asked Her Majesty's Government:How much was contributed from public funds to the Save the Children Fund for the operation of their clinic for Afghan refugees near Peshawar, Pakistan; and whether, in view of the problems faced in the operation of this clinic in eradicating tuberculosis among Afghan refugees, they will consider increasing the contribution.

The Overseas Development Administration has since 1980 contributed 132,000 to the activities of the Save the Children Fund in helping Afghan refugees in Pakistan. We should give sympathetic consideration to any request for additional assistance by the fund.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they have concluded their consideration of the views submitted to them regarding salmon fishing as a result of the Government's consultation paper on the Review of Inland and Coastal Fisheries in England and Wales; and if they will make a statement.

We received a large number of responses to our consultation paper offering differing and sometimes divergent views. We have considered these carefully with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales and, where appropriate, with my right honourable and noble friend the Minister of State at the Scottish Office.

One of the main issues on salmon arising from the consultation paper was that of illegal catches, and we have in particular sought comments on the report, Salmon Conservation—A New Approach, prepared by the Salmon Sales Group of the former National Water Council, which proposed a salmon tagging scheme to combat the illegal taking of salmon in English and Welsh waters. We have received views on these proposals from a wide range of bodies which indicate strong support for some kind of salmon sales control. It is also clear, as the Salmon Sales Group themselves recognised, that a number of difficult practical problems would need to be overcome before any scheme of this sort could be introduced.

In our view, it would not be sensible to have a salmon tagging scheme which did not include Scotland. We have therefore just concluded discussions with my right honourable and noble friend the Minister of State at the Scottish Office and have agreed that, in view of the widespread concern—which the Government share—over the illegal fishing for salmon, it would be right to explore further whether the ideas set out in the Salmon Sales Group's report can be developed into a workable scheme within Great Britain as a whole. It does seem, allowing for all the snags, to be the most promising way of tackling this problem. Accordingly, we have instructed officials to discuss this with the various interests concerned and to let us have their conclusions as quickly as possible. I will make a further statement as soon as I am in a position to do so.

Our consultation paper also discussed the strengthening of links between water authorities and sea fisheries committees, particularly concerning the regulation of fishing for salmon and other migratory fish in estuaries and coastal waters. Since we issued the consultation paper, water authorities have been reorganised and the authorities themselves have achieved better working relations with salmon fishermen. The restructured water authorities have also indicated their willingness to improve their cooperation with sea fisheries committees. In consequence, and having taken account of the views expressed during the consultation process, we have concluded that a change of organisation of local fisheries management is not required at this time.

Regarding commercial salmon fishing, and particularly in the Solway and off the north-east coast of England, we have noted that different interests frequently deduce opposite conclusions from the same evidence, and that the evidence itself is often incomplete. In consequence, we have instructed officials to meet local interests concerned about the Solway and to consider further the effects of the northeast coast fishery before we take any decisions on these matters.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they have anything to add to the proposals in the White Paper,

The Government are aware that there is some concern about the possibility that action by the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils could adversly affect successor authorities and ratepayers. We are sure that the councillors concerned will be concerned to obey the law, to act responsibly, and to have regard to their responsibilities to the ratepayers. Moreover, the existing legal framework imposes some constraints on the actions of authorities; and we propose three further measures.

At present a London borough or metropolitan district council can itself seek to question the actions of the GLC or the metropolitan county council that precepts upon it by applying for judicial review. Applications can also be made by any person with an interest—for example, councillors, ratepayers, and non-ratepayers resident in the area concerned. If the court accepts that the application is well founded and considers it in the public interest to do so, it will issue an order prohibiting the action or make a declaration that it is illegal.

In addition, under Sections 19 and 20 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982, the auditor, acting on an objection by an elector or on his own initiative, may seek a declaration from the court that expenditure is unlawful or that there has been a loss due to wilful misconduct. It would then be open to the court to surcharge the local authority members responsible and to disqualify them from membership of a local authority. An elector for the area may also bring surcharge action if the auditor decides not to act following an objection by that elector.

To meet the concerns expressed by some of the successor authorities, we propose to include in the Bill to be introduced this Session a provision requiring the GLC and the metropolitan county councils to consult the borough and district councils in their areas before fixing their budgets and precepts for 1985–86. These will, of course, be implemented by the proposed transitional councils; and it is appropriate that the boroughs and districts who will appoint the members of these councils should be given an opportunity to express views on the financial situation which they will inherit.

We propose also to give the London borough councils and the metropolitan district councils the same rights as electors have to object at the audit of the accounts of the GLC or the appropriate metropolitan county council. The borough and district councils will also be empowered to take action in the courts if the auditor decides not to do so. Such action could lead to surcharge and disqualification. These extended rights will apply only to the audits of the accounts for the years 1983–84 to 1985–86.

Finally, we shall include in the main abolition Bill, to be introduced next Session, two provisions concerning staff contracts. The first will ensure that any fixed-term contract of employment with the GLC or an MCC which is entered into after 1st March 1984 and which is to expire on or after 1st April 1986, will have effect as a contract which will terminate on 31st March 1986. The second will ensure that any terms which are incorporated into existing or future contracts of employment after 1st March 1984 and which relate to compensation for redundancy or detriment will have no effect where they would entitle an employee to an amount greater than that provided for, in due course, in the main abolition legislation.

These provisions will not affect the terms of existing contracts of employment. Thus, where staff have already been given fixed-term contracts with the reasonable expectation that they would run their full term, we shall provide for them to be compensated if they do not get jobs with the successor bodies. Similarly, any provision relating to compensation for redundancy or detriment already included in an existing contract of employment will be honoured.

We believe that members of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils will recognise that it is in the interests of their ratepayers and of their staff that they should act responsibly. But the measures outlined, together with the existing legal constraints, provide safeguards should any of the authorities concerned consider taking irresponsible action.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they have anything to add to the proposals in the White Paper,

My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has had two useful meetings with the TUC's Local Government Committee. Detailed discussions have not yet begun on the proposals in Chapter 4 of the White Paper; but there are three matters on which I can provide further details of the Government's intentions.First, we recognise that a Staff Commission will have a particularly important role to play in this reorganisation. There has been widespread support for its establishment at the earliest opportunity. We propose therefore to include provision for such a body in the Bill to be introduced in the current Session. This will enable the commission to begin more quickly the process of consultation with interested bodies, and to provide me with general advice on staffing issues.In previous reorganisations, Staff Commissions have supervised ring-fencing arrangements. Such arrangements do not require successor bodies to recruit; they do, however, ensure that, if they decide to do so, they have to look first at candidates from the expiring authorities. One of the commission's early tasks would be to consider the introduction of ring-fencing arrangements to ensure that GLC/MCC staffs affected have a proper opportunity to obtain jobs with new authorities.Secondly, we propose that any compensation for detriment—where an employee moves to a new job on lower terms and conditions—will be paid in the form of a lump sum; we intend to consult on the detailed arrangements for determining this. We accept also that the costs of this compensation should not be borne by individual boroughs and districts who take on former GLC/MCC staff, but should be recouped from the ratepayers of each area as a whole.Thirdly, there has been concern that some authorities might give staff artificial pay increases or regradings in the lead-up to abolition. This would be unfair: it would lead to inequitable treatment between staff. We intend, therefore, to include a provision along the lines of Section 261 of the Local Government Act 1972 in the Bill to be introduced in the next Session. This would enable us to appoint a body to look into cases of allegedly unjustified increases made after 1st March 1984 and to advise Her Majesty's Government. We should be able to act on that advice and direct an authority to withdraw an increase found to be unjustified. The following note sets out this proposal in more detail. This will not preclude authorities who wish to do so from paying temporary personal pay supplements to staff who face considerably increased responsibilities.We hope that both employers and unions will come and discuss with us the proposals which we have outlined today and other matters of concern. It is clearly in the interests of the staff concerned that these matters are settled as soon as possible.