in making the case for London as regards seeing what is wrong and attempting to put it right. But that is not enough. It has no power; nor indeed should it have because it has no—and seeks no—democratic legitimacy.
The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, and I are two of the three London councillors who serve on the Committee of the Regions. I shall not take time today to talk about London's voice in Europe but I believe that we are well placed to see that the voice that London has in Europe is not at all that which other major European cities have.
My party, the Liberal Democrats, has always supported, and continues to support, a strategic authority for London. We would see that authority based on present Greater London boundaries, not least because of the difficulties inherent in trying to change those boundaries. We see that authority directly elected by a system of proportional representation which I believe is important in trying to get an elected assembly for London which would be truly representative of all the views in London. We suggest that it should be elected by the single transferable vote in multi-member constituencies, and we would go further and suggest that there might be eight constituencies each returning nine members. Therefore, they would retain some geographical connection (but not one which was dominated by the self-interests of particular boroughs) thereby enabling their members to take a more broad strategic view.
We would also—this is critically important—ensure that that authority had some tax raising powers. The power to control one's own resources and if necessary, and when necessary, to raise one's own resources is important. Its functions would be broadly those that have already been mentioned: strategic planning, transport, emergency services, economic regeneration and health purchasing. It would have a co-ordinating role in the fields of leisure, tourism, the environment, and grants for the voluntary sector.
There are many other proposals all worthy of consideration. The one which seems to be coming into greater and greater favour—I listened with great interest to the carefully chosen words of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel—is that of the elected mayor. I listened with interest to the procedures which the Labour Party has to go through before that becomes official policy. I can tell him—although I suspect he already knows—that one of those procedures will be to

1201
convince Labour councillors in London to be in favour of an elected mayor. I know of none who is in favour of elected mayors. My party does not favour that. I cannot think of any London borough councillors of any party who favour elected mayors, although I do not doubt that there are some.
Time does not permit me to go into all the reasons for that, but I think there is a danger that an elected mayor will be either a fairly pointless figurehead, which is not what is proposed, or will be someone with enormous democratic power. A mandate given by 5 million electors would probably be a more powerful electoral mandate than that enjoyed by anyone in the world, and certainly anyone in this country. We do not believe that that degree of democratic power should be centralised in one person, however distinguished, able or democratically elected that person may be.
However, my biggest concern as regards the debate on the elected mayor is that it acts as a distraction from the real issues that we ought to be discussing which are those of the powers and functions of the strategic authority. I want to conclude—as I must now—by recognising that there already exists a broad consensus that all is not well in London government. However, there is not yet a broad consensus about how it should be put right. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, suggested that there should be a referendum. My party supports that view but we need to know what that referendum is about. Before we have that referendum we need to have a debate that goes beyond our individual political parties and engages with all the people in London life to determine what it is that we favour. Before there is a referendum we need a consensus on what we are for, not just a consensus on what we are against. London deserves that; our capital city deserves that; and Londoners deserve that.
4.12 p.m.
Lord Hankey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Carnarvon for introducing this debate and for the work over many months of the all-party group. I am also grateful for the opportunity to speak and to support the noble Earl in his quest. The proper organisation of London's administration is a most important topic.
If I understand the present sentiment correctly, there is a strong desire among the professions, the administration and other agencies to review and to revise the present institutional and administrative arrangements. The possible creation of a strategic authority for London relates to the fundamental objective of achieving good urban management. My experience as an architect and cultural heritage specialist in various cities of the world as well as in the United Kingdom, has given me a certain perspective on planning and urban development issues. I wish to review just six of certain generic types of objective a strategic authority needs to consider.
First, there is a need constantly to review and record assets and liabilities. Secondly, the available physical, economic and skills resource, and related opportunities
1202
must be assessed and the implications explained to an increasingly informed public. Thirdly, the use, growth and potential of those resources must be co-ordinated, planned and marketed to all sectors. Fourthly, institutional legal and administrative frameworks must be constantly reviewed and adapted. Fifthly, the appropriate education, training and skills must be encouraged for urban managers and professionals. Finally, democracy and ownership constitute an important question. Above all, the means must be constantly reviewed and developed whereby the stakeholders, of which the electorate is one of the most important, can be actively involved in a process that is respected, owned by, and reflects the interests of London's people and commerce.
The objectives I have outlined can only be fulfilled by some form of strategic authority. I believe also that to some degree all of the above objectives, which in my experience relate to most cities of the world, have at times been overlooked in the institutional and administrative structures that have been created since the abolition of the GLC in 1986. I would in no way advocate a return to the GLC formula. It would destroy private enterprise and initiatives which are a key to stakeholder involvement. It is more a question of the strategic authority giving essential support, essential focus and co-ordination to the different sectors of the metropolis. The form of the authority I cannot examine now, and that must, I think, follow later.
The legacy of London's history has given us one of the world's most powerful financial, commercial and cultural centres. It is a world class city. Its citizens have extraordinary skills and experience, and the city provides a magnet for people and commerce from all over the world. But the world is changing, and many people express concern that London's future may be vulnerable in the longer term. We should anticipate growing competition with other major cities in Europe. Radical changes over recent years have occurred in the world's economic, political, and trading balances. The continuing revolution of information technology has demanded changes in the workplace and scientific progress continues to modify our concepts of transport, housing, healthcare and patterns of trade and commerce. I do not believe that the response to these opportunities and threats can be safely left to the unco-ordinated efforts of the local boroughs, quangos and other agencies, nor can it be left to the market place alone.
I believe that to respond to world trends, and to respond to the threats and opportunities as they may affect London, we need a strategic authority. It is, I believe, the role of a strategic authority to develop policy, to promote compatibility and synergy among the different sectors of the metropolis and their often disparate aims and objectives, and to oversee the implementation of policy.
From the experience of my group of companies and my own particular observations from our work in Europe and further afield for the World Bank, the Overseas Development Administration and other international agencies, there is often not so much a problem for an administration to know what has to be done, but for an administration to know how to

1203
implement policy, and to do so fairly and with adequate consultation among the stakeholders—a particular problem in China.
I personally think that there is often a real degree of alienation felt by people in large urban areas such as London. This, I believe, arises out of the obstacles to their involvement in a democratic process. To some extent I think we have been unclear about how to structure our institutions, our administration and our democratic systems within the special context of London. The authority should have an important role in strengthening this democratic process with regard to strategic issues.
I wish to note four other relevant observations which complement and enlarge on what I have said. First, as the noble Earl stated, there is no single voice to represent the metropolis to adjacent regions of the country, or to the national Government, or to our partners in Europe. In consequence I understand that there is continued underfunding of the city relative to its contribution to the economy.
Secondly, there is no easily identified inward investment agency for London, and while the role of such an agency in relation to the local market context needs careful consideration, the Welsh, Scottish and other regions have adopted a more integrated approach to the problem of inward investment and perhaps with more success.
Thirdly, there is no single perspective on the more domestic issues of urban deprivation in London. This is a multifaceted problem requiring a strategic response on housing, social services, training and education and access to employment initiatives. With the present constitutional set-up of responsibility lying at the local level, initiatives tend to be localised, unco-ordinated between areas, and disparate. I believe that implementation should be at the local level but within the context of an overall strategic framework.
Fourthly, co-ordination is needed. The present unco-ordinated system naturally leads to competition for resources and investment rather than collaboration among the range of local agencies regardless of sector.
Since the abolition of the GLC, there have of course been many positive achievements. London has developed a culture of partnership between public and private enterprise. There has been considerable co-operation between various policy actors at the sub-regional level. Much mention has been made of the London Pride Partnership which has worked hard to develop a vision. Both the West London Strategic Framework and the Thames Gateway have made important initiatives. But they have been dependent on developing consensus and collaboration at every step. Perhaps we need to promote a stronger basis for the support and implementation of their strategies.
I submit the view that it is only a strategic authority for London, designed to enable, to co-ordinate, to complement and to add value to the existing political, economic and social structures that can defend and promote London's world class status. It must be capable of developing a vision in consultation with all interested parties, drawing on the abundance of experience and
1204
skills available within the capital. I believe that discussion should be devoted to further analysis and definition of the form and function of such an authority.
4.22 p.m.
Lord Sheppard of Didgemere: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, on his maiden speech. We saw the skills of his design and architecture in the structure of his speech. His knowledge of the inner city and some of the regeneration issues are highly relevant. Perhaps a degree at London University was not entirely irrelevant. If he were nervous, as I was a few months ago, he did not show it.
To me London is a great economic success. Of course there is much to be done in London; of course there are areas of London which do not have the standard of living required. The issue before us is how to build on that success rather than a discussion on whether success has been achieved.
I begin by declaring not an interest but a passion for London, the city in which I was born, and I am not ashamed of that passion. I am honorary chairman of London First, a private sector group concerned with making London a better place in which to live, invest, and work as well as to visit. With councillor Toby Harris, I am honorary joint chairman of the London Pride Partnership. London Pride brings together business, local government leaders from all parties, the Churches, and other groups.
My contention, shared with my business colleagues in London First, is that a strategic authority, despite the best intentions, would inevitably hinder rather than help the task of making London a still greater success. Perhaps I may say why. It is apparent that such an authority would be sandwiched between the boroughs and central government. It would struggle, therefore, to find a useful and effective role. It would threaten to create another layer of bureaucracy and impede action and slow down progress.
But, importantly, such an authority would endanger the factor which is growing extremely fast in London—partnership. Partnership takes many forms. It may involve individual local authorities coming together to work on individual issues. However, another example—it is one on which I wish to spend a few moments—is London Pride Partnership. Noble Lords have heard that London Pride Partnership is not a conventional gathering of people. It cuts across all parties; and comprises people of all types of background, and so on. Yet it is our experience that we can reach agreement, sometimes to our own amazement, on most issues. How do we do that? Simply by focusing on the issues on which we agree and taking action, rather than focusing on spending time debating those on which we disagree.
Perhaps I may give three brief examples. As regards inward investment, we know that multinational companies can choose freely where they will relocate their headquarters or their activities. Since it came into existence a couple years ago, London First Centre, which is local government, central government and business, has attracted 70 overseas investors to London.

1205
More importantly, it has about 100 on the books; they are coming in fast. They see London as potentially a great success.
Action by the London Tourist Board, fully supported by London Pride Partnership, has seen tourist income for London reach the world level. Of course it should be above that, but for each of the past two years it has reached 8 per cent. per annum. Let me give one example of partnership working in practice in tourism. In Southwark the local authority and business are working together to build hotels in what is central London—but no one had previously noticed that.
My last example concerns domestic waste recycling. Between them, local government, central government and the private sector have just launched plans to increase the recycling of waste in London from 7 per cent. to 25 per cent. over the next four to five years, thereby not only improving the environment but also creating green jobs. Each is an example of partnership in action. Many people state that what we need in London is a transport strategy. Yet it already exists, not in a vague or imprecise form but as a fully costed prioritised plan covering all aspects of transport over each of the next 15 years. That has been signed off by business, local government, ALG and the voluntary sector and is supported by the Government in their own transport strategy issued last year.
The issue as regards transport for London is not what needs to be done, but how to attract private investment to speed up implementation of the plan. It is encouraging to find that both the Labour and Conservative Parties are calling for ways of encouraging more private investment.
Perhaps I may turn to the key points. London does not need a new layer of bureaucracy. It would take time to implement and inevitably would enlarge itself, as government always does. By concentrating on points of disagreement rather than action, it would have the effect of stifling the very initiative for which its supporters call.
Partnership in London is up and running. It is action driven. It gets results. Why do we not focus our attention on promoting partnership rather than wasting resources by installing what would be a redundant strategic authority? Do not misunderstand what I say. We must not be complacent. In the business world I have observed that it is the companies that never cease to evolve which are the most successful. London must continue to evolve and improve. Once we think that we have made it, we are dead. Over the past few years London's record on governance has not been bad: a Minister for London, the Government Office for London, and a Cabinet sub-committee which now meets formally and regularly with members of the London Pride Partnership, with minutes fully published, are all examples of how the governance of London has successfully evolved over the past few years.
Nobody supposes that the system, or London itself, is perfect. Last year, London First conducted an in-depth discussion on the governance of London with its business members. Each member participated in a
1206
discussion lasting approximately two hours. Many changed their minds and firmed up their views during that time. There was consensus that much had been achieved as a result of the partnership drive that I mentioned, but that we had to find ways of building on that success.
Our members, after much serious discussion, expressed strong opposition to a new London authority. They did, however, express a strong view that London lacked a loud and effective voice to champion its cause abroad and stand up for its interests at home. One has only to have been involved in work on the Millennium Exhibition or the national stadium which we now hope is to be built at Wembley to appreciate that a London champion is very long overdue.
The champion, whether he or she is called a mayor or a chief executive—we used the title "governor" to avoid confusion with mayors—must have a clearly defined remit. He or she must give priority to action. Any bureaucracy inherent in the system must be minimised. Local issues must continue to be handled by the boroughs. Above all, the champion must encourage and promote partnership between political parties, and with business, the Churches, the voluntary sector, etc.
To meet that need, London First's proposal is for a directly elected governor with limited executive powers—limited because London already has directly elected local authorities, agencies and organisations to carry out everyday tasks. The governor's powers would be: to champion London with central government and within the UK—it is necessary to sell London to the rest of the UK; to promote London overseas; to make key appointments within London; and to plan strategically for London where that is appropriate, although there should not be planning for the sake of planning. Last autumn, London First published details of the proposals, including the precise interface with all the various agencies that exist.
I maintain that what London needs is not a strategic authority but a champion. That is the next logical step in the continuous evolution of our great city and its governance. If the Government have difficulty with the idea of an elected authority—I agree that 5 million votes must be rather frightening for a politician of any party—and if they are concerned that such an authority does not work, perhaps we need to test this opportunity by means of an appointed role. However, I believe that, in the end, the transparency of a direct vote will be needed.
I conclude my remarks as I began. I see London as a great success. My proposal is that there should be a champion for London.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I, too, give warm and genuine thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, for introducing the debate in so admirable a way. I could carp about the use of the word "strategic" to qualify the idea of an authority for London, but I will not. Instead, I welcome the conversion of many Conservatives to the need for an elected authority, council or parliament for the people of London. I understand that there is joy in

1207
heaven when a sinner repents. As a result of this debate, I hope that heaven's cup of joy overflows at the swelling ranks of repentant Tory sinners.
In researching this debate I came across a quotation about my great, great grandfather, the second Lord Monkswell, who was a founder member of the LCC. It was reported in the Hackney & Kingsland Gazette of 29th May, 1893, that Lord Monkswell had an idea of a "practical socialism", leading men,
"to such a state of mind that private property might be usefully and considerably diminished and public property increased."
I believe that I have inherited the genes and I aspire to that noble ideal.
In considering the case for an elected authority for London there is a temptation to look at the history of London, of the LCC from 1889 to 1965 and the GLC from 1965 to 1985. However, there are other models that we might usefully examine. I refer to the English metropolitan counties and the Scottish metropolitan regions. In particular, I suggest careful study of the way in which the English metropolitan counties, in their short life from 1974 to 1985, developed differently. They did so because the people in those urban conurbations had different circumstances, aspirations and problems; and they developed different solutions to those problems.
I would argue that we should allow the people of London to elect their representatives to decide on matters for the benefit of Londoners. That will be a dynamic process; it will not be fixed, but will be a progression as time goes on.
I am very glad that all sensible people interested in the effective governance of London argue for the devolution of powers from national level rather than the centralisation of London borough powers. I support those sensible people.
Over the years there has developed a culture of denigration, of lack of respect, for one tier of governance by another. That has led to the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties and to the antagonism between the UK and the European Parliament. It appears that it will provide a landslide win for our party at the next general election. That antagonism between different tiers of democratic interest is not good for our society. We need to think in terms of a hierarchy of democracy with elections at every level, for new local or neighbourhood councils, smaller than the London boroughs; probably keeping the London boroughs as they are; a new London authority; our national Parliament; and the European Parliament. We should try to devise mechanisms whereby each tier can work in harmony with the other tiers rather than in competition with them.
It is generally agreed that there is a good chance of having an elected authority for London. That authority should have a home, and its home should be in County Hall. County Hall was built by the people of London for the public administration of London. It should be used as such.
I have rather galloped through my speech. I drafted it as I sat here in the Chamber and did not know how long it would last. As I still have a couple of minutes in hand,
1208
perhaps I may use them for my peroration—a plea that we should allow the ordinary people of London, right across London, to decide. I believe it is agreed that what we mean by "London" is that part of our great country that exists within the M.25, generally speaking the old GLC boundaries.
I have heard criticism of the GLC, and the perennial cry that we must not recreate it. I was quite interested in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, who said that, with hindsight, reform rather than abolition or status quo was probably a very sensible idea. That idea may not have been on the table at the time. I was on one side of the barricades and the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, was on the other.
The thought that I wish to leave with the House is that we should think, not in terms of any authority for London being a "champion", one that can articulate a voice for London, as suggested by the previous speaker, but a mechanism by which the people of London can work together. That is surely the essence of all democratic activity. It is not just a matter of speaking for people, but of enabling them to live, work and develop together. I hope that will be the reason for installing a new elected authority for London. I hope that our national Parliament will trust the people of London to come up with a sensible scheme of activity and work which enables them to live and work together in harmony.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Tweedsmuir: My Lords, it is with a sense of exhilaration and at the same time some poignancy that I rise to address your Lordships as a new Member of this House. The exhilaration comes from the great honour which has befallen me and the poignancy is because I owe my seat to the death last year of a very distinguished elder brother who had no other male heir.
I am a writer. In fact, I have never sat on any public body and I must say right away that I cannot give the House the expert advice which it has received and certainly will receive from other noble Lords. On the other hand, I was born in London—in 1916, which was a fair time ago—and have lived in London for a great deal of my life. I offer the comment—and, incidentally, the admiration—of the man in the street, on something to which I have comparatively recently come, which is the meat of the submission to the House of the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon. So all I can do is perhaps recapitulate those points which would strike the man in the street as the most important so far that we have heard.
I imagine that noble Lords will all have studied the report of the House of Lords All-Party London Group. We are most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, for bringing it to our attention. In it there is an immense amount of matter for discussion, all deserving the most serious and profound consideration, which I am certain it will receive at your Lordships' hands.
The report in question is concerned with the idea of establishing a strategic authority for London. I lived through the days of the old London County Council, then the Greater London Council, and the state of some

1209
fragmentation that followed. I was attached to the old London County Council for many reasons, one of which was that if one wished to research the ownership of old properties, it had the most magnificent system for doing so. I used it frequently. I just hope that that system is to be found somewhere even now. Since the abolition of the Greater London Council in 1986, London's various needs have been catered for by a number of different bodies, some of them originating with the Government. As we heard today, in addition valuable work has been and is being done by various independent organisations.
In preparing its submission, the All-Party London Group was able to analyse the results of a number of opinion polls, about which we may but do not need to be too sceptical. Those polls clearly showed deep dissatisfaction among Londoners with the state of their city and the methods of its governance. Further, it was strongly felt by the group that the present methods of governing the city were insufficiently democratic. That is a feeling shared by a great number of Londoners who have come to believe that they have little or no voice in what is being done in their name.
The report puts very clearly the reasons why a strategic authority might be desirable to control from a single source the destiny of one of the world's finest cities. One of many important points made in the report is that representatives of other major European cities and from other parts of the world have expressed amazement and voiced their regret that there is no single body representing London with which they may confer. It is because of a rather bewildering division of functions in London's present government that we have before us the proposal that the city should be governed by a duly elected London-wide authority, which should be led by a single figure, perhaps to be known, at least for discussion purposes, as London's mayor, prefect or governor—anything which might be suitable.
The All-Party London Group offered a concise exposé of its ideas and has even-handedly given the arguments for and against them. Very few Londoners would not agree that those ideas could have a truly significant bearing on their life and happiness. As I said, they deserve the most serious consideration. Not all proposals for reform are of equal value but I feel your Lordships will agree that here we have something of real importance in its conception and its possible benefit to millions of lives. These are urgent matters which require a degree of boldness and great breadth of vision both in discussion and implementation. It is not difficult to foresee what might happen in terms of argument and friction developing, which will have to be met.
There is a nettle here to be grasped. As many of us learnt in our youngest days, the harder one grasps a nettle, the less painful is the sting.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, first it is my pleasing task to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, on having given us—if I may allude to the title of his autobiography—not so much rags of time as riches of experience and ideas. He said that he is an author. He
1210
is now, in the tradition of his great family, an author and a public figure. We are fortunate in being able to listen to him as well as to read his works.
I rise to make one simple point only: to summarise the arguments for a directly elected mayor of London. The case for a strategic authority has been made persuasively so far as I am concerned by the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, to whom we owe a debt of gratitude for having introduced this important debate, and by the thoughtful maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hankey. But such an authority will have the desired effect only if it is led by a mayor who is elected by and accountable to the people of London.
I am well aware of the counter-arguments, which are advanced by experienced representatives of local government. Indeed, some of them are not very far away from me and I have been wondering whether I should put more clear red leather between the Front Bench ahead of me and myself as I speak.
I love London. I regard it as my city. I suffer when it fails and I am delighted when it succeeds and does well. I believe that in order to do well it will need a champion who is more than a champion. Let me give your Lordships six reasons why I think so.
First, keeping a great metropolis going and moving it forward is more than its effective administration. As has been said already, large cities are, by their very nature, diffuse and even alienating. They probably cannot be run in any real sense at all and perhaps they should not be. It is all the more necessary that Londoners can identify a focus of responsibility. That focus of responsibility cannot be a building and cannot be a council, however distinguished and competent its members. It has to be a person who captures the imagination—and no doubt from time to time draws the ire—of the people of London. London needs a face as well as a voice to make the case for this great metropolis to the rest of the country and to the world.
Secondly, governing London is a task which cuts across party lines. In the nature of the case, it does not lend itself to national party politics. I say that as someone who firmly believes that political parties are a necessary (though wrongly maligned) instrument of gathering interests in the country. But London's citizens need something different for their city; perhaps the kind of partnership about which the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, spoke. No doubt most plausible candidates for mayor will be members of national parties, but they will and should appeal to their electorate with a London manifesto, even one which others in their own party from other parts of the country do not particularly like.
Thirdly, much needs to be done at all times to keep this great city going in the face of all kinds of pressures. Not everything can be done at the same time or, rather, in addition to the day-to-day administration; certain priorities have to be set. One person elected as mayor is more likely to stand for a specific set of priorities than any council or even party. It seems to me desirable that people should choose a mayor for his or her special interest—in transport, in law and order, in business opportunities, in parks and leisure facilities or whatever.

1211
Progress is more likely to result from concentration on specific issues at specific times than from trying to do everything all at once.
Fourthly, one of the strengths of the constitution of this country is that one knows who is in charge and how those who are in charge are checked in their actions. Without wishing to overstate the point, those in charge can, on the whole, be named, and what they are doing is accountable; for such accountability there are institutions. It is a pity that local government has not followed the national lead in that respect. It remains for most—I say this with humility and hesitation—a somewhat remote collection of often able and competent, but for most people, nameless individuals. For London, if not more generally, that is just not good enough. Londoners need to know both who is responsible and how they can call him or her and their team to account.
Fifthly, London has benefited greatly from some of the Lord Mayors of the Corporation of the City of London. In recent years in particular they have been well aware of the fact that the City and its financial institutions can flourish only in an environment which is attractive to inhabitants and visitors alike. Some Lord Mayors have therefore spoken up for London. However, as has been said before, their claims to speak for London are limited in more ways than one. What the best Lord Mayors have done merely illustrates the need for an elected mayor who can speak for London as a whole.
Sixthly, several European countries have, in recent years, discovered the value of directly elected mayors. In eastern Europe they were a central feature of the road to democracy, with Serbia only the latest example. More relevant perhaps, in Italy the law stipulating direct elections of mayors in all cities above 15,000 inhabitants has freed local issues from the constraints of national politics. In Germany, the south German model of direct elections has migrated north, even into the former British zone of occupation which had originally adopted the British model of local government. EveryWhere it has led to an increase in the commitment of people to their cities, in local pride and civic sense.
There are clearly many questions which will have to be answered if a constitutional innovation is envisaged like the direct election of mayors. How are they to be elected? What is to be their term of office? How do they relate to the authority elected, or chosen, in other ways? Some fear that an elected Lord Mayor of London would have too prominent a place in the national scheme of things.
Questions need to be answered, and I believe that they can be answered. We are often asked these days to envisage considerable constitutional changes. My view is that a directly-elected mayor for London is a constitutional leap which is at least as important as some of the others we are asked to consider. We should therefore prepare the legislative ground for an elected Lord Mayor of London.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Feldman: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, for initiating this important and
1212
interesting debate, and for the great work he does patiently and regularly on the all-party Committee for London. I congratulate also the two maiden speakers—the noble Lords, Lord Hankey and Lord Tweedsmuir—and hope that we hear more from them in the future.
I hope that my experience of the GLC will be of interest today when we discuss the possibility of another strategic authority. Perhaps I can give your Lordships a little of my history.
In February 1973 I was selected as the GLC candidate for Richmond. It was mid-term in the Heath Government, and the Liberals were winning council by-elections across the borough. I campaigned hard and learnt a lot about the interesting tactics of the Liberals which, in a philosophical vein, should qualify me for a BA in community politics. With hindsight, it was my good fortune to lose, although I was not so sure at the time.
I found that very few Londoners knew anything about the GLC and, in my innocence, I used to tell the voters that the GLC had the 16th largest budget of any country or town in the world. I presented that as a plus point, but soon realised it was a negative.
I have learnt that there are two ways to predict the future: one is to create it; and the other is to learn from the past. A new Greater London authority would be a strategic leap forward—into the past—and a magical mystery tour leading to extra bureaucracy and costs.
As a consolation prize for losing, I became an adopted member of the GLC Housing Management Committee and a member of the GLC Arts Board. In housing, I learnt of the way in which it was controlled by Labour: the high cost of repairs by the direct labour force; the self-inflicted damage done to property by unhappy tenants; and the fact that no details were ever given at committee of rent and rates arrears. We changed that.
I remember walking down miles of brilliantly and expensively polished floors at County Hall and began to marvel at the cost of the 20,000 staff. No wonder the GLC had the 16th largest budget in the world! I was there when Ken Livingstone usurped Andrew McIntosh, as he then was. I must say that the GLC's loss was a gain for your Lordships' House. After abolition, very few people mourned the passing of the GLC while ratepayers celebrated the saving of the unnecessary costs involved.
Let me give your Lordships a financial picture. In 1985–86 the GLC spent £1 billion. In its last five years spending went up by 170 per cent. On that basis I calculate that it would today be spending well over £4 billion, which is equivalent to 2p off income tax.
We are told that the son of GLC is set to start up small, but can we believe it? I believe that the staff, the powers and the budget would all rise inexorably in time. And would we have a return to receptions for Sinn Fein, long campaigns on Nicaragua and the delights of a nuclear free zone?
Of late, an unrealistic nostalgia has hit Londoners. Opinion polls purport to say that the majority of Londoners want a return to a strategic authority. I must

1213
say that I do not accept the validity of such opinion polls at this time. Londoners are being made to feel that whereas, 12 years ago, when the GLC was there, London was a place flowing with milk and honey, the sun shone every day, it never rained, the traffic flowed effortlessly and the Underground was perfect, it has now become a democratic desert and a failure.
London is, in fact, a great success story, as my noble friend Lord Sheppard said. Tourism is booming. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, having served as a member of the English Tourist Board for many years, that London is a gateway for all parts of the country and that many parts of London have benefited from the work of the London Arts Board and the ETB. We have seen more hotels built, more jobs created and growing support for the arts and sport. Inward investment is developing and our museums, galleries, theatres, operas and sports arenas, as well as many other areas, have benefited from the lottery.
I suppose that part of the nostalgia stems from the hope of people that the new authority might spend more money. As a child I was taught that money did not grow on trees; that you cannot plant a tree in your garden and then go up and shake money from it whenever you need it. Surely we have learnt that money must be earned or taxed before it can be spent.
My noble friend Lord Sheppard listed the work the Government have done to emphasise the growth of London in the absence of the GLC. My noble friend was asked to chair the London Forum. His record in London, in the work he has done within London First and London Pride, bringing together all parts of the capital, is outstanding. And no mention has been made of the fact that we have a dedicated Minister for London. The affairs of London have been enthusiastically and successfully carried forward by a deeply committed Secretary of State, John Gummer, despite the fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said, that some of the television broadcasts may have come from other parts of the country.
We do not need yet another tier of local government with more bureaucracy slowing up decision making. We will just end up with the dubious privilege of a London version of the tartan tax. We have talked about the boundaries of the new Greater London authority, should it happen. Where will they end? They will have to go much wider—perhaps as far as Brighton, Grantham, Reading and further into the M.25. My own rather courageous PA commutes every day from Leamington. Will we have to include Leamington?
The proposal of a mayor, champion or governor of London is an extremely interesting one. I have considerable sympathy with the principle of a champion or host, though I find the title of governor much too pompous. A form of host or champion would be valuable. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Tope, I have thought long and hard about the possibility of having a mayor, host, or whatever, directly elected by up to 5 million people. I wonder what would happen if we had a strong new strategic authority for London and a strong directly elected mayor, governor or host with
1214
the democratic credentials of 5 million voters behind him or her. There would be endless hours of fun in the corridors of London.
My proposition is more simple. I propose that the role be filled by a full-time Minister for London, at Minister of State level, who can draw upon the existing resources of the department. That person could be a strong voice for London at home and abroad. At least he or she, whoever occupies the post, will already have been indirectly elected through a general election and will therefore have a strong democratic credibility.
To summarise, I am against a new strategic authority for London. Let us have this full-time, dedicated Minister for London at the department. That is the best and most cost-effective way of continuing to improve London, in the interests of all Londoners, which is what we all want to achieve.
5.6 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, in the report of the All-Party London Group there is only one short paragraph on the policing of London. The paragraph includes a sentence that the present commissioner of the Metropolitan Police has indicated that he would welcome the establishment of a police authority for London. My own researches have confirmed that this is so and that most senior officers in the Met would welcome a police authority for London.
Since 1829 the Metropolitan Police Service has been accountable to only one person—the Home Secretary. All other police forces in the country are answerable both to the Home Secretary and to an elected police authority. A single debate each year in the other place is not sufficient to provide democratic accountability for this great force. It might be thought that this limited accountability would be to the advantage of the Metropolitan Police Service. But that is not so, as has been apparent for a very long time.
There is inevitably an uneasy symbiotic relationship between the Home Office and the Metropolitan Police Service and similarly between the Home Secretary and the commissioner. The lines of responsibility of decision making and of accountability are inevitably blurred. It is impossible for the commissioner to adopt a different line in public from the Home Secretary. It is not even possible to have a public debate about necessary resources for the Metropolitan Police. A shortage of personal radios, for example, in my time became a scandal. Many Metropolitan Police buildings are decaying. When I was responsible for building works in north-west London, I had police stations where the rain came through the roof and I had one which had a permanently flooded basement. It is not possible for the commissioner to say those kinds of things publicly. I do believe, to pick up a word that has been mentioned several times in the debate, that it is necessary for the Metropolitan Police to have an external champion who can stand up to the Home Office and act on their behalf. This single line of accountability to the Home Secretary also does a disservice to the public of London. There is a lack of democratic accountability.

1215
During the passage of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994 we argued for a separate police authority for London and put down amendments to that effect. All that the Government were willing to offer was an advisory committee for the Home Secretary, to be appointed by himself, comprising a number of people whom I do not think anyone has heard of since then. Police authorities elsewhere in the country were established on a much more clear-cut basis, with direct responsibility for influencing the policing objectives of their police services. The non-statutory police committee that is appointed to advise the Home Secretary has 12 members who have been appointed by the Home Secretary and the chairman is appointed by the Home Secretary. It is very unlikely that they will be offering him unwelcome advice. The committee lacks clarity of purpose and inevitably the servicing of its needs requires a great deal of expenditure, time and effort by the commissioner, the deputy commissioner and other officers in the Metropolitan Police. But it has done nothing for the public of London.
The Metropolitan Police Service therefore supports the concept of a police authority under the umbrella of a strategic London authority so that there are clear, effective and visible lines of accountability to the people of London which are so necessary for policing by consent. A police authority embedded within the structure of a London-wide strategic and elected authority would offer an opportunity for consultation with the body which formally represented the people of London. It would make it much easier to establish London-wide partnerships for tackling crime and, under the umbrella of such an authority, it would be able much more effectively to deal with strategic problems such as traffic control. Under the much-maligned GLC the London-wide system of controlling traffic lights and effectively running the whole of London's traffic, was set up and maintained by GLC officials and it is extremely difficult for London boroughs to operate such a London-wide scheme.
Relationships with the other emergency services—the fire brigade and the ambulance service—could be made much more effective and, by being responsive to modern technology, could form part of a unified system of emergency services for the citizens of London. Considerable thought would need to be given to the constitution of a London police authority, which might indeed have some appointed members with particular skills. One of the values of the Home Secretary's advisory committee has been the business knowledge that some of the members have brought to it, which has assisted with the strategic management of resources in a large organisation. The Metropolitan Police employs something like 42,000 people and business experience and background does assist with the management of resources and personnel on that scale.
The Metropolitan Police has national and international responsibilities. This has always been the excuse for retaining the present system and for saying that the Home Secretary should be the only authority for the Metropolitan Police. But I do not believe that that is sufficient. The great majority of policing is to do with on-the-ground, everyday beat patrolling throughout the
1216
boroughs of London. The consequence of having the Home Office and the Home Secretary as the single police authority for London has tended to be to draw resources, manpower, office space, equipment and so on, into the central squads and away from the ordinary, everyday policing of the streets of London. These national and international responsibilities would probably require some Home Office representation within a police authority for London, but I do not believe that that should be the only consideration when policing this great capital.
A police authority for London could represent, for example, ethnic minorities within London and other minority groups who at present feel disenfranchised and resentful of the way that they are policed. Great strides have been made by the Metropolitan Police through the consultative groups and with the London boroughs, but I believe that there should be a strategic representation as well for the people from many different parts of the world who live in London.
The time has come for London to have a strategic authority which would include a police authority providing democratic, public accountability for the people of London and a counterbalance to the muffling and bureaucratic powers of the Home Office.
5.13 p.m.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, as a London resident of long standing I would like to express my thanks to the All-Party London Group for producing the admirable report which we are debating today. I must declare another interest. I have the honour to be the president of a charitable association established some years ago to safeguard a conservation area in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.
I have to confess that I have no experience whatever of local government or local politics, and I do not feel competent to express any worthwhile view on the major issues discussed in the report. Indeed, it is with some hesitation that I take part in this debate at all. There does, however, appear to be expressed a widely-held belief that there ought to be brought into existence some form of overall strategic authority for London with a closely limited remit.
On that basis I have canvassed the views of certain members of the charitable association over which I preside in order to ascertain whether there are any functions which might usefully be performed by a strategic authority for London, if one were set up, in addition to those identified in paragraph 24 and the later paragraphs of the report.
I would like first to mention road traffic as distinct from public transport. Transport is mentioned in paragraphs 26 and 27 of the report. However, it is submitted that the regulation of road traffic and its associated parking and waiting problems, is a heading sufficiently distinct from transport to warrant separate consideration. At present, the major part of the regulation of road traffic, parking, loading and waiting is, I understand, carried out by the boroughs separately and individually. I suggest that more co-ordination of their activities would be helpful. I am told that particular

1217
problems arise where a much-used street crosses the boundary between two boroughs or has such a borough boundary running down its centre line.
A strategic authority could be given powers enabling it, quickly and uniformly, to reconcile differences in policy of the two boroughs over such matters as permitted parking days and parking hours, permitted waiting periods, lorry prohibitions and discouragement of use by through traffic. I am sure that more uniformity generally over these matters would be appreciated by the public.
I would also like to touch on one other problem suggested to me; namely, pollution, which has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. Measures to combat pollution, whether generated by vehicle exhausts or by effluent from works and buildings, again would benefit from co-ordination and common action. London probably has more severe problems from traffic pollution than any other part of the country, but it is quite impossible to suppose that boroughs acting individually could do very much about it. Apart from the two areas which I have mentioned—road traffic and pollution—the excellent report of the All-Party London Group would seem to cover all the issues that have to be addressed.
I close my very brief contribution to this debate by thanking my noble friend Lord Carnarvon for raising this matter and I venture the view that, whatever faults may be ascribed to the old GLC, it did possess some raison d'être, which might perhaps usefully be revived for reasons mentioned in the report.
5.19 p.m.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I should also like to add my thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, for initiating this debate and at the same time to apologise to him most sincerely for missing the first two minutes, I believe, of his introduction. I feel that particularly strongly since at my introduction into the House he welcomed me so kindly both to the all-party group and on previous occasions to SERPLAN. So those of us who are involved in London local government very much appreciate the keen interest which he takes in all these matters.
I have to declare my interest as a member of a London borough council and as a former London borough leader. Since former interests are apparently the order of the day this afternoon, I also declare my interest as a former member of the London Residuary Body, which was charged with winding up the affairs of the Greater London Council and, latterly, ILEA. In passing, I must advise my noble friend Lord Plummer that there can have been no body which was more closely watched by Government, Opposition parties and the public to ensure that its property was disposed of at the very best price possible. I give my noble friend the assurance that things were not sold off in a hurry, regardless of price.
Like my noble friend Lord Feldman, I do not think that we should look backwards; we should remind ourselves of what has gone before. Having declared my interest, I appreciate that my views on the matter might
1218
be suspect. Therefore, to remind your Lordships of the climate that existed when the GLC was still in existence, I turned back to some of the newspapers of the day. In 1983, The Times stated:
"The case for scrapping the GLC in its present form existed long before Ken Livingstone turned it into a personal socialist fiefdom. The bureaucratic wastefulness of a local authority which had already lost many of its most important functions to the borough (not to mention the operation of the unaccountably and unrepresentative ILEA which is responsible for education … demanded … reform".
In 1984, when the campaign for abolition was under way, The Times stated:
"Despite multi-million pound propaganda campaigns, elective support for the GLC and metropolitan counties is minimal. Functions, boundaries and relations with district authorities are ill-defined. Problems of finance, urban renewal, transport, housing, environment, education and training, youth and community, have been badly tackled.
London has been without strategic roads planning for more than 10 years. GLC sites take even longer to develop. Integrated transport is non-existent".
I must advise noble Lords opposite that since the author of that was Mr. Reg Freeson, the Labour MP for Brent, East, those words might have more credibility than anything that I can say to remind your Lordships' House that, despite the myths of today, the GLC was not a popular or successful authority.
I oppose the creation of a new authority because I believe that it is also a myth—however sincerely believed by those who proposed it—that a new strategic authority will assume the functions of central government rather than the functions of the boroughs. I also believe that it is a myth that it will assume the resources of central government rather than those of the existing local authorities. I believe that it is a myth that a new authority will be able to speak for London as a whole, however it is defined. That point needs to be settled, but it remains unclear.
I really cannot accept that the perceived or real problems of London will go away by creating a new authority. Indeed, frequently the problems that are perceived to be the problems of London are quoted by those who support the creation of a strategic authority. They appear to forget either that the problems existed when the GLC existed or that those matters were never the responsibility of the GLC in any event.
As a former chairman of the London Boroughs Association, I, together with my colleagues who were Conservative borough leaders, called for the abolition of the GLC before the Government thought that it was a good idea. One of the reasons that we did so was precisely that the GLC had become redundant and its functions had ebbed away. We also believed that one of the key issues facing London was transport. We believed that many of the calls for a London-wide authority arose because of particular problems, real or perceived, which related to transport and the recognition that in the capital city and in a place the size of London those problems would have to be dealt with by central government with their powers and resources. I believe that our call for a Minister of Transport for London was a great success. I believe also that the appointment of Mr. Norris to that position vindicated the calls made by Conservative borough leaders at that time.

1219
I feel that there is a problem in that we tend to speak of London as one city. I am not attracted to what I see as a cliché, "a collection of villages", but London is made up of a number of different towns and villages. Its history, development and physical size make it different from other cities in the United Kingdom and other parts of Europe. Indeed, we perpetuate that in our very language when we refer to the "Lord Mayor of the City", the "Mayor in the City of London" and the King and Parliament sit at "Westminster".
London is different and it is equally true that the systems of governance of other countries, which are often quoted, are not quite as one believes. London is different things to different people for different purposes. Very often, those who call for London-wide solutions seem to think that they have left London when they cross the Thames in a southerly direction.
I have no doubt that major infrastructure projects need the involvement of central government. We should have no reservations about that whatever. However, what we do not need is another tier of local government or another local government reorganisation, yet that is precisely what the creation of a new authority would bring about. The proposal for a mayor, governor or chief executive (appointed or elected) and supported by commissioners (appointed or elected) is in my view a recipe for frustration. Indeed, the public would see their expectations dashed because there would be conflict and no resources.
I would be the first to admit that immediately after the abolition of the GLC the boroughs tended not to countenance co-operation and groups because they feared joint structures. They feared that that would lead to keeping the GLC in exile, as it were, but the position has already changed dramatically. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, referred to the co-operation that exists between the different boroughs. That is something on which we ought to build. We ought not to be looking backwards to find a different variation of the old theme; we ought to be looking forwards to see how the co-operation of the principal units of local government in London can be improved and encouraged. In European countries, specific powers are given to enable authorities to work jointly with others, sometimes with different partners for different activities. I refer to the French experience of communautés urbaines and its district arrangements where towns work together within a statutory framework. That bears examination. Even if London is geographically too large for that to happen here, I believe that we could work on a system based on sectors coming together in the centre.
However, I also believe that the mechanisms for the government of London, however defined, must remain firmly in the hands of the boroughs. I totally reject that the boroughs are undemocratic. Their members are elected by, and to serve, the people of the towns and areas that make up the whole of our capital. I do not know how those representatives can be perceived to be undemocratic. The boroughs are much more democratic than would be a body elected across the whole width and breadth of greater London but bearing no allegiance to any part of it.
5.28 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I join in the congratulations which have rightly been paid to the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, until he must be getting rather tired of them. However, my congratulations are genuine because I agree largely with his approach. Indeed, I congratulate the noble Earl and his committee particularly on producing what was a genuine all-party solution. The noble Earl avoided a number of matters which have surfaced here recently, but he understands and faces the fact that if we were to have a Bill seeking to implement that solution, those differences must again arise. That is the place for them, not this attempt to find a wide area of agreement.
I was particularly impressed by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Plummer, who spoke from experience. He knows that, although the GLC has become a whipping boy since it has been disposed of, it fulfilled a valuable and essential function. Whatever we do here, we must try to ensure that that function is properly carried out in future. It is not being carried out at the present time and that is the reason for the situation in which we find ourselves. This matter has been glossed over by a number of people, but at the moment in many respects, traffic among them, London is in a mess. One of the reasons for that is that the work formerly done by the Greater London Council is no longer being done. Certainly, there has been an attempt to replace it: some of it has been devolved to the boroughs and some to various joint bodies. However, it simply does not work. For example, the bridges of London have been overlooked. It was not until they began to collapse and had to be repaired that someone discovered that no provision had been made for looking after them. Certainly, there is not the necessary manpower or machinery to do it. The regular inspections that used to take place somehow fell by the wayside. That is just one example of the fact that London badly misses the work previously done by the GLC. We should not allow the denigration of the GLC that has been voiced to some extent this afternoon to obscure the fact that the abolition of that body was drastic and unnecessary.
The GLC did a number of things: it was quite good at tourism; it played an important part in the arts. Perhaps I may speak from personal experience, although from a long time ago. As Winston Churchill once said, the purpose of reminiscing about the past is to enforce action in the present. As long ago as 1958 I was elected with David Pitt and Barry Payton to represent Stoke Newington and Hackney North on the then London County Council. In my election address I told the people of that constituency that my two main purposes were: first, to see that a national theatre was built; and, secondly, to abolish the Civil Defence Corps. They are the only two endeavours to which I have set my hand that have been achieved, although I hasten to say that they were not achieved by my efforts alone.
Ike Hayward, whose name is commemorated on the South Bank, was a great supporter of the arts. He provided the land on the South Bank and, by so doing, forced the Government on this side of the Thames to cough up the money which was already available for that building. As for the Civil Defence Corps, every

1221
member on the council, irrespective of political opinion, knew that it provided no defence against nuclear weapons and that it was a chronic waste of money that could be devoted to other much more important purposes. The LCC soon terminated its contribution to the Civil Defence Corps. A little later both this House and the other place took the same course and the Civil Defence Corps disappeared.
I should like to draw attention to two particular matters. First, I shall deal with the first principle set out in the document produced by the committee chaired by the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon: there should be an authority responsible for dealing with those issues which affect London as a whole, and that the authority should be directly elected by, and accountable to, the citizens of London. Those are very carefully chosen words. I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Plummer. A powerful and executive mayor would not fit the pattern of London. Mayors cause enough trouble in New York, so we do not want to have any over here. Such a mayor, who is in effect a force on his own, can be an awful nuisance. We would do well not to tread that path.
Secondly, I am worried about the second part of the principle put forward in the document. In effect, it is said that the new body, whatever it is, shall not take away anything from the boroughs; its powers shall be drawn from other sources, but the boroughs must be sacrosanct, powerful and elected as they are. I have some experience of serving on a borough council. I am by no means opposed to the metropolitan boroughs, but there are some matters that should be dealt with by a central authority. If not, they will probably not be done or, if they are, they will be done badly. In my view, some functions that were carried out by the GLC in the past should be carried out by a central body. I do not want to exclude the possibility of removing some powers from the boroughs. Conceivably, they could be compensated by the award of powers more suited to boroughs if they felt that they were missing out in some way. At the moment some powers are not being exercised at all. In some cases boroughs would be glad to get rid of powers that they were not exercising anyway.
I have been speaking for nine minutes and it is about time that I sat down. I am not a member of this committee. Eight years ago, when I was 80, I decided that some things had to go, and committee work was one of them. That does not prevent me from having considerable admiration for the work that is done by this and other committees of the House.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly declare my credentials for the debate. In two weeks' time it will be my birthday, for those who wish to be reminded. I will also celebrate 55 years of living and working in London. During that time I have commuted by bicycle, car, train, and, for the benefit of the young to whom I can give an explanation subsequently, tram as well. For my sins, I was lumbered much later in life with some responsibility for London Transport and British Rail.
1222
The problem with the current debate on London is that it is bogged down with the Labour Party firmly committed to a new elected tier—and we now understand an elected mayor—and the Government basically defending the status quo, with John Gummer chairing an advisory council which includes no fewer than 12 Ministers. There is a point at which the more Ministers one has, the less attention one will get from them.
There is room for a new look in rather greater depth at the problem which, I suspect, is a matter for a Royal Commission, but I shall come back to that later. It demonstrates also that the traditional confrontational relationship which has always been a feature of London government in a very big way will continue to dominate any new elected body as it has dominated local government in London in the past.
The idea that there will be an elected mayor who will be neither a Labour candidate nor a Conservative candidate is a happy thought, but I do not believe that it is at all likely with all that that entails.
I think that it was Lenin who said:
"All problems have the seeds of their solution within them".
That may be an exaggeration, but, as a general rule, it is not a bad idea to start with an analysis of the problem before moving on to possible solutions. We have become tied down by a limited solution to a massive problem. I make that point, because the problems facing London are not just massive, deep rooted and highly complex, some of them are literally insoluble. We have to face that.
The fundamental problem for London is that the shape and size of London has evolved without interruption or anything resembling a serious plan over 700 to 800 years. Comparisons have been drawn with other capital cities. In the mid-19th century Paris was completely replanned by one man—Baron Haussmann—who demolished the slums, built a new road system, seven new bridges and a complete new sewerage system. One hundred years later West Berlin was completely rebuilt, because there was no alternative, regardless of expense.
There is a simple test. One has only to take—I make this suggestion—a street map of Paris and a street map of Berlin, and compare them with the City of London to see why the problem in London is insoluble. We are the prisoners of history; the prisoners of the design of a city which has grown in that way.
The solutions to some of the problems of modern cities are just not available to London. It is that which worries me. The problem is much greater than we believe. People believe that it is basically a political problem, when there is primarily a need for a highly sophisticated, mathematical planning exercise to make the best use of the resources in the situation in which we find ourselves.
London is unique. It is not just a very big city, it is New York and Washington combined, and then some. It dominates this country economically, it is the international financial centre, and the home of 40 per cent. of our major companies.

1223
Just to add to the problem, London's transport system, for example, serves a commuter network 200 miles wide from Worcester to Folkestone. That does not exist anywhere else in the world. It is no good thinking that there is a neat Labour Party solution or a neat Conservative Party solution. For a lot of it, there is no solution. That is the size of the problem, and, we are stuck with some aspects of that problem for the foreseeable future, while the others require a long-term and massively expensive investment programme.
With the establishment of the Government Office for London and London Pride under the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, we have the basis upon which we can at least begin to analyse the problem and begin to move to a structure which would come into place relatively quickly, which would enable us at least to refrain from making a bad situation worse. In those two examples we are taking tentative steps in the right direction. But because—this is a key point which has been mentioned by others—of the unique role of London and the level of public resources involved, we have to face reality.
London is and will remain highly dependent on central government approval and finance. It is cloud-cuckoo-land to believe that any party will allow to exist indefinitely a structure over which it does not have control, with the vast sums of money and the impact on the rest of the country which are involved in London.
There has been a great deal of talk about the GLC's winding up. I do not think that it did a lot of harm. I went to some incredibly good parties there. They were not as good as those which the LCC used to throw, but they were quite good. But do not let us delude ourselves that we are simply trying to solve a problem which began when the GLC was wound up. The problem is much deeper than that.
Using the infrastructure already in place, which is already conducting surveys in the areas in which we are interested, a restructured GOL could provide the back office for a strategic authority. The regional director's role would be upgraded—call him a chief executive, a director or a commissioner. This concern with titles to define fashionable gladiators of the moment I find strange. It does not change much, but it makes people happy. He would be a major figure immediately. It needs taking out of central government but given the status of a department.
London Pride, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, has already set out its priorities for London: first, business growth; secondly, raising skill levels; thirdly, improving transport; and, fourthly, improving environmental quality. They are all very much the type of things that we all want.
Many of the key players with London Pride are also members of the Government's advisory panel. Among them, they represent all the key organisations, including the political parties. So what about the democratic deficit? I must say that with over 2,000 elected local authority members, 74 MPs and 10 MEPs, I find that problem exaggerated. We need to approach the problem in a new way.
1224
I suggest that we look at Commons Select Committees. They have a considerable reputation and unique powers. Under chairmen such as Terry Higgins at the Treasury and Frank Field at Social Affairs they are major and influential bodies. They have the power to order Ministers to attend, and they do attend. If we approach the matter in that way and use the structures which already exist with a London Select Committee in the House of Commons, that would give us time to set up a Royal Commission to take a serious look at the problem.
5.50 p.m.
Baroness Brigstocke: My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate initiated by the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon. I had the pleasure and the honour of sitting on a committee of this House to consider the Croydon tramlink Bill which was under his able chairmanship. It was also a great pleasure to hear the two model maiden speeches.
I do not have the credentials of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, but I have one credential which he did not mention. Although I often ride a bicycle in London and drive almost daily because I do not live near an Underground station, from time to time I ride pillion on a motorbike. I have lived and worked in London not for 55 years but for 47 and I hope that that gives me the necessary credentials. Furthermore, I have been a committee member of the Automobile Association for 15 years.
I am personally frustrated by the traffic congestion, the lack of co-ordination and the ubiquitous roadworks which appear like a virus without warning or apparent plan on London's busiest roads—for example, on the Strand—and by the arrogant and arbitrary rearrangement of one-way streets without reference or notice to the local residents, let alone concern for their convenience. However, I wish to go beyond personal considerations.
The recent Blackwall Tunnel incident is one of the practical manifestations of the transport problems which exist in London today. Perhaps I may refresh your Lordships' memories. About a month ago an over-height vehicle became stuck at the entrance to the Blackwall Tunnel. It caused a traffic jam for three hours. East London came to a standstill. There was no one to take overall responsibility for the emergency. Another manifestation of the problem is the confusion over funding and timing, which year after year bedevils the repair work to the Hammersmith Bridge. Who is responsible for emergencies, as in the former case, and for funding and management, as in the latter? Nobody! As the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, said when making his fourth point, we need a responsible and accountable person to exercise control.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships a few statistics. There are more than 40 highway authorities within the M.25 which are responsible for roads. They include 33 London boroughs, the Home Counties, the British Airports Authority and the Secretary of State for Transport. There are trunk roads, designated roads, local roads and a primary route network. Under reserve

1225
powers, the London Traffic Control Systems Unit is responsible for computer controlled traffic lights and variable message signs within Greater London. A statutory traffic director for London, appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport, is responsible for the implementation of the Red Route network. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner is responsible for parking enforcement on Red Routes, but not on local roads, and for traffic law enforcement. A statutory London Parking Committee is responsible for co-ordinating London parking policy matters. A lorry ban is run by a statutory committee from the boroughs. I have not even mentioned the fact that there is a Minister for Transport in London and that John Gummer is overall Minister with special responsibility for London. Involved in transport decision making in London is London Regional Transport, the London Planning Advisory Committee, the South East Planning Conference, Railtrack and franchised rail services which are responsible for mainline and regional services. No wonder there is confusion on London roads. No wonder we who live in London are bewildered and frustrated.
There are two tiny glimmers of hope. The Automobile Association's public affairs director has asked the Minister, John Bowis, to review in particular how the London-wide effect of incidents such as Blackwall could be better managed. I understand that the Government have accepted the AA's advice to look at incident management on Britain's motorways and are now consulting on regional traffic control centres. Those will cut across the boundaries of the highway authorities and the police.
I was delighted to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard of Didgemere, that there is a transport strategy for London. That is very good news indeed and I only hope that we can find a co-ordinator to implement transport planning for London and the South East. That might be a strategic authority for London, an overall mayor and elected executive or the noble Lord's champion.
I cannot help thinking of Dr. Johnson. I assure your Lordships that I am not tired of life but I am heartily sick and tired of transport confusion. The present fragmentation of responsibilities is unacceptable. Today I have heard of the democratic deficit in London. I believe that it is in urgent need of some democratic credit.
5.57 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, the fact that we are having the debate, so powerfully introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, is a sign that the abolition of the GLC created a vacuum. I liked the GLC. I was not among the seething masses of elected borough councillors of many parties, nor a Minister. However, as an ordinary London person who does not drive a car and is too afraid to travel by bicycle or ride pillion, I believe that the fares fair policy was the only economically rational way of running public transport. Indeed, it was profitable. How many people remember that?
1226
London transport used to work in those days. Ask any taxi driver to learn that the traffic problem in London has worsened! No doubt the Minister will say that that is a result of prosperity, but other world cities try not to have traffic problems despite prosperity.
One might say that the GLC was useless and expensive. However, I imagine that if someone added up the financial cost of all the quangos and the cost of Ministers' time in forming committees, to say nothing of the invaluable time of the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard of Didgemere—no doubt the cost would be hefty—we are not saving much money having abolished the GLC. Furthermore, we are wasting a great deal of time in not achieving good results.
I should like to put in a good word for ILEA which does not receive much praise. Three of my children went to comprehensive schools run by ILEA and had a very good education. ILEA did a lot for music which is very difficult on a borough-wide basis. Children's music requires economies of size. The London Institute, which has co-ordinated the colleges of art in London, is another achievement of ILEA. Therefore, it should not be denigrated. When the GLC was abolished, it may not have been popular with borough councils. However, a poll showed that 75 per cent. of people favoured its continuation and only 25 per cent. were against.
We must consider the GLC as one of the many solutions proposed over the past 200 years for the running of London. I was very interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, say that we should not think so much of solutions; rather, we should find out what the problem is and what the problems are. We should determine which set of problems can be solved by a strategic authority and which remain insoluble.
First, I should say that in a sense, when looking at the problem of London, we should not think of it so much as a city but as a region which has different boundaries depending upon which function of London we are thinking of. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, mentioned the 200-mile transport corridor. People come into London; they commute. Therefore, London's health needs during the day are different from those at night. London businesses have a global reach. If there was a power breakdown in London, it would have worldwide consequences. Therefore, we must think of London as being of different shapes and sizes and we must try to see which solution is appropriate for a particular problem.
I should perhaps draw the attention of noble Lords to a document I found called Creating a sustainable London which is published by something called the Sustainable London Trust. It is very interesting because it looks at the problem of London within the environmental framework of sustainability. It asks how London can be made sustainable for people who live and work in London as well as from the point of view of transport and finance and other such matters. It makes a wide variety of suggestions, especially about local participation. It proposes a London citizens' forum for discussing matters. Far too often, when we think of a democracy, we think of people being elected to sit on

1227
councils. But that means election only once every four years. We need to have the continual participation of London's citizens.
London generates something close to £80 to £90 billion of the GDP of the UK. It is larger than Saudi Arabia from that point of view. We think of London as a city but we should think of it as a region. We have had many debates on devolution. London does not have a separate ethnic population so that it is treated slightly worse than Scotland or Wales. If we think about it, there are Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales but there is no Secretary of State for London. Why not? A Secretary of State for London might be a quick and dirty, as it were, solution to the problem. We have a Minister responsible for London but he has many other responsibilities. When one thinks of the size and importance of London and the particular financial problem which it poses, then I do not believe that it is adequate to have a Minister who has a responsibility for London among other things. We need to think about that. It may be that that would be a better solution than an elected mayor for London. It is not a bad idea to have an elected mayor but if he is to be a chief executive he must have a supporting cast of a small body of efficient commissioners, or something like that. That can perhaps be achieved by elevating people who are already dealing with such matters as road traffic problems, as the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said. But the position of mayor in itself is not the solution; it is only part of it. We must think much wider than that.
We need to have something like the Abercrombie Plan and we must think at that level. We have new tools and new needs. Information technology has changed quite a lot of things. It may be that a strategic authority for London should not be a body but a series of functions and solutions, some of which could be co-ordinated either through a Secretary of State for London or through some sort of revived M.25 area authority or by a single mayor.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, that there is not a single solution because finance will always be a problem. No large city ever finances itself because, while it generates a lot of income, it is difficult to capture that income into taxation without killing a lot of activity in the city. Therefore, London will need a central transfer because Londoners contribute in other ways to the national economy.
Whether or not London gets its fair share is a matter of rather tedious calculation, and perhaps a Royal Commission might do that. But more important, any solution must incorporate recent developments rather than make a break with what has happened in the past 10 years. Secondly, it must harness a lot of the private energy, from both business and citizens, which exists in London. Far too often we think in terms of elected councils and elected people. The rank-and-file of London citizens have a lot of energy and they may be able to generate some of the solutions we are looking for.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Broadbridge: My Lords, I do not think that the British particularly like planners or planning. They do not seem to have any great love for them. Following what the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said, one casts one's mind back to the Great Fire of London. Sir Christopher Wren produced a great radial plan for rebuilding the city of London which would, I suppose, have made it rather like Paris, which the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, also mentioned. But the city fathers choked on that and immediately started rebuilding along the old dense and cluttered building lines. Today, they may be charming but they are clogged with pedestrians and transport.
To advert to more modern times, the County of London Plan conceived during 1944, and later, had the idea of green fingers of land coming radially into inner London. But the only one that was ever built—or perhaps a better word is laid out—was the Lea Valley Park and that runs parallel rather than inward.
Next, we had the Greater London Development Plan of the early 1970s which took several years to produce. In fact, it took so long that perhaps the reason that it was never deeply implemented was that it was out of date by the time it was published. It was certainly a monumental read.
To me, the two central issues of strategic planning for a strategic authority for London are traffic and transport and land use. I believe that those are seminal and I do not wish to return to a debate on the merits of the return to an old-style GLC which, by the time of its abolition, had a finger in every pie.
I start with traffic and transport. It is a fact that in broad terms, 60 per cent. of London transport, which is mainly cars and vans, brings in only 15 per cent. of the workforce. Measures must be taken to limit the use of the car and travellers must be persuaded to use the buses and the Underground. But the former are often very slow because of other traffic and the latter is chronically under-funded as at present constituted. Privatisation may relieve that but there are now too many unpremeditated hold-ups due to such matters as defective trains, signal failures and so on.
I am a dedicated tube user partly because I have no sense of direction. I get lost in large shops and, indeed, even in other people's houses. With the tube, I always know where I am and there is the opportunity to read the paper or a book, which is not possible in the car.
But it is necessary to move back from those particulars to the general. First and foremost, strategic planning of traffic and transport in London can be organised only on a global scale by an authority encompassing all London. If, for example, we want to build a freeway across London, at present up to 33 local authorities are involved. What happens is that Hackney may perhaps not want it so it pushes it on to neighbouring Islington which, in turn, shoves it on to neighbouring Camden. Colossal debate and delay follows. I have always been an admirer of the French in that aspect who seem just to hand down a route and it gets built. Hence the TGV network, or perhaps I should say "tay jay vay", has rapidly spread over much of the country, bringing immense savings in travelling time

1229
which benefit the economy. We do not seem able to do this. The Englishman's home is his castle, not to be threatened by anything from authority above. I wonder whether part of that is due to the fact that we are perhaps parsimonious over payments for demolition or disturbance.
Traffic and transport in London need a bird's eye view. Perhaps the only example is the red routes which have a director of transport, but his brief extends only to those routes. I know a little about them because the original pilot red route passed some 50 yards from my front door in the Republic of Islington. But that pilot was partly an abortion, intended to extend from Archway into the City—that is, north of the borough into the City. It had to stop prematurely at the Angel traffic lights because the further part was not an MoT Highway as classified but under local authority control, and Islington council was firmly against red routes. Strategic planning of traffic and transport by a strategic authority might have overcome that obstacle.
We all know that London is slowly clogging up with traffic and it is small consolation to know that average speeds in London are, I believe, 2.1 miles per hour faster than Paris. A red double-decker bus will carry 72 passengers, which is the equivalent of about 50 cars as the majority of cars are single-person occupied. Park-and-ride schemes have brought a little relief, but that is often spoilt by a disproportionately high charge being levied for the parking at fringe stations. Neither is British Rail financially a particularly economic way to travel. It is said that the tube is the most expensive transportation system in Europe. Certainly to travel a mile or two on the tube at £1.20 does not compare favourably with the present 60p. on a bus.
I turn now to land use. London is a big city because of its vast sprawling suburbs unlike, for example, a city like Sheffield which has a dense centre within which the Derbyshire dales are accessible practically within walking distance. In the same way as we have green belt for the countryside with its strategic planning and rules and regulations, we need a detailed strategically planned overview, perhaps an urban belt, for London.
At the highest level a body is needed to decide where developments may take place and what type they should be—for example, houses, shops, supermarkets, green space—and where alternatively regenerating existing stock should be paramount. "Ah", I hear some noble Lords say, "each local authority has an approved unitary plan". I should like to give noble Lords an example as to how effective one such plan may be. In the north of Islington there has been a large derelict site off the Holloway Road for many years. A leading name supermarket put in an application to build a superstore. That was turned down by the planning committee in that it contravened the unitary plan. But the proposal was hijacked by a meeting of the full council which, nonetheless, gave it the go-ahead. Appeals to the Secretary of State then gave it the thumbs down but all that involved residents in much anxiety, endless pressure group meetings, demonstrations and, no doubt, large legal fees. It was all wasted effort because we have ended up with a large derelict site with no agreed use,
1230
which is what we started with. A famous victory, but so much exhausting effort to get back to where everyone started. A strategic plan with teeth might have avoided all that, to coin a favourite French word, brouhaha.
Unitary plans have their undoubted uses but, in the end, are 33 jigsaw pieces—one for each local authority. They are drawn up largely to meet local needs and are far from being a strategic plan for London as a whole when assembled together. In a way, they are a series of ivory towers. The general land use of London may not be at all attuned to what a given borough thinks is best for its residents. There is of course a place for a unitary plan, but it should be developed after a general planning strategy for London has been evolved, not in isolation.
I return to my opening point. The British do not like authoritarian plans. Hence people protesting in tree-houses, which is rather old-hat now that "Swampy" has gone literally underground with his fellow Troglodytes. The originally brilliant previous Prime Minister failed in the end largely, I believe, because of her authoritarianism in a country where, for example, in many pubs there is a choice of jug or straight glass for drinking your beer out of. God forbid that the landlord should lay down one or the other.
We are historically a nation of amateurs and dilettantes. Yet a strategic authority would do so much good for London. The main problem is getting people to realise this. As Sir Hugh Casson observed, London is like a sock with holes in it. But, he said, to mend it we need the best quality darning thread and the best needlework for, unlike an old sock, the one thing that we cannot do with London is throw it away.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Newall: My Lords, I have no wish this afternoon to go into the whys and wherefores of a possible strategic authority as most noble Lords have done. However, I feel that it is necessary to point out some of what is successful in London at present, in addition to some of those activities already mentioned, and to establish where we are coming from. I wish to talk a little about the City of London. After all, the City co-existed with the LCC and the GLC for many years and there were no problems then and, indeed, no problems are foreseen in the future. Nevertheless, it is appropriate to mention some of the City's work, which is totally inseparable from that of the Lord Mayor himself whom many see as performing purely a ceremonial role, which is untrue.
It may surprise some noble Lords to know that the City Corporation predates Parliament. It is very different from the boroughs, which of course are statutory creations. The corporation's duties and powers rest on its position as a common law corporation. The constitution is unique, and I should declare an interest in that I am a member of a livery company in the City. The City Corporation's rights are derived from prescription, custom, charters and Acts of Parliament. The Court of Common Council exercises the functions of a local authority and a police authority.
Transport is of course a very important factor. It is very important for the whole of London, and that is one of the reasons why something has to be done. Moreover,

1231
maintenance and enhancement of the world's leading international finance centre is vital. The City has introduced many innovations, in co-operation with other institutions like the Bank of England, such as the Financial Law Panel, the City Disputes Panel and the City Research Project, to name but three.
Perhaps I may draw on a little experience relating to the City Disputes Panel. At the time of some earlier decisions there was nothing like it. In April 1484, in the reign of Richard III, there was an enormous dispute between the Skinners Company and the Merchant Taylors Company as to who should have precedence. At that time, Mayor Billesden was asked to give a verdict. The verdict was that they should alternate between the 6th and 7th at every Easter but that they must give each other a dinner every year. Well, that has happened ever since 1484 with a few interruptions for wars, but that is where the expression "being at sixes and sevens" derives.
The City also provides arts facilities, markets, open spaces, port health services, housing, drug combating services and enormous charitable activities. It helps with the regeneration of inner London; tourism; it has a cross-river partnership; the Pool of London partnership; and a fringe partnership especially for the northern and eastern fringes of London. Some of those partnerships were mentioned by my noble friend Lord Sheppard. In all aspects, I am quite sure that the City will seek to work effectively with any strategic authority, or whatever comes about.
The Lord Mayor goes overseas quite a lot and acts as a roving ambassador not only for the City but for London and the United Kingdom as a whole. This is nearly always done in consultation with the Treasury, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the DTI, the Bank of England and many others. On his visits he is normally accompanied by business delegations. He opens a great many doors for industry and commerce. Shortly the Lord Mayor will go to Pakistan and India. This will tie in with the visit of "Britannia" and will help to celebrate the 50 years of independence of those countries. I think the Lord Mayor will assist in opening new business opportunities there.
It can only be beneficial to the United Kingdom to ensure that opportunities to promote the interests of this country overseas are maintained and if possible enhanced. The interface between any future strategic authority and the existing Lord Mayor should ensure that the role of the former adds to and complements the existing efforts.
As has been said by many, the City cannot always speak for the whole of London, important as it is. So whether what results is an enlarged partnership, a statutory body or something else, the two roles of the City and whatever emerges can work together and harmonise their efforts for the good of all people in each and every borough of this great city.
6.21 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, first of all, I wish to apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, and other noble Lords who have taken part in the debate for not being
1232
present at the beginning of the debate because I was attending a conference at the Royal College of Physicians on the relationship between poverty and health. I have come from Regent's Park on a bicycle at some risk to life and limb, but I am here.
The conference that I have just attended has some relevance to our topic, the need for a strategic authority for London. I suggest that there are problems and mechanisms which are associated with poverty and poor health which would benefit from a cross-borough perspective. Some of these problems are concentrated particularly in the inner London boroughs which have much higher levels of deprivation and its associated problems of homelessness, rough sleepers, alcohol and drug abuse, prostitution and high crime levels, and greater numbers of mentally-ill people living in the community. That section of the population makes higher demands on the National Health Service at primary and secondary levels but it also makes high demands on the social services, housing departments, crime prevention and criminal justice systems.
The people I am talking about are no respecters of borough boundaries. I think of Christopher Clunis, the mentally-ill patient who killed Jonathan Zito. He moved around from one borough to another and from one health authority to another and each one divested itself of responsibility. The authorities were not sure whether he was a social services responsibility or a health authority responsibility. Is it right that the 12 or so inner London boroughs should each have to cope separately with these social problems? I am aware that the inner London boroughs receive an augmented central government support grant because of their special socio-economic problems, but is that enough? Is it efficient to replicate the services 12 or more times over? Some boroughs are struggling—some would say all of them are—with these problems and sometimes fail altogether to provide help or sometimes provide help which is of too low a standard.
That is not merely a question of lack of financial resources but also of skilled people. It is not easy to find the right skills to cope with some of the more difficult people in our community. I suggest that a strategic authority could provide support and monitor the extent of and variations of these problems. If it had a good financial base, perhaps levied by a precept from each individual borough—as was the case with the GLC—staff, buildings and other facilities to deal with these problems could be located where they were most needed, regardless of the ability of the borough concerned to initiate them.
Of course health services as such are provided by the National Health Service. The needs of the population of each district health authority or commission—in London the health authorities are usually but not always coterminous with two or more adjacent boroughs—are theoretically determined by that authority and the required services purchased by the health authority from community and hospital trusts. That arrangement is good in principle but leaves much to be desired in practice. I do not intend to discuss that in this debate; that is for a health debate.

1233
The role of the regional health authorities—the next higher tier—has been diminished and their number has been reduced, but they still provide an important monitoring role on the overall needs of their population, particularly with regard to the tertiary, more specialist, hospital services. It has always seemed illogical that London was split into four separate regional health authorities. Now they have been reduced to two—North Thames and South Thames—which is an improvement but the reach of these authorities goes far outside London itself and includes the Home Counties. There are historical reasons for that arrangement but these have largely changed. I think that if a strategic authority for London were established it should be matched—or could be matched, at least—by a regional health office which dealt with all London's health problems together. The Home Counties could possibly be joined on to their adjacent contiguous regions. London would thus have coterminous boundaries for monitoring its overall health and social needs.
It makes sense to consider bringing social and health services closer together as all health problems of course have social connotations. I favour much closer links at a lower level also between district health authorities and the social services departments of the boroughs they serve, at the same time as having the much greater accountability of the district health authorities to their local populations. That, of course, is a part of Labour's health policy.
When the Inner London Education Authority was disbanded, a dedicated and effective network of special educational services was taken apart and almost destroyed. Some of it has been put back together again but it is patchy. Schools and other centres for blind, deaf, physically, mentally and emotionally handicapped children are often not viable if they are based on the population of a single borough. Attempts to return statemented children—that is, children with problems—back to mainstream education because some of the special schools have had to be closed may have been the right policy for some of these children but for others it has been found to be inappropriate. Some schools now have to contain disruptive children because the out of school units which were available to refer the children have now been closed. Those special schools were expensive to run, and transport which sometimes involved crossing borough boundaries was not cheap either; but the service was widely admired by visitors from all over the world and much appreciated by the children and parents. A strategic authority would be able to identify how many special schools and centres were needed. Often only one for blind and deaf children is required for several boroughs.
Other noble Lords have talked about transport; I shall not follow down that road. However, I shall refer briefly to the London Ambulance Service. It was once London's pride. I do not refer simply to the Daimler ambulances which were ordered in 1946 so that ordinary citizens should have the best. Although the Daimler ambulances only did seven miles to the gallon, they clocked up half a million miles of service before being sold, some to families who have used them since as
1234
mobile homes. Since transfer to a trust, there has been a series of hiccups in the London Ambulance Service due to inadequate management and an unwise premature switch to communication and control technology which failed dismally on a number of occasions. I suggest that it would be far better under an accountable elected authority.
Others have spoken about the Metropolitan Police. It seems logical to bring them under an all-London authority rather than central government. While I have always been well served by London police, I believe that it would serve London's citizens better if its senior officers were accountable to an elected local body rather than to the Home Secretary.
I believe that a new, slimmed down elected strategic body should be created, with a limited number of functions but with the clout and financial basis to carry out those functions effectively.
6.31 p.m.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, I must apologise to the House and the noble Earl for my somewhat tardy arrival in your Lordships' House this afternoon. I fear that I am sometimes becoming known as "the late Lord Stockton".
While welcoming the broad thrust of the ideas that have been outlined in the debate, I share the views of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, about the undesirability of over-egging this particular pudding. However, I wish to raise some issues about the relationship between any new authority, ministry, or whatever solution, and the existing local authorities in the boroughs and the City of London. Perhaps at this point I should declare an interest. I am a member of the court of two of the livery companies in the City.
In looking at the future of a government for London I think that we should look equally carefully at the past. We all know that unlike many other cities that have been planned or rebuilt with a single vision, London started out as a collection of two towns either side of the downstream ford across the river and a series of villages and hamlets that grew up alongside the Thames, as well as in the higher and more salubrious ground to the north and south of the marshy basin that is central London.
Each of these communities has retained and developed an identity that transcends the mere administrative boundaries that have been imposed over the years. If noble Lords were to ask a New Yorker where he is from, he will reply, "New York". If one asks a Londoner he will say Stepney or Poplar, Highgate or Clerkenwell, Chelsea or Dollis Hill. A few years ago I was in Israel, sitting on a bus, and tried to strike up a conversation with my elderly neighbour. My Hebrew is, I fear, very limited and was clearly not getting through, so I tried in German, French and Spanish to no avail. Finally, I said very slowly and clearly, "Have you ever been to London?", and was rewarded with a nod. I asked, "Do you like London?" to which he replied, "No, I hate the bleeding place. I was town clerk of Shoreditch for 15 years".

1235
As the founding chairman of the Central London Training and Enterprise Council, and one-time representative of London on the Secretary of State's consultative body, the TEC National Council, I endorse the need for more cohesion in the decision-making process, in particular for things like education and employment. It would be appropriate at this juncture to recognise the remarkable efforts that have been put into this work by my noble friend Lord Sheppard as the first chairman of London First.
However, there is a risk that in looking at the macro picture of London, we lose sight of the role and importance of the very local community. Like many, I have always lived in the same neighbourhood—in my case within less than a mile of Victoria—have tended to use the same shops, market, and restaurants, and have an abysmal ignorance of the bus routes outside the half a dozen that I use. In developing the strategic picture, we must recall that it will work only if it is made up of a mosaic of neighbourhoods.
Another area of concern is the representation of London abroad and in the rest of the country—a role carried out for centuries by the Lord Mayor of London. That has been referred to by my noble friend Lord Newall. I suspect that few Londoners see anything of the work of the mayoralty beyond the Lord Mayor's Show and are unaware of his function as ambassador abroad, which needs to be understood so that the potential for friction between him and any new authority, mayor or leader (or whatever we call him) is to be avoided.
The economic importance of the City is now widely appreciated as is the fact that the financial sector operates outside the boundaries of the square mile. In 1995 the net overseas earnings of this sector exceeded £20 billion. The fact that the Lord Mayor is not a party politician but the head of an authority which has represented the commercial heart of this country for 800 years has a much greater impact abroad than at home.
I do not think that Londoners want to be represented by an expensive "supermayor" any more than they voted to be represented by the honourable Member for Brent East in another place. And in any event the Lord Mayor does the ceremonial job for the whole of London very satisfactorily and at absolutely no cost to the boroughs or the majority of the people of London.
The Lord Mayor and the Corporation of London form a unique institution. There is no other local authority like it, but before we throw it out in the current bizarre spirit of constitutional change for change's sake, let us examine the reasons behind the City of London's governance. Curiously, I should have thought that it would be more to the taste of noble Lords opposite than it would appear. The Court of Common Council, and the Court of Aldermen have always been elected by the residents in the wards that go to make up the square mile, and the sheriffs, the Lord Mayor and a number of other officers of the Corporation by the members of the 100 livery companies.
The first of those companies emerged during the Middle Ages as combinations of people engaged in the same trade in order to protect their livelihood, ensure
1236
proper working practices and maintain quality of product and consumer protection as well as standards of training, commercial propriety and ethical practice. The trades of the guild built and funded schools, many of which survive to this day; constructed alms-houses and set an example of charity and care that is still significant in the modern welfare state although it pre-dates it by some 600 years. In many ways the constitution of the City is a forerunner of that of the Labour Party, with representation elected by both the citizens and what was in effect the first trades council.
I am sure that noble Lords will agree with me that while the future government of London must reflect the demands and the needs of the next 100 years, it is worth bearing in mind that old Yankee maxim, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"
It has been an interesting debate, as wide-ranging as London itself, and reflecting as many concerns as there are Londoners. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, for providing your Lordships' House with the opportunity to discuss the future of what is after all the nation's capital city.
6.38 p.m.
The Earl of Clancarty: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for initiating this important debate. In an article in the Independent on Sunday on 11th February 1996, Neal Ascherson says,
"To be a city requires more than houses and people. It needs an … 'imagined community', or the conviction that other inhabitants in distant streets, whom one will never meet or see, share elements of a common culture and react to events as one would react oneself. Looking at London and Londoners, it is not easy to have faith in that sense of cohesion … London can seem like a predicament rather than a place".
A city needs to hear its own voice; and as a Londoner myself I want to hear the voice of the city. Yet I cannot assume what this voice sounds like, as I cannot assume what together we would mean by the term "common culture", or predict and prescribe what form any "cohesion" might take. Yet I believe that individual people, in hearing the voice of the city. would more clearly hear their own voices; then suddenly finding that they themselves are joining in a conversation.
An individual person, a group of people, a city, a nation: a multitude of conversations together, working at and between many levels (the true definition, I believe, of government), building into a network of primarily cultural connections.
The French philosopher Gilles Deleuze, approvingly quotes the famous dictum of the film director, Jean-Luc Godard: "Not the just ideas, just ideas".
The whole question which underlies this debate is the relationship between scale and power. A German artist, Leif Liebenschutz, who lives in London, has suggested to me that the lack of London's awareness of its own culture in relationship to that of other city cultures (including, most importantly, its own) is its culture. For power is still maintained, filling the vacuum caused by the absence of these conversations, whilst the blanket-like "grand plan" of the free market subsumes culture, replacing it with the static common culture of consensus.

1237
But a multitude of conversations—this other possibility—is always in flux; it is dynamic and unpredictable in form. I hear bits of conversations, but I am not aware of a multitude of them. By the standards of most other European cities, London is a remarkably multi-cultural city; yet there is no real connection between the different parts, or cultural regions.
Any culture in isolation, whatever level we might identify it with—a person, a group of people, a city, or others—is not an independent culture: it is unable to contribute to a conversation. It remains hardly a culture, for culture is created through these conversations, by reaching out and making connections, transforming itself and others in the process. The reverse is also true. London cannot even talk to other cities in the United Kingdom, let alone abroad. Yet a city will be able to participate in conversations with other cities or regions, and with other levels, only if they also have a significant political and financial autonomy, creating at a larger scale a network of regions, a city-state culture.
As Neil Ascherson says,
"A disconnected city is a provincial city"—
and I believe that that is so, irrespective of the commercial might that a city has. In London, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, the emphasis lies in the preservation of cultural experience—even, or perhaps particularly, of culture which is brand new, or at least newly packaged, since the prevailing ideology, that of the economy, sees culture primarily as product. So many artistic projects, to take that as an example, despite their seeming potential, are treated in that way—bought, sold (perhaps), and then are gone: they appear, to disappear.
We live not in a direct culture but a deferred one. We wish to create culture rather than be controlled by a heritage of power. That is why the United Kingdom has a Department of National Heritage and not, as it should have, a "Ministry for Culture".
There is a sense in which all people are in government, not in terms of the vote every few years, since there is now a feeling in the air that that may in the end be only a small part of what government might become, but because of the growing identification between culture and government. Certain voices and projects are in their own way, as much as, for example, the road protests in the West Country and elsewhere, direct actions which deliberately circumvent the power of Westminster in order to make a connection with others. In some ways the lobbying aspect of the road protestors, although clearly important, is their least interesting aspect. More significantly, they are a form of creative self-government, or an attempt towards the possibility of government.
In order to come to meet these attempts, there needs to take place an extension of government, which is quite different from what is variously called dispersal, spread or devolution. Many people and groups of people have to be directly involved in governmental decision-making and, in particular, people outside the orbit of mainstream party politics.
1238
I agree very much with the idea of a single London government—and as part of a deeper, wider and more uncertain political network. I take issue with the use of both the terms "authority" and "strategic"—"strategic" because that already implies a prescribing of a common culture; "authority" because, once prescribed, that culture is maintained or preserved. I prefer the idea of an assembly, which, at its most real, might become a physical manifestation of the imagined community, an uncertain meeting between all levels of government, not a characteristic of an assumed common culture, but government as an event—a multitude of conversations.
6.45 p.m.
Viscount Chelmsford: My Lords, I, too, am a Londoner: I have lived here continuously since 1958. In "living" I include weekends. I enjoy living in London, but there are pluses and minuses in doing so. If you work in London, the absence of the daily commute is a real plus. So, too, is the availability of well-stocked stores and restaurants from every country in the world. A summer evening in London is still a joy; so, too, is a walk along the Thames towpath. Looking back, I remember the Clean Air Act, which got rid of the smog in the late 1950s and meant that, instead of net curtains turning yellow, they went slowly brown and thereafter, if not washed, turned black.
That brings me to a recital of the minuses in London life. There is still a lot of pollution in the London air. Traffic makes it worse. And traffic which is stationary due to congestion makes it lethal. Ten years ago London was relatively quiet. Today, every police car, fire engine and ambulance seems not only to be fitted with the loudest possible bell and siren but to be in competition with New York to see which city can make most noise most often. You can often tell which district you are in simply by the amount of litter in the streets, and while bus services seem to be improving, to be sure of arrival on time you need to add another 15 minutes if you travel on the Underground.
It is time for me to declare my interests. I am a member of the all-party Lords London Group. I propose to talk about transport. I believe in the need for a champion for London to add the weight necessary—not just to improve the minuses which affect us, the residents, but also to ensure that London remains attractive to visitors. A quarter of a million people commute daily into the City; 7 million tourists visit it annually; and 90 per cent. of all those people use public transport. Will that continue with a deteriorating Underground and congested roads? What is the future for UK invisibles if our clients avoid the City of London?
We need a better London strategy for transport. We need someone to shout our wares: to remind the nation of the importance of the City, to wake people up to the part that London plays in the fortunes of the rest of the nation and to do something about the motor car in London. We need a "personality"—let us call him "governor", so that we do not confuse him with the Lord Mayor of London. Let us give him a think-tank, but avoid adding a third layer to London's governance.

1239
I am president of ITS Focus. ITS stands for intelligent transport systems. Such systems pass messages to and from moving vehicles. Let me offer examples. Some noble Lords will be familiar with the variable message signs which tell people that the M.25 is blocked or with the camera that records the number plate when motorists break the speed limit in the suburbs. They may know about Scoot, the world-beating traffic light system which maximises London's traffic flow. They may also have heard, as my noble friend mentioned earlier, about regional traffic authorities. There is one in Scotland called Scotia and another in what is known as the Birmingham envelope. They exist as a result of the existence of intelligent transport systems.
There are some intelligent systems of which noble Lords may not know, either because they do not show up or because no one has yet ordered them. It is possible to obtain in-car systems using maps, audio, or both, to direct people on their route. The service tells them, while they are still in the car, which car parks still have spaces. A multi-modal trip planner is emerging to encourage people to use public transport where it is bound to be quicker. There are already information systems that tell people at a bus stop when the next bus will arrive. London Transport's Stopwatch indicators already do that on some routes. But the system can be extended; it is possible to find out on your PC before you venture out into the rain. Systems also exist which stop over-height vehicles. I can tell my noble friend Lady Brigstock of a documented case of a Czech driver about to enter a Swiss tunnel who was stopped by an intelligent transport system before he hit the tunnel. He was removed and fined heavily. So they are around and they can be used.
The bus uses road space at least 20 times as efficiently as a private car on average and could do even better if we worked at it. Use of contactless smart cards will mean no more waiting to board the bus while the person in front searches for the right change. Buses can travel down red routes, receiving automatic priority at traffic lights. As for cars, they can probably be charged for entering each section of London.
Surely, the combination of all those measures ought to improve traffic speeds, reduce congestion and hence reduce pollution, make public transport more attractive and allow the emergency services to reach destinations faster and with less noise. So why is that not happening? To be fair, some of it is. But in my view it is happening in an unco-ordinated way and without that focus on London's needs which someone whose sole responsibility is to London would bring.
The most well known transport need for which such a person would be fighting is capital to maintain and enhance London Underground. The City of London would ballot City firms for the right to raise capital for the improvement of London's rail and Underground network if it had any confidence that the Treasury would leave that ring-fenced for London's transport needs. I may say that France and Germany already raise money specially for transport alone.
But there are other less well known improvements which would also attract a sharper focus from a champion. I mentioned some of the improvements to
1240
make buses more acceptable. There are five or six different schemes at the moment in differing stages of progress, for completion at different dates between now and, say, 2005. I am convinced that, if those were properly co-ordinated for a common launch, they would achieve a far greater effect than they would do piecemeal.
Let us not forget what was, in my view, a GLC triumph. It cut Underground fares by nearly half and promptly increased its usage significantly. The problem was that the service was not good enough to hold the new traffic and so the effort was eventually wasted. I believe that buses, which are already improved through better routing, can improve services further through their new systems and can then hold their increased passenger levels.
Cameras are exciting. Not only have speed cameras cut the accident rate in the 40 mile an hour suburbs by 30 per cent. or more, but in the City of London—a single authority with its own police force—public cameras and private security cameras are now networked together and cover the whole area, street by street. The so-called "ring of steel" is said to be responsible for the reduction in crime, while the camera network has clearly helped the increased rates of conviction. Both those initiatives come from a single authority with the power to act for itself. That seems to me good evidence for what can be done by one authority acting for London.
Finally, I turn to what I consider to be the most important matter of all. I submit that there is a need to charge private vehicles variable rates depending on the part of London in which they wish to travel. Smaller cities already do so. For example, Oslo raises £60 million per annum based on £1 per car day. Edinburgh contemplates doing the same to raise some £50 million. Of course, London is much larger. The Department of Transport says that that is why charging will not work and that its consultant confirms it. It adds that the public will not accept congestion charging. Therefore such a policy is unenforceable.
I disagree on both counts. The executive summary of the MVA consultancy report, referring to charging a vehicle for crossing a boundary, states that,
"the necessary technology for a system which would meet the needs of London is not yet proven, though in live use elsewhere".
The DoT took that as a good reason not to proceed, but I suggest that a London-only authority might at least have researched that further and perhaps even sanctioned a small technical pilot scheme based on intelligent communications and a dummy accounting system. Incidentally, I should add that electronic car number plates would solve a great number of problems. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Sheppard will have some of those things considered by his partnerships with London Pride.
As to public acceptance, I and thousands of others who live in London are accustomed to paying an annual levy for the privilege of parking our cars outside our front doors or, indeed, as near to them as we can get. We are properly hounded by ever more efficiently networked traffic wardens, by clamping units and, in

1241
Westminster, by lorries which remove our cars when we transgress. I have not yet heard of riots in the streets because of those law enforcers. It is true that electronic tolling is still relatively unknown and some citizens would certainly look for ways to beat the system. But I do not see enough evidence of experimentation, and the current policy, which seems to rely on motorists giving up if the congestion gets too bad, is both a policy of despair and environmentally daft.
I have seen university papers which argue about whether the cost to the whole of the UK from congestion—based solely on time of travel and thus excluding the cost to our health and the environment—is £20 billion or £10 billion per annum. Separately, I have seen the CBI reported to have estimated £15 billion. Even accepting the £10 billion lower figure, there are massive potential benefits to be obtained from reducing congestion, increasing travel by public transport and ensuring that the City of London remains pre-eminent, not least because it has excellent communications of every type, including road and rail.
I maintain that there is a better chance of such an achievement with a champion for London.
6.56 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I too thank the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, for introducing the debate and the All-Party Group on London, which is a very welcome move, as also for providing the opportunity for two quite different and excellent maiden speeches. The noble Earl's introduction to the debate represented the strand of intelligent, non-party political concern which characterises the debate right across London at the point we have now reached.
There seems to be widespread consensus that something must be done. I differ from the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, in that I believe that the public thinks that London is broken and does need fixing. Certainly, the latest opinion poll which I have seen, conducted by MORI toward the end of last year, suggested that about the same proportion of people as in 1986 felt that we needed a single authority and that that authority should be elected; but that now, one in two residents of London says that London has become worse since 1986.
The noble Earl and my noble friend Lord Tope, referred to the functions of an authority. In progressing this debate, I hope we can show that we have learnt from the recent reorganisation of local government that function and structure cannot be separated. The committee of your Lordships' House on central and local government relations, touching on these matters emphasised the need for fund-raising powers for any level of government to be effective. That too is not an issue that one can set aside. It has to be addressed quite squarely.
It is right also not to be diverted by boundary issues. I agree with the noble Earl that London is not a self-contained region. But, then, nowhere in our country is self-contained and, indeed, Britain is not self-contained and apart from the rest of Europe.
1242
I do not believe that what we have now is the best for London, either for business or its residents. I happen to believe that what is best for business is best for its residents and vice versa. For instance, of the present authorities, the Government Office for London has as its first objective to:
"meet operational requirements of departments and ministers".
I quoted from its annual report. That is not a criticism of the efforts of the officials there. But I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, when he spoke about the Cabinet subcommittee and the advisory panel, that too many ministers tend to spoil the broth.
London Pride has done fine work and continues to do so. I was interested in the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard of Didgemere, that its members tend to find bases for agreement. I suggest that that may be because London Pride has very little executive power. For eight years I chaired one of the committees formed after the abolition of the GLC—the London Planning Advisory Committee. That committee has no executive power, though it works better than anyone had any right to believe it would when it was established as a rather poor substitute for a proper strategic planning authority for London. I acknowledge the contribution of your Lordships' House in ensuring that it was formed; but the question must be asked whether having only advisory powers or the right to discuss, instigate, debate and so forth, means that there can be more consensus because the issues are easier to face. Perhaps if London Pride had more powers, reaching decisions might be a little more difficult.
When I chaired LPAC one of my impressions was that one of its deficiencies was that it was no one's first priority. Its members were not directly elected and, though they worked hard—we all did—and took issues forward in an appropriate way, it was not their first responsibility.
Anxiety has been expressed this evening about NIMBYism leading to stagnation: about the problems of elected representatives looking to their constituencies. My noble friend Lord Tope spoke of the use of different electoral systems—these Benches would advocate multi-member constituencies elected on a proportional representation basis. Wider constituencies mean that there would be a wider geographical base. I do not believe that problems of NIMBYism—of being concerned with one's local parish pump—should deter us from going forward to a London-wide authority. Every level of government has to deal with issues of how its members reconcile their local interests with the interests of the whole authority; a parochial point of view does not preclude strategy.
We have been talking—rightly so—about government at the right level, not about the duplication of functions. We have heard about taking powers from Whitehall and Westminster, notably in the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon. It is quite impertinent of Westminster and Whitehall to claim that London strategy is theirs and theirs alone. We need a clear and well understood home for strategic responsibility, just as we need a home for the local responsibility—I include in that neighbourhoods and parishes.

1243
We also need a centre for expertise. The GLC—like my noble friend, I was not an advocate of keeping it in the form in which it was—provided a centre for expertise. To some extent that has been lost. The London Research Centre does good work but it keeps going by marketing itself to private as well as public sectors and that must affect its planning and the work that it carries out.
I am by no means suggesting that we should lose what we have learnt since 1986. I was one of the early members of London First and felt that watching the coming together of representatives of local government and business—and of the voluntary sector, which has not been much mentioned tonight and does not have centre stage to quite the extent that business does—was a fascinating process. Each was learning of the constraints, aspirations and frustrations that the other suffered and that is something of which we must not lose sight. Watching and listening to captains of industry say, "That is a good idea. Let us take a decision. Let us do it now"; and leaders of local government saying, "That is a good idea. Let us go out and consult and we will come back in six months", enabled us to reconcile those two approaches and we must hold on to that.
But those bodies are not accountable. I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard of Didgemere, and do not believe that changing those arrangements would mean losing the partnerships that had been built. A new authority should not be a stranglehold on partnerships. Indeed, the value of partnerships is widely accepted right across government.
We heard about the need for a voice for London. There is indeed a vacuum in that regard. But I am not one of those who believes in the magic of a mayor; I particularly do not believe that we can solve the problems of democracy by substituting personality politics. Instead, we must make democracy work better. The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, talked of a mayoralty being a recipe for frustration because expectations could not be fulfilled. Certainly the financial constraints on a mayor must be an issue. A mayor with an adequate budget would be quite a challenge to central government and a mayor without an adequate budget would be a puppet. Neither is likely to be the right solution.
I was fascinated to read recently a report of a successful mayor in San Diego. The article said:
"[She] isn't rate-capped from far away. The thought of a Whitehall (or Washington) letting her raise only 15 or 20 per cent. of the cash she spends on the priorities she chooses would be laughed into [the] Bay".
The article also asked what it described as,
"some … questions for closer to home".
It said,
"Will Labour's new London mayor be able to show Mr. Blunkett the door?".
The article was not specifically aimed at Mr. Blunkett; it was any Government Minister.
It may have taken a couple of hours in this debate for divisions to appear, but there is a wide and ever-growing consensus about the need for a strategic London authority, though I hope we will all be able to continue to move on in our thinking in response to the debate.
1244
I echo my noble friend Lord Tope. The debate needs to be on the "how"; to build on the broad agreement as to "what"; to bring together the voluntary sector, religious and community leaders, commuters and so forth as well as local government, industry and business. If I refer to a constitutional convention it may provoke a knee-jerk reaction among some noble Lords; it is not intended to do that. The work in Scotland was not invalidated by what happened later. That might be a model to be considered as to how we move forward. I should like to see some mechanism for bringing all those exciting thoughts together with a view to an effective outcome. It is vital that London's government is underpinned by consensus and by democracy.
7.8 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, on initiating this debate; for his clear and excellent introduction to our discussion; and for the excellent work that he has done on the House of Lords All-Party London Group, of which I am a member though I joined it too late in the day to have any influence on the excellent document the group produced. Perhaps I can say also that there is a companion volume produced by the Labour Party, A Voice for London, which has had less publicity this afternoon but which also makes an interesting contribution to the debate. I congratulate also the two maiden speakers this afternoon—the noble Lords, Lord Hankey and Lord Tweedsmuir—for their important contributions to our discussion.
London is an exciting city. One of the challenges we face is to make local government exciting and relevant to the people of this country. Many people outside local government seem to think it is rather dull. I have been a councillor and do not believe it to be dull. But the way in which we look at the future of our capital city can make the government of London seem exciting; it can make it more interesting and relevant to the people of London. That is one of the challenges.
I was not happy to hear the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, say that in his view some of the problems of London were insoluble. That is a counsel of despair. The noble Lord quoted Haussmann in Paris. I took the trouble to find out a little more about Haussmann. I do not want to embarrass the noble Lord. I assume that he knows more about Haussmann than most people, as he quoted him. Haussmann was summoned to Paris by the Emperor Louis Napoleon in 1853 because of his abilities and because of his political loyalty. One of the objectives given to Haussmann by the Emperor was,
"to establish a secure seat of government by facilitating the suppression of collective violence in the streets".
I am not sure whether that model is appropriate for our city!
I take issue with the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, who held up the City of London structure of government as a model on which the Labour Party should be keen and which might interest us in looking at the future of London as a whole. There is not time to go into detail on the City of London, but I do not think its democratic structures are quite up to the standards that we would

1245
wish to see. Perhaps no democracy is better than false democracy. But there we are. We have to leave it at that point.
I was delighted to see that a majority of those who spoke in the debate supported some form of strategic authority for London. Only three noble Lords said that they were fundamentally against the idea. However, I do not put the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard of Didgemere, who has made an important contribution in his work for London First, in the "against" category because he supports the idea of an elected governor. Although I do not like the phrase "elected governor", the noble Lord supports the idea, and so I put him in the "in-between" category.
When the Bill to abolish the GLC was going through Parliament, I remember watching with excitement what this House would do regarding important amendments to that piece of legislation. However, that is history, as is the fact that in 1963, under the Local Government Act, the Conservative Government abolished the LCC and created the GLC, in order, some of us believed, to facilitate a Conservative majority at County Hall. In a democracy we should accept that there should be important and power-elected bodies other than the House of Commons. It is not unhealthy if there is tension between democratically elected bodies. It is a sign of a healthy democracy that there might on occasions be different views. The wish to suppress such views is a sign of an unhealthy state of affairs.
Why do we need some form of strategic body for London'? We are the only capital city of any comparably sized country in the western world that does not have a strategic authority to speak for it and its people. It is wrong to suggest that somehow we can do better without such a body when all other major cities in democratic countries have such bodies. We surely need some voice to speak for Londoners and to represent London not only in this country—to speak out for London vis-à-vis Whitehall, whatever shade of government there is there—but in Europe and the wider world. We need such a voice to link the people of London with business, the voluntary sector and public bodies. Surely that is a worthwhile aim in itself. It is therefore no wonder that 75 per cent. of Londoners when asked—I have no reason to think that the question was not properly or honestly asked—support such a body and that even 68 per cent. of Conservative voters—they were Conservative at the time the question was asked but perhaps there are fewer now—also supported having a strategic body. The business world overwhelmingly appears to want such a body, as does the voluntary sector.
At the moment we have a large number of bodies operating London-wide. Some such as LPAC, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, are effective, despite earlier predictions, but lack powers. Some of these bodies operate largely in secret. It is not proper for us to suggest that individual borough councillors, worthy people though they are, can really speak for the whole of London. That is not a reasonable proposition. I do not think it is reasonable to say that the Secretary of State, who may occasionally be a Londoner—the next
1246
one may well be but the present one is not—is the appropriate person to speak for London. What we need is to have some form of structure which can at least attempt to tackle at a strategic level the many problems of London.
I say most emphatically that a Labour Government would not recreate the GLC. We have in mind a small body—the staff might number no more than a few hundred—to do strategic work for London. It would be nothing large and there is an absolute commitment that we would not recreate the GLC. Furthermore, there is no intention that the work of such a strategic body would detract or subtract from the work of London boroughs. It would have strategic functions, including the oversight of certain other agencies which currently work in the capital.
Many contributors to the debate have gone through the topics which would be the responsibility of a strategic body. I shall not go through them all but I would mention: developing an overall economic strategy, linking business, the voluntary sector and public authorities; attracting funds for investment from the private sector, including those needed for infrastructure; land use planning and environmental protection improvement; transport co-ordination, to which many noble Lords referred; community safety, including the police, on which my noble friend Lady Hilton spoke so clearly and from deep experience; the arts, to which my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney referred; and the wider health needs of London, which were dealt with by my noble friend Lord Rea. Those and some others would represent the agenda of a strategic body. They would not be operationally handled by such a body, so the references that were made to the GLC dealing with housing improvements, and so on, before it got rid of its housing stock are simply not relevant to the type of body that we are discussing.
I turn briefly to the question of money. In 1991 the London Boroughs Association estimated that abolition of the GLC had led to savings of £100 million. It is perfectly clear that since then the expenditure on London through the different bodies that exist, particularly the Government Office for London, has meant that the savings have been eroded and that there has in fact been increased expenditure. Perhaps I may elaborate a little on that. In 1995–96 the Government Office for London had a budget of £1.06 billion. Some of that was clearly not an overall London expenditure. However, it has been estimated that some £220 million represented London-wide revenue spending.
In addition, GOL had some capital money. It has been estimated that at least £170 million has been spent in cross-borough programmes. We are talking about an existing expenditure of £390 million plus the operating costs of the Government Office for London, which are not inconsiderable as that body has grown. It is our firm commitment in the Labour Party that a strategic London authority would represent no increase in spending but would use existing money already allocated to London as part of its strategic functions. That answers many of the concerns that have been expressed about such a

1247
body. It would be small, it would be strategic and it would not impose any additional financial burdens. It would use existing money.
I turn briefly to the constitutional side of the issue. It would be right to consider an area probably the same size as the old GLC. Only in that respect would the body resemble the GLC. If we wanted to look at which sized body would be the most appropriate, there would be a long period of time for consultation procedures. It is not feasible to consider from square one what the boundaries should be. We might manage it, but it would take a long time. It makes sense to say that we should use the old GLC boundaries as a starting point. As one speaker said, London attracts people who travel long distances every day. London's problems extend beyond the GLC's boundaries. It makes sense to have a starting point and the old GLC boundaries would be a reasonable one. It also makes sense to consult the people of London on this point; and that the Labour Party will do.
The question of an elected mayor is an option—preferably, I would suggest, an elected mayor with executive powers. That still has to be thought about, and the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, spoke eloquently in favour of that idea. I have already referred to the London Pride idea of a directly-elected governor with a small supporting office.
The people of London deserve and need a voice on the national and international stage; an organisation and authority which, in a strategic sense, can act on behalf of the people of London and do for London what is not being done properly at the moment. London deserves that.
7.20 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, like all other noble Lords, I would like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, on initiating this debate and on the very clear and concise way in which he has made his points.
His extremely able chairmanship of the House of Lords All-Party London Group, of which I am glad to be a member, must have contributed substantially to the content of many of the excellent speeches we have heard today. As the noble Earl told us, the very helpful paper, The Question of a Strategic Authority For London, was produced by the group and apart from that, the noble Earl has managed to bring an excellent array of speakers to inform all of those privileged enough to attend the meetings.
My noble friend Lord Ferrers is sorry that, due to ministerial duties in South Africa, he cannot be here today. However, I know that when he reads the debate he will want to join with me in congratulating the two maiden speakers, the noble Lords, Lord Tweedsmuir and Lord Hankey, on their valuable contributions. Every cloud has a silver lining and his regrets are my pleasure as I am glad to have had the opportunity of listening to this excellent debate and it is really a privilege for me to be able to wind up.
Like many noble Lords who have spoken today, I was born, educated, conducted my business and political careers in London and have always lived here. With no
1248
disrespect to whatever may be any of your Lordships' own favourite cities, I consider London to be the greatest city in the world.
I was interested to hear that the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, loves London; that my noble friend Lord Sheppard has a passion for London; the noble Lords, Lord Tweedsmuir and Lord Dubs, love London. I have no intention of singing "Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner", but those are my sentiments. I may very well invite the other noble Lords who have said those wonderful things about London to join me tomorrow for a little sing-song.
Some of your Lordships may know that I was for three years the chairman of the Greater London Area Conservatives, having previously served for three years as joint treasurer. In those six years I was in constant touch with many London MPs, but not the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, because in those days and now my honourable friend John Bowis is the Member for Battersea. I met London MPs, councillors and voluntary workers and I believe that I can speak with some authority on what a very large body of Londoners think about and want from their local government.
The noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, said that he visited 19 boroughs. I visited 32 continually and 84 constituencies continually, chatting all the time. I believe that I have a view. Most people told me that what they do not want is a body like the GLC, which had much more comprehensive policies for Nicaragua and Northern Ireland than it ever had for housing in Hackney.
What they do want is what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister promised for London—a flourishing and successful capital city. I simply cannot agree with my noble friend Lord Plummer that London has somehow declined since the abolition of the GLC. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, reminded us, London is a true, world city. It is the enterprise capital of Europe. London accounts for 15 per cent. of Britain's GDP. It is the leading world financial centre with over 500 banks, more American banks than New York and more Japanese banks than Tokyo. There are 64 companies from the "Fortune 500" and 108 of Europe's top 500 companies are headquartered in London.
London's position at the heart of international business and trade means that the fortunes of the business community and the citizens of London are closely linked. Neither can afford to ignore the other. Yet for far too long their interests were presented as being fundamentally opposed to one another; their potential ignored in favour of narrow political ideology. Now we see a network of partnerships across the capital bringing together public, private and voluntary sectors and doing sterling work promoting and improving London. It is thanks to the policies of this Government that London has rediscovered the benefits of working together.
In the 1992 manifesto the Prime Minister promised, and we set up, a special Cabinet sub-committee on London to co-ordinate policy for London and to ensure that the capital's interests were heard right at the heart

1249
of government. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, John Gummer, became Minister for London. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that he really does have a commitment to the capital city, working right across it, even if he represents Suffolk.
The pioneering private sector organisation London First was also established under the successful leadership of my noble friend Lord Sheppard of Didgemere. It now numbers some 200 of our most successful companies, working together to promote London and to improve the capital. In 1993 my right honourable friend Mr. John Gummer helped to establish London Pride and we have heard a lot about this from the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard. London Pride has succeeded in establishing a vision for London which crosses political divides. The London Pride partners now have direct discussions with Ministers from the Cabinet sub-committee on a range of issues in a grouping called the Joint London Advisory Panel. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is unfair to the tremendous efforts of this group. Many initiatives have been launched including work on transport, waste management and housing. Those are just a few examples.
We now have a Minster for Transport in London. At first it was my honourable friend Mr. Steven Norris and now my honourable friend Mr. John Bowis. Alongside the development of this new culture of achievement, there has also been an important shift in the focus of Government policies and programmes encouraging local initiative and local action rather than central direction and priority.
The Single Regeneration Budget, for example, has encouraged local people to identify the key issues in their area and to form partnerships between public and private sector players and to develop local solutions. This year alone the Single Regeneration Budget third round has committed £280 million to support 48 schemes, attracting a further £800 million of additional investment and will help to create 29,000 jobs over the lifetime of these schemes.
In many other areas partnerships are emerging to tackle specific problems. In regeneration, for example, partnerships in the east, west, north-west and central London and the Cross-River Partnership are already getting to work, the latter uniting the City, Westminster, Southwark and Lambeth, working together in a way that would never have happened in the days of the old GLC.
In the debate on the constitution in the other place last Thursday, the right honourable Leader of the Opposition, invited us to see what the absence of proper strategic planning has done. We waited with bated breath to hear what it was, but as so often happens, the right honourable gentleman immediately changed to another subject without explaining himself. I am reminded of the character in, I think, one of Lewis Carroll's books who asked a riddle, and when Alice said that she gave up, replied, "I only think of the questions—not the answers". But, of course, the right honourable gentleman was wrong anyway. The Secretary of State for the Environment already prepares
1250
strategic planning guidance for London, published in May last year, to set a planning framework within which individual authorities can draw up their own development plans and make local planning decisions. In that role, the Secretary of State has regard to the advice produced by the London Planning Advisory Committee, which was set up as a committee of all the London boroughs. The Secretary of State also consults London directly about the guidance. The process is open, and rightly the subject of public debate. It is generally agreed to have worked well. The wider perspective of government enabled the Secretary of State to publish last week strategic guidance for much of the Thames stretching from Windsor to the sea. This is important: London is part of the South East and strategic issues such as the Thames, transport and planning need to be looked at over a much wider area than the old GLC boundary. Other issues occupy a more limited area—three or four boroughs make up "theatreland", for example. The present voluntary arrangements allow for flexibility.
Although the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, suggested that we need a strategic authority only to deal with transport and planning matters, it is difficult to see how a strategic authority could do more than that. My noble friend Lady Brigstocke said that there is a lack of co-ordination in terms of transport, but there is a formal consultation structure with local government, providers and users. Here, the Minister for Transport in London has published a transport strategy for London and there is widespread acceptance of the strategy.
Although we believe that the co-ordination of the provision of transport services is vital, we do not think that that can be imposed from above. The Government also believe that responsibility for designing solutions to local transport problems should rest with the boroughs and that they in turn need to involve local communities and businesses much more actively in debating such issues.
Voluntary partnership has helped to deliver major benefits for Londoners; for example, all 33 London boroughs are co-operating, together with government to deliver the 1,200 mile London cycle network. Of course, when it comes to major infrastructure projects, such as the Channel Tunnel rail link, central government have, and always will have, a major role to play, given the strategic importance of such projects, and the implications for public finances.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Bowness that that would be the case even if responsibility for delivering major projects were to fall to a local or regional authority. No government can afford to hand over to any form of local government the final word on major investment or policy decisions which have implications for the nation as a whole, and a regional strategic authority would not add anything to this process, other than cost and delay. I would remind your Lordships that a substantial portion of the country's transport budget is already spent in London. Would any government allow decisions on such vast sums of money to be taken without their consent? And if the authority cannot take decisions, why have it at all?

1251
Of course, most people want to see ever more investment in public transport in the capital—and the Government recognise that an efficient transport system is essential to maintaining London's position as a great commercial, financial and cultural centre. That is why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport yesterday announced the privatisation of London Underground. Unlike the party opposite and sections of the press, the Government have had to make the hard decisions about how much the nation as a whole can afford to invest in London. That announcement will ensure that London Underground can find the money it needs without competing with education or hospitals. Wholly new investment will be available to put into the infrastructure.
I listened with great interest to all noble Lords who have spoken, but particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, as he set out the policies of the party opposite. I congratulate him on his efforts because I do not believe that that is a particularly easy task. Indeed, it is still not entirely clear what it is that the Labour Party wants to impose on Londoners. Is it an assembly? Is it a strategic authority? Is it a GLC mark II? Is it a mayor? I was interested when he said that the leader of his party says so, but that has not yet been confirmed. In a way, it depends on what one reads—the party's official consultation paper or its unattributed briefings to the Evening Standard. It also depends on who you ask—Mr Dobson or Mr Blair.
However, one thing is clear: the Labour Party would burden Londoners with a new London tax; it would lead to slower decision making, eroding London's competitive position, and it would destroy the culture of partnership. I cannot accept what the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said when replying on behalf of the Opposition—that it would cost very little and be slimline. Like Topsy, it would grow and if Labour councils around the country are anything to go by, I do not think that such a body would achieve what the noble Lord has suggested.
The public do not want more bureaucrats, bigger bills and slower decisions. What they want is local government that works with the private sector and adopts private sector standards of efficiency and customer service—the sort of service that London has benefited from in the past 10 years. The lesson of London during the 1980s and earlier—and not even the noble Lords opposite will deny it—was too much government—too much government, too much waste and too much bureaucracy.
I should like your Lordships to consider the following scenario of a London-wide authority setting out strategies for such diverse matters as the design of furnishings to meet the needs of cleaners, a national minimum wage, setting up democratically controlled nurseries—
Noble Lords: Rubbish!
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I know that noble Lords opposite do not like this—collectivising unpaid work in the home, involving itself in textile design, supporting co-operatives in the clothing, food and printing
1252
industries, opposition to cable, developing plans for healthy food, and most sinister of all political education—
Noble Lords: Rubbish!
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, if your Lordships consider that these ideas are too fanciful, let me tell you that they were exactly what was propounded by the GLC in its series of booklets called "London Industrial Strategy"—I shall show them to noble Lords opposite if they continue to shout "Rubbish".
For those who argue that their own particular sort of authority would be different—heavily circumscribed by the powers delegated to it (and my noble friend Lord Sheppard has eloquently warned of the dangers of creating an over-large, over-powerful bureaucracy)— I think it is reasonable to point out that none of the nonsense I have just described was the GLC's business either. It just grew.
Apart from that, as I have tried to demonstrate, there is already ample government in London and clear and enhanced roles for central and local government as well as the business and community sectors. They work well together with the providers and users of services in the capital to ensure that London gets the best. I agree with my noble friend who said, "If it's not broke, don't fix it" even if the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, does not. The current arrangements do work and they give us what we need and want. The benefits of the current approach are demonstrated by the city's continuing success. Public life is characterised by the private and public sectors working together for the benefit of London as a whole.
We have heard a lot in this debate about the need for an additional tier of local government in London—whether in the form of a local authority, a strategic authority, a mayor, a champion or an executive. I shall try to answer those points and if I cannot do so in the time available to me, I shall write to those noble Lords who made those interesting points.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said that London is the only world city that does not have a single strategic authority. That is not so. London is not the only world city without a single strategic local authority for the whole of its built-up area. Paris, Tokyo and New York have a range of structures for city governance, but all have more than one authority for the whole built-up area. Cities with a single authority are very much smaller than London. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, and with my noble friends Lord Bowness and Lord Stockton that in many respects London is different because of its history, size and structure and the way in which it grew from small towns and villages. Therefore, it has to be dealt with differently.
My noble friend Lord Plummer was worried that London subsidises the rest of the United Kingdom. That is so. It is right that the richest part of the United Kingdom should contribute more than some of the other areas. That is what we would expect. London's GDP per head is 25 per cent. higher than the average for the rest of the country. However, my noble friend also said that

1253
we need a strategic voice to ensure that London gets more of our resources. But we do get large resources. We received £35 billion last year and we also do well in the discretionary programmes, with 27 per cent. of the Single Regeneration Budget and over 50 per cent. of the Estates Renewal Challenge money coming to London. It is difficult to see how a strategic authority could get more than that.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that it is absolutely right that we ensure that the proponents of the strategic authority know exactly which problems they wish to identify.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, on his excellent maiden speech and I welcome his appreciation of the many active partnerships in London. The noble Lord was concerned that there is no inward investment agency. That is not true. The London First Centre, which is jointly funded by local authorities, central government and the private sector, is now highly successful in selling London's strength overseas and attracting new inward investment. It is a real success story for the voluntary approach.
The noble Lord, Lord Hankey, mentioned six functions that he believed could be dealt with only by a strategic authority. Every one of the functions that he mentioned is being dealt with either by the Government Office for London, for example strategic planning training, or by other departments, for example education, tourism, voluntary groupings, London First or the boroughs. Co-ordination is very important and it now happens to a much greater extent.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Sheppard that London does not need a strategic authority. I also agree about the way in which the partnerships are taking this forward. But I disagree with his view that if there is a mayor, champion or whatever you call it, everything can be kept as it is. It is an inherently unstable position. It will want power and conflict with government. It sounds seductive, like so many other matters about which my noble friend speaks. I do not believe that it would work. I am also pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, is against having a mayor.
The noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, said that he would like to have an elected mayor. He recognised that that would represent a constitutional leap and he drew parallels with Europe, including Serbia where conditions and practices are very different. He speaks from the heart, but I believe that he is mistaken. An elected mayor would be a political figure and would almost always be in opposition to the Government. The conflict and tension that this would create—which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, thought might be a good thin—would be bad for the capital and destroy the carefully constructed web of partnerships that do so much for London.
I should also like to deal with contributions from the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, my noble friend Lord Bowness, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, and the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said. However, I do not share his pessimism; nor does the
1254
noble Lord, Lord Dubs. We believe that only by working together—central government, local government, business and the community—can we tackle the problems of London. We solved the air problems of the 1950s. We put in place legislation to clean up London's air in the 1990s.
I have three more minutes, but I do not want to overrun my time. I am sorry that I cannot deal with every point. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said that based on a LBA report the Government Office for London was expensive. That report points to a saving of £1.3 billion between 1986 and 1991.
The machinery of the government of London is in excellent shape. The Government do not want to put all this at risk with a return to structures which would again encourage the conflict and crisis of the 1980s. A strategic authority for London would not add one iota to London's efficiency, wealth, success or position as a leading world city. To return to a GLC mark II, however modified, reformed or—dare I say it—repentant, would be a step backwards to old ways, old waste and an old London. London is special. Over the past 10 years London has blossomed. Let us keep it that way.
7.44 p.m.
The Earl of Carnarvon: My Lords, this debate shows your Lordships' great interest in London and its governance. Many new suggestions have been made, and particularly there was enthusiasm on the part of most speakers for an elected mayor or champion. As a local government man I believe that I am gamekeeper turned poacher in my suggestion that there be a small group composed of a mixture of elected and appointed members. But that is only one of several suggestions that have been made today.
I was very pleased to hear the noble Lords, Lord Williams of Elvel and Lord Dubs, say that there would be public participation in any discussions on London before a decision was reached, should their party be returned to power. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is against a mayor and in favour of a strategic authority for London. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller—I wish I had a racehorse as fast as she went through her brief—was not in favour of a new authority and was very much against a mayor. She spoke of the Government Office for London. I have much admiration for that body and its senior officers. They have done a great deal in getting money for London. I should like to thank noble Lords on the Cross Benches for allowing this debate to take place on their day and all noble Lords who have spoken in praise of the All-Party London Group paper. On behalf of that group I should like to thank its secretary, Mr. Brian Buckle, for the editing of the paper and all his help.
The time allocated to the debate was five hours. We have broken all records by finishing well inside that time. It is only right for me now to beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Sex Offenders Bill
7.47 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to he printed.

Film Production
7.48 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether the systems and safeguards in place for the proper distribution of National Lottery funds for film production would be the same if these funds were in the form of subsidy from central government.
The noble Viscount said: This is a short debate. I wish that it had more participants. I thank the two other other noble Lords, the Front Bench speaker, Lord Donoughue, and the Minister who is to answer my Question. I am particularly thankful to the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, because I know that he has given up an important part of his busy and attractive social life tonight to be here. I am sure that his contribution will be extremely helpful.
I do not begin this debate with any antagonism towards either the Government or the Arts Council, although the framing of my Question may indicate otherwise. I wish to debate with your Lordships tonight the arrangements that are now in place, many of which are fundamentally good, for the film industry. Possibly now is the time to reflect on whether matters might have been done differently if more time had been given to consider the needs of the British film industry in relation to an unexpected amount of lottery money. When the announcement was made that money from lottery funds would be available for film production my friends in the film industry were genuinely astonished. Over the past 10 years it has become unfashionable to pursue government, perhaps out of total exhaustion, for anything other than like support mechanisms through tax relief and so forth. The idea of subsidy has become completely lost.
When I first began to talk about film in your Lordships' House shortly after I entered this place in 1984 the Films Bill was being debated. At that point the British film industry was at an extremely low ebb. Cinema attendances in this country were at an historic low; the production of British films was negligible; and many of the contributions made during the course of that legislation were, to say the least, dispiriting.
I seldom like to read what I have said in your Lordships' House but I did thumb back through to the Hansard of 1984. My speaking was somewhat muddled, and it probably still is. But, if I may claim some kudos, I made a prediction then that there would inevitably be a recovery but that it would have to be led through exhibition rather than any subsidy for film production.
I had no idea at that time—it happened some three or four years later—that the American concept of multiplex cinemas (multiscreen cinemas) would be introduced into this country, mainly by American and Canadian
1256
companies, and would have such an immediate impact on filmgoing. The multiplex system of film exhibition is very much an American idea. Any noble Lord who has been into one of these multiscreen cinemas will notice that not only is there a great deal of choice, a service aspect, a great deal of American-type food available (hamburgers, popcorn and so forth), but that most if not all the films in, say, a 10-screen multiplex, which is not unusual, are American.
British films, which are usually of a specialist nature, and foreign language films are rarely shown there because they do not sit easily with the American culture of exhibition. Exhibition and distribution—the two are often linked—are hard, competitive businesses run by hard-headed businessmen. One hardly ever hears anyone in distribution or exhibition, in this country or the US, talk about the cultural imperative, which is something one might hear among film directors, writers and so forth in both countries. They are interested in making money. They are the motor of the success of the film industry.
When one looks at it, no one made money out of producing films. The money is made out of distributing and exhibiting films. However good quality it may be, it is no good producing a film if it is not going to be shown and people are not going to see it. There are all kinds of reasons why a film may fail. I shall enumerate some of them in a second. Many films made in Britain with extreme difficulty and on a slender budget are good films in terms of their production values and in the way in which they create interest in their audiences. There are all kinds of elements which may affect their success, but fundamental to their success is that they must be shown.
Just under 50 per cent. of all British films fail to find distribution in cinemas. It is no accident that two of this country's leading film directors—this country is full of creative talent—generally fail to find distribution for their films. Ken Loach who is generally acknowledged within the film community—he is the director's director—is hardly known in Britain. He is known on television, but his films are seen by more filmgoers in Belgium than in the whole of the UK. The reason is that our distribution/exhibition system is not geared up for such films.
We are desperately under-screened in this country. There are just over 32 cinemas per million of population, which is just over half of what is available in France and about a third of what is available in the US. It is no accident that the film which will probably win the Oscar nomination—"The English Patient"—which has been seen by almost everyone in the world, has not yet been seen here. I think it is opening next week in London. It is a film which I would recommend to all noble Lords. It is an extraordinary success, with a British director and a British writer and yet it is not a British film: all the money comes from American sources.
When films have the ingredients to attract money, which is rare, because it is difficult to obtain finance for films, and when it is a property that people want, it is inevitably the Americans who jump in first. So it is no

1257
surprise that much of our young talent and some of our older talent too—we have many excellent older technicians as well as creative people—tend to go to America. Some tend to stay there if they can bear to live in California, because there is consistent and continuous work for them.
I am glad that I am speaking to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, as Minister with responsibility for film in the Department of National Heritage, because in the past I have spoken mostly to a Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry. Although I have spoken to some of the Minister's charming and helpful Front Bench colleagues, I got nowhere because they were the wrong people to deal with the issue. Since its creation a great deal has been done by the Department of National Heritage to address many of the problems.
I would just ask the Minister whether we have rushed too quickly to help the British film industry by focusing on film production as a means of using what is a relatively generous allocation of lottery funds. To date I believe that about 150 films have received lottery funding. The understanding in the film industry and my understanding—the Minister may say that I am wrong—was that 15 per cent. of all arts funding would be allocated to film. In fact I believe that about 7 per cent. has been allocated to those 148 films. I do not quarrel with that because much of that has gone to films which should not have been made.
In passing—I do not want to be sour about this—it was testing the Royal Family a little to put on the film "True Blue", which had been knocking around for a long time, for the Royal Command Film Performance, because it was an intolerable production. It is the only film in my memory which was put on, obviously because it was a Royal Command film, in one of the few big cinemas in Leicester Square, which could not complete its run. It had to be taken off because it generated so little interest. It was a project which probably fitted into the criteria of the Arts Council of England. I do not blame it for that, because it had all kinds of things: it was British; it had many aspects which might have related to the public good, something which I believe is mentioned in its guidelines, but, my goodness me, what a boring film!
Many other films have been put up for lottery funding and have been unsuccessful. Surely we are arriving at the time—because the time will surely come when people will see how much money is being put into films which have no chance of achieving—to take an overall view of the film industry from beginning to end, to look at every aspect of it, to see where funding is needed. I have no objection in principle to subsidy where it is needed, and where there is usually a cultural imperative. There may well be a cultural imperative in this country. I have argued that in the past, but it can only be part of a larger context. The larger part of that context must be a commercial cinema which creates employment and draws people into cinemas to see and enjoy those films.
I understand that the conditions for lottery funds are limited, but I suggest that a better way of dealing with funds would be, for example, to examine the development of films. Major American studios which
1258
produce 20 films a year usually have more than 100 films in development. It is an expensive area but the Americans can do that because they have a proper industry. A large proportion of those films will never be made. Development means obtaining scripts, rewriting them, getting treatments done and bringing the project to the point where it can be presented for finance.
In this country things are done on an ad hoc basis. You are lucky to get funding from wherever you can claw it. You make your film, you hope that it will be successful, but if it is not you go back to gather a few colleagues and try again. I suggest that we want to correct that procedure. I also suggest that the Department of National Heritage and the Arts Council agree because otherwise they would not have sanctioned the idea of franchises. The applications for the first of those will be decided this week.
I hope that other noble Lords speaking tonight will back my desire for a proper study covering everyone involved in film; the Government, the Arts Council, producers, directors, the Writers Guild and all those who have an interest. I suggest that the priorities are distribution and exhibition; development; training, which is extremely important because the cost of making films is enormous and if untrained people make films a great deal of time and money will be lost; and, finally, production. I believe that we have started at the wrong end. If the Minister agrees with me, how quickly can we put the situation right.
I have spoken for far too long. We have some interesting speeches yet to come and I look forward to hearing them.
8.2 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for asking this important and complex Question. As the noble Viscount has a Scottish title, I hope he will approve of the Scottish flavour of my brief contribution. I must also declare an interest as I have a brother-in-law who appears regularly on the stage, in major feature films and on television. For those interested, he played the difficult role of Prime Minister Pitt in the stage and film version of "The Madness of King George".
Since the Scottish Arts Council lottery fund for film production was introduced in 1995 it has made a huge impact on film-making in Scotland. In just the last two years 16 feature films, 31 short films—and here I must declare a further interest as three of these were made at my family home—and 15 documentary programmes have been funded from this source in Scotland, representing awards totalling £9.3 million invested in production worth £38 million—a very large amount of money!
These funds represent a major public investment in the creation of a viable and vibrant film industry in Scotland, but it is now right to build on this success by improving the system to allow money made from these funded films to be ploughed back into the industry for further production. This is how the film industry should be enabled to make a real contribution to its own growth, and to the economy in general.

1259
The fact that these funds are available has meant that in Scotland, since their introduction there has been a 42 per cent. increase in projects that went into production and a 20 per cent. increase in feature films that went into production. These are indeed impressive figures.
Tax incentives for the film industry would also make a difference to the level of business attracted to the UK and especially to Scotland. The Minister will not be surprised to hear that I am going to talk about Ireland. The Irish government, after they introduced tax incentives under the now famous Section 35 provision, saw film making in that country rise from almost nothing in 1989 to a production slate of over 40 major features in 1996, and a state of near overheating which has necessitated a certain tightening up of the rules of eligibility.
The Irish sensibly attach strict conditions to their scheme which has meant that any film awarded moneys under Section 35 has had to employ a shadow Irish crew in all the major positions, thus ensuring that Ireland benefits in real terms not only from the inward investment, but also from on the job training, enabling them to build up well trained and experienced film crews which are so vital for the long term future of the industry.
Similar schemes for the UK must be considered if we are to compete on a level playing field with our Irish neighbours. Although I acknowledge that the lottery funding for films has made a real impact, if we could add to that tax incentives or business development schemes to encourage both public and private investment in film, with the private investor being able to recoup first, there is no doubt that we could seriously compete for the international business which is presently passing us by.
To give but one example, the film "September", adapted from the Rosamund Pilcher book of the same name, is set entirely in Scotland, but the production company did not even consider filming it in Scotland. Instead, it went directly to Ireland to access the funds available under Section 35. What a shame, my Lords, what a terrible shame! I beg of the Government to look at this situation.
Business incentives schemes to attract private investment would have the added attraction of allowing slates of films to be compiled, featuring films with certain box office appeal, but also allowing for the more unusual or experimental films coming from young and hitherto unknown film makers to be made. This has the advantage of ensuring that the investor gets a good return on his money, and young talent gets the chance to be seen, and thus develop their skills. As the noble Viscount said, an investment in the future is surely well worth making.
In short, the film and television industry must be allowed and encouraged to compete at every level. As people have more leisure time in which to view the wealth of television channels now available to them, as more multiplex cinemas open around the country requiring greater levels of quality British production to keep them supplied, and thus as more homes have
1260
computers on which to view the vast amount of multimedia entertainment now available, we must support the industry which can and must be encouraged to supply this ever increasing demand.
This is an industry for the 21st century, which secures employment for a great many people. Today there are more people employed in the UK in the film, television and the moving media industry than there are in the car manufacturing industry. This statistic alone shows the vital importance of this industry to the UK economy.
Lottery funding for film and television has made a serious and quantifiable difference to this industry and to the economy of the country. Now is the time to consider further incentives to ensure its continued growth and prosperity.
I do hope that the Minister's noble friend Lord Lindsay and my right honourable kinswoman the Secretary of State for the National Heritage and their departments will take note of this debate tonight. This industry needs all the help it can get both from the Government and from the National Lottery.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Freyberg: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for introducing this very timely debate about the most sensible way of funding the British film industry.
A number of people in the film world to whom I have spoken have expressed the same anxiety; namely, that although film-making in Britain is thriving, there is no proper distribution to enable these films to be seen except through the American studios. These naturally favour their own market-tested products along with the best of the independents. Indeed, at the moment, 92 to 93 per cent. of the box office goes to American movies. The American studios are in effect distribution companies, and control distribution. The money is in distribution and the cost is in production.
Thanks in part to lottery funding, film production in the UK is undergoing a mini-boom. In 1989, 33 films were made here, while in the first 10 months of 1996, the figure was 108. However, the fact that over 50 per cent. of those will not get distributed in cinemas and will therefore not reach audiences is a terrible market failure. Are we wise, therefore, to put so much emphasis on production? As the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland said, the distribution and exhibition of films are crucial. Exhibition includes films being received through satellite television, terrestrial television, video, CD-ROM or whatever. It is a huge market, something which the Americans got hold of and got the hang of very early on. Ultimately, the British film business has to be a distribution business as well as a production business if it is going to survive, and this is something we must try to embrace as part of our film policy.
It is the argument of many people in the UK film world that although lottery funding for film production has had a huge effect and increased the number of films being made, it is not geared to helping the industry as a whole in a way that funds in the form of subsidy from central government could do.

1261
Recent reports have suggested that what is needed is an integrated system; namely, the creation of "integrated" British companies like small Hollywood studios, which are capable of distributing films as well as making them. However, critics of this system are nervous that such companies would become cosy cartels hoovering up handouts.
Perhaps more satisfactory, and less liable to collapse with the failure of individual films, would be the suggestions put forward by Wilf Stevenson, the Director of the British Film Institute. He proposes two initiatives that could only be created by direct funding—perhaps £20 million per annum—of film production via subsidy, and which would not be possible via the lottery.
In the first, a UK film distributor could be set up to try to link audiences to production. This fund, perhaps using half the annual tranche, would invest in prints and advertising for all films made in the UK judged to have commercial potential but not picked up for distribution (50 per cent. of films made in the UK fall into this category); and invest in production (by acquiring rights) when suitable projects are in development. No one currently does this in the UK, but it is the business in the United States.
Secondly, a guarantee fund could be established, to reduce the risk to commercial funders in UK films. At present, equity investment in such films is just too risky, and City money is never attracted. A guarantee fund, profiting from successful films, would greatly enhance City investment. If that could be combined with some form of tax break it could be a winner.
However, I must emphasise that any increase in UK film-making will come to nothing if all we are doing is creating a celluloid mountain. If the lottery money is going to have any lasting, rather than short-term, effect on the UK film industry, money must be found for distribution as well as production.
8.14 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for bringing before us this important subject. Ironically, the great social occasion of which I am deprived this evening is in fact a film première about an obsession with football, an obsession which I share. Therefore it has been painful but I have slowly convinced myself that the quality of speeches as well as the short list of speakers has made it worthwhile. The knowledge and lively presentation of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, make it a pleasure to hear him on this subject. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, made his home life sound like a Hollywood of the north. I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, was as perceptive and well informed as ever.
We must begin by celebrating the present success of the British film industry. Film production in Britain is at a very high level. British film makers are receiving international awards. Cinema audiences have doubled since the early 1980s. We should all cheer that. Indeed, it is a great improvement on the situation a decade ago
1262
when the Tory government inflicted grave damage by changing the tax status of films and abolishing the box office levy.
The present good times must be put in the longer-term context. As the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, said, most films produced here are not British, however defined. They are Hollywood films. This is a feast year and, periodically, we have always had them. But, historically, they have always been followed by famine years and will be again unless and until our film industry is put on a sounder commercial footing to encourage sustained investment.
Looking specifically at the role of the Arts Council, we note that in a couple of years it has part-funded some 57 films involving £30 million of its investment and meeting more than 25 per cent. of the costs. It is well advanced with its scheme for four studio franchises financed by lottery money. It is on course to assist well over 100 British films. I hope that it can define "British" more succinctly than the Films Act 1985 did according to various criteria.
It appears that many in the film industry—and I suspect that the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, was reflecting them—do not like much of that and certainly do not like the franchising concept. On this side of the House, we are not so opposed to it, especially in the short term. That is not to say that it is a perfect process or that the maximum of £8 million per film will ever change the film world; nor indeed that the Arts Council is perfectly equipped to make those judgments. I felt that the noble Viscount made a number of very telling points in that regard.
To me it is not clear what quality criteria the anonymous film panel on the Arts Council will apply. I am especially worried about bureaucracy and cronyism in the process and even whether the concept of national film is sustainable in a global industry, although I hope that it is.
The experience of the French film industry certainly demonstrates the capacity of central subsidised institutions to make films which even French nationalists do not want to see. Certainly we do not want the celluloid mountain, which was referred to nicely, of worthy but unseen British films.
In a practical world and wanting to help our film industry in the short term, it is not dazzlingly clear to me who is better than the Arts Council to handle that side of the matter. It is not clear that the industry itself would immediately agree on an acceptable body which was not seen by the media and the public as what they would call a cosy luvvies' tea-party. At least the Arts Council is there with a reasonable reputation and a track record in lottery distribution. And it has brought in industrial expertise, however secretly—I do not believe that we know their names—although the commercial production sector is still probably under-represented. If we are in government, we shall want to look at whether there is a better long-term solution to that which meets some of the reservations of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. His suggestion of an inquiry and the priorities which he puts forward would be a helpful start.

1263
In the end, it is a question of how to select and back successful films. Obviously "True Blue" was not a good example. I saw it and I felt that the title was against it since they are losers. But nobody has solved the dilemma of selecting and backing successful films in a systematic way. In the world film industry the problem of selection is usually solved by individual mogul geniuses with a nose for a winner. Even the best of them in Hollywood, as was suggested, need to have many films on the boil, finally making only a few of them including some flops. We remember that even Lord Grade went down with his "Titanic". So the Arts Council process is imperfect but it is practical.
I should now like to look a little wider into the future of the film industry. It is clear that what we want our policies to achieve is a strong and expanding film production industry which produces successful British and international films on a sustained scale. We do not have that yet, despite the recent boom. Actually, we make fewer feature films even now in a boom than we should, given the rich talent that we have, much of which, as has been pointed out, is working almost permanently overseas. We also make too few British films about British subjects, although "Trainspotting" and "The Crying Game" show that we can succeed. It is certainly a crying shame that so many successful so-called British films—for example, "A Fish called Wanda", "Braveheart" and "Pride and Prejudice"—were in fact foreign financed, which means that their profits were not retained here.
Yet, as has been said, we have some of the world's best talent displaying great creative, technical and animation skills. Too many of them have been lost in the talent drain to America. So what do we need to do to keep them? Certainly, we need to strengthen our film industry infrastructure by improving training and raising the standards of weaker training courses to the high levels exemplified, say, in the National Film School or at Bournemouth, and we need to nurture regional production.
We should also look particularly at the foreign control of our film distribution and exhibition—I noted that the noble Viscount made that the first of his priorities; and I totally agree with him—and look to see how that relates to the fate of our domestic industry. As has been said, well over 80 per cent. of the current record cinema takings are for American films and will return to the US and nearly 50 per cent. of British films made, for example, in 1994, were still not released in British cinemas a year later. Can the Minister say whether the Government have any proposals to investigate the question of distribution and exhibition?
We can of course do other things to help. For example, we can take a more positive role in Europe by rejoining the Council of Europe's "Images" scheme which could lever up to £50 million per annum of production investment for a mere £2 million subscription. Perhaps the Minister can tell us why the Government ignore that benefit. We must also maintain the support for British Screen and for the Greenlight Fund and we should actively support the fast growing multi-media CD-ROM industry which currently is mainly US controlled in this country.
1264
However, we really need more than those micro policies, although they will help. I believe that we need a complete change of attitude by government, with more enthusiasm and energy to fly the flag for the British film industry. As has been mentioned, the dramatic growth in the Irish film industry—which has increased 30 fold in five years—is as much, I believe, because of the enthusiastic leadership of the culture Minister, Michael Higgins, as because of the fiscal incentives under Section 35. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, though a Scot, that Ireland, as in many cultural things, does it very well. I should add that I include horseracing in culture.
Even so, fiscal incentives need further and sympathetic investigation, not as a permanent regime or as a debilitating subsidy, but, perhaps, over a short fixed term, as a way of kick starting investment. Moreover, faster write-offs for failed investment would encourage financial backers to take the risks.
So our film industry is a complex one which is doing well in the short run but which needs to be put on a better commercial basis to thrive in the long term. The role of the Arts Council is only a small part of that process. Perhaps we should give the council longer before judging it as being inappropriate or as having failed. It is to be hoped that new eyes will, before long, have the responsibility for viewing the council and making those judgments.
8.25 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood): My Lords, in his opening remarks, the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, promised that we would focus on quality and have a quality debate. The contributions that we have heard this evening vindicate that hope and, indeed, indicate the prescience of the noble Viscount in introducing the debate.
The past 18 months have been an exceptionally successful period for the British film industry. One has only to look at the success that has been achieved at some of the major film awards during that period to see that that is true. Clearly, with film making in Britain flourishing, the advent of the National Lottery has come at the right time to give the industry a further stimulus. How appropriate it is that, in a year when we are celebrating the centenary of the cinema, the National Lottery should fund more than 100 films and that on a day when the Secretary of State visited the National Film and Television Archive at Berkhamsted (which has just received a £13.8 million lottery award for its restoration and preservation work) we discuss film and the National Lottery in your Lordships' House.
I am sure that we would all agree that the National Lottery has been a tremendous success. It has certainly had an enormously beneficial effect on the British film industry, as in so many other areas of life. To date, more than £81 million has been awarded to film and cinema projects. That includes about £40 million for some 109 film productions, including features, shorts and documentaries. That is a tremendous amount in so short a time, which I know is welcomed by the film industry.

1265
Of course, even more will be available over the next few years. The Arts Council of England plans to invest more than £150 million in the sector over the next six years through its film production franchise scheme and there will also be money available for individual projects, as well as money from the other three Arts Councils. With a forecast gearing ratio of 2:1, the lottery could generate additional investment of some £450 million in the UK industry over the next six years.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, asked whether it was right that 15 per cent. of lottery money for the arts should go to film. I can tell the noble Viscount that the figure of 15 per cent. is an unofficial aim for the Arts Council which has been suggested from within the film industry. In itself, it is not any kind of official target.
What I have found most encouraging is that the lottery has allocated its resources across the widest possible spectrum of film makers. Awards have ranged from £10,000 apiece for the production of a number of short films by the Scottish Arts Council up to £2 million for the feature film "Amy Foster". The latter was one of a small number of films financed through the Greenlight Fund, to which the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, referred. This important development in the administration of the lottery proceeds was established by the Arts Council for England and British Screen Finance Ltd, initially on a trial basis for one year, with up to £5 million of lottery funds. The aim of the fund is to support established film makers in producing larger scale films which will be able to compete in the international market. That distinguishes it from British Screen's usual finance which is aimed at helping develop new talent. Grants are made in the form of loans which will generate a return when films are successful. Support will be limited to a maximum of 30 per cent. of the film's total cost, up to a maximum of £2 million. I am delighted that the Arts Council and British Screen have recently decided to extend the Greenlight Fund for a further year.
What we see in operation here is the lottery being used both as seed-funding to develop new talent and as a means of helping our established talent compete in the international market place. It is, of course, too early to make any judgments about the commercial success of films funded from the lottery—only a handful have so far been released. But we should not forget that the Arts Council will benefit from those films that are commercially successful. Any profits will be returned, pro rata, to the Arts Council and may be used to fund further film projects. The National Lottery will, therefore, not only help to discover the stars of tomorrow, it will also further stimulate excellence in the sector as a whole.
Both the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, in asking about the systems and safeguards for the allocation of National Lottery proceeds, raise an important point. While it is one of the underlying principles of public support for the arts (and I include the lottery in this) that the bodies responsible for distributing funds operate at arm's length from the Government, situations could of course arise which might lead to questions being asked about the
1266
objectivity and disinterestedness of those taking decisions on awards. The UK film industry is a tightly-knit community and those advising on lottery applications might also have projects of their own which could qualify for lottery funding or have close links to other applicants. It is essential, obviously, that the best advice is secured on the use of public money but it is equally important that clear arrangements must be in place for dealing with conflicts of interest. The four Arts Councils have introduced such arrangements to ensure that they have access to advisers and film panel members who are actively working in the industry without undermining the objectivity and fairness of their decisions.
Lottery distributors are required, under the financial directions made under Section 26 of the 1994 National Lottery etc. Act, to put in place codes of conduct covering both their members and officials. These cover arrangements for dealing with conflicts of interest. Lottery distributors, as non-departmental public bodies, must also abide by the guidance issued by central government on these matters. This requires that registers of interest are open to public inspection. I am confident therefore that there is little or no potential for "cronyism" in the award of grants to film.
On the particular question of safeguards, the National Lottery financial directions also require that grants for film from the lottery must be accompanied by a comprehensive set of terms and conditions. These conditions ensure that the funds are correctly applied and allow grant to be recovered by the lottery distributors should those funds be misapplied or other material conditions infringed. All grants are subject to regular monitoring and evaluation to ensure that work is being carried out within the conditions specified and the strategic objectives of film funding are being achieved.
Lottery moneys, while additional to and outside the control total, are public funds. In terms of accountability they are treated as if the funds were directly voted by Parliament. The systems and safeguards I have outlined for dealing with conflicts of interest and for policing grant, are consistent with those that would be applied to a direct grant from public funds.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, has rightly pointed out that the difficulty of securing adequate distribution is one of the main obstacles to the growth of the British film industry. That point was echoed by the other speakers this evening. The Advisory Committee on Film Finance, which the Government set up last year under the chairmanship of Sir Peter Middleton, identified this as a key strategic issue. The Middleton Report noted that the industry in Britain largely comprises small independent producers, whereas the distribution and exhibition sectors are dominated by multinational companies. In this context, competition policy applies and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission has looked at the exhibition sector in this country. There is no restriction on anyone being a film distributor in this country; it is part of the general warp and weft of commercial life.
The Middleton Committee recommended that a studio or several mini-studios should be established to help link production more effectively with distribution, for the

1267
reasons we have all touched on this evening. The National Lottery franchises provide an opportunity to take forward the spirit of the Middleton recommendations and to formulate a strategy to influence structural change within the industry. The overall aim of the franchises is to correct the current structural imbalance within the industry by strengthening the independent production sector, so that it can more easily attract investment, spread risk across a slate of films, and build up better and more long-lasting working relationships with the distribution and exhibition sectors. The Arts Council of England drew up its franchise plans after in-depth consultation with the industry.
The franchise arrangements allow for up to 10 per cent. of annual allocations to be spent on development projects, and additionally for money to be spent on pre-production expenses. The conditions of lottery grant also stipulate that all productions must make a contribution to the independent production training fund and employ trainees recruited from a recognised training body. The council has invited bids for up to four film franchises which will allocate lottery funds to companies over a number of years to part finance slates of films.
As has already been mentioned, the deadline for applications is this Friday. No doubt your Lordships will have read comment in the press about some of the applications that may be being made. Clearly I am in no position to comment on the way in which that process is going forward. However, I am encouraged by the reports that many leading players from all sectors of the industry are working together on bids.
The Arts Council's guidelines on the franchises make clear that it is seeking to attract new and additional investment and not to substitute for existing finance. The guidelines also specify that the inclusion of credible plans for achieving theatrical distribution will be one of the key criteria for assessing bids, which I trust will encourage those of your Lordships who have spoken this evening. Partnership between producers and those involved in distribution and international sales is encouraged, and I understand that many of the bids which are coming in will involve distribution companies. I very much hope this will help to allay the concerns which have been expressed.
The Government are also taking forward other recommendations made by the Middleton Advisory Committee on Film Finance. These include the establishment of a forum for discussion between representatives of the film industry and the City. The Middleton Committee itself demonstrated how useful it was to bring the film and financial sectors together. Traditionally there has been little dialogue between them and we hope the new Film Finance Forum will be an excellent way to establish it. Some financial support to help get the forum off the ground has been included in my department's budget for the next two years. We are delighted that Sir Peter Middleton has agreed to act as chairman of the new forum and continue the excellent work he has done to date. We shall be making an announcement soon about the membership of the forum.
1268
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, reinforced by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, raised the issue of further tax incentives for the film industry. The Middleton Report put forward a well-argued case for further incentives of this kind, but this of course must be looked at in the context of wider economic policy. Government policy is to maintain a neutral tax system with as few distortions as possible, thus enabling tax rates to be kept low. That policy has delivered the right climate for business growth across all sectors of the economy, with low taxation, low inflation and low labour costs, greatly improving our international competitiveness. On the question of investment schemes, I note that the Middleton Committee concluded that benefits which might accrue from such a scheme would not justify the additional cost to the Exchequer.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, asked about rejoining Eurimages, which I believe is the communautaire way of describing it. As I have explained to your Lordships on a previous occasion, the decision to withdraw from Eurimages was difficult but one we felt we had to make to make necessary savings because it was seen as the weakest element of our films expenditure.
I should also at this point like to refer briefly to the recent efforts of my noble friend Lady Denton of Wakefield to develop the film industry in Northern Ireland. In December of last year my noble friend announced a £4 million development package. Part of this will go towards establishing a pilot Film Commission to market and promote Northern Ireland locations, talent and facilities. A Film Development Fund will also be set up, which will act as the primary incentive to locate productions in Northern Ireland. A final part of the package will be directed towards training.
I understand that the publication of the guidelines for the new Film Development Fund will take place before Easter. There will also be an announcement about the setting-up of a company to undertake new responsibilities for the development of the film industry in the Province.
The British film industry should look to the future with confidence. Last year, for instance, some 127 films went into production in this country, the highest number for 40 years. Between 1990 and 1994 the UK was one of only 4 countries among the top 20 film-making nations to show an increase in the number of films produced. Although there are still obstacles to distribution and profitability, which we are addressing, as I have described, the potential for further growth is clearly there and it is an exciting prospect. We have in Britain the best technical crews and studio facilities in Europe, one of the lowest effective rates of corporate tax, and the lowest labour costs in the EU's main markets. With production booming and our studios full, Britain is starting to achieve commercial success commensurate with the creative talent that we have always had in abundance. Let me reassure your Lordships that the Government intend to do all they can

1269
to sustain and build on this success. The continuing expansion of the National Lottery as a source of finance for film production and distribution will be a major factor in the continuing growth and well-being of the British film industry.
Britain is once again becoming a major player in world cinema. I leave your Lordships with one very striking statistic: in 1996, the most successful film worldwide, in terms of profit to cost ratio, was a British film—"Trainspotting". The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, declared an interest in the film "The Madness of
1270
King George". I should like to end by wholeheartedly endorsing these sentiments from another performer in that film, Nigel Hawthorne:
"May the spotlight be pointed in our direction for a change, and let us show the rest of the world why they should envy our rich and unique talents".

Civil Procedure Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with a privilege amendment; the amendment considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before nine o'clock.

  Sudanese Refugees in Uganda
  Sudanese Refugees in Uganda
  Pension Rights on Divorce
  Pension Rights on Divorce
  The Arts: Tax Treatment of Corporate Donations
  The Arts: Tax Treatment of Corporate Donations
  Longer Term Road Schemes, Scotland and Northern Ireland
  Longer Term Road Schemes, Scotland and Northern Ireland
  Retention of Case Papers
  Retention of Case Papers
  Evidence Acquired by Intrusive Surveillance
  Evidence Acquired by Intrusive Surveillance
  Firearms Dealers: Compensation
  Firearms Dealers: Compensation
  Paedophilia
  Paedophilia
  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Dr. Jawad Hashim: Payments to Counsel
  Dr. Jawad Hashim: Payments to Counsel
  Gulf War: Use of Organophosphate Pesticides
  Gulf War: Use of Organophosphate Pesticides
  Armed Forces: Honorary Consultants and Doctors
  Armed Forces: Honorary Consultants and Doctors
  Joint Strike Fighter: MoD Officials' Employment
  Joint Strike Fighter: MoD Officials' Employment
  Defence Medical Services Organisation
  Defence Medical Services Organisation