Sitting of 7 December 1992

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

    Local Monuments
    Mr. French: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received about the transfer of management responsibilities for local monuments from English Heritage to local authorities.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Robert Key): I have received numerous letters expressing concern, some of it ill-founded, about English Heritage's strategy. In fact, the document stressed that all its sites and monuments fully merit continued protection.
    Mr. French: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his answer. He will be aware of the importance that is attached to this subject in my constituency of Gloucester. Will he give the House an absolute assurance that in no circumstances will monuments be sold off to third parties? Will he also confirm that, whoever is responsible for their maintenance, they will be maintained to nationally agreed standards?
    Mr. Key: Yes, I can confirm those points. There is no question of a sell-off of English Heritage assets. As my hon. Friend says, his constituency contains many examples of properties—for instance, Blackfriars—that might come into the category of consideration for local management; but every case would be considered on its merits, and any case that might be acknowledged to be suitable for more local management than Savile row would, of course, be subject to the same standards of care as any other English Heritage monument.
    Mr. Battle: I welcome the Minister's response. May I ask him, however, to examine carefully what his Department could do to secure a future for Kirkstall abbey, a 13th century Cistercian foundation, in my constituency?
    Will the Minister support the efforts of Friends of Kirkstall abbey, who have turned to the local authority and to private sector interests to try to secure support but who know that, without Government intervention and backing, the abbey will be doomed to decay and disappear within our lifetime?
    Mr. Key: I know how strongly local people feel about such monuments. Of course I undertake to examine the specific case of Kirkstall abbey.
    Mr. Robert Banks: Does my hon. Friend agree that a number of monuments could be enhanced as visitor attractions—for instance, Spofforth castle in my constituency? Will he ensure that local authorities have sufficient funds not only for the maintenance of such monuments but for the launching of projects to improve them—bearing in mind the fact that tourists from our country spend some £14·3 billion a year and that we have an obligation to provide them with visitor attractions?
    Mr. Key: It must, of course, be for local authorities to prioritise their spending. There are many ways in which funds can be found to look after monuments: many local authorities and many bodies responsible for monuments now undertake plural funding.
    My hon. Friend is right to suggest that an integral part of my Department's work involves the very important tourist industry, to which all areas of our responsibility contribute—notably, the heritage aspect. He is right also to point out that many of our monuments are not achieving their full potential, either in terms of education within their local communities or in terms of attractiveness to visiting tourists. That issue could be addressed more keenly if we could get the debate on the importance of local management off the ground.

    British Broadcasting Corporation
    Mr. Mandelson: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the future funding of the BBC.
    The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Peter Brooke): This is one of the issues to be considered in the debate about the future of the BBC.
    Mr. Mandelson: Will the Secretary of State comment on the strong opposition to his idea for a public service broadcasting council? Will he acknowledge that not only the BBC but the ITV companies and Channel 4 believe that syphoning off money from the BBC in that way would undermine programme quality in the long term and that the only support for the idea—apart from that of Mr. Melvyn Bragg—comes from elements within the Murdoch empire, No. 10's policy unit and the Tory Members of Parliament who want to do in the BBC?
    Mr. Brooke: We have launched a consultation period which will last five months and have just completed the first week. I have already received a significant number of comments and I shall analyse the reactions given in answer to the question about that subject. It is good that the question has been asked and that we are getting answers.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: Will my right hon. Friend give due cognisance to the view that no matter how the BBC is to be funded in the future, it makes very little sense for the resources that are available to it to be used to fuel a bidding war for feature films when they are available through so many other sources?
    Mr. Brooke: The content of BBC broadcasts is one of the matters about which we have asked in the consultation document, but the decisions are essentially for the BBC itself to take.
    Mr. Maginnis: Does the Secretary agree that the use of public funding demands an obligation to the public? Will he therefore review and enhance the present ineffective

    577
    measures to preclude from the airways Sinn Fein and other aplogists for terrorism? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree also that the use of actors' voices or the interviewing of a person such as Sinn Fein Councillor Joe Austin on the pretext that he is bystander contravenes the spirit of the legislation and is offensive to the public? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the legislation is tightened?
    Mr. Brooke: The interpretation of the notices, of which the hon. Gentleman is aware, is a matter for the broadcasters themselves. They must decide whether a person is speaking on behalf of an organisation named in the notices or is speaking in a different capacity. The notices are kept under general review. I currently have no plans to make any changes to them, although I receive representations that I should consider relaxing them.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend consider widening the BBC's sources or revenue? Would he be willing to consider advertising as a source of revenue, as it has managed to give us a thriving independent television service?
    Mr. Brooke: That is just one of the questions that were raised in the Green Paper last week and to which we are already receiving replies.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Why is it that the BBC can be riddled with accountants yet allow an overspend of £58 million? Why was such a huge overspend, involving millions of taxpayers' money, not made clear in the BBC's report presented to Parliament? Where is the Coopers and Lybrand report—why has it not been published? Why have the BBC's board of governors and board of management failed to ensure that financial management systems are in place?
    Mr. Brooke: In the BBC's last accounting year, it balanced its books in terms of its expenditure.
    With regard to the most recent revelation, the hon. Lady and the House will be aware that the audit committee of the BBC has published its view and that corrective action is being taken. The BBC recognised that there were faults in its systems and has moved to correct them as quickly as possible.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: When the great debate is over and a plan of what the BBC should or should not be doing in the future has been suggested for serious consideration by the House, will my right hon. Friend ensure there there is a proper, independent financial appraisal of the consequences of what is proposed?
    Mr. Brooke: The consultation period on the Green Paper will be concluded on 30 April next year. After that, the Government will of course be engaged in reviewing the responses that have been received and will no doubt consider them from different perspectives.

    National Lottery
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received from local charitable organisations expressing concern over the possible loss of income with the introduction of the national lottery scheme; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Key: My right hon. Friend and I have received a number of representations from charitable organisations about the introduction of a national lottery. We are considering how we might be able to help small lotteries maintain their position following the introduction of the national lottery.
    Mr. O'Brien: I am satisfied that the Minister accepts as a fact that there will be problems for the small charitable organisations if a national lottery is introduced without proper safeguards for them. I refer especially to the hospice movement, which relies on many charities raising money for it, and to the churches and village halls, which need the protection to which the Minister refers. Will he assure the House and the country that, with the introduction of a national lottery, which will raise billions of pounds through national advertising and through the pressure on people to buy tickets, proper provision will be made to protect the charities and organisations that rely on local lotteries and on local raffles to maintain the services that they have to provide to communities?
    Mr. Key: I am pleased to give the hon. Gentleman that undertaking. We have already had constructive talks with charities and their representative organisations, and we shall continue to do so. It is important to get the problem into perspective. The charities have an annual turnover of £15 billion a year, so the effect in those terms will be marginal—although I acknowledge that the small charities to which the hon. Gentleman refers are concerned. We are addressing those problems. It is important also to recognise that we are doing what we can to discuss with colleagues in the Home Office ways in which we can improve the local lotteries, so that they are more acceptable and more able to compete.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is strong national support for the national lottery? However, people do not want existing football pools to be undermined. What studies has my hon. Friend commissioned to discover how new money can be brought into the national lottery? That must be the successful basis on which it will operate.
    Mr. Key: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; he has put his finger on the matter. The national lottery research which we have commissioned has shown that we are looking for a completely new market. I expect that those who wish to do the football pools and those who want to bet on greyhounds will continue to do so. We are looking at a new market, the principal competition for which is more likely to be magazines, soft drinks and ice creams than hard gambling.
    Mr. Pendry: Is the Minister aware that there is a great deal of disquiet, not only in the House but outside, about the way in which his Department is handling the national lottery? Not only the small charities and large charities, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) referred, but many voluntary organisations and thousands of football pools employees in Liverpool, Cardiff, east London and elsewhere are concerned about the impact of the national lottery on jobs. Why does not the Minister shake off his coat of secrecy and publish the GAH Group report, to which he referred, to ensure that we all have an informed debate on this important issue?
    Mr. Key: There are two reasons: first, because it is an internally commissioned document; and, secondly, because it contains a good deal of commercially sensitive information. It would be wrong for the Government or anyone else to commission research and then to publish all the results from companies, organisations and individuals.
    I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's proposition that there is widespread concern. There is enormous interest and there is a huge will to ensure that the national lottery succeeds, which is the most important point. We shall, of course, continue to talk to the pools industry and to hon. Members. My right hon. Friend and I will meet leaders of the pools industry later this week. We shall continue to do our best to ensure that the strong support for the national lottery, which has been very evident for many months, is recognised as soon as practicable by the publication of the Bill.
    Mr. Brandreth: As the chairman of a national charity, the National Playing Fields Association, may I assure my hon. Friend that national charities and local charities welcome the advent of the lottery, although there is concern that the level playing field between the pools industry and the national lottery is maintained? The hope is that the whole cake will become larger. Will my hon. Friend assure us that consultation will continue with the pools industry to establish that level playing field?
    Mr. Key: Of course I can give my hon. Friend that undertaking; we will continue to consult. I acknowledge my hon. Friend's work over many years for the National Playing Fields Association, whose annual conference I visited a couple of weeks ago. We shall continue to ensure that consultation takes place. The most important thing is that the national lottery is seen to be a huge success which adds a new seam of money which would not otherwise be available for a whole range of good causes.

    Windsor Castle (Fire)
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage whether he has now made an accurate assessment of the cost of the fire at Windsor castle; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Brooke: No estimate can be made of the cost of restoring Windsor castle until the damaged areas have been fully surveyed and a decision has been taken on the form that the restoration will take. However, I can tell the House that I am setting up an inquiry to assess the adequacy of fire protection measures at all royal palaces for which I have a financial responsibility.
    Mr. Skinner: Is there not something brutally unfair about the fact that it is estimated that at least £60 million will be paid out by taxpayers to the richest woman in Britain to repair one of her homes without any contribution from herself, when only 400 yards away from another of her homes, Buckingham palace, people have to live in cardboard boxes and pensioners will die this winter from hypothermia? Is not the truth of the matter that the Queen should pay the lot herself and not call upon impoverished taxpayers to foot the bill?
    Mr. Brooke: The figure of £60 million which the hon. Gentleman quotes has been generated by the media. That figure has not emanated in any way from the Government. In respect of the second part of the hon. Gentleman's
    580
    question, I remind the House that the apartments that burnt in the great fire at Windsor were essentially state apartments, either those open to the public or those in which great state occasions occur. They were not apartments in which Her Majesty lives.
    Sir John Wheeler: When my right hon. Friend carries out his estimate of the cost of restoring the state apartments at Windsor castle, will he bear in mind that the castle has been in public ownership since 1831? Will he also calculate the advantage to the public interest of the hundreds of thousands of visitors throughout the year who spend money to go to Windsor castle? Will he take that equation into account as well?
    Mr. Brooke: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's points, which are clearly part of the debate. They will not necessarily specifically affect the estimate, which will he a rather more nicely judged calculation.
    Mr. Maclennan: When considering what form the replacement should take, will the Secretary of State bear in mind that Windsor castle displays the needs, tastes and artistic talents of nearly 1,000 years of English history? Will he consider the appropriateness of replacing the buildings that have been damaged and destroyed with something that is truly representative of the best of Britain today and which meets public needs, which have changed somewhat since the last part of the building was constructed?
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman has identified a question which has already provoked a healthy debate, as I am sure that he would acknowledge. I hope that out of the fire, and the scar that it leaves, will emerge a reconstruction that commands widespread admiration and a sense of national achievement; however, the debate about the precise form that that should take is still going on.
    Mr. Cormack: In this season of goodwill, will my right hon. Friend ignore the rather bilious and malicious rhetoric of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who must surely be the Queen's favourite beast? Will my right hon. Friend miss no opportunity to point out that we are dealing with the official home of our head of state? Will he produce comparative figures to show that we do rather better than many nations with presidencies? Will he also point out to those who talk about the works of art in Windsor castle that they are not available to be sold and that they are not Her Majesty's possessions to do with as she will? They are ours and we see most of them for much of the year.
    Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend is right to draw the attention of the House to those highly relevant facts.
    Mrs. Clwyd: On Friday, the Minister claimed to have placed in the Library a report on the cause of the fire at Windsor castle. The report consisted of one and a half pages. Does the Secretary of State not realise that the public believe that that report has been doctored and that the real report lies elsewhere? Why does not the Secretary of State publish the truth about the fire, and not simply expect the public to foot a bill of up to £60 million without having their questions answered? Why has he not answered the questions that he promised to answer on 23 November? When can I expect an answer to those questions?
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Lady is casting doubt on the Royal Berkshire fire service and the report that it rendered. She knows from the report who comprised the investigating team, whose members were unanimous in their agreement on the conclusions.
    If the hon. Lady refers to my statement on 23 November, she will see that in the first instance there was to be a report on the origins of the fire, to which Friday's announcement applied. I have announced today that there will be a further inquiry into issues relating to fire precautions and fire prevention and aspects surrounding the fire, and that will of course take several months.
    On the matters on which the hon. Lady was subsequently kind enough to write me a letter, I have written a letter in reply.
    Mr. Gallie: Does my right hon. Friend recognise the impassioned pleas of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)? Does he recognise also the pressures on the public purse? Will he think about what the hon. Member for Bolsover has said and consider privatisation?
    Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having introduced yet another element into the debate, which has already ranged widely.

    Arts Council
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received on the amount to be made available to the Arts Council in the coming year.
    Mr. Brooke: I have received one letter expressing concern about the settlement for the arts in 1993–94. I have noted some more general comments in the press. In a difficult year, a 2 per cent. increase in the Arts Council's grant in aid is by no means a bad outcome.
    Mr. Banks: I realise that the right hon. Gentleman is an amiable old cricket buff with tastes that are somewhat less exotic than those of his predecessor, but is he not ashamed that, unlike the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), he does not have such a good deal for the arts this year? Why has he conceded the principle of the three-year funding regime which was established in 1989? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should have a word with his immediate predecessor to find out how he was able to stand up firmly for the arts.
    Mr. Brooke: The issue of three-year funding goes rather more widely than my Department, although I am flattered that the hon. Gentleman should think that I should be able to change the Government's total policy from within my Department. Funding for 1993–94 will be 17·5 per cent. above the funding that was available in 1989–90.
    Mr. Spring: What progress is being made in diversifying art funding, in view of the great success in spreading interest in the arts, both in the business community and in the community at large?
    Mr. Brooke: I am delighted to say that good progress has been made. At the end of last month, I announced that the business sponsorship incentive scheme, which was set up in 1984, has raised more than £50 million of new sponsorship for the arts. The Association for Business
    582
    Sponsorship of the Arts said last week that, despite the recession, sponsorship for the arts rose by 28 per cent. last year.
    Mr. Sheldon: The hon. Gentleman's responsibility for the funding of the arts and for the Arts Council is probably his greatest responsibility. Will he bear in mind the important way in which the development of the funding arrangements, which have been fairly satisfactory, has proceeded over the past few years? It is up to the right hon. Gentleman to bring to bear the great pressure that the House brought in reaching the terms that were finally acceptable to the House.
    Mr. Brooke: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will share my pleasure that the arts funding in 1995–96, despite the current difficult circumstances, will in real terms be in excess of the funding that was available in 1991–92.

    Youth Orchestras and Bands
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what support he gives to youth orchestras and bands.
    Mr. Key: In financial terms the Arts Council intends to spend £239,000 this year in support of youth activities, an increase of 200 per cent. on 1991–92. In addition, we acknowledge and encourage the many thousands of youth orchestras and bands up and down the country, whether they perform pop music, jazz, classical or other styles of music.
    Mr. Bowis: I thank my hon. Friend for that response. As he will know, our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was present the other day at the Royal Albert hall to hear the superlative performances by county and borough youth orchestras, choirs and bands at the school prom. Does he accept that that was a great tribute to the young musicians, their teachers and those who initiate and support county and borough-based groupings—in many cases the local education authority? Will he talk to his colleagues at the Department for Education to ensure that, with the changing nature of LEAs in the future, such quality is not allowed to wither and that we can enhance the standards of musicianship?
    Mr. Key: Yes, that is extremely important. My hon. Friend has put his finger on a problem which has been faced. The Arts Council of Great Britain has produced a recent report stating that, although about a third of local education authorities have cut music service budgets since 1989, the majority have experienced no change and a few have expanded and improved provision.
    My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and for Wales propose in the Education Bill that there should be a two-year transitional period during which LEAs will be able to sell designated services to grant-maintained schools, which will offer sufficient time for private suppliers to move in.
    Mr. Michael: Does the Minister not recognise that that is a disgraceful response to a serious crisis that faces many excellent orchestras and bands around the country such as the South Glamorgan youth orchestra and the many junior orchestras and choirs which involve hundreds of young people in high-quality music? Those young people

    583
    will not have that opportunity if the legislation goes through, if education is organised in the way in which the Minister and his colleagues seem to want, and if we have such a low settlement for local authorities. There will not be such a thing for the Minister to be proud of in the future unless he acts now.
    Mr. Key: I have rarely heard such arrant nonsense from any hon. Member of the House. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) is saying that he wishes to substitute his judgment for the judgment of the individual schools involved. Those schools will ensure that there is excellent musical provision for their pupils and that provision will continue to be made.

    Broadcasting Green Paper
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received about the Green Paper on broadcasting; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Brooke: I had received more than 2,000 replies by noon today. There are another five months for people to write giving their views.
    Mr. Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend carefully consider the wishes of those people who do not want to pay a compulsory levy to a state broadcasting company? Is he aware that among the most difficult fines for Her Majesty to enforce are those for single parents who cannot easily afford the licence fee but who are quite happy for their children to watch commercial television?
    Mr. Brooke: Those are exactly the sort of issues that we want to be considered as part of the debate on the future of the BBC, which, as I have said, has elicited a significant number of replies.
    Dr. Kim Howells: Will the Secretary of State consider carefully the submissions suggesting that funding for the regional broadcasting companies of the BBC, such as BBC Wales, should be cut? Such companies are easy targets for cuts. Does he recognise that those companies are very important to Wales, Scotland and the English regions, and that he must do everything in his power to protect and nourish them?
    Mr. Brooke: Without wishing to burden my official, Mr. Lister, who is in receipt of those letters, one of the effective ways in which people in Wales, or Scotland—I see another hon. Member nodding—would be to communicate about the consultation document. In the end, the allocation of resources is a matter for the BBC.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am in receipt of many letters from senior citizens in my constituency who find it extremely difficult to find the £80 to pay the licence fee but that many senior citizens who live in sheltered accommodation receive their broadcast; via a £5 licence? Will he consider that matter carefully? Perhaps the best solution would be that which has been suggested in the past—to release everyone from the compulsory licence fee and allow people to choose what they view. Funding could be either by subscription or by advertising.
    Mr. Brooke: The concessionary fee to which my hon. Friend refers was examined in the review in 1988. He is perfectly right that it is also part of the process in which we are now engaged.
    Mr. Dafis: The Secretary of State will be aware that the BBC provides 10 hours a week of programmes for S4C, the Welsh medium television channel—about a third of its programme output. Those 10 hours are funded with a portion of the licence fee. Will he give an assurance that the provision from the licence fee will be maintained and that that crucially important component in the Welsh medium programmes, including the news, will be maintained?
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman may be reassured that, of course, the financing of S4C also falls within my Department.

    Scientific Heritage
    Mr. Alan Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to secure the retention in the United Kingdom of items in the United Kingdom's scientific heritage.
    Mr. Key: In addition to scientific items retained following decisions of the reviewing committee on the export of works of art, I have accepted that natural history objects, including fossils, should be brought within our export controls.
    Mr. Howarth: I thank my hon. Friend for his recognition of the significance of the issue. But will he examine carefully the system for safeguarding important items of our scientific heritage and ensure that it is made more robust? Will he look at the Waverley criteria? He may agree with me that the requirement that an object must be of outstanding aesthetic importance misses the point for scientific items. Does he also agree that the requirement that an object should be more than 50 years old could mean that items from the outstandingly creative phase of British science since the war could be lost?
    Mr. Key: I acknowledge my hon. Friend's expertise on the matter. He is right that we have taken a fresh look at it both on our own initiative and as a result of changes within the European Community. The Waverley criteria have stood the test of time, but also look set to stand the test of the future. The criteria—each one of which may apply—have yielded positive results. There is a growing list of items that have been safeguarded for the nation in that way.

    Media Ownership
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps he is taking to reduce the concentration of media ownership.
    Mr. Key: None, at present.
    Mr. Mullin: Does the Minister recall that the Government used to say that no newspaper proprietor would be permitted more than a 20 per cent. share of any satellite television company? Mr. Murdoch now has 50 per cent. of BSkyB and 35 per cent of all national newspaper circulation. So we must take it that, as they used to say in the Nixon White House, "The previous promise is

    585
    inoperative." What level of ownership by a newspaper proprietor of a satellite television company will be necessary before the Minister faces up to the issues posed by Mr. Murdoch's grip on the market?
    Mr. Key: It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to talk in those terms, but it is important to recognise that BSkyB does not have a monopoly. It is subscriber based. Indeed, it has created a ready-made market for other broadcasters to enter. Satellite television subscribers represent only about 13 per cent. of households in Britain. Those who watch satellite television on cable systems are unaffected. Ownership restrictions were thoroughly debated during the passage of the Broadcasting Bill and subsequent legislation. The Government will consider the need to change the legislation if a sound case can be proved.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I put it to my hon. Friend—I do not necessarily wish him to come to a conclusion today—that the coming together of satellite dominance with major print ownership was not the intention of the Government or of the House. Even leaving satellite on one side, will my hon. Friend consider whether it is desirable that one proprietor should own 35 per cent. of national newspaper or whether it is a suitable case for reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?
    Mr. Key: The Monopolies and Mergers Commission is required to take into account all matters that appear to be relevant, especially the need for accurate news presentation. It is for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to decide whether to give consent to a newspaper transfer, but, as my hon. Friend knows, the Fair Trading Act 1973 contains special provisions to deal with such transfers. We keep that issue under review as it is important. One of the most important things to remember, especially with regard to satellite television, is that increasingly we are operating in an international market and we shall keep under review the interplay between that market in broadcasting and the national market in newspapers.
    Mr. Soley: Does the Minister understand that one small part of the reason that there is so much public anger about journalistic standards is that the concentration of monopolistic ownership leads to circulation wars, in which people come second to proper journalistic standards and accuracy in news reporting? Is it not right that we should consider cross-ownership and the concentration of ownership—as the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) rightly pointed out—to prevent monopolistic control from destroying a free press and a free media in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Key: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's concern. We look forward to finding out what Calcutt has to say on the matter. I recognise that there is concern, although there seems to be less concern in my mail bag than there perhaps is in his, but the matter is serious and we shall keep it under review.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Prosecutions (Non-custodial Sentences)
    Mr. Bennett: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement about prosecutions in cases not leading to a custodial sentence.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): Prosecuting authorities apply the principles set out in the code for Crown prosecutors. Sentencing is essentially a matter for the courts.
    Mr. Bennett: What discussions has the Attorney-General had with his colleagues about the question of withdrawing legal aid in cases where someone probably does not face a custodial sentence? Does he not realise that everyone has the right to maintain their good name? Ought he not to ensure that legal aid is either available in all cases or, if it is to be withdrawn, at least to consider ways in which the Crown prosecution service can be selective in the cases brought? Might it not be a better approach to saving legal aid to deny the fat fees that some Queen's counsels receive in legal aid cases, rather than to deny such aid to poor people?
    The Attorney-General: On the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question, representations that have been made to me do not show that that applies in the great run of legal aid cases, although it might be said to apply in some long and detailed cases. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that questions of legal aid are for my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor. The Crown prosecution service, when deciding on any case, considers carefully not only the sufficiency of evidence but whether it is in the public interest to prosecute.
    Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is not merely a case of using public funds to defend those accused of crimes, but often a case of using them to help the victims of crime? Has he been made aware of the evidence given to the Home Affairs Select Committee during its current inquiry into domestic violence, which shows that many such cases can be resolved without a custodial sentence, but that that requires the Crown prosecution service to bring a prosecution first?
    The Attorney-General: I recognise that there is force in the considerations that my hon. Friend has just mentioned. When the Crown prosecution service considers cases of domestic violence, it does not consider sentencing but is looking to a sensible solution, including the justice of the matter, which it will take into account when considering whether it is necessary to prosecute.
    Mr. Bermingham: Does the Attorney-General agree that the number of cases discontinued by the Crown prosecution service is on the increase? Does he welcome such an increase, especially when we bear in mind that that stops the prosecution of many petty and minor matters which have hitherto clogged up the courts?
    The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. One of the principal functions of the Crown prosecution service is to review each case and, where appropriate, to keep it under review at every relevant stage. At present, it discontinues about 12·5 per cent. of cases and there is a sign that that figure is slightly on the

    587
    increase, but it is not out of hand and it shows that it correctly keeps the question of reviewing cases very much in mind.
    Mr. Hawkins: Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, in cases where a non-custodial sentence is passed by a court when it is strongly felt by many people that a custodial one would have been more appropriate, he now has the power to refer the matter to the Court of Appeal for it to consider whether a more serious custodial sentence is more appropriate?
    The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend draws attention to an important new power, which was introduced in 1989, which may be exerted in cases that can be tried only at the Crown court—we are therefore talking about the most serious type of case. That power is designed to maintain and improve public confidence by enabling the Court of Appeal not only to reduce over-severe sentences, but, when it appears to me or to my right hon. and learned Friend that the sentence is unduly lenient, it can be referred for reconsideration of a possibly more serious sentence.

    British National Party (Literature)
    Mr. Austin-Walker: To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has received regarding the literature distributed from the headquarters of the British National party.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): In 1992, in addition to questions raised by the hon. Gentleman himself, representations have been received from two local community organisations. The Crown prosecution service, has reported to the Law Officers its decision following a police inquiry into this matter.
    Mr. Austin-Walker: Does the Solicitor-General accept that there is an air of disbelief in my constituency of Woolwich over the lack of action taken by the Government in this matter? Does he accept that that is in stark contrast to the positive action taken by the Government of Germany following the tragic murder of three Turkish residents? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that two of my constituents, Rohit Duggal and Rolan Adams, have been brutally murdered? How many more black youths must be slaughtered on our streets before the Government take some action against the Nazi menace in our presence?
    The Solicitor-General: It is not the Government of this country who institute proceedings for criminal offences, although the Government have the power to reform the law if it is found to be inadequate. That is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. We wholeheartedly condemn racial attacks wherever and whenever they appear, and the hon. Gentleman will remember that in the case of Rolan Adams, to which he just referred, his attacker was identified and prosecuted speedily and his murderer received a sentence of life imprisonment. A large armoury of offences in the law, including murder, manslaughter and assault covered by the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and the Public Order Act 1986 provide effective sanctions against such attacks.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that the Public Order Act 1986 makes it easier to deal with those offensive nut cases?
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend is right. When we passed the 1986 Act we significantly extended and modernised the existing law. We extended it to cases where there was an intention to stir up racial hatred and circumstances where hatred was likely to be stirred up. In section 23 we introduced the new offence of possessing racially inflammatory material with a view to distributing it. In section 21 we introduced a new offence of
    Distributing, showing or playing a recording … of visual images or sounds which are threatening"
    In section 22 we criminalised incitement to racial hatred in cable programmes. That demonstrates that we have been active, sometimes at the suit of requests from Opposition Members and elsewhere, to make sure that the law is kept up to date.
    Mr. Fraser: Does the Solicitor-General agree that what starts off as the racist platform for organisations such as the British National party, leads in Germany and in this country to racist murders? Will he discuss with the Home Secretary whether we should now legislate for the crime of racially motivated attacks, in order to underline our repugnance at the racist crimes that are probably generated by the type of literature referred to in the question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker)?
    The Solicitor-General: I listen to any arguments that hon. Members can put forward. If we are to have a specific offence of racial harassment it will just add another ingredient that the prosecution must prove before it can succeed in obtaining a conviction. I doubt whether that is the right way to proceed. I discovered the typical reaction of the British people in Leicester, South in 1983, when the candidate from the so-called British National party, who stood against me, managed to secure only 280 votes out of a total of 53,000.

    May Inquiry
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Attorney-General when he expects Sir John May to complete his inquiry into the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombings.
    The Attorney-General: Sir John has now completed the phase relating to the Maguires and his report on that aspect was published on Thursday 3 December. As to the Guildford and Woolwich aspects, I refer the hon. Member to my answer to him on 26 October 1992.
    Mr. Mullin: In the Guildford case, unlike in the Birmingham one, everyone concerned up to a high level knew almost from the outset that they had the wrong people and rigged the evidence accordingly. Is not that the real reason why Sir John May will never be permitted to carry out his inquiry as originally intended?
    The Attorney-General: I have no reason to believe that the hon. Gentleman's prejudices are accurate. The purpose of Sir John May's inquiry is to find that out. Although Sir John must balance the interests of justice in bringing to justice those alleged to have done wrong, he is continuing with his inquiry in an effective way so that it can inform the royal commission before it reports towards the middle of next year.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Bosnia
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to visit Bosnia to discuss aid matters.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): The Secretary of State has no plans at present to visit Bosnia.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Do not the Government realise that unless the United Nations goes beyond its existing aid mandate and authorises action to stop ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, the Islamic nations will go in and do the job for us? How do the Government view the prospect of what might be a holy war in the centre of Europe?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Quite apart from the enormous dangers that would face our troops by any escalation of the situation caused by United Nations forces, to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred so eloquently last Thursday, the hon. Gentleman should also remember that if counter action prevented United Nations forces from delivering aid to those who are starving, 1·6 million people in Bosnia who are now receiving humanitarian support would suffer. It is important to recognise that the Jeddah meeting concluded that action should be taken forward by means of the United Nations Security Council. It was not a unilateral statement.
    Mr. Garnier: How much money are we sending in emergency aid to Bosnia? Will my hon. Friend assure the House that we are doing all that we can to keep the convoy routes open to humanitarian aid?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes. This nation is one of the largest contributors to humanitarian aid in former Yugoslavia. We have contributed more than £70 million so far this year. We have 2,400 troops in the United Nations protection force, UNPROFOR, and some 260 in the ambulance unit in Croatia.
    Mr. Meacher: When will the Government learn that a great deal more can be done to aid Bosnia without putting a huge army into the field? When will the air exclusion zone be enforced? When will the so-called United Nations protected areas be properly protected against continuing murder, rape and pillage, let alone new safe havens be created? Why will not the Government declare that the areas stolen by ethnic cleansing will not be internationally recognised and that there will be no let-up of sanctions until those areas are demilitarised and a majority of the refugees permitted to return home in safety? Why will not the Government use their failing EC presidency to get EC monitors or United Nations troops stationed in Kosova or Macedonia to deter a Serb military move? Are the Government simply resigned to theirs being the worst EC presidency on record?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The question is about aid, not political solutions in that very troubled land. We all agree about the outrages and objectives, but the methods of solving those objectives are difficult. The hon. Gentleman would do well to consider the advice of Lord Owen and other such people who are on the spot and know exactly what is going on.
    Lady Olga Maitland: May I give a warm welcome to the brave British convoys that are going into Bosnia and ask my hon. Friend to ensure that the aid that they are bringing to these stricken people includes medicines, so that we do not get a repeat of what happened last year at Serebenica, where an entire convoy arrived and it was found that it was not carrying one aspirin?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have mentioned the ambulance unit in Croatia. Of the £70 million to which I referred, £3 million-worth of medical supplies and support has been given to the World Health Organisation.

    Aid Target
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the time it will take to achieve the United Nations' target of 0·7 per cent. of gross national product of developed countries being spent as aid to underdeveloped countries.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We shall reach the target as soon as possible.
    Mr. Griffiths: I invite the Minister to be more specific. Will he dare to say that the target will be reached by the end of the Government's term of office? Does he agree that if the target is not met it would be a disgrace to a developing and prosperous country such as ours?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I shall certainly give no such indication. When the Labour party was in government no such indication was given. It is impossible to bind a future Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is amazing that the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to accept how important it is that this year our spending on aid increased by 3 per cent. in real terms over last year's. Next year, there having been a tremendously stringent round this year, there will be a 1 per cent. real-terms increase on this year's spending.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way in which we can help developing nations is, first, to encourage them to stop killing one another and, secondly, to encourage them to make the best use of their own resources?
    My hon. Friend will know of my particular interest in the Cahora Bassa dam. Now that the people of Mozambique are at peace, will he make every effort to assist in the repairing of the power lines from the dam? The work is due to start in April 1993 if finance can be found.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am happy to give my hon. Friend further information about what is happening in that area, in correspondence as I am not briefed today on the precise position. It is the Government's intention to help people to help themselves, and we have a substantial aid programme. We should bear in mind the great importance of a successful GATT round. That will increase world trade and help the third world.
    Sir David Steel: However long it was going to take the Government to reach the United Nations aid target, will the Minister confirm that it will now take longer following the financial settlement for 1995–96?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot possibly say how long it would have taken if we had not had the financial settlement for 1995–96, so I cannot possibly answer the question.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does my hon. Friend agree that if we were to add our net contribution to the European Community budget, which goes largely to the underdeveloped countries in the southern part of Europe, our spending on aid would far exceed the United Nations target of 0·7 per cent?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I know that my hon. Friend feels strongly about the matter. The United Nations target of 0·7 per cent. is directed towards the section of the world which, when defined in terms of gross domestic product, would not include the southern states of the European Community.

    Africa (Agricultural Aid)
    Mr. Fisher: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the level of expenditure by Her Majesty's Government in the last financial year on agricultural aid to countries in Africa.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In 1991–92 bilateral expenditure on agriculture-related activities was £44 million. In addition, the United Kingdom contributed over £11 million to multilateral organisations working specifically in the agricultural sector.
    Mr. Fisher: Does the Minister accept that as the autumn statement made it clear that after 1993 the aid budget would be cut in real terms, to the great disgrace of the Government and to Britain, and as at the same time humanitarian aid in Europe and elsewhere is likely to have to continue to rise, the inevitable consequence of the two factors will be the further squeezing of agricultural aid? Does not the Minister understand that unless we invest, and help developing countries invest, in the agricultural infrastructure of training, seed technology and water irrigation, we shall never be helping developing countries in the way in which they need to be helped?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The point about helping developing countries to plant seeds and grow food is well taken—of course that is true. In October this year more than £500,000 was provided for seeds and tools for Somalia. When referring to the general point of the 0·7 per cent. target, however, the hon. Gentleman should recognise the great achievements over the years and the fact that, within
    592
    a reasonable period, there has been a significant improvement. In five years our contribution has risen by 8 per cent.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend accept that those of us who were concerned about the rumours of a cut in the aid budget and agricultural aid for Africa and elsewhere should write to say that we are grateful that there were no such cuts and that we are grateful for the increase announced for the next year or two? If more of us applauded in that way the Government might be able to say that they will go on making progress towards the 0·7 per cent. target.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My hon. Friend is right: the Government should get a round of applause for having protected and enhanced the aid budget. Just before the autumn statement a few weeks ago the Opposition were saying that there would be a 15 per cent. or £25 million cut, which is outrageous.

    Southern Africa (Drought)
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new initiatives are proposed to ensure speedier distribution of aid from Her Majesty's Government in drought-affected areas in southern Africa.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We are continuing to work hard with international agencies and non-governmental organisations to ensure that our assistance for the drought-affected countries of southern Africa is delivered both quickly and to the intended beneficiaries.
    Mr. Pike: Although we may be encouraged that that is the right approach, the simple fact is that aid is still taking far too long to get the point where it is needed. May we have every assurance that the Government will do all in their power to ensure that aid given by the British Government reaches these points with the minimum delay—whatever the reasons for such delay?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is referring to; I should be grateful for further details if I am to comment further. The facts that I have do not bear out what he suggests. Of the £51 million of bilateral aid that we have committed to the drought-affected areas of southern Africa this financial year, £45 million worth has already been disbursed. That represents more than three quarters of what we have committed.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The report by the royal commission on standards of conduct in public life published in 1976 referred to the membership of Parliament as a great honour carrying with it a special duty to maintain the highest standards—a duty which applies no less to Ministers. Can you give us a ruling on the need to separate the daily workings of Departments of State from purely party matters? I shall not refer to special cases, including the one involving the Home Office searching for records relating to President-elect Clinton, but could you make it clear—arising out of Lord Salmon's report, much discussed at the time inside and outside this House—that there must be such a separation? If there is not, Departments of State such as the Home Office and the Treasury will be seen as no more than extensions of Conservative Central Office. No matter whether we think of recent events surrounding the Chancellor or of the problem of who authorised the inquiries into President-elect Clinton's past, would it be possible for you to make it clear that there must be a separation between Departments of State and purely Conservative party matters?
Madam Speaker: This is a matter on which the House itself must debate and arrive at conclusions. Rulings on a subject as wide ranging as that which the hon. Gentleman has raised cannot come from the Chair. It is for the House itself to come to conclusions on these matters.
Mr. Tony Marlow: On a different point of order, Madam Speaker, concerning an area on which I would very much like your advice and quite possibly your help.
You will be aware that the BBC has conducted a massive survey of public opinion. We all know that public opinion surveys are quite often inaccurate, but this one was so large that there must have been an element of accuracy about it. You will know that 75 per cent. of the people interviewed believe that this House should allow them a referendum on the Maastricht treaty. We had one on joining the Common Market. This is about joining a European union—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. I am trying to listen to the hon. Gentleman's point of order.
Mr. Marlow: Having seen what has happened in France, Denmark and Ireland where there have been referendums, your constituents and mine, Madam Speaker, would be miffed, to put it mildly, if the House was not able to debate such an issue. Can you say how you can help us to get something in order so that the House may debate this issue, which is important for your constituents and mine?
Madam Speaker: In short, no. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a matter for the Chair and he should not try such back-door methods to suggest that I should make other pronouncements. The answer from the Chair is a firm no.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) about the question of the register, you will have noticed, Madam Speaker, that, during business questions, since the election some of my hon. Friends have made requests about publication of the register. It seems to be taking a long time. We would like to see the entries. Could it be that publication is being held up because of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's entry and so on? May I draw your attention to the fact that it may also be because the President of the Board of Trade, as he calls himself, has a problem since his last entry in the register was different from his entry about Haymarket Press——
Madam Speaker: Order. I doubt that it is any of those reasons. I am sure that the Register of Members' Interests will be produced as soon as possible. The hon. Gentleman's ideas do not hold very much water.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), I appreciate your ruling, Madam Speaker. You seemed to intimate that the issue would have to be debated. May I have your assurance that not just the fact of the investigation of Bill Clinton's records within the Home Office but the fact of the existence of those records will be legitimate subjects for debate in the House?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should look at what I said. I said that it was not a matter on which I could give advice, but that it was a matter for the House to debate should it wish to do so.
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you are aware, the Metropolitan police have been conducting a number of stop-and-search exercises in connection with cowardly acts of terrorism perpetrated in London. Have you been consulted by the Metropolitan police on such searches taking place well within the one-mile radius of the House of Commons and about the fact that a number of hon. Members have been stopped? There is no reason why they should not be stopped——
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Quite right.
Mr. Banks: They were Conservative Members. Have you been consulted, Madam Speaker?
Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman will understand, and as I am sure the entire House will appreciate, I have no intention whatever of discussing security matters across the Floor of the House.

Orders of the Day

  Social Security Bill
  Considered in Committee.
  [MR. GEOFFREY LOFTHOUSE in the Chair]

  Social Security Bill
    Clause 1

      PENSION SCHEMES: PAYMENTS BY SECRETARY OF STATE UNDER PART I OF SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1986
      3.37 pm
      Mrs. Llin Golding: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 14, at end insert
      '(aaa) notwithstanding the terms of subsection (aa) above, no account shall be taken in making the minimum calculation of one per cent. of earnings, referred to in the said subsection unless the earners' chosen scheme—

      (1) guarantees a minimum pension as defined by regulations;

      (2) fully discloses all commission and management charges to be paid in connection with the scheme; and

      (3) incorporates the terms of any statutory Code of Practice that may be in force.'.

      This is a probing amendment. We are aware of existing regulations but we are not convinced that the Government are being sufficiently diligent. Our amendment provides that the only schemes covered by the legislation will be those which, first, guarantee a minimum pension as defined by regulation. That is to ensure that it provides a pension that is at least equal to SERPs. Secondly, the schemes must fully disclose all commission and management charges to be paid in connection with the scheme. That is a self-evident right for anyone entrusting his money to others. Thirdly, the schemes will incorporate the terms of any statutory code of practice that may be in force. That code would be all-embracing and would include all measures thought necessary to protect the individual investor.
      As you will know from Second Reading, Mr. Lofthouse, we do not like the payment of these incentives. We think that it would be preferable not to spend so much money in an attempt to undermine SERPS. We believe that SERPS is safer and more reliable than personal pension schemes. It does not need the small-print warning that benefits can go down as well as up. It is not sold to individuals by salesmen whose standard of living depends upon their ability to talk people into signing up. The rules by which SERPS operates are subject to scrutiny in the public interest. However, if the Government are, however misguidedly, going to spend so much money on encouraging people to take out personal pensions, they have a responsibility to ensure that the schemes are of a high standard.
      On Second Reading, the Under-Secretary of State conceded that viability, reliability and safeguards are necessary to protect people taking out personal pensions. She read out to us the usual official jargon about continual contact between the Department and the regulators, with the regulators constantly reviewing the monitoring process, but she had to admit that it was necessary 'or the Government to produce regulations to command the confidence of those who wished to take out personal pensions.
      596
      I hesitate to describe the Under-Secretary of State as timid, but, unfortunately, the reluctance with which she conceded the need to take action was matched by the timidity with which she is approaching the problem. As she said, she is consulting the regulators, but, rather than an entirely new system, all that she wants to see is a tightening up of the procedures, or possibly an enlargement of them, and more detailed monitoring than is currently possible.
      It would be useful if the hon. Lady would share her thoughts with us. On Second Reading, she took issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) over those selling personal insurance. She compared them to lawyers who sometimes give advice not to go to court. I am sure that my hon. Friend will forgive me when I say that I was more frightened than reassured by her comparison of lawyers with what we used to know as insurance agents. To most people, they are still agents and not financial advisers. 'Salesman" is the operative word. They are like shop assistants who try to sell us the dress that suits us best, but it is from their shops that they wish to sell, not from the shops next door.
      The Minister was right to say that, provided that the profession is properly regulated and honourably conducted, there is nothing unique about insurance salesmen having to distinguish between best advice and their own financial interests. If there were strict regulations to enforce high standards, all would be well, but there are no such regulations, and she has acknowledged that. I should like her to expand on that statement. The Committee could do with hearing a little more of her thoughts than we heard on Second Reading.
      What are the complaints being made to the Government? Apart from misleading information, they no doubt include high commission and other charges imposed in the first year. May we be told more about the steps that the Government are considering taking? We feel that the Government are being far too timid, and that they need to be far more positive. I am sure that the hon. Lady does not like being called timid, and I am certain that she will respond to my queries. We want the Government to ensure that this money is given only in respect of laid-down guaranteed minimum pensions, we want the full disclosure of commission and management charges, and we want the Government to institute a statutory code of practice that is constantly reviewed and updated.
      Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Many members of the Select Committee are deeply alarmed about both the management of private pension schemes and the security of personal schemes. We are concerned about the amounts that are paid into them, and about the amounts that will eventually be paid out. Will the Minister give us some idea of the point at which she proposes to investigate the vast number of personal pension schemes that have been set up over the past five or six years, and also of the degree of investigation that she proposes?
      The Bill seems designed, in effect, to assist such schemes in the future, and to provide them with more funds. Many of us are concerned about the methods that will be employed in the investment and control of those funds, and fear that in the future many people will be as disappointed by the pensions paid to them as are current victims of the Maxwell pension fund fraud—whose problems, as we speak, are still unresolved.
      3.45 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Miss Ann Widdecombe): I assure the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) that I have no intention of being provoked by allegations of timidity into adopting temerity. It would indeed be rash to rush into an entirely new regime without first establishing the extent of the problem—which I do not dismiss, and which the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) is right to identify—establishing its nature, and establishing whether existing regimes of control would result in a sufficient tightening of the rules. That applies to the fact-finding that must be carried out, the advice that must be given, training, the extent and frequency of monitoring and, perhaps, other issues.
      To say that we are consulting the regulators is not merely to indulge in official jargon. I recently met the Life Assurance and Unit Trust Regulatory Organisation, the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation, the Securities and Investments Board and the Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Organisation to discuss what may or may not be going wrong.
      The hon. Lady asked me what complaints the Government had received. I certainly do not want to give the impression that we have been inundated by a vast number of such complaints, indicating either widespread malpractice or inefficiency; we have not. However, personal pensions have now had some time in which to take effect. There are now 5 million pension holders, and a sufficient history has been established for us not only to examine the undoubted success of the scheme, but to ask ourselves how we can improve it.
      That was the reason for my rather cautious statements on Second Reading. It was not that I did not want to address problems if they were there; I did not want to rush into examining imaginary problems.
      I do not think that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme really addressed the amendment. I understand her embarrassment: the amendment is a bit of a muddle. She was right to describe it as a probing amendment, for there is no way in which it could be translated into law.
      Let me remind the House of the purpose of the 1 per cent. additional rebate for personal pension holders over the age of 30. Personal pensions have been an enormous success. As I have said, there are now 5 million holders of them, and public demand for the choice and flexibility of provision that such pensions offer has been about 10 times greater than expected. That tremendous growth has not been at the expense of occupational schemes; the 5 million personal pension holders are largely in addition to the 11 million occupation scheme members.
      The 1 per cent. additional rebate is designed to ensure that it is worth while in the short term for the majority of those people to maintain their pensions. It will apply to personal pension schemes set up for a group, as well as to individual arrangements, but it is a temporary measure. In the context of this and other amendments, that must not be overlooked.
      We shall shortly be undertaking a review of the rebate structure for personal pensions and shall consider proposals for an age-related system. That review will also include occupational schemes—money purchase and salary related—and, if the hon. Lady will forgive the
      598
      expression as she does not appear to like consultation, we intend to consult interested parties in the first half of next year.
      I deal now with the detail of the amendment. Amendment No. 2 seeks to make payment of the 1 per cent. additional rebate conditional on the personal pension scheme satisfying very restrictive new conditions. These conditions are the guarantee of a minimum pension, full disclosure of all commission and management charges and incorporating the terms of any statutory code of practice.
      The amendment would lead to an extraordinary muddle. It would apply only to schemes to which the 1 per cent. additional rebate was paid. No personal pension optant aged under 30 would benefit from the amendment.
      To explain that more fully, it may help to remind hon. Members how payments are made to appropriate personal pension holders. The Department pays a minimum contribution based on the person's annual earnings between the lower and upper earnings limits. These annual earnings are known as band earnings. The minimum contribution is paid after the end of the tax year direct to the personal pension provider. At present the minimum contribution is made up of the contracted-out rebate amount which is 5·8 per cent. of band earnings; the 2 per cent. incentive; and basic rate tax relief calculated on the employee's share of the contracted-out rebate amount, which is currently 2 per cent.
      From April the minimum contribution will consist of the new contracted-out rebate amount which is 4·8 per cent. of band earnings, basic rate tax relief calculated on the employee's share of the rebate, which will be 1·8 per cent., and, subject to the will of Parliament, the 1 per cent. addition that we are now discussing for personal pension holders aged 30 and over. The amendment does not propose that these restrictive criteria should apply to the 4·8 per cent. rebate. It therefore seems somewhat contradictory to propose them in respect of the 1 per cent. addition.
      I should now like to take each of the restrictions specified in turn. The first is a guarantee of a minimum pension as defined in regulations. I think that we should be clear that, although personal pensions do not provide a guaranteed minimum pension, they do provide protected rights. Personal pensions are a form of money purchase arrangement. The level of pension that is payable depends on the investment that is made, the return on that investment, and the costs. Personal pension providers have to guarantee that the minimum contribution has been invested, and the return on that investment can be considerable—so much so that, over the lifetime, personal pension holders can be in the fortunate position of receiving more than simply guaranteed minimum pension rights. It is not clear from the amendment—or from the hon. Lady's support of it—what type or level of guaranteed pension the Secretary of State is being asked to specify in regulations. Would it be a fixed amount or would it be related to an individual's salary?
      There would be a substantial cost in adopting the amendment. Just how great the cost would be is difficult to quantify because it would probably have to be borne through reduced pensions to the personal pension holder at the point of retirement. That is because some contributions would have to be diverted to cover the cost of insuring against the risk that the return on the investment would not fully cover the minimum pension.
      Mr. Corbyn: I understand the Minister's point, but can she give some idea of the number of money purchase personal pension schemes where the companies involved have thus far been unable to pay the guarantee offered to the participants when they joined the scheme?
      Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that personal pensions have yet to come to fruition. When we say that we have millions of holders of personal pensions, we mean, not that there are 5 million drawers of those pensions, but that 5 million people have taken out personal pensions. Therefore, the data that the hon. Gentleman seeks would not help the course of the debate.
      I said that the amendment would reduce choice. Some current personal pension providers would be prevented from continuing to provide personal pensions. Banks and building societies are prevented by legislation from accepting such a risk. Only life insurance companies and their salesmen would be able to do so. This would limit the market and reduce competition.
      The issue of providing some kind of guaranteed minimum pension for money purchase and personal schemes was discussed at considerable length during the passage of the Social Security Act 1986. The Government's view was that the difference between the two methods of providing for retirement was at the heart of the new pension opportunities provided by that Act, making guaranteed minimum payments inappropriate for personal pensions and for contracted-out money purchase schemes.
      I turn now to the second restriction that is proposed. The regulatory organisations lay down requirements for the disclosure of relevant information to investors—the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme acknowledged that there were already some regulations—including charges and commission. These are subject to review at present. In the circumstances, it would not be appropriate for the Government to introduce further disclosure requirements before the result of the review is known.
      The Securities and Investments Board has proposed new rules which will require life insurance companies to disclose the effect of charges and expenses as a penny-in-the-pound deduction from the premium. The Director General of Fair Trading is considering this proposal at present, and a report to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is expected shortly.
      I admit that I am unclear of the purpose of the third restriction that the Opposition seek to place. The Financial Services Act provides the statutory framework for investor protection, and the marketing of investment products is subject to rules made under the Act. The restriction therefore has no practical effect over and above existing law.
      I cannot recommend the amendment to the Committee. The effect of accepting it would be to reduce the level of pension and the level of competition. I do not think that the Opposition intended such a muddle when they tabled the amendment.
      Mr. Terry Rooney: I listened to the Minister's speech with interest. I wonder how much of the speech was her own words and how much was written for her. Does she recognise that the state earnings-related pension scheme and opting out apply largely to people at
      600
      the lower end of the income scale and that people higher up the income scale are more likely to have some kind of occupational pension?
      Is the Minister aware that Legal and General, which is the largest pensions insurer in Britain, recommends that men and women on an income of less than £9,000 a year should not opt out of SERPS? Much of the Minister's speech appears to contradict that. With the best will in the world, I would rather have the word of Legal and General when it comes to pension investment.
      It must be recognised that certain fixed costs and charges always attach to life insurance policies. The lower the income and the lower the premium payment, the higher will be the percentage that goes on commission and management fees. The Minister may be interested to know—I will not name names, but I will send her details afterwards—that last year a member of the Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Association who operated in my home town was gaoled for submitting fraudulent applications. He made applications for personal pensions for non-existent people for which the commission was such that, for more than 18 months, he was able to pay the premiums on the applications and to net himself £68,000 in commission. Such a commission structure may at least dilute the professional opinion of the person involved in selling a pension plan.
      The beauty of SERPS is that it offers a guaranteed pension. In some ways, that may also be its drawback. People receive glossy brochures which promise fairly spectacular returns. I accept that they are based on statutorily limited projections. The difference between a 3·5 per cent. return and 10·5 per cent. return is substantial. Companies very rarely advise potential policyholders of the actual returns gained over the years and they very rarely seek to advertise their position in league tables. It is significant that Equity and Law, a company which consistently appears close to the top of the league of historical returns, pays no commission and has no interest in dealing with third parties or intermediaries. There may be a message there for us all.
      In the same vein, many private schemes provide for a payment to a widow, but seldom provide for a payment to a widower if the premium payer is female. In this day and age, and in the light of legislation from the European Court, that point should be a matter for the Department of Social Security. In the private pension scheme world, one can have a named beneficiary. However, under SERPS, if a couple are not married, the widow receives no payment. That is a major deficiency in SERPS regulations and application in this day and age when, rightly or wrongly, so many couples live together for decades without marrying.
      4 pm
      As the Under-Secretary did last week, she again referred today to there being 5 million personal pension holders. I am sure that we all hope that that means that 5 million people will be very happy when they retire. Potentially, that is 5 million people who will know far too late that they have been ripped off.
      In respect of regulations, it is interesting that there is one set of responses from the Department of Social Security and another set from the Treasury. The

      601
      Department of Social Security would do well to slow things down a little until the Securities and Investments Board investigation of self-regulation has been published.
      Miss Widdecombe: I wish that I had responded to that matter before I made my earlier general response. One Opposition Member is urging me to slow things down while another is urging me not to be so timid and to hurry things up. It is impossible to please both of them.
      I rather prefer the approach of the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney), who believes that it would be better to try to get things right and to proceed at the best pace. However, I believe that he was wrong in respect of Equity and Law. I am informed that Equity and Law pays commission. The hon. Gentleman must have the wrong company. I take the point about commission charges made by the hon. Member for Bradford, North and his point about the advice on actual returns. Both points could be addressed under the present regime; they do not require new legislation. My colleagues at the Treasury and I are consulting the regulators precisely to see whether those matters can be controlled. As the hon. Member for Bradford, North seems to believe that we are talking with two tongues, I must point out that one of my Treasury colleagues was at our last meeting with the regulators. It was not noticeable that we had a different approach to the issue. The hon. Member for Bradford, North has not done enough homework.
      While I absolutely take on board the need to review the way in which personal pensions are working, I do not accept that there are 5 million potential disasters in the system. The amendment will not help to devise better regulations.
      Mr. Donald Dewar: We all accept that discussions are taking place, and we welcome that. However, presumably discussions take place within a time scale. When will we know the results of those efforts?
      Miss Widdecombe: We shall bring our conclusions to fruition as soon as is practicable.
      Mrs. Golding: I was deeply hurt and upset when the Minister said that I was not in favour of consultation—and I immediately consulted my colleagues. We have decided that I should beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mrs. Golding: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 16, at end insert
      '(OA) After subsection (3) of that section there shall be inserted—
      "(4) In relation to money purchase contracted out schemes to which Schedule 2 to this Act applies, 1 per cent. of earnings as defined in subsection (aa) above shall be included in the calculation of the minimum contribution.".'.
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this we may take amendment No. I, in page 1, line 21, at beginning insert—
      '(3) In section 7(1) of the Act of 1986, the words in lines 8 and 9 "within the period beginning on 6th April 1988 and ending on 5th April 1993" shall be replaced by the words "beginning on or after 5th April 1988".
      (4) In section 7(4) of that Act, in line 2, after the words "in respect of a tax week" shalll be inserted the words "falling within the period beginning on 6th April 1988 and ending on 5th April 1993" and after paragraph (b) the words,
      602
      "The amount of payment in respect of a tax week beginning on or after 6th April 1993 is where

      (i) the tax year in which the tax week falls ends before such date as may be prescribed, and

      (ii) the earner was over the age of 30 on the 6th April with which the tax year began,

      1 per cent. of any such earnings.".'.
      Mrs. Golding: The amendment deals with the exclusion of occupational schemes. It attempts to prove further the reason the figure of 1 per cent. is confined to personal pension schemes. The members of the occupational pension schemes joint working group, which brings together the Association of British Insurers, the Association of Consulting Actuaries, the National Association of Pension Funds and the Society of Pension Consultants, put their case for the inclusion of all types of contracted-out pension schemes in a letter to the Secretary of State on 9 September 1992. Unlike us, they do not challenge the purpose of the additional 1 per cent. rebate, which is to dissuade individuals from leaving personal pensions and contracting back into the state earnings-related pension scheme. Indeed, they say that it is welcome because
      "some degree of stability is needed, and it is in no party's interest for there to be frequent switching between different types of pension provision."
      That is not the pure doctrine of competition, but there we are and so be it. However, the group expressed two concerns. One was that giving the additional 1 per cent. of personal pensions alone might lead some individuals to leave contracted-out money purchase schemes, and, possibly, even final salary schemes, to take out personal pensions. The second concern was there could be a greater danger that employers would consider that contracted-out money purchase schemes were not worth their continued support. leading to COMPS members drifting back into SERPS. They emphasised the unfairness of that by pointing out that employers who responded in 1988 to the Government's desire for personal pensions by introducing group personal pension schemes would see their employees covered by the additional 1 per cent., whereas those who, with Government encouragement, introduced contracted-out money purchase schemes would not.
      Let me emphasise that it was with Government encouragement that those employers introduced and committed themselves to COMPS, installing the necessary procedures. They believed that COMPS and GPPS should receive the same protection because they were so similar that it was unfair for contracted-out salary-related schemes to be treated less favourably, and they urged the Government to establish a level playing field. Why have the Government refused to provide them with their level playing field, or at least a playing ground on which they would play downhill alongside personal pensions against SERPS?
      The Secretary of State, in his reply to the group's letter, pointed out that his predecessor had made it clear that the 1 per cent. additional rebate was a temporary measure pending a review, which is what the Minister said today. I am not sure whether the Secretary of State regards that as an argument against the extension of the 1 per cent. to COMPS—surely not. It cannot be that they are arguing against an extension of the 1 per cent. It is a bit like somebody standing on the river bank and telling a drowning man, or at least one who thinks he is drowning, that he will not throw in the lifebuoy that he is holding but

      603
      that the drowning man need not worry because there will be a review of the availability of lifebuoys and the required standards.
      The Secretary of State went on to point out the differences between personal pensions and contracted-out money purchase schemes which included
      "the nature of the contract, the contributions for PPs, the ages at which the benefits may be taken and portability on changing jobs."
      He added that he would be surprised if some employers felt that they could no longer support COMPS. That would be an unnecessarily short-term view.
      On Second Reading, the Under-Secretary of State expanded further on the reason for not including contracted-out money purchase schemes. First, she told us that there were economies of scale. I wonder what that argument actually means. What economies of scale justify such discrimination? Are we to believe that the man from the Pru is a small business man? I have no doubt that the Under-Secretary has a good explanation that will satisfy the occupational pensions schemes joint working group. We should like to hear it. We should like to know what the Under-Secretary has in mind.
      Secondly, and reiterating the argument of the Secretary of State, there is inflexibility in the age at which benefits may be taken. This is a good point at which to ask a question which has bothered me ever since I listened to the Under-Secretary on Second Reading. Did not such schemes qualify for the initial 2 per cent? If such schemes did not qualify, I can see the logic, if not the justice, of the Government's position. If they did, why on earth were the present objections of the Government not barriers then? What has changed? What is different?
      Thirdly, and most importantly, the Under-Secretary said that there was a difference in the method of payment. COMPS are generally paid monthly, but personal pension contributions are made after the end of the year. That reduces the burden on the employer and throws into question whether it is appropriate at this juncture to extend to COMPS the same arrangement as that which applies to personal pensions.
      If the 1 per cent. were purely a subsidy to the personal pension providers, I could understand the argument and the reasons why a similar subsidy should not be paid to employers. However, I understand that the 1 per cent. is an incentive to the individual employee. Perhaps the Under-Secretary could clarify the matter. Is the 1 per cent. a subsidy to the body providing the pension, or is it an incentive to the individual? Considering the reference to expenses by the Secretary of State in his letter and the arguments of the Under-Secretary on Second Reading, it seems that the Government see it as a handout—as a way of offsetting the higher costs of the personal pension providers.
      It is difficult to agree with the conclusion of the Under-Secretary on Second Reading that, because of the differences between the operation of corporate schemes and personal pensions, the same arrangement should not be extended to corporate schemes. Perhaps, even at this late stage, the Under-Secretary will think again.
      Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I shall say some words in support of the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding). I concede that her amendment is much more transparently obvious than mine. I drafted my amendment
      604
      in a moment of haste after Second Reading when I was still quite roused, to use a Scots term, by the rather inadequate explanation given by the Under-Secretary.
      I cannot for the life of me understand this. I have read the report of the Second Reading debate, and I have re-read it. I simply do not understand why the Government "set their face" against contracted-out money purchase schemes. It is obvious and blatant discrimination. It does not amount to an awfully big row of political beans—or pension beans, if it comes to that—in terms of making a change because the necessary administrative changes and the amounts of money would not be great.
      I do not have the same problem as the hon. Lady about the principle of an incentive. Back in the 1986 Committee, I said that we were relaxed about the matter. I think that the Government may, in retrospect, have overdone it in terms of the amount of money that was spent. However, I well understand the long-term aim, and I support it. The Government were right to examine the long-term implications for the SERPS expenditure, and they proposed the scheme. In the 1986 Committee, I was certainly prepared to go along with the scheme. However, when we have details such as those contained in the Bill, I cannot understand what the Government are trying to do and why there should be such discrimination. It has worrying long-term implications for the review. We are told that the problem is temporary and that we are all bothering about nothing. We are given to understand that if we are a wee bit more patient, everything will suddenly become clear. I am old enough and long enough in the tooth——
      Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman does not look it.
      Mr. Kirkwood: I am older than I look.
      I have heard such assurances before. They do not inspire me with any great confidence. Indeed, if I had been tempted to be confident, the Minister's sweeping dismissal a moment ago when she said that the review would be concluded "as soon as possible"—or whatever ministerial cliche she used—would have removed the temptation. The Minister was responding to a perfectly pertinent and important question from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). The Government must know roughly how long the process will take. Will it take months or years? Will the matter be dealt with by the end of the parliamentary year? This is an important question because folk have to make plans. It is necessary to be careful and get the details right, otherwise people's long-term pensions could be prejudiced.
      There is a great deal at stake. The amendments are important. My amendment was intended to be a probing amendment. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to allay some of our fears. As you can see, Mr. Lofthouse, the issues worry the whole Committee.
      4.15 pm
      Miss Widdecombe: I should like to respond to the issues which worry the whole Committee. I can see that the matter has at least united the Opposition—at least such hon. Members as are present. I am overwhelmed by the turnout on the Liberal Benches in support of amendment No.1.
      The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) was slightly confused in his request to clarify

      605
      the timetables. He confused the timetable for the review of the rebate structure and age-related rebates with the regulation of personal pensions. In reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) on Second Reading, I said that we were committed to having the rebate structure in place by 1996, that we would have to work to that timetable and that for the time being we saw no reason to depart from that. I cannot go further than to reiterate that for the moment. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire confused that reply with the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) about the regulation of personal pensions. Those are two entirely different issues.
      I shall now speak to the two amendments. I am sorry if I repeat some of my remarks on Second Reading, but the arguments that I used then on why the 1 per cent. rebate is not extended to COMPS are the same as those which I shall use today. I hope to put them in a clearer form. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire will recall that in my reply on Second Reading I did not read out a prepared answer but responded to the extreme brevity of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme with quite a marathon.
      Amendment No. 1 seeks to extend the 1 per cent. additional rebate to all members aged 30 and over of occupational schemes who qualify for the current 2 per cent. incentive. This will include both contracted-out salary-related and money purchase schemes. Amendment No. 3 appears to seek to extend the 1 per cent. addition to members aged 30 and over of all contracted-out money purchase schemes, regardless of whether they are currently entitled to the 2 per cent. incentive.
      I cannot accept either of the amendments for several reasons. That will be no surprise to hon. Members. Firstly, there is absolutely no purpose in extending the rebate to salary-related occupational schemes. The Government Actuary took full account of the cost to such schemes of providing the guaranteed minimum pension when recommending the new level of the contracted-out rebate appropriate from April 1993. He advised that 4·77 per cent. was the appropriate level. The then Secretary of State my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton), who was in the Chamber a moment ago, accepted that advice, subject only to rounding it up to 4·8 per cent.
      Secondly, although I accept that there are some similarities between contracted-out money purchase schemes and personal pensions, there are also many significant differences. Those have been detailed a number of times during debates on the Bill, but I shall restate them. Contracted-out money purchase schemes are set up voluntarily by an employer to meet the needs of his work force. Personal pensions are a private arrangement between an individual and a pension provider. The employer is liable for the payment of minimum contributions into a contracted-out money purchase scheme but has no such liability with a personal pension.
      Contracted-out money purchase scheme members receive payments into their pension account on a regular monthly basis. Personal pension holders receive the minimum contribution from the Department after the end of the tax year, when their employer submits his annual
      606
      return. That clearly affects the speed at which the investment builds up. The occupational scheme member has an advantage in that respect. The level of charges is generally lower for contracted-out money purchase schemes than for personal pensions—hence the economies of scale—and the employer will often help to meet them.
      Lastly, the additional cost of £60 million and £25 million that would arise from accepting amendments Nos. 1 and 3 respectively cannot be justified in the current climate. I cannot commend the amendments to the Committee, but I hope that hon. Members will be able to accept my reassurances that the 1 per cent. addition is a temporary arrangement and that we will undertake a full review of the contracted-out rebate structure. The review will also consider proposals for an age-related system for personal schemes, occupational pension schemes and for contracted-out money purchase schemes and will involve full consultation with all the interested parties.
      Mr. Dewar: Perhaps the Minister will turn her attention to the pertinent question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding). As I understand it, COMPS benefited from the 2 per cent. incentive which will end in 1993. If that is so, presumably all the Minister's present arguments for opting them out of the 1 per cent. would have applied when the 2 per cent. incentive was introduced. Is she saying that that was an error then; if not, why not?
      Miss Widdecombe: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is not confused but is deliberately trying to confuse the issue. The 2 per cent. was an incentive to set up personal pensions and its success has been immense. As I have said many time, there are 5 million holders. It was an incentive to individuals and to companies to consider personal pensions rather than final salary-related schemes which, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, are not available to many modest wage earners whose employment patterns do not suit them.
      The 1 per cent. additional rebate is age related and is designed to deal with a problem. We should not oblige people who have opted for personal pensions to come back into SERPS merely because there would be a financial incentive for them to do so, when they might prefer the choice and flexibility of remaining in a personal pension plan. That is an advanced measure against our review of age-related benefits. We had to do that immediately in the interim, and it is related not to the incentive but to our review.
      Mr. Dewar: Am I to understand from what the hon. Lady has said that she is strongly opposed to people opting back into SERPS from private pension plans—hence the 1 per cent.—but she sees no danger of discouraging people in COMPS?
      Miss Widdecombe: I am not opposed to people returning to SERPS if they want to do so, but I am opposed to creating the conditions which more or less oblige them to do so when they would prefer the choice and flexibility of something else. For the reasons that I explained—the build up, the differences and the economies of scale—I do not believe that employers would be subject to the same disincentive. On that note, I ask the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme to consider withdrawing her amendment.
      Mrs. Golding: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Dewar: We have had some interesting exchanges, and it would be fair to say that the amendments and the exchanges on Second Reading largely dealt with the implications of the Government's intentions and how the system is working rather than demonstrating root-and-branch opposition to the Bill. It is very much in that spirit that we shall continue the proceedings today.
      It may come as a relief to the Under-Secretary to hear that I shall never accuse her of being timid; that is not the word that sprung immediately to my mind as I contemplated her highly personal style. However, we have managed to reduce the number of Parliamentary Private Secretaries in attendance from three to one.
      Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) is mine.
      Mr. Dewar: Well, that explains all. Loyalty beyond the call of duty has made the hon. Gentleman stay with us and, as the only Conservative Member here apart from those on the Government Front Bench, his presence should be recognised.
      I should like to refer briefly to a passage of arms on Second Reading when the Under-Secretary accused Opposition Members of being "glum as owls". I must confess that owls have always seemed to me, at least in myth, wise birds and I have no great objection to being accused of being owl-like in that sense.
      On Second Reading there was a dispute about whether the Opposition were cheerful during the course of the uprating statement. At one point we had the slightly comic spectacle of both the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary standing shoulder to shoulder at the Dispatch Box trying to respond to a point of information from myself.
      It is perhaps a minor matter, but it should be put on record that I had suggested that some of the briefing that had led to expectations of an unfortunate outcome from the uprating statement came from the Department. I referred to press reports of a speech that I understood had been made to the 1922 Committee. The Secretary of State jumped to the Dispatch Box and ultimately interrupted his own Under-Secretary to say that no such speech had been made and that he had never addressed the 1922 Committee. On the basis of that, some arguments were made on the validity of my arguments.
      I shall not spend any more time on this issue except to say that I was in error and I therefore offer a qualified apology to the Secretary of State. On 10 November an article appeared on the front page of The Times under the byline of Nicholas Wood and Jill Sherman, which stated:
      "Peter Lilley, the social security secretary, last night warned Conservative MPs of tight curbs on state benefits as he sought to lower expectations in advance of the Chancellor's Autumn Statement. … Last night's meeting with a group of senior backbenchers was the social security secretary's way of starting a damage limitation exercise. In a sign of the sensitivity of the package, he will meet 120 MPs over the three days before he unveils the outcome of months of hard bargaining with the Treasury."
      That all turned out to be nonsense and there was no formal speech to the 1922 Committee, but that suggestion was not nonsense in terms of what I said. Obviously, a lot of the
      608
      disinformation came from the Secretary of State for his own purposes. Certainly there was a meeting with a group of Back Benchers on which the press had been briefed. I make that point because I rather object to the way in which the Secretary of State was anxious to deny a detail and to avoid dealing with the substance of the point raised. I do not think that that reflects great credit upon him.
      I could cite other examples of similar press notices, but I hope that I have made my point. However, I am sure that the Under-Secretary will remember that, on Second Reading, during that same intervention I referred to Conservative plans to tax invalidity benefit. She replied:
      "We may judge the accuracy of the second observation by the hon. Member for Garscadden by the accuracy of that one."—[Official Report, 30 November 1992; Vol. 215, c. 110.]—my observation about the meeting.
      All I can say to the Under-Secretary, again, is that unless she wishes to rise to deny that, my clear understanding from the Secretary of State is that the Government intend to tax invalidity benefit as soon as they can overcome the practical problems that made it impossible to do so this year, clearly to the regret of the Secretary of State. On Second Reading, the Under-Secretary seemed to shelter behind a barrack-room lawyer's point about where speeches had been made in order to avoid the point that she found embarrassing.
      4.30 pm
      My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) did us a service in moving the amendments to clause 1. Although the Under-Secretary may sail into battle and point out that the drafting is defective and that there would be unintended consequences—it would be extraordinary if there were not because Opposition Members must often deal with complicated subjects—the amendments make a point of principle. On those, the Under-Secretary was nowhere near as persuasive or effective as she wanted to be. There was some badinage about the fact that the concern was shared by an empty Committee, but the Under-Secretary will remember that it was expressed on Second Reading by the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), who described the Government's decision as "odd". Although that is a mild term, it suggests a spirit of scepticism.
      I have something in common with the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) because I, too, took the trouble to re-read the arguments. I confess that I found them extremely unconvincing. Moreover, having listened to the Under-Secretary for the past 20 minutes, none of my doubts has been resolved, nor have I been swept away by the warm solidarity of her argument. Her arguments are set out in Hansard at columns 111–12 of the Second Reading debate. One of those arguments was about economies of scale. I understand that management charges liable on an occupational pension scheme—a COMP scheme—are likely to be spread more thinly and perhaps less damagingly than management charges liable on a personal pension scheme tailored for an individual and managed for him or her. However, it is not a significant factor, given the fact that those schemes benefited from the earlier 2 per cent. arrangement.
      I do not regard inflexibility about age as a major factor. Indeed, I do not see its significance at all. Clearly, someone on a COMP scheme will benefit at a set age, and that cannot be varied, but it does not impact on the financial argument which the Minister was advancing. The only argument that seemed to have any force concerned how

      609
      the money came in. I understand that there is a difference because an approved private pension lump sum comes at the end of the year, whereas a COMP scheme makes payments throughout the year and that money can therefore be used as it builds up over a 12-month period.
      I am therefore not totally indifferent to the arguments which the Under-Secretary advanced, but I find it odd that the Government have decided to exclude COMP schemes, a decision that has caused irritation and disappointment to many in the industry.
      Another odd concept advanced by the Under-Secretary was that people should have a choice about whether they wish to opt back into SERPS but that it should not be a choice in which there is a clear balance of advantage in favour of SERPS. In a sense, choice is almost meaningless here because it will be entirely dictated by financial advantage. I doubt whether many people will say, "My adviser has told me that there is a clear advantage in returning to SERPS but, for reasons of principle and commitment, I shall carry the financial penalty of not taking that advice".
      To some extent, the market is being rigged against SERPS but also against COMP schemes. That is an unfortunate game for the Minister to be playing. Although that is no justification for urging my hon. Friends to vote against the clause, it remains an unsatisfactory feature of this provision. I accept that it is only temporary, but it is important that we see as soon as possible the arrangements which the Government intend to introduce for age-related contracting-out principles in 1996.
      The Minister said—I am sure that it is true—that if we are to have these arrangements in April 1996, there will be a timetable from which we must work back. As I am not sufficiently conversant with the mechanics, perhaps the Minister will say when it would have to be clear what the intentions were so that there could be legislation to introduce the new scheme. It would be helpful to work back from 1996 on the assumption that the Government will adopt these arrangements.
      The Minister must recognise that there are genuine anxieties about the way in which personal pension plans are sold and the way in which they are managed. I do not assume that potentially there are 5 million tragedies in the sense that everyone will be dissatisfied at the end of the day. I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) suggested that that would be the position. Undoubtedly, however, there will be some disappointments and some anxieties that perhaps could be avoided.
      I was interested in an article that appeared yesterday in the Independent on Sunday under the byline of Maria Scott. It dealt with some figures that had been produced by the National Provident Institution, which is one of the well-known providers. I am told that it is responsible for 340,000 personal pension holders. Clearly the NPI has a significant holding in the market, if that is the right way of putting it. It is concerned—this is the journalist's gloss, but I am sure that it is accurate—that
      "most people with personal pensions will be sorely disappointed by the income that they receive in retirement unless they increase their contributions, according to NPI, one of the country's largest pension providers."
      The company has found
      "that the average contribution is £78 a month and that fewer than 20 per cent. of policyholders are increasing their contributions on a regular basis."
      610
      The Minister may take the view that those policyholders are merely reaping the whirlwind—in other words, if they are improvident they cannot complain at the end of the day. It is interesting, however, that NPI is saying that something is going wrong—possibly with people's expectations and perhaps with people's awareness of how personal pension schemes operate, or possibly with the continuing advice that they receive from those who initially sell them the policies.
      The figures are not entirely clear to me, but NPI suggests that a 40-year-old man
      "planning to retire at 60 and contributing £100 a month to a personal pension could expect to receive a monthly pension of £104 (after allowing for 5·5 per cent. inflation)".
      I presume that NPI anticipates that during the build-up of the pension plan there will be 5·5 per cent. inflation. It appears that the company assumes that the growth rate of the fund will be about 3 per cent., which seems to be a reasonably generous estimate. Many plans will fall short of that. The Committee will understand that with an expectation of £104 a month there will be a small increase in real terms at the end of the 20 years. I should say that there is a lump-sum calculation of £4,540 in addition—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah".] I am not trying to mislead the Committee. I accept that it is important to make it clear that there is a lump sum.
      The position remains, however, that one of the most significant pension providers is saying that there will be widespread disappointment. I am sure that it does not conduct its business irresponsibly, and I do not suggest otherwise. The company points to a general malaise, which is perhaps a useful counterbalance to the rather bullish statements that we sometimes hear. The hon. Member for Havant on Second Reading made an unashamedly ideological case for the virtues of private pension provision as against those of SERPS and about the need to weight the financial package in that direction.
      The point is, how good will a private pension scheme be? The Minister will say that there is no answer to that and that it depends entirely on how successfully the funds are managed. But people do not realise that; for many it is a blind buy—they do not know what they are buying and they go ahead in a spirit of optimism but with little detailed knowledge of the likely outcome.
      There are uncertainties in SERPS, too, as we saw in 1986 when the Government, for reasons that we challenge but can at least understand, concluded that the SERPS package had to be radically restructured, to the disadvantage of those who were to get their top-up pension from the SERPS scheme. There are also uncertainties in the private pension sector, and the Committee should not ignore them. In this respect, I agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North. I saw the same figure in an article in The Guardian on 28 November. It referred to the fact that no one earning less than £9,000 should be advised to opt out of SERPS or go into a personal pension plan. That point is made by Legal and General—I suspect, by Mr. Ron Spill, a respected figure.
      Almost everyone in the industry to whom I have talked has expressed grave doubts about putting people into personal pension plans if their incomes are less than £10,000 a year. The Minister may remember her remarks on Second Reading, when she said that
      "The average wage of a person taking out a personal pension is £9,750."—[Official Report, 30 November 1992; Vol. 215, c. Ill.]

      611
      There may be occasions when it is sensible to take out a plan at that level of income, but many people would be worried about whether those on that income would find plans a good buy. I confess that I was surprised by how low the hon. Lady's figure was, and I was somewhat alarmed by what she had to say. It seemed to me to highlight the need for the sort of regulation which, perhaps clumsily and ineffectually, we were trying to achieve today in our amendment.
      It is worth making these points, even though they may irritate the Minister. On Second Reading, she spoke of viability, reliability and safeguards, and the need for all three. Of course I agree. They are certainly important and no one would argue about them. I am, however, a little concerned about the pace of progress on what seems to me the Minister's approach to these matters.
      On Second Reading there was some talk about occupational pensions and the release of the Goode committee's report in mid-1993. I do not intend to go into that here, but I shall mention what the Minister said so as to argue by analogy:
      "The Government are fully seized of that issue"
      —that is, the importance of not tying up occupational regulations too tightly.
      "When the Goode Committee reports we shall take account of what it says and seek to achieve a balance between keeping the confidence of the pensions industries and the confidence in pensions, however provided, of people who take them out, and ensuring that employers do not find that they are so over-regulated that it proves a disincentive to them to set up schemes."—[Official Report, 30 November 1992; Vol. 215, c. 114.]
      Of course there must be a balance between all these considerations, but I am alarmed by the Minister's phraseology, given what has happened recently to occupational pensions—but that is a subject for another debate on another occasion. When we come to debate the balance that must be struck between the interests of those who sell pensions and the interests of those who buy them—with all their disadvantages of not knowing about the uncertainties involved—I hope that the Minister will then agree that there is a strong argument in favour of regulation and of building in as many effective safeguards as possible.
      4.45 pm
      This whole problem must be dealt with urgently. I recognise that the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation, the Life Assurance and Unit Trust Regulatory Organisation and the other regulatory bodies have a role to play—doubtless their recommendations and advice will be valuable—but I also hope that when the Government finally make up their mind following representations from the industry there will be a strong prejudice in favour of protecting those who pay their contributions and who will have to rely on the pensions that they are buying, which may turn out to be rather more modest than they had expected or hoped.
      When the Under-Secretary finally emerges from the conference room and the consultation process, I hope that we will be satisfied. Her response—I thought it florid and had a touch of pomposity—when I asked about the timetable did not greatly encourage me. We shall be watching developments carefully, but for the moment I shall not recommend opposing the clause.
      Mr. Corbyn: I am one of only three Members present who are veterans of the 1986 Social Security.Bill
      612
      Committee—and a pretty miserable affair it was too, as I think that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) will confirm. In that Committee the Government turned their back on a great deal of social security legislation going back 40 years; it marked the beginning of the end of many aspects of the welfare state. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (M r. Bates) need not look too puzzled. This Prime Minister ended single payments and the death grant and introduced the social fund and a great many other horrific developments. [Interruption.] Yes, this does not have much to do with the Bill—except that there is a link in the form of pension provision. The 1986 Act was designed to encourage the promotion of personal private pension schemes at the expense of the state earnings-related pension scheme. The linking factor is the Government's general approach, which is to reduce the real value of the state old-age pension.
      I am unhappy about clause 1 for several reasons. They have to do with the value and security of pensions, and our fears about them. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) mentioned the portrayal of the Secretary of State during the run-up to the annual uprating statement. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman played a blinder. He is not here for me to congratulate him today—he was in such a bad mood last week that I am glad about that—but I should be grateful if the Under-Secretary passed on my congratulations to him. He led everyone up the garden path and into believing that there would be a massive cut in benefits, knowing full well that there would not be. At the same time, he got away with yet another year of defrauding old-age pensioners, by refusing to restore the link with earnings which was broken in 1980.
      Because the Secretary of State was in such a bad mood last week, he did not bother to listen to me when I said that the Labour Government's method of dealing with state old-age pensions was to link them either to the retail prices index increase or to the increase in average earnings, whichever was the higher. So, when the Minister sees the Secretary of State later to report to him on her performance today, I should be pleased if she would pass on my remarks. She should also ask him to come to the House in a better mood next time. We do not want him to bring his bad temper to the Select Committee on Social Security, where we will question him on Wednesday morning.
      I note that you are fidgeting, Mr. Lofthouse, so I shall return to the Bill. I have some questions about portable pension schemes and private personal schemes because there is a serious question mark over their security. The Minister made a fair point when she said that at this stage it is impossible to judge how many schemes are unlikely to be able to pay out in full what they have guaranteed or contracted to pay to the contributor at retirement age. However, she should be able to tell us the extent of monitoring and sampling by her Department on the performance of the schemes.
      A serious problem seems to be developing. In theory, many individual schemes have been developed, although there are patterns, and the system to monitor their performance or income from investments is totally inadequate. What sort of problems will arise in future? I ask that question because I sat through many months of investigations of company pension schemes on the Select Committee which is still examining the problems of such

      613
      schemes. Those investigations revealed the inability of the public regulatory bodies and contributors to know what was happening. There was also evidence of insufficient training to enable people to understand the technicalities. That can be remedied to some extent in occupational or company schemes through a better system of election or the appointment of experts, but that does not necessarily apply to personal schemes and it is difficult to see how it could. Perhaps the Minister will deal with that in her winding-up speech.
      We must examine the hidden costs. The Conservative party is obsessed with developing and increasing aspects of the private welfare state for those who contribute. There is a philosophical difference between us on that. We believe in community provision with guarantees and Conservatives believe in a market economy—which has many losers, because in a competition some people win but the majority lose. The Conservatives are into removing safety nets in a big way. The Government have not told us the hidden costs to the rest of the community of these private pension schemes. Those costs are in lost national insurance contributions and lost income tax.
      Today's "Enterprise Money Mail" in the Daily Mail states that tax relief on pension schemes is currently running at £9 billion a year. I would not normally quote the Daily Mail either in the House or elsewhere, but I do so on this occasion partly because the newspaper was given to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) and also because that was one of the few newspapers that was prepared to publish earlier than others what was going on in the Maxwell pension fund. That article shows that tax relief on pension schemes costs the rest of the community a great deal of money. That ranges wider than the tax relief on the schemes contained in the Bill, but it is a high cost.
      I should like to ask about the running of the schemes and investment. A person who enters a pension scheme presumably signs a contract. One hopes that he will deal with a reputable person and the scheme will work out properly. There are insufficient guarantees about that and I understand that there is no requirement for the person to be told the contents of the investment portfolio and that information is difficult to obtain. In a company or occupational scheme, which would have an investment committee, it should be possible to find out where the money has gone; although in the case of the Maxwell and Mirror Group pension funds it was almost impossible to find out where the money had gone—much of it has probably gone for good. A person who has ethical concerns about investment in the past or present in South Africa or in the arms industry will find it difficult to determine where his money has gone if the money has been invested in some other financial institution or trust.
      The state earnings-related pension scheme was introduced by a Labour Government as a way to improve the lot of people in retirement. It was a good step and a progressive idea. However, it was badly shortchanged by the Government in 1986 when they decided to accept actuarial advice. Instead of reflecting on how they could improve the scheme, they diminished it as part of their grand plan to increase the influence of the private pensions industry. I deeply regret that. I should like to see a pension regime that gave a much higher basic state old-age
      614
      pension, real democracy in the running of occupational schemes and information for those who put their money into private personal schemes, which I do not think are necessarily secure in the long run.
      Mr. Kirkwood: I should like to ask some detailed questions. The clause introduces new provisions to the 1986 Act, and some of them provide a regulation-making power to prescribe how an earner's age is to be verified. How can that be done other than by asking for a birth certificate? Why do we need a regulation-making power to stipulate that? Will the regulation-making procedure be affirmative or negative?
      What are the financial effects of the clause? The rubric to the Bill says that clause I will cost the national insurance fund about £165 million annually from 1994–95. Past estimates have been slightly lower than the actual cost. Will the Minister tell us generally how that figure is arrived at? More puzzling is the fact that clause 5 (3) states:
      "Section 1 (3) of this Act shall he deemed always to have had effect."
      That smells of retrospection and perhaps the Minister will tell us about it.
      The administrative cost for the provision of clause 1 is £6 million, which seems to be a great deal. I do not know the percentage currently used to administer some of these benefits, but it must be about 3 per cent. My arithmetic is not up to it and I do not have a calculator, but £6 million sounds rather high for deploying an annual amount of £165 million. I may have that wrong but I ask the question innocently, as is my wont. If the answer cannot be given now, I should be quite happy——
      Mr. Dewar rose——
      Mr. Kirkwood: It appears that I should not be happy to receive a letter about the matter; the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is about to tell me why I need answers to those questions now.
      Mr. Dewar: I was speculating, and I thought that I might put my speculation to the hon. Gentleman. Is it not the case that the £6 million is a cumulative total, referring to previous years when the payments should have been made but were not, and that is why it is retrospective in effect? What we are seeing here is the Minister in debt and looking for authority to pay her debts.
      Mr. Kirkwood: The hon. Gentleman is much more suspicious about such matters than I am. I would not dream of presuming any such thing until I was told differently by the Minister, so I await with eager anticipation the answer to the question, which I hope is arriving. The piece of paper that is arriving for the Minister looks more like a bus pass.
      A time scale for the review would be helpful, so I make this third plea for one. I understand that, when we debated earlier amendments, I may have given the impression that I had confused the two reviews that are under way. The temporary nature of this clause should be known to the Government. Therefore, it should be vouchsafed to the Committee so that we can make proper and successful progress in the Committee stage.
      5 pm
      Mr. Rooney: I must correct an earlier remark. I meant to refer to the Equitable Life Assurance Society.
      Does the Minister recognise that many personal pension schemes are unit linked and where persons are in employment with a fixed retirement date, they are in the hands of fate, because they are badly affected by how the unit market stands on that day? Thank goodness, black Monday does not arrive every week, but anybody who was unlucky enough to retire on that day with such a scheme would have found himself under a considerable disadvantage compared with what would have been the position if he had retired on the previous Friday.
      Given the myriad of statistics that are produced on the performance of pensions, is it not incumbent on the Department to realise that it would make sense to have a standardised form of performance, to be produced by the Department on an annual basis? That would be better than people being subjected to empty promises, many from companies that have been in existence for less than five years.
      I have another question in a similar vein. How much will what we are talking about today—particularly with this magic date of 1996—be held back until decisions on the equalisation of retirement ages are arrived at'' What advice is being given, particularly to women under the age of 30 today, on which options to go for and what sort of purchase schemes they should be looking at with a view to the retirement age in their company, which could be anything from 55 to 70?
      Miss Widdecombe: Many points have been raised and I shall endeavour to address all of them, including those raised by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood)—my brain had caught up with me by the time that he sat down.
      The debate was opened by the hon. Member for Glasgow Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) who said that neither he nor his colleagues had any objection to being compared to owls because owls were wise creatures. The most significant characteristic of an owl, and one that is well attested, is that it does not see terribly well in daylight. Owls are renowned for spending their time whizzing around in the dark hooting mournfully. That sums up the activities of the Opposition in respect of this and other Government Bills. I note their willingness to be compared to owls and I shall make sure that this comparison is widely known.
      The hon. Gentleman then attacked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He conceded that my right hon. Friend had not addressed the 1922 Committee, but in support of his contention that my right hon. Friend had addressed a group of Tory Back Benchers, he quoted from The Times. The hon. Gentleman spoke about age earlier, and we know that he has been around this place for a long time. I cannot believe that he has not yet learnt that not everything that appears in the newspapers is 100 per cent. accurate. All those scare stories that came out before the autumn statement originated either from the Opposition or from the press, for their own ends, not from my right hon. Friend.
      The hon. Gentleman also spoke about our intention to tax invalidity benefit, although I have no idea what the subject has to do with the Bill. On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend and I made it clear, as we and others
      616
      have done on innumerable occasions, that the taxation of invalidity benefit is essentially a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as are all taxation matters. To quote direct from my right hon. Friend on another occasion, and we all speak with one voice,
      "The hon. Gentleman knows that in the literature that recipients of this benefit receive there is a statement that it has been our long-standing intention to bring that benefit into tax, but only when the difficulties of doing so can be overcome."—[Official Report, 12 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 1020.]
      There is nothing new about that. All that was new was that the Opposition and the press decided that it would be fun to start a rumour that we were to tax the benefit this year.
      Mr. Dewar rose——
      Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman is dying to intervene, but I hope that his intervention will show some of the wisdom of the bird with which he does not object to being compared.
      Mr. Dewar: I am not dying—I hope that that news is not too disappointing for the hon. Lady. She and I should perhaps call a truce on animal parallels because we are wandering into dangerous territory.
      Miss Widdecombe: What kind of animal am I?
      Mr. Dewar: That is exactly what the hon. Lady should not tempt me to say.
      Does the hon. Lady recognise that an interesting point about the exchange on invalidity benefit in the Second Reading debate was that she refused to deal with the point, and avoided it, using the technicality of the 1922 Committee as a reason for doing so? I know that the hon. Lady will tell me that she does not discuss leaked documents, but she must be aware of the fact that there is substantial evidence about detailed preparation for the taxation of invalidity benefit. Within what time scale is this manifesto promise of the Conservative party likely to be implemented?
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before the Minister replies, let me point out that I cannot see what that issue has to do with the Committee stage of the Bill. I suggest that it is not further pursued by hon. Members.
      Miss Widdecombe: In deference to your ruling, Dame Janet, I shall not refer to any leaked documents, or indeed to any other form of stolen property. I shall, as you rightly urge us, move on to the detailed points raised in the debate.
      The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and, as the hon. Member for Garscadden rightly reminded us, Conservative Members have expressed concern, both on Second Reading and today, that personal pensions should be properly regulated. I made it clear on Second Reading that I recognised that that concern was shared and that I did not underestimate the importance of getting the regulations right. Nor do I underestimate the importance of addressing all the points that were raised by Labour Members about the validity of personal pension schemes, about the amount of information that is given at the time of sale of such schemes, and its accuracy. However, like occupational schemes, personal pension schemes depend on investment.
      In response to the point made by the hon. Member for Islington, North, I can say that the Occupational Pensions Board has not had to revoke a certificate from a personal

      617
      pension scheme because the scheme could not give it an assurance that it could cover the guaranteed minimum that it stated that it would produce and that it was obliged to produce; there is that monitoring.
      I also fully understand the point that if one starts calculations on various bases, one can produce a scenario that might show that a pension will not be worth what it was originally thought that it would be worth. All pensions, however, are dependent on investment. It is impossible to judge what will be the case in 20 years' time on the basis of a short-term trend or on information immediately available. We are certainly not going to go into the business of trying to guarantee or underwrite given levels of investment, but that is not unique to personal pensions. I do not want our 5 million personal pension holders to assume from today's debate that all is not well.
      Mr. Corbyn: As the Minister presumably knows, examination of occupational pension schemes by the Occupational Pensions Board normally relates to 20 per cent. of the capital. The board verifies whether that is in order, which is not the same as verifying the whole scheme. To what extent does verification go into personal schemes?
      Does the Minister agree that one way of enhancing the security of both company and personal pension schemes would be to introduce a guaranteed level of gilt-edged investments within them?
      Miss Widdecombe: Certain minima operate for both occupational and personal pension schemes. In neither case is there a maximum or a guarantee at the end: there cannot be, simply because of the way in which investment works. I take the hon. Gentleman's point that it might be possible to produce a better sort of investment by insisting that it contained a gilt element of X per cent., and I hope that investments would be prudentially handled in that way. Nevertheless, I do not yet see a case for insisting that any investment organisation follow a particular path that could be laid down and curtailed.
      Having said that, I shall consider what the hon. Gentleman has said. As I stated earlier, we are reviewing the whole position. I shall find out whether there is any practical way of implementing the hon. Gentleman's suggestion and let him know the outcome of my deliberations. I hope that that is acceptable to him.
      The hon. Member for Garscadden raised the question of income levels. He said that it probably did not pay people to take out personal pensions if they were earning less than £9,000 a year; he then upped the figure to £10,000, on the basis of discussions in which he had engaged. The essence of his argument, and that of the hon. Member for Islington, North, was that there was an income level below which it did not pay people to opt into personal pensions, and it was implied that people on incomes below that level were doing so because they had been badly advised.
      The technical annex to the 1986 White Paper made it clear that people with very low earnings might not be better off with personal pensions. However, the level of income is crucially dependent on the level of the return on their investments. As all pensions are a long-term investment, decisions should not be made on the basis of
      618
      an isolated year or other short period. The warning is there; on the other hand, if there seems to be an investment pattern that will produce returns——
      Mr. Dewar: I am sorry to interrupt, but I am genuinely interested in this point. I entirely accept that there are many individual exceptions, and that people must examine their personal circumstances and take advice. Let me remind the Minister, however, of the quotation from Legal and General which I gave earlier. I think that it is a fairly broad rule of thumb that those in the £9,000 or £10,000 income category should consider the balance of advantage carefully before opting into a private pension scheme. In the light of that, is the Minister not surprised by the figure of £9,750, which is given as the average earnings of people with private pension plans?
      5.15 pm
      Miss Widdecombe: As the hon. Gentleman has himself pointed out, individual circumstances will vary from the norm. I am not wholly surprised, given that it was always clear that, in introducing personal pensions, we were endeavouring to benefit people on fairly modest wages. The technical annex makes clear the need to be more careful at that point, but being more careful is not the same as assuming that in no circumstances should a personal pension be taken on.
      I am sure that it will not please the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire very much to learn that the regulations are negative procedures.
      As the hon. Member for Garscadden said—I almost used the word "rumbled"—the £6 million is spread over six years, from 1988–89 to 1993–94, providing an average of £1 million a year. It is just above 0·5 per cent., not just above 3 per cent.
      It is right that the administrative expenses associated with payments from the fund should be met from the fund; the clause simply writes in a perfectly normal provision for the meeting of such expenses. The annual cost of £165 million was based on the payment of an additional 1 per cent. to 2 million personal pension holders.
      The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire also mentioned the need for a regulation-making power to verify dates of birth. In the vast majority of cases, inquiries about dates of birth should produce no difficulties; the information will already be held by the Department. It is possible that, in a few cases, the Department will not hold those details and the individual will be unable to provide a birth certificate or other verification. In those few cases, the adjudication officer will have to make a determination on the basis of the best evidence available.
      Mr. Corbyn: I asked the Minister earlier about the disclosure of information to the holders of personal schemes: I asked her how they could find out what was happening to their investments and where the money was invested. The money is often put into other trusts, which makes it very difficult for the individual to follow the normal rules governing disclosure, which are implicit in all the regulations concerning occupational and company pension schemes.
      Miss Widdecombe: The Government—and, I am sure, the regulators—certainly want people to have access to regular information about what is happening to their schemes, as and when they require it. That already applies to those who invest in occupational pensions. There

      619
      should be no difficulty about providing information about the state of their particular pot of gold—[Interruption.] Let me tell hon. Members who have poured scorn on personal pensions—at one point, they almost seemed to pour scorn on occupational pensions as well—that, following the measures that we have introduced, nearly 70 per cent. of people retire with occupational pensions. Moreover, the average value of their pensions is now nearly as great as that of the state pension. We are vastly increasing pensioner incomes. A certain number of people have always been excluded because occupational pensions were not suitable for them. The Bill is designed to ensure that they have exactly the same advantages as people with occupational pensions.
      I am amazed at the scorn that is continually poured on the provision of greater choice, greater flexibility and greater incomes in retirement for ever more people.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause I ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 2

      PAYMENTS INTO NATIONAL INSURANCE FUND OUT OF MONEY PROVIDED BY PARLIAMENT
      Mrs. Golding: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 14, leave out from 'determine' to end of line 16.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: With this we may take amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 17 leave out subsection (3).
      Mrs. Golding: Clause 2 provides for Treasury grants to the national insurance fund. As the Government Actuary puts it,
      "The amount of such payments will have regard to the expenditure of the Fund in future and will be limited to a specified maximum percentage of estimated benefit expenditure in the relevant financial year. For 1993–94 this maximum is set at 20 per cent. For 1994–95 and later financial years, the prescribed percentage may be amended by the Secretary of State with the consent of the Treasury but will not exceed 17 per cent."
      The amendment attempts to probe the thinking, assumptions and calculations behind the figures. One difficulty we face is that of having no firm actuarial statement for 1994–95 and, because of that, we are limited to approaching the matter through the 1993–94 figures. For 1993–94, the maximum Treasury grant to the national insurance fund is set at 20 per cent. of the estimated benefit expenditure. Will that be sufficient to achieve the Government's objective of ensuring that the estimated balance in the fund at the end of the year equals one-sixth of benefit expenditure?
      The Government Actuary has reported that, on certain assumptions, the figure needed will be 19·6 per cent. The assumptions are extremely important in assessing the whole operation, but what are they? I quote from paragraph 10 of the Government Actuary's report, Cm. 2097, which states:
      "The income from contributions and the expenditure on benefits in the remainder of 1992/93 and 1993/94 will depend inter alia on the level of unemployment and the rate of increase of earnings. In accordance with the normal practice, working assumptions have been given to me by the Government in regard to these factors. The assumptions I have been instructed to use"—
      not merely given but "instructed"—
      620
      "for the purpose of the above estimates were set out in the following terms in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Autumn statement:
      [1] the number of the unemployed [Great Britain] averages 2·74 million in 1992/93 and 2·8 million in 1993/94;
      [2] the increase in average earnings on a year earlier is 5¼ per cent. in 1992/93 and 5 per cent. in 1993/94."
      Those figures form the basis of the Government Actuary's assumptions. They are interesting and very revealing—it is no wonder that the junior Minister ducked, dived, dodged and weaved and resorted to abuse when my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who is very sensitive, shy, retiring and easily hurt, asked her whether she was confident that the forecast of 2·8 million in 1993–94 would be held. Instead of coming clean and admitting that she was stuck with the figures because they were part of the autumn statement, she said:
      "Our job is not to second-guess the Government Actuary but to respond to him."—[Ofacial Report, 30 November 1992; Vol. 215, c. 107.]
      Fancy blaming the Government Actuary for the Chancellor of the Exchequer's actions! What a nerve! No wonder she did not want to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden.
      Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) makes an extremely valuable point. The Bill hides an attempt to control the independence of the Government Actuary when he makes rational assessments of the future. The Government have never forgiven him for the way in which he exposed their spending projections and proved the unviability of some of their proposals.
      Mrs. Golding: That is a valid point. The Actuary is not merely given information but instructed to make his assessments on the basis of Government figures.
      However, it is possible that the estimates may prove to be correct—by the laws of chance the Chancellor of the Exchequer must get something right sooner or later. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) will concede that.
      Very few people have confidence in the Government's estimate of unemployment, which has been forced on the Actuary. If unemployment is higher than estimated, the cost of benefits will go up accordingly. if the estimates of the increase in earnings do not rise as much as predicted, the contribution income will be so much lower. Do the Government believe that, despite the public sector wage freeze, there will be a 5 per cent. increase in earnings in 1994, which is the figure that the Government have forced on the Actuary? Will the Minister remind us how the figure has been calculated?
      If unemployment is above 2·8 million and the increase in earnings is below 5 per cent., the Treasury grant required would be greater than 19·6 per cent. The Actuary himself refers to the uncertainty about the future level of unemployment and increases in earnings. If the Treasury grant were greater than 20 per cent., what action would the Government take? The figure is questionable but it is at least based on published figures.
      What of the reduced figure of 17 per cent. for 1994–95 and subsequent years? How was that figure reached? What are the estimates for unemployment and earnings? We need to know such figures before we proceed. Surely the figures were not produced out of a hat in the Treasury. If

      621
      they were, the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People should admit it. If they were not, he should tell us how they were arrived at.
      The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): We are discussing two amendments and if they were accepted, I think that hon. Members would accept that they would mean that from 1994–95 no maximum would apply to the grant which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer could determine to draw from the money provided by Parliament and into the national insurance fund. I believe that the issue would be better discussed when we debate the next group of amendments dealing with the rules that apply to the Government Actuary or his deputy and the assumption that he is allowed to make.
      I have done some research and, as far as I can ascertain, the establishment of the rule about the assumptions which the Government Actuary and his department—let us put them together in this case—go back to 1945 and have been pursued by successive Governments since then. That means that there is a sensible rule that standard assumptions across Government are practical and understandable by the public and the specialists involved.
      In this case, the Government Actuary uses the same assumptions as the Treasury about future policy. I hasten to say that the assumptions are not forecasts—they are, in essence, working assumptions which are essential. It would be a receipt for chaos if different arms of Government were to make different working assumptions, and the most sensible——
      Mr. Dewar rose——
      Mr. Scott: If I may finish the sentence I shall of course give way—perhaps I shall even anticipate the hon. Gentleman.
      All types of assumptions are made, not all of which turn out to be correct and many vary in one direction or another, but it would make sense to have a common set of assumptions for the purposes that we are discussing.
      Mr. Dewar: I accept that, but perhaps the Minister will say a word or two on behalf of the Chancellor—I know that the Government speak with one voice so I can invite the Minister to deal with this issue. A 5 per cent. increase in earnings between 1992–93 and 1993–94 is a rather puzzling figure in view of the Government's public sector pay policy. Surely that should have been taken into account and an adjustment made.
      Mr. Scott: I do not accept that. The assumptions are made a number of years ahead but they are reviewed annually and new assumptions made. It is most important that there is a common set of figures on which all those involved can work. We are sometimes wrong and sometimes right and there will of course be variations. I repeat the point, which is broadly accepted by Opposition Front-Bench Members, that the value of having a set of common assumptions outweighs any shortcomings of the system.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Malcolm Wicks: Was the 5 per cent. assumption made before or after the public sector pay policy was devised? May I tease out a little more
      622
      the Minister's idea of the difference between an assumption and an estimate? Have I understood correctly that one is false and one is true?
      Mr. Scott: I am not going to be drawn into becoming a Treasury Minister at the Dispatch Box. I am talking not about estimates or assumptions generally, but about assumptions that are read in across the board of public expenditure assumptions for the years ahead as against firm forecasts, which are wholly different. We all know how many different forecasts are made from different areas, not only in Government, but outside.
      Mr. Corbyn rose——
      Mr. Scott: I will return to the main thrust of what I was saying rather than get bogged down on this point as I am sure that the Committee wants to come to a decision on the amendment and on the clause. The main thrust of the amendment was not assumptions, which we shall discuss when dealing with another amendment, but the Opposition's concern, which I well understand and which was expressed on Second Reading, that if the outturn is different from the planning assumptions underlying the decision to set the maximum for the grant at 17 per cent. for successive years, it will not be possible to keep the fund in balance. I welcome the concern of Opposition Front-Bench Members and I understand their wish to press that concern by means of the amendment. I hope that I can ensure that I set their minds at rest.
      On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) drew attention to the high level of grant assumed for 1993–94 by the Government Actuary which, at 19·6 per cent., is very close to the maximum of 20 per cent. for that year, as we all recognise. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out in that debate that the level is high in 1993–94 because of the need to make up ground lost by the fund in 1992–93.
      The Committee will be aware that the Government Actuary recommends a prudential minimum balance for the national insurance fund of around two months' of benefit expenditure. A Treasury grant of up to 20 per cent. aims to ensure that the prudential minimum is maintained throughout 1993–94, but in the event that the outturn is different from the assumptions, the figure of £6·5 billion, for which we have planned as the end year balance for that year, provides in my view and in the view of most people an entirely adequate safety margin which will prevent the fund from exhausting its resources. That is the purpose of setting the figure as we have. I believe that it protects the fund and provides an ample cushion against any exigencies.
      Looking beyond 1993–94, it is obviously more difficult to see where we will be. The potential shortfall in the fund should be considerably less than the amount that we need to make up next year—well below 17 per cent. of annual benefit expenditure. The purpose of the grant in future years is to provide some flexibility in the management of the fund and not to guarantee its solvency under all conceivable circumstances.
      It must be recognised that Parliament does not provide a bottomless pit of money on which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can draw. We believe in the principle that an overall limit should be set on the Treasury grant, just as it was set in the days of the old Treasury supplement, which is sensible and prudent.

      623
      I hope that I have been able to assure Opposition Members that the ceiling that we propose for the amount of grant for the immediately following year and for successive years is sensible and prudent. It can, of course, be adjusted if needed. I do not believe that we shall have to return to it.
      Mrs. Golding: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Dewar: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 22. leave out
      'or the Deputy Government Actuary'.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 7, in page 2, line 22, after 'Actuary' insert
      'on the basis of such assumptions as seem appropriate to him'.
      No. 8, in page 2, line 23, leave out from first 'be' to second 'the'.
      Mr. Dewar: We have already had a preliminary canter round part of this course in the past few minutes. The amendment is inevitably connected with the previous group. The amendment goes back to the vexed question about the duties of the Government Actuary and the assumptions on which he works. The key amendment is amendment No. 7. Clause 2 suggests that "'estimated benefit expenditure—means
      "the amount estimated by the Government Actuary".
      We seek to add the words:
      "on the basis of such assumptions as seem appropriate to him."
      We seek to charge the Government Actuary with taking on board the proper basis on which to make forecasts rather than taking instructions from the Treasury. I understand that the Minister is likely to say that Government Departments must work on the same basis and must speak with one voice, and that that applies to the Government Actuary as certainly as it applies to the Under-Secretary of State.
      The Minister's argument may be superficially plausible. However, there is a public interest, which I pray in aid, in having forecasts that are plausible and which can be taken at face value as genuine attempts to predict what will happen. I realise that the Government are bound to insist that the projection is 2·8 million for the seasonally adjusted unemployment figure in the coming year because that was the figure in the autumn statement. However, it is not unfair to say that if I and the Minister were sitting over a cup of coffee in the Smoking Room—an unlikely scene—[Laughter.] I did not say which aspect of the scene was unlikely. I leave it at that. In those circumstances, the Minister and I would agree that there is no reasonable prospect of the seasonally adjusted unemployment figure for next year being down at 2·8 million. Most forecasters are looking at a seasonally adjusted figure of about 3·2 million and some have suggested more alarming scenarios. I am not in the business of spreading dissension and dismay in Government ranks. I am prepared to assume that the figure may be around 3·2 million.
      If the figure is 3·2 million, the whole arithmetic of the national insurance fund will be affected. To that argument can be added the other point made in the past few minutes—the assumption that earnings between 1992–93 and 1993–94 will rise by 5 per cent. If that happens, it will be a considerable defeat for the Chancellor of the Exchequer
      624
      and for the Government as a whole as they are clearly looking for a very low round of wage settlements and are taking energetic steps to ensure that that occurs, at least in the public sector over which, as employer and paymaster, they have some control.
      I protest mildly to the Minister that there is a certain unreality about his defence. Although he shows admirable loyalty to the Chancellor, he does no great service to the compilations on which we have to consider policy and to the projections of what is likely to happen in the national insurance fund.
      I accept that the Minister is anxious to be helpful. He does not believe in the form of timidity practised by his colleague the Under-Secretary of State in her exchanges. The hon. Lady sometimes does herself an injustice because there is some evidence that she has a romantic side of her temperament——
      Miss Widdecombe: What evidence?
      Mr. Dewar: There is some evidence. I cannot go into that. I am spluttering—[Laughter.] I am spluttering with the excitement of it all. I have been following with great interest the hon. Lady's dealings with the present crisis in the Church of England. In her style and stance, she has taken a rather romantic approach of High Church principle. In some of the reference books that we occasionally look at to while away our time, I notice that she lists as her principal interest research into the escape of Charles II after the battle of Worcester. That certainly suggests a romantic turn of mind. Sometimes the hon. Lady does herself little good by adopting the somewhat confrontational style that she affects—and I use the word affects——
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman will not do himself much good if he does not come to the point.
      Mr. Dewar: The material that I was dealing with was probably considerably more interesting than the arithmetic of the national insurance fund.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: That is not the Chair's view.
      Mr. Dewar: I understand your stern duty, Dame Janet, to drive us back to the national insurance fund.
      I hope that the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People will deal with my point because there was a certain reluctance to do that on Second Reading. The Under-Secretary of State complained—and I can use that term fairly—that I raised the point no fewer than three times. Indeed I did and I did that because I strongly suspected that I was not going to get a satisfactory answer. That turned out to be the case. I would like a better response today.
      When I first raised the point, I was told, in short order, that I would
      "get an answer, but it will be in my good time and not at his request."
      That was a little peremptory. The hon. Lady occasionally sounds like an old-fashioned school teacher of the kind who used to imagine that if the children enjoyed their lessons, one lost half the disciplinary profit. I do not like to be scolded in that way. However, I tried again on Second Reading, as those who follow the minutiae of our exchanges will recall. In a most inadequate reply, the hon. Lady said:

      625
      "I have already taken care of that point. One of the reasons that those on the Opposition Front Bench get so muddled sometimes is that they do not listen to what is said."—[Official Report, 30 November 1992; Vol. 215, cc. 106 and 108.]
      I have reread what was said because I am always willing to be corrected if that is justified. However, I can find absolutely no evidence that the hon. Lady had produced an explanation.
      It is significant that the Under-Secretary of State was not prepared to express a personal or ministerial opinion that the 2·8 million or 5 per cent. earnings figure was likely to hold during the next year. She was prepared to tell us where the figure came from and to point at the guilty party. However, she was not prepared to say that she believed a word of it and I do not blame her. She is not foolish. She recognised that it is extremely unlikely that those figures will survive to the end of the year.
      I hope that the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People will accept and concede that. Once we have that concession, I hope we can consider the interesting debate that would follow about what we should do about it and how we can place the earnings figure and unemployment projection on a more realistic basis.
      I am sure that you, Dame Janet, appreciate that this is an important point. Clearly if unemployment rises, contribution incomes inevitably fall and the pay-out demands on the national insurance fund increase. That is like the displacement theory when, in the fourth form, one puts things into a bath and watches the water overflow. The impact can be quite serious. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to consider those points.
      The other two amendments do not require great examination. They were tabled simply to allow a slightly broader platform to allow us to make one or two points. However, perhaps the Minister will deal with one or two little matters. The Minister will recall that there is an instruction in respect of the Government Actuary's report to the House. Does "instruction" have a specialist and technical meaning? Or does it mean that the poor man was told, "However squiffy this may make your calculations, this is your starting point and you had better not complain."?
      I want also to refer to the inclusion in subsection (4) of the reference to Deputy Government Actuary. I have no objection to the Deputy Government Actuary having his moment of glory and appearing in statute. I know who the Government Actuary is, but I do not know who his deputy is. If the Minister tells me, his name will appear in Hansard and that might be some consolation.
      5.45 pm
      Although I do not want to detain the Committee or the Minister, I have a serious point. Why is the reference to the Deputy Government Actuary necessary? I would have presumed that all the work was carried out by the Government Actuary. However, there is of course a power to delegate to others, as there is in every Department. If the Government Actuary says to the Deputy Government Actuary, "Would you like to go and do these calculations because I really cannot bring myself to do that, given the false nature of the starting point", he is entitled to do that. If the poor man has a cold and the work must be carried out in his absence surely the Deputy Governor Actuary becomes the Government Actuary. The specific reference to Deputy Government Actuary seemed a little odd.
      626
      That was the kind of point that, in my younger days in Standing Committee, might have run for a very long time. However, perhaps I should leave it at that. In respect of the other amendment that I have decided to duck, the reference to the aggregate of the amounts seemed otiose and unnecessary. No doubt that refers to the fact that the fund is an aggregation from a variety of different sources. While I doubt whether the words are necessary, I do not believe that even I could elevate that into a matter of principle.
      Mr. Wicks: I want to contribute to the debate about the assumptions and to the subsidiary debate about the association between the Government and the role of the Government Actuary because that raises important points.
      Like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), I question the unemployment assumptions. I understand the Minister's point that we need to make assumptions and that they must presumably be common assumptions across Government Departments if social planning is to be effective. However, assumptions should bear a close association to reality. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden, I have examined the figures in detail and I want to question the assumption that in 1993–94 unemployment will be 2·8 million in Great Britain and compare that with independent forecasts for the United Kingdom. In order to make the comparison, I assume that the Government's assumption is 2·9 million for the United Kingdom as I am advised that unemployment in Northern Ireland is 100,000.
      While the Government's assumption is 2·9 million unemployed for 1993–94, Phillips and Drew estimates the figure at 3·3 million; County NatWest estimates it at 3·2 million; the National Institute of Economic and Social Research estimates a lower figure of just over 3 million; the London Business School estimates a figure of 3·2 million; Liverpool university—the Government's favourite university at one stage—estimates the figure to be 3·2 million; and the ITEM Club—with which I am not too familiar—estimates the figure to be 3·3 million.
      Although the estimates vary, as one would expect, between the Government and the independent forecasters, the differences, of 200,000 to 300,000, are often very substantial. The significance of those differences is spelt out in great detail by the much-quoted Government Actuary in his report when, I suspect, questioning the Government's assumption, he stated:
      "if the average number unemployed were to be 100,000 higher … the contribution income in 1993–94 would be £150 million lower and expenditure would rise by £100 million."
      Obviously contributions will decline if people become unemployed and need national insurance benefits. For every 100,000 unemployed, we are talking about a public expenditure cost—or a cost, anyway—of £250 million.
      The debate may seem rather technical or even pernickety—the Minister is certainly finding it amusing—but it is important in terms of public expenditure. For every 100,000 unemployed by which the Government make a wrong assumption, the cost to the public, one way or another, is £250 million. Therefore, if some of the independent forecasters at the extreme are right in saying that unemployment next year could be 3·3 million, the difference between that and the Government's costs will be £1 billion. The costs are very important. It is therefore appropriate for one to detain the Committee again to question the Government about the nature of their

      627
      assumptions. If the Government's assumptions were out by 50,000 or 60,000, although the human cost of that would be large, we might forgive them statistically, but to be wrong by such a large figure—perhaps 200,000, 300,000 or more, who knows—would undermine the Government's assumptions that they gave the Actuary.
      I join my hon. Friends in challenging the wage assumptions that have been made. The Minister was not able to answer my question because he dealt with another part of my intervention, but again it is not unfair to ask whether the wage assumptions were built into the analysis before the Government announced the public sector pay policy or after that. It must make a difference to the calculations. What was the difference? If I am assured by Ministers that they fully allowed for the public sector pay policy, what were the working assumptions before that policy came in? Given what we know about public sector pay, what assumptions are the Government therefore making about private sector pay? It is presumably quite a bit higher than 5 per cent.
      If it is right for the Government to assume a 5 per cent. norm, would it be right for trade union shop stewards and workers to assume that figure when bargaining? If the Treasury can make that assumption, why cannot wage and salary earners make that assumption? It would seem to be fair to do so.
      I now refer to the association between the role of the Government Actuary and that of Her Majesty's Government. There is some difficulty about that, because I notice that in the Bill the Government are happy to talk about the amount estimated by the Government Actuary or by the Deputy Government Actuary. There is an assumption in the Bill that they are the Actuary's figures, whereas the poor old Actuary himself, in words already quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden, says:
      "working assumptions have been given to me by the Government in regard to these factors. The assumptions I have been instructed to use for the purpose of the above estimates were set out"
      by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
      Given that the amounts of money are so vast, even with a variation of 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. in wages or unemployment, thus affecting Government arithmetic on public expenditure and the Committee's understanding of the Bill, in future it would not be unreasonable if the Government Actuary were able to make his or her own assumptions about those important matters. To put the matter delicately, there is always the possibility that Government assumptions about unemployment owe less to projections and more to propaganda. If the Committee is to have presented to it figures for the national insurance fund which are basically propagandist, the Committee is being misled to the tune of millions and millions of pounds, and possibly 0·75 billion.
      Those are serious matters in terms of public expenditure and our understanding of the national insurance fund. I again urge Ministers to cut out the nonsense about assumptions and the differences between estimates. Why cannot the assumptions be based on truth and on what, sadly, independent forecasters in their hearts know will be the likely rates of unemployment next financial year?
      Mr. Scott: I understand the imperative of the Opposition to talk at length about economic forecasting at
      628
      the moment. I hope that, in my few remarks in drawing the debate to a conclusion, I can prove that the Opposition's comments are largely irrelevant to this matter.
      I should like to refer to the Deputy Government Actuary's department and the question whether he is instructed. "Instructed" has no force whatsoever in law. He could be asked the same thing and would no doubt deliver his duty against the same background as having been instructed. In essence, one contribution outlined the considerable variation of the forecasts or assumptions, or whatever one cares to call them, from a number of independent forecasting bodies, how they vary across the range and how important it is, if we are to have a single approach to Government assumptions, that there is a single assumption by those who are playing their part.
      The Treasury assumptions are the ones that should be taken across the range of Government, otherwise, as I tried to show before, there would be a considerable opportunity for misunderstanding by those who look at Government assumptions as a whole. Perhaps there is that variation in outside forecasting, but, since 1945, Governments have always taken the view that there should be a single assumption.
      I have to confess that it comes as a surprise to me that there is not one but several Deputy Government Actuaries. That provides fairly sensible cover in case the Government Actuary is unable to perform his duties because he is indisposed or actively engaged in other tasks. Indeed, we have the same system in Government. There is a Minister, but there are three Under-Secretaries of State who fulfil that role within the Department of Social Security. A collective approach—the language at least might appeal to the Opposition—by the Deputy Government Actuary may not be entirely unacceptable to the Opposition.
      I now refer to the assumptions. I understand the political imperative for the Opposition to concentrate overwhelmingly on unemployment and perhaps on earnings. In terms of the overall balance of the national insurance fund, the assumptions are marginal to the calculations that are being made. The overwhelming factor when we consider the balance in the national insurance fund year on year is the payment of retirement pensions. That is the largest single factor. For example, were calculations on unemployment to be, say, 200,000 too low and earnings to be, say, 1 per cent. awry, the balance in the fund might turn out to be 14 per cent. as opposed to 17 per cent.
      We are not talking about the fundamental undermining of the state of the national insurance fund. I repeat that the basic calculations about a prudent approach and a comfortable cushion against the fund, protected by the grant, going into crisis are very much overstated. Certainly, the grant levels that we will apply will allow for variations in the assumption year on year.
      The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) intimated that he would not press amendment No. 8, but I rest on the central argument that the assumptions would be very unlikely to alter the estimate of benefit expenditure to any significant degree. In the circumstances, I hope that the amendments will not be pressed.
      Mr. Dewar: I can give the Minister that assurance. However, I am intrigued by the thought that the three Ministers who are gathered are so similar in personality and approach that they are interchangeable in every sense.

      629
      [Interruption.] I am sorry. The hon. Member is not a Whip; he just happens to be sitting there. Before I get into trouble, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      6 pm
      Mr. Dewar: This will probably be the last substantive debate, but one or two matters are worth raising. Clause 2 deals with the whole problem of the fund and the Treasury contribution which the legislation authorises. There is no doubt that the Labour party accepts the need for a subvention to balance the books. As I said on Second Reading, it would be unacceptable for any benefits to be substantially cut to balance the accounts. Given the deterioration in the economy and the troubles that have attended the Government's efforts in the past few months, it would not be sensible to advocate a major increase in national insurance contributions. There is nothing between the Conservative party and the Labour party on that matter.
      We broadly support the thrust of the clause. The sums are substantial—£7,500 million is not to be sniffed at. I am aware that there will be play in the figures, as we have been discussing. We might find that the 17 per cent. or, certainly, the 20 per cent. ceiling in 1993–94 will be under considerable pressure if our scepticism about the starting point of the forecast is justified. We will simply have to wait and see. Undoubtedly, we can return to the matter if the result confirms my suspicion.
      I should like to ask the Minister about one or two much more general matters connected with the clause and how he sees the national insurance fund. I have not re-read the Minister's speech, but I have re-read the speech of the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), which I found interesting. I did not hear the hon. Gentleman's speech because I was absent from the Chamber at that time; however, I have taken the trouble to re-examine it. The speech raised some substantial issues which I should like the Minister to examine.
      There was an exchange, and hon. Members will remember that there has been continuing controversy, about the cost to the national insurance fund and the public purse of the contract-out principle and the incentive which was introduced in 1988 and which runs until 1993. I quoted in my speech the figures produced by the National Audit Office, and was taken to task by the hon. Member for Havant for relying on them. He took a poor view of that. I understand from the other remarks that have been made that it is the conventional wisdom on the Conservative Back Benches—I suspect, encouraged by those on the Front Benches—that the National Audit Office calculations were badly flawed.
      I invite the Minister to say a few words about that matter because I genuinely disagree with the hon. Member for Havant, whom I welcome to the Chamber, about the National Audit Office. I am not silly enough to deny that I may have misunderstood the basis of his objection, in which case I have no doubt that the Minister will be able to put me right.
      As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman was saying that the difficulty with the calculations was that they were a
      630
      calculation of the cost of revenue forgone in the pay-as-you-go pension and benefit equation because of the money that was passed to private providers for occupational and personal pensions in the form of the contracting-out payments and the initial incentive over and above them. The hon. Gentleman gave the impression that the incentive stopped in 1993, although it could have continued. There was a slight implication that the National Audit Office was using something almost akin to sharp practice because it should have projected beyond 1993. If the NAO had projected beyond 1993, it would have come up with a different picture.
      The hon. Gentleman also complained that the calculation was based on the assumption that everyone would come back into SERPS in 1993, which he said was a ludicrous proposition. I agree that that is not likely to happen, and I make no complaint about that. The computation that was carried out was legitimate within the limits in which it was done. The National Audit Office took the cost of the APP rebates for the period to 1993. It did not go beyond 1993 for the simple reason that it did not have an announced contracting-out percentage figure—we now know that the figure is 4·8 per cent.—and it did not have any information about what would happen to the incentive. It might have assumed that the incentive would disappear altogether. If it had made that assumption, it would have been wrong. That underlines the difficulty of projecting beyond 1993.
      The National Audit Office took the cost of the APP rebates for the 1988–93 period and the current value of the futures of SERPS pensions which would not have to be paid because of the rebates, the opting out and the purchase. It came up with the figures which showed a deficit of close to £6 billion in the public purse. That seems to be a respectable enterprise, and is not undermined or invalidated by any argument about what might happen after 1993 if the information had been available. The calculation tells us what happened in those five years. Therefore, it is valid in those terms, and that is what it was represented to be.
      Mr. David Willetts: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman's account of how the National Audit Office set about its calculations. If I gave the impression in my speech a week ago that I thought sharp practice was involved in the calculations, I welcome the opportunity to correct that impression. I do not think that there was any sharp practice. However, it is unfortunate that the assumptions on which the calculations were based were not clearly stated. I am sure that the National Audit Office took those assumptions for the reason that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has just set out—because it was the clearest basis on which to do the calculation, effectively assuming that everyone would be back in the scheme in 1993. Any other assumptions would inevitably have been speculative. To have carried out the calculations on a different basis, assuming, for example, that many people who left SERPS——
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. This is becoming a speech, not an intervention. The hon. Member may seek to catch my eye at a later stage if he wishes.
      Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman may want to catch your eye, Dame Janet, because I am about to say a few words about some of his other thoughts on the national insurance fund. Before he came into the Chamber, I said

      631
      that I found his speech interesting. I do not know whether he would claim to be a representative Conservative Member, but he is credited, if that is the right word. to use—I use the word in a technical sense—with having some influence.
      Mr. Wicks: He can read.
      Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman can do more than that. I was interested in what he said. We can continue the argument about the NAO report on another occasion, and I have no doubt we will.
      I think that we are near agreement. My point is that the figures are valid, although they are limited in the sense that they are for a specific time slot. My real objection is directed not perhaps at the hon. Member for Havant but at some of his colleagues who gave the impression that, because the calculations do not continue beyond 1993, they are invalid and are not justified. The calculations are not valid in terms of the figures that were known at the time. My point is that, in any event, as we use revenue to pay pensions, invalidity benefits and unemployment benefits and if we forgo £9 billion over a five-year period, a considerable strain is placed not necessarily on national insurance contributions—we can hold them—but on general taxation revenue, which is perhaps the reason that we have the startling figures in the clause.
      Perhaps the Minister will comment on the National Audit Office report. It is important that proper weight is given to it. It should not be rubbished because it tells us an important part of the story so far. It may not give us the history or the future, but it brings us significantly up to date.
      What is the Government's view on the national insurance principle? The hon. Member for Havant expressed strong opinions about it. Those of us who were present on Second Reading will remember that he started by reminding us that under the Beveridge scheme a substantial part of the funding of the benefits came from a Treasury subvention. There was a somewhat technical argument about whether the subvention was 50 per cent. or 67 per cent. Those figures were offered to the hon. Gentleman by my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) in a bidding match. However, the subvention was clearly substantial. None of us objects to returning to a stage at which that level of help is necessary.
      The hon. Member for Havant asked some important questions about the national insurance principle. He went on to say that SERPS was a quid pro quo for getting away from the principle of flat rate contributions. He said that it was introduced merely to give some reward to those who would have to contribute more heavily according to income when previously there was a flat rate contribution.
      The hon. Member for Havant also said that the Government had held national insurance contributions steady, thereby putting the fund under the present strain. I give him credit for a phrase which I shall probably use at some future date about other aspects of Government policy. He said that the Government were following a policy of "purposeful immobilism". That phrase is worth preserving. I see evidence of purposeful immobilism in bodies other than the Conservative party, but it will do for a start. Such a policy has interesting consequences.
      The hon. Member for Havant put what he described as an unashamedly ideological view. He said that private pension provision was better. He went on from there to
      632
      argue a fairly hostile case for the continuation of SERPS. He also seemed to make a hostile commentary on the national insurance contributions system. If one assumes that SERPS was introduced because it was the only way of justifying a progressive tax element, one may come close to arguing that contributions are not necessary and pensions should be entirely funded out of general taxation. My analysis may be unfair but it is an interesting line of thought.
      I wonder whether the Minister—I put this innocently to him—has any thoughts about the future of the national insurance principle. The hon. Member for Havant said that we were driven to a second contributory top-up pension, making it clear that he did not like such a system. I know that the Government share his dislike of that aspect of the matter, but I wonder whether they have any thoughts about the national insurance principle—or is this a matter on which no consultations are taking place and no change is expected?
      The Minister will be familiar with the interesting speech which Sir Peter Barclay made at a conference at York university a few months ago. I do not need to rehearse it in detail, but he put on the agenda the future of the national insurance principle. For example, he suggested that the contributions record had become a barrier for many people, especially women. Although they were entitled in every sense to a benefit, they might not have the contributions record to open the door to the benefit.
      I do not suggest that there are any plans afoot to abolish contributions but I thought that the matter was worth raising. That train of thought was started by reading the speech of the hon. Member for Havant. I should be glad to have the Minister's thoughts on the matter. I hope that he can oblige.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Kirkwood: I welcome the suggestion of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) that the future of the contributory principle should be put on the agenda for discussion. My party has always advocated an integrated tax and benefits system. That would entail abolishing the contributory principle. However, we are not necessarily thirled to that. If there is scope for discussions at any level, we should be interested in taking part. I agree with the hon. Member for Garscadden that if the Government are examining the background to the national insurance scheme, it would be valuable for Opposition Members to know whether the Government have commissioned any research. I also noticed what Sir Peter Barclay said. It was a valuable contribution to the debate. It would be helpful to know whether the Government have any thoughts on the matter.
      I wonder whether the Minister could help me. In my usual daft laddy way—referring to the Treasury research note—may I ask how it came about that in 1980–81 the Treasury supplement was 18 per cent. of the fund but a few short years later, in 1988, Lord—[HON. MEMBERS: "Lord Moore."] The hon. Member for Garscadden said that old age made one forget names, but it is dealing with social security that does it; it causes amnesia. It happens to us all sooner or later.
      In 1988, Lord Moore announced the abolition of the Treasury supplement. In 1988 the supplement had collapsed to 5 per cent. In the Social Security Act 1990 we took industrial injury benefit, statutory sick pay and

      633
      statutory maternity pay out of the fund and made it a charge on the Consolidated Fund. Large sums were taken out of the national insurance fund. Only two years later we are suddenly putting another large tranche of up to 20 per cent., representing £7,500 million, into the fund by way of grant.
      The Minister must explain why, if it was right to abolish the supplement in 1988, there has been a huge turnaround in the way in which the Government deal with the fund. It has happened in a relatively short time in relation to the development of social security policy. The Government owe us an explanation of the rationale and thinking behind the sequence of events that has produced these circumstances.
      It is not inappropriate in a "clause stand part" debate to ask the Minister how the Government expect the grant proposed in the clause to operate and how it will differ from the previous supplement. One relates to levels of contributions and the other relates to levels of benefit. What are the differences in effect compared with the old supplement?
      My next question should perhaps be more properly addressed to Treasury Ministers. What significance will the grant have on the public sector borrowing requirement? The grant can be drawn upon after consultations with the Treasury. I shall ask a question about that in a moment. Does not the £8,000 million feature as an increase in the PSBR? Is it hidden because it is not used unless it is called upon? Does it not affect the total PSBR for that reason? It is a big sum of money and if it does not show up as an explicit addition to PSBR totals, we should be told about it.
      Clause 2 talks rather glibly about the Secretary of State consulting the Treasury before exercising his powers, and two cheers for the fact that the orders introduced under clause 2(8) will be subject to the affirmative procedure. Can the Secretary of State say a few words on what consultation will amount to? Is it merely a question of referring to changes of the sort that we have been discussing which concern the Government Actuary? Or, for example, could the Secretary of State decide that if he had a wee bit of extra money he could valorise the Christmas bonus, which is only £10 this year, and double it? Could he consult the Treasury about the possibility of using the grant to increase the bonus? That seems a seasonal enough suggestion.
      If we have £7,500 million floating around, why do we not use some of it for retirement pensions, invalidity benefits, widows' pensions, sickness pay and all the other wonderful goodies that are available to the Government via the national insurance fund? What will constitute the consultation? Can the Treasury refuse a request by the Secretary of State? If so, on what grounds? Those are important issues.
      I also hope that the Minister will explain why, in such a short time, there have been such momentous changes in the amounts of money—in the form of supplements or grants—flowing in and out of the national insurance fund.
      Mr. Scott: I shall be delighted if I can bring this short debate to an even quicker conclusion. Although I shall refer to the issue of the national insurance fund in my concluding remarks, I believe that that question contains substance for a debate which would occupy more time
      634
      than we are likely to have this evening—[Hots. MEMBERS: "Take as long as you like."]—and in which other Ministers might wish to play a part.
      The debate about the Government grant is set against the background of the announcement by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State that there would be no increase in national insurance contributions this year, and that there would be a full uprating of benefits. Clearly, in those circumstances, resources had to be found to balance the two items.
      The grant from the Treasury is simply a transfer of resources that are already within the Government. A sum of money from within the Consolidated Fund can easily he transferred from the Treasury to ourselves without any increase in Government borrowing or any alteration in public finances.
      The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) drew attention to the distinguished and important speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts). In no sense would I wish to rubbish the National Audit Office report, not least because the distinguished Comptroller and Auditor General was a senior civil servant in the Northern Ireland Office when I was privileged to serve there and I have personal as well as professional respect for his judgment.
      The calculations commissioned by the National Audit Office were based on assumptions which will not necessarily prove to be valid in the longer term. The report took into account only the first six years and it did not take into account the contribution that personal pensions will make to a strong pensions industry in the next century, and the element of choice to which the personal pensions initiative has contributed. The office was hampered by the assumption that it was a short-term phenomenon and that a substantial number of people who had taken out personal pensions would contract back into SERPS.
      Personal pensions provide people with influence over their contributions, and I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Havant said that we were working with the grain of society by providing that choice. I think that that philosophy will endure and will be important in the next century.
      Mr. Dewar: I accept that the Government are anxious to encourage personal pensions, which may or may not be a good thing, but that is a different issue. I want to know whether the Minister accepts the validity of the National Audit Office figures for 1988–93 in terms of their impact on the profit and loss account of the public purse—if I may put it that simply. Having taken some advice, I am led to believe that the calculation is perfectly valid, as one would expect given the source. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that that is his view. If it is not, presumably the Government can produce a counter set of figures, which we would look at with interest.
      Mr. Scott: I am not quarrelling with the short-term judgment of the National Audit Office. It is right that Parliament, when looking ahead to the pattern of pension provision for future years, should take a broader judgment. Therefore, short-term calculations about profit and loss in that short time span should not determine our judgments on whether we should continue the personal pensions initiative.
      Mr. Dewar: If I put it to the Minister another way, we can, I hope, reach agreement. Is it the case that he does not

      635
      dispute that there will be a loss to the public purse or a gap of getting on for £6 billion during the period concerned? The Minister is arguing that that is a price worth paying—as he is entitled to do.
      Mr. Scott: I would not choose those words. It is an investment in the future and in a pattern of pension provision which is likely to work with the grain of personal choice. As my hon. Friend the Member for Havant said, increasingly people wish to make pesonal choices about their pension provisions for the next century.
      It is all very well for those of us with a clear entitlement to occupational pensions, who may not sufficiently take into account the position of manual workers and those who sometimes work irregularly. We must remind ourselves that one of the main results of the personal pensions initiative is that they have been able to make proper provision for their retirement, outside the basic state scheme, for the first time. That is much to be applauded and is well worth whatever investment we have made in launching the scheme.
      I said that I would mention the principle of national insurance. I believe that on Second Reading the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) mentioned the Gallup survey about national insurance costs prior to the 1985 reforms, in which 59 per cent. of those asked about national insurance contributions thought that they were a good thing.
      The Government have no plans to drop the concept of the national insurance scheme. A philosophical question is involved. We must consider whether the taxpayer alone should pay or whether there should be a system of contributions which could be adjusted to reflect changing patterns in the workplace and in society. Having grown up in the days of stamps on cards—I know that the system is more sophisticated these days—I think that many people feel that they are contributing towards their short-term benefits, health care and so on, which are based on the national insurance principle.
      Mr. Kirkwood: I am following carefully what the Minister is saying. The vast majority of people to whom I speak think that the scheme is a funded one, but we all know that it is not.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Scott: That is true. Many people may not even understand the concept of a funded scheme, but they believe that it represents value for money. They pay a certain amount each week or month and for that they get the guarantee of certain benefits when they need them. That concept is firmly embedded in the psychology of the country and to drop it would be a grave mistake, unless we were absolutely certain that we had something a great deal better to put in its place.
      I understand that there will be a debate about this issue. I, too, have had moments of agnosticism about it in my time at the Department. However, I have tried to think it through and I believe that it would be a great folly to abandon the scheme unless we were absolutely certain that we had something better to put in its place. I have read Sir Peter Barclay's speech and a number of other contributions on the matter and no doubt we shall return to it from time to time.
      I hope that the Committee will now be prepared to give the clause a fair wind.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 3 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Schedule agreed to.
      Bill reported, without amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

      CHILD SUPPORT
      That the draft Child Support Fees Regulations 1992, which were laid before this House on 11 th November, be approved.—[Mr. David Davis.]
      Question agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),

      COMPANIES (DISCLOSURE)
      That the draft Companies Act 1985 (Disclosure of Branches and Bank Accounts) Regulations 1992, which were laid before this House on 17th November, be approved.—[Mr. David Davis.]
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),

      COMPANIES (FEES)
      That the Companies (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 1992 S.I., 1992, No. 2876), dated 17th November 1992, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th November., be approved.—[Mr. David Davis.]
      Question agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),

      COMPANIES (BRANCH DISCLOSURE)
      That the draft Oversea Companies and Credit and Financial Institutions (Branch Disclosure) Regulations 1992, which were laid before this House on 26th November, be approved.—[Mr. David Davis.]
      Question agreed to.

    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees.),
    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

      VALUE ADDED TAX
      That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4204/89 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted to Her Majesty's Customs and Excise on 28th October 1992, relating to value-added tax and special arrangements for second-hand goods, works of art, antiques and collectors' items; notes that the proposed margin schemes for second-hand goods are similar to the existing United Kingdom schemes but with broader coverage; and welcomes the Government's aim to protect the essential interests of British traders.—[Mr. David Davis.]
      Question agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees.).

      COSMETIC PRODUCTS
      That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8586/92, relating to cosmetic products; and

      637
      supports the agreed common position secured by the Government on the draft Directive at the 3rd November Consumer Affairs Council of Ministers.—[Mr. David Davis.]
      Question agreed to.

    TRANSPORT
    Ordered,
    That Mr. Terry Dicks be discharged from the Transport Committee and Mr. Nick Hawkins be added to the Committee. [Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  Clarke Foods, Knowsley
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Davis.]
  6.32 pm
  Mr. George Howarth: On Friday 16 November, 67 employees of the Lyons Maid operation in Kirkby in my constituency were made redundant. They have not yet received any severance pay. Until today, however, there was still hope that they would be re-employed by Nestlé, which has since acquired the parent company, Clarke Foods, which was put into receivership by the National Westminster bank on 13 October.
  Within the past hour it has been drawn to my attention that Nestlé has no intention of retaining the Kirkby plant. It argues that that plant has some technical problems which make its retention impossible. I do not wish to comment on that in detail until I have had an opportunity to discuss it with the employees at that plant; I can then consider the points that Nestlé has raised.
  Today's announcement will be a body blow to the people of Kirkby from which they will find it difficult to recover. We may be talking about only 67 jobs, but in a town that has one of the highest rates of unemployment in the country, those 67 jobs were precious and there were high hopes that they would be retained. We shall have to consider what steps we can take to see whether there is anything that can be retrieved in the next few weeks.
  My purpose in seeking a debate on the Adjournment is to highlight serious and potentially alarming concerns about the events that led up to Clarke Foods going into administrative receivership. Clarke Foods was Britain's second largest ice cream manufacturer. It was set up and controlled by Mr. Henry D. Clarke junior, a United States citizen.
  In March 1992, Mr. Clarke's company acquired the Lyons Maid operation from Allied-Lyons for just over £13 million. At that time, Lyons Maid had two factories, one in Greenford in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra), and the other in Kirkby. I know that my hon. Friend had hoped to be here for this debate. Unfortunately, the fact that it has started earlier than expected has, I believe, caught him at his constituency surgery. I know that he will be bitterly disappointed to have missed the debate.
  Prior to acquiring Lyons Maid, Clarke Foods had also acquired factories in Telford, Stourbridge and Stoke-on-Trent from Hillsdown Holdings, the latter of which was closed down some six months earlier. Clarke Foods left debts reported to be between £25 million and £40 million. I understand that among the substantial creditors are the National Westminster bank, Allied-Lyons, Hillsdown Holdings and Alfa-Laval, which is apparently owed money for machinery that was purchased and delivered, but not paid for.
  It is also worth pointing out that part of the purchase agreement between Allied-Lyons and Clarke Foods involved a discount of £1.4 million in a fund allocated for severance payments, including pension funds at the Greenford factory, which, as had already been agreed, would close. There are persistent rumours that all the money cannot be accounted for. However, no doubt that will be covered in the receivers' report to the Secretary of

  639
  State to which reference was made in the letter to me of 12 November from the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs.
  Clarke Foods had a working relationship with Guinness Mahon and Co. and Henderson Crosthwaite Corporate Finance Ltd. Both firms were reported in the Financial Times of 11 March as sponsoring Clarke Foods' entry into the unlisted securities market. I have spoken to representatives of Guinness Mahon and they say that their relationship with Clarke Foods was that of financial adviser and that its associate company, Henderson Crosthwaite, acted as stockbroker to Clarke Foods.
  One common denominator between those associated firms and Clarke Foods is Mr. Martin Riley. Mr. Riley is described by Guinness Mahon as having been a non-executive director of Clarke Foods and a director of Henderson Crosthwaite.
  I recognise the responsibilities that go with parliamentary privilege and I made a determined effort to contact Mr. Riley on Friday last week, through Henderson Crosthwaite and Guinness Mahon. It became clear to me, however, that I would be given no opportunity to speak to him, even though it was my stated and honest intention to give him the chance to put his side of the argument before the debate. I understand that Mr. Henry D. Clarke is currently in the United States and unavailable for comment, although at least one of his sons is still in the United Kingdom.
  According to the Liverpool Echo, which has thoroughly investigated this matter, it was obvious that, during the summer, Clarke Foods made serious errors of judgment and some bad management decisions. In July, by which time it must have been clear to both Mr. Clarke and Mr. Riley that Clarke Foods was in serious trouble, those men both sold their shareholdings, which, I understand, were substantial. According to Paul Foot in the Daily Mirror of 4 December 1992, that sale amounted to 310,102 shares at their peak price of £1·60 each. By the time the company went into receivership in October, share prices had fallen to 8p each.
  Last Friday, I spoke to a spokesman for Guinness Mahon, Mr. Duncan Campbell. He told me that Guinness Mahon did not know that there were financial problems with Clarke Foods until September this year.
  Courtesy of the Library, I have an article from The Sunday Times, dated 14 June 1992, headed
  "Clarke Foods. Directors' Share Deals".
  It includes an informative graph describing how share deals had taken place between Mr. Riley and Mr. Clarke and describes at length the problems that the company was experiencing as early as June. It says:
  "The approach of summer heralds ice-cream time and marks a good season for Clarke Foods, Britain's number two producer since it bought Lyons Maid from Allied-Lyons in January.
  Three years ago the company, then Yelverton Investments, had its core business in properties and securities.
  The transformation was due to Henry Clarke, the chairman, who had made a fortune from the frozen confection in America. In January 1991 he bought three loss-making ice-cream companies from Hillsdown Holdings.
  Clarke invested heavily in new equipment and cut the workforce, pushing the three firms into the black in their first full year after the takeover. Then came the £12 million Lyons Maid coup. The company was stagnant, making heavy losses and was the perfect challenge for him. One ageing and unionised Lyons Maid factory is to close, with production shifting to the renovated factories at Stourbridge and Telford.
  640
  Last year Clarke's pre-tax profits were up to £1·14 million and are predicted to be £3·4 million this time. Friday's price was 160p, up from 50p since its £6·8 million rights issue to buy Lyons Maid. The difficult task ahead is to improve the product range and increase sales in an increasingly competitive market. And investors will not be encouraged that late last month two directors, Henry D. Clarke Jr and Martin Riley, sold a total of 310,102 shares at 160–161p, signalling that the price may fall, although both say they are selling to buy pension plans."
  At that stage, there was clearly some knowledge of share dealings and the fact that, although the company was still predicting profits, there were things going on in the organisation which would have raised alarm bells with Guinness Mahon. I am not therefore convinced that I was told the full position when I spoke to Mr. Duncan Campbell on Friday.
  On 30 October, I wrote to the Secretary of State in support of Lyons Maid workers and their trade union, the Transport and General Workers Union, seeking an inquiry into the affair. I repeat that call tonight. The first issue that an inquiry must cover is whether Mr. Clarke and Mr. Riley were guilty of insider dealing. They must have known that Clarke Foods was in serious financial difficulty at that stage and that to dump a large shareholding on to the market would precipitate a slump in the value of the shares, thereby accelerating the firm's difficulties. An inquiry must also look into what will happen to the £1·4 million pension and severance fund. Has it been used fraudulently; if so, by whom and on what authority?
  A further issue for an inquiry relates to Mr. Henry D. Clarke's fitness to run a company anywhere, given his track record in the United States. In the 1960s, Mr. Clarke ran a company called the National Environmental Corporation, which was involved in house building and nursing homes. Mr. Clarke was ousted as president of that company in 1970 and was subsequently bankrupted. During the 1970s, through various companies—Clabir, Klondyke Ice Cream and the General Defense Corporation—Mr. Clarke built up yet another conglomerate with diverse interests in ice-cream and chocolate manufacture and armaments manufacturing. He was ousted as president of that group of companies in 1989 after Clabir defaulted on debentures.
  Given the irregular mix of products in which Mr. Clarke was involved, anybody who subsequently examined his involvement in that group of companies would have raised questions, particularly in the light of the Iran contra scandal.
  The following year, Mr. Clarke came to the United Kingdom and began to re-establish himself, together with his sons, in the ice-cream business. On the basis of his record in the United States, sufficient evidence should have been available to suggest that Mr. Clarke was not a fit and proper person to run a company. However, Guinness Mahon and its associate company, Henderson Crosthwaite, seem to have warmly welcomed him, despite the fragile financial basis of his operations and his track record.
  All that is bad enough, but last Friday I was given a copy of a letter from Mr. Ray Scannell, director of research with the Bakery, Confectionary and Tobacco Workers International Union, dated 3 December 1992. In the letter, Mr. Scannell says:
  "Rumours … picked up in Tampa and PA had it that Clarke, Clabir and General Defense Corporation were part of a network of CIA front companies involved in supplying the Nicaraguan contras. This is plausible. Numerous news

  641
  reports have revealed that the CIA often brought in businessmen to 'own' front companies and those fronts often invested in legitimate businesses to maintain the legitimate facade for the agency. (They also sometimes were engaged in drug running)".
  Mr. Scannell concludes:
  "These allegations are obviously unproven, and probably unprovable. But they warrant taking an even closer look at the Clarkes. For example, what were the specific circumstances of Clabir's default? Under what terms did Clarke leave the US? Does he continue to have legal and financial obligations and/or problems here? Whose money is behind Clarke? If he had connections with the CIA, do they continue?"
  That letter clearly raises further questions. That admittedly inconclusive evidence has been obtained by my trade union colleagues with comparative ease. It seems odd that, before entering a business relationship with Mr. Clarke, an organisation like Guinness Mahon did not make similar inquiries.
  There have been weeks of anxiety for the workers and their families about their future and today any hope has been dashed by Nestlé's announcement that those jobs have no chance of being saved. The matter is so serious and the implications so vast that the Department of Trade and Industry must now agree to an inquiry, or possibly several inquiries, under the provisions vested in it under the Companies Act 1989.
  Will the Minister instruct the receivers, Robson Rhodes, to produce an interim report on Clarke Foods, including any preliminary evidence of fraud and insider dealing? Will he initiate a preliminary inquiry through the stock exchange on what checks or inquiries, if any, were made through Guinness Mahon or stock exchange procedures into Henry D. Clarke's fitness as a director prior to Clarke Foods being listed? I give the Minister notice that I fully intend to raise that aspect of the affair until it is fully investigated and brought out into the open. Will he consider at this stage setting up a team of inspectors to look into the share dealing issue urgently?
  I wish to acknowledge the Liverpool Echo and the Transport and General Workers Union for their work in investigating those disturbing issues and events. The allegations that I have made tonight cannot be attributed directly to them.
  There seems to have been an effort in some high and influential quarters to keep the issue quiet. On the basis of the evidence that I have collected, it would he scandalous if the issue were not looked into fully. Many people are entitled to know what went on, not least those whose employment, pensions and redundancy payments have been shattered. Employees may even have been swindled. Surely it is right that the DTI should take its responsibilities seriously and get to the bottom of what has happened.
  The jobs that have been lost in my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) raise serious issues about the values in our society. It seems that people can operate on any basis that they choose in our economy and that jobs, redundancy payments, pension funds and people's prospects in life do not count.
  I know that in my constituency, and especially in Kirkby, people will be alarmed and despondent that there now seems no prospect of Nestle; saving these jobs. For several weeks, they have been hoping that that would
  642
  prove possible. The values that seem to have been applied throughout the sorry saga which I have recounted—especially by Mr. Clarke, but certainly by others bring no credit on individuals and place serious responsibilities on the Government to investigate exactly what has been going on and, even at this late stage, to make efforts to save the jobs that are at stake in Kirkby and sort out the pension fund problems in Greenford. Events of the sort that I have described should not be allowed to take place without the Government accepting some responsibility to try to clear up the mess that they leave in their wake. Not least among the mess are many of my constituents, people who can ill afford to lose their jobs. They will wake up tomorrow morning in the knowledge that their last hope—that offered by Nestle—has gone.
  6.50 pm
  Mr. Harry Greenway: I congratulate the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) on securing the Adjournment debate. Many of us have been trying to do so for some weeks, in the knowledge that there was an important issue to bring to the notice of the House. The hon. Gentleman has been successful in the ballot and he is to be congratulated on that and on all the good work that he has done.
  My concern and interest lies with the Greenford plant of Clarke Foods, which lies firmly within my constituency. Of the 108 workers who have been made redundant, almost all of them are my constituents. There are one or two who live in Ealing, South and there are others in Ealing, Acton.
  I have had meetings with the displaced work force and I have seen several members of it separately in my constituency over a period. The Lyons Maid site, which was purchased by Clarke Foods and became the Clarke site, is one that I have known for 18 years and visited regularly. I have known it as the site of a company that produced the best ice-cream in the world. I attempted to persuade people to eat Lyons ice-cream rather than anyone else's because it was the best and was made in the best place.
  I was puzzled when I learnt that during the hot summers of the recent past Lyons Maid started to lose as much as £5 million a year. I still do not understand how that happened, hearing in mind the sales that the company must have had during the hot summers that we enjoyed in the late 1980s and early 1990s. In any event, the losses were made and the directors felt that they were unable to continue. As a result, they sold out to Clarke Foods. I should mention my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), the Minister for Housing and Planning, who I know would wish to be present this evening. One or two of his constituents who worked at the Greenford plant have been made redundant. I know that he has been seeing them and helping them.
  Lyons Maid was sold to Clarke Foods. The work force was happy to continue in the new set-up and it gave its all, as I am sure did the work force in Liverpool. That can certainly be said of my constituents. When I met them, I was reminded of the work force at the nearby Hoover factory, which was closed. That closure was declared on a terrible day 10 years ago this week. I spoke to 1,200 members of that work force on a hoary December morning after the announcement had been made that they would lose their jobs. They were told that they would all,

  643
  except the headquarters staff, lose their jobs by March. They worked with enormous dignity until the last minute of their employment. My constituents who worked at the Greenford plant have been the same. They put a great deal into Lyons Maid, first, and then Clarke Foods. They deserve better than they have had.
  As the hon. Member for Knowsley, North said, when Lyons Maid sold to Clarke Foods there was an allowance of £1·4 million. I am not certain how to interpret that. I do not know whether that meant that Clarke Foods acquired the company for £1·4 million less. I note that the hon. Gentleman is nodding. I do not know whether any other prospective purchasers were in line.
  Mr. George Howarth: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. According to a report that appeared recently in the Financial Times, the original sale price was discounted by £1·4 million.
  Mr. Greenway: I think that that is a fair transaction.
  I met the directors of Lyons Maid shortly after I met the work force on the Clarke Foods site at Greenford. I promised that I would see the directors. They explained matters to me. They said clearly that they thought that the money to which I have just referred should have covered any redundancy payments. I am glad to say that at Greenford there are no problems with pensions, which are safeguarded and assured. On the other hand, the members of the work force have had no redundancy pay. Some of them worked at the site for 40 years. It cannot be morally right that suddenly they should find themselves put out of work, having lost a fortnight's pay because effectively they were put out of work by the receiver. Holidays were due to them and they received no redundancy payments.
  It is only natural that these people are looking to Lyons for some sort of payment. One can only appeal to Lyons—I do so again tonight—to make an ex gratia payment. The company has explained to me that it has no legal obligation to make such a payment. I am not a lawyer and I have to accept that, but when a company has employed people for a long time—some for as long as 40 years—I would hope that it might be able to find a way of making ex gratia payments to them. I think that they deserve that.
  Mr. William O'Brien: I sympathise fully with the hon. Gentleman's constituents. As he has said, they worked for the company for 40 years and then they were just dismissed. Does he agree that it would be better for his constituents and other workers like them—where there is no trade union to defend their interests—if wages councils were to remain in place? The councils would be of benefit to the hon. Gentleman's constituents and to many thousands of others throughout the country, especially in the catering trade.
  Mr. Greenway: I do not want to be taken down that road. When my constituents were dismissed, wages councils existed. The question does not arise in this instance. I know that that point was made genuinely because I know the hon. Gentleman too well to say otherwise, but it is not valid.
  I appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister to do anything that he can to secure for the workers involved the ex gratia payments that they surely deserve, or any other sort of payment that they can be given. I have written to the receiver on their behalf. I have not received an answer; I
  644
  am not terribly impressed with that. It is some time since I wrote to him. He should answer letters punctually, whoever has written them.
  Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the former employees at the Greenford site who served for 40 years would have been entitled to about £100,000 each in combined redundancy and severance pay?
  Mr. Greenway: They are certainly entitled to large sums of money—hence their grievance. They are morally entitled to that money, and I should have hoped that they were legally entitled to it. Instead, they have lost everything—the wages due to them and their other benefits. It is a sorry and unjust tale. I hope that all concerned will be able to do something for people who have given their loyal and honest work over many years in—an honourable, fair-minded and genuine way.
  7 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Neil Hamilton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) on being fortunate enough to secure this important debate. I know what a doughty fighter he is for the interests of his constituents; his reputation for that is well known far beyond Knowsley. I have listened with considerable attention and concern to what he has had to say, and to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) and the hon. Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) and for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), whom I am pleased to see here.
  The appointment of receivers is always a sad event in the life of any company, especially when it results in a considerable number of employees being made redundant. I extend my sympathy to those affected by redundancy in Clarke Foods, and to their families. I know very well that this has been a bitter blow for Knowsley, and, as a north-west Member and DTI Minister responsible for the north-west, I know of the social problems involved.
  Clearly, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North believes that all is not well with the way in which certain aspects of Clarke Foods' affairs were conducted, particularly those related to planned redundancy payments after it took over the Lyons Maid business earlier this year. As a result, the hon. Gentleman wants the Secretary of State to authorise an investigation of Clarke Foods using his powers under the Companies Acts. I can understand that; I should have been surprised had he not pressed hard in support of his constituents' interests. Before dealing with the issues involved in an investigation, I ought to set out the facts of the matter as they are known to me.
  Clarke Foods (United Kingdom) Ltd. bought the Lyons Maid trading operation from Allied-Lyons in February this year. I understand that even before the sale Allied-Lyons had decided that the Lyons Maid operation needed rationalisation. Parts of that involved closing the plant at Greenford, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North. To make the reorganisation more acceptable, the company proposed to offer enhanced redundancy terms to employees. Those would apparently have been rather more attractive than the terms that apply under the statutory redundancy payments scheme.

  645
  No action had apparently been taken by the time of the purchase by Clarke Foods. It has, however, been reported that, as a result of the proposed redundancy arrangements, Clarke Foods was able to renegotiate a reduction of £1·4 million in the price that it paid to Allied-Lyons.
  I know that this brief outline of the facts may give rise to the assumption that Clarke Foods had, at least by implication, agreed to make available the same redundancy package as Allied-Lyons had proposed. Hon. Members may even suspect that, as has been suggested in this debate, the sum of £1·4 million was put aside for this purpose, although that is doubtful. As far as I am aware, there was never any written agreement between the company and its employees relating to the proposed redundancy package. Needless to say, if hon. Members have evidence to the contrary, I shall be happy to receive it—it should also be given to the receivers. I make no comment on the discount in the purchase price of Lyons Maid that Clarke Foods apparently negotiated.
  Following the sale, the proposed reorganisation of the company's trading operations did not take place. Initial indications are that that was because of substantial cash flow problems affecting Clarke Foods. Those difficulties prompted the company's backers, the National Westminster bank, to commission a report on the company's financial health from City accountants Robson Rhodes——
  Mr. George Howarth: Based on the inquiries that the Minister has made, can he tell us at what point these cash flow problems became apparent?
  Mr. Hamilton: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that information, because we have not instigated inquiries under the powers given to us by the Companies Acts. If the hon. Gentleman were to contact the receivers, he might acquire the information from them.
  I understand that the report presented to the National Westminster bank was submitted in September. The bank was clearly unwilling to continue to support the company, and on 13 October it appointed two Robson Rhodes partners as joint administrative receivers. The receivers' primary obligation is to look after the interests of the bank that appointed them. Of course, they cannot ignore the other legitimate interests involved, including those of Clarke Foods' employees, and they did authorise a continuation of trading in the hope that income from such trading would be sufficient to meet the company's liability to the bank. However, I am informed that the financial pressures of funding the company during the trade-on period following the receivers' appointment were extreme.
  The success or otherwise of the post-receivership trading was always going to depend heavily on the generation and availability of funds to meet the numerous obligations implicit in trading on the business. Quite quickly, it became impossible to maintain the size of the work force, and hon. Members will know that the receivers have found it necessary to make 280 employees redundant—148 at the Greenford plant and 67 at Knowsley.
  Fortunately, we have in place legislative provisions to mitigate the effects of redundancy in cases such as these. Under the provisions of the redundancy payments scheme, employees who are declared redundant and who satisy the qualifying conditions are entitled to a lump sum payment
  646
  calculated according to their age, length of service and rate of pay. In addition, the redundancy payment service can also pay certain debts owed to employees of insolvent employers—these include arrears of pay, accrued holiday pay and pay in lieu of notice.
  I understand that there has been a misconception in some quarters to the effect that the wheels of this scheme grind rather slowly. Of the 178 claims for redundancy pay received by the Department of Employment, 145 have already been paid; and there have also been 92 claims for insolvency payments, of which 79 have been paid.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: May I express my gratitude for that? I raised the matter the moment I knew of the problem at Greenford, and the rapid response is greatly appreciated.
  Mr. Hamilton: I am most grateful for my hon. Friend's kind remarks. I assure him that the Departments of Employment and of Trade and Industry will do their best to respond as quickly as possible if anything further can be done to benefit those who have suffered from these distressing events.
  All is not entirely lost, although I fully appreciate that the constituents of the hon. Member for Knowsley, North can derive little pleasure from the circumstances that he outlined. Hon. Members will be pleased to learn that on 16 November the receivers apparently sold the Clarke Food business to Nestle, and as a result about 300 jobs have been saved.
  I come now to the suggestion that this is a case into which the Secretary of State should initiate an immediate investigation under the Companies Acts. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but I believe any action of this sort to be premature, pre-empting, as it would, consideration by the receivers of the relevant facts. Before I clarify certain important aspects of the receivers' role, I shall outline the responsibilities of the Department's investigation branch, because in my experience there is a significant degree of misunderstanding about how investigations are set in train and about the principles on which we act to use the powers available to us.
  The hon. Gentleman asked me to investigate under the various powers that we have, but the companies investigation branch follows up investigations under the Companies Act 1985, the Companies Act 1989, the Financial Services Act 1986 and the Insurance Companies Act 1982, where appropriate. The investigative powers can be used only when the Secretary of State thinks that there is good reason to do so. In a typical case, if there are sufficient grounds to suspect fraud, misfeasance or serious misconduct, inquiries may be authorised under section 447 of the Companies Act 1985, as amended by the Companies Act 1989. Those investigations are confidential and are not generally announced. Prosecutions are instituted when the investigations bring to light misconduct of a criminal nature. The reports that the Department receives when such an investigation has been authorised are confidential. We have no powers under the Act to publish them and cannot do so.
  That pall of secrecy which inevitably surrounds the investigation under that section of the Act creates some confusion about the circumstances in which the Department can act. It often raises in the minds of those who are suspicious the inference that perhaps we have something to hide and are trying to effect a cover-up. I

  647
  assure the hon. Member for Knowsley, North that the Department has no interest whatever in covering up fraud, misfeasance or other misconduct in companies. On the contrary, in recent years we have significantly tightened the available penalties, and the circumstances in which we are able to take action against errant company directors have been significantly extended in the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986.
  Hon. Members asked my Department questions about Clarke Foods and requested an inquiry. Before any decision can be taken on whether an investigation beyond that carried out by the receiver is warranted, considerably more information will be required. I shall consider any information that has been provided in the debate and I shall carefully consider submissions by any hon. Member who would like to write to me.
  Mr. George Howarth: Will the Minister confirm that the receiver has scope in his report to cover the issue of share dealing and my allegations that there is possible evidence of insider trading? Will he also confirm that, even as this stage, he could ask for an interim report?
  Mr. Hamilton: Insider dealing is dealt with under a different section of the Companies Act, section 177. If the receiver suspects material fraud and has the evidence to back it, it is incumbent on him to present that information in his report. We would be able to take that into account in deciding whether to take action under the various powers that are available to us.
  I warn hon. Members of the danger of assuming that there is something suspicious about every insolvency. Grounds for suspicion are not made stronger merely by virtue of large sums being involved. It is important and a basic principle of natural justice that Ministers who are given these heavy responsibilities, the exercise of which can have a significant impact on those who are subjected to them, must use them conscientiously and only in circumstances where we believe it to be reasonable on the facts to do so. It would be wrong for Ministers to exercise those functions arbitrarily and in cases where they did not have to satisfy themselves that there was "a serious case to answer on the Facts as revealed to us."
  Prima facie evidence to justify an investigation cannot be gathered in every case, even though the consequences of whatever has happened have been a disaster for many people, as is the case with several hundred constituents of hon. Members who are present for the debate. We must exercise our powers within the law and must not exceed them through excessive liberality in their interpretation.
  Many companies that fail do so for genuine reasons. Insolvency is not necessarily accompanied by dishonest motives, nor are all directors of failed companies guilty of misconduct. In this instance, I must satisfy myself that the ingredients of dishonest motive, or other motives of that kind, are present before I can use these rather draconian powers. It is not a pleasant experience to be investigated under the powers of the Companies Act. The rigour of such an investigation cannot be fully appreciated unless one is involved in some capacity in the process. As the Minister responsible, I have come to understand that very well in the six months or so that I have held this office.
  In a case such as Clarke Foods where the company has gone into administrative receivership, the administrative receiver has a duty to report to the Secretary of State if he forms the view that the conduct of a director makes him
  648
  unfit to run a company. The hon. Member for Knowsley, North spoke about that. In practice, those reports are submitted to my officials in the Insolvency Service's disqualification unit. It is then a matter for the Secretary of State's discretion whether it is expedient and in the public interest to apply to the court for a disqualification order against the director who is the subject of the report. In determining the application, the court has to have regard to those aspects of conduct specifically mentioned in the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. These include breach of duty, misapplication of assets, responsibility for the causes of the company's failure, preferences and a breach of statutory duty.
  The events that the hon. Member for Knowsley, North described in respect of Mr. Clarke's other companies in the United States could not, I understand, be brought within the areas to which we have to have regard in taking decisions under legislation in this country. That is because the definition of a company for the purposes of the Act, which is set out in section 22(2), includes any company which may be wound up under part V of the Insolvency Act which applies, of course, only to companies registered in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Kilfoyle: The Minister spoke about whether it would be expedient and in the public interest for the Secretary of State to recommend an inquiry on the basis of the receiver's report. Is he now saying that the record in another country of a company director in this country has no bearing whatever, even if it involves fraud or criminal acts?
  Mr. Hamilton: I am open to correction, but my understanding of the Company Directors Disqualification Act is that the companies to which it applies are only those that are incorporated in the United Kingdom. Earlier, I said "registered": I should have said "incorporated". I shall check that matter, as I am speaking off the top of my head, and it is dangerous to do that when trying to be as helpful as possible at the Dispatch Box. If I have inadvertently misled the hon. Gentleman, I shall inform him and see what we can do to remedy the defect.
  In deciding whether disqualification proceedings should be brought the Secretary of State must have regard to a number of matters. Can he satisfy the requirements about evidence placed on him by the courts? Part of the problem that we would face in this case is the acquisition of evidence to prove that which is alleged in court. When dealing with a foreign jurisdiction, it is difficult to be sure that the facts which gave rise to an offence in another country would be relevant to a prosecution for a similar offence in this country. That is because the elements of the crime, or whatever the charge, and the standards of proof may be different. A variety of factors would have to be considered. It is not certain that the evidence to be placed before the court would necessarily be as meaningful as evidence derived from experience in relation to a British company in the United Kingdom. That is my surmise of what I understood the position to be. I shall check that to ensure that my understanding is correct.
  We should have to take into account also whether there is a reasonable prospect of the disqualification order on the company director being made. Prosecutors always have to bear that point in mind. If they believe that their prosecution will not succeed, it will not be possible for them to bring the case before the court.

  649
  We must take into account also any factors that, in the public interest, would weigh against bringing proceedings. However, if proceedings are taken and a conviction is obtained, the director is disqualified and the order that is made by the court can run for between two and 15 years. In some cases, the maximum penalty has been exacted, and that is a significant tightening of the powers in respect of misfeasance on the part of company directors, an offence that has been in existence for only four years. That shows how seriously the Government take company fraud and other malpractice.
  As the administrative receivers need time to consider all the relevant facts, the legislation allows them up to six months to do so. In the case of Clarke Foods, that period will elapse in April next year and I cannot anticipate what the receivers will find or whether they will consider it necessary to submit a report.
  Mr. George Howarth: Will the Minister confirm that he has the power to ask the administrative receivers to produce an interim report? In those circumstances, would it not be sensible to do so?
  Mr. Hamilton: I can ask the receiver to produce an interim report and, if the hon. Gentleman asks me to do so, I shall; but I cannot say whether the receivers will agree to do so.
  In all the circumstances, it would be more sensible not to pre-empt the outcome of the inquiries by proceeding with a Companies Act investigation at this stage. After all, if the receivers have discovered information that throws light on some criminal activities or some other breach of the law, they will bring that forward in due course. It would make it more difficult for us to take action that would succeed in the hon. Gentleman's aim of bringing miscreants to justice if that is what proves to be the case. I cannot prejudge the facts on the company.
  We want to ensure that all the relevant ingredients of an offence can be proved, and we shall not be able to take action until we have sufficient information to enable us to do that. I wonder how far an interim report would help to take us further down the road towards a realisation of the hon. Gentleman's objective, which is the same as mine—to ensure that if there has been wrongdoing, it is exposed and, where possible, punished.
  I take seriously the points made by all hon. Members in the debate and, although I cannot prejudge what may be discovered, I shall give them the promise that if we discover wrongdoing and form the view, in conscientious exercise of our power, that disqualification proceedings or further action should be taken, the Department will have no hesitation in taking it.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: The request made by the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) and my
  650
  hon. Friend's response are of the utmost importance. None the less, as far as I can see, they will not be putting any money back into the pockets of the work force, which is what those workers will be most concerned about. Will my hon. Friend support my moral contention that someone, somewhere, ought to support an ex gratia payment to the work force?
  Mr. Hamilton: It would be wrong for me to give an opinion on that. If there is no legal obligation on any company to make a payment, it would be improper for Ministers to lean on it and exert what my hon. Friend calls moral pressure. It is for him to make the case, as I am sure that he has been doing and will continue to do, that his constituents deserve an ex gratia payment. However, it is not for Ministers to use their position to influence companies or private individuals to do more than the law requires. That would be to abuse the power of my office. because I would have no means to distinguish in different cases between deserving and undeserving cases, especially where there are significant elements of subjectivity.
  Mr. Kilfoyle: Is not the crux of such problems, which occur far too often, that, right at the back of the queue in all the assessments—legal, moral or whatever—are the employees? Commitments to the employees go out the window with the start of the legal arguments about the responsibility on one company in a takeover of another. In this instance, I am sure that Mr. Clarke will thrive and prosper no matter what he does but, as the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) said, the employees will suffer.
  Mr. Hamilton: It is incontestable that the employees are already suffering. In so far as they become creditors of the company, they are not treated any differently from any other creditors. They are not disadvantaged through being employees. Through the Insolvency Act 1986, which was a significant reform of the law, we have tried to reduce the number of preferred creditors so as not to disadvantage individuals who might not be as able to defend their own interests as some of the public authorities or companies that might be preferred creditors of the company concerned.
  I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's implication that, under the present law, insolvency provisions discriminate against employees. They are in the same position as other creditors, but many of their rights are protected by law—for example, under the redundancy payments schemes—and the Department of Employment will make the necessary payments to them.
  All hon. Members can sympathise with that. Unfortunately, I can do little more than express that sympathy, but I reiterate the promise that I gave before my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North intervened. If any wrongdoing is revealed, and we can take action, we shall not hesitate to do so.

  Small Businesses (Deregulation)
  7.28 pm
  Mr. Gyles Brandreth: Despite having the dubious distinction of once featuring in "The Guinness Book of Records" for making the longest-ever after-dinner speech, when I spoke non-stop for 12½ hours, I shall not be detaining the House for long tonight. However, I welcome the opportunity to bring the House a message from Chester, and in particular the Chester chamber of commerce. This body of men and women are men and women who, when the business community is referred to, like to be known as "the business community" or "business people" rather than business men. That is an aside, but an important one. Ministers often refer to the business community as business men, just as they refer to consumers as housewives. The business community is the business community and consumers are consumers.
  The Minister knows that the business community in Chester is active and articulate because recently, in his dual role with responsibilities for corporate affairs and for the north-west, he came to Chester for a lively and useful dialogue with the chamber of commerce, in which we exchanged views, and I reckon that he learnt a great deal.
  The message that I bring from Chester, and from the chamber of commerce, is simply this: it is vitally important for the burdens imposed on business by Government to be kept to an absolute minimum. That applies particularly to small businesses, which form the backbone of our corporate life in Chester. Small businesses simply have not the resources to spend a lot of time filling in forms that serve little or no useful purpose.
  I have been in business myself. I recall that, at the time of the 1987 general election, only some 21 per cent. of new Members of Parliament had had any experience of business or manufacturing, but I know that people who are in business from day to day do not want to have to fill in endless forms. The Government can take some credit for moving in the right direction: deregulation has been an important element of Government strategy since 1979, and advances have been made, from the abolition of exchange controls to the withdrawal of some 5,000 business forms. Nevertheless, there is always the danger of new regulations creeping into the system—regulations that are either too complicated or simply unnecessary. They can come from a range of sources: national Government, local government, bye-laws and EC directives.
  Tomorrow, I shall present a ten-minute Bill which aims to introduce plain language to commercial contracts. Tonight, on behalf of small businesses, I urge the Minister to ensure that what regulations do exist are kept as simple as possible. I salute the Department of Trade and Industry for what has been achieved so far.
  Earlier today, I had the pleasure and privilege of presenting the 13th annual plain English awards. I was but a poor substitute for the Prince of Wales—or the Earl of Chester, as some of us like to think of him—who was unable to attend, and sent his apologies. I will quote those apologies, because they are relevant to the debate. The Prince of Wales wrote, from Kensington Palace:
  "Due to a frequent regrettable inability to prevent my presence in other locations, I find that I must convey to you my goodwill in a correspondence format. It was when I was still a juvenile future constitutional figurehead substitute that I first became sensitised by mother-tongue abuse awareness. How many of us, I wonder, when faced with pretentious
  652
  gobbledegook and empty jargon, experience a kick start into despair mode? My feelings towards all of you at today's Awards are, attitudinally, those of enormous encouragement … God bless the Plain English Campaign."
  I do not quite say, "God bless the Department of Trade and Industry", but I do salute Companies house, which is an executive agency of the DTI. It produces a lot of information to help companies avoid the many pitfalls of company law. A Companies house document won an award today: it is called "10 excuses for not filling company accounts and what Companies house thinks of them". I salute the DTI agency. During my short time in the House, I have noticed that hon. Members spend a great deal of time criticising Government agencies and flinging brickbats, and I think the occasional bouquet is in order. A bouquet was certainly forthcoming today, because this no-nonsense booklet gets its point across. It carefully demolishes the 10 most common excuses for not filing company accounts—and it is put in simple language too. I am pleased to say that it is one of those Government documents that are as modern as tomorrow, while being presented in a very simple style. It has not opted for an unnecessary use of colour, but it is quite legible.
  The booklet begins by telling us that this is not just a "lot of red tape". It then tells us why, taking us through all the excuses that small businesses use for not filling in forms. For example, they may say, "I cannot afford it". The answer comes back,
  "Can you afford not to? Apart from risking a fine and a criminal conviction, think of the impression that your failure to file accounts gives to those you do business with. And its effect on your credit rating."
  There is the answer—in a couple of dozen words, not of gobbledegook but of straightforward business talk.
  The last of the 10 excuses for not filing accounts really sums up the no-nonsense approach of the booklet. The reply to the excuse
  "I didn't know I had to"
  is "You do now." I hope that the Minister will pass on my congratulations to the head of the London office of Companies house, Alan Bryant, on the work that he and his team did in producing such a clear leaflet. We want more clear leaflets.
  Mr. William O'Brien: This document is obviously important to small businesses. Does it refer to the forms that are sent to small businesses, particularly those in the building trade, by water authorities demanding information about certain matters? What does the DTI say to bodies unconnected with Government that demand form filling and lengthy question answering before small businesses can operate?
  Mr. Brandreth: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The leaflet to which I have referred is designed to encourage small businesses to file their accounts properly, and it explains to them, in straightforward business terms, why it is important for them to do so. There are many regulations that we do not like, but I think that I am right in saying that the Government are not anti-regulation; they want deregulation—fewer regulations, simpler regulations and only the necessary regulations. I regard the filing of a VAT return to Customs and Excise on a quarterly basis as a necessary evil: it has spin-off benefits for small businesses, because it can help them to keep their accounts more effectively.

  653
  The point made by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) is not answered in the leaflet, but I hope that the Minister will answer it, because I consider it valid.
  We want simple forms, and we want as few of them as possible. We also want as few regulations as possible. One of the problems of the Minister's very existence is that, because he exists, he has work to do. I trust that he is working for his own redundancy: we want to secure sufficient deregulation not to need a Minister for deregulation any longer, the whole thing having become sufficiently simplified for him to be able to move on to even greater things in a Government whom he already adorns with such style, distinction, acumen and scholarship. Having buttered up the Minister to such an extent, I hope that I will get the right answers from him later—otherwise Chester will want to know why not!
  Some of the regulations about which my constituency complain have turned out to be phantom regulations. I received a number of telephone calls, and several letters, a week or two ago, following a television report that was shown in the north west. It may have been seen in other parts of the country. It featured a European Community regulation which, apparently, would require fishermen—I suppose that, in this context, I must tolerate the use of the word "fishermen" rather than the word "fisherperson"—to wear hairnets. The programme showed fishermen wearing hairnets, looking embarrassed and running down the regulation. I was of course appalled to discover that the European Community was insisting that fishermen wear hairnets, but it turned out not to be true—it was one of many phantom regulations.
  The Community has agreed that there should be a high standard of cleanliness on board fishing vessels but that does not mean that fishermen must wear hairnets. It is left to member states to decide the appropriate standards of hygiene. I understand from the Department of Trade and Industry that headgear is not included. I imagine that the measure was confused with a directive agreed last year on hygiene standards for fish processing and packaging plants on land, which is an example of necessary regulation. We all want high standards of hygiene and business requires them—that is the fine line which must be drawn between unnecessary regulations and regulations that will lift standards and improve life for businesses.
  It was extraordinary that in the same post I received letters telling me that jams and cakes sold on charity stalls would need to comply with European Community labelling requirements. Again, I was requested to speak to the Minister in charge of deregulation to ensure that that was one of the first regulations that he repealed. It turns out that it was another phantom regulation. Food sold on charity stalls for the benefit of a society officially registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 or food sold for anything other than commercial gain at, for example, school fetes and church bazaars—the type of event which we are rather good at in Chester—is exempted from the general labelling requirements which are designed to assist the consumer. Therefore, it is not a regulation that needs to be withdrawn.
  I sometimes feel that as a country we always want to believe the worst in everything. We half want such regulations to be true so that we can complain about them,
  654
  like people who enjoy collecting examples of gobbledegook because it is fun to mock them. I want to see the best in everything. I know that under their deregulation initiative, the Government are working to minimise the administrative and regulatory burdens on business and to cut unnecessary and outdated regulation by improving the focus and administration of essential regulation. We accept that some regulation is necessary but please, let us keep it to a minimum by taking into account the views of business people when framing new policies and regulations, especially with regard to the potential cost of compliance.
  I salute the Minister because it is one thing to say that one will take into account the views of business and welcome letters from people saying what they want, but it is another to travel to a chamber of commerce meeting—as he did—and listen to and make note of what people said and promise to take action. I shall prove how effective the Minister can be and he can confirm the veracity of what I am about to say.
  During the meeting at Chester college of further education there were repeated demands for a cut in interest rates. The Minister had to take a break and left the room. He returned half an hour later bringing news from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, during the meeting, the decision had been taken to bring down interest rates by a further percentage point. He is very much a Minister who delivers, and the Chester chamber of commerce sends a serious message of gratitude.
  To operate effectively, businesses need rules and regulations, but they need them to be kept to an absolute minimum. Those which are enforced should be clear, simple and light.
  7.44 pm
  Mr. William O'Brien: We are fortunate to have the opportunity to discuss deregulation as it affects small businesses. The hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) mentioned a number of reasons for deregulation, but regulations covering small businesses involve Departments other than the Department of Trade and Industry. The Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs may be responsible for deregulation, but other Departments are involved in creating regulations which target small businesses.
  The hon. Member for City of Chester mentioned the Treasury and told the story of how the Minister left a meeting in Chester and returned to say that the Chancellor had just announced a reduction in interest rates. Clearly, one must take the Treasury into account when considering small businesses. From time to time, there is a need for more regulation of small businesses, especially when banks are involved. On 27 October I wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer requesting that he take action against banks which were levying exorbitant charges on small businesses.
  A constituent had written to tell me that a bank had raised its charges by 500 per cent. in one quarter earlier this year. If there is a call for regulation involving small businesses, it is to ensure that banks cannot attack small businesses in such a way. Banks may be having difficulties in making ends meet, but it should not be taken out on small businesses.
  When considering deregulation, I hope that the Minister will consider a point made by a Treasury colleague who, in a letter to me dated 13 November—only

  655
  a few days ago—wrote that it was impossible for the Government to intervene when banks applied such pressure on small businesses. He stated:
  "I am afraid that there is nothing directly that the Government can do to help since the level of charges applied by the banks for particular services is a matter for the commercial judgment of the banks and is not something in which the Government can intervene."
  If there is a need for regulation, it is on the issue of bank charges.
  When a small business person enters into an agreement with a bank, certain assurances are given, but the bank has the power to increase its charges without notice to the client. Although I agree with the principle beind the debate—deregulation of Government intervention in small businesses—there is sometimes a need for additional regulation and, from time to time, the Government should consider what small businesses have to face.
  One of the highlights of this period is the fact that small businesses are finding it difficult to make ends meet and to keep themselves alive. The reason is invariably that they are subcontracted to large undertakings that go into liquidation, which has an effect on small businesses. Reducing regulations is important, but the Minister should consider additional regulations where necessary. The banks impose exorbitant charges for their services. A regulation should be introduced to control bank charges and the Government should intervene to ensure that there is fair play at all times between banks and small businesses.
  Another question concerns Government regulations on the rating of small businesses. I realise that it is riot the Minister's Department that issues regulations in that respect for small businesses. The hon. Member for City of Chester referred to the Treasury, and I accept that Treasury regulations need to apply to small businesses. The Department of the Environment also issues regulations concerning small businesses.
  I hope that the Minister will analyse the regulations that apply to small businesses, especially the uniform business rate. All non-domestic rates are paid directly to the Government. Small businesses, often as a result of Government policy, find it difficult to continue in business because the rates demand means that about one third of their income is taken by rates. There is need to reconsider the regulations that control the rates for small businesses.
  The Government's philosophy, which I do not support, is that large companies should pay the rate poundage as small companies do. In many instances, about 30 per cent. of the profits of small companies are taken to pay the rates. For large companies, the sum needed to pay the rates may be only about 3 per cent. of their profits. There is an anomaly there.
  The regulations on non-domestic rates should be reconsidered. If small companies have difficulties in making ends meet, the regulations should be amended so that such companies can have a rate rebate to help them over a difficult period. Such a measure could be introduced in co-operation with local government. There is no reason why the Government should not consider a rate rebate for small businesses.
  I assume that there is a periodic review of how the uniform business rate applies to small businesses. The Minister should examine the possibility of giving a rate rebate to businesses that are in difficulties. I make that point because the Government encouraged people to invest in small businesses. Many people in my constituency
  656
  and elsewhere mortgaged their homes and everything they had to set themselves up in business. As a result of recession and hardship, families lose everything if the businesses goes into liquidation. A little Government help in the form of a rate rebate might have got them over a difficult period. When the Minister considers the question of regulation, or deregulation, he shoould consider carefully whether there should be a rate rebate for businesses that find themselves in difficulties.
  The Minister should also give further consideration to the question of loans to businesses. The hon. Member for City of Chester gave the example of the Minister advising Cheshire chamber of commerce of a reduction of 1 per cent. in the bank rate. All the Minister had to do was to go outside, lift up the telephone and talk to the Chancellor of the Exchequer or to Treasury officials. The Minister should discuss with his Treasury colleagues the possibility of there being a sliding scale under which small businesses which are having difficulties could be given a concession in the form of a reduction in interest charges. Over the past few years, interest charges for small businesses have been very high.
  In an intervention, I spoke about the attitude of water companies. I accept that the Government can act only on the regulations for which they are responsible, but I assume that there is nothing to stop the Government considering the legislation that controls the utilities, especially the water companies. There should be a regulation that prevents the water companies from putting pressures on small businesses in the shape of the forms and questionnaires that they have to complete. Small companies should be allowed to continue in business without having such demands placed on them, expecially by the water companies.
  Yorkshire Water is responsible for the control of effluent in my constituency. Yorkshire Water demands that companies put money up front. In one case, a small company could not meet all the demands. Some 90 jobs were lost because the water authority could not and would not help that small company. One reason is that Yorkshire Water has a monopoly. Although I represent a constituent who is having difficulty with the water authority, I could not raise the matter in the House with any Minister. This is the only opportunity I have had to present my constituent's case. We are talking about deregulation, but there may be a case to introduce regulations to control the monopoly position of water companies and of other utilities.
  It is all very well for Ministers to say that there is a regulator for the water industry. The question is, who regulates the regulator? Who tells the regulator what is fair and what is wrong? Conservative Members support competition, but there is no competition in the water industry. The Minister responsible for deregulation should consider the way in which the water industry affects small businesses.
  A few years ago, the association that represents small businesses called for the appointment of a Minister for Small Businesses. Conservative Members often refer to the last Labour Government. However, 13 years ago the last Labour Government had a Minister responsible for small businesses, but the Government have abolished that position.
  I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of the hon. Member for City of Chester about small businesses. lie admitted that he was involved with small businesses before

  657
  he became a Member of this House. If he believes that small businesses should be fully represented, the Government must consider appointing a Minister responsible for small businesses who would answer questions about small businesses at the Dispatch Box.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs is halfway there as he is responsible for the interests of small businesses and for the regulations that apply to them. However, that does not go far enough. Perhaps we should consider the appointment of a Minister responsible for the interests of small businesses in total.
  This debate is significant and important and I hope that the Minister will consider the issues that cause serious concern among many people who we represent in small businesses. We have been told that at least 70 to 80 small buinsesses go into liquidation each day as a result of the recession. We must do something to help those people and we can do that by pleading with the Minister to consider the regulations and, where they need amending to help small businesses, to amend them and where they need abolishing to help small businesses, to abolish them.
  I hope that some action will be taken to help small businesses to survive because the Government have made it difficult for the small businesses that were encouraged to develop in the 1980s. The Government are now turning their back on them. They are not prepared to help them in any way, shape or form.
  I hope that the Minister will consider my points about the banks and bank charges and about water companies and water charges. I hope that the Minister will consider the need for more investigation into the difficulties that small businesses face. The Government should introduce a rebate scheme to help small businesses over difficult periods.
  Those are not unreasonable requests. The Government could attend to those issues without much difficulty. If the Government paid as much attention to the survival of small businesses as they paid to the survival of the pound on black Wednesday a few weeks ago, the country would be better off and small businesses would have a better opportunity to continue to be the backbone of the economy. I hope that the Minister will consider the points that I have made.
  8.3 pm
  Mr. Mike Hall: It is a privilege to take part in this debate about the future of small businesses. The hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) considered the effects of deregulation on the small business community and my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) gave the Minister practical examples of how we might help small businesses in the British economy.
  It is also a privilege to participate in this debate because the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs, who is to reply, is the Minister responsible for small businesses. I have been advised that he is also the Minister responsible for the north-west. He is also a fellow Cheshire Member. I want to focus on the protection of small businesses and my remarks will have as much bearing on the Minister's constituency and that of the hon. Member for City of Chester as they will on mine.
  658
  I ask the Minister for practical help in relation to the protection of small businesses. He should use the powers of the Department of Trade and Industry to intervene in respect of what might be considered a larger fish in this particular pond.
  I sought an assurance from the Prime Minister in Prime Minister's Question Time that he would intervene on behalf of the future of ICI which employs 4,000 people in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) in the chlora-alkali factory in Runcorn. The great majority of my constituents work in that factory which has seen a 60 per cent. increase in its electricity prices since April 1991. If it cannot negotiate a reduction in electricity prices or benefit from bulk purchases, 4,000 jobs will go at Runcorn ICI.
  One can imagine the impact of that loss of productive capacity on the small businesses in Runcorn and, more generally, on the small businesses in the north-west. That loss may also have an adverse effect on the British economy and that would have a major effect on small businesses in general.
  Another 3,000 ICI workers are involved in associated productions with the chora-alkali factory. It has been estimated that between 10,000 and 17,000 jobs will be lost in associated production if ICI closes the factory in Runcorn. That haemorrhage of jobs will have a major impact on the small business community in the north-west and particularly in my constituency as 16,000 of my electors live in the Runcorn area.
  I want the Minister to focus on the following statistic when he considers how best to help small businesses in my community. In my part of the Runcorn constituency unemployment is 17·4 per cent. and that costs £13,554,000 in unemployment benefit and lost taxation. That amount of money is being taken away from the local economy and paid in unemployment benefit. It could be better spent to protect the small business community.
  If the Minister is horrified at that statistic, he should consider what would happen if ICI closed the chlora-alkali factory. If we consider the associated job losses in small businesses that supply ICI, we are looking at £153 million or perhaps £198 million in money lost to the Government.
  The Government could intervene and secure the future for ICI and, therefore, the future of small businesses in the community. The chlora-alkali factory in Runcorn uses 1 per cent. of the production of the national grid. If the factory closes, that 1 per cent. of national grid production will not be purchased and that will force up electricity prices for small businesses throughout the United Kingdom. The Minister should use his powers in the Department of Trade and Industry to intervene in that respect.
  I welcome the President of the Board of Trade saying that he would intervene to protect industry before breakfast, before dinner and before tea. Intervening in big business—in respect of ICI—would have a major effect on securing the future of small businesses in my constituency.
  I suspect that the Government may already have decided that they are not going to intervene. In a letter to the leader of Halton borough council about the future of ICI, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment, Viscount Ullswater, stated:
  "Should major redundancies occur, then the Employment Service (ES) and local Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs) offer a wide range of options to help unemployed people find jobs, retrain or set up businesses on their own …

  659
  'Local Action for Employment—Tackling Job Losses', which sets out the way in which TECs, the ES and Local Action Groups are helping individuals and communities respond to job losses."
  The best way to respond to the potential loss of small businesses in Runcorn and elsewhere in the north-west is for the Government to intervene in a major way on behalf of ICI.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Neil Hamilton): I am listening to the hon. Gentleman with great care. For greater clarification and so I can give some thought to the matter, which particular powers available to us in the DTI would the hon. Gentleman like us to use which would not fall foul of European Community competition law?
  Mr. Hall: I am grateful for the Minister's intervention. I shall conclude my contribution by saying precisely why the Department of Trade and Industry should intervene and why that would be possible without offending EC regulations. The Minister should be a little more patient as I do not have much longer to speak.
  ICI wrote to me and to the Minister concerned, because he is a Cheshire Member whose constituency is affected by the problem, saying:
  "You will probably also be aware of the threat which this poses to the entire sector of UK manufacturing industry which is based upon the chlora-alkali manufacture".
  That affects small and large businesses alike and it is relevant to the debate. The second paragraph of the letter states:
  "In attempting to address this problem, ICI has had extensive discussions with the Generators, the RECs and the Regulator, but has been unable to find a solution within the current regulatory framework. The only possible route to a solution now lies through intervention by the Department of Trade and Industry with whom discussions continue."
  The hon. Member for City of Chester said that burdens placed upon businesses must be kept to an absolute minimum. I agree with that. The burden that has been placed upon ICI with regard to the price that it must pay for its electricity could have a major impact on the small business community in my constituency. When I asked the Prime Minister to intervene, he said:
  "I cannot intervene in the way in which the hon. Gentleman invites me to, and it would not be right for me to do so."—[Official Report, 19 November 1992; Vol. 214, c. 409.]
  PowerGen and National Power, from whom ICI directly buys its electricity, are 40 per cent. owned by the Government. The Government are the major shareholder. In consultation with the Prime Minister, the DTI could exercise its rights as the major shareholder to ensure that ICI is given a fair deal on electricity prices. To refuse to intervene in that way would condemn 4,000 direct jobs, 3,000 associated jobs in ICI, and 10,000 to 15,000 other jobs.
  Mr. Neil Hamilton: What impact would it have in Brussels if we were to do as the hon. Gentleman invites us? What would Sir Leon Brittan, the competition commissioner, have to say to the Government?
  Mr. Hall: The straightforward answer is that it would be wrong for me to presume what Sir Leon Brittan might say—I am not in a position to do so. I guess that he would be very supportive. He would see nothing wrong in ICI
  660
  being given a bulk-purchase discount, because bulk-purchase discounts are a feature of the business community writ large. I am sure that that feature is prominent also in France and Germany.
  The Minister could give an assurance that he will intervene because of the potentially large number of job losses in the constituency of Halton, in my own constituency, and in the constituencies of Tatton, City of Chester and Ellesmere Port and Neston. I would be grateful if, at this late stage, he would intervene on behalf of small and big businesses alike. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to address the House.
  8.12 pm
  Mr. Ian McCartney: It is a great pleasure to take part in the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As one who is active in a small business called Featherstone Rovers, I commiserate in yesterday's result in Lancashire. St. Helens took them to pieces. Hon. Members can rest assured that Featherstone Rovers will once again represent successful small business in terms of winning rugby league cups.
  The debate has been good-hearted. Behind the hype on the two Front Benches there is much common ground about how to develop small businesses and find practical ways and means to bring about partnership arrangements in the public and private sectors to develop local economies and the key role that small businesses play in local economies. I remember watching the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) as the agony aunt on TV-am when I was hospitalised for a long period. The hon. Gentleman kept me going in the mornings between the painkillers and the nurse manipulating my back. I thank him for that brief respite from the rigours of treatment.
  If we are to reach common agreement about the role of small business and its relationship with the public and private sectors, whether large-scale or medium-scale companies as subcontractors or directly providing goods and services, particularly in the north-west and in the Yorkshire, Humberside and northern regions, we have to accept that the small businesses that were created in the 1980s are now under great strain. Thousands have already gone to the wall. Consequently, there has been a loss of employment opportunities for people in already devastated communities, and the individuals who ran small businesses have lost not only their businesses but their homes, their life savings and their resources. On many occasions, they have lost redundancy payments.
  One reason for that is the Government's colossal mistake in terms of interest rates. Interest rates have come down recently, but for tens of thousands of businesses it was too late. Businesses that are still struggling need further information from the Government on what they intend to do. Businesses are hanging on by their fingertips. They need information to be able to continue and, when we come out of recession, to be involved in the development of our local industrial base. The other reason is the way in which large institutions treat small businesses. Big business, month after month, failed to pay for the goods and services provided by small companies. In my constituency, companies have literally gone to the wall or have had to shed labour simply because larger companies have regularly refused to pay for goods and services. The Government owe it to small businesses to provide greater

  661
  protection when large companies use small businesses as a free banking system and thereby risk the good management and financial stability of small companies.
  The DTI has responsibility for small businesses and large manufacturing industries not only in the regions of Scotland and Wales but in Northern Ireland. In my area, by deliberate Government policy, large companies have suffered severe difficulties, and that has undermined the fabric of the local economy and risked substantial numbers of small businesses. When I became a Member of Parliament, my area contained more than 10 collieries either within its boundaries or in its travel-to-work area. Parkside colliery, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans), was the last colliery in the Lancashire coalfield to remain open, and it is now one of the 10 under threat of closure in the 90-day procedures.
  Mr. Hall: Will my hon. Friend consider the future of the Point of Ayr colliery in north Wales? It sells 80 per cent. of its coal to Fiddlers Ferry power station, which is also threatened and might face a similar fate as that of the Parkside miners.
  Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I relate that remark to the position of subcontracting small businesses and what is happening to them during the 90-day period, to what is happening to the long-wall mining subcontractors and main contractors, and to the small companies that provide goods and services to them, and to the need for the Government to take some logical decisions.
  Mr. William O'Brien: I am listening carefully to what my hon. Friend is saying. He is following the track that I laid, which is that, although the Minister may be responsible for deregulating small businesses, there is a need for additional regulations to defend the mining machinery industry and other industries for which protection is necessary. The Minister should take that issue on board. I wonder whether my hon. Friend would consider that matter.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the debate is about deregulation as it relates to small businesses, so he should confine his remarks to that.
  Mr. McCartney: I am well aware of the content of the debate, and I do not intend to stray from it. It is important to highlight the fact that we can regulate to assist some small businesses and deregulate some of them when regulation does not assist them.
  The regulatory body for the coal industry has failed, which has resulted in tens of thousands of jobs in small businesses and mining communities being threatened. Many of those jobs have already gone. In my constituency, and in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Wigan (Mr. Stott) and for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe), Gullick Dobson is a classic example of a company whose future is at stake because of the way in which the electricity supply industry's regulatory body has interpreted the electricity regulations. In the past few years since the introduction of privatisation, Gullick Dobson has shed 70 per cent. of its work force and its United Kingdom market has shrunk to virtually nothing. Because of that shrinkage,
  662
  the whole concept of its export market is put at risk. Its inability to have a market at home means that it cannot produce for an overseas market.
  Many small businesses, such as fitters' companies, shot blasters, machine tool companies and transportation companies, are linked to the long-wall mining industry. In turn, they are linked to the decisions of the regulator through the Department of Trade and Industry because the mining industry is the largest employer. Therefore, there is a direct link between deregulation of large companies and the consequences for small companies when the regulatory machinery fails.
  Another example of the failure of regulatory machinery which threatens the financial viability of small businesses is the regulatory body for tariffs and small users of electricity. It is scandalous that companies such as the North Western electricity board, the Merseyside and North-Western electricity board, the Eastern electricity board and the South-Eastern electricity board impose substantial tariffs that undermine the financial viability of small companies. The viability of local economies is threatened by such companies because they have a monopoly of the supply of electricity.
  The electricity suppliers make huge profits. Competitors abroad cannot believe their luck when they see what the British regulatory framework and the electricity supply industry do to large, medium and small businesses.
  It is outrageous that the regulatory body has failed to take into account the effect of the pricing policy on small businesses. Having seen that effect, the President of the Board of Trade has failed to take any action against the regulator to rein in the profit-making activities of the supply industry which undermine small businesses in the United Kingdom.
  Another sector in which a lack of regulation has affected small businesses is the housing investment programme of the Department of the Environment. The Minister should speak to the Secretary of State for the Environment about how the regulations have been framed and how local authorities disperse the resources for the housing investment programme. Millions of pounds which would go directly to small businesses in the private sector for housing refurbishment, housing development, new starts and new partnership schemes between the public and private sectors and the private and voluntary sectors have been held up. Those programmes will not take place as a result of the way in which the Government operate the housing investment programme.
  If we are serious about getting out of the recession, we must recognise that one of the main vehicles is the businesses in the building supply and construction industries. The Minister knows that small businesses in the north-west are contracted to large companies, local authorities and housing associations which work in the voluntary sector. The Minister could make a dramatic input into the recovery by persuading his colleagues in the Department of the Environment to take some action.
  Mr. Hall: Does my hon. Friend agree that one way of stimulating small businesses is to allow housing investment programmes to introduce capital repair schemes, which are much easier and quicker to introduce than capital projects? Capital projects may take two or three years to come to fruition.
  Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend was a member of a finance committee of a local authority before coming here. He is absolutely right. The Government have suggested that the Conservative party is the party of small business and enterprise. However, when we see Conservative Members in action, we find that they are not the party of small business. Some of their activities and the way in which they interpret things are anti-enterprise. They believe that any investment in the public sector is bad, even though that investment goes directly through the local authority and the voluntary sector into the private sector.
  Most of the public sector investment is picked up by small businesses in the private sector. The Government's ideological excuses and policies are a major stumbling block to small businesses in the construction industry. The Government owe it to the industry and those who are employed in it to conduct a serious review of their policies.
  The President of the Board of Trade needs to talk to the Secretary of State for the Environment about the regulation of city grants. The regulations were introduced to ensure that capital projects took place in areas in which the Government deemed it necessary to build a local infrastructure. The regulations related to investment in which there was a direct input by the private sector, a direct benefit of jobs through the private sector and, especially, the creation of small businesses in the area designated by the Secretary of State for the grants.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan and his constituents, and my other colleagues in the north-west who represent areas which are taking part in the city grants, now find that the Department of the Environment is reinterpreting the regulations, which undermines confidence about the development of joint projects with small businesses in the community. That is unacceptable. We will not argue about whether city grants should be made available.
  If the grants are part and parcel of the Government's policy because the major beneficiaries in the community are small businesses, why do they not just get on with it? Why do not the Government allocate the resources and say to local authorities, training agencies in the community and private firms involved in joint projects, "Here are the resources. Go away and get on with the job."? The Government should stop getting on the back of local authorities every five minutes of the day, changing decisions and rescheduling where the money should be spent. That undermines the extent to which small businesses in the community can bounce back.
  Opposition Members do not accept that all that is necessary to rebuild the economy of Britain is to create 1 million small businesses. It was not true in the 1980s when Mrs. Thatcher said it; it is not true now. However, small businesses must be part and parcel of the overall economic objective to work with and link in with medium-sized and large companies, with the private sector and the public sector. With such a partnership it is possible to develop job opportunities for young people, people with skills, semi-skilled people, women and ethnic minorities.
  Unless the Government take on that challenge we shall come back next year to unemployment at 4 million, growing desperation in the communities of the north-west and another lost opportunity. It will be another decade of young people without hope or opportunity. That is the challenge for the Government.
  The challenge is not to take regulation off the back of industry. It is to work side by side with industry to develop
  664
  new jobs, new opportunities and new markets. If the Government can meet the challenge, they will go some way towards removing the misery of mass unemployment in our region.
  8.31 pm
  Mr. Andrew Miller: I offer my apologies to the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) for missing the first few minutes of his speech. I was in a meeting with a Minister to discuss a case which is a spin-off from the collapse of a small business and has had an effect on the domestic affairs of some of my constituents. I am grateful for the time that I spent with the Minister discussing that matter.
  I have a particular interest in small businesses engaged in high technology. It is ironic that the debate was introduced by the hon. Member for City of Chester whom, as my neighbour, I have come to know reasonably well. I noted that a review in a magazine of a piece of software manufactured by a small business described the software as being somewhat like the hon. Member for City of Chester—"erudite as it is annoying."
  I join the hon. Member for City of Chester in calling for deregulation and improvement of the resources and facilities available to small businesses, many of which in our area are suffering for some of the reasons that have been described by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  Businesses are suffering as a result partly of the regulatory regimes in force and partly of the spin-off of changes which impact on large industries which are themselves regulated. My. hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) made that point in the context of ICI. My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) made the point in the context of the coal industry.
  I recently met the Neston and Parkgate chamber of trade. The Minister represents a seat in the north-west so he will know that part of Cheshire; it is one of the nicest parts. The chamber of trade made several points which impact on the debate. It made precisely the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) about bank charges. It saw the problem in two ways. The first was the lack of control of banks. Banks can levy outrageous and variable interest rates and charges associated with the activities of small businesses in an unstructured way.
  It also saw the problem in comparison with the system in other countries. The Minister asked in an intervention what he could do on some of the European issues. The chamber of trade made a comparison with the position in Germany. It is well known that small and large businesses in Germany can have assistance from the banking sector spread over a much longer period than is normally the case in the United Kingdom. Although that problem does not stem directly from the regulatory regime, the Minister and his colleagues from other Departments could take steps that would be of use to small businesses.
  The chamber of trade also noted that several small businesses in the area had been set up by people who had received redundancy payments from larger companies which had shed labour for one reason or another. One of the most common factors in my area is that companies decide to dispose of what they describe as non-core activities. Those activities still have to be undertaken and

  665
  small enterprises often do so. On the face of it they are self contained but often they operate under the constraints and indirect management of the large companies for which they provide services.
  There is a powerful argument that contracts established between small businesses and large multinationals in such circumstances should be controlled so that the small business is not so beholden to the large multinational that it cannot conduct its affairs in a fair and competitive way.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton also mentioned delays in payment by large companies. That is indirectly related to the regulatory regime. Small businesses often find themselves indirectly the bankers of the large multinationals by virtue of the policy of delayed payment of invoices and charges that they have incurred. That is a matter in which the Government could intervene directly by either introducing regulations or providing in the next Budget to ensure that small businesses are protected from such practices. It is clear that such practices are not only anti-competitive but can put small businesses out of existence.
  Another aspect of the debate emerged today in a letter from one of my constituents. Mr. Brown has a small shoe repairing business. He wrote to me today saying that the proposed regulations on Sunday trading could put him out of business. I am aware that Sunday trading is not the subject of the debate but it must be considered when the House discusses the Sunday trading proposals. Whatever regulatory regime we decide to accept, we must take into account The small business sector. We cannot base our decisions solely on the interests of large supermarket chains, but must consider those of the entire retail and supply sector.
  Mr. Neil Hamilton indicated assent.
  Mr. Miller: I see the Minister nodding. That will be an important aspect of the Sunday trading debate.
  Small businesses often tell me about their difficulties in getting what they see as a fair share of training resources. We have been told that the provision of the training and enterprise councils should have ensured that that problem did not exist. Many small businesses feel that they are disadvantaged over access to training, when compared with the local major players. Perhaps the Minister should study the regulatory regime which covers the TECs to ensure that small businesses are provided for adequately.
  Several hon. Members have mentioned the building industry and clearly many small building companies are in extreme difficulties. The regulatory regimes that affect them could be improved and enhanced. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield said, their needs go far beyond the realms of this debate.
  The hon. Member for City of Chester referred to various phantom regulations. We can all quote chapter and verse of wonderful European Community stories, which inevitably turn out to be untrue, but are spread around by people—including some hon. Members—who do not have Europe at the centre of their hearts or wish to be at the heart of Europe. However, there are many real, and in some cases perfectly reasonable, regulations which need careful consideration.
  Neston is a beautiful sandstone town. I am sure that the hon. Member for City of Chester knows it, and as we both
  666
  have an interest in historic buildings, I am sure that he would agree that no one would want the character of such a town to be destroyed. The small traders of Neston have a difficulty. They want to improve security and shuttering at night because of increased crime levels, which have affected many constituencies. The local authority has said, reasonably, that because of the nature of the town and the character of the buildings it would be totally improper to make the place look like Fort Knox of an evening. The town needs to retain its character. No one in the House is likely to disagree about the fact that the aspirations of both parties are reasonable. The Minister could help small businesses by seeking ways to intervene to assist financing of projects when the interests of small businesses are in conflict with those of the national heritage.
  I do not suggest that he should bail out large multinationals in such circumstances, but there is a powerful argume.t for better protection for the small enterprises which form the core of many of our small historic towns. As he is a Cheshire Member, I am sure that the Minister knows Neston. Perhaps there could be some improvement in the regulations governing the conduct of small businesses when they conflict with the proper interests of national heritage.
  The hon. Member for City of Chester and I share another interest—the development of plain English, although sometimes his version does not coincide absolutely with mine. It is clear that many small businesses suffer because the forms and documents that they have to fill in are over-complicated and require them to engage laywers unnecessarily and at great expense. There is a powerful argument for regulations to require all Government Departments to ensure that documentation, wherever possible, will not require small businesses to involve expensive lawyers. That is not a plea for keeping lawyers out of everything. I know that some of them are also small businesses, but they are in a fairly privileged position.
  I fundamentally disagree with the Government's handling of some local authority agencies which have recently sought to assist small businesses. A number of agencies were established by local authorities in the 1980s, under the general title of enterprise boards. I am sure that the Minister could quote chapter and verse to criticise enterprise boards, but some extremely successful experiments were conducted. Lancashire Enterprises is still working extremely well and supports small and medium-sized businesses in the area.
  There is a place in our society for local organisations which are accountable at a local level. There is an important difference between such organisations and some of the existing agencies. Local organisations could help to stimulate and to promote small businesses, as they have a specialist knowledge of the local area.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South mentioned the number of small businesses which exist as a spin-off from larger enterprises and referred to ICI, and that was an important argument. About a week ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) told us about the huge number of jobs that hang on the back of Cammell Laird. Similarly, in my constituency there were 500 redundancies at Shell and, a few weeks before that, another 500 at British Nuclear Fuels. Because of the nature of those industries, they require a huge number of supply companies. As I said in the media when talking about the Shell redundancies, the knock-on effect will

  667
  carry on right the way down the chain to the man on the street corner who sells newspapers to people coming out of the plant. The multiplier effect is well known.
  The Minister may say that it is outside his brief to consider the major redundancies that hon. Members have mentioned, but the knock-on effects need careful consideration. I do not know whether that is intervention before dinner. We shall not go through that again as it was tedious when we first heard it because we did not believe it. We need some Government involvement to ensure that proper support is given to the many small businesses that are being hit by major redundancies in the north-west.
  Finally, it is interesting to note that hon. Members representing constituencies in the north of England have made the largest contribution to this debate. A significant number of contributions have been made by my hon. Friends. Contrary to the popular belief of those on the Government Benches, as evidenced by their jeers from time to time, our party is not opposed to enterprise and small business. Far from it, we want to see a thriving economy that, by the very nature of modern industry—given the rise of new technology companies—will be represented by small enterprises. They will need positive Government support. They do not need interfering regulations, but supportive ones, as my examples about the shutters in Neston and bank charges illustrated.
  The Government must also remember, as my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield said, that the activities and management of large enterprises have an indirect effect on small businesses, perhaps through a shareholding, which is vital to the success of small businesses down the chain.
  I urge the Minister to consider the importance of that relationship between large and small businesses when he replies to the debate.
  8.51 pm
  Mr. Neil Hamilton: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate.
  First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) on giving me the opportunity to be here at this time of the evening. I had feared that I would be here much later, but, unusually, we have been able to have an extended debate on this important topic. I welcome that.
  I welcome the fact that, as the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) said, this debate has been dominated by the men of the north, including even the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), whom I am delighted to see here. He took a fatherly interest in my career when I was in the Whips Office and I learnt a great deal from him which, should we ever go back into opposition, I shall put to good use. As that seems such an unlikely prospect, however, like so many of the qualifications that I have acquired during my life, I fear that those lessons will be condemned to eternal redundancy.
  I also welcome the fact that the debate has been dominated not only by Members representing the north but by those representing Cheshire, including the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall), whose constituency abuts mine. Who knows, but for my intervention—canvassing in his constituency during the general election—he may not have been here this evening. It is a great pleasure to welcome hon. Friends on both sides
  668
  of the House to the debate and even one from the other side of the Pennines, the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), who was brave enough to poke his head over the western side of that mountain chain, metaphorically speaking.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), which is in Lancashire, has had to leave. He informed me that he had to go to Broadmoor; I am not quite sure in what capacity, but no doubt that will be revealed in due course. I welcome all the contributions to the debate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester referred to the role that he had performed on behalf of the Prince of Wales and the Earl of Chester. I am not at all surprised that he has been selected to carry out that important role, because, before he became a Member, he was the clown prince of television. If one has a reputation for being amusing, however, it is difficult to convince people that one can ever be serious. I am afraid that my hon. Friend will have to bear that burden. I am sure that it is already evident to hon. Members and to his constituents, however, that the capacity to amuse is not at all inconsistent with the ability to represent one's constituents extremely effectively. My hon. Friend has already shown me in many respects that he can do that and I wish him a long and successful career in the House.
  The subject of deregulation is extremely important. I must admit that I was somewhat disappointed when I assumed my office after the general election as the Minister for Corporate Affairs—in which capacity I am also responsible for company law—and took down two volumes from the bookshelf and compared their size. The 1980 Butterworth's Company Law Handbook had 486 pages, but the 1991 volume, which was the latest then available, had 3,544. That vast increase in complex legislation, no doubt much of it for desirable reasons, nevertheless demonstrates the increase in the regulatory burdens that have been put upon businesses of all kinds. Perhaps that is the most dramatic example of the way in which legislation has proliferated.
  In front of me on the Table are the bound volumes of the product of all our labours since I entered the House in 1983. It is a frightening prospect when one considers that we have visited those laws upon the people. No doubt there is much in those volumes that is good, but no doubt there is much that is redundant or that, in retrospect, we now believe, perhaps, we should have done in a different way.
  My job, although it is consistent with the desirable objective of protecting the public in a variety of ways, is to ensure that the burden of legislation and regulation is no more than is absolutely necessary in order to provide the protection that, on other grounds, we think is appropriate. So often, however, regulation remains on the statute book for years, decades and sometimes even centuries after the need for it was first appreciated and after the circumstances which gave rise to that need have long since disappeared.
  There are all sorts of peculiarities on the statute book today at which we might be somewhat surprised. I have discovered that some of the more peculiar ones are in respect of betting offices. The Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 (Schedule 4) (Amendment) Order 1986 makes the following requirement in a new para 8(i):
  "No apparatus for making information or other material available in the form of visual images"—

  669
  in plain English that means a television—
  "shall be used on the licensed premises unless those images appear on a screen; and any screen so used shall not (a) exceed 30 inches wide."
  I have no idea what gave rise to that restriction on the size of the television for use in a betting shop. As there is no restriction on the number of such sets that can be displayed inside a betting shop, the more innovatory of those establishments have attempted to get around the legislation by setting up a video wall of televisions.
  In paragraph 10 we find the list of refreshments that may be sold on those premises which include,

  "(a) biscuits (not including cakes);

  (b) chocolates, sweets and similar confectionery;

  (c) potato crisps, potato sticks, potato puffs and similar products made from the potato, or from potato flour, or from potato starch; and

  (d) salted or roasted peanuts."

  That is clear enough, but the consequences of being so prescriptive is that one cannot sell prawn crackers, which are made from rice flour; nor may one sell cashew nuts, almonds or any other form of nut. I shall not weary the House with the huge variety of such absurdities, but I hope that, over time, we shall be able to clear them from the clutter of the statute book.
  Mr. William O'Brien: I followed that point with interest. The Minister said that only one Yorkshireman but five Lancashiremen had taken part in the debate, which shows that one Yorkshireman is equal to five Lancashiremen.
  The Minister was correct to point out that some of the regulations still on the statute book are out of date and should be erased. Does he also accept that new regulations should now be introduced to defend the interests of small businesses?
  Mr. Hamilton: In general, small businesses do not welcome greater regulation. Indeed, much of my time is spent discussing with them how we can reduce the regulatory burden on them, which serves no purpose other than to annoy. Where a case can be made for introducing regulations, we are prepared to consider it, but there must be a beneficial purpose behind proposed regulations. Moreover, the costs that they impose must be proportionate to the benefits to the public at large. It is not easy to generalise, but often in the past when we have decided to legislate or regulate we have not taken the cost into account. I am happy to say we shall now require cost-compliance assessments, where appropriate, when new regulations are proposed. That applies also to European regulations.
  I hope that in future we shall make increasing use of risk assessment techniques, whereby we can try to quantify the risk which the public run by doing nothing and compare it with the cost imposed on business. After all, business is involved in wealth creation, which is also in the public's interest. If we think that the regulatory burden on business is excessive in relation to the proposed benefit to be bestowed on the public in some other way, whether it be environmental health, fire regulations or whatever, we shall take it into account in deciding whether to regulate. Often, that has not been done in the past, with the consequence that the volume of legislation with which we must now cope has been formulated without a rational basis—rational in the sense of choosing the level of
  670
  regulation that we wish to impose, bearing in mind the associated costs. No regulation is justifiable unless we can perform the arithmetic of that equation, because until we know what cost we shall impose on business, we cannot take the overall view of the public interest, which is what good legislators should bear in mind.
  Mr. Miller: Will the Minister be more specific about the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) about bank charges? Does he believe that regulations governing bank charges to small businesses should be tightened?
  Mr. Hamilton: That is a matter of contract between freely consenting adult partners. I do not believe that it is appropriate for the Government to become involved in such matters, because if we sought to lay down the law on that matter, it would have repercussions on other banking activities. We might then find that certain functions were not performed by banks because it would not be worth their while to do so. We might find that the costs imposed by legislation would be recouped in other undesirable ways from people who would not reap the benefits of the lower bank charges advocated by the hon. Gentleman.
  It is not a simple question. It is not sensible for the Government to become involved in the detail of contracts between individual businesses, lenders and borrowers because each case has its own facets and features. If we start to second-guess those decisions, we shall take a step down a road that leads we know not where. Consequently, if the Government take an intiative of the kind proposed by Opposition Members, they may find that, far from being the friend of small business, they are the foe, because banks would be less likely to lend in those circumstances. That would significantly inhibit individuals' ability to set up small businesses, which we hope will eventually become large businesses.
  Mr. Miller: I am sorry to press the Minister further on that point, but I used the word "control", not the words "make lower". Does he believe that the Government should regulate or control activities regarding bank charges? I asked that question specifically because of the number of businesses that have complained about charges that have been unilaterally imposed on them from on high by the banking regime, putting pressure on those businesses. Does the Minister accept that that is an unfair practice? Against that background, does he believe that there is a place for control?
  Mr. Hamilton: There is a multiplicity of sources of lending. If it is a profitable way of doing business, it is possible to incorporate into any contract for borrowing and lending the type of legislative clauses that the hon. Gentleman implies.
  I think that it is not for Governments to lay down the forms of contract that banks should be obliged to use in lending to customers. One of the consequences of such a prescriptive approach might be to encourage banks to make loans that are not good loans. We have seen the results all too clearly and dramatically in recent years: the costs of the losses are redistributed among other customers. It is wrong for the Government to seek to second-guess such decisions, which ultimately are not costless. The repercussions of the decisions are often not foreseen, and when they come back to haunt us we regret that we took them.
  Mr. William O'Brien: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Hamilton: I must move on to the more general points that I wish to make on deregulation rather than remain on the narrow issue of bank lending, important though it is to individuals. I shall press on with the few general points that I wish to make.
  Mr. O'Brien rose——
  Mr. Hamilton: I shall not give way. I am sorry. I think that I have been generous in allowing hon. Members to intervene. We can argue the matter on another occasion. The hon. Gentleman may be fortunate enough to secure a debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill, to which I shall be happy to respond at about 4 am in a week's time—I say that with tongue in cheek.
  The issue of deregulation goes far and wide. I shall confine myself to the general principles that apply to what the Government are seeking to do in this Parliament to take forward an important task. We wish to reduce the burdens on business and hence encourage the wealth-creating process that we all want to see.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has charged me in particular with the duty of making myself the most hated Minister in Whitehall—not with Opposition Members but with my Front Bench colleagues. He has authorised me to enter every Government Department and to require each individual deregulation Minister to produce a list of regulations for repeal and simplification. Anyone who knows anything about Whitehall will know that my task will not be an easy one to perform. The culture of Departments is regulatory and not deregulatory. We must change the way in which legislators and civil servants think about the way in which they do their jobs. We must get them to bear firmly in mind that, when we introduce regulations, we are often imposing a cost burden on business and, therefore, an inhibition on the wealth-creating process. The consequence is that we must each examine our own conscience and examine also the accumulation of legislation which we have inherited from our predecessors in our respective Departments. The examination must be carried out in accordance with the searching test that I have described.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is taking a close and personal interest in the initiative, the prime responsibility for which he has entrusted to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, to whom he has given the task of hacking away the jungle by which we are beset. That is something that my right hon. Friend will carry out with great gusto. I hope that within a short time we shall be able to produce our first checklist of legislation for repeal or simplification to achieve a positive and worthwhile objective.
  In the coming months, I shall report regularly to the House. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister also wants me to report to him every month on the progress of this initiative. That should be a signal to all my right hon. and hon. Friends that they need to take it seriously. This is an opportunity as great as, if not greater than, the one that we seized in respect of the citizens charter, which was designed to make public services more user-friendly and responsive to the citizens who, through their taxes, pay for them. In this case, we have what is probably a much greater opportunity to improve this country's wealth-creating potential and hence the employment-creating potential of the economy.
  672
  I can illustrate that by giving a simple example of how we can stop onerous legislation being introduced and make the burden of legislation more suitable to the task set for it. Recently, the Home Office introduced draft fire regulations in pursuance of a new European Community directive. As originally drafted, the Association of District Surveyors estimated that it would impose a cost burden of £8 billion on industry. The deregulation advisory panel in the DTI, composed of private sector business people who will have to cope with these regulations, made representations, together with others, with the result that the Home Office has withdrawn the regulations and will significantly reduce the impact on business—without doing violence to our proper regard for the protection of the public. Premises in which people operate must of course be safe for use, but it is absurd that a one-man business operating from home should be required, as it would have been under the original draft, to reverse all the doors through which the public might pass so that they open outwards, not inwards, under illuminated signs saying, "Fire Exit". That would have happened had we not sent the draft regulations back for translation into more acceptable form.
  There is much that we can do; we must examine what has gone and what it is proposed shall come—not only in Britain but from the European Community. We are anxious not to over-implement the obligations that we assume through the EC, thereby imposing a competitive disadvantage on our firms.
  I shall not be able to answer all the points made in this debate, but I shall do my best to respond to some of them. The hon. Member for Normanton referred to several issues, including bank charges, with which we have already dealt. He asked whether we could introduce new regulations with respect to the national non-domestic rate. I am surprised that he, as a northern Member concerned about manufacturing industry, should ask for that. The new business rating system has resulted in an enormous transfer of resources from the south to the north and from service industries to manufacturing industries. Given the interest shown by Opposition Members in these subjects, I am surprised that they should be so ungracious about the system that we have introduced.
  Mr. William O'Brien: Once again, the Minister has missed the point, just as he did with bank charges. The contribution from the profits of small businesses to the rates works out at between 25 and 30 per cent. The contribution from the profits of larger companies to the rates is about 2 or 3 per cent. So regulations act against small businesses. When the latter experience trouble making ends meet, they should be eligible for a rebate.
  Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is arguing for a form of corporation tax, which is paid according to the size of a company's profits. If he thinks carefully about that, he may realise that that will not do many small businesses a great favour. It is a big step: the abolition of the rating system as we know it—the very system that the Labour party has been arguing that we should bring back in respect of domestic properties. It will be interesting to see how the hon. Gentleman reconciles those two positions—but on another occasion. The hon. Members for Warrington, South and for Makerfield——
  Mr. O'Brien: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Hamilton: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not, because I am about to deal with a matter of great importance to Cheshire Members. I should like to reply to the issues raised about ICI, which is a major employer in my constituency at Northwich. ICI Pharmaceuticals is also located at the other end of my constituency at Alderley Park. I have had close co-operation with ICI throughout my career in the House. I spoke to Sir Denys Henderson and his senior colleagues only last week and one of the complex topics that we discussed was energy prices.
  The powers that Opposition Members imagine we have are not available to us. Electricity is now a regulated industry and the regulator's role is laid down by legislation. His job is to balance the interests of consumers and producers and to ensure that there is no discrimination. The generators and the regional electricity companies operate under licence and their operations must reflect the wider concerns of the new regulatory regime. It would be wrong for us arbitrarily to select individuals or companies to receive power on a discriminatory favourable basis.
  I fully understand ICI's concerns. It wants to dedicate the output of one power station, Ince power station, to Runcorn. As the hon. Member for Warrington, South said, fairly, ICI consumes 1 per cent. of the entire output of Britain's electricity generators. One of the reasons for price increases being as great as he said is that, under the previous system, ICI was able to make use of the marginal tranches of coal for which a marginal cost was levied under the special qualifying industrial users scheme introduced by the Government. The consequences of the phasing out of that scheme is that a return to normal levels of pricing from a low base gives the impression of large and unjustified price increases.
  I have told ICI that we shall consider its case and if we find a means of addressing its concerns which does not do violence to the general principle of competition and fair and equal dealing between customers, we shall assist. This is a complex matter, and it is not for me but for my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy. We are in close contact with ICI and shall give the greatest consideration to its arguments.
  Mr. Hall: I listened with great interest to what the Minister said about the regulatory framework which has dictated the 60 per cent. increase in ICI's electricity charges over the past 18 months. There is a way around the problem. Does the Minister accept that the regulatory framework was introduced by his Government on the privatisation of electricity?
  Mr. Hamilton: I am happy to accept that, because, as a consequence, the average electricity consumer is now paying 11 per cent. less for his electricity than he was paying before the regulatory regime was introduced. We are discussing changes in the relativity of prices. Customers who previously enjoyed low electricity prices
  674
  have had greater than average increases as a result of phasing out discrimination. Overall, the consumer is paying less for electricity, but by implication some consumers must be paying more. That does not sit well with the arguments of the hon. Member for Makerfield and others who asked for special treatment for British Coal.
  Coal prices are the principal ingredient of electricity prices. The average price of coal produced by British Coal is £43 a tonne, compared with £33 a tonne on the spot market, and the considerable burden of that extra cost is placed on all power consumers in this country. I am happy to congratulate all those who work in our coal industry on the massive increases in productivity that have taken place over the past six years and on the enormous strides towards converting what was fast becoming an industrial museum into a modern and competitive industry. If such steps had been taken earlier, we would not be facing such severe problems now.
  We cannot on the one hand argue that there must be no electricity prices and on the other hand support practices that produce high-cost coal. I do not want to be led into an argument about the coal industry, because it is not a small business, and I think that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would rightly call me to order for straying more widely than the title of the debate should allow; but, as the point was raised in the debate, I felt it right to make some reference to it in my reply.
  The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston made a number of points. I was particularly interested in what he said about the impact of regulations on small businesses in conservation areas and other heritage locations: I am a strong supporter of regulation in that context. I am very interested in the "built heritage" of this country, and in the maintenance of historic cities such as Chester and the many agreeable towns that can be found in Cheshire and other counties in the north-west—some of them in my constituency.
  We must tempter the zeal for regulation with some moderation, but I do not believe that the two need be inconsistent. I think that we can have regulation without making it too burdensome for businesses. Much of the regulation that preserves the historic continuity of our conservation areas need not impose any cost on business; in fact, to the extent that it prevents them from making costly but ugly changes to their premises, it could benefit them in terms of competition.
  The Government are determined to make considerable strides in the current Parliament to reduce the regulatory burden on business. If we failed to do that, we would fail in our duty, because it is by that means that we can increase the wealth-creating potential of this country—and from that will come the jobs that hon. Members on both sides of the House desire to see.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Nine o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Equal Opportunities
  Ms. Eagle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he is taking to ensure an equal representation of women on the Bench.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor's policy is to appoint to judicial office those best qualified, regardless of sex, ethnic origin, political affiliation or religion. Without prejudice to this overriding principle, the Lord Chancellor has stressed publicly, and will continue to do so, that he would like to see more female legal practitioners who are suitably qualified appointed to the judiciary. The composition of the judiciary at any one time must inevitably reflect the composition of the legal profession within the relevant categories of age and seniority, but, as the proportion of women at these levels in the profession increases, so this is likely to be reflected on the Bench. Two women have been appointed to the High Court Bench this year and women are being appointed in greater numbers at other levels of the judiciary. The Lord Chancellor has ensured appropriate flexibility, for example related to women who have taken career breaks. He has asked that women candidates be included, wherever possible, in the list of those under consideration for appointment. He has co-operated with the Bar in research into sex equality at the Bar and in the judiciary, and will be studying the resultant findings and recommendations. Women represent 45 per cent. of the lay magistracy and the Lord Chancellor's aim is to achieve equality of sittings between male and female magistrates.

  Contract Law
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals he has to implement the recommendation of Law Commission report No. 174 on privity of contract law and estates; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor is actively considering the recommendations of the Law Commission on this subject and hopes to be able to make an announcement about this report in the near future.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Extradition (Ireland)
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Attorney-General when he last met his Irish counterpart; and what matters were discussed concerning extradition.

  The Attorney-General
  The last meeting on this subject took place in Dublin on 21 and 22 July this year. It is not the practice to comment on the detail of our discussions.

  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the division of his work between his role as Law Officer and his other governmental responsibilities.

  The Attorney-General
  As Attorney-General I am the principal legal adviser to the Government. I also act, wholly independently of the Government, to enforce the law on behalf of the general community in the public interest.

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Attorney-General what is his current advice to local authorities on the enforcement of the legislation governing Sunday trading.

  The Attorney-General
  I informed the House on 11 May in answering questions from the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), at columns 367–68, that local authorities can still issue summonses or seek injunctions. It is for them to consider what action to take in a particular case.

  Serious Fraud Office (Staff)
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the current number of staff in the Serious Fraud Office; and what productivity targets have been set.

  The Solicitor-General
  The Serious Fraud Office presently employs 132 permanent staff as well as additional temporary staff to meet the varying demands of its caseload. Ninety-one police officers are on attachment.

  The main performance target is that the period between the acceptance of a case and its transfer or committal to the Crown court should not exceed 12 months.

  Crown Prosecution Service (Vacancies)
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Attorney-General how many vacancies there are in the Crown prosecution service for solicitors.

  The Solicitor General
  The Crown prosecution service currently has 159 vacancies for lawyers out of a total requirement of 2,256

  Chancellor's Tenant
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the application of paragraph 25 of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" to the civil case involving the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and when Law Officers were informed of the case.

  The Attorney-General
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already informed the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) in a letter of 30 November which has been placed in the Library, of his approach to my predecessor.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  BBC (Restructuring)
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the effect of his proposals to restructure the BBC outlined in the Green Paper on the programme output of the corporation.

  Mr. Brooke
  Our discussion document set out options, but we cannot reach decisions about the BBC's future structure until we are clearer about the services it is to provide.

  Football Stadiums
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received regarding the implementation of the Taylor report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  My predecessor announced the outcome of the Government's review of its all-seater policy in July. Since then, I have received several letters from hon. Members and from members of the public, and on 26 November my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State met bodies representing football supporters to hear their views. I have no plans to relax the all-seater requirement further.

  Sports Clubs (Rating)
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make it his policy to introduce mandatory rate relief for non-profit-making sports clubs.

  Mr. Key
  No. The present arrangement providing for local authority discretion means that each case can be considered on its merits.

  Wootton Creek
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the discoveries made in Wootton Creek as a result of funding by his Department.

  Mr. Key
  The Wootton survey project is still in its early stages, but it is already demonstrating the existence of important prehistoric and later remains in the inter-tidal zone, relating to the use of the coast by maritime trading communities of the Norman, Saxon and medieval periods.

  National Lottery
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what estimate he has made of the effect of a national lottery on the revenue raised by the Treasury on the football pools industry.

  Mr. Brooke
  Matters pertaining to Government revenues are properly a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Estimates of the effects of the national lottery on the level of pools' turnover are subject to a series of hypotheses. I am aware of the understandable concerns on Merseyside and am looking forward to a meeting next week with the Pools Promoters Association.
  454
  Mr. John Carlisle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions have taken place between himself and the Sports Council on the funds available for sport from a national lottery.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have not discussed this subject specifically with the Sports Council, although officials have discussed with the council funds likely to be available for sport.

  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his estimate of the revenue that will he raised for the Exchequer through the introduction of a national lottery.

  Mr. Brooke
  That will depend upon the size of the national lottery's turnover, and on taxation. The prime purpose of the national lottery is to raise additional funds for the arts, sport, the heritage and charities.

  Arts Funding
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what value he attaches to the arm's-length principle of arts funding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The "arms-length" principle, under which Governments distance themselves from decisions on the funding of individual arts organisations, has been a central part of arts funding since the creation of the Arts Council. I expect to see it continued.

  Public Libraries
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many books were borrowed from public libraries in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Key
  The total number of books borrowed from public libraries in 1990–91—the last year for which figures are available—was 563 million, of which 475 million of these were lent from public libraries in England, for which I am responsible.

  Overseas Visitors
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many overseas visitors came to the United Kingdom in 1991.

  Mr. Key
  There were an estimated 16·7 million visits to the United Kingdom by overseas residents in 1991. Inward tourism was badly affected by the Gulf war and the recession in the USA. The number of visitors so far this year is well up on 1991, though not quite back to the record levels achieved in 1990.

  Rugby League Football
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on his policy towards rugby league football.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Government's role is to support and encourage the development of and participation in all sports including rugby league football, with most funding channelled through the Sports Council. In 1991–92, the council provided £160,000 to the British Amateur Rugby League Association—BARLA—and £12,000 to the
  455
  English Schools Rugby League for the development of the game. In addition, over the past year, the Foundation for Sport and the Arts has provided over £750,000 in grant aid to rugby league clubs for various projects.

  The Sports Council is also involved in promoting discussions between BARLA and the Rugby Football League about the creation of a unified governing body for rugby league.

  Regional Orchestras
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement concerning support for regional orchestras.

  Mr. Brooke
  Detailed funding decisions are, of course, the responsibility of the Arts Council and regional arts boards. Support for regional orchestras ranges widely, from the more than £6 million the Arts Council gives the major orchestras to smaller-scale grants to local amateur orchestras.

  Broadcasting Green Paper
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received on his Green Paper on broadcasting.

  Mr. Brooke
  I would refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave earlier today to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham).

  Libraries and Theatres (Greater Manchester)
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will visit libraries and theatres in Greater Manchester to discuss resources.

  Mr. Key
  I am always delighted to visit local authorities in connection with my ministerial responsibilities. I have already visited Manchester to see one of its theatres and Chetham's library but would welcome further invitations to libraries and theatres in Greater Manchester. My Department has no direct responsibility for the resources provided for these services, although it must ensure that a comprehensive and efficient library service is provided.

  Minority Languages and Cultures
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he last met his ministerial colleagues representing other member states of the European Community to discuss matters relating to the protection and development of minority and indigenous languages and cultures; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  Neither my right hon. Friend nor I have met European Community Culture Ministers specifically to discuss the position of lesser-used languages and minority cultures. I last met my EC ministerial colleagues in Brussels when I chaired the Culture Council on 12 November. Lesser-used languages were not on the agenda of that meeting, although mention of minority cultures was made during discussion of a Community-wide campaign to raise public awareness of books and reading which the Danish presidency intends to launch next year. Lesser-used languages and minority cultures were also mentioned, during wider discussions, when I attended a meeting of Culture Ministers under the aegis of the Council of Europe in Paris on 15 and 16 October.

  Fine Arts Heritage
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals he has to strengthen the ability of national institutions to retain the fine arts heritage in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Brooke
  My hon. Friend is familiar with the Government's existing policies to encourage the retention of the nation's important works of art. These include the Waverley system of export controls, important tax concessions, and grants to national museums and galleries and to the National Heritage Memorial Fund. These policies continue to assist national museums and galleries to acquire major works by important artists.

  Tourist Boards (Finance)
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the percentage of finance in local tourist boards provided by(a) the English tourist board, (b) local government and (c) the private sector.

  Mr. Key
  Funding for the regional tourist boards for the 1991–92 financial year was:

  Per cent.

  (a) English Tourist Board

  30·5

  (b) Local Authorities

  8·5

  (c) Private Sector

  61·0

  Windsor Castle (Fire)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the cost of repairs at Windsor castle.

  Mr. Brooke
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier today to the question from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations the Government received from the Fire Prevention Association concerning the protection of the national heritage from fire; and what subsequent action was taken in respect of Windsor castle.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 3 December 1992]: In October 1991 the Fire Protection Association published a report, "Heritage under Fire", on fire safety in historic buildings. The report was published on behalf of the United Kingdom working party on fire safety in historic buildings, on which the Government and English Heritage were represented. No specific subsequent action was taken in respect of Windsor castle, as a comprehensive programme of fire prevention measures had already been set in hand at the castle.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what contributions he estimates will be forthcoming for the restoration of Windsor castle from(a) the private sector, (b) insurance companies and (c) sources other than public funds.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 27 November 1992]: It is not possible to make any such estimates at the present time.

  Royal Palaces
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what action the Historic Royal Palaces Agency takes to train and retain craftsmen with skills necessary for the restoration of royal palaces.

  Mr. Key
  The Historic Royal Palaces Agency does not employ its own craftsmen. The agency's experience is that craftsmen of the highest quality continue to be available in private firms.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list those royal palaces that have sprinkler systems installed as a fire precaution.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 3 December 1992]: Sprinkler systems have not been installed as a fire precaution at any of the royal palaces.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will arrange for full fire safety inspections at all royal residences in receipt of public funds.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 27 November 1992]:Fire safety inspections are made regularly at each of the occupied royal palaces.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what has been the total cost to public funds arising from the upkeep of each of the royal residences in each of the last three financial years.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 27 November 1992]:The resources provided for the maintenance of each of the royal residences over the last three years is as follows:

  £ million

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Windsor Castle

  7·1

  9·8

  9·3

  Buckingham Palace

  3·0

  1·5

  5·2

  St. James's Palace

  0·8

  1·3

  2·5

  Kensington Palace

  1·1

  0·3

  0·7

  Tourism
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what was the total expenditure in England on section 4 grants for tourism-related projects in the last full year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Key
  The expenditure on section 4 grants in England in the 1991–92 financial year was £600,000.

  BBC Archives
  Mr. Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will review the restrictive covenants covering all BBC archives when he is considering the terms under which the BBC's charter will be renewed; and if he will consider whether amending legislation is necessary to ensure that the provisions of European Community restraint of trade legislation are observed by any interests seeking to impose restraints on the use of BBC archives.

  Mr. Brooke
  The BBC's contractual agreements are a matter for the corporation. The use of the BBC's458
  programme archives and other assets, including the relevance of any EC legislation, is an issue for the debate about the corporation's future.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  UNESCO
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to which programme activities of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation he intends 'to contribute in the coming year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There are no plans at present to contribute in the coming year to any programme activities of UNESCO through its regular budget. However, the United Kingdom retains its membership of certain inter-governmental bodies which come under UNESCO auspices. We expect to contribute to the World Heritage Fund, the inter-governmental Oceanographic Commission, and the universal copyright convention in the forthcoming year.

  Colombia
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Colombian Government about the use of children in coal mines in the Boyaca region.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  None. We understand that the Colombian authorities, who are well aware of the concern felt in this country, wish to close illegal mines using child labour.

  Hong Kong
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps were taken, since April 1992, to discuss the extension of democracy in Hong Kong before 1997 with the Chinese Government in advance of the Governor's published statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We have repeatedly told the Chinese side of our wish to see a faster pace of democratisation in Hong Kong by increasing the number of seats in the Legislative Council beyond that envisaged in the Basic Law. But the Chinese position has been that the Basic Law cannot be changed. We and the Governor therefore developed a parallel approach, consistent with the Basic Law. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs briefed the Chinese Foreign Minister on this approach in New York on 25 September, two weeks before the Governor's speech. The Governor sent a message in parallel to senior Chinese officials in Peking.

  Visitors' Visas
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the number of appeals in the last 12 months against refusal of visitors' visas to people visiting in order to visit relatives or friends in Birmingham.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The information requested is not centrally recorded and could not be provided except at disproportionate expense.

  Kashmir
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are his foreign policy objectives with regard to Kashmir; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Our policy is to encourage the Governments of India and Pakistan to agree a means of settling their dispute over Kashmir as provided for in the 1972 Simla agreement; to emphasise the importance of a genuine political process in Kashmir in which the aspirations of the population in Kashmir can be accommodated, an improvement on human rights there; and to call for a clear cessation of any support from outside for violence within Kashmir.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make further representations regarding the Kashmiri people to the Indian Government.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We take every opportunity to discuss the situation in Kashmir with the Indian Government. They are fully aware of our concerns about human rights abuses by security forces there and the need for a genuine political process within Kashmir.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the extent of the freedom of the press in Kashmir.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are not aware of any restrictions on access to Kashmir by Indian or foreign journalists, or on their reporting on the situation there.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to use opportunities within the United Nations to progress a positive and peaceful solution to the problems of Kashmir.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We do not expect that, given the known positions of India and Pakistan, such opportunities are likely to arise.

  Chemical Weapons Convention
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much notice must be provided by states parties before access must be granted(a)to declared facilities and (b) undeclared facilities under the challenge inspection provisions of article IX of the chemical weapons convention.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Under the challenge inspection provisions of article IX of the chemical weapons convention, access must be permitted no later than 120 hours for undeclared facilities, and 100 hours for declared facilities, after notice of inspection has been provided by states parties.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what allowances have been made for the retention of disabling agents for riot control purposes under the terms of the chemical weapons convention.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Under the terms of the convention, states parties will be entitled to use toxic chemicals for law enforcement, including domestic riot control purposes,460
  provided that such chemicals are limited to those not listed in the schedules to the convention and which can produce rapidly in humans sensory irritation or disabling physical effects which disappear within a short time following termination of exposure. States parties will undertake not to use riot control agents as a method of warfare.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what financial and personnel resources will be made available to ensure commercial compliance with the terms of the chemical weapons convention in the United Kingdom; and if custodial sentences may be applied to any individuals in the commercial chemical industry found to be in serious breach of the terms of the chemical weapons convention in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Her Majesty's Government will give detailed consideration to issues relating to the implementation of the convention after its signature. The convention will not enter into force before 1995.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the transparency of the operation of the chemical weapons convention preparatory commission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The rules of procedure of the preparatory commission have yet to be drawn up. Her Majesty's Government are therefore not yet in a position to make a firm decision on its policy towards the transparency of the operation of the commission.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Department will publish the draft rules of procedure for the preparatory commission before states-signatories to the chemical weapons convention formally adopt them following the signing of the convention; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The rules of procedure for the preparatory commission have yet to be drawn up. Any decision on whether such rules should be made public before being formally adopted will be for all states involved in drawing them up.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what resources will be made available to the Scientific Advisory Board of Independent Experts to review the scientific and technological developments that could affect the operation of the chemical weapons convention.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It will be for the conference of states parties of the chemical weapons convention to decide what resources will he made available to the scientific advisory board.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations will take place between the chemical weapons convention preparatory commission and representatives of the scientific community and chemical industry regarding the establishment of the organisation for the prohibition of chemical weapons.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It will be for the preparatory commission of the chemical weapons convention to decide what consultations it may have with representatives of the scientific community and the chemical industry.
  461
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 16 November,Official Report, column 47, if the United Kingdom will be an original signatory of the chemical weapons convention.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom fully intends to be an original signatory of the chemical weapons convention.

  Iraq
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) on what date Her Majesty's Government last made representations to the United Nations special commission of inspection on Iraq;

  (2) on what dates Her Majesty's Government have received requests for information and assistance from the United Nations special commission of inspection on Iraq; and on what dates the Government responded to those requests.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Government have worked closely with the United Nations special commission on Iraq—UNSCOM—since it was set up in April 1991. The United Kingdom mission to the United Nations is in almost daily contact with UNSCOM.

  COCOM
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's present policy towards the co-ordinating committee on multilateral strategic export controls (COCOM), indicating if any changes are in prospect.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  As indicated in the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 5 June at column 673, the present policy of all countries participating in the co-ordinating committee on multilateral export controls is to provide those proscribed destinations that have embarked on political reform with progressively wider access to COCOM-controlled goods and technology, as they establish effective export controls. To this end, an informal co-operation forum on export controls has been established: its first meeting was held in Paris on 23 and 24 November.

  Coffins
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he proposes to ensure that coffins used to repatriate, for cremation, the remains of British nationals from Spain, comply with EEC directive 84/360.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have been asked to reply. There are no requirements in EEC directive 84/360 as to the type or composition of coffins for cremation.

TRANSPORT

  King's Cross Fire
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made by London Transport in implementing the recommendations of the Fennel report into the King's Cross underground fire.
  462
  Mr. Norris
  London Transport has fully implemented 106 out of 127 recommendations addressed to it and has partially completed a further 12. One recommendation was not accepted by LT, but its objective has been achieved through other means. Work on implementing the remainder is progressing well. A copy of London Transport's detailed report on progress up to the end of August has been placed in the Library.

  Nuclear Material (Transport)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by what modes of transport(a) plutonium, (b) enriched uranium and (c) natural uranium are transported (i) within, (ii) into and (iii) from the United Kingdom; and if he will name in each case the ports used.

  Mr. Norris
  By land, sea and air. The consignors choose the mode, and port when needed.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will provide details of the nature and quantity of irradiated nuclear fuel, plutonium and high-level radioactive waste transported by sea to and from, or by, the United Kingdom in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Norris
  This information is not held by the Department.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding the air freighting of fresh plutonium-bearing nuclear fuel pins from Germany to Dounreay in Scotland.

  Mr. Norris
  None.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, (1) pursuant to his answer of 24 November,Official Report, column 561, if he will set out the names of the persons with details of their expertise, who will represent Her Majesty's Government at the International Atomic Energy Agency-International Maritime Organisation-United Nations Environment Programme working group on the transport of irradiated nuclear fuel;

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 24 November, Official Report, column 561, if he will name the specialists in the transport of irradiated nuclear fuel who will be representing him at the forthcoming joint International Atomic Energy Authority-International Maritime Organisation-United Nations Environment Programme working group meeting.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Department will be represented by: Mr. K. James, a chartered engineer with 28 years' experience in the transport of hazardous material by sea, chairman of the IMO's sub-committee on the carriage of dangerous goods—CDG; Mr. C. K. Wilson, a physicist specialising in criticality safety and radiological protection with 10 years' experience regulating the transport of radioactive materials; Mr. C. N. Young, a chartered engineer with 14 years' experience in the regulation of radioactive material transport, chairman of the IMO's CDG working group on class 7 dangerous goods—radioactive materials.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information his Department routinely collects and stores centrally on the import and export of nuclear materials by different transport modes to and from the United Kingdom.
  463
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Department routinely collects that information which is required by the International Atomic Energy Agency publication "Safety Series No. 6: Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material", a copy of which is held in the Library of the House.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what evaluation his Department has made of any of the safety standards set by the International Atomic Energy Agency for the international transport of(a) plutonium, (b) enriched uranium, (c) natural uranium and (d) radioactive waste.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Department is involved in the evaluation of the safety standards for the transport of all radioactive materials on an ongoing basis and is a major contributor to the International Atomic Energy Agency's programme of review and revision of its international regulations.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the advisory committee on the safe transport of radioactive materials; and what matters were discussed and decided.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  This committee was disbanded on 31 January 1989.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his Department's policy in regard to evaluation of independent reports published on the transport of nuclear materials.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  To consider them on their merits.

  Railway Equipment Manufacturers
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from railway equipment manufacturers about investment decisions for work during the next six years.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Railway Industry Association has submitted a copy of its evidence to the Transport Select Committee on the Government's White Paper on BR privatisation. The Steer Davies Gleave report "Rail Privatisation: Attractive Investment or Wishful Thinking" has also been submitted on behalf of the Railway Industry Association, Eurotunnel and Transport 2000. Representations have been received from several individual railway manufacturers and I am meeting the Railway Industry Association on 8 December to discuss prospects for the industry.

  General Register and Record Office of Shipping
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to contract out or divide up the General Register and Record Office of Shipping.

  Mr. Norris
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) on 25 November, at column 659

  School Buses
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what account he has taken of(a) parental and school governors' wishes, (b) the particular road
  464
  conditions of rural areas and (c) road safety in his policy on carrying three children on a double school bus seat; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The regulations governing the carrying capacity of public service vehicles permit three seated children under 14, sharing a double seat to count as two passengers. This is a concession and they do not have to be seated in this manner. These regulations apply throughout the country and it would not be practicable to have regional variations to take account of particular road conditions. Buses and coaches are the safest form of road passenger transport in this country. even where children are seated three to a double seat.

  We are continuing to review these regulations and will take account of the wishes of parents and others. For the present, I have no plans to amend them.

  Disabled Passengers
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what will be the expected annual saving to the Exchequer arising from the repeal of the vehicle excise duty exemption under the disabled passengers scheme.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I understand the saving will be in the region of £440,000, in the first year, based on the approximate annual number of new applications.

  Current beneficiaries under this scheme will not lose their entitlement to exemption from vehicle excise duty as a result of the repeal.

  Traffic Commissioners (North Staffordshire)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of the staffing resources available to the traffic commissioners responsible for north Staffordshire.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  There are 46·5 permanent staff based at the West Midland traffic area office who provide support for the West Midland traffic commissioner whose geographical area includes north Staffordshire. The staff includes one grade 7 clerk, who is also the clerk of the South Wales traffic area office, two higher executive officers, five executive officers and 38·5 administrative and support staff.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Science and Technology
  Sir Giles Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he now intends to publish the White Paper on science and technology.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I intend to publish the White Paper in the early part of next year.

  Sir Giles Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proposals he has for opportunities for further consultation after the publication of the White Paper on science and technology.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The White Paper will itself need to address any questions of further consultation. But I would welcome any views which my hon. Friend, who I know is the Chairman of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, may have.

  Citizens Charter
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make it his policy that requirements imposed under the citizens charter will continue to be applied to services sold to the private sector.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The citizens charter applies to all public services, and, in the private sector, to the main utilities where the regulatory bodies play a key role in protecting customers' interests in accordance with citizens' charter principles and in helping to develop competition. We will continue to appoint regulatory bodies following privatisation where it is in the public interest to do so.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many civil servants are currently employed by his Department(a) in London and (b) elsewhere.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Excluding its executive agencies, the Office of Public Service and Science employs 1,430 civil servants, 711 in London and 719 elsewhere, including those who work on a part-time basis.

PRIME MINISTER

  Radiation
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out the division of responsibilities between each Government Department in investigating the risks posed by exposure to radiation.

  The Prime Minister
  The Department of Health is responsible in general terms for the protection of public health against radiological hazards. The Department's specific responsibilities relate to obtaining expert advice; initiating relevant research; and ensuring an effective health response in the event of a radiological emergency.

  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's responsibilities are to protect the population from exposure to unacceptable levels of radioactivity through food chain pathways; and to minimise the impact of radioactive waste on the food, farming and fishing industries and the marine environment.

  The Department of Trade and Industry is responsible for civil nuclear safety in relation to the generation of electricity.

  The Department of Employment is responsible for the Ionising Radiation Regulations 1985, which concern the protection of workers and the public from radiation doses received as a result of any work involving ionising radiations. On this the Department is advised by the Health and Safety Commission and the regulations are enforced by the Health and Safety Executive.

  The Department of the Environment is responsible for establishing a radioactive waste management policy and for monitoring the environment for radioactivity. Within the Department, the regulators—Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution—have the statutory responsibility in England and Wales for authorising uses and disposals of radioactive substances.

  The Ministry of Defence is responsible for defence nuclear and radiological safety.
  466
  The Department of Transport is responsible for the safety aspects of the transportation of radioactive material.

  The Scottish Office, the Welsh Office and the Northern Ireland Office are responsible for all civil aspects of radiological safety in relation to their respective parts of the United Kingdom.

  The National Radiological Protection Board is responsible under the Radiological Protection Act 1970 for advancing knowledge of radiological protection and for informing and advising Government Departments and others on protection from radiation hazards.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the Government Departments concerned with the main areas of animal welfare, indicating their respective responsibilities.

  The Prime Minister
  A number of Government Departments have responsibility for the welfare and conservation of animals and related matters.

  The Department of the Environment is responsible for policy on stray dogs; the protection of birds; wildlife and endangered species.

  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is responsible for the welfare of livestock kept on agricultural land; the welfare of livestock at market and the welfare of horses, cattle, sheep, swine, goats and poultry in slaughterhouses and knackers yards. The Ministry is also involved in the campaign against illegal poisoning of wildlife and in the International Whaling Commission, and has responsibility for the impact of fishing practices on cetaceans.

  The Home Office is responsible for ensuring the adequacy of the law on cruelty to animals in general and in some specific areas, and for the law on the use of living animals in scientific procedures.

  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office works to raise the profile of animal welfare issues abroad, both bilaterally and with international organisations concerned.

  Maastricht Treaty
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister how many representations his office has received on the Maastricht treaty from 1 January to 1 December giving a disaggregated breakdown between those originating in the United Kingdom and those from abroad.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a substantial number of representations on the Maastricht treaty covering a wide range of issues.

  Legal Expenses Insurance Policies
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will require Ministers to take out legal expenses insurance policies.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so

  Freight Traffic
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Prime Minister if it remains his Government's policy to seek the transfer of freight traffic from road to rail; and if he will report on the extent to which freight has been transferred to rail since April 1992.
  467
  The Prime Minister
  The Government believe that freight should be transported by rail whenever that makes commercial sense to customers and rail operators alike. The best way to facilitate this is to end British Rail's monopoly of rail services, as proposed in the White Paper "New Opportunities for the Railways", Cm 2012. Detailed information about rail freight carryings since April 1992 is a matter for British Rail.

  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will order an immediate inquiry into the reasons for and effect of the fall in the volume of rail freight traffic.

  The Prime Minister
  Rail freight has been in decline for many years. The Government's proposals for the privatisation of British Rail's freight operations, and the opening up of the rail network to new entrants, are aimed at improving rail's prospects for the future.

  Tropical Timber
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom Government's position in respect of the preparatory committee for renegotiation of the international tropical timber agreement to be convened in Quito, Ecuador, in January 1993.

  The Prime Minister
  The United Kingdom had hoped that a second preparatory committee in Quito, Ecuador would be unnecessary; however, the tropical timber-producing countries require more time to develop their positions before discussing them with the consuming countries. The Quito meeting will provide a valuable opportunity for the producing and consuming countries to identify the issues they wish to renegotiate. The United Kingdom intends to participate in the second preparatory meeting and will work with its European neighbour for a speedy renegotiation of the 1983 agreement.

  Iraq
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps Her Majesty's Government took during 1990 and prior to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, to halt the export to Iraq of furnaces constructed by Consarc Engineering of Bellshill, near Glasgow.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 2 December 1992]:It is not normal practice to discuss the affairs of individual companies.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what requests Her Majesty's Government received from the United States Administration to stop the export to Iraq of two furnaces constructed by Consarc Engineering at Bellshill, near Glasgow, during 1990;

  (2) what communications Her Majesty's Government received from the United States Administration during 1990 and prior to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, concerning involvement by British companies in equipping a missile factory called Badr General Establishment.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 2 December 1992]:Communications between Governments are confidential.

  Civil List
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Prime Minister what items or headings of expenditure have been transferred from the royal family's expenditure funded from the civil 468
  list to the Government since 1972; on what dates; what is the current cost to the Exchequer of each such item or heading; and what was their cost at the time of their transfer.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 2 December 1992]: So far as I am aware, no items or headings of direct expenditure have been transferred from the civil list to the Government since 1972. However, following advice taken in 1987, consistent with government fees and charges policy, the royal household took on board the feasibility of charging full costs for certain administrative services. These included, for example, charging for the accommodation and support services provided to staff based in the royal household but who are employed by Government Departments. Similar charges are made on behalf of the civil list to the household's royal collection department and to the Prince of Wales's office. The cost to Government Departments in the years 1987–90, which should be seen in the context of the "1990 Royal Trustees Report"—HC 629—are as follows:

  £

  1987

  83,372

  1988

  138,310

  1989

  132,809

  1990

  162,810

  The separate identification of full costs for administrative services is in line with the Government's policy of identifying costs across the public sector.

  Furniture and Furnishings (Regulations)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Prime Minister which Government Department is responsible for drafting the Furniture and Furnishings Fire Safety Regulations; and what consultations are being undertaken on the terms of the regulations.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 3 December 1992]: The Furniture and Furnishings (Fire Safety) Regulations were made by the Department of Trade and Industry in July 1988. The DTI has recently consulted public on draft amendment regulations proposing to postpone, from March 1993 to 1 March 1994, the date by which furniture included in the letting of accommodation must meet the fire resistance requirements of the 1988 regulations. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to allow businesses providing furnished accommodation more time to prepare for the fire resistance requirements and to complete the upgrading or replacement of their existing stock of furniture. It will remain a requirement that any additional replacement or additional furniture which they supply from 1 March 1993 must meet the fire resistance requirements.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many civil servants from his departments have been relocated from London to other parts of the United Kingdom(a) in the last five years and (b) in the last 10 years; and to where they were relocated.
  469
  Mr. Dorrell
  A total of 3,114 posts from the Chancellor's departments have been relocated from London in the last five years under the current delegated approach. The table lists the moves by department and destination.

  Department and Location

  Number of posts

  Inland Revenue

  Nottingham

  700

  Washington

  20

  Cardiff

  300

  Wrexham

  20

  Sunderland

  199

  Bootle

  204

  Livingstone

  20

  Salford

  269

  Glasgow

  34

  East Kilbride

  220

  Middlesbrough

  199

  Edinburgh

  60

  Customs and Excise

  Manchester

  262

  Liverpool

  360

  Southend

  198

  CSO

  Newport, Wales

  41

  Treasury

  Basingstoke

  8

  During the previous five years, 278 posts from the Chancellor's departments were relocated from London. They were all moved by the Inland Revenue on their own initiative and the locations and number of posts involved were as follows:

  Location

  Number of posts

  Bristol

  38

  Solihull

  67

  Leeds

  67

  Birkenhead

  24

  Manchester

  65

  Glasgow

  17

  Economy
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with industry on the current state of the economy.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I have frequent contact with representatives of industry, and pay close attention to their views on the economy. I have taken careful note of their concerns and proposals, and the broad welcome given to the autumn statement.

  Third World Debt
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been granted in tax relief to United Kingdom banks against possible default on third world debts in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Provisions for doubtful sovereign debt by banks operating in the United Kingdom are estimated to have reduced corporation tax receipts in the last six years by the following amounts:
  470

  £ million

  1986–87

  70

  1987–88

  240

  1988–89

  550

  1989–90

  480

  1990–91

  720

  1 1991–92

  190

  1 provisional

  Estimates for earlier years are zero or small.

  Public expenditure
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Chancellor of the exchequer if he will make a statement on the reasons underlying the policy of seeking to reduce United Kingdom public expenditure as a proportion of national income.

  Mr. Portillo
  It is important, as the economy recovers, to reduce public expenditure as a share of national income so as to ensure that the benefits of recovery are not pre-empted by the state. A constantly increasing proportion would impose an intolerable burden on the wealth-creating sector and choke off growth. We need to reduce over time the ratio of public spending to gross domestic product so as to achieve our aim of returning the budget to balance as the economy recovers.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what weight is given to service-specific costs such as health care and medical inflation, education inflation and social service provision inflation in calculating public spending by Departments: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Government do not plan public expenditure in volume terms. However, service-specific costs are one of the many factors taken into account when determining the allocation of the public expenditure total between programmes.

  Share Ownership
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide a breakdown of share ownership by occupational status for the most recent date available.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The 1992 Treasury-ProShare share ownership survey showed that 22 per cent. of the adult population in Great Britain owned shares. Of these shareholders, 45 per cent. were in full-time employment; 10 per cent. were in part-time employment; 2 per cent. were students; 5 per cent. were retired; and 37 per cent. were inactive or unemployed.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what meetings he and his Ministers and officials have had during the past 12 months with(a) Greenpeace and (b) other anti-nuclear groups to discuss the future of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield.

  Sir John Cope
  Following a request from Greenpeace for a meeting to discuss the economics of nuclear fuel reprocessing, Treasury officials met representatives from Greenpeace in September 1992. There have been no meetings with other anti-nuclear groups in the last 12 months.

  Pensions (Tax Relief)
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost in 1993–94 of removing tax relief at the higher rate from(a) personal pensions, (b) all forms of occupational pensions and (c) all pensions to which higher rate tax exemption applies.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 4 December 1992]: The latest estimates of the direct revenue yields for 1993–94, assuming statutory indexation of 3·25 per cent. on 1992–93 levels of allowances and thresholds, are as follows:

  £ million

  Withdrawal of higher rate relief:—

  on contributions to personal pensions1

  180

  on contributions to occupational pensions

  300

  on all pensions

  480

  1 Including relief for retirement annuity premia and free standing additionnal voluntary contributions.

  No account has been taken of possible behavioural changes resulting from restricting availability of relief at the higher rate in these ways.

  Appointments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he plans to announce the appointment of a team of independent forecasters to assist the Treasury; and if he will name the individuals he has approached to date.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 1 December 1992]:Pursuant to my reply of 3 December 1992,Official Report, column 306, I have now invited the following to become members of the panel:

  Andrew Britton, Esq., National Institute of Economic and Social Research.

  Professor Tim Congdon, Lombard Street Research

  Professor David Currie, London Business School

  Gavyn Davies, Esq., Goldman Sachs International Ltd

  Professor Wynne Godley, Cambridge University

  Professor Patrick Minford, Liverpool University

  Andrew Sentance, Esq., Confederation of British Industry.

ENVIRONMENT

  Common Land
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to introduce new legislation on common land in England and Wales.

  Mr. Maclean
  Our policy on common land in England and Wales was set out in the statement made by the then Minister for the Environment and Countryside on 26 July 1990, at columns 391–92, but I cannot say when Commons legislation will be promoted to implement that policy.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much investment he is making in programmes for energy efficiency, energy conservation and combined heat and power programmes in the current year.

  Mr. MacLean
  The Energy Efficiency Office encourages energy efficiency through a range of initiatives, for which 472
  the budget for 1992–93 is £63 million. The promotion of combined heat and power is an integral part of the best practice programme which is one of these initiatives.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many civil servants from his Department have been relocated from London to other parts of the United Kingdom(a) in the last five years and (b) in the last 10 years; and to where they were relocated.

  Mr. Howard
  Over the past five years my Department has relocated 174 posts from London to Bedford, Bristol, Leeds and Manchester. Although records are not available for earlier years, it would appear that no posts were relocated during the five years prior to 1988.

  Overall some 45 per cent. of my Department's staff now work outside London. The need to retain posts in London is kept under review and we shall continue to look for opportunities to move posts to other parts of the country in accordance with Government policy.

  Homelessness
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will meet the Churches National Housing Coalition to discuss its petition on the growth and persistence of homelessness.

  Mr. Baldry
  I addressed a meeting organised by the Churches National Housing Coalition as part of its lobby of Parliament on 1 December 1992, and I listened with interest to the concerns expressed.

  Council Tax
  Ms. Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the income to be raised from the council tax in respect of(a) hospices and (b) other residential care homes, nationally and broken down by county authority area; and what representations he has received upon the council tax liability of (i) hospices and (ii) other residential care homes.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  There are about 16,000 residential care homes in England, and some 3,500 nursing homes, including hospices. My Department does not hold information on the bands to which each home will be allocated. Nor do we know the levels of discounts, reductions for disabilities and transitional relief to which each will be entitled. Furthermore, as local authorities will not be setting their council taxes until the spring, it is impossible to estimate the amount of tax which will be payable.

  My Department has received a number of representations about the council tax from individual care and nursing homes, and from associations representing such homes.

  Local Government Superannuation Scheme
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will postpone the implementation of the local government superannuation scheme until after the results of the Goode inquiry have been made public; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The recommendations of the Pension Law Review Committee will be considered carefully when
  473
  they are published. If changes to the regulations governing the local government superannuation scheme become necessary, statutory consultations with the interested parties will take place. Meantime, amendments to the scheme will continue.

  Council Reallocation Grants
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council reallocation grants were paid to people in(a) London and (b) England, wishing to move to Wales, in each year since 1989; and what was the cost to his Department in each of these years.

  Mr. Baldry
  Section 129 of the Housing Act 1988 empowers local authorities to give grants to their tenants to help them obtain other accommodation by buying or leasing a home or by extending an existing property.

  Reports on the operation of cash incentive schemes in 1989–90 and 1990–91, based on returns from local authorities, have already been placed in the Library and include the information requested.

  In 1991–92, a total of 22 grants were paid to tenants in London who wished to move to Wales and 12 to tenants in the rest of England who also wished to move to Wales. Information on the actual cost of the 34 grants in question is not readily available, but the average grant paid nationally in 1991–92 was £16,496.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what work has been undertaken by his Department to assess the economic implications of a delay in commissioning the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield.

  Mr. Maclean
  None. Consultation has already begun on the necessary draft authorisation for the Sellafield site to cover THORP operation.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what meetings he and his Ministers and officials have had during the last 12 months with(a) Greenpeace and (b) other anti-nuclear groups to discuss the commissioning of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield.

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State met members of Greenpeace on 21 September and discussed a number of issues including the commissioning of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield.

  Derelict Land Grant
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much derelict land grant expenditure there has been in the metropolitan borough of Wirral council district in each year since 1984( a) at current prices and (b) at 1984 prices.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 4 December 1992]The information requested is as follows:

  Metropolitan Borough of Wirral: Derelict Land Grant Expenditure

  Expenditure

  1992 Prices

  1984 Prices

  £

  £

  £

  1984–85

  191,533

  290,307

  191,533

  1985–86

  213,122

  319,329

  202,091

  1986–87

  303,962

  441,240

  279,244

  474

  Expenditure

  1992 Prices

  1984 Prices

  £

  £

  £

  1987–88

  187,922

  258,580

  163,646

  1988–89

  559,000

  716,985

  453,751

  1989–90

  175,000

  210,613

  133,289

  1990–91

  371,841

  414,428

  262,278

  1991–92

  351,419

  366,354

  231,852

  11992–93

  400,000

  400,000

  253,144

  Total

  2.753,799

  3,417,836

  2,170,828

  1 Forecast

  A further £102,000 derelict land grant was paid in this period towards reclamation schemes carried out by non-local authority applicants in the metropolitan borough of Wirral.

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will break down into local authority areas the distribution of the £750 million budget announced in the autumn statement for the purchase of empty houses.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 4 December 1992]Of the £750 million package, £627 million is being spent in England. A total of £577 million has been allocated to the Housing Corporation for the purchase of empty, new and repossessed properties and £20 million for additional grants under the tenants incentive schemes—TIS. A total of £30 million is being allocated to local authorities for additional grants under the cash incentive scheme—CIS.

  The resources for the purchase of empty properties are being allocated by the corporation to housing associations operating in a number of local authority areas. Around 75 per cent. of the money has now been allocated; the remainder will be allocated by early January. The distribution of the resources allocated so far is as follows:

  £ million

  London and Home Counties (North East)

  68·60

  London and Home Counties (North West)

  62·60

  London and Home Counties (South)

  84·33

  West

  59·20

  East Midlands

  42·10

  West Midlands

  34·20

  North East

  37·40

  North West

  31·40

  Merseyside

  6·80

  The £20 million for additional TIS grants has been allocated by the corporation to its regions as follows:

  £ million

  London and Home Counties (North East)

  2·914

  London and Home Cunties (North West)

  3·735

  London and Home Conties (South)

  4·161

  West

  2·434

  East Midlands

  1·466

  West Midlands

  2·072

  North East

  1·326

  North West

  1·506

  Merseyside

  0·376

  The £30 million for additional CIS grants will be spent in London and the south-east. Allocations to individual local authorities will be announced shortly.

  Tarmac
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the amount of the claim for liquidated damages made by the Property Services Agency Projects board against Tarmac in respect of the contract on the Hewell Grange prison in Leeds.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 4 December 1992]The amount of any such claim is commercially confidential. The contract on Hewell Grange prison was excluded from the sale of PSA Projects to Tarmac. Any claims are the responsibility of the Home Office, as the client.

EDUCATION

  Higher Education
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will publish an updated version of the table in annex 2 of "Higher Education: A New Framework", Cm 1541, setting out projections of home student numbers in higher education in Great Britain.

  Mr. Forman
  The public expenditure proposals announced in the autumn statement provide for a 13 per cent. increase in the number of full-time equivalent home and EC students in higher education in England over the next three years. The figures are:

  Number

  1992–93

  776,000

  1993–94

  842,000

  1994–95

  877,000

  1995–96

  880,000

  The figures assume that the proportion of young people entering higher education—currently well over one in four—will remain broadly steady over the next three years, and that it will increase to one in three by the end of the decade—the level projected in the 1991 White Paper.

  Mandatory Awards
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many investigations have been made by his Department into reports of delays in payment of mandatory awards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forman
  The Department has investigated complaints of delays made against seven local education authorities in the current academic year.

  Students (Sponsorship)
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will call for a report on how institutions of higher and further education are reacting to the withdrawing of financial sponsorship from students by industrial and commercial sponsors.

  Mr. Forman
  Industry and commerce will decide questions of student sponsorship in the context of their overall recruitment policies. It is for individual higher and further education institutions themselves to consider whether changes in the financial sponsorship of students have any implications for the particular mix and type of 476
  courses they provide. Any withdrawing of sponsorship by industry and commerce will not however affect a student's entitlement to a mandatory award or student loan.

  Discipline
  Rev.Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what role his Department has in any disciplinary proceedings in locally or directly managed schools.

  Mr. Forth
  Disciplinary procedures applying to staff in local education authority-maintained schools without delegated budgets are the responsibility of the local education authority; in schools with delegated budgets and grant-maintained schools, they are under the control of the governing body.

  Open University
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement outlining what action he has taken in respect of the final report of the visiting committee of the Open university.

  Mr. Forman
  My right hon. Friend decided, on the advice of the chairman of the Open university visiting committee, that the report should be passed to the Higher Education Funding Council for England, since that body would be responsible for the Open university's funding from April 1993. A copy of the report was sent to the chairman of the funding council on 21 August.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much financial provision he has made available in the current year to the Open university to assist students in financial hardship.

  Mr. Forman
  The practice of earmarking a portion of the Open university's recurrent grant for the provision of financial support for unemployed students was discontinued in 1991 at the university's request. The university is now free to determine how much of its grant it spends on assistance for students suffering financial hardship.

  EC Education Council
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the outcome of the recent meeting of the Council of EC Ministers of Education.

  Mr. Patten
  I chaired the meeting on Friday 27 November of the Council of EC Education Ministers. The Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland represented the United Kingdom.

  After two and a half years of negotiation, the Ministers reached agreement on the terms of the new statute of the European schools. The effect of this will be to improve the efficiency of operation of the board of governors of these nine schools, which were established for the children of the staff of the EC institutions.

  The Ministers also agreed that there should be a second four-year phase of the TEMPUS programme and exchanged views on its key features. TEMPUS is a programme of EC assistance to the countries of central and eastern Europe through co-operation in higher education. The first phase expires after the academic year 1993–94 and it should now be possible for the Council formally to adopt the second phase early next year.
  477
  The Ministers adopted conclusions on and discussed the future directions of co-operation at Community level in higher education and in open and distance learning. They adopted conclusions on EC-United States cooperation in education and training, health education in schools and the Eurydice network of information exchange in education.

  School Closures
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will outline the criteria for the closure of rural schools.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend would expect any closure proposal to take account of considerations such as the number of pupils on roll, the quality of alternative provision, parental choice, local geography, the distance to be travelled to alternative schools, and the age of children making those journeys. That said, very small schools are expensive to run and where alternative schools are readily accessible closures can make sense.

  Surplus School Places (Thamesmead)
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what estimate he has made of the number of surplus school places at both primary and secondary level in the Thamesmead area in both Greenwich and Bexley; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  On the basis of the Department's survey of school capacity we estimate that in 1991 the London borough of Greenwich had 3,026 surplus places in the primary sector and 3,756 surplus places in the secondary sector, representing 15 and 22 per cent. of total capacity respectively. The authority has suggested that these figures should be revised to 2,689 primary and 3,796 secondary. It is not possible to say how many of these were located in the Thamesmead area.

  A-levels
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the current percentage of those students taking GCSEs who go on to take A-levels.

  Mr. Forman
  About 40 per cent. of pupils who take GCSEs at 16 go on to study for A-levels at schools and publicly funded further education establishments.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to amend the law regarding public interest immunity certificates.

  Mr. Jack
  There are no current plans for legislation. However, the issue is within the scope of both Lord Justice Scott's inquiry and the Royal Commission on criminal justice; and we shall study carefully any recommendations that are made.

  Police Pension Scheme
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take the necessary legislative and other steps to provide that the police pension scheme 478
  shall provide a pension for the widow of a policeman who married after retirement from the police force but before 6 April 1978 as if the requirements of the Social Security Act 1975 applied prior to that date.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No. The police pension scheme is consistent with other main public service pension schemes on this matter. There is no justification for making an exception.

  Teenage Prisoners
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many (a) 16-year-olds, (b) 15-year-olds and (c) 14-year-olds have been held in an adult prison on remand for any period of time during each of the last five years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The readily available information is given in the table. Separate figures for adult prisons are not readily available.

  Receptions of untried and convicted unsentenced juveniles into local prisons and remand centres in England and Wales: by type of initial reception and age, 1987–91

  Type of reception and age

  Number of persons

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  19911

  Untried

  14

  2

  1

  —

  3

  10

  15

  545

  510

  443

  359

  401

  16

  1,162

  994

  935

  800

  673

  Convicted unsentenced

  14

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  15

  38

  25

  25

  22

  29

  16

  117

  91

  63

  84

  55

  1 Provisional figures.

  Prison Service (Director General)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement regarding the appointment of a new director general of the prison service.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I hope to be able to make an announcement shortly.

  Devon and Cornwall Police Authority
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what increases in uniformed officers have been approved for the Devon and Cornwall police authority for 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94; what were the requests of the authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information is given in the table.

  Year

  Applications (Number of posts)

  Posts approved

  1991–92

  31

  15

  1992–93

  70

  48

  1993–94

  49

  Nil

  In the light of the Government's decision that constraints must be placed upon public expenditure, my

  479
  right hon. and learned Friend has concluded that the costs of additional police officers cannot at present be justified. He has therefore decided not to approve any increases in police establishments for 1993–94.

  Immigration Ministers' Meeting
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the meeting of European Community Immigration and Trevi Ministers which he chaired in London on 30 November and 1 December.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The meeting of Ministers concerned with immigration was the 13th in the series of meetings held towards the end of each presidency since 1986.

  Ministers approved a number of texts forming part of the immigration and asylum work programme endorsed by the Maastricht European Council a year ago. These consisted of
  (i)A resolution on manifestly unfounded applications for asylum, which defines the cases to which it is appropriate to apply accelerated procedures;
  (ii)A resolution on "host third countries", which sets out objective criteria defining the circumstances in which it is appropriate to return an asylum applicant to a safe third country for substantive consideration of the application;
  (iii)Conclusions on countries in which there is generally no serious risk of persecution, which create a presumption against the claim of an asylum applicant from a country which is generally regarded as safe;
  (iv)A recommendation regarding practices followed by member states on expulsion, designed to encourage best practice both in the effective removal of persons unlawfully in the territory of the member states and in the application of safeguards against unjustified or arbitrary expulsion;
  (v) A recommendation regarding transit for the purposes of expulsion, which lays down procedures to be followed where it is necessary for a person being expelled to transit to another member state.

  Ministers also considered a draft resolution on harmonisation of national policies on family reunification. They agreed the bulk of the text, but remitted one issue for further consideration by officials.

  Ministers also approved conclusions on people displaced from former Yugoslavia and in particular the need for a more co-ordinated approach to the problem.

  I am placing in the Library of the House copies of all the documents that were approved by Immigration Ministers, together with the press communiqué.

  Ministers discussed developments on the free movement of persons in 1993 and exchanged views on their plans and intentions in respect of internal frontiers.

  Discussion at the meeting of Trevi Ministers on I December focused on the establishment of Europol and in particular its first stage, the Europol drugs unit. The Ministers agreed that they wished to establish Europol, and in particular the Europol drugs unit, as quickly as possible. The meeting was unable to decide upon a location for the unit and this decision will now rest with the European Council.

  Trevi Ministers also approved a number of reports from individual Trevi working groups on police co-operation against terrorism, police training and the co-ordination of intergovernmental police co-operation.

  Discretionary Life Sentences
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) on how many occasions the new discretionary life sentence tribunals have recommended that prisoners be moved to a lower security category; and on how many occasions that recommendation has been acted upon;

  (2) how many discretionary life sentence prisoners have appeared before the new lifer tribunals; and how many of them have been recommended for immediate release.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Thirty-three discretionary life prisoners have so far appeared before a discretionary lifer panel of the parole hoard. Four prisoners have been released on life licence following a direction from the board. Of the remaining prisoners, the board has recommended that one should be released for deportation, 15 should be moved to conditions of lower security and that six should be considered for specialist treatment. These recommendations are being carefully considered.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many section 53 offenders, aged 16 years and under, are at present placed in adult prisons in England and Wales.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  According to the records held centrally, which are approximate, no offenders under 17 detained under section 53 of the Children and Young People Act 1933 were held in adult prisons in England and Wales on 31 August 1992, the latest date for which information is available. However, six such detainees were being held in remand centres.

  Terrorists
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons from Northern Ireland are presently serving prison sentences in Great Britain for terrorist offences; how many of these are serving life sentences; and to which terrorist organisations they belong.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On 1 December 1992, 16 prisoners who have given Northern Ireland as their place of birth were serving sentences in England and Wales for serious offences related to terrorism. Of these, nine are serving life sentences. It is not the practice to discuss claimed or suspected affiliation to particular organisations.

  Drugs
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of the Welsh prison population is made up of prisoners serving sentences for drug-related offences.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On 30 June 1992, the latest date for which information is readily available, prisoners serving sentences for drugs offences accounted for approximately 3·5 per cent. of the total sentenced population and 2 per cent. of the total population, including remand and non-criminal prisoners, in prison service establishments in Wales.

  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are being taken to prevent the flow of drugs into prisons.
  481
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have a range of measures to deter and detect attempts to bring drugs into prisons. These include searching prisoners on reception and on return from home leave or other absences; searching or storing away visitors' hand luggage; and searching visitors themselves where there is reason to believe that they intend to smuggle drugs in.

  We search prisoners, their cells and other areas for those drugs that do find their way into prison. We have increased the number of prison dogs trained to detect drugs and each prison has received a training package to help staff detect and identify drugs.

  The best way to prevent drugs entering prisons is to tackle the root cause by reducing the demand. We have published detailed guidelines on the through care of drug misusers. These require all prisons to have in place effective arrangements for identifying drug users and providing clinical care and detoxification programmes where necessary. We encourage prisons to make full use of community drug agencies to provide counselling and preventive training.

  Life Licence Prisoners
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many life licence prisoners are currently in gaols in England and Wales.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  These figures are published annually in "Prison Statistics, England and Wales", chapter 8 of the volume for 1990, Cm 1800.

  The provisonal figure for the number of life sentenced prisoners in prison service establishments on 30 June 1991 who had been recalled from licence is 122. This compares with a total population of life sentence prisoners of 2,896 for the same date.

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) pursuant to his answer of 25 November,Official Report, column 654, what is the nature of the national interest which led him to sign a public interest immunity certificate on 27 July;

  (2)pursuant to his answer of 25 November, Official Report, column 654, if he will list the police forces, prosecuting authorities and others involved in the communications regarding which he signed a public interest immunity certificate on 27 July, whether in the United Kingdom or abroad;

  (3)pursuant to his answer of 25 November, Official Report, column 654, how many communications, and over what period of time, were covered by the public interest immunity certificate he signed on 27 July; and between what dates those communications took place;

  (4)pursuant to his answer of 25 November, Official Report, column 654, what matters or issues were dealt with in the communications covered by the public interest immunity certificates he signed on 27 July;

  (5)pursuant to his answer of 25 November, Official Report, column 654, whether, in regard to the public interest immunity certificate he signed on 27 July, the communications covered involved matters of national security interest.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 1 to 4 December 1992]:The certificate asserted the public interest in protecting the confidentially of exchange of information in 482
  order to prevent or detect crime. I do not believe that it would be in the public interest for exchanges between police authorities investigating crime to be put into the public domain. It would not be sensible to give further details in this case.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Peru
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many bilateral aid agreements are in force between the United Kingdom and Peru.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  There are 17 agreements, two of which concern specific projects.

  Voluntary Agencies (British Workers)
  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British citizens are working for voluntary aid agencies overseas.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have no information on the total number of British citizens working for voluntary agencies overseas. However, the four volunteer sending agencies funded by the Overseas Development Administration have around 2,000 volunteers working in developing countries.

  Good Governance Policy
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Her Majesty's Government next intend to review the restrictions on development aid imposed in pursuit of the good governance policy.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We keep aid allocations to individual recipient countries under regular review. This takes into account the standards of government in the countries concerned.

  Somalia
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his estimate of the amount of aid to Somalia that has not been used for the purposes for which it was intended.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  It is impossible to estimate accurately the extent of misappropriation. There are conflicting reports. They vary according to the security of the region where aid is to be delivered and the type of assistance provided. Food aid for the centre and south of the country is most vulnerable. We hope the new UN/US operation will provide a more secure environment, which will enable more aid to be delivered to those in need. On 4 December, Baroness Chalker, the Minister for Overseas Development, announced a further contribution of £4·5 million for humanitarian assistance to Somalia. This brings Britain's contribution to Somalia's relief effort to £31·5 million in 1992.

  Aid Payments
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much aid was paid for in(a) pound sterling and (b) other currencies, specifying which currencies, in each of the last 10 years; and what were the percentages for each currency.
  483
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The information requested is available for only part of the last 10 years, and could be extracted from departmental records only at disproportionate cost.

  World Bank
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many structured adjustment loans the World bank made in each year since 1983; and if he will list them by country and amount.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The number of structural adjustment loans provided by the World bank between 1983 and 1992 were:

  Country

  Loan

  Amount

  $ millions

  Algeria

  Economic Reform Loan

  300·0

  Algeria

  Enterprise and Financial Sector Restruction

  350·0

  Argentina

  Agricultural Sector Loan

  350·0

  Argentina

  Trade Policy Loan

  500·0

  Argentina

  Banking Sector Loan

  400·0

  Argentina

  2nd Trade Policy Loan

  300·0

  Argentina

  Public Enterprise Reform Adjustment

  300·0

  Argentina

  Public Sector Reform

  325·0

  Bangladesh

  Industrial Sector Loan

  190·0

  Bangladesh

  Energy Sector Loan

  175·0

  Bangladesh

  Financial Sector Credit

  181·4

  Benin

  SAL I

  45·0

  Benin

  SAL II

  55·0

  Bolivia

  Import Reconstruction Loan

  55·0

  Bolivia

  2nd Import Reconstruction Loan

  47·1

  Bolivia

  Financial Sector Loan

  70·0

  Bolivia

  SAC (SAL)

  50·4

  Brazil

  Export Development Loan

  352·0

  Brazil

  Agriculture and Trade Development Loan

  303·0

  Brazil

  Agriculture Market Reform Loan

  500·0

  Bulgaria

  SAL I

  250·0

  Burkina Faso

  Fertilizer Loan

  13·7

  Burkina Faso

  SAL I

  80·0

  Burundi

  SAL I

  31·2

  Burundi

  SAL II

  90·0

  Burundi

  Agricultural Services Sector Loan

  33·1

  Cameroon

  SAL I

  150·0

  Central African Republic

  SAL I

  30·0

  Central African Republic

  Agricultural Sector Loan

  15·0

  Central African Republic

  SAL II

  40·0

  Central African Republic

  SAL III

  45·0

  Chad

  Financial Sector Loan

  37·5

  Chad

  Transportation Loan

  60·0

  Chile

  SAL I

  250·0

  Chile

  SAL II

  250·0

  Chile

  SAL III

  250·0

  Chile

  Rural Sector Loan

  300·0

  Colombia

  Trade and Export Diversification Loan

  300·0

  Colombia

  Trade and Agricultural Policy

  250·0

  Colombia

  Energy Sector Loan

  300·0

  Colombia

  Public Sector Reform

  304·0

  Comoros

  Macroeconomic Reform and Capital Building (SAL)

  8·0

  Congo

  SAL I

  70·0

  Costa Rica

  Export Development Loan

  25·2

  Costa Rica

  SAL I

  80·0

  Costa Rica

  SAL II

  100·0

  Cote d'lvoire

  SAL II

  250·0

  Cote d'Ivoire

  SAL HI

  250·0

  Cote d'Ivoire

  Agricultural Sector Adjustment

  150·0

  Cote d'Ivoire

  Energy Sector Loan

  100·0

  Cote d'Ivoire

  Water Supply Sewerage Sector Adjustment

  80·0

  Cote d'Ivoire

  Financial Sector Adjustment

  200·0

  Cote d'Ivoire

  Human Resources Development

  150·0

  Cote d'Ivoire

  Regulatory Reform

  100·0

  484

  Number

  1983

  15

  1984

  15

  1985

  16

  1986

  25

  1987

  31

  1988

  28

  1989

  33

  1990

  32

  1991

  33

  11992

  16

  1 To April.

  The table provides information on the loans by country, title and amount:
  485

  Country

  Loan

  Amount

  $ millions

  Czechoslovakia

  SAL I

  450·0

  Ecuador

  Agricultural Sector Loan

  100·0

  Ecuador

  Financial Sector Loan

  100·0

  Egypt, Arab Republic

  Structural Adjustment (SAL)

  300·0

  El Salvador

  SAL I

  75·0

  Gabon

  SAL I

  50·0

  Gambia

  SAL I

  16·5

  Gambia

  SAL II

  23·0

  Ghana

  Trade and Import Sector Loan

  40·0

  Ghana

  Export Rehabilitation Loan

  76·0

  Ghana

  2nd Trade and Import Sector Loan

  87·0

  Ghana

  Industrial Sector Loan

  53·5

  Ghana

  Educational Sector Loan

  34·5

  Ghana

  SAL I

  115·0

  Ghana

  Financial Sector Loan

  100·0

  Ghana

  SAL II

  120·0

  Ghana

  Education SAC II

  50·0

  Ghana

  Private Investment Promotion (SAL)

  126·1

  Ghana

  FINSAC

  100·0

  Guinea

  SAL I

  42·0

  Guinea

  SAL 11

  65·0

  Guinea

  Education Sector Adjustment Loan

  20·0

  Guinea Bissau

  Import Reconstruction Loan

  15·0

  Guinea Bissau

  SAL I

  15·0

  Guinea Bissau

  SAL II

  23·4

  Guyana

  SAC

  103·4

  Honduras

  SAL I

  50·0

  Honduras

  SAL II

  90·0

  Honduras

  SAC (SAL)

  20·0

  Honduras

  Energy Sector

  83·8

  Hungary

  Industrial Sector Loan

  100·0

  Hungary

  2nd Industrial Sector Loan

  200·0

  Hungary

  SAL I

  200·0

  Hungary

  SAL II

  250·0

  Indonesia

  Trade Policy Loan

  300·0

  Indonesia

  2nd Trade Policy Loan

  300·0

  Indonesia

  Private Sector Development Loan

  350·0

  Indonesia

  Private Sector Development Loan II

  250·0

  India

  Oil and Gas Sector Development

  150·0

  India

  SAL

  500·0

  Jamaica

  SAL II

  60·2

  Jamaica

  Export Development Fund HI

  30·1

  Jamaica

  SAL III

  55·0

  Jamaica

  Trade and Finance Sectors Loan

  40·0

  Jamaica

  Public Enterprises Sector Loan

  20·0

  Jamaica

  Agriculture Sector Adjustment

  25·0

  Jamaica

  Trade and Financial Sectors Adjustment II

  30·0

  Jordan

  Trade Adjustment

  150·0

  Kenya

  SAL II

  130·9

  Kenya

  Agricultural Sector Loan

  60·0

  Kenya

  Industry and Trade Sectors Loan

  112·0

  Kenya

  Financial Sector Loan

  120·0

  Kenya

  Export Development

  149·2

  Kenya

  Agricultural Sector Adjustment II

  75·0

  Kenya

  Education Sector Adjustment Credit

  100·0

  Korea, Republic of

  SAL II

  300·0

  Korea, Republic of

  Industry and Finance Sectors Loan

  222·0

  Lao, People's Democratic Republic

  SAL I

  40·0

  Lao, People's Democratic Republic

  SAL II (SAC)

  40·0

  Madagascar

  Industrial Assistance Loan

  60·0

  Madagascar

  Agricultural Sector Loan

  93·0

  Madagascar

  Industry and Trade Policy Loan

  83·0

  Madagascar

  Public Sector Adjustment Loan

  126·3

  Malawi

  Fertilizer Loan

  5·0

  Malawi

  SAL II

  55·0

  Malawi

  SAL HI

  70·0

  Malawi

  Industry and Trade Policy Loan

  70·0

  Malawi

  Agriculture Sector

  75·2

  Mali

  Public Sector Loan

  40·0

  486 487

  Country

  Loan

  Amount

  $ millions

  Mali

  Human Resources Loan

  26·0

  Mali

  Agriculture Sector Adjustment Loan

  53·0

  Mali

  SAL I

  70·0

  Mauritania

  Public Sector Loan

  16·4

  Mauritania

  Public Enterprise Loan

  20·0

  Mauritania

  SAL I

  42·4

  Mauritania

  Private Enterprise Sector Adjustment

  42·5

  Mauritania

  Agricultural Sector Adjustment Loan/ Irrigation Improvement

  25·0

  Mauritius

  SAL II

  40·0

  Mauritius

  Industrial Sector Loan

  25·0

  Mexico

  Export Development Loan

  352·0

  Mexico

  Trade Policy Loan

  500·0

  Mexico

  2nd Trade Policy Loan

  500·0

  Mexico

  Agricultural Sector Loan

  300·0

  Mexico

  Fertilizer Sector Loan

  265·0

  Mexico

  Financial Sector Loan

  500·0

  Mexico

  Public Enterprises Reform Loan

  500·0

  Mexico

  Industrial Sector Loan

  500·0

  Mexico

  Industrial Restructuring Loan

  250·0

  Mexico

  Road Transportation/Telecommunications Sector Adjustment

  380·0

  Mexico

  Special Interest Support

  1,260·0

  Mexico

  Agricultural Sector Adjustment II

  400·0

  Mexico

  Export Sector

  300·0

  Morocco

  Trade and Industry Policy Loan

  150·4

  Morocco

  Agricultural Sector Loan

  100·0

  Morocco

  2nd Trade and Industry Loan

  200·0

  Morocco

  Educational Sector Loan

  150·0

  Morocco

  Public Enterprises Reform Loan

  240·0

  Morocco

  Agricultural Sector Loan

  225·0

  Morocco

  SAL I

  200·0

  Morocco

  Financial Sector Development

  235·0

  Mozambique

  Economic Recovery Programme

  88·6

  Mozambique

  Economic Recovery Programme

  90·0

  Nepal

  SAL I

  50·0

  Nepal

  SAL II

  60·0

  Nicaragua

  Economic Reconstruction Credit (SAL)

  120·3

  Niger

  SAL I

  60·0

  Niger

  Public Enterprises Reform Loan

  80·0

  Nigeria

  Fertilizer Sector Loan

  250·0

  Nigeria

  Trade and Investment Sector Loan

  452·0

  Nigeria

  2nd Trade and Investment Loan

  500·0

  Nigeria

  Education University Development

  120·0

  Pakistan

  Energy Sector Loan

  178·0

  Pakistan

  Export Development Loan

  70·0

  Pakistan

  Agricultural Sector Loan

  200·0

  Pakistan

  2nd Energy Sector Loan

  278·0

  Pakistan

  Financial Sector Loan

  150·0

  Panama

  SAL. I

  60·2

  Panama

  SAL 11

  100·0

  Papua New Guinea

  SAL

  50·0

  Philippines

  SAL II

  302·3

  Philippines

  Agricultural Sector Loan

  150·0

  Philippines

  Economic Recovery Programme

  300·0

  Philippines

  Public Sector Loan

  200·0

  Philippines

  Financial Sector Loan

  300·0

  Philippines

  Debt. Management Loan

  200·0

  Philippines

  Environment and Natural Resources Management

  224·0

  Poland

  SAL I

  300·0

  Poland

  Financial Institutions Development

  200·0

  Poland

  Restructuring and Privatisation

  280·0

  Rwanda

  SAL I

  90·0

  Sâo Tomé and Principe

  SAL I

  7·0

  Sâo Tomé and Principe

  SAC II

  9·8

  Senegal

  SAL II

  64·0

  Senegal

  SAL III

  85·0

  Senegal

  Banking Financial Sector

  45·0

  Senegal

  SAL IV

  80·0

  Sierra Leone

  Agricultural Sector Loan

  21·5

  Somalia

  Agricultural Sector Loan

  62·6

  Somalia

  2nd Agricultural Sector Loan

  70·0

  488 489

  Country

  Loan

  Amount

  $ millions

  Sri Lanka

  Economic Reconstruction Credit

  95·2

  Sri Lanka

  Public Manufacturing Enterprise Adjustment

  120·0

  Sudan

  2nd Agricultural Rehabilitation Loan

  50·0

  Tanzania

  Multisector Rehabilitation Programme

  96·2

  Tanzania

  Industry Rehabilitation and Trade Loan

  135·0

  Tanzania

  Agricultural Adjustment Credit

  211·3

  Tanzania

  Financial Sector

  200·0

  Thailand

  SAL II

  175·0

  Togo

  SAL I

  40·0

  Togo

  SAL II

  37·8

  Togo

  SAL III

  45·0

  Togo

  SAL IV

  55·0

  Togo

  Population/Health Adjustment

  14·2

  Trinidad and Tobago

  SAL

  40·0

  Tunisia

  Agricultural Sector Loan

  150·0

  Tunisia

  Industry and Trade Policy Loan

  150·0

  Tunisia

  SAL I

  150·0

  Tunisia

  2nd Agricultural Sector Loan

  84·0

  Tunisia

  Private Enterprise Investment

  130·0

  Tunisia

  Economic and Financial Reform Support (SAL)

  250·0

  Turkey

  SAL IV

  300·8

  Turkey

  SAL V

  376·0

  Turkey

  Agricultural Sector Loan

  300·0

  Turkey

  Financial Sector Loan

  300·0

  Turkey

  Energy Sector Loan

  325·0

  Turkey

  2nd Financial Sector Loan

  400·0

  Uganda

  Agricultural Sector Loan

  70·0

  Uganda

  Economic Recovery Programme

  65·0

  Uganda

  Economic Recovery II

  126·6

  Uganda

  Agricultural Sector Adjustment Credit

  100·0

  Uganda

  SAC I (SAL)

  125·0

  Uruguay

  Agricultural Sector Loan

  60·0

  Uruguay

  SAL I

  80·0

  Uruguay

  SAL II

  140·0

  Uruguay

  DDSR Support (DRL)

  65·0

  Venezuela

  Trade Policy Loan

  353·0

  Venezuela

  SAL I

  402·0

  Venezuela

  Financial Sector Adjustment

  300·0

  Venezuela

  Public Enterprise Reform

  350·0

  Venezuela

  Interest Support Loan

  150·0

  Yugoslavia

  SAL I

  275·0

  Yugoslavia

  Fertilizer Loan

  90·0

  Yugoslavia

  SAL II

  400·0

  Zaire

  Industrial Sector Loan

  80·0

  Zaire

  SAL I

  149·3

  Zambia

  Export Rehabilitation and Diversification

  75·0

  Zambia

  Agricultural Sector Loan

  35·0

  Zambia

  Industrial Sector Loan

  62·0

  Zambia

  Economic Recovery Programme

  50·0

  Zambia

  Recovery Credit (SAL)

  237·2

  Zimbabwe

  Export Industry Policy Loan

  70·6

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many staff are employed in the United Kingdom's executive director's office at the World bank in Washington DC; and if he will give details of their duties.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United Kingdom executive director at the World hank, who is also our executive director at the International Monetary Fund, is supported by an alternate director for each institution and by six technical assistants. Details of the activities of the board of directors are set out in the World bank's annual report, a copy of which is available in the Libraries of the House.

  Iraq
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is currently being made by his Department in securing direct flights containing humanitarian aid into Iraqi Kurdistan.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Together with other contributors to humanitarian operations in northern Iraq, we believe that road, rather than air, transport is the most cost-effective way of getting aid to those who need it. We have therefore supported the United Nations plan of action which gives priority to ensuring the delivery of relief supplies by road.
  491
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what efforts are currently undertaken by his Department to alleviate any difficulties faced by the Kurdish people of northern Iraq as a direct result of the United Nations imposed sanctions against Iraq.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The difficulties faced by the Kurdish people of northern Iraq result from the actions of the Baghdad Government, including an internal embargo on the supply of essential goods, rather than from United Nations sanctions. Food, medicine and other goods for essential civilian needs are not covered under the terms of the United Nations sanctions resolutions.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the European Community to ensure that assistance granted to Iraqi Kurdistan is channelled through the Iraqi Kurdish National Assembly and non-governmental organisations.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are in regular contact with the Commission of the European Community about humanitarian assistance to Kurdish areas of northern Iraq. Like our own bilateral aid, EC aid to these areas is being channelled through non-governmental organisations and the World Food Programme.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the United Nations concerning the delivery of food, fuel, medicine and reconstruction equipment and material for water, sanitation and shelter for the Kurdish people of Northern Iraq.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We hold regular discussions with the United Nations on these issues. My noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development met the head or the United Nations department of humanitarian affairs on 7 December, and agreed with him on the urgent need for the provision of relief supplies to northern Iraq, in view of the imminent onset of winter.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to channel aid to the Kurdish people of northern Iraq either through the United Nations or through the Iraqi Kurdish National Assembly.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Our bilateral aid to northern Iraq has been channelled through UN agencies, and through British and Kurdish non-governmental organisations. Details of our latest pledge were given in my reply of 26 October to the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney), at column 433

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Turkey concerning the transport of non-military aid through Turkey to Iraqi Kurdistan.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We hold regular discussions with the Government of Turkey on humanitarian operations in northern Iraq. We welcome the cooperation which they have given in enabling food and other relief goods to be transported from Turkey to Kurdish areas of Iraq.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has for helping the Kurds in Iraq.
  492
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have spent £52·4 million since April 1991 on aid for Iraqi civilians. Further relief assistance is urgently needed before the onset of winter. We are therefore making available today a further £2·6 million, of which about £2·4 million will be provided to the World Food Programme for urgently needed edible oil and pulses, and the remainder to British nongovernmental organisations for relief activities in northern Iraq.

  Forests
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what countries have benefited from United Kingdom bilateral aid assistance under the tropical forestry action plan; and how much money has been pledged and disbursed in relation to each recipient country.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The following countries/areas have benefited from United Kingdom bilateral aid assistance under agreed tropical forestry action plans over the last five years.

  Pledged

  Disbursed

  £ million

  £ million

  Belize

  Total to be determined

  0·404

  Cameroon

  1·900

  1·000

  Caribbean Community

  0·294

  0·245

  Costa Rica

  0·706

  0

  Ghana

  5·491

  3·566

  Honduras

  4·152

  1·765

  Jamaica

  Total to be determined

  0·012

  Nepal

  9·285

  3·613

  Papua New Guinea

  0·229

  0·182

  Sri Lanka

  10·343

  5·900

  Total

  32·400

  16·687

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the publication of the African Development bank's forestry policy will take place.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The African Development bank's forestry policy paper was issued in draft on 2 December 1992. Internal consultations are expected to be completed by end-January 1993, and publication should follow shortly thereafter.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give details of bilateral forestry projects approved for Brazil with total estimated costs.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Following is the information:

  1. ABRACOS (Anglo-Brazilian Amazonian climate observation study) operates in the states of Amazonas, Para and Rondonia. The British Institute of Hydrology (IH) is Project Manager, and INPE (Space Research Institute), is the lead Brazilian collaborating institute. together with INPA (National Research Institute for Amazonia) and CENA (Centre for Nuclear Energy in Agriculture). The project is a study of the impact of deforestation on climate. The objective is to improve the accuracy and credibility of general circulation model (GCM) predictions of the climatic consequences of Amazonian deforestation by addressing the land/ atmosphere interaction and the difference in near surface climate associated with forest clearance. The project

  493
  follows the pioneering work of IH and INPE in the mid-1980s and involves the establishment of four field measuring stations in Amazonas, Para and Rondonia. The Amazonas sites were established in 1990, and the other two set up during 1991. Brazilian scientists take field readings throughout the year, and British scientists participate in periodic intensive field missions. The project was agreed in March 1990 and the first field mission was in September-November 1990. The total cost of the project to ODA is £2·9 million over five years, including the £0·5 million of specialist equipment.

  2. Caxiuana research station project, Para state has the Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi as project manager. The project involves the establishment of a new biological research station in the Caxivana national forest, with appropriate infrastructure and facilities. We are providing financial support for local construction costs, transport (vehicles and boats) and laboratory equipment, and technical assistance (mainly short-term inputs, plus one full-time expert). The project will provide a well-equipped research station in an undisturbed forest area rich in biodiversity. It should become one of the leading facilities for rainforest research anywhere in the tropics. Construction commenced in February 1992. The cost to ODA is £1·28 million over three years.

  3. The aromatic plants development project, Para state has the British Natural Resources Institute (NRI) and Museu Goeldi as joint project managers. FCAP (facility of agricultural science of the university of Para) is also collaborating. The project is an evaluation of the economic potential of the aromatic plants of the state of Para, through a study of indigenous aromatic plants and two applied research programmes concerned with the development potential of rosewood and the aromatic herbs of the piper genus. The project involves a series of short-term consultancies and a programme of plant collection and analysis in Brazil and Britain. Field collections and trials are under way and a natural products laboratory built and equipped. The cost to ODA is £0·6 million over three years, starting in 1991.

  4. The floodplain forest ecology and management project, near Belem, Para state has the Museu Goeldi as project manager. The project consists of biological studies of the ecology, natural regeneration and flora of flooded forest, economic studies of farm/forest production systems and an extension programme based at Combu island near Belem. The cost to ODA is £0·24 million over two years, from 1991.

  5. The Tocantins forestry and rural development project, Para state aims to conserve the forest in the Brazil nut zone around Maraba through improving the farming systems and living conditions of small farmers. The project will develop ways of improving agricultural productivity and stability through the introduction of agroforestry, tree crops and better marketing systems. Ways of managing and conserving the remaining forest will also be investigated. IDESP (Institute of Socio-Economic Development of Para state) is project manager but field implementation is in the hands of the Tocantins agroenvironmental centre, a local NGO which brings together small farmers from the Maraba area together with researchers from the university of Para. The project was approved in September 1991. The ODA contribution amounts to £1·1 million over three years and consists of technical assistance, training material and equipment.

  6. Forest biomass and nutrients research project, Manaus, Amazonas state with INPA (National Research Institute for Amazonia) and NRI as project managers. The proposal involves research on the distribution and dynamics of biomass and minerals in tropical forest. The cost to ODA is £1·74 million over three years, starting this year.

  7. The central Amazonia flora and vegetation project, near Manaus, Amazonas state. The project has been designed by INPA and the royal botanic gardens, Kew. It consists of botanical collections, taxonomic studies, the production of a guide to the flora of the Ducke reserve near Manaus, and vegetation-type mapping in central Amazonia. The cost to ODA is £0·57 million over three years, starting this year.

  8. Rainforest silviculture research project, CPATU. The eastern Amazonia agroforestry research centre of the Brazilian Agricultural Research Institute (CPATUEMBRAPA), Belem, is managing this project. The five year programme of studies on forest growth, production and
  494
  regeneration, timber extraction techniques and genetic resource conservation is aimed at improving forest management. The ODA contribution will consist primarily of training and provision of technical assistance in tropical forest research, and will cost £2·2 million over five years starting this year.

  9. Tapajos national forest management project. We are providing £0·85 million through the International Tropical Timber Organisation to support IBAMA (the Federal Environment Institute) to set up a system of sustainable logging practices in a 5,000 hectare area of the Tapajos national forest. Commercial logging will take place under licence to IBAMA. The project aims to provide a model of sustainable logging for Brazil. The project will be managed by the ITTO; ODA will be represented on a project steering committee. The project was agreed in April 1992, and will last five years.

  10. Implementation of the Lake Mamiraua ecological station, near Tefe, Amazonas state. The project involves protection and development of a management plan for 200,000 hectares of flooded forest within a recently established state ecological station. It aims to establish a programme that integrates the conservation of biodiversity with the livelihood of local people living within the protected area. Estimated cost to ODA is £1·6 million over three years. The project is also being funded by the World Wide Fund for Nature and World Conservation International. It is expected to begin shortly.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what instructions have been passed to the British executive director at the African Development bank regarding that organisation's planned publication of a forestry policy.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have encouraged the bank for some time to establish and publish its forestry policy. We are currently considering the draft proposals which we have just received.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he had with Senhor Sydney Possuelo, the head of Brazil's Indian Agency, about the illegal mahogany trade with Britain.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  None.

  African Development Bank
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many staff are employed in the United Kingdom's executive director's office at the African Development bank in Abidjan; and if he will give details of their duties.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United Kingdom shares a constituency with Germany, the Netherlands and Portugal. The executive director is assisted by an alternate executive director—who is part time—an adviser and an assistant. The board of directors considers all lending proposals and a wide range of policy documents. Details of its work are set out in the bank's annual report, which is available in the Libraries of the House.

  Education Partners Overseas
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to announce a decision concerning the submission for grant aid made by Education Partners Overseas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The application from Education Partners Overseas will be considered, along with other claims, early next year when we consider the allocation of our information budget for the coming financial year.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Pit Closures
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the per capita expenditure to be borne by the Exchequer, involved in redundancy payments for the closure proposals announced by British Coal in October; and to what extent such payments are subject to the approval of the EC.

  Mr. Eggar
  The British Coal redundancy terms give maximum payments of £37,000 per employee. The Exchequer funds 90 per cent. of such payments direct to the corporation through restructuring grant. Restructuring grant payments have European Community approval and are notified annually to the Commission.

  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will place in the Library a copy of the report by John T. Boyd, the American mining consultant, commissioned by his Department; how many of the 31 pits earmarked for closure by British Coal the report indicated could become viable within the next three to four years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 4 December 1992]:No. I have made arrangements for the report to be made available to the Select Committee in confidence. The Boyd report prepared for my Department earlier this year contains detailed information on individual pits which is commercially confidential. It did not assess the viability of individual collieries, but looked at the scope for productivity improvements and cost reductions in a group of representative collieries.

  Offshore Installations
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action he is taking to ensure that the Welsh marine environment is not damaged by spills from drilling rigs.

  Mr. Eggar
  It is our general and established policy, before offering blocks for licence in any part of the United Kingdom continental shelf, to consult relevant statutory and non-statutory bodies and to attach licence conditions agreed with such bodies which reflect each block's sensitivities. Environmental conditions are agreed principally with the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, but the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of the Environment, and fishing industry representatives are also consulted. Conditions may include, for example, bans on drilling in specified areas, seasonal restrictions on exploration activities, requirements to carry out environmental and seabed surveys, bans on the use of oil-based drilling muds, and controls or bans on discharges from drilling rigs.

  In the block off the north Wales coast where drilling is currently in progress, environmental and local seabed surveys were carried out before drilling started. Water-based muds are being used, and cuttings may be discharged to the sea since tidal conditions in the area ensure their rapid dispersal. No other rig discharges are permitted; nor are any fuel transfers while the rig is on site.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to halt all further exploratory drilling for hydrocarbons off the Welsh coast until the promised energy review takes place.
  496
  Mr. Eggar
  The purpose of exploration drilling is to search for and identify deposits of hydrocarbons. Oil and gas production continues to make a significant contribution to the United Kingdom economy because new reserves have been identified to replenish supplies as early reserves have become depleted. The longer we can sustain economic indigenous oil and gas production, the better for the United Kingdom economy.

  Additional approvals are required before a deposit identified from exploration drilling and found on further appraisal to be of commercial value can be developed for production. A find from current drilling off the Welsh coast would be unlikely to come into production before the end of the century. There is therefore no case for halting exploration drilling.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many civil servants from his Department have been relocated from London to other parts of the United Kingdom(a) in the last five years and (b) in the last 10 years; and if he will list the locations to which those civil servants were relocated.

  Mr. Eggar
  The table shows the number of Department of Trade and Industry posts which have relocated from London:

  Location

  Number

  (a) Since January 1988

  Birmingham

  135

  Billingham

  53

  Cambridge

  33

  Edinburgh

  5

  Newport

  984

  Cardiff

  24

  Teddington

  340

  (b) During the period 1983 to 1987 Teddington

  49

  IAEA
  Mr. John Hutton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what extra-budgetary contributions to meet particular needs of the International Atomic Energy Agency for safeguards equipment have been made by the Government in the last five years.

  Mr. Eggar
  There has been one such contribution, a payment of £200,000 in 1991–92.

  Bureaucracy
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what benefits for consumers he expects to arise as a result of his proposals to remove unnecessary bureaucracy in Government Departments.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The aim of the deregulation initiative is to reduce significantly administrative and regulatory burdens on business. The removal of unnecessary regulation and administrative procedure and simplification of that which remains will allow businesses more time and freedom to respond to their customers' needs. This, together with the beneficial effect on prices and public borrowing as a result of lower compliance and enforcement costs, will benefit consumers as well as business.

  Wind Farms
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many megawatts were generated by wind farms in Great Britain in each year since 1989; and if he will make a statement about the future of wind energy generation in Great Britain.

  Mr. Eggar
  Figures for electricity generation from renewable sources of energy are now published annually in the "Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics". The first wind farms to be constructed in Great Britain have all become operational since the beginning of 1992 and have so far generated an estimated 17 GW hours of electricity. These figures are expected to increase rapidly as wind farms constructed under the non-fossil fuel obligation orders come on stream.

  Blank Tapes
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received on the imposition of levies on blank tapes for the music industry.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Government have received numerous representations for and against the proposal that a levy should be put on blank recording tape to compensate copyright owners for private copying. Representations were particularly numerous during the passage of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, when the Government decided not to introduce such a levy, and many further representations have been received since the European Commission announced in January 1991 its intention to propose a draft directive on private copying. Bodies that have made representations include the Royal National Institute for the Blind, The Talking Newspaper Association of the United Kingdom, the Music Copyright Reform Group, the British Phonographic Industry, the Home Taping Rights Campaign and the British Copyright Council.

  Japanese Energy Minister
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the Minister for Energy in his Department last met with his Japanese counterpart in Japan; and what specific matters were discussed and decided.

  Mr. Eggar
  I visited Japan from 11 to 13 November 1992 and met members of the Government and heads of Japanese energy utilities. Discussions focused on the bilateral energy relationship in offshore oil and gas, nuclear and energy policy areas. I also lent my support to British companies at an Offshore Supplies Office technology seminar where I gave the keynote address.

  Nuclear Materials
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what decisions were taken at the recent review conference of the convention on the physical protection of nuclear materials that affect United Kingdom policy; and what representation his Department had at the reveiw conference.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave to the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 5 November 1992,Official Report, column 400. The United Kingdom was represented at the review conference by officials from my Department and the nuclear industry.
  498
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the arrangements for liaison between his Department and the safeguards authorities at(a) Euratom and (b) the International Atomic Energy Agency over provision of data on the movements into and out of the United Kingdom of (i) plutonium, (ii) enriched uranium, (iii) natural uranium and (iv) spent nuclear fuel, respectively.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Department forwards to the Euratom safeguards directorate reports submitted in accordance with Euratom regulation 3227/76 on transfers of civil nuclear material. These reports include those materials referred to in the question. In accordance with the UK/IAEA/Euratom safeguards agreement—INFCIRC/263—relevant information is then passed to the IAEA by Euratom.

  Insolvency
  Mr. Gorst
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the effect of the level of fees charged by insolvency staff for the administration of insolvency services on the interests of creditors; what controls exist to ensure that insolvency companies do not charge excessively for their services; and what plans he has to introduce legislation to impose limits on the fees that accountancy firms can claim.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Fees charged by insolvency staff employed by accountancy firms are not under the control of the President and accordingly he does not have a role in determining their level or assessing whether they are appropriate in the circumstances of any particular case.

  In receiverships, the level of remuneration is agreed by the secured creditor making the appointment. In liquidations, fees charged are subject to approval by the creditors who have a financial interest in ensuring that they are fixed at a reasonable level. The means by which they approve them are either through a committee of creditors or in general meeting. In the absence of such approval, remuneration will be paid on the scale laid down for the Official Receiver in general regulations. Where either the liquidator or the creditors are dissatisfied with the level of remuneration, recourse may be had to the court.

  There are no proposals to impose limits on the fees that accountancy firms can claim.

  Manufacturing Output
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will set out the figures for manufacturing output for the last three available quarters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 2 December 1992]: As an index, with 1985 = 100, manufacturing output was 111 in the first quarter of 1992, 111·5 in the second quarter and 111·4 in the third quarter. In the first three quarters of 1992, manufacturing output was over a fifth higher than in 1981, the trough of the last recession.

  Natural Gas
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the present proven reserves of British natural gas expressed in years remaining calculated(a) at

  499
  1990 consumption rates, (b) forecast consumption rates for 2000 and (c) forecast consumption rates for 2020, as forecast in DTI Energy Paper 59, October 1992.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 4 December 1992]: My Department's most recent estimate of the United Kingdom's proven reserves stood at 540 billion cu m1. The total consumption of gas onshore in the United Kingdom during 1990 amounted to 53 billion cu m of gas, which included approximately 7 billion cu m of imported gas2.

  These proven gas reserves are the known reserves in existing discoveries regarded as almost certain to be technically and economically producible following extensive appraisal work. Proven reserves represent some 30 per cent. of all discovered recoverable reserves. In addition, it is likely that further reserves will be proven to be recoverable from significant discoveries made but so far poorly appraised and from geologically identified prospects which have yet to be tested by drilling. It is not normal practice for the gas industry to carry out the expensive exploration and appraisal work required to add to the stock of proven reserves far in advance of production.

  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade announced on 26 October that the coal review would look into the latest estimates of likely reserves of gas and draw conclusions.

  Energy Paper 59 presented some possible gas consumption scenarios in the context of a discussion of energy and the environment, in particular, climate change.

  These are scenarios, not forecasts by my Department.

  1Source: The April 1992 report to Parliament "Development of the oil and gas resources of the United Kingdom" (The Brown Book).

  2Source: The April 1991 report to Parliament "Development of the oil and gas resources of the United Kingdom".

  Severn Bridge
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade for what reason British Steel was not invited to quote for the basic plate material supply of the second Severn bridge crossing.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I have been asked to reply.

  The letting of contracts relating to the second Severn crossing is entirely a matter for the concessionaire for the project, Severn River Crossing plc, and its contractor for the design and construction of the new bridge, the John Laing-GTM Entrepose joint venture.

  Trentham Colliery
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will require British Coal to pay in full(a) attendance bonuses and (b) conciliation bonuses in respect of employees at Trentham colliery who are attending for work.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a matter for British Coal.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Social Fund
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will increase the budgetary allocation in respect of the social fund to the Belfast, South 500
  and Down district section of the Social Security Agency to meet underfunding in this area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Social Security Agency under its chief executive Mr. Alec Wylie. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Alec Wylie to Mr. Eddie McGrady, dated 3 December 1992:

  Your recent Parliamentary Question asking the Secretary of State for an increase in the budget allocation in respect of Social Fund for the Belfast South and Down District of the Social Security Agency has been passed to me for reply as I am responsible for the Social Security Agency.

  I should explain that Social Fund budget allocations are made at the beginning of the financial year in accordance with a formula which is applied to all Social Security Offices. While the position is monitored throughout the year additional allocations are normally only made when there has been a higher than expected level of loan recoveries or an unforseen demand on the Social Fund, for example, as a result of flooding or a bomb explosion.

  The procedure has already led to two additional allocations to the Belfast South and Down District this year, £50,630 in October and £34,000 in November. As a result the District's total allocation has increased to £2,219,689, (£1,452,114 for Crisis and Budget Loans and £767,575 for Community Care Grants). At present it is not planned to make any further allocations but the situation will be kept under review.

  I hope this explanation is helpful but I shall write to you again if the position changes. A copy of this reply will appear in the Official Report and copies will be placed in the Library.

  Schools (Funding)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make it his policy that all maintained schools, including those denominational schools not in receipt of funding from the Department of Education in Northern Ireland, will in future receive funding on the same basis.

  Mr. Hanley
  All maintained schools and all controlled schools in any education and library board area receive funding on the same basis, that being the formula set out in the board's scheme for the local management of schools. Denominational schools not in receipt of funding from the Department of Education are independent schools which receive no resourcing from any public sector source, and I have no plans to change current policy in their regard.

  Water
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the estimated percentage of water lost in the supply system for water in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Atkins
  The estimated loss is 20 per cent.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the names of the chairmen and members of the Northern Ireland water authority, and the date of their appointments.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland is the water authority. It does not have a chairman.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to measure supply of water to domestic customers by meters; and if he will make a statement.
  501
  Mr. Atkins
  I have no plans to do so.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what is the estimated value of environmental sites and recreational amenities in the ownership of the Northern Ireland water authority;

  (2) what is the estimated capital value of the water industry in Northern Ireland both for water and sewerage/sewage disposal.

  Mr. Atkins
  There is no separate water authority in Northern Ireland. Responsibility for water and sewerage services rests with the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland through its water service. The service is subject to normal Government accounting systems which do not require the value of assets to be shown in a commercial manner as would be the case under a commercial accounting system. Separate information on the value of assets is not therefore available.

  Schools (Disciplinary Proceedings)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what role his Department has in any disciplinary proceedings in locally or directly managed schools.

  Mr. Hanley
  Responsibility for the disciplinary proceedings in schools in Northern Ireland rests with boards of governors and/or employing authorities, depending on the particular circumstances, and does not involve my Department.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Stratford Local Office
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps have been taken to restructure the Stratford Benefits Agency office, Jubilee house; and on what date the work will be completed.

  Mr. Burt
  The planning for the restructuring or refurbishment of local DSS offices is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Ron Leighton, dated 4 December 1992:

  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking what steps have been taken to restructure the Benefits Agency Office at Jubilee House, Stratford, and on what date the work will be completed.

  Following on from a feasibility study undertaken by the Property Services Agency and in view of the current workloads and operational needs of the office, proposals have been made to refurbish the customer area in Jubilee House rather than to completely restructure the whole building. Plans are already in hand and it is envisaged that, once full consultation has taken place, work should be complete by summer 1993.

  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report. Copies are also being placed in the Library.

  Benefits
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the social security benefits (i) which have been abolished since 1979, (ii) which have not 502
  maintained their real value, in 1992 prices, since 1979 or the date at which they were introduced and (iii) whose availability has been restricted.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is as follows:

  (i) Social Security benefits abolished since 1979:

  (a) Benefits replaced by reformed schemes

  Attendance Allowance (only for those disabled before age 65)

  Community Charge Rebate (Scotland)

  Death Grant

  Family Income Supplement

  Housing Benefit Supplement and old Housing Benefit scheme

  Industrial Injury Benefit

  Maternity Grant

  Mobility Allowance

  NCIP an HNCIP (non-contributory invalidity pension and housewives' NCIP)

  Rate Rebate

  Special Hardship Allowance

  Supplementary Benefit

  Widow's Allowance

  (b) Others (cases which existed at the time of abolition remain in payment)

  Child's Special Allowance

  Industrial Death Benefit

  Reduced Earnings Allowance

  (ii) Benefits which have not maintained their real value since 1979* (or the date of their introduction, if later):

  Age addition (for those aged 80 and over)

  Christmas Bonus

  Maternity Allowance

  Sickness Benefit

  Statutory Sick Pay, higher rate

  Child Benefit (when revalued from rate current in April 1979)

  * Benefits uprated in November 1978, except for child benefit which was uprated in April 1979, have been revalued to April 1992 prices and compared with the equivalent benefit rates on that date.

  (iii) Benefits whose availability has been restricted since 1979, or since the benefit's introduction. The list includes changes in entitlement conditions of a relatively minor nature.

  Housing Benefit

  Income Support

  Industrial Disablement Benefit

  Maternity Allowance

  Sickness Benefit

  Unemployment Benefit

  Widowed Mother's Allowance

  Widow's Pension

  Housing Benefit
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will reconsider his decision not to award rent allowances to claimants whose landlord is a close relative;

  (2) what is the definition of close relative for the purpose of eligibility for rent allowances;

  (3) if he will estimate the number of (a) young people and (b) adults who have moved out of accommodation where the landlord is a close relative, because of non-eligibility for housing benefit, over the last two years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  Housing benefit is payable only in respect of a commercial rent liability. Most people living with close relatives do not have a rent liability, but instead made contributions to the household's living costs. It has never been the Government's intention that housing benefit should be payable for such contributions because there is
  503
  no commercial liability. In this context a close relative is defined in regulations as a parent, parent-in-law, step-parent, child, step-child, child-in-law, brother, sister or the partner of any of the preceding persons. Information about the numbers of people unable to live with their close relatives because of the non-payment of housing benefit could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many civil servants from his Department have been relocated from London to other parts of the United Kingdom(a) in the last five years and (b) in the last 10 years; and to where they were relocated.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table and is in terms of posts relocated rather than individual civil servants. It has not been possible in all cases to identify separately posts relocating from London as opposed to the south-east as a whole and this is particularly so for the period before 1988. The information does not take account of the large numbers of new posts that the Department has created in areas away from London and the south-east.

  Posts relocated from London in the last five years

  Destination

  Number

  Wigan

  320

  Lytham

  1243

  Newcastle

  300

  Leeds

  458

  Glasgow

  560

  Belfast

  421

  Total

  2,302

  1 It is not possible to identify separately London posts within this number.

  Posts relocated between 1982 and 1987
  Around 420 posts were relocated from London and the south-east to Newcastle, the North Fylde area and Southampton in this period. Only the posts that moved to Southampton, around 60, can be clearly identified as from London iteself.

  Young Persons (Benefits)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will review his policy of refusing benefit to 16 and 17-year-olds without hostel accommodation.

  Mr. Burt
  There is no such policy. Housing benefit can be paid to 16 and 17-year-olds who have a commercial rent liability. Income support is available to 16 and 17-year-olds not required to be available for work or youth training and also to those at risk of severe hardship. Other benefits may be available subject to the young person meeting the qualifying conditions.

  Dependency Regulations
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the Social Security (Dependency) Amendment Regulations 1992; and why it was decided to bring them into operation the day after they were laid before Parliament.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Social Security (Dependency) Amendment Regulations 1992 remake the regulations which provide the earnings rules for increases of 504
  retirement pension and other benefits for adult dependants. The intention of the earnings rules is to reduce or remove the dependency increase if the dependant has earnings, including any occupational pension, above a certain level. In 1987, a social security commissioner decided that occupational pensions could be taken into account only if the dependant was working. That was never the intention and amendments to the Social Security Act in 1988 were thought to have restored the position so that all occupational pensions could be taken into account, whether the dependant was working or not. However, in a judgment given on 2 December 1992 the Court of Appeal ruled that the amendments to the Act did not automatically carry through to the subordinate regulations. Consequently it remained the case that occupational pensions could only be taken into account if the dependant was working. However, the court's judgment also meant that all that was required for the earnings rules to apply in the way intended was to introduce fresh regulations. In view of this, and in order to keep the additional expenditure as a result of the judgment to a minimum, it was decided to bring the new regulations into force without waiting for the usual 21 days after they were laid.

  Income Statistics
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing changes in real income between 1979 and 1988–89 before and after housing costs for the top five deciles on a similar basis to table A.1 in "Households Below Average Income: a statistical analysis 1979–1988–89".

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) on 2 November, at column 100.

  Ms. Harman: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing the share of total income in 1979 and 1988–89 for the top half of the income distribution broken down into percentiles before and after housing costs o
  a statistical analysis 1979–88–89."

  Mr. Burt
  The information required is in the table.

  Share of total income received by individuals below various percentiles of the income distribution per cent.

  Income before housing costs

  1979

  1988–89

  Bottom 60 per cent, of the income distribution

  42

  37

  Bottom 70 per cent, of the income distribution

  53

  48

  Bottom 80 per cent, of the income distribution

  65

  60

  Bottom 90 per cent, of the income distribution

  79

  74

  After housing costs

  Bottom 60 per cent, of the income distribution

  42

  36

  Bottom 70 per cent, of the income distribution

  52

  46

  Bottom 80 per cent, of the income distribution

  65

  59

  Bottom 90 per cent, of the income distribution

  79

  74

  Child Benefit
  Ms. Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cummulative amount of savings in 1993–94 on child benefit resulting from(a) not fully uprating it and (b) changing its structure since 1979 in gross and net terms.

  Mr. Burt
  [holding answer 3 December 1992]: Information is not available in the form requested. We estimate that gross expenditure on child benefit in 1992–93 is £5·7 billion. If child benefit had been uprated annually in line with the retail prices index and with the normal rounding to the nearest 5p, the April 1979 rate—£4 a week per child—would be £9·20 from April 1992. It is estimated that the total savings in 1992–93 from paying £9·65 for the eldest qualifying child and £7·80 for each other child, instead of £9·20 for every child, are about £240 million. The corresponding net savings, after allowing for normal adjustments to other benefits, are around £145 million. It is not yet possible to make comparable estimates for 1993–94.

  The extra help that has been made available to less well-off families since 1988 through the income-related benefits is worth around £620 million 1992–93, raising to around £1 billion in 1993–94.

EMPLOYMENT

  Youth Training
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the number and percentage of people leaving youth training in 1991 in Lancashire who were without full-time employment after(a) eight months, (b) 10 months and (c) 12 months.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested is not available. Information on YT leavers economic status at eight months, 10 months and 12 months after leaving YT is not collected centrally.

WALES

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to lay Statutory Instruments Nos. 2730 to 2742 of 1992 before the House.

  Mr. David Hunt
  There is no requirement for these statutory instruments to be laid before the House. They are, however, available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will advertise in newspapers to invite applications for membership of NHS trusts in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  These appointments are not advertised in newspapers.

  Tourism
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to discontinue section 4 grants for tourism in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  None.
  506
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total expenditure on section 4 grants for tourism-related projects in Wales in the last full year for which figures are available.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  In 1991–92 the Wales tourist board provided £4,219,200 for tourism projects. This figure and more detailed information is contained in the board's 1991–92 annual report. A copy is available in the Library of the House.

  Occupational Therapists
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many referrals to occupational therapists have been made in each county in Wales so far in the current year and in each of the last five years.

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

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what resources his Department has made available to each county council in Wales for occupational therapy services in the current year and in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The bulk of central Government support for local authorities' spending on occupational therapy services is provided through revenue support grant and basic credit approvals, which are not specifically earmarked by central Government for the support of particular services. It is for individual local authorities to determine how these resources should be allocated, and details of how much they spend on occupational therapy services are not held centrally.

  Hearing Impairment
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many children in south Glamorgan and in each county in Wales have been certified as having a hearing impairment requiring some assistance but who have not been statemented in each of the past five years.

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

  River Acidification
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement of the implications for Wales of the recent findings of a committee of the Forestry Commission on a link between conifer trees and river acidification.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  None of the Forestry Commission's committees has made a recent finding of this kind. An expert workshop jointly sponsored by the Forestry Commission and the Department of the Environment concluded in June 1990 that the primary cause of surface water acidification was the deposition of airborne sulphur and nitrogen pollutants, but that there was also an association between trees and acidification resulting from the effectiveness of trees in scavenging these airborne pollutants. Whether the latter phenomenon would result in increased surface water acidification depended, however, on the sensitivity of the geology and soil in any given catchment area.

  The members of the Forestry Commission's North Scotland regional advisory committee recently considered

  507
  this and other scientific evidence presented to them in the course of considering planting grant applications over which objections had been raised on environmental grounds. They advised the commissioners that, in their opinion, there was sufficient doubt about the effect that tree planting on the specific sites concerned would have on surface water acidification as to prevent their recommending that the applications should be approved at this stage. In the light of this advice, the Forestry Commissioners have decided to delay taking a decision on these applications pending further monitoring of the sensitivity of the sites to further acid inputs from the atmosphere.

  This has no particular implications for cases arising in Wales.

  Health Service Pay
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will make it his policy to support the continued work of the pay review body for nurses, midwives, health visitors and professions allied to medicine in order to provide objective evidence on comparative pay levels irrespective of any Government action to restrain pay in the short-term.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 13 November, at columns 1002–3. The Government are confident that the review body system is the right way of determining the pay of those staff within their remits.

  South Glamorgan Health Authority
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) which executive directors of South Glamorgan health authority are part of purchaser function; and which are part of the provider function;

  (2) he will list the names and roles of the executive directors of South Glamorgan health authority.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  While health authorities retain responsibility for directly managed units, as in the case of South Glamorgan, authority members are accountable for both purchaser and provider issues and performance. As directly managed units achieve NHS trust status, the provider function will diminish and eventually authorities will focus exclusively on their purchaser role.

  Details of the precise roles and responsibilities of the executive directors of South Glamorgan health authority, and their names, should be obtained from the health authority.

  Schools (Discipline)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what role his Department has in any disciplinary proceedings in locally or directly managed schools.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Department has no direct role in staff disciplinary matters. Responsibility for such matters lies with the local education authority in respect of staff in LEA-maintained schools without delegated budgets. In the case of schools with delegated budgets and grant-maintained schools, the responsibility rests with the governing body.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parliamentary Pensions
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what action he has taken, since the debate on Members' salaries on 25 November, in regard to hon. Members who may end their service after 1 January 1993, due to death or ill-health.

  Mr. Dixon
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what steps he has now taken for the parliamentary contributory pension fund to include a scheme for additional voluntary contributions or otherwise to protect hon. Members who may have to retire due to ill-health after 1 January 1993 and to protect the dependants of hon. Members who may die while in the service of the House after that date.

  Mr. Newton
  I shall be meeting the trustees of the parliamentary contributory pension fund shortly to discuss the pensions matters raised in the debate on 25 November, including the possibility of setting up an additional voluntary contribution scheme.

  SCOTLAND Council Tax
  Mr. Gallic
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the draft council tax valuation lists which were delivered to levying authorities in Scotland by 30 November.

  Mr. Stewart
  Assessors delivered draft valuation lists, showing the bandings of dwellings in Scotland, to levying authorities by 30 November. The number of dwellings in each valuation band is given in the table.

  Percentage

  Number

  Band A

  27·40

  590,499

  Band B

  26·32

  567,268

  Band C

  15·28

  329,246

  Band D

  10·89

  234,568

  Band E

  10·77

  232,037

  Band F

  5·24

  112,871

  Band G

  3·64

  78,353

  Band H

  0·47

  10,075

  Total

  100·00

  2,154,917

  Note:

  The figures exclude lock-ups and private storage premises that are separately entered in the valuation list and are exempted from the council tax.

  Information on the number of dwellings in each district and islands area and their distribution between bands has been placed in the Library. Householders will be able to see the draft lists at the principal offices of their levying authority. The valuations have been carried out by local assessors. Valuations have been made on the basis of the price, subject to certain assumptions, which dwellings might have reasonably been expected to realise on the open market if sold on 1 April 1991.

  Arrests
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people were arrested by the police in Scotland for each year since 1986.
  509
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information on the number of arrests by police is not held centrally in Scotland.

  Tourism
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to recommend the discontinuance of section 4 grants in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have no such plans. The arrangements for Government support for the tourism industry in Scotland, including the Scottish tourist board's section 4 scheme of assistance, are however, kept under constant review. I am at present seeking views on their effectiveness.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total expenditure on section 4 grants for tourism-related projects in Scotland in the last full year for which figures are available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish tourist board awarded section 4 grant assistance amounting to £3,616,000 during 1991–92.

  Wildlife Incident Investigation Scheme
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the future funding of the wildlife incident investigation scheme in Scotland.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 3 December 1992]; The Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department is reviewing the information required to monitor the effects of pesticides on wildlife and will be putting proposals to the Advisory Committee on Pesticides. Arrangements for funding will need to be considered in the light of its recommendations.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he or his officials last met representatives of the agrochemical industry to discuss the future funding of the wildlife incident investigation schemes.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 3 December 1992]: Officials of the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department met representatives of the agrochemical industry and other interested organisations on 30 October to discuss industry funding of pesticides-related work, including the wildlife incident investigation schemes.

  NHS Management Consultants
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much has been spent by each Scottish health authority on the services of management consultants in(a) 1991 and (b)

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 4 December 1992]: Information available from the annual accounts of health boards relates to the total fee paid to management consultants, to legal firms, other than for legal expenses connected with compensation claims, and to work study consultants. The amounts for each health board for each year are shown in the table.
  510

  1990–91

  1991–92

  £

  £

  Argyll and Clyde

  148,303

  292,173

  Ayrshire and Arran

  287,041

  —

  Borders

  24,809

  3,733

  Dumfries and Galloway

  114,522

  —

  Fife

  245,548

  197,631

  Forth Valley

  182,447

  158,871

  Grampian

  164,749

  87,549

  Greater Glasgow

  1,905,149

  1,544,987

  Highland

  208,087

  2,500

  Lanarkshire

  293,242

  48,870

  Lothian

  441,798

  69,710

  Orkney

  11,929

  330

  Shetland

  4,659

  10,185

  Tayside

  70,664

  89,796

  Western Isles

  105

  —

  CSA

  —

  —

  Total

  4,103,052

  2,506,335

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what meetings he attended whilst in the United States of America on issues relating to GATT in the month prior to the announcement of the settlement of the GATT round of discussions on rapeseed and cereals.

  Mr. Curry
  My right hon. Friend was in Chicago when EC and United States negotiators met from 1 to 3 November. He was present in his capacity as president of the Agriculture Council, after prior discussion with, and agreement by, the Commission in order to provide any support that the Commission might have found useful. He took no part in the negotiations themselves.

  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much land he estimates will have to be set aside from oilseeds and cereals growing, in the United Kingdom, following the recently negotiated GATT agreement.

  Mr. Curry
  Under the common agriculture policy reform agreement reached by the Council in May this year, EC growers of cereals, oilseeds and protein crops—other than those categorised as small producers—are required to setaside 15 per cent. of the land on which they are claiming arable support in relation to the 1993 harvest. The figure of 15 per cent. may be varied in later years. The settlement reached between the EC and the United States of America over the GATT oilseeds dispute includes provisions to contain EC production of oilseeds. To this end, the EC will establish a separate oilseeds base area of 5,499 million hectares for the 1994 harvest and 5.128 million hectares for the 1995 and subsequent harvests. This base area, reduced by either the EC's general arable set-aside percentage for the year in question, or 10 per cent. if that is greater, will be eligible for full EC oilseeds area aid. Should a larger area of oilseeds be grown in the EC, the aid will be reduced by 1 per cent. for each 1 per cent. of increased area.

  Aujeszky's Disease
  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement giving precise details of how the new animal health trade rules designed to safeguard the United Kingdom's freedom from Aujeszky's disease, recently agreed by the European Community, differ from those which previously protected pig producers.

  Mr. Soames
  In recent years, very few pigs have been imported into Great Britain and only under trade conditions to ensure that Aujeszky's disease would not be introduced. Now that other member states have accepted our approach in dealing with foot and mouth disease and trade can therefore take place more easily, pigs from other member states will be free to enter Great Britain without entering quarantine. To protect our freedom from Aujeszky's disease, we sought, and have now obtained, Community approval for additional trade guarantees which will apply to imports from other member states from 1 January 1993.

  Fisheries (Rating)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what offsetting benefits he proposes to angling clubs against their increased costs arising from the proposed rating of fisheries;

  (2) if he will meet the Mow Cop angling club to discuss their concerns on rating of angling clubs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Under section 142 of the Water Resources Act 1991, the National Rivers Authority may apply to Ministers for an order requiring owners and occupiers of fisheries to contribute to the cost of the carrying out of its fisheries functions. No such application has yet been made. The authority is, we understand, developing proposals for a section 142 contributions scheme and has already undertaken a consultation exercise based on its discussion document "A Fair Assessment". The NRA is developing ideas for a further round of consultations. Angling clubs and others will have every opportunity to express their concerns in this context, and may submit further comments on the proposals to Ministers if and when the authority applies for an order. In these circumstances, I have no plans at present to meet angling clubs.

  Meat Inspections
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of meat carcases are found to have significant pathology by meat inspectors in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Soames
  This information is not available centrally.

  Regulatory Measures
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 26 November,Official Report, column 826, if he will list, by identifiable title for each measure, all the measures in areas governed by the EC increasing regulation in any area for which his Department has responsibility which his Department has caused to be put into effect since 9 April.
  512
  Mr. Curry
  A very high proportion of the activities for which this Department has policy responsibility are governed by EC regulation. EC Council and Commission regulations are directly applicable and in general do not require United Kingdom legislation for their implementation beyond enforcement and offence provisions. EC directives require United Kingdom implementing legislation to apply them although the boundary between EC and United Kingdom legislative responsibility is not always clear cut. I consider the following measures, implemented since 9 April, might have increased the legislative burden on business:Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1765/92 of 30 June 1992 establishing a support system for producers of certain arable crops (as amended).
  Commission Implementing Regulation (EEC) No. 2780/92 of 24 September on the conditions for the grant of compensatory payments under the support system for producers of certain arable crops.
  Commission Implementing Regulation (EEC) No. 2294/92 of 31 July on detailed rules for the application of the support system for producers of the oil seeds referred to in Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1765/92 (as amended).
  Commission Implementing Regulation (EEC) No. 2295/92 of 31 July 1992 on detailed rules for the application of the support system for producers of the protein crops referred to in Article 6 of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1765/92 (as amended).
  Commission Regulation (EEC) No. 2293/92 of 31 July 1992 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1765/92 with regard to the set-aside scheme referred to in Article 7.
  Commission Regulation (EEC) No. 2296/92 of 31 July 1992 laying down certain rules of application of the use of land set aside for the provision of materials for the manufacture within the Community of products not primarily intended for human or animal consumption (as amended).
  The Food Additives Labelling Regulations 1992 (SI 1991 No. 1978).
  The Flavourings in Food Regulations 1992 (SI 1992 No. 1971).
  The Organic Products Regulations 1992 (SI 1992 No. 2111). Entered into force 1 October 1992. This SI implements the requirement of Council Regulation 2092/91 for a national control body. This body will oversee the registration of all organic farmers/producers etc. and ensure organic standards are met. There is a charge for registration.
  Two SIs will come into effect on 1 January 1993 on horses. One will implement 90/428 the other 90/427. The titles are:
  The Horses (Free Access to Competitions) Regulations 1992.
  The Horses (Zootechnical Standards) Regulations 1992.They are to be laid before Parliament on 10 December.Council Regulation 2083/92 (14 July 1992)—amending Regulation 2092/91 on third country imports whereby a Member State's 'competent authority' may authorise imports from a third country that is not on the official Commission list. This amendment also alters the date of implementation of Regulation 2092/91 from 23 July 1992 to 1 January 1993.
  Commission Regulation 1535/92 (15 June 1992)—amending Annexes II and III of Council Regulation 2092/91 whereby national rules on organic animals and organic animal products shall apply until Commission standards are agreed.
  The Oil and Fibre Plant Seeds (Amendment) Regulations 1992 SI No. 1613.
  These Regulations implement Commission Directive 92/9/EEC so as to introduce standards for seed borne disease organisms harmful to soya beans.
  The Fodder Plant Seeds (Amendment) Regulations 1992 SI No. 1614 and
  The Seeds (National Lists of Varieties) (Amendment) Regulations 1992 SI 1615.
  These two Regulations implement Commission Directive 92/ 19/EEC by adding Festulolium (a cross between Meadow fescue and Italian Ryegrass) to each of the Regulations.

  513
  A number of quota management measures have been put into effect to regulate the fishing industry, but this is a continuing requirement reflecting the United Kingdom's CFP obligation and does not represent any increase in regulation.
  Council Regulation (EEC) 345/92 amending for the 11th time Council Regulation (EEC) 3094/86 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources.
  Council Regulation (EEC) 1465/961 amending for the 12th time Council Regulation (EEC) 3094/86 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources.
  Council Regulation (EEC) 2120/921 amending for the 13th time Council Regulation (EEC) 3094/86 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources.
  Council Regulation (EEC) 3034/92 amending for the 14th time Council Regulation (EEC) 3094/86 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources.
  All these EEC Regulations are enforced in the United Kingdom by the Sea Fishing (Enforcement of Community Conservation Measures) Order 1986. SI 1986 No. 2090 (as amended).
  1 Council Regulations (EEC) 1465/92 and 2120.92 lapse on 31 December 1992 if not renewed.
  The Fresh Meat (Hygiene & Inspection) Regulations 1992 (SI 1992 No. 2037). These Regulations replace all the previous GB legislation on slaughterhouse hygiene and meat inspection: 15 earlier SIs are revoked. They are however wider in scope than the earlier Regulations, since all cutting rooms and cold stores handling fresh meat are now affected.
  Salmonella Controls: The Poultry Flocks, Hatcheries and Processed Animal Protein (Fees) Order 1992.

  Food For Britain
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the chairmanship of Food for Britain.

  Mr. Gummer
  Mr. Paul Judge's recognition as chairman of Food from Britain will take effect on 31 December. He will be taking up his new appointment with the Conservative party organisation on 1 January. An announcement of his successor will be made in due course.

HEALTH

  Health Service Funding
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what level of funds were provided per head of population in each district health authority and each family health services authority in each year since 1989–90.

  Mr. Sackville
  The allocation of funds to district health authorities is a matter for regional health authorities and detailed information is not collected centrally. The spending of family health services authorities is primarily demand-led and funded accordingly. However, information which relates to the expenditure of DHAs and FHSAs to their resident populations for the years 1989–90 and 1990–91 is shown in the table.

  The figures, which pre-date the national health service reforms, show DHAs as providers rather than purchasers of health care. Expenditure per head of population therefore reflects patterns of local service provision and the effects of patient flows across health authority boundaries. Thus the figures for DHAs will tend to vary significantly.

  Information for 1991–92 will be available shortly.

  Revenue expenditure per head of population

  District Health Authorities

  1989–90

  1990–91

  £(cash)

  £(cash)

  Northern Region

  Hartlepool

  303

  318

  North Tees

  212

  222

  514

  District Health Authorities

  1989–90

  1990–91

  £(cash)

  £(cash)

  South Tees

  300

  328

  East Cumbria

  264

  284

  South Cumbria

  203

  226

  West Cumbria

  229

  242

  Darlington

  299

  313

  Durham

  162

  173

  North-West Durham

  264

  277

  South-West Durham

  264

  282

  Northumberland

  257

  271

  Gateshead

  197

  215

  Newcastle

  626

  687

  North Tyneside

  166

  181

  South Tyneside

  193

  214

  Sunderland

  269

  290

  Yorkshire Region

  Hull

  292

  310

  East Yorkshire

  232

  233

  Grimsby

  24S

  271

  Scunthorpe

  192

  225

  Northallerton

  158

  172

  York

  248

  274

  Scarborough

  199

  229

  Harrogate

  242

  272

  Bradford

  253

  280

  Airedale

  224

  244

  Calderdale

  217

  244

  Huddersfield

  263

  280

  Dewsbury

  190

  223

  Leeds Western

  321

  343

  Leeds Eastern

  332

  328

  Wakefield

  387

  420

  Pontefract

  205

  229

  Trent Region

  North Derbyshire

  179

  191

  South Derbyshire

  233

  248

  Leicestershire

  236

  253

  North Lincolnshire

  264

  287

  South Lincolnshire

  201

  217

  Bassetlaw

  197

  217

  Central Nottinghamshire

  233

  244

  Nottingham

  300

  325

  Barnsley

  213

  229

  Doncaster

  234

  249

  Rotherham

  200

  248

  Sheffield

  392

  421

  East Anglian Region

  Cambridge

  339

  356

  Peterborough

  259

  276

  West Suffolk

  214

  230

  East Suffolk

  245

  270

  Norwich

  258

  276

  Great Yarmouth and Waveney

  216

  243

  West Norfolk and Wisbech

  203

  221

  Huntingdon

  241

  276

  North-West Thames Region

  North Bedfordshire

  189

  200

  South Bedfordshire

  204

  220

  North Hertfordshire

  191

  215

  East Hertfordshire

  150

  162

  North West Hertfordshire

  344

  365

  South West Hertfordshire

  160

  174

  Barnet

  325

  356

  Harrow

  273

  294

  Hillingdon

  346

  385

  Hounslow and Spelthorne

  262

  275

  Ealing

  198

  214

  Riverside

  614

  628

  Parkside

  422

  450

  North East Thames Region

  Basildon and Thurrock

  230

  245

  Mid Essex

  237

  255

  North East Essex

  236

  247

  515

  District Health Authorities

  1989–90

  1990–91

  £(cash)

  £(cash)

  West Essex

  222

  239

  Southend

  199

  219

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood

  220

  237

  Hampstead

  729

  799

  City and Hackney

  574

  612

  Newham

  273

  299

  Tower Hamlets

  588

  613

  Enfield

  200

  214

  Haringey

  337

  363

  Redbridge

  235

  245

  Waltham Forest

  359

  390

  Bloomsbury and Islington

  791

  818

  South East Thames Region

  Brighton

  264

  294

  Eastbourne

  239

  256

  Hastings

  235

  262

  South East Kent

  191

  211

  Canterbury and Thanet

  253

  271

  Dartford and Gravesham

  252

  270

  Maidstone

  237

  253

  Medway

  199

  223

  Tunbridge Wells

  305

  329

  Bexley

  220

  234

  Greenwich

  373

  397

  Bromley

  244

  267

  West Lambeth

  699

  750

  Camberwell

  459

  519

  Lewisham and North Southwark

  465

  498

  South West Thames Region

  North West Surrey

  262

  274

  West Surrey and North East Hampshire

  168

  182

  South West Surrey

  330

  348

  Mid Surrey

  330

  388

  East Surrey

  338

  362

  Chichester

  236

  254

  Mid Downs

  219

  232

  Worthing

  204

  227

  Croydon

  259

  273

  Kingston and Esher

  304

  320

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton

  207

  225

  Wandsworth

  670

  712

  Sutton and Merton

  270

  270

  Wessex Region

  East Dorset

  225

  254

  West Dorset

  229

  249

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  210

  229

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  307

  336

  Winchester

  246

  266

  Basingstoke and North Hampshire

  230

  251

  Salisbury

  332

  361

  Swindon

  244

  258

  Bath

  222

  243

  Isle of Wight

  249

  275

  Oxford Region

  East Berkshire

  203

  213

  West Berkshire

  211

  227

  Aylesbury

  374

  391

  Wycombe

  157

  172

  Milton Keynes

  176

  191

  Kettering

  180

  194

  Northampton

  235

  249

  Oxford

  283

  303

  South Western Region

  Bristol and Weston

  302

  340

  Frenchay

  293

  322

  Southmead

  277

  298

  Cornwall

  212

  234

  Exeter

  279

  297

  516

  District Health Authorities

  1989–90

  1990–91

  £(cash)

  £(cash)

  North Devon

  265

  288

  Plymouth

  275

  300

  Torbay

  258

  288

  Cheltenham

  229

  261

  Gloucester

  237

  257

  Somerset

  232

  255

  West Midlands Region

  Bromsgrove and Redditch

  199

  218

  Hereford

  220

  241

  Kidderminster

  303

  325

  Worcester

  224

  239

  Shropshire

  225

  249

  Mid Staffordshire

  179

  192

  North Staffordshire

  268

  296

  South East Staffordshire

  209

  222

  Rugby

  182

  197

  North Warwickshire

  254

  267

  South Warwickshire

  256

  276

  Central Birmingham

  652

  742

  East Birmingham

  255

  294

  North Birmingham

  266

  283

  South Birmingham

  342

  369

  West Birmingham

  375

  408

  Coventry

  273

  292

  Dudley

  228

  245

  Sandwell

  167

  184

  Solihull

  184

  207

  Walsall

  212

  236

  Wolverhampton

  273

  289

  Mersey Region

  Chester

  330

  349

  Crewe

  195

  213

  Halton

  153

  163

  Macclesfield

  244

  261

  Warrington

  305

  319

  Liverpool

  396

  438

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  208

  219

  Southport and Formby

  289

  301

  South Sefton

  457

  505

  Wirral

  235

  251

  North Western Region

  Lancaster

  410

  433

  Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde

  218

  242

  Preston

  629

  679

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley

  214

  233

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale

  329

  338

  West Lancashire

  272

  300

  Chorley and South Ribble

  96

  103

  Bolton

  209

  225

  Bury

  192

  309

  North Manchester

  538

  573

  Central Manchester

  699

  790

  South Manchester

  604

  636

  Oldham

  203

  217

  Rochdale

  173

  189

  Salford

  423

  456

  Stockport

  207

  221

  Tameside and Glossop

  184

  198

  Trafford

  168

  181

  Wigan

  203

  219

  Family Health Services Authorities

  1989–90

  1990–91

  £(cash)

  £(cash)

  Northern region

  Cleveland

  101

  118

  Cumbria

  100

  116

  Durham

  100

  116

  Northumberland

  101

  115

  Gateshead

  97

  113

  Newcastle

  102

  117

  517

  Family Health Services Authorities

  1989–90

  1990–91

  £(cash)

  £(cash)

  North Tyneside

  106

  123

  South Tyneside

  99

  113

  Sunderland

  101

  115

  Yorkshire region

  Humberside

  98

  112

  North Yorkshire

  101

  116

  Bradford

  99

  115

  Calderdale

  97

  115

  Kirklees

  91

  107

  Leeds

  104

  117

  Wakefield

  105

  119

  Trent region

  Derbyshire

  93

  108

  Leicestershire

  91

  104

  Lincolnshire

  104

  119

  Nottinghamshire

  88

  107

  Barnsley

  102

  115

  Doncaster

  102

  117

  Rotherham

  89

  102

  Sheffield

  100

  119

  East Anglian region

  Cambridgeshire

  92

  105

  Norfolk

  105

  121

  Suffolk

  97

  112

  North West Thames region

  Bedfordshire

  90

  104

  Hertfordshire

  96

  111

  Barnet

  94

  105

  Brent and Harrow

  106

  125

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  100

  113

  Hillingdon

  92

  105

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  120

  137

  North East Thames Region

  Essex

  95

  111

  Barking and Havering

  87

  104

  Camden and Islington

  111

  124

  City and East London

  108

  127

  Enfield and Haringey

  98

  110

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  95

  108

  South East Thames Region

  East Sussex

  101

  118

  Kent

  96

  110

  Greenwich and Bexley

  91

  101

  Bromley

  88

  100

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  102

  117

  South West Thames Region

  Surrey

  94

  105

  West Sussex

  102

  120

  Croydon

  91

  103

  Kingston and Richmond

  98

  107

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  95

  107

  Wessex Region

  Dorset

  105

  123

  Hampshire

  95

  107

  Wiltshire

  87

  104

  Isle of Wight

  107

  123

  Oxford Region

  Berkshire

  92

  106

  Buckinghsmshire

  92

  105

  Northamptonshire

  91

  105

  Oxfordshire

  91

  104

  South Western Region

  Avon

  92

  108

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  111

  132

  518

  Family Health Services Authorities

  1989–90

  1990–91

  £(cash)

  £(cash)

  Devon

  105

  122

  Gloucestershire

  95

  113

  Somerset

  101

  118

  West Midlands Region

  Hereford and Worcester

  90

  107

  Shropshire

  94

  111

  Staffordshire

  88

  100

  Warwickshire

  96

  110

  Birmingham

  104

  117

  Coventry

  103

  117

  Dudley

  86

  98

  Sandwell

  104

  116

  Solihull

  96

  112

  Walsall

  94

  111

  Wolverhampton

  97

  110

  Mersey Region

  Cheshire

  98

  114

  Liverpool

  109

  131

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  101

  116

  Sefton

  99

  114

  Wirral

  105

  121

  North Western Region

  Lancashire

  103

  116

  Bolton

  93

  111

  Bury

  104

  118

  Manchester

  115

  128

  Oldham

  95

  110

  Rochdale

  102

  117

  Salford

  112

  133

  Stockport

  102

  115

  Tameside

  99

  112

  Trafford

  105

  119

  Wigan

  94

  109

  Sources:

  (a) Annual accounts of district health authorities and family health services authorities (formerly family practitioner committees)—1989–90 and 1990–91.

  Mid-year estimates of resident population—1989 and 1990 (Office of Population Censuses and Surveys/Department of Health).

  Notes:

  1. The figures for the district health authorities are based upon their total revenue expenditure on the services which they managed or accounted for in the relevant financial years. Capital expenditure incurred by district health authorities and all expenditure incurred by regional health authorities is excluded.

  2. The figures for the family health services authorities cover their total expenditure on family health services and revenue expenditure on their administrative expenses. Expenditure on family health services (which is essentially regarded as current—ie revenue—expenditure) is included on a net basis as reported in annual accounts (ie after the deduction of charges to patients).

  Elderly Population
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give her best estimates of the impact of the growing elderly population on health expenditure; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State gave the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on 27 November, at column 877.

  Dental Treatment
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what rights NHS dental patients have to make a formal complaint about their treatment.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  A national health service patient has the right to complain formally to the family health service authority on whose list the dentist is included about an alleged failure by the dentist to comply with his or her terms of service, or about the fit or efficiency of a denture provided for him or her by the dentist.

  Hospitals
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will list all those hospitals in England and Wales which have had more than £1 million spent on them since 1979, with the relevant figure;

  (2) if she will list all the hospital building programmes currently under way in England.

  (3) if she will list (a) all the new hospitals opened in England since 1979 and (b) the new hospitals planned to be completed by 2000.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Government attach the highest priority to improving and modernising the national health service estate, on which around £1·5 billion will be spent in the current year. Data are not held centrally for expenditure on individual hospitals, but information on NHS construction schemes in England costing over £1 million completed since 1979 is shown in the table which I have placed in the Library. The information is incomplete for schemes started prior to 1986, but the number of schemes recorded totals 666, with expenditure on construction cost totalling over £2·8 billion. I have also placed in the Library a table listing the 111 schemes costing over £1 million currently under construction. In total, some 400 schemes each costing more than £1 million are at various stages of planning, design and construction throughout the NHS in England.

  Information relating to Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Infant Mortality
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which region in England has the lowest infant mortality.

  Mr. Sackville
  The lowest infant mortality rate in England by regional health authority for 1991 is South West Thames, with 5·6 per 1,000 live births.

  Teenage Pregnancies
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are being taken to combat single teenage pregnancies in England.

  Mr. Sackville
  One of the main targets in the "Health of the Nation" White Paper is to reduce the rate of conceptions amongst the under-16s by at least 50 per cent. by the year 2000. Everyone—parents, health services, local authorities, the voluntary and education sectors and the Government—needs to work together to achieve this target. Measures which are effective in substantially reducing pregnancies in the under-16s can be expected to 520
  have a similar effect on unwanted pregnancies in the over-16s. A range of initiatives is under way both nationally and locally. These include comprehensive family planning services, ready access to professional advice suitable for young people and the provision of publications that will be helpful to both young people and their parents. Regional health authorities are currently reviewing national health service family planning services, with particular reference to the needs of the young. Grants have been awarded to enable voluntary organisations to carry forward projects related to the aims of "The Health of the Nation" White Paper. Responsibility for policy on sex education in schools is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education.

  AIDS
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the figures for reported AIDS cases in England for 1989, 1990, 1991 and to date in 1992.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is as follows:

  Number

  1989

  766

  1990

  1,183

  1991

  1,255

  11992

  1,060

  1 to end September

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many civil servants from her Department have been relocated from London to other parts of the United Kingdom(a) in the last five years and (b) in the last 10 years; and if she will list the locations to which those civil servants were relocated.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is as follows and is in terms of posts relocated.

  Posts relocated from London in the last five years

  Destination

  Number

  Nottingham

  7

  Leeds

  1540

  Total

  547

  1 A further 630 posts are due to be relocated to Leeds in 1993.

  Posts relocated between 1982 and 1987

  14 posts were relocated to Lancashire.

  Natural Medicines
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to appoint experts in homoeopathic, biochemic and anthroposophic medicines to(a) the staff of the Medicines Control Agency, (b) a committee constituted under section 14 of the Medicines Act 1968 to advise in technical matters and appeals and (c) the Medicines Commission in order to ensure the implementation of the EC directive on homoeopathic medicinal products; and when she plans to take action.

  Mr. Sackville
  The EC directive on homoeopathic products was adopted on 22 September 1992 for
  521
  implementation by 31 December 1993. There are already professional staff within the Medicines Control Agency who are knowledgeable about homoeopathic medicines and expertise in these areas can be strengthened if this becomes necessary as a result of the directive.

  It is anticipated that there will need to be access to independent expert advice on some applications, but the procedures and the structure and status of advisory bodies depends on many factors. Discussions are ongoing, both within the Department and with interested parties, on how best to develop channels whereby such advice on homoeopathic, anthroposophic and biochemic medicines can be made available to the agency and the licensing authority.

  Residential Drug Projects
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will require the ring fencing of community care funding after April for residential drug and alcohol projects; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The special transitional grant totalling £565 million will be ring-fenced for implementation of all aspects of community care, including the purchase of services for alcohol and drug misuers.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received recently on local authorities wishing to provide disabled people with direct payments to make their own personal assistance arrangements; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  We have received one such representation from the Association of Directors of Social Services. There are no current plans to amend legislation in this way.

  St. Bartholomew's Hospital
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether she will list the possible alternative uses of St. Bartholomew's hospital which have been proposed to her as part of the consultation on the Tomlinson proposals.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The St. Bartholomew's shadow trust has put forward an alternative proposal to use the site primarily as a centre for specialist services. We are considering the future use of the hospital sites mentioned in the Tomlinson report, and will put forward our proposals for action in the new year. Any proposed changes in the use of hospital sites will be subject to formal consultation.

  Paracetamol
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will refer to the relevant safety committee the issue of the placing of a limit on the number of paracetamol which may be sold over the counter in one pack or in one purchase; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  On the advice of the Medicines Commission, there are already limits on the size of the packs of paracetamol products which may be supplied from retail outlets. Packs containing more than 30 effervescent tablets, more than 25 tablets that are not 522
  effervescent and more than 10 sachets of powder and granules may be sold only from retail pharmacies. The Department's Medicines Control Agency will keep under review the need to seek further committee advice on controls on the sale of paracetamol, including pack size and numbers.

  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what figures she has for the number of people who have committed or attempted suicide by use of paracetamol.

  Mr. Sackville
  The latest available figures for the number of people who have been recorded as having committed suicide and where paracetamol is mentioned in the records is shown in table 1. Table 2 combines the information provided in table 1 with information on the number of people where paracetamol is mentioned in the records and where it was undetermined whether death was accidentally or purposely inflicted. Both tables refer to England and Wales, and are for 1990; the latest year for which statistics are available.

  Information pertaining to the number of people who have attempted suicide by use of paracetamol is not collected centrally.

  Table 1. Numbers of recorded deaths from suicide where paracetamol is mentioned in the records. England and Wales, 1990 persons only.

  Total

  Paracetamol

  101

  (15)

  Paracetamol Prothiaden

  1

  Paracetamol Salicylate (NOS)

  1

  Paracetamol Temazepam Tricyclic Anti Depressant (NOS)

  1

  Paracetamol Triazolam

  1

  Paracetamol Warfarin

  1

  Table 2. Numbers of recorded deaths from suicide undertermined whether accidentally or purposely inflicted where paracetamol is mentioned in the records. England and Wales, 1990, persons only.

  Total

  Paracetamol

  185

  (113)

  Paracetamol Propoxyphene

  5

  (11)

  Paracetamol Propranolol

  1

  Paracetamol Prothiaden

  1

  Paracetamol Salicylate (NOS)

  5

  (11)

  Paracetamol Temazepam Tricyclic Anti Depressant (NOS)

  1

  Paracetamol Triazolam

  1

  Paracetamol Warfarin

  1

  Paracetamol Verapamil

  1

  1 Number of deaths with mention of alcohol.

  NOS Not otherwise stated.

  The inclusion of a substance in this list does not imply that it is necessarily toxic. Where two or more substances are mentioned together the contribution, if any, of each to the death is unknown; even where one substance is listed alone there may well be other factors with an important bearing on the death.

  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what figures she has for the number of deaths from liver disease of which a part cause has been an earlier paracetamol overdose.

  Mr. Sackville
  In 1991 in England and Wales there were 25 recorded accidental deaths from liver disease of which a part cause was an earlier paracetamol overdose.

  Essex Health Authorities
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what administrative cost savings will be made as a result of merging the North East Essex district health authorities with Mid-Essex.

  Mr. Sackville
  The proposals by North East Thames regional health authority to merge the three existing health authorities of North East Essex, Mid Essex and West Essex to create a new North Essex health authority have recently been the subject of public consultation. I understand that the regional health authority will be submitting its formal recommendations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State shortly. It would not be appropriate for me to speculate on the level of administrative cost savings, but the effective use of resources is one of the criteria used in assessing the benefits of mergers.

  NHS Pay
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether she will make it her policy to support the continued work of the pay review body for nurses, midwives, health visitors and professions allied to medicine in order to provide objective evidence on comparative pay levels irrespective of any Government action to restrain pay in the short term.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Warrington South (Mr. Hall) on 30 November, at column 76.

  Hyperbaric Units
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines she has issued to regional and district health authorities as to the referral of national health service patients to hyperbaric units; and if she will amend them to draw attention to the dangers of treatment by unqualified staff.

  Mr. Sackville
  Health notice (90)20, a copy of which is available in the Library, gives guidance. Training and standards of care are matters for the professions.

  Orthodontic Dentists
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made on the number of orthodontic dentists required per 1·5 million people.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No assessment has been made by the Department. The planning and provision of dental treatment is a matter for district health authorities to undertake jointly with family health services authorities.

  Children's Homes
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish the report of the Warner committee inquiry into the selection, development and management of staff in children's homes.

  Mr. Yeo
  We are publishing the report "Choosing with Care" today. Copies have been placed in the Vote Office and the Library. We welcome the report and its thorough and constructive analysis of the issues identified by the inquiry. Although there are many caring and dedicated staff working in children's homes, the Government are concerned about the serious deficiencies and weaknesses of existing personnel procedures and practices. The report is clear that poor selection procedures can result in the appointment of some staff who are unsuited to the care of children. It makes vitally important recommendations for early improvements to employers selection and appointment procedures which the Government accept. We are therefore acting immediately to inform local authorities and employers in the voluntary and private sectors of the committee's findings, so that they can make changes that are required. It is essential, in the interests of children, that these recommendations are implemented. We will be consulting with local authorities about how we can ensure that this happens.

  The report raises other important issues that the Department will be considering carefully in consultation with the relevant parties.

HEALTH

  Dental Services
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the family health services authorities which have(a) held no dental services committee meeting and (b) cancelled a meeting in each month since July.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 30 November 1992]: The information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists who have not given notice to leave the

  Number of adult patients for whom notice of de-registration has been received

  Week ending

  FHSA

  3 July

  10 July

  17 July

  24 July

  31 July

  7 Aug

  14 Aug

  21 Aug

  28 Aug

  4 Sept

  11 Sept

  18 Sept

  25 Sept

  2 Oct

  9 Oct

  16 Oct

  23 Oct

  30 Oct

  6 Nov

  13 Nov

  20 Nov

  Cleveland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  13

  37

  0

  0

  0

  56

  91

  15

  42

  71

  56

  307

  0

  120

  109

  122

  Cumbria

  0

  0

  98

  173

  231

  129

  347

  192

  213

  121

  280

  121

  79

  141

  205

  76

  453

  115

  338

  217

  346

  Durham

  0

  0

  0

  51

  62

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Northumberland

  0

  1

  103

  47

  35

  5

  0

  0

  26

  0

  0

  0

  35

  75

  41

  53

  69

  49

  0

  19

  81

  Gateshead

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6

  11

  21

  33

  Newcaslle-upon-Tyne

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North Tyneside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South Tyneside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sunderland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Humberside

  22

  69

  65

  7

  7

  18

  10

  15

  3

  4

  5

  9

  9

  30

  9

  40

  27

  22

  15

  104

  39

  North Yorkshire

  0

  25

  n/k

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  35

  0

  70

  15

  4

  10

  9

  23

  32

  7

  Bradford

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Calderdale

  2

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1

  5

  6

  2

  1

  5

  10

  12

  2

  18

  4

  1

  0

  1

  0

  11

  Kirklees

  0

  0

  0

  0

  33

  0

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  0

  20

  6

  0

  3

  17

  5

  31

  Leeds

  10

  16

  43

  28

  54

  41

  66

  166

  28

  16

  27

  36

  65

  154

  34

  82

  61

  34

  222

  28

  291

  Wakefiekl

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Derbyshire

  0

  40

  0

  0

  49

  74

  48

  27

  47

  29

  41

  28

  27

  107

  79

  89

  72

  15

  176

  126

  1,185

  Leicestershire

  0

  0

  47

  71

  44

  4

  84

  53

  26

  47

  124

  170

  100

  51

  210

  120

  87

  185

  70

  150

  310

  Lincolnshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  94

  78

  59

  49

  44

  0

  5

  3

  110

  15

  111

  18

  2

  21

  5

  2,226

  Barnsley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Doncaster

  0

  0

  0

  0

  13

  2

  4

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Rothcrham

  12

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Sheffield

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  162

  82

  20

  64

  89

  62

  62

  54

  186

  43

  28

  62

  41

  73

  76

  Norfolk

  651

  385

  270

  330

  287

  120

  312

  329

  63

  67

  237

  696

  329

  378

  1,519

  290

  710

  410

  98

  178

  393

  Suffolk

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1,393

  0

  4

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  102

  24

  0

  Bedfordshire

  500

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hertfordshire

  25

  30

  30

  56

  103

  137

  89

  147

  20

  116

  64

  91

  147

  67

  10

  139

  111

  151

  100

  163

  267

  Barnet

  4,002

  0

  2

  0

  22

  0

  5

  0

  3

  9

  6

  16

  20

  2

  1

  0

  0

  5

  1

  0

  33

  Brent and Harrow

  0

  0

  0

  0

  30

  0

  0

  0

  621

  0

  0

  560

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hillingdon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kensington and Westminster

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Essex

  0

  0

  10

  5

  9

  3,647

  33

  608

  6,146

  0

  31

  18

  17

  177

  11

  20

  17

  162

  47

  2

  129

  Barking and Havering

  0

  10

  10

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  160

  0

  Camden and Islington

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  52

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  30

  0

  0

  30

  0

  City and East London

  0

  0

  0

  0

  34

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6

  3

  0

  5

  4

  Enfield and Haringey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  509

  0

  0

  0

  0

  214

  0

  0

  0

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  0

  0

  0

  36

  91

  57

  64

  45

  92

  21

  0

  66

  66

  120

  30

  101

  52

  43

  52

  101

  83

  East Sussex

  12

  0

  106

  52

  53

  2,008

  1,728

  373

  47

  126

  1,055

  1,550

  356

  64

  107

  127

  79

  101

  110

  87

  71

  Kent

  345

  1,558

  861

  777

  886

  786

  971

  1,151

  1,086

  597

  935

  1,453

  1,627

  1,302

  1,720

  1,289

  1,878

  781

  2,754

  891

  670

  Greenwich and Bexley

  0

  0

  16

  0

  183

  0

  1

  77

  191

  87

  89

  13

  193

  225

  120

  2

  102

  133

  54

  109

  105

  Bromley

  0

  0

  26

  63

  9,121

  16

  7

  20

  0

  346

  30

  21

  112

  0

  16

  112

  642

  144

  45

  19

  229

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  18

  2

  0

  0

  51

  12

  3

  18

  8

  5

  10

  0

  0

  2

  12

  3

  Surrey

  0

  973

  1,846

  251

  2,595

  233

  102

  438

  361

  387

  466

  507

  325

  444

  352

  575

  466

  568

  533

  557

  164

  West Sussex

  4,000

  5,500

  1,900

  0

  5,500

  500

  1,000

  0

  0

  0

  3,000

  1,500

  0

  0

  0

  2,000

  0

  2,000

  4,000

  0

  0

  Croydon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kingston and Richmond

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  43

  20

  0

  35

  0

  3

  76

  74

  103

  0

  0

  0

  80

  47

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  0

  1

  1

  33

  1

  28

  33

  60

  0

  34

  33

  1

  57

  1

  1

  4

  5

  1

  3

  1

  1

  Dorset

  233

  226

  267

  322

  433

  274

  252

  296

  218

  223

  517

  215

  375

  390

  1,340

  586

  333

  201

  520

  408

  220

  Hampshire

  93

  3

  0

  183

  863

  0

  432

  705

  12

  170

  244

  434

  428

  24

  5,527

  157

  120

  39

  110

  150

  59

  Wiltshire

  0

  0

  1,000

  1,000

  1,036

  690

  199

  72

  76

  0

  47

  88

  61

  72

  43

  176

  65

  118

  129

  40

  72

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  8

  55

  22

  0

  0

  0

  45

  27

  4

  109

  4

  0

  126

  10

  12

  45

  Berkshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  955

  489

  77

  478

  97

  201

  422

  230

  50

  250

  72

  102

  180

  2,337

  2,088

  101

  Buckinghamshire

  1,375

  3,100

  1,800

  3,300

  1,855

  1,000

  0

  0

  0

  0

  50

  0

  250

  0

  350

  0

  409

  2,000

  0

  0

  0

  Northamptonshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Oxfordshire

  0

  121

  156

  80

  105

  260

  74

  1,412

  133

  158

  162

  1,627

  467

  207

  183

  397

  241

  298

  203

  540

  470

  Avon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  55

  0

  0

  800

  0

  0

  300

  0

  0

  2,700

  0

  500

  0

  0

  43

  40

  190

  Cornwall and Isles or Scilly

  0

  n/a

  n/k

  120

  150

  158

  111

  100

  60

  132

  205

  24

  90

  100

  422

  232

  43

  48

  262

  159

  154

  Devon

  2,920

  268

  374

  149

  120

  89

  56

  124

  47

  153

  127

  132

  74

  208

  361

  551

  202

  751

  126

  332

  394

  Gloucestershire

  39

  564

  129

  540

  312

  489

  1,389

  422

  341

  351

  733

  325

  677

  563

  2,468

  1,641

  3,927

  2,873

  1,997

  1,191

  902

  Somerset

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hereford and Worcester

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  72

  128

  0

  61

  36

  48

  61

  59

  47

  58

  42

  52

  48

  98

  83

  Shropshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Staffordshire

  24

  7

  50

  11

  48

  140

  0

  8

  0

  0

  2

  16

  0

  0

  0

  0

  117

  0

  28

  0

  0

  Warwickshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  32

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1,328

  0

  Birmingham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  26

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  32

  5

  3

  Coventry

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  60

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  115

  0

  0

  0

  0

  132

  0

  Dudley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sandwell

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  526
  dental list have given written notice to each FHSA to deregister some or all of their continuing care arrangements for adult patients in each week since 8 July; how many dentists have deregistered patients; and how many patients have been deregistered.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 30 November 1992]: The information is contained in the tables. The tables give the number of dentists who have given written notice to the family health services authority of their intention to deregister adult patients under continuing care arrangements and the numbers of adults affected. Over the period 30 June 1992 to 30 September 1992, the total number of adult registrations has increased from 20,618,887 to 21,829,488.
  527

  Week ending

  FHSA

  3 July

  10 July

  17 July

  24 July

  31 July

  7 Aug

  14 Aug

  21 Aug

  28 Aug

  4 Sept

  11 Sept

  18 Sept

  25 Sept

  2 Oct

  9 Oct

  16 Oct

  23 Oct

  30 Oct

  6 Nov

  13 Nov

  20 Nov

  Solihull

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Walsall

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wolverhampton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cheshire

  0

  0

  14

  43

  1

  2,022

  45

  54

  18

  0

  6

  33

  951

  1

  17

  0

  15

  25

  25

  80

  0

  Liverpool

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  2

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  4

  5

  2

  0

  8

  0

  2

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sefton

  0

  0

  200

  100

  50

  25

  20

  0

  0

  0

  0

  52

  18

  23

  9

  15

  14

  10

  13

  0

  3

  Wirral

  0

  0

  0

  0

  67

  110

  0

  0

  4

  8

  4

  0

  1

  0

  2

  0

  33

  9

  13

  0

  12

  Lancashire

  12

  56

  133

  75

  81

  197

  1,749

  285

  295

  216

  1,992

  138

  247

  1,616

  774

  404

  413

  346

  420

  283

  395

  Bolton

  9

  2

  1

  0

  8

  1

  130

  5

  0

  4

  1

  2

  209

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  1

  4

  17

  Bury

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  15

  25

  0

  0

  0

  9

  3

  0

  0

  0

  Manchester

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Oldham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Rochdale

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Salford

  5

  13

  13

  60

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  60

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Stockport

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Tameside

  0

  0

  30

  0

  60

  40

  0

  0

  50

  30

  50

  0

  50

  0

  0

  0

  0

  100

  60

  0

  0

  Trafford

  2

  0

  12

  13

  13

  15

  17

  18

  1

  2

  1

  20

  4

  25

  0

  1

  3

  3

  21

  5

  13

  Wigan

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  England

  14,293

  12,969

  9,614

  7,977

  24,713

  14,430

  10,287

  8,473

  10,863

  5,165

  11,390

  10,703

  8,434

  9,743

  16,896

  10,256

  11,321

  12,401

  15,362

  10,203

  10,092

  n/a=Not available.

  n/k=Not known.

  Number of dentists who have given notice of intention to de-register adult patients

  Week ending

  FHSA

  3 July

  10 July

  17 July

  24 July

  31 July

  7 Aug

  14 Aug

  21 Aug

  28 Aug

  4 Sept

  11 Sept

  18 Sep

  25 Sep

  2 Oct

  9 Oct

  16 Oct

  23 Oct

  30 Oct

  6 Nov

  13 Nov

  20 Nov

  Cleveland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  3

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  2

  2

  1

  4

  6

  0

  5

  5

  2

  Cumbria

  0

  0

  7

  3

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  0

  3

  2

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Durham

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Northumberland

  0

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Gateshead

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  6

  3

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North Tyneside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South Tyneside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sunderland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Humberside

  8

  12

  12

  2

  2

  2

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North Yorkshire

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  2

  1

  6

  2

  8

  11

  2

  Bradford

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Calderdale

  2

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1

  1

  3

  2

  1

  1

  3

  2

  1

  1

  2

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Kirklees

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  0

  4

  1

  0

  3

  6

  2

  2

  Leeds

  2

  4

  5

  5

  2

  1

  0

  6

  8

  4

  4

  7

  3

  9

  4

  6

  7

  7

  12

  6

  9

  Wakefield

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Derbyshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Leicestershire

  0

  0

  6

  1

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Lincolnshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  9

  4

  2

  0

  2

  2

  3

  7

  8

  3

  1

  6

  4

  13

  Barnsley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Doncaster

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Rotherham

  3

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sheffield

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  5

  9

  9

  9

  10

  9

  9

  10

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  2

  Norfolk

  11

  7

  9

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  8

  2

  1

  0

  0

  Suffolk

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  2

  4

  0

  Bedfordshire

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hertfordshire

  2

  1

  0

  2

  7

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Barnet

  4

  0

  2

  0

  7

  0

  3

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  Brent and Harrow

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hillingdon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kensington and Westminster

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Essex

  0

  0

  3

  2

  6

  2

  7

  9

  10

  0

  2

  3

  6

  12

  2

  2

  1

  6

  13

  2

  4

  Barking and Havering

  0

  2

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  Camden and Islington

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  1

  0

  City and East London

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  3

  0

  3

  2

  Enfield and Haringey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  0

  0

  0

  East Sussex

  9

  0

  4

  2

  0

  9

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kent

  9

  13

  35

  34

  25

  35

  16

  34

  34

  22

  29

  32

  25

  35

  37

  22

  38

  0

  17

  8

  5

  Greenwich and Bexley

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  3

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  2

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bromley

  0

  0

  7

  2

  5

  0

  2

  0

  0

  3

  0

  2

  1

  0

  1

  11

  5

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Lambeth. Southwark and Lewisham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  3

  1

  0

  0

  2

  4

  2

  5

  4

  3

  5

  0

  0

  2

  2

  2

  Surrey

  0

  3

  5

  5

  8

  1

  0

  8

  2

  2

  6

  1

  0

  1

  5

  1

  2

  1

  1

  0

  0

  West Sussex

  2

  3

  2

  0

  4

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  1

  2

  0

  0

  Croydon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kingston and Richmond

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  0

  1

  1

  4

  1

  2

  1

  2

  0

  1

  3

  1

  2

  1

  1

  0

  4

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Number of adult patients for whom notice of de-registration has been received

  Week ending

  FHSA

  3 July

  10 July

  17 July

  24 July

  31 July

  7 Aug

  14 Aug

  21 Aug

  28 Aug

  4 Sept

  11 Sept

  18 Sept

  25 Sept

  2 Oct

  9 Oct

  16 Oct

  23 Oct

  30 Oct

  6 Nov

  13 Nov

  20 Nov

  Dorset

  5

  5

  1

  4

  4

  3

  0

  0

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  2

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Hampshire

  2

  0

  0

  1

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  0

  0

  2

  7

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  0

  Wiltshire

  0

  0

  l

  0

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  0

  0

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Berkshire

  0

  0

  2

  0

  9

  1

  3

  2

  3

  1

  3

  0

  4

  0

  1

  5

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  Buckinghsmshire

  1

  2

  1

  3

  3

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  0

  3

  0

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  528 529

  Week ending

  FHSA

  3 July

  10 July

  17 July

  24 July

  31 July

  7 Aug

  14 Aug

  21 Aug

  28 Aug

  4 Sept

  11 Sept

  18 Sept

  25 Sept

  2 Oct

  9 Oct

  16 Oct

  23 Oct

  30 Oct

  6 Nov

  13 Nov

  20 Nov

  Northamptonshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Oxfordshire

  0

  4

  0

  3

  0

  3

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  4

  0

  2

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Avon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  13

  5

  4

  12

  10

  8

  2

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  5

  3

  1

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Devon

  22

  27

  24

  16

  10

  17

  7

  8

  5

  1

  2

  3

  1

  2

  1

  2

  0

  2

  1

  2

  3

  Gloucestershire

  6

  0

  9

  10

  4

  0

  4

  1

  3

  2

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Somerset

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hereford and Worcester

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Shropshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Staffordshire

  8

  5

  5

  1

  6

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Warwickshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  Birmingham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  Coventry

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Dudley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sandwell

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Solihull

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Walsall

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wolverhampton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cheshire

  0

  0

  3

  2

  1

  2

  1

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Liverpool

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  3

  2

  2

  0

  5

  0

  2

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sefton

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wirral

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  3

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lancashire

  7

  14

  12

  8

  9

  12

  8

  12

  10

  2

  8

  6

  5

  5

  9

  2

  3

  5

  3

  2

  3

  Bolton

  3

  2

  1

  0

  3

  0

  2

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  Bury

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Manchester

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Oldham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Rochdale

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Salford

  2

  2

  2

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Stockport

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Tameside

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  2

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Trafford

  1

  0

  3

  1

  0

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  3

  1

  0

  1

  1

  2

  1

  1

  2

  Wigan

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  England

  123

  115

  176

  133

  159

  127

  90

  115

  106

  62

  92

  91

  90

  109

  119

  87

  108

  53

  100

  77

  65

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists, who have not given notice to leave the dental list, have given written notice to each FHSA to terminate or deregister some or all of their capitation arrangements for child patients in each week since 8 July 1982; how many dentists have deregistered patients; and how many patients have been deregistered.

  Number of child patients for whom notice of de-registration has been received

  Week ending

  FHSA

  3 July

  10 July

  17 July

  24 July

  31 July

  7 Aug

  14 Aug

  21 Aug

  28 Aug

  4 Sept

  11 Sept

  18 Sept

  25 Sept

  2 Oct

  9 Oct

  16 Oct

  23 Oct

  30 Oct

  6 Nov

  13 Nov

  20 Nov

  Cumbria

  0

  0

  19

  4

  1

  0

  3

  1

  1

  16

  2

  1

  1

  1

  4

  1

  74

  0

  0

  8

  1

  Gateshead

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  3

  2

  0

  Humberside

  1

  6

  5

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  1

  3

  0

  2

  4

  0

  0

  2

  6

  Calderdale

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Leeds

  2

  3

  4

  1

  0

  0

  3

  2

  12

  0

  4

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  5

  1

  0

  6

  Leicestershire

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  1

  1

  Rotherham

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Norfolk

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  18

  0

  0

  0

  Hertfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Barnet

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Essex

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  Enfield and Haringey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  East Sussex

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kent

  0

  0

  0

  7

  0

  2

  0

  2

  2

  203

  10

  0

  6

  1

  0

  0

  3

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Bromley

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Merton. Sutton and Wandsworth

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hampshire

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Berkshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Oxfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  10

  7

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Devon

  0

  2

  3

  10

  2

  6

  3

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  8

  0

  0

  2

  1

  116

  0

  0

  0

  Gloucestershire

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Staffordshire

  0

  3

  0

  0

  6

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cheshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lancashire

  2

  2

  1

  3

  2

  4

  5

  6

  2

  0

  3

  4

  9

  2

  7

  4

  8

  4

  0

  4

  2

  Bolton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  7

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Rochdale

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Trafford

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Total England

  12

  19

  36

  40

  27

  20

  23

  23

  20

  220

  21

  10

  32

  11

  11

  9

  96

  147

  6

  18

  20

  FHSAs not shown, have had no child patients deregistered.
  530
  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 30 November 1992]: The information is contained in the tables. The tables give the numbers of dentists who have given written notice to the family health services authorities of their intention to deregister child patients under capitation arrangements and the numbers of children affected. For the period 30 June 1992 to 30 September 1992, the total number of children covered by capitation payments has increased from 6,472,689 to 7,103,096.
  531

  Number of dentists giving notice of intention to de-register child patients

  Week ending

  FHSA

  3 July

  10 July

  17 July

  24 July

  31 July

  7 Aug

  14 Aug

  21 Aug

  28 Aug

  4 Sept

  11 Sept

  18 Sept

  25 Sept

  2 Oct

  9 Oct

  16 Oct

  23 Oct

  30 Oct

  6 Nov

  13 Nov

  20 Nov

  Cumbria

  0

  0

  2

  0

  7

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Gateshead

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  2

  0

  Humberside

  1

  3

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Caldcrdalc

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Leeds

  1

  2

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  3

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  0

  3

  Leicestershire

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  1

  1

  Rotherham

  i

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Norfolk

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  0

  0

  0

  Hertfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Barnet

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Essex

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Enfield and Haringey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  East Sussex

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kent

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  2

  0

  1

  1

  2

  4

  0

  4

  1

  0

  0

  3

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Bromley

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hampshire

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Berkshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Oxfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Devon

  0

  1

  2

  4

  1

  5

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Gloucestershire

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Staffordshire

  0

  1

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cheshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lancashire

  2

  1

  1

  3

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  3

  2

  2

  1

  2

  1

  0

  3

  0

  2

  2

  Bolton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  l

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Rochdale

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Trafford

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Total England

  11

  10

  11

  15

  14

  11

  8

  7

  7

  3

  10

  3

  9

  5

  2

  2

  3

  14

  3

  6

  8

  FHSAs not shown, have had no child patients de-registered.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists have given written notice to each FHSA to remove their name from the dental list in each week since 8 July; and what is the total for this period.

  Number of dentists giving written notice to remove their names from dental list

  Week ending

  FHSA

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  Total

  3

  10

  17

  24

  31

  7

  14

  21

  28

  4

  11

  18

  25

  2

  9

  16

  23

  30

  6

  13

  20

  Humberside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Calderdale

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  4

  Wakefield

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Norfolk

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Ealing, Harrow and Hounslow

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Barking and Havering

  0

  1

  0

  0

  2

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6

  City and East London

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  3

  0

  0

  0

  5

  Enfield and Haringey

  0

  0

  1

  2

  0

  0

  5

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  1

  0

  4

  18

  East Sussex

  0

  0

  1

  1

  4

  2

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  12

  Kent

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  3

  1

  2

  0

  10

  Greenwich and Bexley

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  2

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  8

  Bromley

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  0

  1

  0

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  11

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  2

  0

  4

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  13

  Surrey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Croydon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  5

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Hampshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Oxfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Devon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Somerset

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Dudley

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Wirral

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Manchester

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Salford

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Tameside

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Trafford

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  3

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6

  Total England

  11

  2

  8

  8

  9

  4

  8

  2

  6

  1

  4

  2

  3

  6

  5

  5

  11

  11

  2

  5

  7

  120

  532
  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 30 November 1992]: The information requested is contained in the table. The total number of dentists who have given written notice to family health services authorities to remove their names from the dental list since 3 July is 120. Additions to the list in the period 30 June to 30 September mean that overall, there was a decrease of 15 dentists.
  533
  Note: No dentists have asked fro their names to be removed from the dental list in the other 63 FHSAs.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have contacted each week FHSA asking for help in finding a dentist in each week since 8 july; and if she will make a statement

  Number of patients contacting the FHSA for help in finding an NHS dentist

  Week ending

  FHSA

  3 July

  10 July

  17 July

  24 July

  31 July

  7 Aug

  14 Aug

  21 Aug

  28 Aug

  4 Sept

  11 Sept

  18 Sept

  25 Sept

  2 Oct

  9 Oct

  16 Oct

  23 Oct

  30 Oct

  6 Nov

  13 Nov

  20 Nov

  Cleveland

  0

  50

  100

  60

  42

  33

  45

  30

  35

  35

  10

  15

  10

  10

  10

  8

  8

  3

  60

  35

  50

  Cumbria

  15

  45

  39

  65

  20

  30

  43

  40

  30

  40

  60

  68

  50

  67

  73

  70

  54

  50

  90

  35

  75

  Durham

  0

  10

  16

  19

  15

  16

  16

  20

  12

  6

  14

  6

  3

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  Northumberland

  3

  8

  8

  11

  12

  8

  14

  5

  9

  3

  4

  11

  11

  7

  3

  3

  7

  16

  9

  4

  5

  Gateshead

  0

  41

  27

  48

  30

  40

  40

  21

  23

  15

  20

  24

  9

  4

  13

  7

  12

  3

  20

  5

  9

  NewcasUe-upon-Tyne

  2

  7

  29

  33

  31

  28

  16

  14

  23

  3

  15

  18

  13

  8

  10

  13

  14

  10

  11

  15

  4

  North Tyneside

  1

  0

  0

  7

  3

  8

  0

  2

  6

  0

  3

  1

  1

  1

  2

  4

  2

  1

  0

  2

  0

  South Tyneside

  0

  59

  84

  62

  32

  18

  4

  0

  10

  8

  12

  12

  7

  16

  11

  12

  20

  25

  10

  6

  6

  Sunderland

  0

  0

  119

  43

  45

  35

  25

  21

  30

  15

  12

  17

  31

  16

  20

  14

  6

  12

  7

  7

  12

  Humberside

  108

  103

  115

  99

  91

  87

  86

  86

  94

  33

  77

  131

  88

  83

  86

  74

  67

  110

  96

  93

  131

  North Yorkshire

  0

  3

  2

  1

  3

  3

  21

  10

  8

  19

  15

  30

  20

  33

  17

  20

  40

  20

  15

  9

  6

  Bradford

  5

  0

  3

  1

  3

  1

  2

  2

  4

  0

  3

  5

  3

  6

  5

  5

  5

  4

  4

  3

  4

  Calderdale

  2

  1

  2

  0

  2

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  1

  2

  2

  0

  1

  2

  5

  7

  Kirklees

  2

  10

  12

  8

  12

  12

  6

  3

  15

  10

  15

  10

  16

  29

  11

  15

  15

  15

  27

  15

  15

  Leeds

  2

  6

  25

  11

  10

  24

  25

  60

  30

  25

  40

  35

  28

  40

  5

  35

  20

  35

  37

  45

  25

  Wakefield

  0

  1

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  2

  0

  1

  1

  27

  5

  5

  4

  2

  6

  2

  6

  Derbyshire

  18

  77

  58

  71

  59

  94

  91

  49

  70

  43

  78

  81

  84

  59

  68

  58

  78

  71

  44

  31

  94

  Leicestershire

  2

  20

  22

  15

  12

  12

  9

  11

  12

  13

  14

  16

  17

  14

  16

  18

  10

  8

  15

  22

  27

  Lincolnshire

  1

  2

  0

  0

  2

  0

  2

  1

  1

  2

  2

  3

  4

  2

  3

  0

  0

  2

  0

  3

  2

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  6

  30

  28

  12

  28

  30

  15

  24

  20

  27

  20

  14

  19

  20

  21

  23

  12

  20

  14

  14

  Barnsley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Doncaster

  0

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Rotherham

  5

  2

  2

  4

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  2

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Sheffield

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  293

  371

  220

  245

  279

  207

  161

  162

  163

  161

  274

  192

  146

  136

  152

  87

  134

  182

  123

  0

  132

  Norfolk

  72

  162

  148

  123

  110

  136

  135

  139

  156

  138

  145

  160

  121

  158

  160

  154

  82

  120

  111

  112

  135

  Suffolk

  0

  16

  8

  8

  8

  5

  13

  4

  8

  2

  5

  2

  24

  4

  6

  5

  8

  10

  43

  20

  16

  Bedfordshire

  28

  67

  46

  62

  26

  19

  28

  26

  54

  46

  42

  45

  38

  51

  47

  61

  59

  43

  68

  71

  57

  Hertfordshire

  6

  40

  5

  30

  16

  33

  62

  29

  28

  34

  21

  23

  17

  21

  15

  29

  29

  54

  50

  40

  23

  Barnet

  76

  68

  82

  26

  49

  21

  24

  20

  15

  24

  20

  24

  21

  30

  20

  18

  15

  26

  24

  14

  10

  Brent and Harrow

  25

  30

  15

  11

  4

  10

  6

  8

  29

  21

  15

  35

  24

  12

  14

  27

  27

  4

  15

  11

  22

  Ealing, Hammersmith and HounsJow

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  7

  8

  7

  9

  5

  9

  7

  15

  11

  Hillingdon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kensington Westminster

  45

  54

  36

  40

  37

  30

  24

  56

  48

  30

  27

  41

  51

  54

  54

  50

  50

  48

  42

  80

  60

  Essex

  10

  23

  18

  21

  28

  21

  45

  33

  45

  42

  54

  46

  52

  62

  36

  42

  62

  42

  79

  67

  42

  Barking and Havering

  17

  35

  39

  18

  13

  18

  9

  11

  17

  13

  17

  15

  19

  13

  17

  11

  10

  17

  17

  17

  13

  Camden and Islington

  30

  25

  14

  16

  27

  18

  25

  24

  17

  21

  45

  21

  24

  15

  15

  24

  20

  17

  14

  19

  15

  City and East London

  22

  61

  75

  84

  32

  49

  39

  86

  31

  51

  86

  61

  53

  54

  60

  49

  62

  71

  59

  49

  47

  Enfield and Haringey

  12

  8

  17

  10

  29

  24

  23

  14

  17

  29

  16

  22

  14

  10

  23

  32

  21

  29

  35

  33

  21

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  20

  7

  1

  0

  8

  10

  8

  8

  10

  7

  4

  8

  6

  10

  8

  9

  6

  4

  1

  5

  9

  East Sussex

  25

  164

  200

  152

  180

  163

  168

  160

  151

  103

  111

  121

  157

  114

  107

  111

  100

  103

  84

  82

  77

  Kent

  80

  116

  191

  136

  188

  213

  203

  139

  154

  121

  205

  152

  202

  172

  161

  166

  167

  139

  193

  154

  191

  Greenwich and Bexley

  4

  12

  6

  6

  5

  21

  12

  0

  8

  6

  8

  13

  4

  8

  5

  4

  10

  16

  7

  7

  5

  Bromley

  45

  40

  58

  30

  40

  30

  36

  54

  52

  48

  52

  32

  46

  28

  32

  13

  34

  34

  11

  39

  36

  Lambeth. Southwark and Lewisham

  8

  15

  11

  16

  21

  14

  22

  13

  15

  21

  23

  3

  30

  23

  37

  44

  24

  24

  22

  27

  17

  Surrey

  20

  42

  41

  40

  59

  53

  52

  54

  43

  28

  31

  30

  47

  54

  40

  37

  30

  35

  38

  43

  51

  West Sussex

  20

  65

  96

  96

  65

  66

  69

  87

  85

  57

  98

  79

  90

  77

  65

  62

  97

  70

  67

  73

  80

  Croydon

  4

  11

  6

  3

  4

  8

  13

  6

  9

  7

  11

  4

  5

  4

  9

  8

  10

  6

  8

  11

  9

  Kingston and Richmond

  12

  28

  29

  25

  23

  25

  33

  24

  20

  0

  40

  30

  40

  50

  47

  27

  24

  28

  32

  34

  41

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  15

  24

  19

  18

  21

  20

  18

  25

  27

  20

  25

  45

  15

  21

  23

  32

  24

  17

  14

  15

  24

  Dorset

  23

  62

  122

  86

  83

  96

  106

  110

  113

  79

  122

  125

  123

  115

  78

  105

  112

  102

  83

  98

  93

  Hampshire

  12

  55

  69

  54

  146

  116

  104

  89

  77

  76

  65

  45

  42

  44

  72

  57

  46

  37

  53

  87

  37

  Wiltshire

  12

  19

  35

  47

  52

  46

  37

  46

  50

  54

  44

  41

  34

  75

  50

  51

  37

  81

  76

  92

  83

  Isle of Wight

  43

  75

  55

  53

  65

  37

  64

  81

  76

  42

  33

  46

  43

  44

  48

  53

  56

  41

  44

  41

  33

  Berkshire

  21

  31

  68

  51

  52

  56

  82

  61

  67

  74

  92

  77

  71

  59

  71

  65

  63

  62

  65

  76

  68

  Buckinghamshire

  51

  87

  63

  67

  64

  51

  59

  47

  47

  33

  61

  53

  40

  39

  43

  27

  27

  20

  40

  31

  27

  Northamptonshire

  46

  74

  84

  70

  67

  38

  35

  86

  58

  42

  47

  68

  60

  63

  63

  54

  64

  62

  54

  84

  59

  Oxfordshire

  16

  44

  56

  56

  60

  58

  75

  121

  85

  42

  84

  86

  69

  52

  75

  72

  64

  55

  81

  59

  81

  Avon

  112

  192

  145

  141

  166

  138

  118

  129

  157

  118

  154

  129

  91

  122

  135

  118

  108

  95

  79

  93

  90

  Cornwall and Isles of Solly

  15

  40

  18

  16

  14

  25

  30

  38

  74

  41

  62

  45

  15

  32

  25

  42

  31

  55

  66

  43

  48

  Devon

  55

  106

  73

  78

  68

  76

  90

  85

  101

  81

  90

  80

  78

  90

  89

  115

  103

  97

  109

  70

  152

  Gloucestershire

  1

  48

  33

  62

  381

  79

  73

  68

  62

  63

  64

  99

  100

  138

  94

  108

  104

  114

  104

  87

  24

  Somerset

  2

  75

  111

  86

  103

  82

  79

  69

  88

  62

  80

  45

  40

  30

  38

  28

  12

  17

  12

  9

  14

  Hereford and Worcester

  4

  25

  59

  61

  46

  41

  50

  62

  54

  52

  52

  39

  52

  44

  45

  51

  40

  103

  78

  39

  44

  Shropshire

  11

  43

  53

  44

  35

  25

  23

  20

  28

  11

  25

  35

  32

  28

  18

  25

  24

  22

  18

  21

  26

  Staffordshire

  4

  69

  61

  43

  31

  46

  36

  34

  37

  14

  18

  22

  33

  25

  19

  20

  24

  20

  21

  42

  18

  Warwickshire

  5

  17

  12

  11

  20

  18

  24

  31

  21

  17

  20

  14

  21

  19

  21

  21

  13

  23

  16

  22

  10

  Birmingham

  0

  0

  0

  5

  0

  4

  0

  0

  11

  11

  9

  6

  5

  12

  0

  4

  2

  0

  10

  2

  0

  Coventry

  0

  8

  47

  17

  62

  45

  45

  32

  75

  20

  50

  40

  37

  0

  28

  22

  15

  0

  11

  12

  16

  Dudley

  0

  0

  3

  9

  3

  0

  11

  7

  2

  0

  4

  3

  5

  4

  3

  2

  4

  2

  1

  4

  8

  Sandwell

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  4

  2

  1

  2

  0

  2

  3

  3

  5

  4

  0

  1

  4

  1

  0

  1

  SolihuU

  2

  4

  3

  4

  3

  3

  2

  2

  3

  5

  2

  3

  22

  3

  3

  6

  2

  5

  2

  2

  11

  Walsall

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  3

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  3

  2

  Wolverhampton

  0

  5

  2

  6

  0

  1

  2

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  4

  0

  1

  2

  20

  5

  3

  4

  2

  Cheshire

  3

  9

  11

  9

  14

  14

  7

  8

  4

  7

  4

  8

  6

  4

  6

  4

  3

  5

  6

  5

  6

  Liverpool

  5

  8

  16

  13

  17

  24

  30

  56

  97

  8

  12

  6

  12

  15

  12

  8

  11

  6

  5

  1

  3

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Sefton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wirral

  0

  4

  2

  2

  4

  2

  2

  4

  5

  2

  6

  4

  6

  3

  5

  4

  3

  1

  2

  2

  6

  Lancashire

  10

  40

  34

  22

  40

  54

  25

  50

  42

  38

  49

  49

  60

  51

  52

  53

  54

  53

  27

  34

  54

  Bolton

  3

  11

  18

  1

  9

  0

  0

  6

  3

  2

  1

  4

  4

  3

  2

  2

  2

  1

  2

  1

  5

  Bury

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  2

  0

  Manchester

  5

  4

  4

  1

  3

  3

  5

  4

  2

  4

  2

  1

  2

  7

  4

  2

  2

  8

  4

  4

  5

  Oldham

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  534
  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 30 November 1992]: The information is contained in the tables.
  535

  Week ending

  FHSA

  3 July

  10 July

  17 July

  24 July

  31 July

  7 Aug

  14 Aug

  21 Aug

  28 Aug

  4 Sept

  11 Sept

  18 Sept

  25 Sept

  2 Oct

  9 Oct

  16 Oct

  23 Oct

  30 Oct

  6 Nov

  13 Nov

  20 Nov

  Rochdale

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Salford

  15

  10

  20

  5

  2

  10

  2

  15

  10

  3

  7

  15

  20

  27

  0

  0

  0

  5

  0

  20

  15

  Stockport

  0

  0

  6

  1

  5

  5

  1

  4

  1

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  4

  0

  2

  1

  Tameside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Trafford

  0

  n/k

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  3

  3

  3

  2

  Wigan

  0

  0

  2

  0

  3

  1

  1

  1

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  3

  3

  0

  1

  0

  TOTAL ENGLAND

  1,531

  3,106

  3,364

  2,929

  3,331

  2,891

  2,929

  2,943

  3,093

  2,327

  3,061

  2,906

  2,803

  2,792

  2,646

  2,626

  2,552

  2,651

  2,716

  2,488

  2,682

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many FHSAs have referred patients, who have been unable to obtain treatment from a general dental practitioner, to(a) the community dental service, (b) the hospital dental service and (c) a salaried dentist, in each week since July.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 30 November 1992]: The information is not held in the form requested. The number of family health services authorities that have referred patients who have been unable to obtain treatment from a general dental practitioner to the community dental service, hospital dental service or a salaried dentist is contained in the table.

  Week ending

  Number of FHSAs

  3 July

  20

  10 July

  23

  17 July

  19

  24 July

  18

  31 July

  22

  7 August

  26

  14 August

  21

  21 August

  24

  28 August

  25

  4 September

  23

  11 September

  26

  18 September

  23

  25 September

  24

  2 October

  22

  9 October

  24

  16 October

  23

  23 October

  24

  30 October

  26

  6 November

  28

  13 November

  28

  20 November

  27

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many FHSAs have been unable to provide emergency dental services in each week since 8 July.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 30 November 1992]: The information is contained in the table. General dental

  Number of patients for whom FHSAS were unable to arrange NHS Dental Treatment

  Week ending

  FHSA

  3 July

  10 July

  17 July

  24 July

  31 July

  7 Aug

  14 Aug

  21 Aug

  28 Aug

  4 Sept

  11 Sept

  18 Sept

  25 Sept

  2 Oct

  9 Oct

  16 Oct

  23 Oct

  30 Oct

  6 Nov

  13 Nov

  20 Nov

  North Yorkshire

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  130

  n/k

  n/k

  n/k

  n/k

  n/k

  n/k

  n/k

  12

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Norfolk

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  13

  27

  54

  67

  97

  117

  Essex

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Redbridge & Waltham Forest

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  East Sussex

  0

  0

  n/k

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  n/k

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kent

  0

  0

  0

  n/k

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  n/k

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Greenwich and Bexley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bromley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Surrey

  n/k

  2

  0

  0

  1

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hampshire

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wiltshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cornwall & Isles of Sally

  5

  22

  13

  14

  9

  14

  13

  16

  n/k

  13

  n/k

  n/k

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Gloucestershire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  3

  0

  2

  5

  7

  7

  Somerset

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hereford and Worcester

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  n/k

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Manchester

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  536
  practitioners have an obligation under their terms of service to provide emergency cover to their registered patients. They may also offer emergency treatment to non-registered patients. Family health services authorities make arrangements for those patients who are not registered.

  Week ending

  Number of FHSAs

  3 July

  13

  10 July

  8

  17 July

  8

  24 July

  7

  31 July

  8

  7 August

  8

  14 August

  7

  21 August

  7

  28 August

  8

  4 September

  8

  11 September

  8

  18 September

  9

  25 September

  8

  2 October

  8

  9 October

  8

  16 October

  8

  23 October

  8

  30 October

  8

  6 November

  8

  13 November

  7

  20 November

  7

  Total number of FHSAs = 90

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have reported to each FHSA that they have been unable to arrange NHS dental treatment in each week since 8 July; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 30 November 1992]: Information showing the number of patients for whom family health services authorities were unable to arrange treatment is contained in the table.
  537

  Week ending

  FHSA

  3 July

  10 July

  17 July

  24 July

  31 July

  7 Aug

  14 Aug

  21 Aug

  28 Aug

  4 Sept

  11 Sept

  18 Sept

  25 Sept

  2 Oct

  9 Oct

  16 Oct

  23 Oct

  30 Oct

  6 Nov

  13 Nov

  20 Nov

  Stockport

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total England

  135

  26

  15

  15

  14

  17

  16

  23

  20

  14

  3

  0

  0

  2

  1

  16

  27

  56

  72

  104

  124

  Note: the other 71 FHSAs were able to arrange NHS dental treatment for all people requesting assistance.

  Personal Social Services Authorities
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish a table showing for each personal social services authority (i) the 1993–94 standard spending assessment for PSS on which the Government are consulting, (ii) the percentage difference between the proposed standard spending assessment and(a) the 1992–93 standard spending assessment and (b) the 1992–93 budget estimate, and (iii) the year on year change in each authority's total budget permitted by the Government's provisional capping criteria for 1993–94.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 30 November 1992]: The 1993–94 standard spending assessment for PSS and the percentage differences between that proposed standard spending assessment and the 1992–93 standard spending assessment and the 1992–93 budget estimate are shown in the table. The year-on-year change in each authority's total budget permitted by the Government's provisional capping criteria for 1993–94 will shortly be made available in the Library by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

  The Government announced on 26 November 1992 that the spending for local authority personal social services in 1993–94 would be £5,585 million, an increase of 15 per cent. over the figure for 1992–93 of £4,850 million. This includes £5,020 million for existing responsibilities—a rise of 3·5 per cent.·and £565 million for the community care special transitional grant. The grant

  Local authority

  PSS SSA 1993–94

  Increase in SSA for 1993–94

  STG Community Care

  Difference PSS SSA and STG and Budget 1992–93

  £ million

  Per cent.

  £ million

  Per cent.

  Metropolitan

  Bolton

  26·908

  3·0

  2·834

  8·4

  Bury

  14·843

  3·2

  2·467

  11·5

  Manchester

  79·424

  3·5

  5·985

  32·1

  Oldham

  23·659

  1·7

  2·298

  4·9

  Rochdale

  22·836

  4·9

  2·632

  7·5

  Salford

  31·464

  3·8

  3·197

  15·2

  Stockport

  24·733

  3·6

  2·952

  1·2

  Tameside

  20·971

  2·2

  2·457

  1·3

  Trafford

  20·378

  3·1

  2·575

  19·0

  Wigan

  24·962

  2·5

  2·732

  6·8

  Knowsley

  23·495

  5·3

  1·692

  56·8

  Liverpool

  75·838

  0·3

  6·787

  10·4

  St. Helens

  16·455

  3·4

  1·686

  -17·9

  Sefton

  27·990

  8·1

  6·224

  23·9

  Wirral

  36·254

  4·5

  5·299

  19·9

  Barnsley

  19·563

  3·4

  2·673

  19·0

  Doncaster

  25·948

  1·2

  2·846

  18·8

  Rotherham

  22·491

  3·1

  2·424

  -1·1

  Sheffield

  59·745

  3·5

  6·052

  0·0

  Gateshead

  22·207

  2·0

  2·476

  0·8

  Newcastle

  34·237

  -1·2

  3·208

  -0·6

  North Tyneside

  19·969

  -0·8

  2·337

  -9·1

  South Tyneside

  17·802

  -1·6

  1·678

  11·3

  Sunderland

  29·378

  3·2

  3·220

  5·5

  Birmingham

  138·342

  5·4

  11·103

  8·6

  Coventry

  33·372

  1·7

  3·170

  -3·2

  Dudley

  23·724

  5·7

  3·383

  11·8

  538
  based on the total announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health on 2 October and totalling £538·6 million is shown in the table and has been added to the 1993–94 SSA for the purpose of comparison with 1992–93 budgets. This grant will be increased further once the distribution of additional funding to take account of change to the independent living fund has been decided.

  A circular was issued to all local authorities LASSL(9212 which gave indicative figures for the community care special transitional grant. Since the circular was issued it has been discovered that there was a technical error in the calculation. The figures included in this answer are now correct. A new circular will be issued later this week.

  The 1993–94 PSS standard spending assessments are based on the latest population estimates derived from the 1991 census. For some authorities the previous population estimates based on the 1981 census were too high and as a consequence the new population estimates lead to a decrease in the 1993–94 PSS standard spending assessments. We believe that it is correct and fair to all authorities to use the most up-to-date information available to calculate the standard spending assessments.

  The final column in the table illustrates the wide variation in local decisions on spending. The standard spending assessments are not hypothecated for individual services and it is for local authorities to decide on their own level of expenditure on individual service areas, taking account of local priorities as well as legislative and other pressures when setting budgets.
  539

  Local authority

  PSS SSA 1993–94

  Increase in SSA for 1993–94

  STG Community Care

  Difference PSS SSA and STG and Budget 1992–93

  £ million

  Per cent.

  £ million

  Per cent.

  Sandwell

  35·213

  2·2

  2·953

  -0·3

  Solihull

  15·966

  2·3

  1·368

  -4·4

  Walsall

  23·786

  2·5

  2·194

  13·1

  Wolverhampton

  30·915

  1·7

  2·633

  3·3

  Bradford

  54·860

  4·5

  6·540

  12·3

  Calderdale

  20·410

  1·0

  2·553

  2·8

  Kirklees

  38·853

  5·3

  4·308

  19·6

  Leeds

  76·073

  -0·2

  7·598

  -0·5

  Wakefield

  26·305

  0·5

  2·811

  -0·5

  Inner London

  City of London

  0·608

  11·1

  0·038

  -80·6

  Camden

  43·868

  -0·3

  2·392

  2·1

  Greenwich

  35·151

  1·5

  1·969

  -17·7

  Hackney

  60·848

  2·7

  2·039

  9·0

  Hammersmith

  40·022

  -3·8

  1·692

  9·2

  Islington

  45·658

  -2·3

  2·018

  -2·5

  Kensington

  32·246

  -0·3

  1·805

  3·1

  Lambeth

  75·461

  -0·5

  2·853

  -1·1

  Lewisham

  46·963

  -1·0

  3027

  2-May

  Southwark

  54·321

  -3·6

  2·402

  1·8

  Tower Hamlets

  46·354

  3·8

  1·772

  22·6

  Wandsworth

  57·149

  -2·6

  3·718

  0·3

  Westminster

  42·722

  -7·3

  2·371

  -22·1

  Outer London

  Barking

  19·561

  -2·3

  1·359

  3·5

  Barnet

  32·554

  3·0

  3·395

  -1·7

  Bexley

  18·294

  2·9

  1·580

  -2·5

  Brent

  46·945

  3·0

  2·077

  7·7

  Bromley

  27·438

  1·3

  3·019

  18·5

  Croydon

  37·899

  3·6

  3·664

  1·8

  Ealing

  41·116

  0·7

  2·900

  12·4

  Enfield

  28·588

  -0·5

  2·427

  -3·4

  Haringey

  44·029

  -1·0

  2·372

  26·9

  Harrow

  18·030

  4·0

  1·526

  -9·0

  Havering

  19·138

  3·4

  1·830

  -15·7

  Hillingdon

  21·346

  -1·0

  1·645

  -18·8

  Hounslow

  25·418

  1·1

  1·434

  -19·9

  Kingston

  13·438

  -3·6

  1·427

  -14·9

  Merton

  20·273

  0·0

  1·577

  2·9

  Newham

  43·490

  4·2

  1·882

  1·0

  Redbridge

  24·290

  1·6

  2·184

  7·4

  Richmond

  17·910

  -3·5

  1·545

  10·9

  Sutton

  17·006

  3·4

  1·969

  3·3

  Waltham Forest

  36·082

  1·6

  2·392

  -4·9

  Shires

  Isles of Scilly

  0·153

  -2·5

  0·016

  17·6

  Avon

  84·323

  3·5

  11·820

  3·6

  Bedfordshire

  44·406

  6·6

  3·750

  8·0

  Berkshire

  59·050

  6·0

  5·744

  -4·8

  Buckinghamshire

  45·918

  6·5

  3·978

  -4·8

  Cambridgeshire

  50·166

  4·3

  5·126

  3·2

  Cheshire

  74·873

  6·5

  9·713

  8·9

  Cleveland

  56·874

  2·9

  5·727

  8·3

  Cornwall

  38·913

  7·8

  6·504

  30·5

  Cumbria

  41·430

  4·3

  4·969

  14·6

  Derbyshire

  76·731

  5·2

  10·509

  -2·1

  Devon

  90·327

  6·6

  17·424

  36·6

  Dorset

  59·550

  3·7

  9·953

  54·4

  Durham

  54·012

  1·4

  7·125

  33·6

  East Sussex

  81·370

  11·0

  14·114

  42·3

  Essex

  128·180

  6·1

  14·070

  15·3

  Gloucestershire

  43·663

  3·7

  6·299

  29·3

  Hampshire

  131·524

  10·0

  15·778

  48·6

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  51·276

  8·7

  7·387

  15·7

  Hertfordshire

  79·054

  2·3

  7·831

  5·3

  Humberside

  80·447

  4·8

  10·548

  7·2

  Isle of Wight

  11·979

  6·0

  2·285

  33·4

  Kent

  136·146

  7·5

  19·937

  20·9

  Lancashire

  126·452

  5·1

  20·070

  5·9

  Leicestershire

  77·204

  2·4

  8·451

  15·2

  540 541

  Local authority

  PSS SSA 1993–94

  Increase in SSA for 1993–94

  STG Community Care

  Difference PSS SSA and STG and Budget 1992–93

  £ million

  Per cent.

  £ million

  Per cent.

  Lincolnshire

  47·929

  6·4

  8·418

  40·1

  Norfolk

  62·809

  5·4

  9·157

  32·5

  Northamptonshire

  47·848

  5·7

  5·856

  12·1

  Northumberland

  24·686

  6·6

  3·199

  3·6

  North Yorkshire

  55·556

  5·1

  10·172

  35·0

  Nottinghamshire

  96·060

  2·3

  11·870

  8·5

  Oxfordshire

  45·496

  3·5

  4·555

  4·9

  Shropshire

  31·725

  6·5

  4·062

  17·0

  Somerset

  35·790

  0·8

  5·607

  21·2

  Staffordshire

  79·106

  5·7

  10·127

  13·2

  Suffolk

  52·808

  7·0

  6·293

  23·4

  Surrey

  82·229

  4·9

  10·427

  32·0

  Warwickshire

  37·674

  7·2

  4·700

  18·6

  West Sussex

  62·901

  7·1

  10·142

  45·9

  Wiltshire

  41·976

  4·6

  5·242

  12·6

DEFENCE

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many civil servants are currently employed by his Department(a) in London, (b) in Scotland and (c) elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Aitken
  At 1 October 1992, the Ministry of Defence employed 134,907 full and part-time civil servants in the United Kingdom, broken down as follows:

  Number

  London

  17,846

  Scotland

  11,907

  Elsewhere in the United Kingdom

  105,154

  Cnewr Estate
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for South Shields on 27 November,Official Report, columns 892–93, when he intends to publish the notice of proposed development under Department of the Environment circular 18/84 concerning his Ministry's plans for the Cnewr estate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Discussions with the trustees of the Cnewr estate regarding future arrangements for Army adventurous training are at an early stage. It is not possible to say when a notice of proposed development might be published.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 27 November,Official Report, columns 892–93, if he will give the cost of his Ministry's agreement with the Cnewr estate in the Brecon Beacons national park in pounds per hectare per year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No formal agreement between MOD and the Cnewr estate exists at present. Payment in respect of any such agreement would be considered commercial in confidence.

  Ship Charters
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list for each of the last five years, including the current year, the amount spent on chartering merchant ships and the number of charterings; if he will indicate for each year the number of charters with British registered ships; and if he will make a statement on his policy for chartering Merchant Navy ships.

  Mr. Aitken
  Wherever possible, commercial vessels chartered by the Ministry of Defence are obtained from the open market and on the basis of cost, availability and suitability. As many shipowners as possible, both British and foreign, are made aware of the Department's requirements. Value for money takes a high priority in the evaluation of bids. Information on the number of vessels chartered and the cost is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Cnewr Estate
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 27 November,Official Report, columns 892–93, when his Ministry learnt that the National Park Authority had been pursuing an access agreement on the Cnewr estate in the Brecon Beacons.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My Department first became aware of discussions between the trustees of the Cnewr estate and the National Park Authority in May this year.

  Waste Disposal
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 26 October,Official Report, column 508, where his Department's waste disposal sites are to be located; what consultations his Department has had with local authorities about these sites; what progress has been made in constructing a purpose-built ammunition disposal facility; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Land-based disposal of redundant munitions, explosive waste and residues is currently carried out by the MOD at the central ammunition depots at Kineton and Longtown. Other sites include the Otterburn, Sennybridge and Salisbury Plain
  543
  training areas. Disposals are also carried out at established MOD sites that have been in use for many years and operate within specified explosives limits which take account of strict safety and environmental considerations and regulations. There are no plans to open new MOD demolition sites. Warwickshire county council and Stratford upon Avon district council are, however. being consulted on plans to construct a purpose-built tri-service disposal facility at the central ammunition depot at Kineton. The MOD is also considering extending private sector involvement in the disposal of redundant munitions, but no decisions have been taken.

  Dumping at Sea
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all the substances which his Department currently disposes of by dumping at sea giving the quantities for 1991 in each case; how each substance will be disposed of as from January 1993; and if lie will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence has no future plans to dispose of redundant munitions by sea dumping. In the past, preparation for munitions for sea dumping included the removal of components containing toxic heavy metals where this was practicable. Bulk stocks of explosives, propellants, detonators and certain specialised munitions types were prohibited from disposal at sea. In 1991 the Ministry of Defence disposed of 1,093 tonnes of redundant munitions by sea dumping. This material comprised inert packaging, metal casing, conventional explosives (nitros/nitrates) and propellants (double-base/composite/cellulosic) but it would involve disproportionate cost to identify the particular substances involved. In the future, such material will be disposed of on land at suitable MOD sites which already handle ammunition disposal and under contract by industry. The Ministry of Defence plans, also, to construct a purpose built ammunition disposal facility.

  Yugoslavia
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many financial and administrative staff are currently deployed in the former Yugoslavia; if he will outline their roles; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Within British forces there are 27 personnel, both service and civilian, employed on financial or administrative duties. Their role is to support the deployment in the areas of public information, postal and courier service, contracts, financial monitoring and accounts, and ensure that soldiers' circumstances are properly recorded and any pay and allowance matters promptly dealt with.

  Forces' Clothing
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much was spent on clothing for each of the armed forces for each of the last five years, indicating how much was spent on exports in each case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  Expenditure on clothing by the armed forces in each of the last five years is as shown. The figures 544
  for each service include the cost of clothing bought on behalf of the others. None of the clothing was purchased for onward sale by export.

  Navy

  Army

  RAF

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  1987–88

  14·280

  62·138

  18·677

  1988–89

  13·996

  56·794

  23·947

  1989–90

  14·298

  56·966

  21·805

  1990–91

  17·013

  75·165

  20·443

  Field Army
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) tanks, (b) armoured combat vehicles, (c) armoured combat vehicle lookalikes and (d) artillery pieces are currently deployed in the field Army.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The quantities of equipment, as defined under the terms of the conventional forces in Europe—CFE—treaty, currently deployed in the field Army are:

  Number

  Tanks

  472

  Armoured Combat Vehicles

  1,865

  Armoured Combat Vehicle Lookalikes

  970

  Artillery Pieces

  281

  Expenditure
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the defence expenditure figures for each year from 1974–75 to 1986–87 in(a) cash prices and (b) real terms using the method of calculation used in table 2A.5 of the "Autumn Statement" 1992.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Defence expenditure figures in outturn and constant prices, and adjusted to include the technical changes outlined in paragraphs 2B-7 to 2B-12 of the "Autumn Statement", are not available for the period 1974–75 to 1977–78 and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Adjusted outturn figures for 1978–79 to 1986–87 will be published in the "Statistical Supplement to the Autumn Statement" early in 1993.

  RNAC Coulport
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what compensation has been paid to, or agreed with Tarmac Ltd. over delays in work at the Royal Navy armaments depot at Coulport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  No settlement has been reached with Tarmac Ltd. Details of negotiations with the company and of sums paid on account in respect of work completed are commercially confidential.

  Iraqi and Iranian Nationals
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if there are(a) any Iraqi or (b) Iranian nationals currently training in British military establishments.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No.

  Underwater Test Centre
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his letter to the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye concerning the future of the British underwater test and evaluation centre range at Kyle of Lochalsh, Ross-shire, if he will clarify what role he envisages for the base facilities and its functions beyond the five-year period indicated; whether a management staff tender for those functions being tested in the market will have preparatory professional advice and support available to it from within his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  I have written to the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye to advise him that a recent study has recommended that the operation at the British underwater test and evaluation centre (BUTEC), at the Kyle of Lochalsh, will be market-tested in accordance with stated policy to examine ways of improving efficiency and value for money throughout the Government. Many of the activities of the range are already managed by industry, and the new initiative will mainly affect the afloat services 546
  (boats and crews) currently provided by the chief executive (Marine Services) of the Ministry of Defence. In-house bids will be encouraged and, within the constraints of Government policy, professional advice and support will be made available to the chief executive (Marine Services) for him to construct an in-house bid. The future of the base beyond the five-year period addressed by the market-testing exercise will have to be determined nearer the time, and will depend on the defence requirement as then identified. However, we expect that the need to test and evaluate torpedoes and other underwater systems will continue for the foreseeable future.

  HMS Drake
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost of maintaining and staffing the decompression chamber at HMS Drake for 24 hours.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  When in use, the cost of maintaining and staffing the decompression chamber at HMS Drake for 24 hours is about £600.

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

London Central YMCA
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are aware of the proposed sale, and consequent closure, of the London Central YMCA premises and what alternative facilities they will make available for the educational, cultural and physical needs of young people in central London.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the Charity Commissioners are considering an application from the Central YMCA for consent to the sale of 112 Great Russell Street, part of which property is let to the London Central YMCA Ltd.
Government funding already supports a very wide range of facilities for the educational, cultural and physical needs of young people in central London. We have no plans to make any alternative facilities available.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that helpful and considerate reply. Does he agree that the loss to London of the facilities provided by YMCA London Central branch will be grievous? It is happening due to the selfish, self-centred attitude of a consortium of banks and a property company which wish to get hold of the property. Will not this do the banks even more harm? They are unpopular enough as it is. Is the noble Earl able to make representations to the banks with a view
2
to them softening their attitude and giving the YMCA London Central branch a few more months in which to re-schedule the debt and save the facilities there?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am sure that there will be a sense of loss if the provisions which the London Central YMCA Ltd. give at the moment are no longer forthcoming. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, says that these are the selfish results of the banks. I should not be prepared to comment on that and it is certainly not for the Government to intervene over it. As I understand it, the Central YMCA borrowed a lot of money about three years ago to develop the property. It took full professional advice and the fact is that the return is less than anticipated and the income does not meet the outgoings. The organisation will have to make its own commercial judgment as to what is best to do.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, is not the Question wider than the issue of the behaviour of the banks? I understand that the Minister cannot comment on that, but does not the matter concern the disposal of the assets of a charity? Should not the Charity Commissioners be concerned? Perhaps it is a case where the Charity Commissioners might intervene to protect the interests of those for whom the YMCA provides a valuable service in London.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. It is a matter for the Charity Commission, and Her Majesty's Government have no power to intervene. The commissioners have been consulted. They have not yet given their consent to the disposal of the property and will not give it unless they are satisfied that the sale is in the best interests of the charity in the situation which it faces.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, does the noble Earl accept that there is much more to this than just the closure? There is widespread anxiety among all those people who work with youngsters in London at the fact that the building is to be sold and a valuable asset will be lost for us in London.

3
Perhaps I may quote from an article in the Evening Standard which referred to the YMCA being forced to close. It says that the Evening Standard showed
"that the bank syndicate has forced the cash-strapped YMCA to sell to a Knightsbridge property company, backed by Arab sheikhs."
That must be something on which the Government could bring pressure on the Charity Commissioners or the banks or both. They have only to convene a meeting of all the parties concerned to see whether some amicable solution could be found to save this valuable asset.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the situation is quite complicated. The YMCA has, as part of its organisation, the Central YMCA which owns the building at 112 Great Russell Street to which I referred. Part of that building belongs to the London Central YMCA Ltd. Because of the difficulties which the Central YMCA is experiencing, it has been necessary to dispose of the whole property, of which London Central YMCA Ltd. is a part. The noble Lord says that it is undesirable—or that was the inference—that it should be sold to the sheikhs. I can only tell him that the Charity Commissioners have suggested that other alternative offers should be considered and have advised the trustees that if alternative offers are received, they should be examined.
Lord Kinnaird: My Lords, without in any way wishing to criticise the Question on the Order Paper, I wish to ask whether the Minister thinks it ironic that in the name YMCA, the "Y" stands for "Young", the "M" for "Men", and the "A" for "Association". There is no mention of Christianity but it was Christian people who started the organisation, my grandmother being one of them.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I had always rather assumed that that was what the "C" stood for.
Baroness David: My Lords, does the Minister realise this is another blow to youth services in London? Last week I tabled a Question about provision being reduced, and this latest measure will surely reduce youth service provision in London if nothing is done to help the YMCA.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I quite agree that this is a most unfortunate occurrence. However, one has to take a commercial judgment, or at least the YMCA has to. The YMCA had purchased property which it could not adequately service and therefore it had to dispose of it. The fact that as part of that disposal the Central YMCA Ltd. has to lose its source of provision is a great pity, but that is part of the commercial situation which results.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I understand the Government's difficulties over this. However, is it true—perhaps the noble Earl can advise me—that the type of loan which was negotiated was negotiated at the behest of the Charity Commissioners? If that is the case, have not the Charity Commissioners some duty
4
to the YMCA to ensure that as a result of that advice the facilities are not closed down? Is there nothing that they can do to assist the charity at this stage?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the commissioners have to ensure that any action taken by the governors of the charity is taken in accordance with the legislation for which the Charity Commission is responsible. The commissioners did not ask for the loan to be at a fixed rate of interest. That decision was taken by the governors acting on the professional advice which they received. The commissioners' order which authorised the borrowing required that the rate should be reasonable having regard to market rates prevailing from time to time. As I understand the position, that was adhered to.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, my question is perhaps a little wide of the Question on the Order Paper but I believe it is relevant. To what government department, if any, are the Charity Commissioners responsible, or in what way is it possible to question through Parliament the actions of the Charity Commission?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Charity Commission operates independently but is funded by the Home Office. Therefore any questions relating to the Charity Commission are answered by the Home Office. However, the responsibility of acting is solely that of the Charity Commission; in other words, the Home Office cannot tell the Charity Commission what it should or should not do. The Home Office is merely responsible for charity law.

Coal Gasification
2.46 p.m.
Viscount Mersey Viscount Mersey asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they favour the fuelling of the new combined cycle gas turbine power stations with coal gas as well as natural gas.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, in an uncertain world we need to make full use of all available sources of energy to provide diversity of supply with coal, nuclear, renewables, oil and gas, with each making an appropriate contribution.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is she aware that in the United States coal gasification combined cycle plants are being built in both Illinois and Florida? Does she not hold out high hopes for this technique, as in this country it could produce more fuel for our "dash-for-gas" power stations and it would also produce an additional clean use for coal, thereby quite possibly preventing the closure of the 31 pits which are at present under threat? Is this not rather an elegant solution to our problems?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I have recently become aware of the activities in this area in the United States. The Government have recognised for many years the importance of developing coal

5
gasification technologies. Around £220 million was invested in this area by British Gas in a major research programme over the past decade or so. Much of this expenditure was incurred when British Gas was in the public sector. We have a memorandum of understanding with the United States and I am sure that these plants will be part of our discussions.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, if we are to take advantage of all forms of energy production why did the Government abandon the fluidised bed combustion technology at Grimethorpe colliery?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the Government continue to support much activity in this area and it will be taken into account in the coal review.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, bearing in mind that the experiments of British Gas at Westfield to which the noble Baroness referred have been successfully concluded and that the process can now be applied in a development sense, will the noble Baroness indicate whether support is being given to any such projects in the UK? I should here declare an interest as I am involved in one of them.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know better than I, several approaches have been made to government about support for new projects to demonstrate the use of gasification technology and the issue will be considered in the light of the current coal review.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that coal is already an excellent fuel for the reheat stage of combined cycle plants but that until a proper gas purification system is developed it is not suitable as primary fuel? We have already heard a little of what the Government think about this, but should we not be developing this facility with much more energy against the time when oil and natural gas are more expensive than coal?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am pleased to assure my noble friend that the United Kingdom is in the forefront of the development of this technology. My department is supporting a major research programme in collaboration with British Coal, GEC Alsthom and PowerGen to develop British Coal's Topping Cycle clean coal technology which utilises hot gas clean-up. A key element in that £30 million programme has been the examination of the feasibility of operating a commercial gas turbine on coal-derived fuel gas at elevated temperatures. The Government are contributing £11.6 million to that work.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the information provided to the House by the noble Viscount is very important and suggests that we may be on the brink of a technological breakthrough which would ensure that coal is both price competitive and clean? In those circumstances is it not utter lunacy even to contemplate closing down the British coal industry?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the noble Lord's question is a little outside the specific area of the Question on the Order Paper. He well knows the breadth of the discussions taking place under the coal review.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Baroness allow me to disagree with her when she says that my noble friend's question was beyond the scope of the Question on the Order Paper? I think that it was very much on the ball. The noble Baroness has just told the House that coal gasification will be considered in the current review of the coal industry. Why was it not considered—or was it considered—before the Government came forward with their plans to close 31 pits? That is what the House wants to know. Will she please give us an honest answer?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am pleased to be able to tell the noble Lord that the coal task force carried out a thorough evaluation of the UK's coal research requirements. The Government will respond to the task force's report in due course. The Government are well aware of the issue. I should remind the noble Lord that coal gasification may enhance the competitiveness of coal but the volume of coal used for electricity generation depends ultimately on its ability to compete with other fuels and technologies.

Debt Counselling: Funding
2.52 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
How much money they contribute, directly or indirectly, for personal debt counselling; and what has been the real increase in the last five years.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the Government's grant-in-aid to the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux, Citizens' Advice Scotland and the Northern Ireland Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux has increased over the past five years from £9 million in 1987–88 to around £13 million in 1991–92—an increase in real terms of almost 5 per cent. A breakdown of how much of that grant-in-aid is spent by those bodies on personal debt counselling is not available.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I believe that very little of that grant is spent by CABs on debt counselling because they have other responsibilities. Is the noble Baroness aware that last year no fewer than 1.7 million people approached the CAB with debt problems, some of them very serious indeed, and that not all of those people were the traditionally poor? In view of the great hardship involved does the Minister agree that the £1 million given by the credit industry on a voluntary basis is totally inadequate? Will she urge the Government to impose a levy on the credit industry and to match it pound for pound in view of the Government's own responsibility for this very sad state of affairs?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I believe that the citizens' advice bureaux are involved greatly with debt counselling. NACAB has established some 18 money advice support units. We fully recognise the depth of the problem out there, but we do not believe that a statutory levy is the answer. The Government believe that a voluntary scheme of contributions is the right way forward and that such a scheme would react more readily to changing circumstances.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the building societies—I speak as a director of the Woolwich—have contributed to the Money Advice Trust? We have given £50,000 for three years. Is my noble friend aware that most building societies, both large and small, are providing help to debt counselling services on a voluntary basis?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am pleased to acknowledge that we are well aware that many building societies and other financial institutions are taking their responsibilities in this area very seriously. Their activities should not be counted solely in money terms but also in terms of the provision of secondees and other support.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many voluntary organisations give debt counselling, particularly, for example, the Birmingham Settlement which operates in a very poor area of Birmingham?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for drawing the attention of the House to the invaluable work done by the Birmingham Settlement. We were pleased to see its skills and knowledge extended to the business sector.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, does the Minister agree that part of the present trouble goes back to the failure of the Government to implement the recommendations of the Payne Committee on the enforcement of judgment debts? It is my recollection that the committee reported at the end of the 1960s. It recommended the establishment of a central debt office to handle debts in all courts, associated with debt counselling to enable debtors to fulfil their obligations. Is the Minister aware that the failure to establish such a body as an integral part of the handling of debt by the courts is the origin of the present difficulties?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I draw the noble Lord's attention to the fact that the Question relates to what we are doing now, and that was what I was able to tell the noble Lord, Lord Ashley.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, are the Government aware that local authorities also provide personal debt counselling services? Are they aware too that the pressure on those services has escalated significantly as a result of the introduction of the poll tax, which created enormous difficulties in personal debt terms for local inhabitants? Is the Minister aware that the introduction of the council tax will not significantly
8
lessen that burden? Will the Government make money available to local authorities to improve and enhance services in relation to personal debt counselling?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the Government are well aware of the work of local authorities in this area. However, we believe—and there is evidence that this is also the view of your Lordships' House—that it is for local authorities to decide local priorities in the light of local needs and resources. I draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that local authority funding has risen over the five years in real terms by more than 50 per cent.
Lord Peston: My Lords, will the Minister clarify her Answer? The Question on the Order Paper asks how much money HMG have contributed directly. I take it that her answer to that Question is nought. Indirectly, the Government have contributed money to the citizens' advice bureaux, namely a 5 per cent. real increase, to deal with a problem which has shown a massive increase. Again, 5 per cent. is not much more than nought. Therefore, the straightforward answer to the Question is nought or nearly nought rather than the rigmarole in which the noble Baroness engaged.
In relation to voluntary contributions, is it not the case that the sum which it is suggested is needed by the Money Advice Trust is £9 million while the money contributed so far by the building societies in their beneficence is about £350,000 which, relative to £9 million, is again close to nought? Is it not about time that the Government took responsibility for the problem which they themselves have caused and decided to contribute a considerable amount of money?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, did not understand my first Answer. The moneys available were increased from £9 million to £13 million, through the bodies which are providing the debt counselling. The reason we cannot break that figure down is that the way in which those bodies balance their own requirements locally is a matter for them. I would also point out, as I tried to make clear in an earlier answer, that the Money Advice Trust has had support from the voluntary sector in both money and kind of over £1 million; it was looking for £3 million.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that we understood her first Answer only too well? I am driven to the conclusion that the Government simply do not understand and realise the magnitude of the debt and the fear, anxiety and genuine disorientation of thousands of people. I deplore her Answer. I hope that she will be able to think again on the issue.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I should like to reassure the noble Lord that we do understand the problem. We believe that one of the jobs of government is to endeavour to work at the front end of the debt problem to make sure that it is not repeated and does not grow. We shall look at areas such as the new research that will come through Money Advice to see where further work can be done.

Marine Nature Reserves
3 p.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol asked Her Majesty's Government: Whether there is any change in their policy for the creation of marine nature reserves.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, no.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that rather interesting Answer. But since it has taken 11 years for two of the seven sites identified in 1981 to be designated, does he agree that it is time that the Government took a realistic look at the situation and decided that the present formula is not working? Does he further agree that it would be sensible to approach the matter from a different point of view altogether? Does he recall that in January this year his predecessor, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said that in the face of the new habitats directive it would be necessary to look at the whole question of marine conservation? Can he say whether any moves have been made toward that new directive, and will the Government be putting their full weight behind it?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness is not too disappointed. The overall policy of looking after our marine environment is working, albeit with a slightly different approach from that envisaged under marine nature reserves. We have a three-pronged approach: first, the MNRs where they are appropriate; secondly, the consideration of measures necessary to enable us to meet our obligations under the habitats directive, and we are fully committed to those considerations; and thirdly, a wide-ranging review of the management of the coastal zone and the role of coastal management plans, including consideration of the responses to our proposals for marine consultation areas.
Baroness David: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the Prime Minister said very recently that the UK was not going to be in quite such a hurry to implement directives that came from the EC? Are the environmental directives to be grouped with those which we are not going to be in quite such a hurry to implement?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is not so much a case of being in not too much of a hurry; it is a question of seeing how fast other countries within the European Community implement their directives. On this issue, all member states have until recently concentrated on terrestrial conservation but now there is a discernible movement to address the marine issues. We are well in the vanguard of that movement.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that earlier this year there was a general consultation exercise among all interested parties? If I am right in saying that, will there be publication of any conclusions or proposals arising out of that exercise?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Viscount is absolutely right. We have recently completed a consultation on marine conservation areas, which is a voluntary agreement. I do not believe that there are any plans to publish the responses to that consultation, but when we have new proposals to take forward they will be submitted to Parliament.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, in January this year the then Minister said that progress was being made on the site of the Menai Straits and that discussions continued at Loch Sween. Can he now say when he expects those discussions and that progress to come to some sort of successful conclusion?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it depends if you define success in designation of an MNR. I prefer to see success in the fact that the marine environment is being protected. So at both the Menai Straits and Loch Sween we are working hard to get agreement from the local community, local authorities and local interests to make sure that our objectives are met.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I find his answer to my noble friend Lady David quite incredible? He appeared to say that we would adjust our policy to the pace of other European countries. Does he not agree that that is quite absurd? Is it not about time that this Government looked after the affairs of this country without reference to what is good or bad for others?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we are only interested in the interests of the people of this country. But we also have international obligations and international treaties. When we sign those we take them seriously and that is why I gave the answer that I did.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is it not the case that while this leisurely pace proceeds, considerable damage is being done to some of the areas which have been identified and that unless action is taken soon it will be too late? Does the Minister recall that while the long negotiations over Skomer were going on there was considerable damage to the seabed? It will be many years before it recovers.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am aware of the situation at Skomer. We do not have any evidence that there is further damage being done in other areas. The Government agree with the noble Baroness that any further damage would be extremely regrettable. As I said in my second answer, we are working hard on a three-pronged approach to solve some of the problems.
Baroness David: My Lords, does the Minister believe that it shows much enthusiasm for the environment when we wait for other people to take the first steps? Is that not a very stupid way to go on?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness misheard me. I said that we were in the vanguard of moving forward in the marine area; that means that we are at the front of the rest of the Community.

Video Recordings Bill [H.L.]
Lord Birkett: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Video Recordings Act 1984 and, in so far as it relates to evidence by certificate in respect of offences under the 1984 Act, the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Birkett.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Liaison: Select Committee Report
3.9 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham)The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham) rose to move that the first report from the Select Committee (H.L. Paper 40) be agreed to.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
I think that the House is sufficiently familiar with the background to this report for it to be unnecessary for me to go over the ground again at length. Suffice it to say that, following the debate in June on what we have come to know—I am sure with at least some affection—as the Jellicoe Report, the Procedure Committee in July recommended the appointment of a Liaison Committee to keep your Lordships' Committee work under periodic review. That committee, of which I have the honour to be chairman, has met twice since the House returned and its report deals with three specific aspects of work of your Lordships' Select Committees.
First, we have looked at the proposals put to us for ad hoc Committees. There were a number of interesting proposals, and we thought that two of them in particular deserved further consideration on the basis of expert papers prepared for us by specialist advisers. These are the economics of sustainable development and relations between central and local government. We will re-examine these proposals in the light of the papers put to us, and also any other outstanding proposals, later in the Session.
But there was one proposal put to us which we were all convinced would be a suitable subject for a Select Committee of your Lordships' House to examine. This is euthanasia. Recent events have highlighted the public interest in the difficult questions surrounding euthanasia, and we thought that the medical, legal and ethical issues which arise might be scrutinised with advantage by a Select Committee of this House. We were also aware of the possibility that one or more Private Members' Bills on this subject might be introduced in the House of Lords. If such Bills are introduced, it would clearly be open to your Lordships to refer them to the ad hoc committee. Of course, I realise that this is a subject on which some Members of the House may have strong views. I can reassure them that the appointment of a Select Committee would not in any way mean that the House had come to a particular view about the issue, let alone that there was prima facie a need for a change in the law. It
12
would simply mean that, as I say, it was considered an appropriate matter for investigation and perhaps for clarification. In any event, if your Lordships agree to this report today, a separate Motion will in due course be tabled.
The second matter which we addressed was the allocation of resources to the European Communities Committee. That, I realise, is a matter on which a number of your Lordships feel strongly. The Liaison Committee heard a very full and very persuasive argument from the chairman of the European Communities Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, that the committee should continue with its present level of activity. But against that, we were mindful of the Jellicoe Committee's recommendation for some reduction in the number of sub-committees and in the resources of the European Communities. We have sought to steer a middle way between these positions and have therefore recommended that the European Communities Committee should be able to appoint five sub-committees rather than the six at present.
It might be helpful if at this point I placed our recommendation in the broader context of committee work in your Lordships' House. The European Communities Committee currently absorbs about three-quarters of the committee resources of your Lordships' House, other than those devoted to our internal administration or to legislative scrutiny. If the House accepts our recommendation that the committee reduces its sub-committees by one it will still engage about two-thirds of the resources of the House. This is, I think, by any yardstick a testament of the importance which your Lordships attach to the scrutiny of European issues.
Moreover, it is our task as members of the Liaison Committee to make recommendations on the appropriate scale of committee work of your Lordships' House against the background of the available resources, both of staff and of Peers. As your Lordships are already aware, implementation of the other recommendations springing from Jellicoe, if I may use that phrase, and the continuing commitment to other forms of committee work—I am thinking here in particular of work on Private Bills—means that the overall activity of committees is already increasing. That is a point which really must be stressed. Appointment of a new ad hoc committee will add to those activities. In our opinion, it would be extremely difficult for the House to meet these other commitments without a corresponding adjustment in its existing committee activity.
I should emphasise that our recommendations, if agreed to today, would not—indeed, should not—preclude a further readjustment (either up or down) in the activity of the European Communities Committee at a later date. One of the great advantages which the House now enjoys as a result of the work of the Committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Jellicoe is that there is a permanent mechanism in place to continue to review committee activity in this House —to use an intriguing metaphor, a sort of "rolling Jellicoe". If, therefore, it becomes apparent that with its reduced size the European Communities

13
Committee is unable to scrutinise effectively those issues which your Lordships deem should be scrutinised then I would expect, and indeed encourage, Members of your Lordships' House to raise it with the Liaison Committee. Indeed, in our report we expressly suggest that the workload and size of the European Communities Committee should be reviewed at the end of the present Session. I believe that this arrangement will enable the House to respond flexibly in the emphasis which it wishes to attach to any particular area of committee activity, and thus to respond to new and urgent demands as they arise.
Our third proposal relates to the Science and Technology Committee. Here we suggest that the Select Committee should continue to be able to appoint two sub-committees for the remainder of the Session. However, we recommend that the work of the Select Committee be reviewed towards the end of this Session in the light not only of other demands for Select Committees in your Lordships House but in particular of the work of the new Committee on Science and Technology recently appointed in another place. Our feeling is that, without pre-empting the outcome of that review, the Select Committee on Science and Technology might expect to reduce its activity in the next Session from two units of activity to one on an experimental basis. I should add that in making that recommendation we had the benefit of the views of the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, the chairman of the Select Committee. Of course, he and his committee would prefer to work through two sub-committees, but I think it fair to say that the kind of timetable that we propose for the committee's work to be reviewed was in response to his submission.
Finally, perhaps I may suggest the way in which we should proceed with the debate today. It may be for the convenience of the House if we take first the amendments standing in the the name of my noble friend Lord Aldington. After your Lordships have had the opportunity of debating those amendments, and after they have been disposed of, I suggest that we then proceed to debate other points arising out of the report, including the question of an ad hoc committee on euthanasia. I beg to move.
Moved, That the First Report from the Select Committee (H.L. Paper 40) be agreed to.—(Lord Wakeharn).
Following is the report:
ORDERED TO REPORT
1. The Committee was appointed on Thursday, 16 July 1992, with terms of reference set out above. In August a notice was issued to Lords drawing attention to the Committee's appointment and inviting Peers to submit proposals for the appointment of ad hoc committees and to signify their willingness to serve on select committees. Subsequently the Committee has met on two occasions.
TERMS OF REFERENCE AND METHODS OF WORK
2. The Committee has considered its terms of reference and the way in which it will carry out the work assigned to it. We draw the attention of the House to the following points.
3. The Committee notes the recommendation of the Procedure Committee' that we should not interfere in matters which should properly be left to the committees themselves.Our key role is to continue the process of review initiated
1 First Report, Session 1992–93, HL Paper 11.
14
by the Committee on the Committee Work of the House ("the Jellicoe Committee") and to make recommendations about how the available resources should be distributed within a basic structure of committee activity.
4. The Committee endorses the findings of the Jellicoe Committee that "there is a finite limit on the number of Lords available for select committee work, which precludes any great net increase in select committee activity'. Our terms of reference require us to keep this matter under review and we will consider it in more detail later in the session.
5. In July the House agreed, on a recommendation of the Committee of Selection2, that in the case of the European Communities Committee and the Science and Technology Committee the rotation rule should be suspended until 31 December 1992 to permit more time for the reconstitution of these Committees. They should now be reappointed on the recommendation of the Committee of Selection as soon as possible so that they can begin work after the Christmas recess.
THE COMMITTEE STRUCTURE
Additional Demands
6. On the recommendation of the Procedure Committee, the House has already agreed to the appointment of a Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. It has also agreed, again on the recommendation of the Procedure Committee, that over the next two sessions two or three suitable bills should be referred to Special Standing Committees on an experimental basis. These initiatives will represent significant additions to the committee activity of the House. In addition, the Chairman of Committees told us that select committees on opposed private bills were likely to impose heavy demands on Peers and staff during much of 1993 and 1994.
Ad Hoc Committees
7. The Jellicoe Committee concluded that ad hoc committees should become a regular part of the committee structure. We endorse this recommendation and propose (in paragraphs 8 and 9 below) a programme of ad hoc committee work for the immediate future. We stress that Lords will in future be able to submit proposals for such committees for our consideration. We will consider any outstanding proposals later in the session.
Euthanasia
8. We recommend the appointment of an ad hoc committee to consider the subject of Euthanasia. If one or more private members' bills on the subject are introduced in the House of Lords, it would be open to the House to refer them to the ad hoc Committee, in which case they will form the order of reference. Otherwise we will recommend appropriate terms of reference for the Committee.
Other Subjects
9. We also propose to give further consideration to two additional subjects for ad hoc enquiries, both of which were mentioned in the Jellicoe Committee report, namely:

(i) the Economics of Sustainable Development; and

(ii) Relations between Central and Local Government

We will do so on the basis of papers prepared for us by specialist advisers setting out arguments for and against such enquiries and commenting on their likely scope. In future such preparatory papers will constitute the norm.
The European Communities and Science and Technology Committees
10. The Jellicoe Committee recommended that the European Communities Committee should develop a more flexible sub-committee structure and that there should be some reduction in the number of sub-committees and in the resources devoted to it. It also indicated that priorities and resources would sometimes dictate that the Science and Technology Committee should operate through one rather than two sub-committees.
11. We have considered these recommendations in the light of the debate on the Jellicoe Committee report on 3 June 1992 and of submissions put to us by the Chairmen of these two Committees. Both were in favour of retaining their respective sub-committee activity at its present level. The Chairman of the European Communities Committee stressed that the Committee was already fully stretched and that its scrutiny work would not be so effective if the sub-committees were
2 2nd Report of the Committee of Selection, Session 1991–92, HL 17.

15
reduced in number. He also made the point that the new areas of inter-governmental cooperation under the Treaty on European Union (the Maastricht Treaty), once ratified, might require some form of scrutiny action by the Committee, which would be additional to its present work. The Chairman of the Science and Technology Committee pointed to a wide range of subjects which merited attention by the Committee in coming months. Whilst welcoming the recent appointment of a House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology, he emphasised that it was too early to say what the implications might be for parliamentary scrutiny of science and technology as a whole.
12. The Committee recognises the force of these arguments, and we have modified the recommendations of the Jellicoe Committee accordingly. However, if those recommendations are to be carried forward and bearing in mind the decisions already taken by the House on the Procedure Committee report in July, we consider that some redistribution of emphasis in committee work is essential. We recommend as follows:

(i) The European Communities Committee should be able to appoint five, instead of the present six, sub-committees. This will be reviewed at the end of the present session. It will be for the Committee itself to determine its own sub-committee structure within that limit. Each sub-committee, with the exception of Sub-Committee E, should be served by a single clerk.

(ii) The Science and Technology Committee should appoint two sub-committees for the remainder of the present session. At the end of the session this should be reviewed in the light of other demands for select committees and of the work of the Commons' Committee on Science and Technology. Subject to such a review, the Science and Technology Committee may expect that for a time thereafter and on an experimental basis the Committee should operate through a single sub-committee, or itself conduct an enquiry in the absence of sub-committees.

In future, before the end of each session the Liaison Committee will consider committee work for the next following session.
13. We invite the Science and Technology Committee and the European Communities Committee to consider those recommendations made by the Jellicoe Committee which are applicable to their work and which have not been considered by either the Procedure Committee or this Committee; and to submit their views to us before the end of the current session.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Aldington Lord Aldington moved the following amendment:
Paragraph 12, line 2, leave out from ("accordingly.") to ("We") in line 5.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if we also discuss Amendment No. 2 standing in my name. Amendment No. 1 is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 2. I wish to thank my colleagues on the Liaison Committee for their deliberations and their report. I have only one quarrel with the report, which is signalled by the wording of my amendment. I am in favour in particular of the idea of a "rolling Jellicoe", suggested by my noble friend the Leader of the House. I have known my noble friend for many years. I have known him to rove and to do many things but I have never seen him rolling. I look forward to that experience.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that I have an interest to declare in the matter; I have been chairman of Sub-Committee A of the European Communities Committee since December 1989. I should balance the declaration of that interest by adding that I shall cease to hold that position when we rise for Christmas. Therefore, I have no empire to
16
build; I have just a little experience to offer to your Lordships. I know that I have the support of all noble Lords and noble Baronesses who are at present sub-committee chairmen. My noble friend Lord Selborne, who is unable to be present, has written to me indicating that he is fully in support of what he knows I have to say.
The purpose of the amendment is to re-establish what I have always regarded as the normal rule in this House; that Select Committees should determine their own structure and methods of carrying out their own terms of reference. The report of the Liaison Committee implies that rule on two occasions. Paragraph 3 notes the recommendation of the Procedure Committee that we should not interfere in matters that should properly be left to the committees themselves. In connection with the European Communities Committee, paragraph 12(i) recommends:
"It will be for the Committee itself to determine its own sub-committee structure".
The report adds the words, "within that limit", referring to the number of sub-committees. I regard that as contradictory.
The report asks your Lordships to direct that the number of sub-committees should be five instead of six as it is now. Of course, any committee must act within the limits of its terms of reference. Also, any committee must act subject to the resources made available to it by the House—in this case, the number of Clerks. At least, that is the way that I read the report of the Liaison Committee.
It is certainly true that there could be another limiting resource—that of the number of Peers. However, the report makes clear in paragraph 4 that that factor was not borne in mind when the decision was made about the European Communities Committee. If it had been, I would have felt bound to tell your Lordships that my experience over the past three years has been that more Peers wished to join my sub-committee than there was room for them.
My amendment includes words of support for the self-imposed discipline, in the European Communities Committee, of a standing review of structure and methods which the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, among the many other excellent things she did, established several years ago and which the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, carries on with enthusiasm and wisdom. It is useful in the first report of the Liaison Committee to bless the principle that Select Committees should accept that responsibility, which my experience tells me they have always accepted and still do accept, each in their own way.
The simple proposition that if you hire a dog to bark you do not bark yourself is widely accepted. It is, however, fairly widely breached in a number of places. Perhaps I may explain why it is important not to breach it at this time in the case of the European Communities Committee. It is most unwise to reduce that dog's barking ability by clipping out one vocal chord, which is what is proposed.
In my view and that of many noble Lords who serve on Select Committees, the number of five, which has been chosen, is damagingly wrong. The chairman of

17
the Select Committee told the Liaison Committee why that was so. No argument at all is adduced to the contrary in the report. A possible explanation, which I believe follows from what my noble friend said, for choosing five as the number is that that is half way between the Jellicoe figure of four and the committee's figure of six. That does not seem to reflect on the merits of the matter at all.
I remind your Lordships of the role of the Select Committee. The volume of proposals for legislation and other action by and within the Community is well known. Accountability to your Lordships' House for that legislation and action has been, ever since 1973, through the European Communities Committee, which has established for your Lordships a high reputation both with Ministers and the institutions of the Community—the European Parliament and the Commission itself. The Jellicoe report confirmed that.
The key to the committee's work lies in the scrutiny of the documents referred to it, even more than in the reports on the subjects which are chosen for inquiries. The level of the load on the committee is governed by the quantity and importance of those documents. There is a commanding time factor in that scrutiny work in that Ministers have undertaken not to join in decisions at Councils of Ministers until we have cleared the documents, and so lifted the scrutiny reserve. That undertaking has lasted over many years.
The scrutiny factor fixes the number of sub-committees required. Sub-committees are groups of Peers chosen for their interest in named subjects. In the past there has been a requirement for seven sub-committees. Recently, in spite of the single market and constitutional proposals, we have managed with only six sub-committees.
If your Lordships have followed me so far, I hope that I have established that we have no individual discretionary choice about the level of work that we do; that is decided by the quantity of documents put in front of us for scrutiny. I assure your Lordships, as could any Member of Sub-Committee A, that the work load continues to be high. It could become higher with the ratification of Maastricht. The principle of subsidiarity could, and I hope will, lead to a reduction of the scrutiny load. But for the immediate future, each proposal must be scrutinised for subsidiarity, which may add rather than reduce the work level. It must be incontrovertible that the only body in your Lordships' House which can react quickly to changes in the load on your Lordships' Select Committee is your Lordships' European Communities Committee. No one else can react quickly or has the immediate knowledge to do so.
It may be said—I hope it will not—that Members of that committee are too closely engaged to make the right judgements. Surely we trust each other sufficiently to eliminate that argument. It may be said also that the committee has asked for one Clerk for each sub-committee and the Liaison Committee appears to have decided that only four Clerks plus the Clerk and the legal advisers for the Sub-Committee E shall he available. There are five Clerks at present. The report does not make that clear recommendation. It is not there for us to discuss as to whether four, five or
18
six Clerks is the right number. However, that appears to be the assumption behind what my noble friend has just said.
Certainly, one Clerk for each sub-committee is more than desirable. However, in my view it is for the Select Committee to decide how best to carry on its business with the number of Clerks available. I said that we have five Clerks at present. We have not always had that. I hope that the mention of one Clerk to each sub-committee has not made some of your Lordships think that those excellent Clerks are employed full time on our work. They are not; nor should they be. For example, the excellent Clerk to Sub-Committee A, during the drafting stages of our report on enlargement, was also Clerk to the Advisory Panel on Works of Art and for a while was Clerk to a Standing Committee. I believe that she worked also on a Private Bill Committee. At the same time, she took her turn working in the Minute Room and on Divisions. It is right that that should be so.
I have emphasised the importance of the committee's work today and I wish to add one further reason. It has been one of the aims of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, in the build-up to the Maastricht Treaty and since, to secure general acceptance, throughout the Community, of the importance of the role of national parliaments in ensuring the proper constitutional accountability of the Council of Ministers. He has been splendidly successful. I cannot be alone in believing that in Edinburgh at the end of this week Britain will give a further lead in emphasising the role of national parliaments in the life of the Community. Today is not the day, if ever there should be a day, on which this House should agree to an alteration of its procedures which, knowingly, and on the face of the report—your Lordships need look only at paragraph 11 and at what the noble Lord, Lord Boston, said —makes less effective our part in the accountability to national parliaments. Therefore, I confidently move this amendment, as I shall the second amendment in due course, with the support of your Lordships. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington. I am second to none in expressing my appreciation, which I have every reason to believe is widely shared in the country as a whole, for the contribution made by your Lordships' House in relation to the affairs of the country generally.
Frequently this House has been able to draw public attention to matters which for a variety of reasons —not least the pressure of time in another place—are of vital concern to the nation as a whole. Having said that, more particularly the European Communities Committee performs a valuable public service. Without in any way casting any reflection on similar committees in another place, there can be no doubt that the activities of the European Communities Committee in this House are far more thorough,

19
searching and better documented than any equivalent report on European legislation, whether actual or proposed.
Your Lordships' House, through the Select Committee on the European Communities, has consequently acquired a justifiably high reputation. Indeed, over the past years one finds that it is the Select Committee that has alerted the country and another place, as well as your Lordships' House, to the dangers of uncritical acceptance of many nonsensical pieces of legislation or proposals emanating from the European Commission.
We are living in times when it is even more necessary that a critical eye, supported by expert evidence from all quarters, should be cast over all proposals that come from the Commission or the Council. There is an ever-increasing tendency for proposed legislation to come to the United Kingdom Parliament, not direct from the Council but endorsed by the Council on behalf of the Committee of Permanent Representatives of the European Community—a series of civil servants who decide matters in private by majority voting and under whose aegis much of the legislation that is proposed comes to this country. In those circumstances it is vital that the critical eye which examines those proposals, particularly on behalf of your Lordships' House, should be maintained intact. Indeed, there is every reason why it should be increased.
In common with many noble Lords I examined the 1,000-page document issued by the Court of Auditors last week which reveals maladministration and, indeed, fraud on a scale that would certainly not be tolerated by the United Kingdom Parliament in its own finances. In that one area of fraud and irregularity, value for money and control of the budget, all the expenditure of this House and the Treasury on the Select Committees is more than justified.
The affairs of Europe are of increasing complexity. The noble Lord, Lord Aldington, referred to the Maastricht agreement. Even if the Maastricht agreement did not come into operation—it is a lot of nonsense anyway—there would still be increasing scope for the activities of the committee. I cannot believe that a constriction of the funds available—which is what we are ultimately talking about—for the proper staffing and facilities of the European Communities Committee is in any way justifiable at this time. On the contrary, the expenditure of the British Parliament on the activities of the European Communities Committee should be considerably increased. The demand for its services over the years will increase further, aside even from the miserable complexities and ambiguities of Article 3b of the Maastricht Treaty relating to subsidiarity which is absurd.
When I first learned of the new Liaison Committee which your Lordships in their wisdom had decided to set up I wondered what on earth it was for. I am even more mystified now. I am talking to noble Lords present who are regular attenders of this House. I am at a loss to find out why we need a specific committee
20
to determine the scope and functions of another specific committee, in this case the European Communities Committee, which has proved its worth both inside and outside the country. It does not need a committee composed of people who know nothing about the European Community to tell it what it ought to do and what its resources ought to be. That should be a matter for the House.
I trust that I am speaking across party boundaries; and I trust that I am speaking for those who are in defence of democracy in this country. An increasing number of people in the United Kingdom are beginning to regard this House as a significant safeguard to those liberties and powers that we retain as a national Parliament. I therefore hope that, after mature consideration—indeed deep personal and responsible consideration across party lines—regardless of party loyalties, personal dispositions and perhaps even prejudices, your Lordships will give favourable consideration to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, which I have the honour to support.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal had a difficult and delicate task to discharge as chairman of the Liaison Committee in this matter. As a member of what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, described as a mysterious committee, I feel it my duty to support the Lord Privy Seal both because of the difficulty of his task and on the merits of the issue.
There are difficult and conflicting considerations. On the one hand, in my view, it was his duty as Leader of the House to take into account the recommendations of the Jellicoe Committee. The Jellicoe Committee was set up by the desire of this House, and the noble Earl—whether rolling or not —produced what I believe was widely regarded as an excellent report. Having produced it, it would have been a nonsensical discourtesy not to act upon it. That means that some room must be found in your Lordships' proceedings. It is all very well the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, saying that we should spend infinite money and resources. Even if we spent extremely large sums of money, the number of Clerks could not easily be increased in the short run, and the number of Peers willing to serve on the Select Committees is limited.
The noble Lord, Lord Aldington, who argued most persuasively and who has a remarkable record of service to Select Committees of this House, said that he had no difficulty in persuading people to serve on his sub-committee; they were queuing up to do so. I suspect that there may be something in the fact that he always manages to get hold of the most interesting sub-committees and the ones whose reports have the greatest resonance.
There was a duty to take account of the recommendations of the Jellicoe Report. I am certainly not in the slightest doubt, leading on from what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, was kind enough to describe as our depths of ignorance of the European Community, that the work of the European Communities Select Committee is a real jewel in the

21
crown of your Lordships' House. It has achieved an outstanding reputation. I would be totally against anything which damaged that work.
Persuasive though the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, was, in a way he attempted to prove a little too much. He found a contradiction in the report and in the Lord Privy Seal's attitude. There was a slight contradiction in the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, when he said that we should not go from six to five sub-committees. There used to be seven. There is no particular rationale about it. Then he argued that the work which has to be done cannot really be determined by your Lordships' House. It depends entirely on what is forthcoming from Brussels. That situation has to be met.
If carried to its logical conclusion, that argument would be completely destructive of any attempt to allocate resources here. We would just be a port on the way as regards the amount of resources which have to be devoted. If I thought that the proposal would seriously damage the effectiveness and reputation of the European Communities Select Committee, I would be passionately against it. I find it a little difficult to believe that an adjustment from six to five sub-committees is going to be of such overwhelming effect. It is proposed that we should look at the matter again after a short period. If the Liaison Committee under the Lord Privy Seal is proved to have misjudged the issue, then I would be in favour of going back on it. However, for the moment, in the very difficult job of balancing Jellicoe with Aldington, if I may say so in those terms, the Lord Privy Seal has done the best he can. I propose to support him.
Lord Pym: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, has brought a sense of proportion back to this debate. It might have been thought by someone listening outside that what we were concerned with would in some way destroy or seriously reduce the European Communities Committee, but in fact we are discussing the best use of the resources available to this House for Select Committee work. That was the origin of the setting up of the Jellicoe Committee. We had all the evidence before us on that committee on the importance of the European Communities Bill—which we totally support: its success, its reputation and everything else about it—as did the Science and Technology Committee. All the evidence mentioned today was before us.
We came to our conclusions. In its debates the House very broadly accepted them, but not in every detail. It then proceeded to dispatch some of its business to the Procedure Committee. In due course the House decided to set up the Liaison Committee precisely in order to decide how best to use the resources. It was very much in the mind of the Jellicoe Committee that it was extremely difficult, granted the limitation of our Peer resources, to leave the European Communities Bill with the same proportion of resources because it takes 75 per cent. of them. What has arisen now, and is before the House at this moment, is a reduction from 75 per cent. of all the committee resources to 66 per cent. of a rising total of resources.
22
In the circumstances, I do not believe that that is so severe a reduction: it is certainly not one to cause any Member of this House to argue that in some way the European Communities Bill is being threatened. I am absolutely certain that if the proposals of the Liaison Committee are accepted, which I believe they will be, the European Communities Committee will still do its work in a most admirable way; that its reputation will be enhanced and that it will still play the crucial role which my noble friend Lord Aldington believes that it does and that it should play. I do not believe that we are taking any drastic decisions about this. The point about the Liaison Committee is that it is ongoing, carrying out an ongoing review, and that the matter is to be looked at again in this Session.
If we do not go that far we will find that we are stuck in this position: the European Communities Committee and the 75 per cent. of resources which it takes is sacrosanct and that everything else has got to go round that. I do not think that that is right because this House has immensely wide responsibilities to fulfil for the people of this country and as regards our parliamentary responsibilities. This comparatively slight change is something which the House should accept.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, my understanding of the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, is that while, like myself, he possibly regrets the reduction from six to five sub-committees, as suggested in the Liaison Committee's report, that is not really central to the amendment. My difficulty with the Liaison Committee has always been on the composition of the membership. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, felt, as Leader of the Liberal Party, and as a Member of the Liaison Committee, that he should support the Leader of the House, who is Chairman of the Liaison Committee. I do not know what position my noble friends Lord McIntosh or Lord Richard will take as regards the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington. The composition of the committee makes it difficult, in a sense, for the ordinary Members of this House to speak in direct opposition, as it may well be, to their respective party leaders.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps I may—
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, perhaps I may develop that. It has been recognised that this is a matter for the whole House. Regrettably, the issue is not between five or six sub-committees as mentioned in the report. We are being required to accept that. The issue is that the Liaison Committee, having established what are the resources available to that committee, should decide how best those resources are to be utilised—that is, whether there are six, seven or three sub-committees. It is that committee which has the knowledge of what is required in its general responsibility to this House and to the country. It is a question of how its resources can be used and maximised to the greatest possible advantage.
The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, who has made an admirable report in many respects, complained about

23
the rigidity of the European Communities Committee. He wanted to see more flexibility. In the report from the Liaison Committee we are seeing the very thing which the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, complained about; namely, the rigidity of five sub-committees. We do not know whether we want five. The only people who can make any judgment on that is the Select Committee itself, which this House appoints. The only restriction which that committee has placed upon it is that of resources.
We have to accept that situation. One might say, "That is the resource and it is less than what it was, but we recognise the importance. Neverthless, in order to do other things that is the resource available". However, surely it makes more sense to say to the committee, "Use those resources to the maximum advantage, not only to that committee but to this House and Parliament, in scrutinising the various proposals that come from the Community".
That has always been very central and part and parcel of this House—that is to say, we have always sought to avoid rigidity in all our rules and orders, relying on good common sense. I say to the Leader of the House: can he not leave it to the good common sense of the Select Committee, which this House appoints each year, to decide how the available resources are used to the maximum advantage of this House?
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, the noble Lord was unable to give way to me at an earlier stage of his remarks. I merely want to make the point that my noble friend the Leader of the Liberal Democrats is speaking on this occasion for himself and as a Member of the Liaison Committee. He is not speaking from a Front Bench leadership role in our party. As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, said, I am sure that will also apply to Members on all sides of the House. This is precisely the kind of debate where the Whips take a back seat.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, I am quite sure that the House will accept that because it is a very helpful explanation. But where we see party leaders supporting each other those on the Back Benches begin to be concerned.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, perhaps I may immediately illustrate what my noble friend Lord Tordoff has said by saying that I support the amendments which have been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington. I agree entirely with the concept that there should be a review of the committee structure of this House. As was admirably put by the noble Lord the Leader of the House, the concept of "the rolling Jellicoe" finds favour with most, if not all. My only anxiety is that it does not roll too fast. I think that it does roll too fast in what is proposed in relation to the European Communities Committee. It is difficult to understand why, half way through a Session, we should have to change the structure and then have to look at it again at the end of the Session.
This has been a very difficult year for those of us who are involved in the work of the Select Committees
24
—I happen to be one—and who chair the sub-committees because we have not been clear about the length of time available to us so that we can plan our work. I have been involved with my sub-committee in conducting two very important issues of scrutiny in about half the time that should have been devoted to them because of the constant changes or the prospect of change. In accepting the principle of having a Liaison Committee, I ask your Lordships that we should also have regard to the nature of the work of the committees about which it is making recommendations.
As I am sure that many others wish to speak, I conclude by asking whether, in the light of the amendments which have been moved so effectively by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, the Liaison Committee will not think again and treat the European Communities Committee in exactly the same way as it has treated the Science and Technology Committee—that is, to say that for the time being it will retain its present structure so that it can continue the work that it already has in train. Then, at the end of the Session, let us review the whole thing. That will become particularly important in the case of the European Communities Committee because of all that is happening in the wider world in relation to Maastricht, subsidiarity and the other issues with which your Lordships are well familiar.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment which has been moved by the noble Friend, Lord Aldington. While totally recognising the value of the report which was produced by my noble friend, Lord Jellicoe, and the debate which was held on it, I feel that one or two practical points have been overlooked. They certainly have not been mentioned today.
The first is the question of the timing of the reports from the European Communities Committee. I speak with the experience of having chaired Sub-committee E during the past year. Its terms of reference involve it advising on any changes in United Kingdom law. Presumably, that implies that the reports should be available for the Government and your Lordships' House before decisions are taken in Brussels or by the Council of Ministers.
We have produced three short reports. On the recommendation of my noble friend Lord Jellicoe, which we found very valuable, we were able to produce what might be termed "mini-reports" in order to place the main substance of the relevant matters before your Lordships' House. We produced two of those reports in time for the Government to be able to use them when negotiating at the Council of Ministers. If they had not had those reports they would not have had many of the issues before them. We have received correspondence from the relevant Ministers expressing their gratitude for the points which we raised.
I mention this point only because, if we as a Select Committee or those members who will serve on the Select Committee are to be efficient and effective—two rather popular words at present—we must be able to produce our reports on time so that they are useful to

25
your Lordships, the Government and other institutions of the Community. With the best will in the world and even with our most able Leader of the House, I do not see how we can decide which reports should be produced immediately.
I believe that the scrutiny list which is prepared by the noble Lord, Lord Boston, contains 47 draft proposals which need to be scrutinised soon by the sub-committees. However, having had three months' Recess and five or six weeks unavailable because of the general election, no doubt some of the sub-committees are now way behind in the task that they are meant to perform. Therefore, I ask my noble friend the Leader of the House whether, in view of the points that have been made in great sincerity and to try to help the good functioning of this House, there cannot be a postponement of the decision of the Liaison Committee until the end of this Session. Perhaps we could review proceedings when we see the kind of draft proposals with which the sub-committees will be faced.
Lord Flowers: My Lords, perhaps I may say a few words on behalf of the Science and Technology Committee, and change the subject slightly. First, however, I apologise for being unable to attend the meeting of the Liaison Committee at which its report was approved. I was abroad on business at the time. Nevertheless, I am satisfied with the recommendations in so far as they affect the Science and Technology Committee, and I should like to thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House and the members of the Liaison Committee for that outcome.
Whether we continue in future years with the present two sub-committees will be reviewed later. We are confident that we can convince the Liaison Committee that we should, and we shall proceed on that basis. However, the manner in which the new House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology conducts itself over the coming months may affect the outcome.
Perhaps I may give just one example of why I think that we should be able to continue at the level to which we have been accustomed. Our recent speedy contribution to Mr Waldegrave's proposed White Paper on Science and Technology —so recent that I do not think that many of your Lordships will have seen it—was possible only because it drew on a broad range of deeply researched reports prepared over the past 12 years. That breadth would have been impossible without the work of the sub-committees. Therefore, I hope that it will eventually be agreed that we should continue beyond the current Session.
In passing, I am glad to note the emphasis that has been placed on the ad hoc committees. I proposed that a study of the economics of sustainable development might be profitable. I agree that the other two subjects (euthanasia and relations between central and local government) are both ideally suited to studies by this House.
If I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, is asking for a blank cheque in his amendments—not, of course, in terms of money or staff but in terms of the use to which those staff (the Clerks and others) are put. The real issue is the number of Clerks and other
26
staff that the House can afford to provide. Given the staff, the European Communities Committee should be free to make the best use of them. However, unless the number of sub-committees is limited, the natural enthusiasm of the committee might overload its loyal staff unmercifully. I have seen it happen. The staff are first-rate—and we are extremely fortunate that that is so—but even their capacity is limited. I suppose that that is the reason why the limitation on the number of sub-committees has been proposed by the Liaison Committee. Therefore, I do not feel that I can support the amendment although I shall, of course, be happy to support the Motion.
Having said that, however, the whole thing really seems a bit ridiculous. It is only a matter of providing one more Clerk. That is all. The committee work of the House is generally acknowledged to be extremely distinguished and is influential abroad as much as at home. Surely, one more Clerk could be afforded. I am all for Jellicoe (whether rolling or roving), but one more Clerk would be of infinitely greater value than any Liaison Committee however distinguished and gracious its membership. I most earnestly beg the Government to be a little more generous to the committee work of the House.
4 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, following on from what the noble Lord has just said, perhaps I may draw the attention of the House to the fact that a basic question predates this whole study; namely, the number of Clerks that we have. The Clerks are grossly overworked. They are wonderful people. They work with great intelligence and dexterity but they are absurdly overworked. One consequence of their being too few in number is that documents coming before sub-committees are not themselves properly gutted in advance.
I draw attention to this matter and support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, as being myself a long-standing satellite of the sub-committee dealing with energy. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is our chairman. I was chairman of that committee years ago. I was chairman for five years but then I was found out and I was pushed off. Now that the Department of Energy has disappeared into the Department of Trade and Industry ours is the only official committee in either House of Parliament which deals with energy. With the disappearance of the Energy Department, the Select Committee on Energy in another place disappeared too. So it is only our sub-committee in this whole building which deals with energy. A few months ago we had a great row—we shall have more—about the mines. I mention it because it is one of the sub-committees of the Scrutiny Committee which does very important work on this and other subjects. If we cut the number down they will do less work. I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Aldington particularly because I believe that the number of staff is quite inadequate and grossly overworked.
Lord Varley: My Lords, I want to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord

27
Aldington, and I shall not take more than a minute or two to do so. When I was a Member of the other place I regarded Select Committees as vehicles for under-employed politicians with time on their hands. That is not the case in your Lordships' House where the work of the Select Committees equals the work of the Chamber itself. As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, has already said, the reports are well researched and well thought out and invariably they are debated in this House unlike the reports in another place.
The Leader of the House ought to be prepared to admit that he has disregarded the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Boston, and the evidence he gave to the Liaison Committee; namely, that the scrutiny work of the European Communities Committee would not be so effective if the number of sub-committees was reduced. That is certainly the case. I have only been a member of the European Communities Committee for a relatively short time. Twenty years ago or so I started out as a Euro-sceptic. I suppose that I am a Euro-enthusiast now. But it does not diminish my enthusiasm for the scrutiny work of the European Communities Committee. It is absolutely essential, as noble Lords have already said.
It is quite wrong for the Liaison Committee to try to lay down how the European Communities Committee should conduct its work. It may well be, as my noble friend Lord Shepherd said, that four sub-committees would survive or seven would be required depending on the work. While it was extremely superficially attractive when the noble Lord, Lord Pym, said that we are only going down from three-quarters of the resources available to the European Communities Committee to two-thirds, we have to take into account what is going to happen over the period ahead.
For example, I have in my hand a letter which the Foreign Secretary addressed to the chairman of the European Legislation Committee of another place. It was copied to my noble friend Lord Boston of Faversham. In the letter the Foreign Secretary said:
"I believe there is a real opportunity now for national parliaments to involve themselves more closely in Community business".
The Foreign Secretary actually wants us to do that. He copied his letter all over the place but I see that he did not copy it to the Lord Privy Seal. No doubt the Lord Privy Seal or his office received a copy. The Foreign Secretary attached to that letter a memorandum in which he said:
"Finally, the Government hope that the increasing contact and co-operation between specialist committees and national parliaments and the committees of the European Parliament may be developed further".
That is why we need the European Communities Committee. We need that committee to decide exactly how it should conduct its work.
The answer to the dilemma was given by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, who said that the Liaison Committee has already conceded that all this will have to be reviewed at the end of the present Session. Rather than have disruption now, why cannot the European Communities Committee determine its own work
28
within the framework of existing resources and that review take place at the end of this Session? Surely that would be the best way to go about it rather than try to bludgeon this through at this time. I hope that the Leader of the House will agree that a pretty strong case has been made out by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, and that he can accept the amendment. If he cannot, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, will test the opinion of the House.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, I am sure that there is no question of the noble Lord the Leader of the House trying to bludgeon anything through anybody this afternoon. I am what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, described as an ordinary Member of the House —a very ordinary Member of the House. I have served on your Lordships' Select Committee for only four or five years. I have no experience to match the authority and experience of those who have already spoken but what I would say is that we are dealing with a question of balance.
As a member of the Jellicoe Committee, and then of the Liaison Committee, I can say that we were presented with nearly all the arguments that we have heard today. We had to form a balanced judgment. It has been suggested that there is bad logic in first of all taking a certain resource and then not letting the European Communities Committee decide for itself how the resource should be used. But there is another form of logic—a balancing logic—that applies. I refer to the practical logic. It is important and necessary in the light of experience that each Clerk should have one sub-committee to work for. The noble Lord, Lord Aldington, suggested that the number of Clerks available to the European Communities Committee is being reduced. That is not my understanding. My understanding is that with four Clerks for sub-committees it is practically desirable and necessary that the number of sub-committees should be reduced to four. That is a practical thing. If at the end of the Session it appears that it does not work and will not work and that we need more Clerks for the European Communities Committee—they cannot be conjured out of the air quickly: suitable Clerks do not grow on gooseberry bushes—I hope and believe that reconsideration by the Liaison Committee and the co-operation of those concerned will result in the necessary increase. In the meantime, I hope that your Lordships will agree to the recommendations of the Liaison Committee.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was present at the meeting of the Liaison Committee on behalf of my noble friend Lord Richard who was not able to attend. I repeat the assurance already given. We consider that these are matters for the House and not for political parties or the usual channels. Therefore the views of my noble friends and their right to vote as they please will always be respected on these Benches.
A few points need to be made about the recommendations of the Liaison Committee. That involves marginally widening the scope of the debate. I went to that meeting determined that the opportunity given by the Jellicoe Committee to extend

29
the range of ad hoc committees of the House should not be lost. I want to record my satisfaction with the decision of the Liaison Committee to appoint one extra ad hoc committee now and to make a choice between two others in the coming weeks. That of course involves a considerable increase in the burden both on the House and on Peers available to take part on these committees. It is in that context that the House should consider the proposals now before us for the European Communities Committee.
The second point I want to make is that at the committee meeting I sought an assurance from the Leader of the House that the proposal was not motivated by a desire for economy or because of staff considerations. I received the assurance from the Leader of the House that, although the overall level of committee work and the costs involved were relevant factors, they should not determine the outcome of the committee's deliberations. In other words, I believe that the committee reached its conclusions not on the grounds of cheeseparing; and that is an important element to be considered.
Therefore, as one who was present, I am bound to support the proposals of the Liaison Committee. But I hope at the same time that the Leader of the House when he replies will feel able to express some support for the views of my noble friend Lord Shepherd, who I thought modified the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, quite effectively and had a genuine and valuable point to make. The fundamental point about the European Communities Committee is that at the end of this Session nobody knows the amount of work that is going to be placed on the committee. It could be double or even treble the amount now if Maastricht goes through.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I was a member of the Liaison Committee of my noble friend the Leader of the House, and I wish to say only the briefest words in support of what he proposes. Like the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, from the Cross-Benches, when we sat on the Liaison Committee I felt that we needed to face what had been served to us by the Jellicoe Committee. There were the twin recommendations that came from Jellicoe of a more diversified committee structure and also a greater use of ad hoc committees. It is right this afternoon to remember that this is not pie in the sky but something that is happening now.
The appointment of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee and the experimental use of the special standing committee procedure are already happening and will represent a significant increase in committee work in your Lordships' House. Then, as my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal said in moving his Motion today, we have a proposal in the report for an ad hoc committee on euthanasia and serious consideration to be given to a further ad hoc committee or committees either on local and central government or on sustainable developments.
We are conducting the discussion this afternoon in the context of wanting what the House obviously wants and what Jellicoe wanted, which is a more diversified committee structure. In this mix of course we have to defend the splendid work of the European Communities Committee. Any of your Lordships who
30
have had even a passing knowledge of what is done in these Select Committees, both the Science and Technology Committee and the European Communities Committee, would be absolutely mad if we did not say that this afternoon. But that is what we are going to do under the proposal put forward by my noble friend. Even then, if we agree to my noble friend's proposal this afternoon, two-thirds of the available resources for committee work in your Lordships' House will be taken by the European Communities Committee for the future, and I support that and believe it is absolutely right.
Before sitting down I must address what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said. With the greatest of respect to the noble Lord, who can forget more about the work of this House than I think I will ever learn, if this afternoon we simply leave it to the European Communities Committee to decide how many sub-committees it wishes to have, the words of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, will be proved both prophetic and true —under the splendid leadership of the European Communities Committee we will find that the committee Clerks will be worked harder and harder, even though that is not actually the intention.
Because I believe that the balance is right in what is being proposed by my noble friend from the Government Front Bench —namely, that we forge ahead with a more diversified and increased use of committees but at the same time be careful about how our existing Select Committees continue to move forward—I support what he has put before the House this afternoon.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I must disagree with my noble friend Lord Belstead because in general there are two quite different problems before us. One is the proposed expansion or alteration of the committee work of the House and the other, which in my view is much more immediate, is the capacity of the European Communities Committee to continue to fulfil its role at a time of extreme complexity in Europe's affairs.
I speak, I regret to say, with little intimate knowledge. For the usual three-year span I was a member of Sub-Committee E, the legal sub-committee, but my efforts to get back onto the committee after the expiry of the statutory year were frustrated. Whether I am alone among available Members of your Lordships' House or whether there are other unused resources is a question that we might discuss along with the question of the Clerks, because obviously if there are no Peers there are no committees. But on the basis of one Peer's experience, I venture to question that, particularly since we have been so mightily reinforced on all sides of the House in recent months.
It would be wise if my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal were to accept broadly the amendment on these grounds. It is almost impossible to be certain—I think that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said this—of the kind and volume of work in the future, and, as my noble friend Lady Elles said, it is often necessary to investigate certain matters quickly. Sometimes the result may have an immediate impact on the

31
negotiating position of Her Majesty's Ministers; sometimes the benefit of the consideration may be delayed. When I was on Sub-Committee E, for instance, under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, we investigated in detail the matter of frontier controls after the coming into being of the single market, and that work certainly should not pass unnoticed now.
It is not only that the volume of the work cannot be foreseen but also its division—the subject matter into which it falls. The number of sub-committees does not seem to matter. That could be argued about in terms of resources and Clerks, not overworking them, and so forth. It might also be for the European Communities Committee to decide that it needed a different division of labour. To take an extreme and optimistic example, let us suppose that the common agricultural policy was finally ditched, to the benefit of most people. That would mean that we would not need an agriculture sub-committee any more and the resources there could look at some other aspect of Community affairs that might be more alive and challenging.
It would be singularly ill-timed in the week of the Edinburgh summit to limit the capacity of the European Communities Committee to organise its own business within the limits of its own resources and to look after its own affairs. The arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that the matter might be postponed until the end of the Session when we have a better idea of where Europe is going, if it is going anywhere, may be arguments that my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal will wish to consider.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I should like to state that I am not trying to bludgeon anything through your Lordships' House. My whole political life has been one of gentle persuasion. Bludgeoning is totally alien to my nature.
The report that I have presented to the House is a unanimous report by noble Lords from all parties and those with no party affiliation. It is for the House and not for me to decide such matters: they are certainly not party matters.
Following the debate on the report of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and the subsequent report of the Procedure Committee, which was approved by the House, we felt that our report was very much in the spirit of those reports. Paragraph 193 of the Jellicoe Report recommends a reduction in the number of sub-committees and in the resources devoted to the committee, particularly the number of noble Lords who serve on it. We could hardly have recommended any lesser move in that direction and we acted within the spirit of the way in which the House debated Jellicoe and in the light of the Procedure Committee report which it subsequently approved.
As I anticipated, my noble friend Lord Aldington moved the amendment with his customary persuasiveness. I do not think that there is very much between us. I entirely agree that the European Communities Committee has built up an impressive reputation both in your Lordships' House and outside, and that the role of the committee in ensuring that the Council of
32
Ministers is accountable to this House is one which your Lordships much value. Equally, I am sure that the House will join with my noble friend in supporting the efforts that will be made by my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary at the Edinburgh summit later this week.
Nevertheless, I do not think that your Lordships will be well advised to accept the amendments. They would grant to the European Communities Committee the power to determine its own sub-committee structure within its terms of reference, making use of the staff resources that are allocated to it.
I believe that there are major problems with that approach. It goes against the whole rationale of the establishment of the Liaison Committee to allow Select Committees themselves to determine their own scale of activity. I should like to emphasise that the Liaison Committee has not sought to, and will not, seek to monitor committee work closely or interfere with that work. However, its function is to allocate resources and take decisions about priorities in a balanced and sensible way. The thrust of the Jellicoe Report was that some such mechanism was needed to continue the oversight of committee activity on behalf of your Lordships' House and to report thereon with recommendations to the House from time to time. That mechanism has now been established in the form of the Liaison Committee. For my own part, I think that the work of the Liaison Committee would be circumscribed—perhaps fatally circumscribed—if the European Communities Committee were to continue to determine the number of sub-committees that it may appoint.
Our terms of reference, agreed to by the House, include that of advising the House on the resources required for Select Committee work and of allocating resources between Select Committees. I cannot see how we can properly exercise that function, and how the House can consider our advice, if the European Communities Committee, or any other committee of your Lordships' House, is able to establish independently its own scale of activity. That might lead to a situation where the resources required by the European Communities Committee, both in terms of the efforts of your Lordships and in the demands made on the staff of the House, were such that it would become impossible to meet other requirements which your Lordships may have for an extension of Select Committee work. I recognise that that is not an outcome which my noble friend intends, but I fear that if your Lordships were to accept the amendments, it would be a possible result.
Moreover, my noble friend appears to accept that it will be for the House to determine the best allocation of staff resources. He therefore suggests that the European Communities Committee should be able to determine its own activities within that framework. He has told the House that he would envisage those activities exceeding the five sub-committees that we recommend. I should like to point out that we did not recommend five sub-committees. It will be seen from the report that we stated that the

33
committee should be able to appoint five sub-committees instead of six. In our view five was the minimum reduction that moved in any way towards the Jellicoe Report and the subsequent Procedure report which the House has approved. Therefore, we recommended five sub-committees.
That situation might lead to one of two outcomes. Either the number of sub-committees will exceed the number of staff available to man them, thus going against a key recommendation, originally made by the European Communities Committee, that each sub-committee should have its own Clerk; or there will be a number of active sub-committees and a number of inactive ones. I suggest to my noble friend that there is an alternative means of securing his objective, and that is to increase the flexibility between the five sub-committees which we propose the European Communities Committee should have. There is nothing to prevent the committee from establishing a new sub-committee to cover an area which demands urgent scrutiny and closing down, for the duration of the inquiry in question, one of the existing sub-committees. Alternatively, the committee could take up the recommendation that was made by the Jellicoe Committee and establish an ad hoc committee which could consider any urgent matters that are referred to it which do not fall within the remit of the other sub-committees.
I am sure that noble Lords would wish the Liaison Committee to be as flexible as possible. I have heard expressions of concern from noble Lords, many with deep and long experience of the work of the European Communities Committee, in all parts of the House. If my noble friend feels able to withdraw the amendment, I give an undertaking to have discussions with the chairman of the European Communities Committee and others in order to find some flexibility which will enable concerns to be met while at the same time adhering to the report which appears to us to be the correct response to the Jellicoe Report and to the Procedure Committee report which this House has approved.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords for the part that they have taken in this very valuable and important debate from the point of view of the procedure of the House. I thank my noble friend the Leader of the House very much not only for the care with which he replied to the debate but also for the tone of his response.
There is a fundamental cleavage between the line that I have taken and that adopted by other noble Lords who have spoken. It arises from the fact that we exist to scrutinise the proposals—there are 47 before us at the moment—that come from the Commission, the Court of Auditors, the Council of Ministers and the Parliament. It is that, not our predatory nature as somebody indicated, that forces the load of work upon us; and it is that knowledge that makes us suggest to the House that we should be left to decide at any given moment how we organise ourselves, how many sub-committees there should be and what, if any, extra demands we should make upon Clerks in relation to an urgent position. Leave it to us because we understand what has to be done. I have to say to
34
my noble friend Lord Pym, and to the Leader of the House, that until one sees the scrutiny process in action one simply does not understand it. It is all very well to say, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, said, that one would be cutting by only one, but we all know the argument that it is "only one" or that it is "only a little one".
I have to say that there is an uncontradicted statement from the one Member of your Lordships' House who should know and who has responsibility that to do what we are being asked is to make our scrutiny less effective—in the week in which the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary are asking other countries to follow more closely our procedure for bringing the Commission, the Council and liaison with Parliament closer to the national parliaments. I agree with what my noble friend Lord Beloff had to say.
I regret to disappoint my noble friend the Leader of the House as I intend to press my amendment.
4.32 p.m.
On Question, Whether the amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 106; Not-Contents, 106.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Holderness, L.

Aldington, L. [Teller.]

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hunt of Tanworth, L.

Aylestone, L.

Jeger, B.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Beloff, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Birdwood, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Boardman, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Liverpool, E.

Brentford, V.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bridges, L.

Longford, E.

Brightman, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Cadman, L.

Marlesford, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Mersey, V.

Carter, L.

Moran, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Morris, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Cockfield, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mulley, L.

David, B.

Nathan, L.

Denman, L.

Nelson, E.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Nicol, B.

Elles, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Ezra, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Finsberg, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Gainford, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Gallacher, L.

Portland, E.

Galpern, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Geddes, L.

Quinton, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Glenamara, L.

Rea, L.

Gray, L.

Renwick, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Roskill, L.

Gregson, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Grey, E.

Seear, B.

Gridley, L.

Serota, B.

Hanworth, V.

Shackleton, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Shepherd, L. [Teller.]

Harrowby, E.

Sherfield, L.

Hayter, L.

Slim, V.

35

Slynn of Hadley, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Stedman, B.

Underhill, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Varley, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Templeman, L.

White, B.

Terrington, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Zuckerman, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Howe, E.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Astor, V.

Ingrow, L.

Auckland, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Belstead, L. [Teller.]

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Bessborough, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Blatch, B.

Kintore, E.

Blyth, L.

Knollys, V.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Lindsay, E.

Borthwick, L.

Long, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lyell, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Mancroft, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Margadale, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Melville, V.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Merrivale, L.

Chilver, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Clark of Kempston, L

Moyne, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Munster, E.

Colnbrook, L.

Norfolk, D.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Cranborne, V.

Oxfuird, V.

Cross, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Pender, L.

Davidson, V.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Pym, L.

Dormand of Easington, L. [Teller.]

Renton, L.

Richard, L.

Elibank, L.

Ridley of Liddesdale, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rix, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Elton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Erne, E.

Seccombe, B.

Flowers, L.

Shannon, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Stewartby, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strange, B.

Geraint, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Goschen, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Teviot, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Thurlow, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Ullswater, V.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Vivian, L.

Henley, L.

Wakeham, L.

Hesketh, L.

Wigram, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hood, V.

Young, B.

Hooper, B.

Younger of Prestwick, L.

Hooson, L.

The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, there have voted: Contents, 106; Not-Contents, 106.
There being an equality of votes, in accordance with Standing Order No. 54 which provides that the Question before the House shall be resolved in the negative unless there is a majority in its favour, I declare the amendment disagreed to.
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.41 p.m.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I should like to seek guidance on a point arising from paragraph 8 about the proposal to set up a Select Committee on Euthanasia. In consultation with a number of noble Lords, I have been considering the possibility of introducing a Bill which would enable persons to give directions in advance to their physicians regarding the withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment in a terminal condition.
My difficulty is that this is not, as I understand it, euthanasia. It has no relevance to the two cases which have given rise to so much publicity, one of which is still before the courts. But it arouses rather similar emotions and reactions and, I suspect, controversy. I cannot quite see how the House could consider such a Bill in isolation from the proposal put forward for a Select Committee. But equally, it seems to me that it would be unfortunate if the Select Committee concentrated its whole attention on what is almost a side issue compared with the considerations arising from euthanasia taken as a subject on its own.
I have decided not to introduce such a Bill, but perhaps I may, at the very least, ask that, when the Select Committee's terms of reference are prepared, they should be wide enough to cover the kind of legislation which I have been trying to describe.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord this assurance. I should have thought that the best way to proceed would be for us to have discussions about it. Obviously, to give a definite answer on the noble Lord's point one would wish first to see what were the terms of reference of the Select Committee and they would have to be brought before this House to be approved. One would wish to see the Bill which the noble Lord is thinking of introducing, but it might be helpful to all of us if we had discussions beforehand on how best to deal with it.
Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Aldington that it seems to me that flexibility is the order of the day in these matters. Referring back to the previous point, I gave an undertaking that we would approach the matter flexibly and that still stands, notwithstanding the result of the vote.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I am much obliged.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Damages (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
4.45 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Damages (Scotland) Bill, have consented to place their prerogatives and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Bankruptcy (Scotland) Bill
4.46 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Accountant in Bankruptcy]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No.1:
Page 2, line 23 at end insert:
("( ) the provision of advice on the advantages or otherwise to an individual debtor and to his creditors of sequestration proceedings when such advice is sought by a debtor;
( ) the duty to provide advice to debtors about sequestration procedures under this Act in every area of Scotland in so far as is practical and where there is a demand for such advice;").
The noble Lord said: This is one of several amendments to which we look forward to hearing the Government's response between now and the Report stage of this important Bill, which will no doubt take place next year. The purpose of the amendment now before the Committee is to fill the "advice gap", as it has been termed by the citizens advice bureaux, which will be left with the introduction of the summary administration procedure.
The amendment aims to ensure that the debtor can receive advice suited to his or her own personal circumstances and to reduce the possibility of inappropriate bankruptcies. It is anticipated that that kind of advice cannot be gained by reading through a leaflet, no matter how well intentioned or how detailed the leaflet may be. There must always be a place for advice in the scheme of things in relation to bankruptcy. The main object should be to avoid bankruptcy, if possible, while at the same time protecting the interests of the creditor.
The citizens advice bureaux have already set out in detail —I am sure that the Government have been advised of this —the fact that they have dealt with 279,916 inquiries concerning money advice in 1991–92. Of these, 2,223 were referred by the CAB to an insolvency practitioner to discuss the possibility of sequestration. That represents less than 1 per cent. of the overall total. So the great majority of inquiries obviously do not lead necessarily to bankruptcy. Thereafter, advice is given to point the possible bankrupt in the correct direction to obtain expert advice from insolvency practitioners who can provide the evidence in this complex area.
The insolvency practitioners' role seems to be undermined by the terms of the Bill. The fear is that unless, within the statutory framework of the Bill, there is set up an advice scheme—and I do not pretend that the amendment is not capable of being further amended—on terms of principle, the Bill should spell out that there will be advice available to the parties involved.
The citizens advice bureaux maintain that they do not have the professional qualifications or the number of professionally qualified people to deal with this complicated issue. They fear that with the introduction of summary administration and debtor petitions the role of the insolvency practitioner will disappear except in cases where a secondary level of advice is available.
It has been recognised that access to suitable professional advice is necessary so that a considered view can be taken as to what is to happen to any particular individual. In the Government's view the tendency seems to be that a guide to bankruptcy procedures will be enough. I respectfully suggest that the existence of a general guide is not enough because that deals with information and what is of the essence is advice, and good advice.
A further proposal, which I believe was dealt with on Second Reading, is that solicitors should step into the breach. However, experience has already shown that, first of all, solicitors are not particularly trained to step into the breach, nor are they very keen to do so. A person seeking advice may be driven back on to legal aid advice which is becoming more and more restricted for one reason or another. In rural areas of Scotland there may be no access to a solicitor's office. It is therefore the Government's duty —as they are taking the line they are in this Bill in relation to bankruptcies—to build in a good advice scheme in the legislation rather than leave the matter to chance. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: This amendment invites the Committee to place a statutory obligation on the Accountant in Bankruptcy to offer specific advice to individual debtors considering sequestration and a duty to provide this advice in every part of Scotland where there is a demand and it is practicable to do so.
While I accept that debtors contemplating sequestration should have access to information on the procedures and consequences of sequestration and should be encouraged to seek advice to enable them to reach a view on the merits of the proposal in their particular circumstances, I do not believe that it would be right to impose this duty on the Accountant in Bankruptcy. The Government do not believe that it would be an appropriate role for a public official who is charged with administering sequestrations on behalf of creditors to have the task of counselling individual debtors on whether to petition for sequestration. Nor do I believe we can justify the substantial resources required to operate such a service, when the accountant would be duplicating advice which is currently available in the voluntary and private sector. I can see real difficulties arising in terms of conflict of interest if the accountant were given such a role. On the one hand he will have a responsibility to ensure that sequestrations are administered efficiently in such a manner as to reduce the overall cost to the taxpayer. At the same time, if this amendment were accepted, he would be required to advise debtors whether sequestration was right for them. One can well imagine the arguments which could arise if the accountant's staff recommends against sequestration. People might ask whether they did so because that was

39
the correct decision for the individual or because it would reduce the volume of sequestrations and therefore the cost to the public purse.
The Government do not believe that the potential for this conflict should exist. The advice which debtors obtain should be independent of any involvement which the adviser might have in the conduct of the sequestration. The involvement of the Accountant in Bankruptcy should begin after the decision to petition is taken, not before. Having said that, the Government do accept that the Accountant in Bankruptcy should take responsibility for preparing a general factual guide to sequestration procedures and the consequences for debtors and creditors. Such guidance material could be made available to consumer and money advice bodies and others advising individual debtors. He may also, in the normal course of business, deal with factual enquiries about procedures from debtors or others. However, that is very different from providing the kind of counselling service which the noble Lord has advanced.
The Government already provide significant resources to money advice centres and the citizens advice bureaux to enable them to provide, among other things, this kind of advice to consumers. Some £1.25 million was provided through the urban programme last year to support money advice projects while DTI provided some £l.4 million to Citizens Advice Scotland as core funding. Such bodies are more used to dealing with individual debtors and are seen by debtors as being more accessible and informal in their approach. In the great majority of cases—indeed the figures given by the noble Lord would bear this out—a debtor will already have approached such a body for advice before he considers sequestration. Those bodies will already be dealing with his case and will be able to provide the information to allow the debtor to reach a decision. They cannot take such a decision for him—no one should—but they can help him to arrive at a conclusion in the full knowledge of the consequences.
If the amendment were accepted, the Accountant in Bankruptcy would have a responsibility to provide advice on sequestration. He could not give advice on other debt related matters or on alternatives to sequestration. The service he provided would therefore be more limited than that which a debtor can receive from such bodies as citizens advice bureaux or money advice centres. Also that would obviously be an expensive service to provide.
For those reasons I do not consider it would be appropriate to place this statutory burden upon the accountant. I believe that more can be achieved through the use of voluntary bodies and others already active in the field. With that explanation, I hope the noble Lord will consider that he can withdraw his amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I listened with interest to what the noble and learned Lord said. This amendment probably applies to the wrong part of the Bill as we are discussing the supervisory functions of the Accountant in Bankruptcy. The idea behind the
40
amendment is not to get the Accountant in Bankruptcy or his department involved in giving direct advice but to give him a duty to provide advice; in other words, to set up some body which would give people involved in sequestration independent advice on what steps they should take. However, as I have indicated, I tabled the amendment to see what the Government's response was. I shall read with interest what the Minister has said. In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Appointment and functions of interim trustee]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 2
Page 5, line 24, leave out from ("by") 24 to ("deed") in line 25.
The noble Lord said: Like my noble friend Lord Macaulay of Bragar, I, too, must thank some of the active bodies in Scotland who are involved with debt for the great help they have provided on this complicated Bill. To those bodies debt is becoming an everyday occurrence. They are dealing with these problems every day. Therefore I have great respect for the points they have made.
In moving Amendment No. 2 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 12. This amendment seeks to ensure that a debtor who petitions for sequestration can secure the immediate appointment of an interim trustee prior to award of sequestration to protect and preserve the interests of creditors, in particular to supervise the carrying on of a business of which the debtor is sole proprietor.
At present, as I understand it, a debtor who petitions for sequestration with a concurring creditor could secure on the same day as the petition is presented an award of sequestration and at the same time the appointment of an interim trustee. The Bill proposes that in the event of a petition at the instance of a debtor, award of sequestration cannot be made until not less than eight days after the date of the presentation of the petition. The Bill also allows an interim trustee to be appointed prior to the award of sequestration only in the event of a petition at the instance of a creditor or a trustee acting under a trust deed. That is stated at Clause 2(5).
One can imagine the position of an individual who is a sole trader or a sole proprietor. The examples which come to mind are a public house, a small building business or a farm. Does the legislation really mean that the debtor requires a limbo period of not less than eight days before an interim trustee can he appointed to control his assets and take responsibility for the running of his business?
It appears that the draftsman may not have fully recognised the practical implications of a delay of not less than eight days. The eight days are intended to allow the Accountant in Bankruptcy to ensure that he receives a copy of the petition and that the debtor has provided a copy of his list of assets and liabilities. The amendment does not seek to upset that procedure, which can still be carried out after an interim trustee

41
has been appointed prior to the award of sequestration, but it deals with that specific point of the sole proprietor. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The amendment seeks to change the provision in Clause 2 of the Bill which allows the court to appoint an interim trustee when granting a warrant to cite the debtor in the case of creditor or trustee petitions.
The Bill simply re-enacts a provision which presently appears in Section 13(1) of the 1985 Act. The early appointment of an interim trustee prior to the award of sequestration is possible only where the debtor consents or where the creditor or trustee shows cause as to why such an appointment should be made. The obvious reason for making such an appointment is where there is a need to safeguard the estate against the possibility that the debtor may try to dispose of or hide assets to prevent them being found by the trustee. Such action is most likely where the debtor is opposed to the sequestration and is trying to thwart his creditors.
If, however, the debtor has himself brought the petition, then I can see no good reason why there is a need to have the interim trustee appointed prior to the award of sequestration. If the debtor wished to dispose of his assets, it is reasonable to assume that he would do so before bringing his petition, not during the short period allowed in the Bill between the presentation of the petition and its being dealt with by the court.
I hope that with that brief explanation the noble Lord will appreciate why that distinction has been maintained within the Bill and will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. That appears a very reasonable answer to the amendment. Other arguments may be put to me before Report stage, but for the time being I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 5, line 42, at end insert:
("( ) Where the court appoints an interim trustee in terms of subsections (1), (2) or (5) above, the Sheriff Clerk shall send a certified copy of the interlocutor pronounced by the court to the interim trustee forthwith." ").
The noble Lord said: Clause 2 deals with the appointment and functions of the interim trustee. I am grateful to my noble friend for providing me with a child's guide, which was necessary for a mere accountant attempting to work through this somewhat complicated Bill and associate it with the 1985 Act.
The Committee will see that the amendment attempts to add a small paragraph. In so doing I seek guidance on one particular aspect of these sad cases of insolvency and the appointment of an interim trustee. I understand that time is of the essence in such cases, both for the resolution of the debtor's affairs and for
42
the benefit of creditors. I understand that there are informal procedures whereby the Sheriff Clerk can indicate that an interim trustee may start his duties —which are set out in Clause 2 of the Bill—immediately.
Under Section 21 of the original Act, which should be read in conjunction with the Bill, the interim trustee must call a statutory meeting within 28 days. He must give seven days' notice of that meeting to creditors that he can discover. Therefore he has 21 days after the granting of the certificate in which to obtain a list of creditors and call a meeting. Therefore, the quicker the notification the better the chance of any muddle in the debtor's affairs being resolved and of the creditors obtaining the maximum benefit.
I understand that in the case of company liquidations there is a provision in the Act of Sederunt Sheriff Court Company Insolvency Rules 1986 that the clerk of the court will send a certified copy of the interlocutor which appoints the interim liquidator. The amendment sets out to adapt the same procedure to sequestration.
I am given to understand that a committee of the Scottish court Rules Council has already been formed to draft rules to accompany the legislation which we are discussing and which has already been dealt with in another place. It is possible that that council could incorporate procedural instructions within the rules which would meet the intention behind the amendment. The 1985 Act incorporates many instructions regarding the registration of court orders. For example, Section 14 of the 1985 Act refers to the registration of court orders. Therefore, since a similar provision already exists, I wonder whether it would be appropriate to incorporate my small amendment in the main statute. I hope that I have not spoken for too long with this small point. I await the wise words of my noble and learned friend. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I can understand why my noble friend has been moved to bring forward this amendment. Under the 1985 Act an insolvency practitioner may be appointed as interim trustee in a sequestration without any prior knowledge on his part that a case had been brought before the court. By putting forward his name to be added to the list of interim trustees held by the court, the insolvency practitioner accepts that possibility, and he has a duty to administer any sequestration assigned to him by the court. In recompense, he has the reassurance that should the debtor's estate have insufficient assets to meet his remuneration and outlays, the state will meet any shortfall. He is therefore placed at no financial risk.
I appreciate that that is not the point with which my noble friend is particularly concerned, but rather that it means that on some occasions under existing law the insolvency practitioner may not learn of the burden that has been placed on him until some time after the event. However, I hope that I can reassure my noble friend that that situation cannot arise under the new procedures introduced in the Bill. In the future an insolvency practitioner will always know if his name has been put forward to the court in any petition. Indeed, by virtue of subsection (3) of the new

43
Section 2 which is inserted by Clause 2—which is found at the top of page 5 of the Bill—a petition which names an insolvency practitioner must be accompanied by a written undertaking from the practitioner that he is willing to act as interim and permanent trustee in the sequestration.
Consequently, the insolvency practitioner will have been directly involved in the petition and can take steps to ensure that he is informed of the court's decision without there being any need to place an additional duty on the court staff. It is because I consider this amendment to be unnecessary given the changes that are proposed in the Bill, that I invite my noble friend to withdraw it. It is not out of any sense that he has not come across what I would consider in the existing law to be a good point.
Lord Lyell: I am very grateful to my noble and learned friend for tactfully pointing out that perhaps the solution would lie at the top of page 5. He thought that it was terribly unlikely that I would refer to the financial provisions as dealt with by these practitioners. Nothing could be further from my mind, and no doubt from the mind of my noble and learned friend. I have been interested, and certainly for today well satisfied, by what he had to say.
Reflecting on his winding up remarks, I believe he said that he could take steps to make sure that the interim trustee could start his work as interim trustee immediately. If that is the gist of what he said, I think he has met my points. At the outset I mentioned what I called an informal procedure, which is well understood by my noble friends and by the insolvency practitioners. If I heard my noble and learned friend aright and steps can be taken, then I say to him just two words. One begins with "t" and the other begins with "y": thank you. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Petitions for sequestration]:
5.15 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Listowel): Before I call the next amendment, I should point out to the Committee that if Amendment No. 4 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 5.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 4
Page 6, leave out lines 18 to 28, and insert:
("(c) (i) the debtor is apparently insolvent; or
(ii) the debtor has granted a trust deed and the trustee has complied with the requirements of sub-sub-paragraphs (a) to (c) of paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 5 to this Act but has received notification as mentioned in sub-sub-paragraph (c) of that paragraph; or
(iii) the debtor, or other person acting on his behalf, gives notice in the prescribed form to every creditor known to him, by recorded delivery, of an offer to pay instalments to each creditor and within the period of 21 days beginning with the date of posting of such notice the debtor, or other person acting on his behalf, has not received notification in writing from all creditors of acceptance of such offer.
For the purpose of paragraph (c) (i) a debtor shall not be apparently insolvent by reason only that he has
44
granted a trust deed or that he has given notice to his creditors as mentioned in paragraph (b) of section 7(1) of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if Amendments Nos. 6 and 11 are spoken to at the same time.
The grouping of these three amendments is designed to provide an additional condition which will allow a debtor to petition for sequestration where he can show that a reasonable offer to pay by instalments has been made to creditors, but not accepted by all creditors. Clause 3(2B) of the Bill allows a debtor to petition for his own sequestration without requirements for a concurring creditor provided certain conditions apply. Subsection (2B) (c) as it stands requires the debtor to be "apparently insolvent" (as defined by Section 7 of the 1985 Act), excluding Section 7(1) (b) and other than the granting of a trust deed.
The effect of implementing this subsection is perceived to be a great restriction of the debtor's access to the sequestration process. In practice, the debtor will require to wait until a creditor takes steps to serve a statutory demand for payment or a charge for payment following a court decree. Neither the inability to pay debts as they fall due nor the failure to come to satisfactory repayment proposals with creditors will be sufficient to allow self-sequestration by the debtor.
Many debtors with no realisable assets are pursued forcibly by creditors and may not have the disposable income available to satisfy competing demands. It has to be recognised that some debtors are more resilient than others when under such pressure. Some debtors, however, suffer extreme stress and anxiety even at the early stages of collection. In such a situation there must be a clear public policy argument to allow self-sequestration where the debtor can demonstrate that he is unable to satisfy the demands from his creditors.
The Government have projected the number of sequestration awards to be made in Scotland over the next two years and have made plans accordingly to staff up the Department of the Accountant in Bankruptcy. If the Bill is not amended, the number of awards could reduce by as much as 85 per cent. to 90 per cent. During previous discussions in the other place the Government stated firmly that this legislation is not intended to restrict the access of a debtor to the sequestration procedure. But that, I am afraid, is not what it appears to do on a reading of the Bill as it stands.
This amendment has been tabled in an attempt to balance the interests of the debtor and the creditors. It would provide creditors with information on the debtor's financial situation and allow them to have some influence on the future prospects for repayment of their debts. This would overcome the criticism levelled by creditors that a debtor will often proceed to self-sequestration without any prior communication with his creditors.
Considerable thought has been given to the phrase "all creditors known to him". The debtor will be liable to a fine or imprisonment should he have failed to

45
notify every creditor. These penalties would also apply if the debtor failed to take account of assets not yet received, for example, damages or insurance claims. The position of a creditor who may have been prejudiced as a result of being omitted from the circular letter of offer is protected in terms of Section 17(1) of the 1985 Act in that he can present a petition for recall of the sequestration. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: If I may intervene briefly on this little group of amendments, and in particular on Amendment No. 4, I listened with care to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, when he introduced this amendment. There are one or two rather worrying points to which my noble and learned friend the Minister might address himself when he comes to reply. Perhaps he intends to address them anyway.
If I read Amendment No. 4 correctly, if one creditor does not answer, for whatever reason, then the whole pack of cards could collapse and the debtor could go into self-sequestration. Alternatively, if a ridiculous offer is made to the creditors and they find it impossible to agree, the self-sequestration route could then be pursued, and Amendment No. 4, if it had been put into the Bill, would have been obeyed on the face of it. But in fact it would not have been obeyed because the offer was one which no self-respecting creditor would accept. I accept that Amendment No. 11 is designed to try to stop that, but I am not entirely sure that it would do so.
Having regard to all the circumstances, the reasonable phraseology would be very much up to the quality of the advice being given by the adviser. If one reads some of the material, especially a document by a Mr. Gray, which has been published to advise people, I personally would not have too much confidence as a creditor that the advice being given by the advice bureaux using that document would be evenly balanced between the debtor client and the creditors. I shall be interested to hear what my noble and learned friend has to say on those points.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am grateful for both contributions to this group of amendments because they go directly to the heart of the sequestration process, being concerned with the ability of a debtor to obtain access to sequestration. Their implementation would affect not only the debtor but also his creditors and their prospect of recovering the debts owed to them. They also have implications for the courts.
Before looking in detail at the specific amendments which the noble Lord has introduced, it is worth reminding ourselves of the purpose of sequestration, of the thinking that lay behind the provisions in the 1985 Act and of the intentions of the Bill. Sequestration exists primarily as a means whereby the estate of a debtor can be realised and distributed to his creditors in an orderly manner in partial recompense for the debts owed to them. It is the ultimate form of diligence and, in the words of the Scottish Law Commission,
"a support for the system of commercial credit".
46
For the debtor it provides protection from individual diligences and, in due course, it will lead to the discharge of the pre-sequestration debts and the opportunity to make a fresh start.
In its report on bankruptcy law which led to the 1985 Act, the Scottish Law Commission addressed itself to the question of how a debtor might obtain access to sequestration. It concluded that a debtor should have access to sequestration but that the right to petition should be exercised only with the consent of a creditor.
The commission saw the involvement of a qualified creditor as a necessary check to ensure that at least one of the debtor's creditors considered that sequestration was appropriate. It also saw that involvement as a useful safeguard against any tendency by a debtor to seek to exploit sequestration not to secure the reordering of their affairs, but for the ulterior motive of evading the financial responsibilities which the debtor had freely entered into.
In examining the amendments before us it is important to keep these aspects in mind—the need for balance between the interests of debtors and creditors and the need to safeguard against abuse of the law.
It is also important to recall that sequestration is intended to be a summary process. A petition for sequestration should be dealt with expeditiously by the courts to ensure that there is no lingering uncertainty over a debtor's financial status and that steps can quickly be taken to safeguard any assets in the estate. To that end the grounds for seeking an award of sequestration should be clear, straightforward and objective; capable of ready proof without the need for protracted consideration of evidence.
The 1985 Act followed those general principles, as does the present Bill. I am concerned, however, that the amendments put forward by the noble Lords stray away from those principles to a significant degree.
In bringing forward the present Bill the Government were aware that the procedures for bringing a petition for sequestration were not operating in the manner envisaged by the Scottish Law Commission or by Parliament when enacting the 1985 Act without serious disagreement between both sides of either House. Instead of debtor petitions being subject to the consent of creditors, a debtor was effectively able to petition indirectly by signing a trust deed and leaving it to the trustee to apply immediately for sequestration on the debtor's behalf. The use of that device has now become so widespread that even an organisation of the calibre of Citizens Advice Scotland can suggest in its briefing paper for your Lordships that that had been an intention of the 1985 Act. That was, of course, never the case. The present Bill therefore takes steps to place trustee petitions on the basis originally envisaged by the Scottish Law Commission.
At the same time, however, the Government recognise that circumstances have moved on since 1985. We accept that it is no longer sufficient to rely solely on the willingness of a creditor to concur in the petition of a debtor. Therefore, in addition to allowing a petition with a creditor's consent, Clause 3 of the Bill provides that a debtor may petition when he is

47
apparently insolvent (other than when he has granted a trust deed or sent a written notice to his creditors) or if he has granted a trust deed but has been unable to secure the agreement of the creditors.
In putting forward the amendments the noble Lord has tried to set up a balanced structure. However, he is arguing that the grounds available in the Bill are insufficient. He suggests that a debtor needs to be able to bring a petition even if his creditors are not pressing for payment through the courts.
I find that approach puzzling. If the creditors are not pressing for payment by legal action, why does the debtor need to take the drastic step of sequestration? What is there to prevent the debtor from agreeing new arrangements for the payment of his debts with his creditors? If all else fails, why cannot the debtor simply inform his creditors that he is unable to pay his debts and give them the choice of writing off the debts or sequestrating him?
It is important to recall that in the overwhelming majority of sequestrations at present the creditors receive no dividend at all. The sole effect of the sequestration is to write off the debts owed. The advantage lies entirely with the debtor; there is no advantage to the creditor.
As my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish pointed out, if the amendments were introduced a number of extraordinary difficulties would emerge. What would constitute a reasonable offer? The sheriff is required to take account of aliment in reaching a view on the reasonableness of the offer, but for a debtor receiving state benefits would an offer of nothing or £1 or £2 a week be considered reasonable? Are creditors to present arguments to the court as to whether or not the offer is reasonable?
There are significant difficulties in the proposals. I apologise for taking a little time to cover them but they are the centre of the Bill. I do not believe that the amendments before the Committee offer any advantage in procedural terms over the existing provisions of the Bill. As my noble friend has pointed out, significant difficulties would emerge if they were adopted. In those circumstances I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the Minister for that detailed reply. I accept the technical difficulties in the interpretation of the clause which were pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. At this stage we are dealing with the principle rather than particulars in the clause. It is clear that the objective behind the amendment was to reinstate matters as they were before the Bill was introduced and to try to provide a degree of fairness to the debtor while looking after the interests of the creditor.
I am sorry if I strayed away from the principle; I try not to do so. The principle is that the debtor should be provided with a better approach to the courts than the Bill provides. The Minister summed up the matter in saying that the amendment goes to the centre of the Bill and if it were accepted the purpose of the Bill would be defeated. I understand therefore that he would not be happy to accept any of the amendments
48
in the group. I will read what he said with interest and in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 6, line 24, at end insert:
("( ) the debtor either—

(i) satisfies the Court that the value of his assets is less than the amount of his liabilities, taking into account his contingent and prospective liabilities, providing that he has not granted a trust deed; or

(ii) satisfies the court that he is unable to pay his debts as and when they fall due for payment, provided that he has not granted a trust deed.").

The noble Lord said: Having been effectively kicked out of the park, in footballing terms, perhaps Amendment No. 5 takes another shot at the goal from a different angle. The amendment sets out to allow a debtor to petition for sequestration when he can clearly demonstrate to the court that he can no longer meet his liabilities. That objective would appear to meet some of the points made by the Minister in relation to previous amendments. The creditor's position would be made clear to him. It boils down to the fact that it would be clear to the creditor that to start taking action against the debtor would be a waste of his time and that of everyone else. The creditor might incur an expense which he might not be able to recover.
The amendment will allow a debtor who is in reality insolvent and is unable to meet his or her liabilities, but who does not fit into the definition of apparent insolvency for the purposes of the Act, to take steps to minimise the extent of his or her debts by petitioning for sequestration. That will have the effect of benefiting both the debtor and the creditor by reducing the overall extent of the debt due by the debtor and by averting the necessity of a creditor embarking upon both time-consuming and expensive proceedings to allow the debtor to fit into the narrowly defined category of apparent insolvency. The cost incurred by the creditor in taking those steps are unlikely to be recoverable and, accordingly, the amendment would prevent unnecessary expense to the creditor and would allow the debtor to try to take sensible and reasonable steps to prevent his or her debts from escalating uncontrollably. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The amendment proposes that sequestration should be awarded if the debtor has satisfied the courts that the value of his assets is less than the amount of his liabilities. As the noble Lord will appreciate, that is a test of absolute insolvency which is a notoriously difficult concept to prove conclusively since it depends critically on the assumptions made about the value of assets. Indeed, from time to time some of us may find ourselves being what might be described as technically absolutely insolvent; that is, one may have borrowed extensively for some purpose and if all the existing liabilities were suddenly called in, one could not meet them.

49
In practice, creditors are principally concerned about whether one has the income to meet the debt repayments. If so, one may well he absolutely insolvent but no one will care at all so long as the payments continue to be made. Therefore, I do not see how one can safely found a ground for sequestration which could include individuals with high income and high borrowing but with low assets.
Similarly, there is a question as to whether it is reasonable to allow the sequestration of a debtor because he is unable to pay his debts as they fall due —a test of practical insolvency. That may well be an indication of serious financial problems but at the same time it may be a short-term cash flow difficulty which prevents the debtor meeting his obligations. In such circumstances, it makes more sense to reschedule debts.
If the noble Lord will consider what I have said, I believe that he will appreciate that the test of apparent insolvency, which is the basis on which this Bill is structured, is indeed the more appropriate test. At first blush it may seem slightly curious that apparent insolvency rather than absolute insolvency is a better basis on which to proceed, but on reflection I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that that is the case.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I shall take the advice of the noble and learned Lord and consider what he has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 7, line 9, leave out ("and liabilities") and insert ("liabilities, income and outgoings.").
The noble Lord said: The sentence in the Bill which this amendment seeks to amend is that which states:
"Where the petitioner is the debtor … he shall lodge with the petition a copy of a list of his assets and liabilities and such other information as may be prescribed in such form as may be prescribed".
It sounds rather like a doctor's surgery with all this prescription. My amendment is designed to make it clear on the face of the Bill that the debtor's income and outgoings are factors which will no longer be disregarded in the sequestration process.
The Government gave assurances in another place that the debtor's income and outgoings will be a prescribed item in the list of information to be included by regulation. I ask the Government to go further and to incorporate those words about the income and outgoings on the face of the Bill.
I understand that their inclusion in regulations was conceded in the other place. However, there seems to me to be no reason why, if that concession was made in the other place, we should not see the words on the face of the Bill. Why should assets and liabilities be seen as more significant than income and outgoings when for most people the reverse is true, as my noble and learned friend explained in answer to the previous amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay?
When the debts in question were undertaken, the person involved would do his calculations on the basis of paying the debt out of income and not out of assets.
50
It is essential that the Bill should send a clear message to debtors and their advisers on this point. It may be important also that the legislation should send a clear message to the European Community, which is beginning to become involved in these matters and which equally seems to be tempted to look only at assets and liabilities and not to consider income and outgoings.
Since the 1985 Act came into force, the practice of considering income and outgoings has almost been ignored by those accountants who deal in the lucrative business of insolvency. As the Government have conceded in another place that income and outgoings should be taken into account, they should put that on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I support my noble friend. He is following a point which I made on Second Reading. I believe that it is important. It may well be that the Government have given an assurance that they intend to include this matter in regulations and that they are sympathetic to the point. However, a government of a different complexion in the future may well have different views, and it would he all too easy, should there be less sympathy for creditors and more sympathy for debtors, to change this provision by regulation.
It seems sensible that this matter should be written on the face of the Bill and my noble and learned friend should consider it very seriously. There seems no reason whatever why that should not be done. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: Having listened to the persuasive submissions of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, I too give some support to the principle involved. In assessing the value of businesses it is generally agreed that you not only take into consideration the assets and liabilities but you look also at the cash flow. That is essentially what the noble Lord proposes in this case. I regard cash flow as highly relevant in assessing the value and total liabilities of the debtor.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I understand fully the anxieties which have prompted my noble friend to table this amendment and I am not surprised that he has been supported by my noble friend Lady Carnegy and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. I too have discussed the anxieties which lie behind the amendment with representatives of creditor bodies. However, for the time being I remain unpersuaded of the need to amend the Bill.
It is not a matter of being unpersuaded by the anxieties that have been expressed. The Bill provides already in the subsection to which the amendment is directed that the list of assets and liabilities lodged by the debtor with his petition may include also,
"such other information as may be prescribed".
As my noble friend indicated, my ministerial colleagues in another place have already given an assurance that that power will be used and that in this way the debtor will be asked to provide details both of his income and outgoings. I repeat to the Committee the assurance that was given.

51
The information which my noble friend seeks to elicit will be provided as a requirement of the statutory regulations prescribing the content and form of the list of assets and liabilities. While I understand my noble friend's argument and that advanced by my noble friend Lady Carnegy that there may be some attraction in those words being placed on the face of the Bill, nevertheless I believe that my noble friend will concede that to achieve the objective it is unnecessary to amend the Bill.
While I agree with my noble friend that such information should be provided, I am not at present persuaded that there will be a greater deterrent effect if the words "income and outgoings" appear on the face of the statute. It is certainly important that they should appear in regulations and on the list which the debtor will he asked to complete in the future. With that assurance to my noble friend as regards the Government's intention, I invite him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to my noble friend for underlining the assurance given in another place by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office. While I am still less than convinced that the words could not appear on the face of the Bill, I am at least content that the assurance is on record that in the prescribed form the incomings and outgoings will be clearly stated. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 8:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
("Debt arrangement scheme
.—(1) Prior to sequestration a debtor may apply to the Sheriff Court for the granting of an order to prescribe a debt arrangement scheme.
(2) The Secretary of State may make regulations providing—

(a) the prescribed form of application;

(b) the appointment of an administrator to administer the scheme;

(c) the circumstances in which a debt arrangement scheme may be granted;

(d) the powers and duties of an administrator.

(3) Where an order has been granted in terms of subsection (1) above—

(a) it shall not be competent to serve a charge for payment, nor

(b) to commence or execute any of the following diligences—

(i) an arrestment and action of furthcoming or sale;

(ii) a poinding and sale;

(iii) an earnings arrestment;

(iv) an adjudication for debt;

to enforce payment of the debt concerned; and

(c) any actions for payment in which the debt was admitted and will be sisted.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this new clause is to implement the proposals suggested by the Scottish Law Commission in Memorandum No. 50, the fourth memorandum on diligence debt arrangement schemes in October 1980 and to bring the laws of bankruptcy into line with the English system of debt and administration orders.
As the noble and learned Lord will be aware, at present England and Wales have a system which allows clients in multiple debt situations to apply to a court prior to sequestration for the award of an administration order. An administrative order allows a client to make one payment into court each month which is then distributed to the client's creditors on a pro rata basis. All creditors have the right to object to their inclusion in the order. However, the court makes the decision of whether or not they should be bound by the order.
Once the order has been made by the court no further interest in the debt can accrue. The court can decide that the client should only repay a proportion of the total debt and all other actions and diligences are stopped. On 2nd July in another place Mr. Allan Stewart, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office, stated that the complexity and likely administrative costs of introducing such a scheme as suggested by the Scottish Law Commission would outweigh the benefits of the few debtors who would be eligible.
The rationale behind the Bill is that the 1985 Act has not worked too well for Scottish debtors in that numbers have opted for sequestration far in excess of those anticipated and far in excess of comparable numbers in England. That has caused great demands to be made on public funds. Undoubtedly one of the reasons is that England and Wales have had a multiple debt scheme in operation since 1959. With no such similar scheme in Scotland for debtors to opt for, the difference between the two countries becomes extremely noticeable. Had such a scheme been introduced at the same time as the 1985 Act then the present Bill may not have been required at all.
The new clause introduces a way to assist citizens' advice bureaux advisers to deal with the 81,000 clients a year, reduce the amount of time spent on those clients and provide a way, short of sequestration, to assist them. The new clause has wide support in Scotland. I hope that the Minister will be able to look at it and consider whether or not he can implement the recommendation of the Law Commission, which is usually sober in its judgment in these matters. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Like the earlier group of amendments moved by the other noble Lord on the Opposition Front Bench, this is an important amendment in the context of the Bill we are considering. However, I remain of the view that any benefits which a debt arrangement scheme might achieve for debtors would be outweighed by the cost and additional workload it would place on the courts to administer. I note that the issue of administration is not addressed in the proposal; it is left for my right honourable friend to prescribe arrangements in regulations.
If one were to use the proposals of the Scottish Law Commission as the basis for the new procedure then the courts would be expected to undertake the task of operating any arrangements prescribed by the

53
Secretary of State. Although that is not explicit, I understand that to be implicit in what the noble Lord said.
The Committee will be aware that in Scotland it has historically not been a role of the courts to act as a collector of debts. That would be a burdensome, additional obligation which would distract the courts and court staff from their other duties. I presume that the noble Lord envisages that it would be possible for the state to levy an administrative charge on debtors using those procedures. But I imagine that in order to protect the rights of access that would need to be small. We must therefore assume that it is the taxpayer who would be required to meet the additional costs such a procedure would produce. In the present public expenditure climate that is clearly not a reasonable option.
Such expense might be justified if it were expected to secure savings in other areas; for example, by reducing the volume of sequestrations. However, the Government would expect it to be a viable alternative to sequestration in only a small number of cases. We regretfully anticipate that the failure rate of individual debt arrangements under those proposals would be high, making the debt arrangement process simply an additional administrative burden which would ultimately offer no long-term comfort to the debtor.
In practice, the cases which are likely to operate successfully under a debt arrangement scheme are those which presently such organisations as the citizens' advice bureaux and others negotiate between creditors and debtors on a voluntary basis. We would simply be substituting a statutory framework for a voluntary one. Knowing some of the work of the citizens' advice bureaux, they arrange a considerable volume of such negotiations on an informal basis successfully. A statutory framework would require greater expense for the taxpayer.
As the noble Lord will appreciate, the cost of a debt arrangement scheme will not be a function in a number of cases where a debtor is presently sequestrated but rather the much larger number of cases presently dealt with by those voluntary citizens' advice and other money advice workers.
One of the reasons behind the Government's original decision not to introduce a debt arrangement scheme was its complexity. The draft Bill contained in the Scottish Law Commission's 1985 report contained no less than 29 clauses on the subject. I am minded to put the proposal to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. He may be horrified to discover that a single clause accompanied with regulation put forward a proposal consisting of something like 29 clauses in the report originally prepared by the Scottish Law Commission. The Bill avoids the immediate problem of complexity by taking the form of an enabling provision. That should not disguise the fact that the debt arrangement scheme would be extremely complicated and would need a considerable amount of detail fleshed out in regulation.
The noble Lord is effectively arguing that a scheme of this type is required because there is no alternative, short of sequestration, which would provide a debtor with protection from his creditors and an opportunity
54
to reorganise his affairs. If the noble Lord were correct, I could see greater force in the argument that he is advancing. However, I disagree with his analysis. There are other remedies, quite apart from the arrangements to be found in the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987, where there are time-to-pay orders and conjoined arrestments. There is also the possibility of making greater use of voluntary trust deeds.
The noble Lord said that there was no scheme similar to that which is to be found in England. That seems to me the greatest problem that we have experienced in Scotland since the 1985 Act. That Act sought to encourage, in the same way that this Bill does, the greater use of voluntary arrangements known as "protected trust deeds". Like the proposed debt arrangement scheme, a protected trust deed blocks the creditor's ability to undertake diligence so long as the debtor complies with its terms. If so drafted, trust deeds could provide a means of offering creditors a rescheduling of their debts which took account of the debtor's anticipated future income. It could also contain provisions for the discharge of the debtor possibly sooner than under a sequestration. Moreover, the protected trust deed is a voluntary agreement which does not place the same financial and administrative burden on the courts as would a debt arrangement scheme procedure.
As we discussed at Second Reading, a further important factor may be that, while bankruptcy does not carry with it the same social stigma that once attached to it, I have said —and I repeat—I remain concerned that we should not send people quickly towards bankruptcy if there is another way in which their affairs can be satisfactorily settled without putting them into that position. If there has been any matter of concern over the operation of the 1985 Act, it is because of the device of the trustee going straight towards sequestration and that in the time while the Act has been on the statutory book we have, regrettably, had little exploration of what might be some very constructive opportunities to develop the concept of the protected trust deed in Scotland.
I feel strongly that much more consideration needs to be given by those in the debt advice field as to how the present law on trust deeds and their particular protective status might be made to work for debtors and creditors. I believe that the proposed debt arrangement scheme is an expensive one and that greater emphasis should be placed on the development of voluntary arrangements.
I have again taken a little time to explain this matter. I am aware from discussions that I have had in Scotland that this alternative, which is already there in statute, has not been used at all. There are other provisions in a schedule to the Bill which the noble Lord will be aware of. They allow the establishment of a protected trust deed to be achieved rather more simply than was the case under the 1985 Act. That is what we should be most vigorously examining. It should be examined by those who do some very good work in the debt advice field in Scotland. With that rather longer explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: Before my noble friend Lord Carmichael replies, perhaps I may say that, like many other noble Lords, I have received a great deal of material in connection with this Bill. Some of it I have failed to understand as I have no legal background. However, I read it through. The most persuasive submissions were from the citizens advice bureaux and there was also some reference to the Scottish Law Commission.
In reading the submissions and the case presented by my noble friend Lord Carmichael, there is some justice in the case. He said that this matter should not be written into statute, but that we should rely on the voluntary arrangements which are made. That is not the view of the Scottish Law Commission as it then was. The citizens advice bureaux advise about 81,220 clients. This is voluntary work. A good deal of the time is taken up with clients in finding a way short of sequestration to assist them.
Unless I am mistaken in this respect, the English law and its provisions have some justification for their application to Scotland. I did not hear the Minister reply to that particular point. We are very fond in Scotland of saying that Scottish law is much superior to English law. However, in this particular case it occurs to me that there is some justification for the claim to apply English law. Accordingly, I support the view that has just been expressed by my noble friend Lord Carmichael.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am very grateful to my noble friend for having gone through the cases that were raised with the citizens advice bureaux. I am also grateful to the Minister for his long explanation. It will be of considerable help. He suggested that no arrangements had been put on the face of the Bill. With his statement, perhaps we may make arrangements to be completed for the Report stage.
One of the difficulties is that the negotiations that take place with the citizens advice bureaux, social work departments and their clients (sometimes for not very large sums) fall down because one individual refuses to accept the arrangement. I believe that this matter comes up at a later stage in this Bill. If one creditor refuses to accept, a great deal of heartache could be saved if there were another way of dealing with the matter.
I know this matter is not in the same class, but I understand that criminal reparations are presently collected by the courts. Therefore, there is a precedent in this regard although it may be small beer compared with the 80,000 cases that we are talking about. The Minister said that it was very costly to use the procedure which is followed in England. We have been given figures by the voluntary organisations, and the scheme is extremely costly and time consuming to them. A volunteer has to work between 7½ to 11½ hours as a minimum. It will be interesting if at a later stage the Minister can find whether an actual comparison has been made between the cost in England and what would apply in Scotland. I am grateful to the Minister for the trouble he has taken. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 9:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
("Notices to creditors.
.After section 16(3) of the 1985 Act (petitions for recall of sequestration) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(3A) (a) At the same time as service is made under subsection (2) above, the petitioner shall send by first class post a notice in the prescribed form to all creditors known to the interim trustee or permanent trustee as the case may be and the recipient of the notice may lodge answers to the Petition within 14 days of the service of the notice.
(b) A certificate of postage signed by the petitioner or his agent shall be sufficient evidence of compliance with the requirements of paragraph (a) above.
(c) Where the petitioner is not the interim trustee or the permanent trustee, the interim trustee or the permanent trustee as the case may be shall forthwith upon a request made to him by the petitioner provide the petitioner with a list of the names and addresses of the creditors known to him." ").
The noble Lord said: I hope that this amendment will find some sympathy on the part of the Government. It relates to the procedure under which a petitioner applies for recall of his sequestration and sets out a requirement to advise all known creditors —that is a phrase which we have already heard referred to—of the presentation of the recall of the sequestration. Putting it briefly, at the moment all that has to be done by a debtor seeking to have his sequestration recalled is to put a notice in a journal known as the Edinburgh Gazette. This publication does not have any significant circulation. It prints statutory announcements and so on. I have never regarded anything in the Edinburgh Gazette as being a notice of any particular value apart from its content. There must be some other way of protecting creditors.
We have heard more than once today, and at Second Reading, that one of the main objectives of the Bill is to protect the creditor. If a debtor is able to recall his sequestration through the courts outwith the knowledge of the creditor, then the creditor will remain unpaid and will never know what the position is. I suggest that that is quite unjust to creditors who might have launched an objection to the recall of the sequestration unless they had been given some guarantee and an assurance of repayment.
It is considered by accountants involved in these matters that one of the major deficiencies of the 1985 Act was that the petition for recall could be granted by the court without a creditor having been notified of the petition unless he was a subscriber to the Edinburgh Gazette. It is to remedy that defect—while acknowledging at the same time that it will cause some expense to write to every creditor—and to assist the creditors that I beg leave to move this amendment.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I have listened with interest to what the noble Lord said as he moves from taking up a position of protector of the debtor's interests. On this occasion he has moved around to look to the interests of a creditor. It is an interesting point that he makes. I am not entirely convinced that the additional procedural requirements that the amendment entails would be justified. When someone presents a petition for the recall of an award of

57
sequestration, he will probably wish to see the matter resolved as quickly as possible. As the noble Lord emphasised, that should not be done without giving interested parties a right also to be heard on the issue.
Section 16 of the 1985 Act already goes to some lengths to protect the interests of all those who are most likely to wish to lodge answers to any petition for recall. In particular, Section 16(2) requires the petitioner to serve a copy of the petition and a notice stating that answers may be lodged within 14 days of such notice on the debtor, on any person who was a petitioner or who concurred in the petition for the sequestration, on the interim or permanent trustee, and on the accountant in bankruptcy. Those persons will already have been involved in the sequestration and are the ones who are most likely to have an interest in lodging answers.
However, as the noble Lord observed, Section 16(3) goes on to require the petitioner to publish a notice in the Edinburgh Gazette which will give information as to the existence of the petition for recall and of the right of any interested party to lodge answers. I accept the noble Lord's observation that that is not the first newspaper that people read every morning over their breakfast, but those who have an interest in matters relating to debt scrutinise it rather more carefully than the noble Lord suggested.
It may be noted that at present Section 16 of the 1985 Act envisages that both individual notices and the gazette notice should be given at the same time. The noble Lord's amendment would also require that additional individual notices to all creditors should be given at the same time as the notices currently required. Speed is important in this and, in practice, those provisions would require a further delay in the whole procedure. If the petitioner were not the interim or permanent trustee in the sequestration he would have to inquire of either such person, as appropriate, as to the names and addresses of all the creditors. An exchange between the petitioner and the trustee could take a week. Moreover, if the award of sequestration had just been made, following the petition of a creditor or trustee acting under a trust deed, the interim trustee would not have received from the debtor the list of his assets and liabilities which contains the names and addresses of his creditors. Under Section 19 of the 1985 Act, the debtor has seven days from the date of his notification of the interim trustee's appointment to provide such information.
It can be seen accordingly that the whole procedure for the recall of an award of sequestration could be held up by the additional notification requirements proposed in the noble Lord's amendment. It would also add to costs. I listened to what the noble Lord said and at some time he might like to elaborate for me on what observations have been made to him by practitioners on what he described as a "defect", but I am not as yet convinced that such procedural delay and additional expenditure can be justified in the circumstances. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
6 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. It may be that the amendment is likely to create a degree of duplication, but those most closely involved with this type of practice will no doubt let us have their observations before Report stage. If there is anything further to be said on the matter, it can be said then. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 10:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
("Outstanding applications
.For subsection (1) (d) (ii) of section 7 of the 1985 Act, there shall be substituted the following sub-paragraph—
"(ii) there is no outstanding application to set aside the demand in accordance with the regulations" ").
The noble Lord said: Again, this new clause seeks to help the creditor. It sets out to prevent a debtor from invalidating a statutory demand by returning a denial slip when there may be no grounds for denying the debt. The consequence of that is that the creditor is prevented from taking the subsequent steps in the proceedings, such as presenting a petition for the sequestration of the debtor. The Act as it stands not only protects the debtor, but prejudices the creditor who has a valid unpaid debt. In England and Wales there is a system whereby the debtor may apply to the appropriate court for an order setting aside the statutory demand. The court either holds that that is not applicable and dismisses it or a hearing is fixed before the court to decide whether the denial is a proper one. There is apparently a strong view among creditors that the present procedure in Scotland requires amendment to protect the interests of creditors. It is suggested equally that, as there will have to be regulations to accompany the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1992, these regulations can not only prescribe forms of application to set aside but can regulate the procedures for set-aside applications. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I have to confess that I have some difficulty setting this amendment in the context of Section 7(1) (d) of the 1985 Act which allows a creditor to constitute a debtor's apparent insolvency, in that instance, without first having to establish the debt claimed by means of a court decree. All the creditor has to do is to make personal service on the debtor of a demand for a liquid debt of not less than £750. If the debtor does not comply with the demand or if he fails to reply to the creditor within a period of three weeks from the service of the demand, his apparent insolvency will be constituted.
But given that the creditor's claim need not have been formally established by means of a court decree, it is recognised as nothing more than that—a claim. The debtor should not be constituted apparently insolvent simply by reason of the fact that a creditor has made a demand on him which he disputes. Nor would it be fair to place the onus on the debtor to disprove by any court process the validity of the

59
creditor's claim. That would be to reverse the normal rule that it should be for the creditor to establish formally any debt that is due to him.
Section 7(1) (d) gives creditors an additional facility to establish a debtor's apparent insolvency if the debtor fails to deny a debt claimed of him. But it does nothing more than that and I am bound to say that I am not persuaded that any additional burden should be placed on debtors in these circumstances. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am obliged once again for the Minister's interpretation of the amendment which, as I said, is trying to be helpful. I have looked again at Section 7(1) (d) and, with respect, I am not sure that I agree with the noble and learned Lord's interpretation of it. I shall, however, look at what he said in more detail, and in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Award of sequestration]:
[Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 13:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
("Existing tenancy agreements
.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below—

(a) the existing tenancy agreement shall terminate and the landlord shall grant a new tenancy to the debtor under the same conditions as existed in the previous tenancy agreement immediately prior to the relevant day;

(b) the landlord shall not make it a condition of the granting of a new tenancy or do anything which has the effect of making it a condition of the granting of a new tenancy, that any outstanding rent in respect of the previous tenancy agreement prior to the relevant day is paid.

(2) Subsection (1) above applies where on any day ("the relevant day") either—

(a) sequestration is awarded in a case where the petition was presented by the debtor; or

(b) a warrant is granted under section 12(2) of the 1985 Act in a case where the petition was presented by a creditor or a trustee acting under a trust deed; or

(c) the debtor grants a trust deed; and

(d) the debtor is a tenant of a public landlord.").

The noble Lord said: This new clause sets out to prevent a sequestrated debtor who is also a tenant becoming homeless due to eviction following non-payment of rent arrears. At present, the law is not clear on the issue of eviction due to non-payment of rent incurred prior to sequestration. With regard to public sector tenancies, rent arrears generally form an irritancy of the lease which permits the landlord to terminate the lease and to seek repossession of the property in terms of Part I of Schedule 3 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. Following sequestration, the local authority cannot recover payment of the past rent arrears incurred. However, the local authority can still proceed with an eviction order on the grounds of non-payment of rent and either evicts the client or uses the order to insist on payment of past rent arrears before granting a new tenancy. These grounds and the question of repossession are
60
discussed by Sheriff I.C. Simpson in the case of Monklands District Council v. Diane McAllister in the Airdrie Sheriff Court on 19th November 1991. Obviously, this denies the sequestrated client the benefit of a fresh start and, indeed, can add homelessness to the client's list of other probably quite horrendous problems.
The circumstances surrounding the sequestration of clients fall roughly into three categories: debt associated with poverty due to the pressure of living on benefit or low wages; debt following a reduction in income as a result of redundancy or the pregnancy of one partner; and acquisition debt, such as over-commitment to loan companies and credit agencies. The citizens advice bureaux deal mainly with the first two categories. For those clients sequestration is a last resort and the strain of living in debt may already have placed undue stress on the family unit.
The fresh start suggested here would allow these clients to enter into a new lease with the local authority with confidence as there will be no ongoing outstanding repayments to meet. Debtors will be able to meet the new rental payment without the added burden of trying to pay past arrears. The aim of the clause is to ensure that these clients and their families do not have to endure the further hardship of homelessness or alternatively have further to reduce their already very limited living expenses by paying back a debt that has already been dealt with by sequestration. The amendment has the support of a very large number of bodies in Scotland, including Age Concern, the Scottish Low Pay Unit and the single homeless in Edinburgh and Glasgow. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: When I received a note from Citizens Advice Scotland I was quite intrigued by the situation it conjured up. When my noble and learned friend replies I hope he can indicate whether the problem exists and whether Scottish local authorities are declaring people homeless and putting them out on the street after they have been sequestrated. If they are, they would in a way be acting as a preferred creditor in that they would be ignoring the situation in which other creditors find themselves. After the sequestration a creditor is not due any more money, although I assume that he can retrieve the object—whether a television or a video—on which he has given the loan. The hire purchase company can retrieve that piece of equipment.
I would not have expected Scottish local authorities, of all people, to be putting people out on the streets after they have been sequestrated. In particular, I see that Monklands District Council was named as one of the authorities which went to court on the matter. I take it that Mrs. McAllister did not have a green form, which would of been of great benefit to her in this case. Perhaps my noble and learned friend can help me. I cannot believe that Scottish local authorities take this very heartless view of people who have been declared bankrupt.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I listened carefully to the noble Lord's arguments. I agree with him, as indeed I agree with my noble friend Lord Mackay, that it is

61
highly undesirable for a public sector landlord to seek to use the threat of eviction to secure the payment of pre-sequestration rent arrears. However, I do not believe that the Bill is the right vehicle for amending housing law. Nor do I consider it appropriate to remove from public sector landlords their right to recover their property, as the amendment would allow.
Public sector landlords are no more entitled than any other ordinary creditor to receive preferential treatment after sequestration. They are not entitled to claim rent arrears incurred by the debtor before he or she was sequestrated other than by submitting a claim against the debtor's estate. For them to do otherwise runs the risk that the court might find that an unfair preference had been established in terms of Section 36 of the 1985 Act, the provision about which my noble friend Lord Mackay asked.
At the same time, while sequestration may provide debtors with the opportunity to make a fresh start, it does not oblige creditors to do business with the debtor on the same terms as prevailed before the sequestration. A creditor, including a public sector landlord, is entitled to consider whether the debtor is a sufficiently good risk for him to continue to do business. If a landlord has doubts about a tenant's ability to pay rent, it remains open to the landlord to seek to recover possession of the property. The amendment would remove that right.
Public sector landlords are not obliged to evict tenants for rent arrears. They have a discretion to do so if they believe the circumstances warrant it and may choose to write off rent arrears in some cases. In that sense the sequestrated debtor is no different from any other tenant with rent arrears. I see no reason why the sequestrated debtor should be placed in a more favourable position than other tenants who may have difficulty in paying the rent by being able to claim a new lease immediately without any regard to his past financial history.
I understand, nevertheless, the concerns which have prompted the noble Lord to raise the matter. As I have indicated, I do not believe that the amendment is the right way to deal with it. I am, however, happy to give an undertaking that the Scottish Office will bring to the attention of public sector landlords that they should not pursue the payment of pre-sequestration rent arrears other than through a claim in the sequestration. I think that my noble friend Lord Mackay expected that undertaking to be in place already. I repeat that it will be made clear to public sector landlords that they should not act in the way that I have identified.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord will give a view on a certain point which may not be entirely irrelevant. Local authorities are landlords. I sympathise with the point that if one has a bad tenant who has not paid his rent and who is then sequestrated he is hardly the most desirable of tenants to take on. But is it not true that if the local authority puts him out it again assumes responsibility for him as a homeless person and that it
62
may cost the public purse one way or another more than it would if the authority had left him in as a doubtful payer of rent?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The noble Lord may well be right. That is why I think it is appropriate that local authorities should have a discretion to operate in what is the most sensible way. It is not difficult to think of a number of circumstances. An individual tenant might be in a house which was too large for him and might be paying more rent than he needed to for accommodation that would be sufficient for him. That might be a circumstance where one would wish to evict. In the case of a tenant with a large family, to have the family broken up and distributed into residential homes and so on might be ultimately very much more expensive. The appropriate course is that local authorities should continue to have the discretion which is vested in them at the moment but they should be given the indication that they are not to set about using their right to evict as an indirect way of securing pre-sequestration rent.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am again grateful to the Minister for his explanation and also for his undertaking. I was going to make the same point as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, made. The problems that may be placed on local authorities when people are thrown out of their homes can cause big trouble to social services departments generally. To them and to the citizens advice bureaux, which have been anxious that the new clause should be added to the Bill, a debt is a debt. If the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, had read further into the brief that he was sent he would see that there were two excellent examples. One came from Scottish Homes. I wonder whether it comes under the same category as local authorities. There was also a particularly tragic case of someone in central Scotland.
Until we have another housing Bill, the Minister's promise to inform Scottish local authorities and to bring them up to date on the thinking of the Government is as much as we can get. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Calling of statutory meeting]:
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 8, line 4l after ("affairs") insert ("which will include the names and addresses of creditors and the amounts of their respective debts").
The noble Lord said: In seeking to move this amendment my noble and learned friend may wonder what on earth I am attempting to do getting involved with Clause 5—which seems a fairly simple clause about calling a statutory meeting—and particularly with this short amendment. Including the names and addresses of creditors, let alone the amounts of their respective debts, may seem to be bringing in a needless aspect of Big Brother. I understand that where the existing arrangements are carried out by insolvency practitioners they normally incorporate within their statement a list of the creditors, and against each creditor probably the relevant amount of what the creditor is owed. In addition, where it might be helpful

63
in the overall situation for creditors to try to recover some of their outstanding debts, the address is given as well.
This is not a statutory requirement but I understand that it is common practice, and it has been accepted as such without needless intrusion. But I happen to have been given sight this morning of a guide from the accountant in bankruptcy setting out his views as to what should be the duties of insolvency practitioners where they would be acting as his agent in these matters of insolvency as well as minor sequestration. I understand that in the guide from the accountant in bankruptcy the term "level of assets and liabilities" is used.
I hope that it is not needless semantics to have "level of assets and liabilities" together with "statement of the debtor's affairs". I am given to understand that insolvency practitioners in England and Wales experience some difficulty in obtaining detailed information for the creditors from the Official Receiver, who may have been appointed the trustee in events on this side of the Border in England and Wales.
It is to try to assist these procedures in Scotland that I move this simple amendment. I stress that the names and addresses of creditors can be helpful, first, to the insolvency practitioner, and above all the insolvency practitioner when he is acting as the agent of the accountant in bankruptcy, but it is also of great assistance to other creditors and those interested in the particular state of affairs of the debtor.
May I briefly set out what I understand to be the statement of the debtor's affairs. Let us take, for instance, a builders merchant, which might be quite common in Kirriemuir, Arbroath, Brechin, or Forfar, and indeed the little towns in Angus known to many of the participants in today's debate. I am delighted to see my noble neighbour, Lord Mackie, in his place today and also my noble friend Lady Carnegy. In a builders merchant's assets one would find listed a van, some plant and equipment, perhaps some implements, a saw, and a saw bench. It would be helpful to the creditors to know how much of the assets would have to meet, for instance, income tax under the PAYE scheme, how much might be owed to the Customs and Excise under VAT, and how much might be owed to employees as wages; let alone how much might be available to other trade creditors. Possibly the creditors might want to ask for a meeting, or to press further on how much is owed to other trade creditors in the same line of business. I hope that that is not needless semantics.
I invite my noble friend to turn back to page seven. Subsection (6A) (a) states:
"as may be prescribed in such form as may be prescribed".
I just wonder whether "as may be prescribed" could include a statement of the debtor's affairs, as I have set out. I understand that, as in the guide, a "level of assets and liabilities" would not be entirely helpful, first, to the creditors and others who might be interested, and, secondly, to the insolvency practitioner. With that, I hope brief, explanation of this amendment, I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I sympathise with the aims behind this amendment, but I have doubts whether there is any need to amend the Bill to achieve the purpose that my noble friend has so clearly set out. As it presently stands Clause 5 of the Bill introduces a new Section 21A into the 1985 Act. This sets out the procedures which will apply whenever the accountant in bankruptcy is appointed interim trustee and he is considering calling a statutory meeting of creditors.
Under the 1985 Act the interim trustee has no choice and must always call a statutory meeting, even if the debtor's estate has too few assets to provide any prospect of a dividend to creditors. Not surprisingly, in only some 10 per cent. or so of cases do creditors attend the statutory meeting, since they realise that on most occasions it would serve no useful purpose to attend.
Rather than continuing with this waste of time and money the Bill proposes to grant the accountant in bankruptcy the discretion not to call a statutory meeting. He must still circulate a notice to creditors along with his statement of the debtor's affairs so that they have information on how the sequestration is proceeding, but he can dispense with the formality of the statutory meeting where he considers it would serve no useful purpose to call one.
However, in order to safeguard creditor interests, the Bill provides that any creditor may, within seven days of receiving the notice from the accountant, request that a meeting be held. Provided a request or requests are received from not less than one-quarter in value of creditors, then the accountant is obliged to call a creditors' meeting.
The effect of the amendment would be to require the accountant to circulate to all creditors details of the names and addresses of the creditors and the amounts owed to each. This would allow each creditor to contact other creditors to ensure that any request for a creditors' meeting is backed by a sufficient proportion of creditors to force the accountant to act.
I point out to my noble friend that the Bill does not actually require creditors to act together to submit a single request to the accountant. It is sufficient for each creditor individually to request a meeting. Provided the total of such requests meets the prescribed amount then a meeting must be held. Given the limited period allowed to them to act, each creditor who wants a statutory meeting called would be well advised to submit his request straight away rather than seek to elicit support from other creditors. I do not therefore see that it would serve any useful purpose to amend the Bill to require the accountant in bankruptcy to circulate details of all the creditors with a copy of his statement of the debtor's affairs.
I entirely accept, however, that the information required should be available to the accountant in bankruptcy to prepare such a list. I am happy to give my noble friend the reassurance that I will invite the accountant in bankruptcy to include such details of the creditors as is known to him in his statement of affairs. I believe this matter can best be dealt with administratively, allowing the accountant to use his professional judgment to determine what information is of greatest value to creditors, rather than by trying

65
to prescribe the contents of the statement of affairs in the statute. With that explanation, coupled with the reassurance that I have given, I hope that on reflection my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lyell: I thank my noble and learned friend for the reassurance that he has given. It goes almost all the way that I seek. My noble and learned friend hinted that we might look at this on an administrative basis, and perhaps that can be done. Despite the kind reassurance given, I still think that information along the lines that I have set out would be more helpful to the accountant in bankruptcy than just the "level of assets and liabilities".
My noble friend hinted that we were speaking about 10 per cent. of the cases. Those 10 per cent. are important. The thrust of my argument was that the statement that I was seeking would be helpful to the creditors, not to overcome the barrier of 25 per cent. and to leap over the hurdle in order to gain a meeting. It would be helpful for the creditors and possibly the debtor in winding up the affairs.
I am grateful for the assurance given by my noble friend. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
6.30 p.m.
Clause 6 [Summary Administration]:
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 10, leave out lines 13 to 19 and insert:
("(b) the aggregate amount of the debtor's assets under paragraph (b) of that subsection, no account shall be taken of any property of his which, under section 33(1) of this Act, does not vest in the permanent trustee.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 15 deals with what is known as heritable property—at least, that is what it was called when I studied commercial law 30 years ago. I take the example of a debtor who possesses a house. The house may not be unencumbered or unmortgaged but in some cases a debtor may possess a house which he has not mortgaged or used to gain further security or further financial assistance, and when the permanent trustee looks at the state of affairs of the debtor he will find a reasonable equity. In other words, there will be an asset. It might be more than a house and it might be something else that the debtor has which would, after any outstanding security has been taken into account, leave a reasonable equity to cover the costs of the permanent trustee—not the accountant in bankruptcy —and it would be of significant advantage to the creditors.
The Government's Guide from the Accountant in Bankruptcy states:
"For the most part any heritable assets are secured to the extent that their disposal would generate little equity for distribution to non-secured creditors"—
That refers to most of the creditors that we are discussing
"and so they are excluded from the calculation. It is anticipated that in any case where there exists significant and unsecured heritable property, then the accountant would not apply for a certificate".
I hope that my noble friend can assure me that the last sentence of that paragraph in the guide would bite and would be effective in relation to the scenario that I have set out.
Amendment No. 15 would maximise the funds available for the creditors and it would ensure that costs are minimised, especially for the accountant in bankruptcy who would in most cases appoint an insolvency practitioner to act as his agent in the more remote areas of Scotland to realise the heritable property. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: At the present time some 20 per cent. of all sequestrations involve heritable property which, it will not surprise noble Lords to hear, is usually the debtor's home. One might assume that such sequestrations could proceed without being paid for by the taxpayer because there is clearly enough value in heritable property to cover the costs of both the interim and permanent trustee. However, the reality is that in many sequestrations any heritable property is fully secured. Any proceedings from the sale of the asset go automatically to the secured creditor and only after the sum owed to him has been fully satisfied will there be any remaining value or equity which can be set against the expenses of the sequestration. The taxpayer can therefore be faced with a substantial bill.
We do not believe that the existence of heritable property or the fact that it is subject to a substantial security should prevent the sequestration from being dealt with under a certificate of summary administration.
I understand the concerns that have been expressed by the noble Lord and others outside this House. I can assure him that the exclusion of heritable property from the calculation of a debtor's assets should be made to enable applications for summary administration to be made in practice.
In considering the amendment, your Lordships will wish to bear in mind that the granting of a certificate of summary administration does not reduce in any way the powers that are available to the permanent trustee. He can still take whatever steps he considers necessary to deal with the debtor's estate in the interests of the creditors. I emphasise that it does not affect the position of secured creditors who would still enjoy the rights and privileges accorded in the 1985 Act.
The granting of a certificate allows the permanent trustee a greater discretion in the administration of the sequestration, permitting him to tailor the conduct of the case to its specific circumstances. He must be guided at all times by his view of whether any action would be of financial benefit of the estate and in the interests of the creditors.
I do not believe that to disregard the existence of heritable property in determining whether a case meets the criteria for summary administration would be prejudicial to anyone's interests. I should like to stress that if a creditor believes that his interests are prejudiced, he has the independent right to apply to the court for withdrawal of the certificate. That is a sufficient safeguard.

67
To the contrary, if the amendment were to be accepted, it might lead to additional costs being met by the taxpayer which could otherwise be avoided.
I hope that with that full explanation the noble Lord will appreciate what lies behind the structure of this part of the Bill and that he will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lyell: I am more than happy to accept my noble friend's reassurance. I shall read what he says. At this stage, six minutes is quite enough time to take on the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 11, leave out lines 14 to 21 and insert:
("(a) in any case where the application is made by the Accountant in Bankruptcy before the sequestration of the debtor's estate has been awarded and the court has previously appointed under section 2(5) of this Act, or if no such appointment has been made the petition for sequestration nominates by virtue of section 2(1) of this Act, as interim trustee a person who is not the Accountant in Bankruptcy; or").
The noble Lord said: In the case of a petition which is debtor driven it is considered inappropriate for the accountant in bankruptcy to submit an application within seven days for the grant of the certificate of summary administration, where an interim trustee has been nominated in the petition, and has presented to. the court a letter of undertaking agreeing that he will act as interim trustee and possibly as permanent trustee at a later stage.
Clause 9(a) of the Bill allows the accountant in bankruptcy, within seven days of the presentation of the petition from the debtor, to apply for a certificate of summary administration. That situation has the automatic consequence of the court granting such an application. A further consequence is that the accountant in bankruptcy immediately assumes the position of the permanent trustee, inadvertently—or perhaps advertently—by-passing the stage whereby an interim trustee would act in respect of both the debtor and the creditors.
I wonder whether or not clause 9(a) would prevent that situation occurring. It is not entirely clear. The amendment, by a more precise targeting, seeks to prevent that situation. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The effect of the amendment would be that if the petitioner had nominated an interim trustee the court would be precluded from granting an application for summary administration made by the accountant prior to the award of sequestration. That presupposes that in every instance the court would be obliged to appoint the nominated interim trustee. That might be the most likely outcome in most circumstances, but I stress that the court is not necessarily obliged to appoint a nominated interim trustee. If for any good reason the court decides that a nominated interim trustee should not be appointed it is provided that the Accountant in Bankruptcy should be appointed interim trustee. But in such a case where the Accountant in Bankruptcy has also submitted an application for summary administration of the debtor's estate, and the criteria
68
for that are satisfied, there is no reason why the court should not go on to grant the appropriate certificate and appoint the Accountant in Bankruptcy as permanent trustee on the award of sequestration.
Section 23A(9) is drafted in terms that are capable of taking into account that a nominated interim trustee need not necessarily be appointed by the court, albeit that in most cases it will make that appointment.
The point is a slightly complicated and technical one, but I hope that my noble friend, who has taken a great interest in the technical detail of the Bill, follows my explanation and on that basis will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lyell: I am grateful to my noble friend. I will withdraw it, and beg leave so to do.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 17:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
("Application to the Sheriff
. In section 33 of the 1985 Act (limitations on vesting) after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsections—
"(1A) If on an application by the debtor made within 14 days after the date of notification to the debtor by the trustee that the property has vested in the trustee, the Sheriff is satisfied that the article is exempt from poinding in terms of section 16 of the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987, he shall make an order that the article of property shall not vest in the trustee.
(1B) The Sheriff may, on an application made within 14 days after the date of notification to the debtor by the trustee, make an order that the article is one which would have been released from a poinding in terms of section 23(1) (release of poinded article on grounds of undue harshness) and that it should be exempt from vesting in the trustee." ").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 17 is intended to remind the House of and to get into the Bill something that I suggested at Second Reading. It seeks to ensure that debtors who have undergone sequestration have the same rights as those against whom a poinding has taken place. There is no definition of articles exempt from poinding in Section 33 of the Bankruptcy Act 1985. That predated Section 16 of the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987, which did define articles that were exempt and gave debtors the right to apply to the Sheriff Court for the release of articles poinded that should have been exempted. There is no equivalent procedure in Section 33 of the Bankruptcy Act to allow for that. I propose a new clause which seeks to remedy that omission and afford to debtors who have been sequestrated the same protection as other debtors enjoy. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I can answer the noble Lord shortly by saying that I consider that subsection (1A) would in reality provide no benefit to debtors. Under Section 33(1) of the 1985 Act, assets which are exempted from a poinding do not vest in the permanent trustee. That provision is not affected by the terms of the Bill. I believe the noble Lord's anxieties are misplaced, but if he wishes to return to the matter on a later occasion obviously I would be willing to deal with it.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am grateful to the Minister for pointing that out. It may have been taken up because of what I said in the Second Reading debate. The Minister may remember the example I gave of a sheriff insisting that things necessary for the family and for the education of children could be released from poinding. One of the questions concerned a television and video recorder. The Scottish Consumer Council is anxious that a quality of tolerance be shown, particularly when there are young children in the house. I will try to find a better place to put this, but I still believe the idea to be a rather important one. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 18:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
("Financial circumstances of debtor
. In section 32 of the 1985 Act (vesting of estate, and dealings of debtor, after sequestration) after subsection (2) there shall be inserted—
"(2A) When determining a suitable amount to allow for aliment for the debtor in terms of subsection (2) above, the sheriff shall consider the particular financial circumstances of the debtor, including his income, outlays, his individual needs and the needs of any dependants." ").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to require a sheriff, in considering the amount that a debtor should pay to the permanent trustee, to consider in detail the debtor's ability to make that level of financial contribution. I understand there have been examples in which sheriffs have overdone repayments and left people in penury, though I have no exact examples. The Scottish Consumer Council would like something on the face of the Bill as a reminder to sheriffs that there are certain basics that people require and that those basics frequently change depending on the circumstances of the individual debtor. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As my Amendment No. 19 is bracketed with No. 18, I presume that now may be an appropriate moment for me to speak to it. However, I should be content not to because I do not believe that the two are related. I shall come back to it after my noble friend has answered the points made on Amendment No. 18.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I respectfully agree that the two amendments may be separated out.
I deal with Amendment No. 18 on its own. Subsection (2) of Section 32 already provides that before the sheriff makes any order fixing the amount of a debtor's excess income to be paid to the permanent trustee he may determine a suitable amount to allow for the debtor's aliment and to meet the debtor's relevant obligations. For this purpose "relevant obligations" means any obligation owed by the debtor to his family or any obligation to pay periodic allowances to a former spouse. In determining a suitable amount to allow for aliment, the sheriff is required to have "regard to all the circumstances".
70
I would expect the sheriff on such occasions to have regard to a debtor's income and outlays and whatever other factors he considered relevant. The existing general requirement to have regard to all the circumstances would seem to me to he more appropriate than specifying the factors which the sheriff must consider, as the amendment seeks to do.
If the noble Lord wishes to require the sheriff to consider certain matters it is important to examine how those matters can be presented to the sheriff and how he is to be satisfied that he has taken them into account. Details of the debtor's income and outlays should be available to the permanent trustee making the application to the sheriff. I accept it would be relatively straightforward for the sheriff to assess these. But how would a permanent trustee provide information to the sheriff on what in the terms of the noble Lord's amendment would be the individual needs of the debtor and the needs of any dependants? Does the noble Lord envisage that the debtor and his family should be summoned to appear before the sheriff to make a case for any aliment to be allowed to them? I do not see how else the sheriff could be satisfied that he was aware of those needs. I do not believe that the amendment improves upon the present drafting of the Bill. I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I believe the Minister is absolutely correct. The amendment as drafted may perhaps reduce the scope that the sheriff has. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 19:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause:

Vesting of estate, and dealings of debtor after sequestration
. In section 32 of the 1985 Act, after subsection (1), there shall be inserted the following subsections—
"(1A) The permanent trustee shall on application being made in writing to him to that effect by a person representing not less in value than one quarter of the creditors make an application to the sheriff under subsection (2) below unless subsection (1B) applies.
(1B) This subsection applies when the permanent trustee determines that on the information available to him there is no reasonable prospect that the debtor's income will exceed the total amount likely to be allowed by the sheriff under subsection (2)." ").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 19, standing in my name. After I spoke at Second Reading on the need to balance the rights of the debtor and the rights of the creditor I received a number of communications. I suppose that that is heartening because it means that somebody out there reads the words we speak here. One of the organisations which contacted me was the Consumer Credit Association. That body drew to my attention some amendments that had been tabled in another place and withdrawn after helpful suggestions by the Minister.
Amendment No. 19 is a second or third attempt at amendments which were put in the other place, with certain changes made to their appearance. It was the

71
clear intention of Parliament in 1985 that under the 1985 Act if a bankrupt had free income out of which he could make a contribution towards the payment of his debts, then he should be prepared to make such a contribution. That intention was expressed clearly in Section 32 of the 1985 Act. In practice, the section has proved ineffective. In particular, creditors have no way in which they can trigger the operation of Section 32. Curiously, they are able to trigger a request to vary an existing contribution order.
Another factor that has operated to render Section 32 unworkable in practice is cost. The task of administering a contribution under the current law falls to the insolvency practitioner who must charge for the work he does. But in practice, the Accountant in Bankruptcy has been unwilling to make funds available for this purpose. It may be questionable whether the Accountant in Bankruptcy has been entitled to adopt that approach. The 1985 Act clearly envisages that an insolvency practitioner is entitled to seek reimbursement of his reasonable expenses from the state. Nowhere in the Act is it suggested that there should be an overall cost-benefit analysis of a particular function of the insolvency practitioner so that that dictates whether or not he should perform that function.
Perhaps I may illustrate what I mean by cost-benefit analysis. Let us assume for the sake of discussion that the Accountant in Bankruptcy could collect and distribute a payment from the debtor at an overall cost to the Accountant in Bankruptcy of, say, £10 a week. If an economic test is applied, the Accountant in Bankruptcy would only countenance a contribution from income if the bankrupt had free income in excess of £10 a week. These are not actual figures; they are examples that I am using to illustrate my argument.
Experience shows that the £10 a week as a threshold would rapidly become known to money advisers via their sophisticated publications and advice manuals. Money advisers are trained to capitalise on cost-benefit considerations impacting on the decision-making processes of creditor bodies. It would be relatively straightforward for money advisers to apply their discretion in calculating a debtor's income and outgoings so as to ensure that the £40 per month or £10 a week threshold that I have described is not exceeded. Therefore, there would be a severe risk that the process would rapidly be abused.
By contrast, the clear ability to require the payment over any free income would send an unequivocal sign to both debtors and money advisers that the process which I have described would not benefit the debtors. Any suggestion of a cost-benefit analysis calls into question the actual process of sequestration itself, since it is clear that no benefit accrues to the state from any publicly funded sequestration.
The function of my amendment is to give the creditors a clear right to trigger Section 32. This right is in addition to and not in substitution of the existing right of the permanent trustee to seek a contribution
72
of his own volition. My amendment makes the right unqualified in the sense that there is no requirement for a cost-benefit hurdle first to be overcome.
There are two safeguards designed to prevent abuse by creditors. First, I have included a requirement that creditors to the value of 25 per cent. of the debtor's indebtedness must be involved. That would prevent applications under Section 32 being triggered by insignificant creditors.
Secondly, I have provided that the Accountant in Bankruptcy need not pursue a Section 32 application if it is clear, on the information that he has, that the debtor has no free income at all. I hope that I have laid out the arguments reasonably in order to ensure that the creditors have some rights in these matters. I look forward to my noble friend's response. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I have discussed this point as well with the Consumer Credit Association. I mentioned it on Second Reading. In reply to that debate, the Minister reminded the House that it was a misunderstanding to think that people who had been sequestrated and had sufficient free income never found their income under attack. That may well be a misunderstanding, but the point is that it frequently happens.
As my noble friend Lord Mackay said, people often escape making payments from an income that is adequate and others know that it happens. That fact is taken into account when deciding to take the power of sequestration. People decide that the risk is worth taking.
It would be a good idea if a major creditor or group of creditors could have the right to make representations that the debtor's income be used to repay some of his debts on the lines that my noble friend suggests. That would be a signal to all concerned and might well be a deterrent to irresponsible sequestration. I support the amendment.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: While I have considerable sympathy with the motives of the amendment I find myself unable to accept it. The amendment differs significantly from those on the same subject which were tabled in another place. I am afraid, however, that it appears to introduce a number of practical problems.
I agree with my noble friend that a debtor with sufficient means should make a contribution from his income to his estate to meet the cost of the sequestration and provide a dividend to his creditors. That was clearly the intention of the Scottish Law Commission in putting forward its recommendations which led to the 1985 Act. As both my noble friends Lord Mackay and Lady Carnegy have indiscated, there appears to be an erroneous belief in certain quarters in Scotland that somehow a debtor's income will not be affected by his sequestration. That is clearly not true, and I am glad to have the opportunity to emphasise it.
At the same time, the law should not create an incentive for the debtor not to work to earn his living. For that reason, the debtor's income does not automatically form part of his estate. It requires an application to be made to the sheriff who, before

73
making an order under Section 32, needs to consider what sum the debtor needs to meet the living expenses of himself and his family.
The right of application under Section 32 was deliberately left solely to the permanent trustee because he is the person charged by law with the ingathering of the estate for the benefit of all creditors. It is only he who has sufficient information, with regard to all the circumstances, to judge whether an application could be justified.
Clearly, one would not wish to compel the trustee to make application if there was no reasonable prospect of obtaining anything or if there was no presumption that the debtor's income would exceed the total amount which the sheriff was likely to allow for the aliment of the debtor.
I see practical difficulties in applying the formula suggested to determine in which circumstances the permanent trustee may refuse a request by creditors to apply for a Section 32 order. The permanent trustee must make an assumption as to what amount the sheriff may be prepared to allow the debtor to retain for his own use. In practice, this would require consideration, not just of the debtor's income, but also of such factors as the nature of his income and the level and nature of his commitments. It also requires the permanent trustee to prejudge how the sheriff might exercise the discretion allowed to him by the 1985 Act.
I believe that there is machinery in place already to ensure that contributions from a debtor's income can be secured. I also accept that limited use has been made of this power in the past and during the past two years only 5 per cent. of debtors made any contribution. However, I think that there has now been a reassessment of the situation and, with the greater role played by the Accountant in Bankruptcy, one can anticipate a change.
However, I appreciate the strength of feeling among creditor bodies and in order to encourage greater use of the present law, I have asked my officials to invite the Sheriff Court Rules Council to examine the possibility of introducing rules of procedure for applications under Section 32. Such rules would lead to a greater degree of consistency in procedures between courts and would facilitate the making of applications. I also intend to invite the Accountant in Bankruptcy to examine carefully the potential for securing greater contributions from income than is the case at present.
Overall I believe that in general terms the present Section 32 strikes the right balance between the interests of debtors and creditors. I entirely agree that greater encouragement might be given to its use in the future but I do not see that the present procedures should be amended. However, with the assurances that I have given him following on the instructions of a revision of rules, I hope the noble Lord may now withdraw his amendment.
7 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for that reply. I shall read the detail of it with great interest tomorrow. I certainly
74
welcome his assurance that the sheriff court rules will be considered for change and also that the Accountant in Bankruptcy may take a more robust view—I am not sure "robust" is the right word—of the circumstances I outlined in my main speech. With the assurances I have received, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 [Fees for the Accountant in Bankruptcy]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 12, line 44, after ("Bankruptcy") insert ("out of the sequestrated estate").
The noble Lord said: This is the final amendment of this Committee stage and I am sure that the Committee will be sad about that. This amendment sets out to confirm that no party who petitions for sequestration, whether creditor, trustee under trust deed or debtor, will be found liable for the fees and outlays of the Accountant in Bankruptcy.
At present creditors who petition for sequestration are aware that their costs are limited to those of their law agent for presenting the petition to court. Any costs thereafter for conducting the sequestration are either met out of the debtor's estate or are met from the public purse. This amendment provides that the cost of administering the sequestration should not be an expense which should fall on the creditor, or indeed the trustee under a trust deed. As it stands, Section 69A(a) might suggest that a debtor has to meet the administration costs of a sequestration which might be at the debtor's own instance. This amendment seeks to confirm that this will not be the case. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The noble Lord seeks to limit the obligation to pay such fees to the debtor's estate for the reasons he has explained. I do not believe it would be appropriate or practical to impose such a limitation, nor do I consider it necessary to do so. While most of the activities of the Accountant in Bankruptcy relate, as the noble Lord will appreciate, to the conduct of an individual sequestration, not all do. Some, such as maintaining a register of insolvencies and providing access to it, are of a more general nature. Any fee which is charged for these activities should be borne by the individual making the demand and not the estate of a particular debtor.
I suggest it is right and proper that such charges should be levied and paid for and that they should be paid for by others than simply the debtor. However, if the amendment were to be accepted that would be impossible. With that simple example of how the noble Lord's amendment would restrict matters I hope he will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I thank the Minister for that reply. Obviously this is a matter I shall want to take advice on, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Immigration and Nationality: NACAB Report
7.5 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take to implement the proposals contained in the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux report A Charter for All?
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Question has two distinct strands. The first is the evidence from the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux on the work of the Immigration and Nationality Department which was published in July of this year. The second is The Citizen's Charter, which was also published this year, which described the Government's programme for improvement of the rights of citizens. It played a considerable part in the Government's election programme.
I wish to say a few words about the report of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. This was by no means a casual document. It was produced on the evidence of no fewer than 95 local offices of citizens advice bureaux which in 1991–92 received no fewer than 60,000 separate inquiries from citizens of this country about the work of the Immigration and Nationality Department of the Home Office. Indeed the report is not only about the work of the Home Office, because of course it is the Foreign and Commonwealth Office which is responsible for entry clearances in other countries.
The Citizen's Charter, which is the other part of my argument, was described by the Government when it was published as the most comprehensive programme ever to raise quality, increase choice, secure better value and extend accountability. How was that to be achieved according to the Government and according to The Citizen's Charter? First, it was to be achieved by more effective complaints procedures; secondly, it was to be achieved by improved procedures for redress for injustice or maladministration; and, thirdly, it was to involve the users more closely in the operation of the services and in the way in which they affect individual citizens.
How does that apply to the work of the Immigration and Nationality Department? Let me make it clear from the outset that it would never be our position from these Benches to attack civil servants as such. We are concerned with government policy and the way in which the Government administer departments and individual branches of departments.
The evidence from the citizens advice bureaux is unfortunately terribly clear. What we see in the work of the Immigration and Nationality Department is fundamentally enormous delays in dealing with individual cases. We see a position where in 1990, when the Home Office Select Committee of another place investigated the matter, the average delays were of the order of 27 months. The result of that of course is that, because there are such long delays, a large number of applications is always in the pipeline, giving rise to the quite false impression that there is a
76
flood of people wishing to enter this country, whereas of course the problem is not the numbers wishing to enter the country but the delays in dealing with the applications. That is true both of applications for entry and of nationality applications from those already in this country.
The matter is more serious not only because of the delays which take place but also because these are, after all, matters—in particular the nationality applications—which attract fees. There is a fee of £170 for a nationality application. It is refunded, only in part, if the nationality application is successful. It is not refunded at all if the application is not successful. Therefore, this is a service which is paid for, and I suggest that there is an obligation that the service should be efficiently and promptly run. If there is no assurance that the service is to be run efficiently and promptly, the question of compensation arises.
We tried to bring the two aspects together. We looked at the issue of the performance of the Immigration and Nationality Department as evidenced by the report of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and we looked at The Citizen's Charter. The Minister responsible in the Home Office, Mr. Charles Wardle, has accepted that the general principles of The Citizen's Charter should apply to the work of the Immigration and Nationality Department. He has told the House of Commons Select Committee that the work of the department in relation to The Citizen's Charter will be under review. The question which we have to ask, and which I ask the Government today, is to what extent they accept that there should be an independent review, as will clearly be required by the conditions of The Citizen's Charter, of the work of the Immigration and Nationality Department.
It may be thought that this is a complaint about the department's past record. We know very well that the asylum Bill, to give it its even shorter title, is now progressing through another place and is due to come to your Lordships' House in the new year. The effect of the asylum Bill, quite contrary to the provisions of The Citizen's Charter, would be to reduce the provisions for redress which in other circumstances The Citizen's Charter would provide and to ignore, because there is no reference to it in the Bill, the procedure for complaints which is an essential part of The Citizen's Charter. We raise this Question today not only because we are profoundly dissatisfied with the resources and policy directives which have been given to the Immigration and Nationality Department in the past but because we envisage that the asylum Bill will make the situation even worse.
Nor is it simply a matter of delays and the lack of consultation, the lack of compensation and the lack of an effective complaints procedure. The suspicion must be that there is an element of racial discrimination in the way in which the department works.
Let us look at the figures. In the past year 19,000 applicants for entry to this country were refused permission to enter. The proportion of applicants from the United States refused entry was 0.04 per cent. The proportion of applicants from Jamaica who were refused entry was 1.9 per cent. In other words, more

77
than 30 times as many applicants from Jamaica were refused entry as applicants from the United States. It cannot be doubted that our connections with Jamaica go back as far as our connections with the United States and our links with the citizens of Jamaica are as important to us in their way as our links with the citizens of the United States.
Let us also look at the figures for the Indian sub-continent. Here the proportion refused entry was 0.34 per cent., which is eight times the rate of refusal for applicants from the United States, despite the fact that applicants from the Indian sub-continent have to obtain clearance in advance from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office at their point of departure. That means that, despite the fact that they are in double jeopardy, in effect being required to satisfy the authorities twice, there is still eight times the rate of refusal for applications from the Indian sub-continent than from the United States.
Let us also consider the delivery of nationality applications. We can see from the citizens advice bureaux evidence an apparently unending string of examples of injustice. Applicants put in their applications, send in their passports and marriage certificates and all the evidence. Those are retained for many months. Applicants are advised that their case will be considered and the date is deferred almost for ever. I shall not bore the House with individual details, but if I say that in 1990 in its investigation of the work of the department at Lunar House the Home Affairs Select Committee in another place found no fewer than 250,000 unopened letters, including marriage certificates and passports, the point will have been made clearly.
Examples may not prove a case, but the implications of those manifest defects in the work of the department must be clear. Not only, at the very lowest level, are we creating extra work for our own civil servants, both in the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. If one has to deal over and over again with an application which has been delayed many times one increases the amount of work enormously. Not only, again at the lowest level, should there be greater compensation for those who have been the subject of maladministration. At the more serious level, the Immigration and Nationality Department is failing to present itself in the role in which it should present itself to the world at large—as the ambassador for British standards of justice and efficiency.
7.16 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, we are truly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, for asking this Question and drawing attention to this valuable report. As he pointed out, it does not simply make recommendations: it also presents evidence. The report makes depressing reading, not just because of the problems it describes, but because it describes problems which have been identified and emphasised in earlier reports, including that of the Home Affairs Select Committee of another place, and, despite those previous reports, the problems seem to have worsened.
78
The report must surely challenge any government to give a firm response. The delays are clearly excessive and beyond anything that would be expected or tolerated in any other bureaucratic exercise. Yet those delays have to be tolerated by applicants seeking to enter this country who, not surprisingly, have no bargaining strength whatsoever. As the report says —and it is not the first to say it—delay has come to be seen as a method of control. Paragraph 4.7 of the report describes how the very existence of queues of applicants creates the impression of a clamour to enter this country which in turn reinforces the feeling that controls should be increasingly strict.
Some of the greatest delays involve applications which, if they were allowed, would unite or reunite families. The report describes evidence of lengthy failures to respond to applications and to other communications. It describes the piecemeal requests by the department for documentation. Obviously that causes uncertainty and anxiety to the families concerned. The report points to the irony of the delays and obstacles faced by people wishing to join or rejoin their families in a political climate in which family values and family responsibilities are regarded as so important as to require buttressing by central government.
One other aspect of the report to which I hope the Government will give serious attention is the treatment of temporary visitors. One cannot escape the disparity between the treatment of the affluent business visitor and the treatment of the visitor coming to stay with his or her family. Those are usually people who have planned long and saved hard to visit relatives in this country. The visit is usually the subject of happy expectation for all concerned, yet when they arrive the reality is that even those with evidence of return tickets, jobs and homes to go back to, are treated with suspicion and exposed to inconvenience and disappointment.
Surely it cannot be beyond the wit of man to improve the system as it presently operates so as to balance the need to scrutinise visitors in order to weed out at an early stage those who might abuse the permission to enter, with the desirability of sparing the great majority of bona fide visitors the indignity and inconvenience experienced by all too many.
Surely one mark of a civilised society must be the way it treats immigrants and potential immigrants. If the recommendations of this report are adopted by the Government, the result will he a system which is seen to be fair, consistent and quick. It will be a system which enjoys confidence. Although the recommendations in this report include proposals for a complaints procedure and for a compensation system in place of the existing ex gratia payments which I understand are made and for legal advice and representation, an improved system which is seen to be fair is in fact less likely to be challenged by such means. Unless standards are raised, the first impression of people entering this country will be of a discriminatory system, whether that impression be right or wrong. To fuel suspicion and discrimination in that way can only harm race relations at a time when I hope the

79
Government are giving serious consideration to the second review of the Race Relations Act recently conducted by the Commission for Racial Equality.
I am sure the Minister and his department are not impervious or indifferent to the criticisms made in this sensitive area. I look forward to the Minister's response to the specific and reasonable recommendations of this report.
7.22 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, just before he sat down the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said that he hoped that Ministers or the department were not immune to criticism about the way in which they operate. Indeed, we are not. Immigration and all that surrounds it is an enormously sensitive area. We all know that it is important that the standards should be as high as possible. Inevitably, there have been occasions when the standards have not been as high as we would wish.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, for at least giving me the opportunity of explaining to your Lordships the steps which are being taken to improve the standards of service in the Immigration and Nationality Department. He made a formidable speech, full of criticism. I do not blame him for that at all. We shall certainly take note of it. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, also expressed his concern.
I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that he did not intend to attack civil servants, but he would attack the Government's policy. He was quite right to say that. What happens if there are shortcomings? The shortcomings are the result of government policy for which Ministers are responsible. They are not the shortcomings of those who work hard within the system to try to make the system work as well as possible.
I do not deny for one moment that there is scope for further improvement. But I do not think that the impression of the Immigration and Nationality Department which is painted in the report to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred is accurate or even fair.
Your Lordships know of the importance which the Government attach to improving public services. The second Citizen's Charter White Paper was published only last month. It sets out a wide array of achievements and progress which have been made since the first White Paper was published two years ago. The Citizen's Charter represents the Government's desire to see a long-term programme of change and improvements in order to raise the standards of services, which are offered by public bodies to individual members of the general public.
Public services need to understand better and respond better to the needs and the requirements of their customers and their users. They also need to find better and more efficient ways of providing these services. The Immigration and Nationality Department at the Home Office will be as sensitive to this as will any other department. Inevitably, if you try to do this, there will be changes: changes in the way in which the services are run and organised. It will need
80
constant attention to detail and constant application of effort. The Citizen's Charter, to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred, is long-term stuff. It is not a short-term flight of fancy. It is something that we want to see happen in order that the services of which the general public are the recipients should be as high as possible and higher than they have been.
Immigration control is a very complex business. The public quite rightly expects that the Immigration Rules will be applied firmly and with care. This sometimes means asking probing questions, and it sometimes means taking decisions which are, quite understandably, unwelcome to the applicant.
The Immigration and Nationality Department is often not in the position of being able to grant to applicants that for which they are asking, and I am sure that your Lordships understand that this will always have to be the case. It is important that, despite that, decisions should be taken sensitively, and that applicants, whether they are satisfied or dissatisfied with the outcome of their case, can at least feel that they have been treated fairly. I can assure your Lordships that it is made absolutely clear to staff who work in the department that all those who pass through their hands should be dealt with courteously and without unnecessary procrastination. In that respect all managers within the Immigration and Nationality Department are expected to attend a training course which emphasises the importance of customer care.
It is simply not true, as it is claimed in the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux report, that The Citizen's Charter does not apply to the Immigration and Nationality Department. It does, it should and it will.
I hope that your Lordships will understand that it would not be right for me to comment on the individual cases which are cited in the national association's report. I could not in fact do so, as the report did not provide sufficient details to enable them to be identified. But I would like to deal with the main proposals which are made in the report.
The national association's report recommended that the Immigration and Nationality Department should publish standards of service and that it should keep them under review. Because this suggestion has been made, your Lordships might be forgiven for thinking that the Immigration and Nationality Department does not publish information about its performance. In fact it does—and has done so for several years—in its annual report.
The annual report provides a lot of information about the operation of the Immigration and Nationality Department, and it includes detailed information on its standards of service, how they have improved and what are the targets for the future.
This year we have gone one step further with the publication of what is called the Operating Plan for 1992–93 of the immigration service. The Immigration Service is part of the Immigration and Nationality Department. The plan covers the priorities, aims and objectives on which members of the immigration service who work at ports will concentrate over the next 12 months. It records a range of improvements

81
which are designed to make the service better for the travelling public. Among the measures which feature in the plan are the new standards of service for non-European Community nationals who arrive at Heathrow and Gatwick airports. Other parts of the plan include reducing queueing times at ports. Some of your Lordships may know about the new procedures, which were introduced in the summer at Dover, which will allow cars to pass more quickly through the immigration control. We are now looking at ways of extending the new procedures to other ports.
Other objectives in the plan include a survey of the views of passengers, which is now taking place, and a broadening of the areas of service which ought to be subjected to the checking of standards—such as the response to telephone calls and correspondence.
I cannot abide slothful correspondence and I know that I am periodically guilty of it. In large departments though it is sometimes very difficult to get over to people the fact that letters matter. They may be a bore, but correspondence is often a department's main contact with the public and the way in which letters are dealt with often determines an individual's perception of the department. Of course in the field of immigration it is not just about correspondence; all kinds of questions have to be asked and details investigated—and that takes time.
I would not seek to defend the regrettable delays and backlogs of work which have occurred in some categories of work, including applications for citizenship. Delays built up following the receipt of about 300,000 applications in 1987. That was six times the usual number, which occurred under the transitional provisions of the British Nationality Act 1981. The position though is now improving.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to nationality fees. I accept that there is room for improvement in the time which is taken to deal with those applications. I must point out, however, that no financial profit is made out of those fees; they are set at a level which will recover the expected costs of processing the applications. There would be no question of altering that principle.
As a result of the deployment of extra staff and other resources, as well as of some improvements in the procedures which are used, the situation is now better. However, applicants still have to wait too long —longer than either my right honourable friend the Home Secretary or I would wish. A person who applies for citizenship can now expect a decision within 12 to 15 months. The situation will continue to improve during the coming months as the very last cases which are still outstanding from 1987, 1988 and 1989 are completed.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that he profoundly disagreed with the resources that have been made available to the Immigration and Nationality Department. There has been a surge, too, in asylum applications during the past few years and that has led to delays in resolving those cases. I do not think that it would have been possible for any organisation to have dealt with such a rise in applications without acquiring a backlog. They have
82
risen from 4,000 per year in the mid 1980s to 44,000 in 1991. That is a huge increase and all must be processed and dealt with. That puts a great strain on the resources of a department.
We took action to deal with that. The number of staff employed in the asylum division of the Immigration and Nationality Department has increased from around 100 in 1990 to more than 500 now. The backlog of cases is now being reduced. Your Lordships will also know that the Government recently introduced the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill which is going through another place. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that that would make the delay even longer. With respect, the Bill is designed to speed up the determination process as well as to strengthen the safeguards for genuine refugees.
I think that the general position is, therefore, one of improvement. It is not always realised that 85 per cent. of those people who personally visit the Public Enquiry Office in Croydon now have their cases resolved the same day. All those who arrive before 4 p.m. will be seen on that same day and, if necessary, staff will and do stay on to do that. So there has been a great change. The majority of routine applications which are sent by post are now dealt with in a matter of weeks. It is only where further inquiries are made or where asylum is claimed that cases take longer.
The noble Lords, Lord McIntosh and Lord Meston, referred to complaints. The arrangements for dealing with complaints are now under review in the light of the principles of the Citizen's Charter. As regards the arguments for introducing an independent element, to which the noble Lords referred, we have not hitherto found them particularly persuasive but they will certainly be considered during the course of the review.
There is much else which could be said on the points which were raised by the national association's report. It was, though, a matter for some sadness and regret that it should have been thought necessary to recommend that the Immigration and Nationality Department should make a clear and public commitment to providing a non-discriminatory service. The department is already fully committed to a policy of non-discrimation. There is no question about that. It has a published formal policy statement and the message is reinforced with staff through training so that the principle of non-discrimation is, in fact, a practice too.
My right honourable friends the Home Secretary and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, who is responsible for immigration, are not sitting back in quiet contentment with the standards of service which are achieved by the Immigration and Nationality Department. There is room for improvement and I am the first to accept that. Improvements have nevertheless been made and I hope that tonight I have been able to show that there is a will to build on them.
The noble Lords, Lord McIntosh and Lord Meston, referred to discrimination. I do not believe that the statistics are inconsistent with individual countries being dealt with on their merits or on a non-discriminatory basis. Obviously the pressure on immigrants from some countries is greater than in

83
others. I emphasise that there is no desire on the part of anyone—Ministers or officials—to impede genuine visitors and those exercising their rights under the immigration law.
Both noble Lords referred to the principle of compensation. Arrangements are already in place for making ex gratia compensation payments in certain circumstances. But the person must have suffered financial loss as a direct result of negligence or error, or of delay by an officer of the Home Office, in order to be able to receive such compensation.
84
Immigration control is one of the most sensitive of all the functions with which the Home Office is involved. The maintenance of firm control of immigration is central to the Government's policy but that fact is not inconsistent with the setting, and with the achieving, of high standards of service. We want to see that happen and we intend to ensure that it does.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes before eight o'clock.

  SOUTHERN IRAQ: HUMAN RIGHTS
  SOUTHERN IRAQ: HUMAN RIGHTS
  LIBERIA
  LIBERIA
  ISRAEL: NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAMME
  ISRAEL: NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAMME
  ISRAEL: WEAPONS NON-PROLIFERATION
  ISRAEL: WEAPONS NON-PROLIFERATION
  MIDDLE EAST: NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION
  MIDDLE EAST: NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION
  RUSSIA: EXPORT CREDITS GUARANTEES
  RUSSIA: EXPORT CREDITS GUARANTEES
  HUMAN FERTILISATION AND EMBRYOLOGY AUTHORITY
  HUMAN FERTILISATION AND EMBRYOLOGY AUTHORITY
  FRENCH CHEESES
  FRENCH CHEESES
  OVERSEAS DOMESTIC WORKERS: COMPLAINTS
  OVERSEAS DOMESTIC WORKERS: COMPLAINTS
  St JAMES'S PARK LAKE
  St JAMES'S PARK LAKE