Sitting of 2 June 1992

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

    Departmental Relocation
    Mr. Devlin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy on relocating his Department's resources and personnel between different regions of the United Kingdom.
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): In line with Government policy, the Ministry of Defence aims to locate its work wherever best value for money can be obtained, taking account of the operational requirements of the Department.
    Mr. Devlin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, wherever possible, the Department should seek to locate jobs in areas of higher unemployment, where the jobs and skills base of the local community need bolstering? As his Department failed in the previous Parliament to deliver the quality assurance unit to my constituency, why is he now seeking to move 170 jobs from my constituency to Bath?
    Mr. Hamilton: The proposal to move 180 jobs from the naval stores depot at Eaglescliffe is not a decision; it is merely a proposal which we are considering on the basis that the support side of the Navy should be located in the Bath region. I apologise once again to my hon. Friend in relation to the quality assurance unit, which we certainly intended to move to Stockton. However, we decided later that it was possible to absorb its functions into the Defence Research Agency.
    Mr. Frank Cook: The Minister may be pleased to learn that although his apology is welcome and polite, it is small consolation to the people of Cleveland, who were disappointed by the previous decision. It is good news that the decision is yet to be made. In reaching a conclusion, will the Minister take account of the fact that it has proved difficult—at least, it is reported to have been so—in the south-west to recruit people of adequate calibre to fill vacancies, whereas it is exceedingly easy in the north-east? There are many considerations other than a pure statement of account. Will the Minister give an assurance that all those factors will be considered fully?
    Mr. Hamilton: I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. We take all such factors into account before reaching a conclusion. I shall have to be
    690
    persuaded that recruitment, among other things, is an assumption that holds up before we transfer these jobs from Stockton.

    Western European Union
    Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he plans to meet the Secretary General of the Western European Union to discuss future European security arrangements.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I shall meet Dr. Van Eekelen at the Western European Union Council of Ministers meeting on 19 June, but I hope to see him in London before then.
    Mr. Taylor: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give clear evidence that progress is being made within the WEU on its strategic thinking about how to react to the increasing dangers outside the traditional territory of NATO, given that it is rethinking its strategy and given the rather worrying and puzzling aspect of the Franco-German brigade? We need strong WEU thinking on this.
    Mr. Rifkind: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. A clear decision was reached at the end of the Rome summit that the WEU should be the European arm of the NATO alliance. My hon. Friend referred to the proposed Franco-German corps—to which, as an example of Franco-German co-operation, we do not object. However, a number of questions are still to be answered about the relationship of the corps to NATO and we would regret any weakening in the commitment of those countries to the alliance.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the right hon. and learned
    Gentleman agree that the effectiveness of European security arrangements will depend not only on institutions such as the WEU but on the adoption of common policies in areas such as procurement? Does he share the concern of many hon. Members at the announcement again today of the possible withdrawal of Germany from the European fighter aircraft programme? Would not such a withdrawal have considerable implications for European security arrangements?
    Mr. Rifkind: Yes, I share that concern unreservedly. Over the years, Germany has been an extremely reliable European partner and I am happy to pay tribute to that. However, the European fighter aircraft is perhaps the most important example at present of European collaboration. The United Kingdom, Spain and Italy are very keen to go ahead with the project. We very much hope that the German Government, who have not yet reached a decision, will confirm their willingness to be associated with the project, as it will be difficult to take seriously protestations about the need for European co-operation and collaboration if such an important project is endangered.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: While accepting my right hon. and learned Friend's assertion that the Germans have been reliable partners in defence, many of my constituents believe that the Germans have had their defence on the cheap. They will be extremely angry if the Germans renege

    691
    on their participation in the European fighter aircraft project, thus depriving many people in my part of the world of their jobs.
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the important employment implications in this country. There are similar implications in Germany; my hon. Friend may have noticed the strong representations supporting the EFA project from the coalition partners of the German Government and the similar views expressed by hon. Members of all parties.
    Mr. O'Neill: I welcome the Secretary of State's continuing commitment to EFA. Does he agree that replacements have still to be found for the Phantom and Jaguar aircraft, not only in our own Air Force, but in others in Europe and the rest of the world? Does he agree that there must therefore still be possibilities for additional orders and sales? If the Germans backed out, the contract could still continue with the continued participation of Italy and Spain. Will the Secretary of State also bear it in mind that the present figures were arrived at in 1986 on the basis of the threat assessment then and may not be figures to which we should be committed in terms of the EFA numbers that we should want in future?
    Mr. Rifkind: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's interest in defence sales, which has not always been apparent on the Opposition Back Benches. We have been working on a planning assumption of 250 European fighter aircraft. That assumption would be concluded only at the appropriate time. We do not need to reach a conclusion on the precise numbers for some time, so it is appropriate at this stage simply to give our unqualified commitment to the project. I have no doubt that a substantial number of aircraft will be required; the precise number can be decided at the appropriate time.

    Army Restructuring
    Mr. Ancram: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reconsideration, if any, he has given to the pace of the restructuring of the Army in the light of developments in the former federation of Yugoslavia and other international areas of unrest.
    Mr. Rifkind: Changes in the international security environment and the need to provide forces relevant to the challenges of the mid-1990s and beyond were taken into account in the Government's decisions on the restructuring of the armed forces.
    Mr. Ancram: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, in the light of the horrific events in Bosnia and Croatia and of the increasing tensions in former parts of the Soviet Union, the security considerations and the potential peacekeeping responsibilities facing this country have changed dramatically since the restructuring was first proposed? Will he now reconsider the pace and extent of that restructuring in the light of the uncertainty in the international scenario? Does he agree that the lesson of history is that it is always easier to disarm than to rearm?
    Mr. Rifkind: We are already committed to a peacekeeping presence in Croatia. An advance party is already in that country and the remainder of the field medical unit is due to go out shortly. With regard to any future commitments on peacekeeping, we should always
    692
    take into account whether there is a genuine peacekeeping contribution to be made. I always make a distinction between peacekeeping and peace enforcing; that is a very important distinction which should always be borne in mind when such issues are raised.
    Mr. Rogers: I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware that the Opposition have been asking for some years for the Department to carry out a full-scale defence review. In view of the substantial changes taking place in Europe and the world, there is obviously a need for such a review. Will the Secretary of State give an undertaking to the House today that he will instigate such a review so that we can match our resources to our present and potential commitments and not simply respond, as we do at present, to Treasury demands for cuts?
    Mr. Rifkind: I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman's question. My predecessor and his colleagues gave deep consideration to the likely demands on our armed forces in the years to come. Of course we continue to monitor the international situation. It is always appropriate in this country and in any other country continually to assess the demands likely to be made on our armed forces over the years and to ensure that our armed forces are of a scale and quality able to respond to those challenges.

    Eltham Palace
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when and how decisions will be made on the future of Eltham palace.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: A study examining the implications of moving the headquarters of the director of educational and training services (Army), including the Service Children's Education Authority, to Worthy Down is nearing completion. No decision will be taken before we have consulted all concerned, including the trade unions.
    Mr. Bottomley: Will my right hon. Friend accept that my suggestion that a deputation should meet him or his colleagues because the future of Eltham palace, with its historic setting and great hall, should continue to be linked to education, whether or not with a military connection? That is a matter of great concern locally, although it may not be the biggest issue facing the military services at the moment.
    Mr. Hamilton: I should be delighted to receive a delegation from my hon. Friend and to discuss the future of Eltham palace with him. We are having discussions at the moment with the Crown Estate Commissioners, the freeholders of Eltham palace, about how Eltham palace might be handed back.

    "Options for Change"
    Mr. Viggers: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the implementation of the programme "Options for Change" for the armed forces.
    Mr. Rifkind: "Options for Change" is a necessary reform which has its parallels in all NATO countries as well as in those of the former Warsaw pact. A number of

    693
    announcements have already been made about the implementation of our proposals; I will continue to keep the House fully informed of progress.
    Mr. Viggers: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Does he recall that when the Select Committee on Defence examined the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1991 it considered a range of defence procurement projects and concluded that if all the projects were to go ahead, that would lead to what the Select Committee called "a strikingly well-equipped Army"? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that that procurement is now going ahead, confirming the Government's claim that although the armed forces will be smaller, they will be more flexible and better equipped? Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept—this concerns many people in my constituency who are armed forces personnel—that the armed forces continue to provide an excellent career opportunity?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct. The Select Committee referred to the fact that the Army should have available to it proper equipment of a high quality and it mentioned the Challenger tanks for the Royal Armoured Corps, armoured personnel carriers and other forms of equipment, all of which are at various stages of implementation. I warmly endorse my hon. Friend's final comment that a career in the armed forces still offers superb opportunities and can be a source of considerable fulfilment for the men and women coming forward to serve in the forces now.
    Sir David Steel: A few moments ago the Secretary of State drew a proper distinction between peacekeeping forces and peace enforcing forces. Is he aware that hon. Members are concerned about the lack of capacity under the "Options for Change" scheme to engage in future peace enforcement activities, which is a crucial role for this country as a permanent member of the Security Council?
    Mr. Rifkind: I hear the right hon. Gentleman's point. I remind him that at present there are 1,200 British forces involved in various United Nations peacekeeping forces in Croatia and Cyprus; they will also be in Cambodia and several other countries. I think that we have demonstrated our commitment to the United Nations and our ability to respond to reasonable requests from that body.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many of us who supported the "Options for Change" decision in the last Parliament, although we were well aware that we were cutting very close to the bone, would not be prepared to back any further cuts that might be suggested by the Treasury? Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that he has considerable support on the Conservative Benches for a bit of early firing in that direction?
    Mr. Rifkind: I am naturally delighted to hear what my hon. Friend says. I accept his remarks both in the spirit and in the letter.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the Secretary of State's assurance that he will keep us informed of changes. When will he make a statement about the reorganisation of the medical reserves in the Territorial Army, bearing in mind the need to keep a strong medical team in the light of our experiences in the Gulf preparation and in the ensuring conflict?
    Mr. Rifkind: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a date at present, but perhaps I may keep him fully informed as soon as that information is available.
    Mr. Cormack: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is continuing widespread concern at the cuts in the infantry? Will he look again at that? Does he appreciate that the concern would be considerably reduced in Staffordshire if he reprieved the Staffordshire regiment?
    Mr. Rifkind: I am, of course, aware that concern has been expressed in a number of different quarters. I acknowledge that it is very important to ensure that future force levels will be adequate to the tasks that we ask the services to undertake. I intend to keep that requirement firmly in mind.

    Sport
    Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any proposals to amend the list of sporting activities recognised within the armed forces.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: We have no plans at present to alter the list of sports which are officially recognised. The range of sports which enjoy official recognition is, however, kept under review to ensure that it reflects demand originating from grass roots level within the services.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: The Minister will recall meeting an all party delegation in March about the recognition of rugby league in the armed forces. What steps were taken to communicate the outcome of that meeting to the heads of establishments and units within the armed forces? Why, at certain RAF stations, were station orders posted indicating that personnel should not have contact with the rugby league's national development officer? Why were personnel at RAF Marham, who were organising a rugby league competition next Saturday, refused permission to use the pitches at that base? That seems to be completely against the spirit of what was agreed at the meeting in March.
    Mr. Hamilton: As I assured the hon. Gentleman at the meeting, we were happy to give him all possible facilities in terms of publicity material which would be circulated within the three armed services. I have no idea why facilities should have been debarred or such notices put up: it is totally against the spirit of the undertaking that I gave the hon. Gentleman at our meeting, and I will investigate both events.

    Surplus Land
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are his proposals for the return to public use of surplus Ministry of Defence land; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: The rationalisation of our land holdings and the early disposal of surplus property remains a high priority.
    Mr. Hughes: Given that in 1985 Ministry of Defence policy was confirmed as being to acquire an extra 50,000 acres of land for training purposes, and given that on II February the National Audit Office said that the proposals were unjustified in terms of supporting evidence and that

    695
    they would use more land than was needed, will the Government now agree to an independent external review of Ministry of Defence land holdings so that we can ensure that it has the right land in the right place, and that it uses it properly and fully, and no more?
    Mr. Hamilton: I do not think that an external audit is necessary. We are trying to make sure that the training areas that we have are suitable for the weapons systems and the type of training that we are trying to do. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the range of many of our weapons systems gets longer all the time, so we need bigger training areas. As the hon. Gentleman will also know, we are bringing back some troops and weapons systems from Germany, which will also change our demand and need for training areas. We constantly review the number of training areas that we have and we dispose of unwanted land whenever we possibly can. The hon. Gentleman will know that we disposed of £102 million of surplus property last year and £86 million the year before. We are hoping to repeat a £100 million disposal this year.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Should my right hon. and learned Friend be considering proposals to buy yet more land north of Bristol to build yet another MOD facility when we have excellent and underused facilities at Portland which could accommodate all the necessary staff? Will my right hon. and learned Friend instruct the MOD to stop looking at new sites and use the sites that we already have?
    Mr. Hamilton: I can certainly give my hon. Friend the undertaking that he needs. We seriously consider our own land holdings. Only with the greatest reluctance would we purchase new land to put up new office blocks and so forth. Obviously, we prefer to use the land that we already have.
    Mr. Cryer: Does the Minister recall that a few years ago the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) went to Molesworth common in a flak jacket and with more troops than stormed Goose green in the Falklands war to turn off a dozen peace people who were growing crops? Would it not be a good idea for the Ministry of Defence to put Molesworth and Greenham common to use for growing food? It should get rid of the land entirely. It is no longer necessary. It should give the food to the starving people of the world. That would also be a good principle to apply to the expenditure on Trident. We should cancel Trident and use the money for the national health service and the starving people of the world.
    Mr. Hamilton: If the hon. Gentleman is such a good friend of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, perhaps he would like to go down to Greenham common and remind the women down there that the missiles have left and no one can understand why they are still sitting there making a filthy mess of the area.
    Mr. John Greenway: Is there not already plenty of public access to much land already owned by the Ministry of Defence? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that as the need for such land perhaps reduces in the years to come there will be proper consultation with local authorities and the countryside agencies about the continuing amenity value of the land to the public and its value for nature conservation?
    Mr. Hamilton: Yes, indeed. We issued a pamphlet recently at a press conference given by Lord Cranborne. It
    696
    was pointed out that we give access to most of our training areas. There are footpaths where people can walk and when ranges are not being used for live firing they are available to the public. We are considering ways of making our ranges increasingly available to the public when we are not using them.

    NATO
    Mr. McAllion: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next intends to meet other NATO Defence Ministers to discuss NATO defence policy.
    Mr. Rifkind: I met my NATO colleagues last week at meetings of the Eurogroup, the Defence Planning Committee and the Nuclear Planning Group in Brussels. We discussed a range of current alliance business and reaffirmed NATO's fundamental importance to the security of Europe. Copies of the communiqués issued following the meetings have been placed in the Library.
    Mr. McAllion: With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact, is it not time to reassess with our NATO allies our strategic defence policies, including a full review of our so-called independent nuclear deterrent? Should not that review begin by calling into question the relevance of keeping one Polaris at sea at all times when, according to press reports today, safety problems caused by that policy are endangering the lives of submariners and the public by increasing the likelihood of a nuclear accident?
    Mr. Rifkind: The reports to which the hon. Gentleman refers have already been repudiated as baseless. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that no submarine goes to sea unless all safety requirements have been fully complied with. On the general strategic situation, the hon. Gentleman must be aware not only that Russia remains a major nuclear super-power but that massive reductions in the nuclear potential of both the alliance and the former Soviet Union are already taking place. The United Kingdom has indicated its intention to withdraw certain tactical and other nuclear missiles as a contribution towards that welcome process.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure at his next meeting with his counterparts in other NATO countries that the naval forces of the alliance will be available if necessary to enforce the United Nations blockade imposed against Serbia? It must be made effective. Could those naval forces also be a deterrent against the indiscriminate use of force by the Yugoslav navy against helpless civilians in Dubrovnik and other Croatian towns?
    Mr. Rifkind: The decisions taken so far have been to impose economic sanctions against the Yugoslav republic. No decision has been taken by the United Nations in favour of a naval blockade. If any proposal is made, we shall have to consider it, but there is no such proposal before the international community at present.
    Dr. Godman: Is not it inevitable that Europe—through the Western European Union rather than NATO—will have to take a much greater responsibility for its security and defence? Is not it also likely that future American presidents will come under enormous pressure from the United States Congress and the American people to reduce

    697
    their commitment to the defence of Europe? When will the Government face up to the realities surrounding the security and defence of Europe?
    Mr. Rifkind: There might be pressures of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but I remind him that the Atlantic alliance has been uniquely successful in ensuring the peace of Europe for the past 40 to 50 years. I and the Government believe that the alliance has a continuing relevance to the well-being of Europe. It is interesting that the newer, emerging democracies in Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary emphasise the desirability of NATO continuing, and that that is also the view of the majority of people in the United States.
    Sir Michael Marshall: Would my right hon. and learned Friend care to expand the answer that he has just given by rejecting what the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) has just urged him to do? Surely, when one considers Yugoslavia or the world scene at present, the link with NATO, within the United Nations, is likely to be the more fruitful in dealing with many worldwide problems. We must all play our part. Does he agree that the idea of Franco-German or other European initiatives is premature and ineffective?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct. The NATO alliance represents an area of stability in a continent which has unfortunately become turbulent, and it is appropriate for us to consider—as is being done within NATO—whether NATO can make additional contributions towards peacekeeping or other requirements. Those matters still have to be discussed and conclusions have to be reached. However, I am sure that NATO continues to have an enormous contribution to make to the security and well-being of the countries that make up the alliance and of Europe.

    Infantry
    Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to be in a position to respond to the Select Committee on Defence's proposals on the size of the infantry in "Options for Change".
    Mr. Rifkind: I expect to be in a position to respond shortly to the Defence Select Committee's third report.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Secretary of State recall that, at the time of the Kincardine and Deeside by-election, he wrote a letter expressing his hope at that stage that some of the proposed amalgamations for the Scottish regiments could be reconsidered? Having regard to the situation that obtains in Yugoslavia and to the extra demands that may be made on our infantry, and to the intolerable pressure on service families in some regiments facing amalgamation, would the Secretary of State respond as early as possible? Will he make his response positive and reprieve, or bring back, at least some of the regiments facing amalgamation?
    Mr. Rifkind: I have said that it is important to ensure that the needs of the armed forces are fully met and that we do not impose on them any requirements to which they cannot properly respond. It is therefore important to use those criteria to determine the imposition of "Options for Change" during the next two years. Parallels can be found
    698
    throughout the western world which show that substantial savings can be made on defence and they are appropriate at the present time.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear it in mind that it is better to take time and to view the matter coolly and properly, rather than to make hasty decisions? Most defence decisions are made in the light of events and in many areas of the world, those events are not under our control. Yet, as history has shown, we are often required to send Scottish regiments to trouble spots around the world.
    Mr. Rifkind: As my hon. Friend said, it is certainly the case that our armed forces have often been called on to meet obligations in other parts of the world. About 1,200 British forces are in peace-keeping roles in other countries, and we have 13 United Kingdom dependent territories, many of which require a military presence to ensure their security. All those factors have to be taken into account when determining what the force levels in the armed forces should be in the years to come.
    Dr. Reid: May I take this first opportunity to congratulate the Secretary of State on his appointment? Is not the fact that he holds that office, and that the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) has demitted office, a sign and a tacit admission that the Government got their sums wrong over "Options for Change"? Will he now answer the question put to him—does he stand by the views that he expressed in his letter during the Kincardine and Deeside by-election about the possible overstretch of the infantry? Will he give us, in plain words, a guarantee that that decision will be re-examined, as urged by every section of the House, including the Select Committee on Defence, apart from his predecessor?
    Mr. Rifkind: May I first pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), the former Secretary of State for Defence, for the courage with which he proposed "Options for Change"? Throughout that time he showed a determination worthy of our admiration. With regard to the issues to which the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) referred, I emphasise that I attach considerable importance to ensuring that force levels are appropriate to the demands expected of our armed forces. If the Government ever came to the view that force levels needed to be reviewed that is what they would do. Those are the criteria to apply.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that real and informed concern is being expressed within military and civilian circles about the future size of the infantry, bearing in mind our responsibilities, not least in Northern Ireland? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that overstretch is a serious problem? Will he consider the report by the Select Committee on Defence? Will he consider, once again, the excellent case for the retention, as a single county, regiment, of the Cheshire regiment, which is well recruited and well retained?
    Mr. Rifkind: I note what my hon. Friend says. To put the position completely in the round, my hon. Friend is aware that there are proposals not only to reduce the number of battalions in the armed forces but to reduce greatly their commitments because of the rundown of our forces on the continent and, ultimately, the withdrawal of

    699
    certain battalions from Hong Kong. Those factors must be borne in mind when deciding what the appropriate level of our forces should be.

    Secrecy Classification
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at what level of secrecy classification he is willing to disclose documents to hon. Members.
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): Hon. Members may be allowed access to information at various levels of classification depending on the circumstances. Classified information is also made available in accordance with the published rules to members of Select Committees.
    Mr. Jones: I think that I heard the Minister's reply that, sometimes, restricted documents would be available. May I remind the Minister that, last year, I asked the Secretary of State for the criteria applied to the construction of safe ranges? That information was refused me as it is in a classified document. I was then sent it anonymously—[Interruption.] Does the Minister agree that it is ludicrous for the information on the safety criteria for ranges to be classified in any way and that it is even more ludicrous for hon. Members to be refused access to that information? Is it not even more ludicrous—[Interruption.] Is it not even more ludicrous that I was able to obtain a copy of that document not from some foreign agency, but from a constituent of mine? Does he not—
    Madam Speaker: Order. This is Question Time. It is not a debate and the hon. Member has asked quite enough questions.
    Mr. Aitken: There is no ministerial responsibility for anonymous letters.
    Mr. Dickens: Am I not right in saying that the key element in the defence of the realm is surprise and that there is a great difference between betraying classified information to a potential enemy and the citizens charter, which gives people their rights? We must be careful in the information that we make available.
    Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend has made his point in his usual robust way. He is right to point out that there is a difference between classified information and the information covered by the citizens charter, which is simply information already in the public domain, but which needs greater and wider amplification.

    Trident
    Mr. Raynsford: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will be placing an order for the fourth Trident.
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to place an order for the fourth Trident.
    Mr. Aitken: We intend to place the order for the fourth Vanguard class submarine as soon as contract negotiations with Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Limited have been satisfactorily concluded.
    Mr. Raynsford: What is the Minister's latest estimate of the total cost of the Trident programme, including
    700
    inevitable future costs such as decommissioning? How do those costs compare with original estimates for the programme and what value-for-money criteria are applied to that element of Government expenditure?
    Mr. Aitken: I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that Trident remains on time and within budget. The total procurement cost is £10·5 billion, which is £2·9 billion less than the original cost estimate, a point which was well praised by the Select Committee on Defence which said that it was pleased by the
    "gratifying and unusual spectacle of a major defence procurement programme coming in far below estimate."
    I hope that the hon. Gentleman is pleased with that good news. I can tell him, in answer to his questions about other costs, that the general operating costs of Trident are expected to be similar in percentage terms to those of the Polaris programme—that is, something below 2 per cent. of the overall defence budget.
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: Is the Minister aware that that cost is more than double even the amount of public money that the Conservatives have put into the failed docklands development? Will he consider including the whole Trident programme in the arms reduction talks with the Americans and Russians when the new round of talks start, enabling the programme to be decommissioned and the money put into social and economic programmes that better serve inner-city residents? Or is he considering putting 6,000 civil servants on the first Trident submarine to be commissioned?
    Mr. Aitken: That would make the Trident submarine rather overcrowded. I do not think that we could accept the hon. Lady's suggestion under any possible terms. Trident is a minimum deterrent system. That view was endorsed by President Yeltsin during his recent visit to Britain. We do not believe that we can make compromises with Britain's essential security requirements.
    Mr. Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the importance to the north-west region of the Trident project and of the European fighter project and make sure that both go ahead?
    Mr. Aitken: I agree with my hon. Friend that the employment dimension of those programmes is of considerable significance. The United Kingdom Trident programme will provide, at its peak, 14,500 direct and 11,500 indirect jobs in this country. I am glad that my hon. Friend's constituency is benefiting from those arrangements.
    Mrs. Gorman: Is my hon. Friend aware that some Opposition Members, including, I believe, the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), think that we should order these splendid vessels but not put missiles on them? Would that not be equivalent to ordering a Rolls-Royce and neglecting to put in a chauffeur?
    Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend is right to point out that during the election campaign statements were made by members of the various wings and splinter groups of the Labour party which would have made a complete Alice in Wonderland situation of any defence policy.
    Mr. O'Neill: Will the Minister explain why the country can be defended with a minimum deterrent of three Polaris boats now but will require four Trident boats in the year 2000?
    Mr. Aitken: I can answer that question easily. The country is defended over only a short period by three Polaris boats. All informed naval opinion is agreed that if we are to have a safe and secure nuclear deterrent, with submarines on patrol at all times, it is necessary for us to have a four-boat operation.
    Mr. Brazier: I offer a belated welcome to my hon. Friend on his new position. It is overdue promotion. If poachers make the best gamekeepers, I am certain that our secrets and Trident submarines will be very safe indeed. Will he confirm that intelligence reports show that more and more third-world countries are acquiring nuclear weapons, and that while a Conservative Government are in office, there will be no question of our forgoing our minimal nuclear deterrent, the Trident programme?
    Mr. Aitken: It appears to be a matter of published record that some unfriendly countries are acquiring the old hardware of the former Soviet Union. That does indeed make for a dangerous and unstable situation. So this is not the moment for Britain to be in any way relaxing its guard, with its independent nuclear deterrent the ultimate safeguard of our national security.

    Royal Fleet Auxiliary
    Mr. Loyden: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the present number of Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels in commission.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: The Royal Fleet Auxiliary currently has 22 vessels in commission; II tankers, four replenishment ships, five landing ships logistic, a helicopter support ship and a forward repair ship.
    Mr. Loyden: Is it not a disgrace that, during the Gulf war, out of the more than 100 ships that were commissioned, only four or five were British owned and flagged? When will the Government recognise that they must support the British merchant fleet so that, when vessels are needed they are available, rather than the Government having to use foreign-flagged and registered ships? When will they wake up to the fact that the British merchant fleet must be stimulated so that the ships are there when needed?
    Mr. Hamilton: During the Gulf war, most of the British ships that we might have chartered were occupied doing other things and were not available for charter, so we chartered on the open market and satisfactorily proved that we could get supplies to the Gulf during the war without needing British ships. We keep the British register under careful review and would be concerned if the numbers of merchant ships were declining too fast. The situation is not yet drastic.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ms. Primarolo: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 June.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Ms. Primarolo: Does the Prime Minister recall that on 6 May he told the House that he wanted to sign the global convention on biodiversity at Rio? Does he agree that it would be indefensible for any major power to refuse to sign a treaty that halts the mass destruction of species by human intervention?
    The Prime Minister: We are working hard to make sure that we shall be in a position to sign the convention. As the hon. Lady knows, this country leads the world in scientific expertise on biodiversity, not least at Kew, and we play an important international role in attempts to achieve a convention that can be signed generally. A number of countries have financial concerns about the convention, and the particular concern, which I hope we shall be able to overcome, is that the financial articles imply an open-ended commitment to provide developing countries with additional finance, without the necessary corresponding commitments to conserving biodiversity. That is not of any interest to us or to them.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Has the Prime Minister heard of the threat issued yesterday by Commissioner Scrivener to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he would be taken to court and Britain would be in real trouble if we did not agree, next Tuesday, to the long-term charging of VAT on food, gas, electricity and children's clothing? Will the Prime Minister give us a clear undertaking that there will be no surrender next Tuesday?
    The Prime Minister: There is no question of the United Kingdom being forced to give up zero rates, which are guaranteed in the sixth VAT directive. The question at issue is whether the Council should agree to a legally binding minimum rate of VAT. We do not believe that that is necessary for the completion of the single market. A number of related issues remain to be resolved, including excise duties, but we cannot accept an agreement that would force member states to impose large increases in duty on spirits, to the detriment of our industry. The sixth directive is the key point on the substance of my hon. Friend's question.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister agree that widespread poverty in the third world is a major cause of damage to the world environment? If he does agree, what new action will he be proposing in Rio to combat that poverty more effectively?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have one of the most effective development aid programmes of any country in the world—[Interruption.] I am sorry that Opposition Members appear not to recognise that fact. I repeat, we have one of the most effective aid programmes anywhere in the world. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, with the Toronto terms and the Trinidad terms Britain led the way in encouraging countries across the world to write off large amounts of debt specifically to help the poorest countries.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister really cannot defend the Government's record on development aid. The Government have cut by half the amount and the value of official development aid to the third world since they have been in power. When the poorest countries in the world are putting a net £50 billion in debt repayments back into the richest countries in the world, does not the Prime Minister think that those industrialised countries should make

    703
    much bigger investment commitments to the conservation and protection of the world environment, not only to combat poverty in the third world but to conserve our global environment?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman touches on a matter on which there is agreement in substance across the House. There is no dispute about the need for help. Where I part company with the right hon. Gentleman is in his assertion that Britain has not led the way in the quantity and quality of assistance and aid that it has given for many years, not just in direct aid but in the substantial debt write-offs, to which I just referred but to which the right hon. Gentleman did not, and in the substantive amount of private sector investment that also goes into third-world countries. If the right hon. Gentleman is unwilling to take my word for that, I suggest that he talks to the leaders of the third-world countries and hears what they have to say about the quantity and quality of our assistance to them.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister will, no doubt, be speaking to some of the Heads of Government of third-world countries in the course of the next week or so and perhaps he will faithfully report to us the view of Britain's cut by half—I repeat that, because it is true—in overseas development assistance during the past 10 or 12 years. The crisis of poverty and environmental degradation is continuing. Will the Prime Minister now tell us what he will specifically propose in the way of action in Rio and afterwards in order to arrest the increasing tide of poverty and the increase in degradation, both of which are linked?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman really ought to know that we address the question of direct financial resources to overseas aid at the time of the public expenditure round. We have done so consistently and we have dramatically increased in real terms the amount of aid, and directed the aid better to those areas where it most needs to go. I shall certainly discuss that with fellow Heads of Government from other parts of the world, as I have done repeatedly in recent years. I am in a better position than the right hon. Gentleman to know their view on our contribution.
    Mr. Jessel: When my right hon. Friend is in Rio, will he have the opportunity to mention to the Government of Brazil the concern in Britain about the murder of children on the streets of Rio?
    The Prime Minister: I shall have a number of opportunities in Brazil to discuss matters with other Heads of Government and I shall certainly take the opportunity where appropriate to raise the point made by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister realise that the answers that he has given today to the massive challenges that face us at Rio are frankly pathetic? Does he not have any understanding that this is probably the last best chance that we have to allow the planet to heal itself and that if he and his fellow leaders will not rise to that challenge they will be condemned?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is talking copper-plated nonsense. The reality is that Britain has led the way in the preparation of much of the work that comes to fruition in Rio. It is this country which has
    704
    led the way. This is the start of a continuing process. This is not, as the right hon. Gentleman apparently rather inaccurately believes, the beginning and end of the process. As I told the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) three weeks ago in the House, it will take a long time for all our ambitions on the environment to be reached. We are dealing with practical measures. The right hon. Gentleman may dream, but we have practical action to take.
    Mr. John Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Evans: Will the Prime Minister take a few minutes off dithering as to how or whether he will vote at the Earth summit, to explain to the British people why, at a time when British unemployment is heading towards 3 million and the public sector borrowing requirement is on course to reach £40 billion, Britain's balance of payments deficit in April was in excess of £1,300 million? Is this country headed for an economic miracle or for an economic nightmare?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is, as usual, remarkably selective in what he says and looks at. If the hon. Gentleman had looked at what business men have said in the period since the election—[Interruption.] Well, business men know rather more about it than the hon. Gentleman will ever do. The hon. Gentleman might have seen the Confederation of British Industry report on small business men, who are more confident about growth now than at any time in the last few years. He might have noted also the EC Gallup survey, which shows a strong increase in confidence, and the sharp rise in confidence and activity in other CBI surveys. The hon. Gentleman might have seen a great deal more if he had removed the blinkers from his eyes.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Arnold: During his visit to central Europe last week, did my right hon. Friend have the opportunity to meet the leaders of Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary, to discuss their potential applications to join the European Community?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. I assure my hon. Friend that I had discussions with the leaders of each of those three countries on precisely that point. The freedom of those countries and their removal from the old Soviet bloc is one of the most welcome international developments since the second world war. They are now committed to democracy and to free market economics. During our presidency of the Community, we want to put solid flesh on the association agreements that we signed with them. We look forward to the day when they join the Community, even though that may not be until the turn of the century. Our judgment is that the best way to enhance democracy is to share it—and that is what we intend to do in the case of those countries.
    Mr. McMaster: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. McMaster: Does the Prime Minister recall that during Question Time two weeks ago, he promised to respect the democratically expressed wishes of the people of Northern Ireland? If it was right to give that commitment to one part of the Union a fortnight ago, is it not right to give the same commitment to the people of Scotland today? When the Prime Minister visited Scotland yesterday, why did he promise only to think long and hard about Scotland's future—so long and hard that four hours later, he ruled out a Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom? If the right hon. Gentleman is a democrat, will he give to the Scottish people the right to decide their own future in a multioption referendum?
    The Prime Minister: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's latter question is no. As to his point about a tax-raising Parliament in Scotland, I ruled that out some time ago in the House and elsewhere for reasons that were sound then, are sound now and will remain sound in the future. The hon. Gentleman need not ask me about that matter—it is settled.
    Mr. Alexander: Has my right hon. Friend taken note of the effectiveness of the temporary abolition a few months ago of stamp duty on house purchase? Bearing in mind that the Exchequer forwent very little revenue, will my right hon. Friend recommend to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that when the temporary abolition expires in August, it be made permanent?
    The Prime Minister: No. I am afraid that I cannot undertake to do that. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will examine that matter in August. The original proposition was that stamp duty exemption would last until August and not longer.
    Mr. Pendry: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Pendry: Is the Prime Minister aware that the staggering increase in crime in London that was revealed yesterday is symptomatic of a worrying concern throughout the land? That includes my constituency, where crime has doubled in the past decade. With that reality in mind, will the Prime Minister do something positive, such as unlocking the handcuffs from the Home Secretary so that he can get to grips with the Government's own crime prevention report—the Morgan report, which said something positive about crime in this country and which the Government shelved last August? Would not that be the way for the Prime Minister at least to appease the chairman of the Police Federation, who said only last month that the Government were blaming the police because they had no ideas of their own?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman might care to examine the increased resources in both manpower and equipment, quite apart from the increased legal facilities that have been made available to the police. I also think that we should not be blind to the achievements of the Metropolitan police, such as the improvements in the clear-up rate that we have seen in recent years. They have made dramatic improvements in a number of areas.
    Another point, with which I know that the hon. Gentleman will agree, is that tackling crime is not just a matter for the police. Increasingly, people in society at all levels can be seen playing their own role, and it is essential for that to continue.

Canary Wharf
3.30 pm
Mr. Bryan Gould(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement about the future of the Canary Wharf project, and what decision, if any, has been made about the transfer of civil servants.
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Howard): The future of the Canary Wharf development is in the hands of the administrators who were appointed last week to resolve the financial problems of Olympia and York with their creditors. The Government have made it clear that they have no intention of intervening in the affairs of the company, and it would be inappropriate for me to make any further comment on that at this time. There has, however, been much speculation in the media about the possible move of civil servants to docklands. I am grateful for this opportunity to clarify the position.
As the House knows, my predecessor decided in February that my Department's headquarters at 2 Marsham street should be demolished. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That decision was widely welcomed—and clearly still is. A timetable for moving staff by the end of 1993 was then identified. In the context of that decision, consideration is being given to the relocation of those of the Department's staff who need to remain in London, but not in Westminster. As my predecessor told the House, the Department was particularly asked to examine the opportunities and value for money of relocation to docklands.
It is clear that exceptional value for money may now be secured in docklands. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. This is an important statement, which I want to hear. Let us carry on with it in good order.
Mr. Howard: The work that has been done by the Department's advisers has reached a stage that makes it possible for me to announce that some 2,000 civil servants in my Department will move to docklands, provided that we are able to secure fully commercial terms giving value for money to the taxpayer. Detailed negotiations are now under way in respect of three developments: Harbour Exchange, East India dock and Canary Wharf. Subject to successful negotiations, I hope soon to proceed to the stage at which it will be possible for me to sign heads of agreement in respect of one of those developments.
A number of other Departments are also considering docklands as a location for their staff. The Department of Trade and Industry is working to a timetable similar to my own in respect of the Radio Communications Agency. That Department, with a number of other major Departments—including the Department of Transport—is reviewing its future accommodation needs, and is including docklands among the options for study. Decisions are likely later this year.
In all those decisions, I have been very much aware of the concerns of staff and of the need to put in place arrangements that will help to minimise the effect of any such moves on staff in the Departments concerned.
Mr. Gould: Is it not astonishing that the Government are still dithering about accepting their responsibility for a
708
fiasco that is largely of their own creation? Do not Ministers accept that it was they who irresponsibly stoked up a property boom and who equally deliberately brought it crashing down, and that it was their blind faith in market forces which excluded the interests of local people and ensured that essential infrastructure simply did not get built? Canary Wharf is a monument to the Government's folly, as well as to the folly of the banks involved.
Is it not time to do what should have been done in the first place: make a proper assessment of where the public interest, and therefore the public responsibility, lies? That can be done only on the basis of full disclosure and total transparency. It cannot be done through a back-door deal to channel taxpayers' money to Olympia and York by way of rents for office space that cannot otherwise be let. Since that is so clearly what is in Ministers' minds, what consultation, if any, has there been with the civil servants who will have to move? What assessment has been made of the costs, administrative and financial, that will be involved? What guarantee is there that there will be no element of hidden subsidy in the move that is proposed?
Does not the Secretary of State recognise that the response of the House to his announcement will be reflected by the response of the people of this country? They will recognise not only that the Olympia and York investment is at stake but that Ministers' reputations are being protected. Is it not the case that the public interest cannot be properly protected unless we know to what extent it is already involved? When will Ministers tell us the truth about how much taxpayers' money has already found its way into this project by way of direct grant, tax breaks and rate relief, and when will the Government publish the agreements concluded between Olympia and York and Government Departments so that we can judge what is involved if the Jubilee line extension, which is surely essential to the project, is to be undertaken?
No one wants to see this project fail. We on this side of the House have no investment in failure—nor do the long-suffering people of east London—but we cannot judge the action needed until we know the facts. It is time for the Government to come clean and to face up, at last, to their responsibilities.
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is living in a fantasy world. There is no question whatever of back-door deals. There is no question of subsidy, hidden or otherwise. There has never been any subsidy for this development. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the grants which have been made to the London Docklands development corporation for the development of docklands as a whole are a matter of public record and are there for the House, the country and the world to see. The decisions on relocation will be taken in full consultation with the trade unions that represent the staff. The decision which I have just announced to narrow the options was taken on the basis of a value-for-money survey that was put in place, following my predecessor's much welcomed decision to vacate the Marsham street building so that it could be demolished.
Mr. Robert Adley: Did my right hon. and learned Friend note that the one group whom the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) failed to mention was the taxpayer, and that most normal people will regard the Secretary of State as doing nothing less than his duty in trying to ensure better value for money for the taxpayer?

709
If I may ask my right hon. and learned Friend one specific question about the transport infrastructure, what principle lies behind the proposition that the taxpayer has funded £250 million for one and a half miles of road while the private sector is expected to fund part of the cost of the railway line?
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right to identify the criterion that we have applied and pursued in considering this matter. He referred to the cost of the Jubilee line extension in the second part of his question. It is widely accepted that there is a role for mixed public and private sector funding in such a development. The owners of the Canary Wharf development, whoever they may be, will benefit from the fact that there will be a station at Canary Wharf on the Jubilee line extension. That is why Olympia and York thought it appropriate to offer a contribution of £400 million towards the cost of the line and why I have no doubt that any other owners of the development will think it right to make a similar contribution.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Does not the Secretary of State's announcement confirm that the rescue or salvation of Canary Wharf will not be achieved only by market forces, any more than was the development of docklands in the 1980s? Is it not true that, although the jobs of civil servants are important, the jobs of people in the docklands boroughs, with some of the highest unemployment rates in the country, are far more important and far more a reason for ensuring that the project does not fail?
If civil servants are to travel from Whitehall to docklands, is it not the most ridiculous proposition in the world that there should be no direct rail link? Do riot the Government realise that the money for the Jubilee line extension must be secured by the end of this month, since otherwise the team of engineers and so on working on it will not be in place and the project will fall apart?
Mr. Howard: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, the team at London Transport will be kept in being while negotiations take place over the completion of the Jubilee line extension. I was interested in the hon. Gentleman's observations about jobs in docklands. He did not mention the fact that the number of jobs in docklands has doubled since the development corporation was established, and there are now 60,000 people employed in docklands. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would want to give some credit for what has been achieved by the corporation during its existence. The hon. Gentleman seemed to be coming perilously close to suggesting that the Government should bale out this project. That is not our intention, and we shall not do so.
Mr. Roger Moate: My right hon. Friend is already aware of the widespread welcome for the imminent demise of Marsham street. However, if we are to make Westminster a more green and pleasant land, is it not illogical to add to the office surplus by putting even more offices in that location?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is widespread acceptance that the Jubilee line extension must be built, but that this is a time to be looking not for less private sector contribution but for other means of bringing more private sector participation into that underground line and others as well?
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend's first point anticipates a decision that has not yet been made about what is to happen at Marsham street. I agree with him that the principle of mixed private and public sector funding for developments such as the Jubilee line extension has obtained increasing acceptance and will, I expect, play a continuing role in such developments in the future.
Ms. Mildred Gordon: You may be aware, Madam Speaker, that more than 1,000 of my constituents are taking legal action to seek redress for the disruption caused to their lives by the Canary Wharf development and the Limehouse link road. My constituents want to know whether they will obtain any benefits from the public money that has gone into the area. If Government Departments move to Canary Wharf, will the Government have a policy of employing local people in the civil service, or will there be only part-time cleaning jobs and other jobs of that ilk?
If 5,000 civil servants move into the area, will the Jubilee line extension be built or will my constituents have to suffer daily the nightmarish congestion that they suffered whenever there was an event at the arena? Will the Government stop the LDDC giving crazy planning permission for further superfluous office developments such as that granted to Olympia and York for Heron Quays only a few weeks ago? Will the Secretary of State confirm or deny the recent press statements that the LDDC is to give land to developers and allow deferred payment until they make a profit? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman disputes my figures of nearly £3 billion of direct and indirect subsidy, when will he produce his own figures for the public money involved?
Mr. Howard: On the last point, I have already made it clear that the funds made available to the London Docklands development corporation are a matter of record and have been published more than once. I am surprised by the attitude that the hon. Lady adopts to the considerable number of jobs that have been created in docklands. I should have thought that she would welcome that.
As for the relocation of staff who work for the Department at the moment, wherever they live, we shall be assisting them when we move to docklands, as I expect we shall be able to do. I should have thought that the hon. Lady would be as keen as anyone to encourage the private sector to contribute £400 million to the cost of the Jubilee line extension, which will secure that extension's future.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend be realistic and recognise that civil servants such as those in my constituency in north-west London, who are prepared to put up with a difficult journey to central London because they welcome the good schools and the pleasant residential area in which they live, will not be prepared to travel to the Isle of Dogs unless good, effective and reliable high-speed surface transport is in place? To that end, is it not vital that the Jubilee line be completed—if necessary, with public money —and that the crossrail link be finished, with a platform at Northwood in my constituency, which was promised and then taken away?
Mr. Howard: I very much hope, and indeed expect for the reasons that I have given, that the Jubilee line extension will be completed. That line, and the

711
considerable improvements to the infrastructure of docklands, will make it quite feasible for civil servants to travel to docklands from my hon. Friend's constituency and from other parts of London and surrounding areas. As I said in my statement, we shall put in place arrangements to help to minimise the effects of any move on Departments' staff.
Mr. Peter Shore: Is the Secretary of State aware that he is dealing with the biggest failure of planning in post-war Britain? It is a perfect example of the folly of proceeding with a massive office development without making any sensible provision for public transport. Will he now answer, truthfully and directly, the question that was put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould): what is the cost, in terms of incentives paid for by the taxpayer, of the enterprise zone—in particular, the amount of money available by the suspension of the business rate for office development at Canary Wharf—and of the special facilities offered to assist construction by writing off initial allowances against expenditure? What is the cost to the taxpayer of those great concessions for Canary Wharf? Does he not accept that, if that vast amount of money is correct—we believe the figure to be correct—he has not given the House, or anyone in the east end, any prospect for the future? He is apparently prepared to write off completely his former investment.
Mr. Howard: The right hon. Gentleman's criticisms are entirely misconceived. I was astonished by the form in which they were made, because, when he held my office, docklands was renowned for dereliction—and for nothing else. Under the London Docklands development corporation, the position of docklands has been transformed, as the right hon. Gentleman knows only too well. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. I would be very much obliged if hon. Gentlemen would not bawl and shout from sedentary positions.
Mr. Howard: The right hon. Gentleman may be aware that the total sums made available to all enterprise zones amount to £660 million and that there are no figures available for individual enterprise zones. The benefits made available to docklands are in no small part responsible for that. The number of jobs in docklands has doubled over the relevant period. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will welcome that.
Mr. Mark Wolfson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is an interesting comparison between the new business centre development in docklands and La Defense in Paris? The development in Paris did not have an easy route, but in the end it has been highly successful. I am therefore optimistic that the docklands development will also be successful. However, there is one difference between Paris and here. The strategy of putting in a very effective public transport infrastructure was followed there, and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will give that a high priority here.
Mr. Howard: I have no doubt that the future of docklands will be as exciting as we originally contemplated it would be, and that it will realise its full development
712
potential. We have, of course, done a great deal to improve the infrastructure in and towards docklands. We are building roads, and some roads have been completed.
I have referred to the £400 million contribution offered by Olympia and York to the Jubilee line extension, which we expect any other owner of Canary Wharf to contribute. The taxpayer is contributing £1.5 billion towards the cost of the Jubliee line extension. We want and expect to put in place in docklands a partnership between the private sector, which I hope we shall see not only in docklands, but elsewhere in our country in future.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does not the Secretary of State agree that the collapse of Canary Wharf exemplifies the collapse of Thatcherite economics? Is it not a fact that, in addition to the inducements in the enterprise zone outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), there was no inquiry into the strategic planning implications of Canary Wharf, that public funds met most of the cost of the Bank extension and that the Jubilee line extension would not have been built without the presence of Canary Wharf? Is it not now a fact that the frontiers of the state statutory have been rolled back, that enormous sums of public money have rolled in and that the powers of Ministers and central Government have greatly increased, which has given them arbitrary powers of patronage over companies that come in? Even with all that, there is no assurance of success.
Mr. Howard: There is no question of arbitrary behaviour and no question of patronage. It is not the case that there was an absence of planning in docklands. The London Docklands development corporation drew up a plan and consulted the local authorities on it. The difference is that, under the LDDC, action has been taken to deal with the dereliction which was the hallmark of docklands when the local authorities were responsible for planning and development decisions. We have seen great progress made since the corporation was put in place.
The hon. Gentleman began by referring to the collapse of Canary Wharf. Canary Wharf has not collapsed. The fact that the company that developed it has now appointed administrators is an entirely different matter. There is a clear distinction between the fate of one private sector company and the fate of docklands. Docklands will realise its development potential in the future, to the benefit of all those who live in it and of the hon. Gentleman's constituents.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, given the scale of dereliction and unemployment in docklands, one should pay tribute this afternoon to the corporation, of which Canary Wharf is only one part, and to the vision and courage of the Reichmann brothers, without whom the development would not have been possible? Although they failed, they failed in the teeth of the worst recession since the war. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, as well as the Jubilee line, there is obviously a need to improve road communications? What is the up-to-date position on roads?
Mr. Howard: I can certainly help my hon. Friend with regard to the question of roads. Great progress is being made with the Limehouse link and the associated docklands highway. Those key road links will help greatly

713
to assist movement into and out of docklands. The docklands light railway is now operating to 95 per cent reliability. The perception of its reliability that still undoubtedly persists is no longer consistent with its performance.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is the Secretary of State sure that all those 2,000 jobs need to remain in London? Is there not a case for considering the dispersal of at least some of them? Is he aware that London weighting will still be allowed in docklands, but it is not allowed in Manchester, the north-east, Scotland or Wales? It has been estimated that London weighting can add up to £10 per square foot to the rent of such premises in London.
Mr. Howard: A very large proportion of my Department's staff already work outside of London. The decision to relocate in docklands relates to staff who need to be in London because they need to have regular contacts with Ministers, but do not need to be in quite such close proximity as to justify the retention of accommodation in Westminster. The point made by the right hon. Gentleman was taken into account.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. We must now move on

Yugoslavia (Sanctions)
3.55 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): As hon. Members will know, the United Nations Security Council decided on 30 May to impose sanctions on Serbia and Montenegro. The resolution contains one of the most comprehensive series of measures ever adopted by the United Nations. They include a ban on air links, a trade and oil embargo, a freeze on assets, a ban on official sporting contacts and an agreement to reduce the level of staff at diplomatic missions of the self-proclaimed Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The ban on arms sales adopted last year remains in force.
This and other elements of the embargo will be monitored by the Security Council committee established by one of the earlier resolutions on Yugoslavia. We shall play a full part in the work of that committee. We are also taking steps at home to implement the sanctions in the United Kingdom and dependent territories. Interim measures have been taken by the DTI and the Treasury, and Orders in Council will be put to the Privy Council on 4 June. The Yugoslav ambassador has been asked to leave.
The vote on this resolution reflects almost total unanimity among the international community. The world has been shocked by the persistent shellings and killings, and particularly recently by the carnage in Sarajevo. The resolution reflects condemnation of Serbia's brutal and expansionist policies under its present leadership. President Milosevic has refused to rein in the Serbs in Bosnia and has actively supported them through supplies of men and equipment. Under the pretext of withdrawal, he has transferred large parts of the federal army to local command in Bosnia.
Those warlords are using terror as a political weapon to create ethnically pure Serbian areas which will be attached to Serbia itself. There was never any justification for that policy. Before the fighting began, there was no threat to the welfare of the large Serbian community in Bosnia-Herzegovina from either Croats or Muslims. Croatia too has profited from the situation by infiltrating men and equipment into Croatian-inhabited areas of Herzegovina.
We hope that the mandatory provisions of resolution 757 will convince the leadership in Belgrade that they must abandon their present policies. We do not wish to penalise the Serbian people or to destroy their economy, but we must bring home to Mr. Milosevic and his supporters that the international community cannot tolerate his present policy.
The immediate requirement is for a complete cessation of hostilities. Next we must establish conditions in which the International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees can pursue their humanitarian tasks. They have our full support: we have so far given a total of £9.68 million to their appeals. The Belgrade authorities must also take steps to immobilise and disarm the irregular units which have been responsible for so much of the mayhem. This should allow the displaced persons who have now fled to all the five remaining republics to return to their homes. This in turn should lead to a political solution on the lines already prepared by and in principle agreed through the

715
good offices of Lord Carrington. I am in close touch with my European and United States colleagues as we work for those objectives.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement. We give our full support to United Nations Security Council resolution 757, and we urge that the United Nations sanctions should be rigorously enforced. As the right hon. Gentleman will recall, Opposition Front-Bench Members urged such comprehensive United Nations sanctions many months ago. It is possible that the situation might not have got so tragically out of hand if action had been taken sooner, but, now that action has been taken, we must hope and work for its success.
The right hon. Gentleman has not mentioned the use of force, and I welcome that. The situation is far too confused for forcible intervention from outside to do any positive good. It is certain that force would lead to further unnecessary bloodshed and increase the number of people at risk. I hope that the Government will stand out inflexibly against any suggestions of forcible intervention by the European Community.
It is my view that the excellent and admirable efforts of the European Community and its tireless representative, Lord Carrington, have been damaged, and perhaps to some extent even negated, by the unwise capitulation of European Community Foreign Ministers to the insistence of the German Government that every little self-declared republic in what was Yugoslavia should be given international recognition. That policy may have been a further incentive towards a disintegration that was always inherent.
The European Community should have no military role in this conflict or indeed in any other. The need is not to extend the conflict but to maintain it. The Foreign Secretary is right to assign principal responsibility to Mr. Milosevic and the Serbs. The acts of destruction of the Serbs toward Dubrovnik, although not the worst of their atrocities, are in their sheer wantonness symbolic of their lack of regard for a country which they say they want to safeguard.
The Foreign Secretary is equally right to make it clear that the Serbs are not the only guilty party—that others share that guilt. No solution will be acceptable unless it is based on the restoration of stability, coupled with the safeguarding of all minorities, and that includes Serbian minorities. We hope that the United Nations actions will provide a possibility for such a solution, and it is on that basis that we give the United Nations our full support.
Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). In view of his personal announcement today, may I say how much I shall miss him? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Other hon. Members will also miss him. The right hon. Gentleman has made for himself a reputation for a partisan ferocity which I can do nothing about and which I do not want to spoil this afternoon, as he has not displayed it. In my dealings with him from the Foreign Office and the Home Office, our exchanges have sometimes been pointed, but never excessively so. In the necessary dealings between us outside the House, I have found him to be invaluably straightforward and almost invariably helpful.
716
The right hon. Gentleman made a number of interesting points. He suggested—he may be right—that earlier sanctions might have prevented some of the trouble. There would certainly have been no support for sanctions of that kind at an earlier stage, as I found when I suggested oil sanctions towards the end of last year. Recent events—in part, the persecution of Muslims in Bosnia—have changed the situation in the United Nations.
The right hon. Gentleman wisely referred to the use of force. I notice various operations now being sketched in the newspapers. It is much easier to conceive of such operations in theory than to launch them in practice. It is much easier to launch them than to see how they could successfully be brought to an end, so caution on the subject is necessary.
I do not wish to go into the argument about recognition all over again. As I told the House in the Queen's Speech debate, the best answer would have been Yugoslavia by consent, but in the end that was not attainable. Once we said goodbye to that hope, towards the end of last summer, we were left with a series of republics. The question of how one dealt with and recognised them became a matter of timing rather than principle.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I remind the House at this stage that, if hon. Members ask precise questions on the Foreign Secretary's statement and we have short replies, it obviously follows that I shall be able to call far more Members.
Mr. Peter Fry: Of course there is agreement that international action was necessary to try to stop the fighting in Yugoslavia, but may I put it to my right hon. Friend that stopping the fighting should be the end purpose? Therefore, will he make it clear to those who advocate military action in Yugoslavia that it is much easier to get into a warlike situation there than to get out of it? Above all, we must avoid Yugoslavia becoming not just the Israel of the Balkans but the Vietnam of Europe.
Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend knows a good deal about Yugoslavia, and his words of warning are wise. What we can do and are doing is to offer negotiation, a conference and ideas, monitor the ceasefire if it is achieved, and give trade and economic help to those who co-operate and take measures against those who do not. That is necessary, and that we will do.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Will the Foreign Secretary accept that the majority of Members of this House applaud the action that has been taken by the United Nations to bring an end to the bloodshed in Yugoslavia? In future policy decisions within the European Community, will he take into account two possible dangers? First, we must be sufficiently outspoken about the human rights record in Croatia and especially the Croatians' attitude to the Serbian minority there. Secondly, while we would like to see the end of the Milosevic regime—I certainly would—there is a danger that the extremists who may control the guerrilla units in Bosnia will take a hand. Instead of better than Milosevic, we may have worse. Some worse people are around.
Mr. Hurd: On Croatia, the hon. Gentleman is right. It is important that the Croatian Government should carry

717
through the legislation to protect the rights of its minorities to completion, as Lord Carrington has recommended. We are watching that carefully. I do not want to pick and choose between the different candidates for rulers or the Government of Serbia. That is not our job. Our job is to ensure that the Serbs and Montenegrans, with whom we have no basic quarrel, observe the rules of international life, as they have emerged.
Mr. Michael Jopling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the huge majority of people will support him in his hopes that the proposed sanctions will create a change of policy in Belgrade? But will he recall that, often before from that Dispatch Box, pious hopes have been expressed that sanctions will cause the collapse of a regime, whether Rhodesia or, more recently, Iraq? The truth is that sanctions rarely seem to cause collapse. Such hopes are often followed by further discussion about the use of force. Will the Foreign Secretary give the House an undertaking that if, as may well happen, there is increasing talk about force in the future, he will go towards that option with only the greatest possible circumspection?
Mr. Hurd: I agree with my right hon. Friend. There is no magic about sanctions. However, I remind him that, neither in the case of Iraq nor now in the case of Serbia and Montenegro, do sanctions aim to change a regime. That has never been their purpose in those cases. I agree exactly with the formulation of the second part of my right hon. Friend's question.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Now that sanctions appear to be flavour of the month for the Tory Government, what has changed in respect of the sanctions that they refused to apply to South Africa and those that were supposed to be implemented against nations in the Gulf? What is new?
Mr. Hurd: What is new is that there has been a good deal of progress in South Africa, which is therefore the vindication of the stand that we took and of the lifting of most of the sanctions by the international community, following our lead.
Mr. Michael Colvin: My right hon. Friend's statement will be welcomed, as will resolution 757. I think that the House shares the view expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), that it is sometimes extremely difficult to make sanctions work. We have certainly seen that elsewhere in the world. Can my right hon. Friend tell the House what consideration has been given to a blockade to make sanctions work, and especially to a naval blockade, because it runs short of using force?
Mr. Hurd: There are no plans for that at present. Under international law, there is an obligation on all members of the United Nations to comply with the resolution, and a monitoring committee has been set up in New York. We shall have to see what happens, especially with regard to oil supplies, which traditionally have come down the Danube through Romania, but it is premature to assume that people will not comply with their obligations.
Mr. Tony Banks: Does the Foreign Secretary recall that, about eight months ago, some of us argued for sanctions to be taken against the
718
then Yugoslavia, especially against the Serbs, and that we met with blank refusals? Will he tell the House what attempts will be made to monitor sanctions? He just mentioned oil and, as there are no natural oil resources within Serbia, if oil can be cut off clearly sanctions will work. What monitoring will take place?
Mr. Hurd: I have just answered the hon. Gentleman's question. He was too busy preparing it to listen to my answer. He is right about the importance of oil. As he knows, I suggested oil sanctions some time ago, but there was no support for them. I am glad that there is support now. There is some oil production in Serbia and Croatia, but most oil is imported. It is therefore important that the flow of oil should be monitored by the sanctions committee, which I described to the House when the hon. Gentleman was not listening.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend explain how the sad fighting in Yugoslavia affects British national interests? Or is it the case that we have now taken on the role of some sort of second-class world policeman, whenever we can find a similar policeman among what he grandly calls the international community?
Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is entitled to take that view, but I do not think that it is shared by many of his constituents. When, night after night, people see on television destruction and massacre in a European city, most of them do not expect us to send in troops, but they expect us to take some sensible action, if we can, to bring that suffering to an end. I am not in favour of exaggerating what we can do, or of pretending that we are or can be a policeman. I am not speaking on behalf of the Twelve, or of the United Nations: I am merely saying that, where we can help to bring such suffering to an end, I am sure that it is the wish of the House and the country that we should do so.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: Does the Foreign Secretary recognise that, welcome though the imposition of sanctions is, they are likely to bear down disproportionately on the Albanian community in Kosovo? As well as working with his colleagues at European Community and United Nations level to make sanctions effective, is he bearing in mind the need for continuing diplomatic pressure to ensure the proper restoration of autonomy to Kosovo?
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned an important matter. That is the next possible tragedy spot, if one may describe it that way. It is important for the Serbs to accept the need for full autonomy for Kosovo. I discussed with Lord Carrington this morning, as well as with the Portuguese Foreign Minister—who is President of the Council of Ministers—how we can bring diplomatic pressure to bear in Tirana and Belgrade.
Mr. James Kilfedder: It is accepted that Serbia is not the only offending party in the region. Therefore, sanctions should surely be imposed on Croatia to force it to stop its violence.
Mr. Hurd: The arms embargo applies to all the former republics of Yugoslavia. I have mentioned Croatia, but I have tried to get the balance right, which is increasingly accepted in the House. The Croatians are not and have not been blameless, but the main responsibility for the

719
mayhem, killing and suffering rests with Serbs, whether Bosnian Serbs, irregulars or those under the direct control of Belgrade.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: In relation to his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), does the Foreign Secretary recollect that some of us suported him most vocally, in and out of the House, on the imposition of oil sanctions at the beginning of the crisis?
Does the Foreign Secretary think that it is wise to insist that the Yugoslav ambassador withdraw? Did he hear the ambassador say last night on "The World Tonight" that perhaps this is the time when he is most needed? What is the purpose, other than for reasons of a diplomatic dance, of making the ambassador go? Finally, are we sure that arms and oil are not being supplied by Iraq to Serbia?
Mr. Hurd: On the ambassador, it was part of the Security Council resolution to reduce levels of diplomatic representation by the former federal republic of Yugoslavia. It will, of course, keep representatives here: we are not expelling the whole diplomatic mission. It was right, in line with what others are doing and right in the circumstances, that the ambassador should be asked, courteously but firmly, to go.
Supplies of oil to Serbia and Montenegro—
Mr. Dalyell: I voted for the oil embargo.
Mr. Hurd: Yes. However, it was not the hon. Gentleman's vote that was necessary on that occasion, but support in the United Nations, which has only recently been forthcoming. All possible breaches of the embargo, particularly in oil, need to be monitored carefully.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Although I agree with my right hon. Friend about the ambassador, what justification is there for allowing the building that he has been occupying to continue to enjoy the status of an embassy?
Mr. Hurd: We are in a bit of limbo on that, and my hon. Friend has put his finger on the illogical position. We have an embassy in Belgrade and it is important to keep contacts going. Therefore, we do not intend to close the Yugoslav mission here. Equally, Yugoslav representation at the United Nations is in a type of limbo. If the situation continues and sanctions do not do the job we hope, we shall clearly have to consider such questions again.
Mr. David Trimble: I welcome the condemnation of the expansionist policies of the Serbian leadership, which were clearly demonstrated years ago when it overthrew autonomy in Kosovo and Vojvodina. Its intention to create a greater Serbia was clearly signalled last year and it is a matter of regret that the international community did not respond quickly enough, because the tragedies might have been averted.
Is the Foreign Secretary aware that there is still some unfinished business in greater Serbia, in the region of Macedonia? Would it be possible to take some proactive steps to prevent that region from being ignited, because there are countries other than Serbia that might fish in those troubled waters?
Mr. Hurd: There certainly are: the hon. Gentleman is quite right. I am glad that, in Skopje, a mission from the European Community is establishing a contact with the Macedonian authorities for the first time. I hope that we shall receive a report next week on Macedonia's needs. The hon. Gentleman, who follows this subject, will know that the attitude of the Greek Government presents a substantial difficulty to recognition of Macedonia, but that does not debar the type of mission that is in Macedonia now.
Mr. John Wilkinson: May I express my appreciation to my right hon. Friend for the constructive role he took in securing sanctions against Serbia by the United Nations? They are a valuable instrument of pressure to demonstrate to the Government in Belgrade and to the wider world that force should not be allowed to prevail against the democratic expression of self-determination. If that were allowed to prevail, a potentially explosive and damaging example would be given to central and eastern Europe. Is it not therefore necessary that physical measures underpin the sanctions —perhaps in the form of a naval blockade or the inspection of air cargoes at their point of departure?
Mr. Hurd: Let us see how we get on. I agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's question. The monitoring committee, as it showed effectively in the case of Iraq, will be able to pick up breaches, and we will then need to decide what measures might be useful in dealing with them.
Mr. David Winnick: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the majority of people in Britain are bound to support the policy of sanctions, especially when they see on their television screens, and read about, massacres such as that which killed outright people standing in a bread queue last week—another crime against humanity? Does he accept that there is almost unanimous opinion in the House—and, in my view, in the country at large—that no military force should be used by outside countries, certainly not by Britain, and that British troops should under no circumstances get involved in such a vicious Balkan civil war?
Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making those points. He picks up a point that several Members on both sides of the House have made about the need for extreme caution in that respect.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Will my right hon. Friend please confirm that there are no circumstances under which British forces would be deployed on Yugoslavian soil, apart from monitoring activities for the United Nations, bearing in mind that they would not know who the enemy was and would be caught in the crossfire, meaning that we should be sending people to be slaughtered? The Foreign Secretary could perhaps concede that we may need to play our part in a blockade if sanctions did not work. I hope and pray that they work. I hope that my right hon. Friend will go so far as to say that British troops will not be deployed on Yugoslavian soil.
Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friend or I have told the House that we are contributing a field ambulance, involving about 250 men, to the United Nations force

721
which is being deployed in Croatia. I note the extreme reluctance which my hon. Friend voices for anything further.
Mr. Alan Williams: Is it possible for assistance to be given to Yugoslav citizens in this country, some of whom are afraid to return home because of the fighting in their home areas and others who want to return but who came here on return tickets and are stranded, and short of money, because of the suspension of flights?
Mr. Hurd: This situation has many casualties, some of them much more poignant than the hon. Gentleman describes. Many people's lives are disrupted or worse by this situation. I am sure that the Home Secretary will look at any individual cases of people wanting to stay here, but the rules are the rules, and of course people know them.
Mr. Calum Macdonald: Is it not a case of adopting a policy of too little, too late, making the situation much worse and more difficult to deal with? Will the right hon. Gentleman give details of the time scale within which he hopes the sanctions will work? Will he make it clear that there must be a cessation of hostilities by the Serbians within days rather than weeks, failing which, other options will have to be considered?
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman will have heard quite a consensus of views up to this point on the concept of the use of force. I do not think it would be wise to impose a time limit. The Security Council has not done so. It has imposed an unprecedentedly severe package of measures, which will bear hard on the authorities and people in Serbia and Montenegro. We must now see how that works out.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: To what extent did Mr. Baker's statement force the hand of people such as the right hon. Gentleman?
Mr. Hurd: The American Secretary of State has always made it clear that he expects Europe to take the lead on this issue. It is not a matter on which the Americans have taken a consistent forward line. The fact that, faced with the latest killings in Sarajevo, he expressed an American opinion so forcefully, greatly helped the proceedings in the Security Council. A significant fact was the positive Russian vote, which would have come as quite a surprise in Belgrade and will, I hope, help to produce a good effect.
Mr. John McFall: As we discuss the matter now, certain militiamen are still pounding Sarajevo, killing people in bread queues and Red Cross personnel. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the United Nations takes its responsibility seriously, for example by considering the control of Sarajevo airport by the UN? The Institute of Strategic Studies and other military people say that, if we had the will, the fighting could be stopped within 24 hours. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the UN undertakes such activities and provides adequate protection for the land convoys that are taking food and medical equipment to the beleaguered people of Sarajevo?
Mr. Hurd: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will think this through. He suggests that we should consider taking over Sarajevo airport. It is difficult to imagine Governments being willing to contribute troops to fighting their way to control over the airport; if they succeeded, the temptation—indeed, the incentive—to go on and take over control of the city would be substantial, because the airport without the city is pointless. Therefore, troops would be involved not just in air strikes but in operations on the ground, which are easy to conceive but hard to launch, and even harder to bring to a successful end.

Points of Order
4.25 pm
Mr. Michael Meacher: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As more than 5,000 pensioners of the Maxwell pension schemes have been told that they will not receive any further pensions, and as Maxwell-controlled Liechtenstein companies, beyond the reach of the creditors and pensioners, have been uncovered, I rise to ask whether you have received any request from the Secretary of State for Social Security to make a statement on what steps he proposes to take to protect these pensioners from falling into poverty, through no fault of their own, over the next few weeks.
We keep being told that the Secretary of State is about to make a statement on the necessary reform of pension fund legislation, which the Government have studiously neglected for the past 10 years. What is urgent is a statement on the position of the Maxwell pensioners. As the Government are clearly liable, because of their failure to implement relevant protective regulations under the Social Security Act 1990, and also because of the manifest failure of the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation, will you use your good offices to ensure that we have a statement in the next few days on the essential issue of protecting the Maxwell pensioners?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gives me more authority than I have. I have no means of instructing a Minister to make a statement. Perhaps I can answer the hon. Gentleman by saying that, had a statement been intended, it would have been on the annunciator. I received no such notice.
Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think that this is a matter on which you are competent to rule. How can we get the Government to hold a debate on their policy on environment and development before the Rio summit? Am I right in thinking that the only way that Opposition Members can force such a debate is for a motion of no confidence in the Government's policy to be tabled today, and for that motion to secure the support of the Leader of the Labour party? Would not that mean that it had to be the first item of business tomorrow and had to be the subject of debate? We would then at last make sure that we debated the subject before the Government made policy, changed policy or gave up policy in Rio on behalf of this country.
Madam Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman were to reflect, he would realise that half-day debates are given to Opposition parties. He may care to use such an opportunity to debate this important subject.
Mr. Hughes: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. You are right, but there are no Opposition days set down in the notified days of business. I am led to believe by what I have read in "Erskine May" that one can get priority for a debate through tabling a motion of no confidence. That point is not made explicit in "Erskine May", so I would be grateful if, on advice, you told us whether that is the way to secure such a debate this week.
Madam Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman had looked far enough into "Erskine May" he would have seen that no
724
Speaker ever gives that type of guidance across the Floor of the House—even me. However, if he would like to come to see me, I will try to assist.
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you confirm, as your predecessors have always done, to the best of my knowledge and certainly within my parliamentary lifetime, that one of the jobs of the House of Commons is to defend the interests of ordinary people? If only one person is subject to injury, that person should still be able to have the matter raised in the House of Commons. I ask you this because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has pointed out from the Front Bench, there are pensioners living a life of destitution because the pension that they expected to have has been stolen from them by one of the most notorious of all crooks.
As Ministers refuse to make a statement, Madam Speaker, and bearing in mind that the Maxwell family apparently owns considerable assets abroad, what can be done to try to ensure that those people, who are after all entitled to justice, have their claim dealt with in the House of Commons?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that that is not a matter for the Chair. The Chair is not in control of the business of the House. It is for the Government, through the usual channels, to determine business.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it not also true that, notwithstanding the fact that the Speaker has no power to organise business, you would have considerable power if an application were made under Standing Order No. 20 for a debate on the Government's attitude to Rio in order to try to influence the Government before they made their decision in Brazil? Is it not also true that you would have similar powers in the event of a private notice question? If there were an application for a debate under Standing Order No. 20 or for a private notice question, you would have a good case for giving some guidance on how the matter could be dealt with in the House. In the end, Madam Speaker, you do have power to help in the matter, which is particularly relevant since the Opposition do not have an Opposition day on which to raise the matter with any immediacy.
Madam Speaker: As I am sure the House appreciates, I always look extremely carefully at all private notice questions and applications under Standing Order No. 20 that come across my desk.
Mr. Max Madden: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Am I right in thinking that, although it is usual for Standing Order No. 20 applications to be submitted to you before midday on any sitting day, such an application can be made at any time? For instance, such an application could be made now, on the usual basis that the matter is urgent, specific and requires immediate attention, if you were prepared to accept it.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is not quite right. I could consider such an application only if the matter was of extreme urgency and the urgency was not known before 12 noon on the day in question.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Certainly you and I were here during Prime Minister's questions, but I am not sure which other hon. Members were present. If I recall correctly, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear from the Dispatch Box that he hoped to secure an agreement at Rio and that that would not be the beginning and the end of the matter but that it would continue for many years with actions and agreements. Therefore, there can be no urgency about such a debate.
Madam Speaker: We are now involving ourselves in debate. We need not repeat the Prime Minister's words. They will be in Hansard for all of us to see.

Statutory Instruments, &c.
Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to Statutory Instruments.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

LEGAL AID (SCOTLAND)
That the draft Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Advice and Assistance (Assistance by Way of Representation) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
Question agreed to

Orders of the Day

  Finance Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.33 pm
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  It is now nearly three weeks since the House approved the resolutions on which the Bill is based. On that occasion, I said that the debate that underlay the Bill was a continuation of the debate which decided the general election. It is not simply a debate which was relevant to the general election—it is a debate about the decisive issue in the general election.
  The issue that was at stake and was decided on 9 April is as clear as it is simple. The question was whether the electorate supported the tax policy set out with great clarity by the Government, or a tax policy espoused by one of the Opposition parties. The electorate gave a clear and unambiguous answer, and I clearly think that their answer was right.
  The Government believe that tax policy should be driven by two primary considerations. First, we believe that, in a free society, the first call on the fruits of wealth creation rests with those who are responsible for that wealth creation process. We firmly believe that, if somebody takes a risk, makes an investment, commits extra effort, and finds a better solution to an economic problem and thereby creates wealth, that person has a right to the lion's share of the economic benefits that those actions create.
  The fruit of economic activity is not owned collectively but owned by the individual or company that creates the wealth. That is not to say that wealth creators have no responsibility to others in society. We all acknowledge that we have wider responsibilities. Overwhelmingly, people who are responsible for wealth creation recognise those responsibilities. Tax policy must recognise that the first call on the wealth created by the people who work in our economy falls with the people who are responsible for that creation process.
  We believe also that tax policies must recognise another and parallel principle—that the limiting of the tax burden, particularly the marginal incidence rate, is right not only in principle but in practice, for a severely utilitarian reason. Any economy relies for success on people taking risks, making investments, committing extra effort, and solving economic problems. That is the engine that drives the wealth-creation process. It is powerfully in the interests of the whole community to maximise incentives, encourage people to engage in that process, make those activities worth while, encourage people to undertake them, and —most important of all—reward those who do so successfully.
  Dr. John Marek: In that case, why did the tax burden increase under the Conservatives in the 1980s? It was higher in the 1980s than ever it was in the 1970s.
  Mr. Dorrell: I am seeking to set out clearly why it is important to limit the tax burden and marginal rates of tax. I am not making a call to arms in defence of privilege.

  727
  My comments reflect clear recognition that we have a common interest in rewarding success. The individuals responsible for wealth-creating activity benefit, as they have every right to do. More importantly, the whole community benefits if, as a result of that more incentive-oriented approach, the economy becomes more successful.
  We have the clearest possible illustration of that principle in the take home pay since 1979 of the man on average earnings. I am talking not about someone on a fancy City commission but about a man on average earnings. Between 1974 and 1979, his average take-home pay rose 1 per cent. in real terms. Since 1979, that same man has seen his take-home pay rise 39 per cent. in real terms—£78 a week in today's terms. That is a measure of the effectiveness of a more successful economy driven by the incentive approach that this Government adopt.
  Virtually all the Opposition parties fail to grasp that common interest in rewarding success. In the Ways and Means debate three weeks ago, the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) illustrated the extent to which the Liberal Democrats do not understand that essential principle. He asked what he thought was a rhetorical question—what good it was to a man on disability allowance to talk about tax cuts. It does not seem to occur to the hon. Member for Gordon, any more than to his party, that the money that pays for disability allowances is generated by a successful economy driven by effective rewards and incentives.
  Mr. John Battle: Surely the Financial Secretary will concede that, if the wages at the top of the scale rise by substantially more than inflation, that will pull up the average. Will the hon. Gentleman remind me what the average male weekly wage now is? I suspect that many of my constituents receive nothing like that amount.
  Mr. Dorrell: Average male earnings are now just under £400 a week. That in itself reflects the increase in earnings brought about by the more successful economic policies introduced in the 1980s. Failure to understand the critical importance of the incentives that lie at the heart of a free economy explains the choice with which the electorate were presented on 9 April.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: Would it not be a more accurate analysis to say that, in the general election, the majority voted for parties that believed that, in the current economic circumstances, there was some scope for greater investment rather than tax cuts? Would not even more have done so if they had not taken fright at the last moment, seeing the possibility that Labour's ambitions for tax increases were far greater?
  Mr. Dorrell: No, I think that what frightened them was the prospect of Labour and the hon. Gentleman's party entering into a cosy pact that would deliver proportional representation.
  What the electorate saw on offer from Labour during the general election campaign was a programme that would add £7 billion to the tax burden, and would bring back 59 per cent. marginal tax rates for wealth creators. For the Liberal Democrats—the party of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)—even that was not enough; according to them, an across-the-board tax
  728
  increase was needed to pay for the party's social programmes. The electorate saw the choice with which they were faced, understood its implications clearly and chose the Government's vision. I believe that they were absolutely right to do so.
  Mr. Clive Betts: The Financial Secretary has referred to incentives. He has also mentioned 59 per cent. tax rates, which—obviously—he rejects. Does he accept, however, that many people at the bottom of the scale—those on housing and poll tax benefits—may face effective tax rates of up to 98 per cent. if they have a chance to go out and earn money? Benefits are withdrawn, and tax comes in. The Government's council tax proposals increase the disincentives and the effective tax rates for such people.
  Mr. Dorrell: I was about to observe that one of the changes introduced by the Government in earlier years ensured that no one had to pay marginal tax, combined with benefit withdrawal, of more than 100 per cent. That system operated before the Government started to reform the taxation of income.
  In particular, on 9 April, the electorate chose the Budget delivered by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 10 March rather than the shadow Budget delivered with such ceremony by the leader-inwaiting of the Labour party. Our Budget continued the process of reform and reduction of taxes that has been the hallmark of 13 years of Conservative government. My right hon. Friend cut income tax to 20p on the first £2,000 of everyone's taxable income, and 20p is now the marginal rate for nearly 4 million people. In doing so, he reaffirmed his pledge to move towards a 20p basic rate for all taxpayers as soon it was prudent to do so.
  My right hon. Friend's Budget was not a quick election gimmick; it built on earlier reforms, one of which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) has just drawn to our attention. The Social Security Act 1986 ended the anomaly of marginal withdrawal rates of over 100 per cent., and the national insurance reform of 1989 ended the notorious national insurance "steps". The Budget follows the reduction in the basic rate of income tax from 33 per cent. to 25 per cent. in a number of steps, every one of which was opposed by the Opposition—although they asked the electorate to believe on 9 April that, having voted against it, they now considered that 20 per cent. was the right income tax rate.
  The Budget also follows measures that we have taken at the higher end of the income scale to improve incentives. We have reduced the top rate of income tax from 83 per cent. to 40 per cent.; we have abolished the investment income surcharge of 15 per cent.; and we have reduced the top rate of inheritance tax from 75 per cent. to 40 per cent. Those changes are all of a piece, and they represent the Government's continuing commitment to reducing the tax burden, sharpening incentives and, above all, rewarding success.
  Tax cuts, however, cannot be had for nothing. Only a Government who are committed to controlling public expenditure will have the capacity to cut tax. The history of the 1960s and 1970s is one of unrelenting growth in the proportion of gross domestic product represented by public expenditure. In 1964, the outgoing Conservative Government bequeathed a public expenditure share of

  729
  GDP of 36·75 per cent. By the mid-1970s, that share had risen to only a fraction under 50 per cent.: half the total national income was being spent by the Government.
  It was at that point that Dr. Witteveen—my hon. Friends will remember him—arrived to bail out a bankrupt Government. Under his tutelage, Labour imposed the only real-terms cut in NHS expenditure in recent history—yet, despite the U-turn imposed by its bankers, public expenditure still stood at 44 per cent. of GDP when Labour left office in 1979.
  The present Government have brought firmly under control the share of national income accounted for by public expenditure. At the top of the economic cycle, the share was some 4 per cent. lower than it had been at the peak of the previous cycle: in the current recession, the share is likely to peak at 43 per cent., compared with a peak of 47 per cent. in the early 1980s and—as I have said —one of a fraction under 50 per cent. in the mid-1970s.
  I have stressed the emphasis that we place on controlling the tax burden. Disciplined control of public expenditure is the inevitable and inescapable corollary of that commitment. One change announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in his Budget will serve further to underline the critical importance of the umbilical cord that should connect tax and expenditure decisions. Next year will be the last year in which a Finance Bill debate is held in the summer: in December 1993, we shall switch to an annual Budget statement that will cover both revenue and expenditure.
  That change will improve decision-making in government. It will mean that decisions on spending and decisions on tax can be made alongside each other, that all the Government's activities can be viewed in the round and that it can be decided properly whether a given objective would be better met by means of the public-expenditure or the tax route.
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: Obviously, we all welcome what the Financial Secretary has just said. Will he tell us, however, just how definite the figures produced in December will be in terms of the actual Budget? Will what is announced then be just a plan, or will a decision be made at that time?
  Mr. Dorrell: My right hon. Friend made the position clear in his Budget statement. The December Budget, as its name implies, is intended to bring together expenditure and revenue in a firm Budget statement.
  The change will also improve accountability. The presentation of the Government's plans will be easier to understand. Parliament and the public will be able to look at both sides of the account, to see what the Government plan to spend and how they propose to pay for their spending. Parliament and the public will be able to debate the choices that the Government have made. The new system will make crystal clear what the voters recognised on 9 April: that only a Government with the will and desire to control public expenditure can genuinely offer the prospect of lower taxation.
  There are other benefits too, not least for employers. They are responsible for operating the PAYE system, and it falls to them to ensure that Budget changes in income tax rates and allowances are passed on to their employees. The current Budget timetable means that the Inland Revenue must update employees' tax codes for the new tax year in two stages, in order to put the benefit of tax reductions into
  730
  pay packets as soon as possible after the start of the tax year. That often means that an employee's tax code is changed twice in a year, causing extra work for the employer and, in an annual cycle, correspondence for Members of Parliament.
  With a December Budget, the Revenue's two annual coding exercises will be combined. The recoding will take place in one exercise before the tax year starts. Inevitably, there will be some transitional costs for employers in switching to the new system, but when it is in place it will mean less work for them and for the Inland Revenue. For taxpayers, it will mean that tax cuts will normally be in pay packets immediately after the start of the tax year instead of late in May, as at present.
  The Bill picks up those measures that did not need to be on the statute book before the election. With two exceptions, they will take effect from the dates announced in the Budget. The exceptions are the measures to reduce the minimum limit for charitable donations qualifying for tax relief under the gift aid scheme and the relaxation of the rules for some charitable convenants. As my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General announced to the House on 7 May, we now propose to bring forward the starting date for these measures from 1 July to 7 May. That will be of considerable benefit to both charities and donors.
  On 6 April, the threshold for inheritance tax was raised from £140,000 to £147,000, in line with indexation. The Bill implements the over-indexation to £150,000 announced in the Budget. That starts the process that we promised in our manifesto of lessening the burden of inheritance tax on families whose principal asset is the family home. But the Budget contained a measure of wider significance, a measure that has been widely welcomed.
  Those who build up their own firm are often fearful of the threat that inheritance tax poses to the long-term future of their business. They are concerned that their heirs will face a large inheritance tax bill and that, to pay the bill, those heirs will have to take funds out of the business that could be better used to make the business grow. Worse still, they may have to sell up, as a result of which the business would no longer be a family business.
  We do not believe in a one-generation enterprise society. We believe that people are right to want to pass on the results of their efforts to the next generation. If Parliament approves the Bill, the threat of inheritance tax to family firms will be removed.
  The inheritance tax change was one element of a wider series of measures designed to benefit business. The changes to value added tax penalties were enacted in the Act that the House passed just before the election. The changes to the business rate in England and Wales will be implemented through the Bill that the House is to debate later today. Adjusted rates bills will be issued for 650,000 English and Welsh properties later this summer, whereas 250,000 properties in Scotland and Northern Ireland, where no legislation was needed, have already received their bills. We are introducing rules for hearing tax appeals, which include powers to award costs and publish decisions.
  The amount that we can or should do through the tax system to help businesses is, however, necessarily limited. What matters most to all businesses is the overall economic condition of the country and the availability of opportunities for trading at a profit. The 1990s promise to be a decade of increasing opportunity for business. It will certainly be our purpose to ensure that that is so.

  731
  The 1990s will be the first decade of the European single market. It is perhaps fitting that a substantial part of the Bill is taken up with the measures needed to administer the tax system once fiscal controls at frontiers are abolished on 1 January 1993.
  Mr. David Winnick: The Minister keeps on talking about opportunities, tax gains and the rest of it. Will he take this opportunity to refer to a subject that was not referred to in the Queen's Speech: unemployment? What opportunities will there be for unemployed people? The unemployment figures increase month by month. Many people fear that they will never work again. When will unemployment be at anywhere near the same level as it was when the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), then a junior Labour Minister, was in office?
  Mr. Dorrell: Has it not occurred to the hon. Gentleman that the building of a successful and expanding economy is the necessary precondition for the delivery of a reduction in unemployment? The hon. Gentleman ought to concentrate for one second on the success we achieved in job creation and reducing unemployment throughout the 1980s. In that decade, more than half of all the jobs created in Europe were created in this country. The abolition of unnecessary frontier controls represents a major advance towards the Government's objective of a free and competitive market of 350 million consumers in Europe. That in itself provides an opportunity to create the jobs that the hon. Gentleman very properly wants to see created but for whose creation he makes no proposals.
  The scale of the internal market in Europe should not be underestimated. It is worth reflecting that the European Community will be further advanced in the removal of internal barriers to trade than some federations. For example, the Canadian Prime Minister, a mere 125 years after the foundation of the Canadian federation, has set himself the objective of reducing the current interprovincial barriers to trade so as to create an internal market in Canada that will parallel the market that we are seeking to build in Europe. The completion of the internal market in Europe represents a substantial achievement for the Community, as well as a major trading opportunity for British business.
  In contemplating the opportunities presented by the single market, we should also reflect on how far we have come since we joined the European Community roughly 20 years ago. In those days, there was a fear that opening up the European market could spell economic destruction for a weak and fragile economy. Who, after all, we were asked, would want to invest in an economy that was inflation-prone, strike-bound, with a name for poor productivity and poor quality, where enterprise and initiative were throttled by a penal tax system?
  In the 1970s, the British economy looked destined to falter. The prospect of freer markets was a threat, not an opportunity—a threat to those who feared that it would spell the end to a cocooned and mollycoddled existence. The fact that Britain is now the investment location of choice for those who want to take full advantage of the single market is one of the most concrete testimonies to the
  732
  achievements of the last 13 years. The United Kingdom has recently been attracting half of all American investment—
  Ms. Diane Abbott: The Minister has talked about the opportunities presented to the British economy by the European single market, but is it not the case that the Government's unrelenting opposition to the social chapter means that the opportunity offered to the British economy is for it to become the sweatshop of Europe?
  Mr. Dorrell: No. It is the opportunity described by Mr. Delors—of becoming the most attractive investment opportunity for business in Europe. That is the choice that business is making.
  As I was saying, half of all American investment coming into the Community and just under half of all Japanese investment in the Community now comes to Britain. Britain offers a low tax environment, with corporation tax in the current year at 33 per cent. and with a top rate of income tax at 40 per cent. This country offers good labour relations and stability.
  On 9 April, the British people were offered a choice. They chose the policies of low taxation that give individuals freedom to chose how they spend their own money, that give businessess an environment in which they can grow and invest. They rejected the prospect of a wealth-destroying, high-tax economy and of an environment hostile to enterprise, investment and growth. They realised, as we realise, that that offers no future to Britain. I commend the Bill to the House.
  4.58 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: I must confess that I never recognised either myself or my party during the speech to which the Financial Secretary treated the House. However, I agree with him that what matters to business is the overall economic condition of the country.
  The House will want to consider the Bill in the context of the present state of the British economy, in particular in the context of the budgetary stance that these measures are supposed to underpin. For example, there is nothing in the Bill that will have a significant impact on Britain's trade deficit, yet the position is both serious and deteriorating. April's deficit was an alarming £1·061 billion. In the last three months, the volume of imports has risen by 6 per cent., but the volume of exports has risen by only 2 per cent. The manufacturing deficit for the last three months is nearly twice what it was in the same period in the previous year. Before 1983, Britain never had a manufacturing deficit. Since then, we have never had a surplus.
  I know that there are some in the Conservative party who argue that those things do not matter, that they are all private sector arrangements that can be left to find their own level. That view is not universally held within the Conservative party. Let me treat the House to an extract from a speech made to the Conservative party conference in 1989, not by the man who is now our Prime Minister, but by the man who is now our President. He said:
  "I beg our party not to argue that a deficit in overseas trade is of incidental importance, self-correcting, easily financed. I don't believe a word of it."
  I bet he delivered this speech better than me. He went on:

  733
  "We would never have let the Labour Party get away with such an argument."
  He certainly delivered that better than me.
  "Tell the small shopkeeper that he can trade at a loss and he'll recognise the sound of socialist naivety. Ask any housewife how long she can feed the family on tick."
  There was a time when it was unnecessary to say to Conservative party audiences, even rhetorically, that they should "ask any housewife", because they would have been all too acutely aware of the views of one specific housewife.
  Britain's second most famous housewife made clear her views on trade deficits:
  "Imports have penetrated our home market deeper than we could ever have imagined … the Conservatives are on your side. We are going to let you who know the job get on with it … so that once again the products stream from our factories and workshops while customers of the world scramble over each other to buy them."
  That was in April 1979. Far from having customers from all over the world scrambling to buy the products streaming from our factories and workshops, we have maintained a constant manufacturing deficit since 1983. Britain is now the only EC country where manufacturing investment is lower than in 1979.
  Those issues would be important at any time, but to have such a weak balance of payments position at this stage of the economic cycle suggests that something is deeply and fundamentally wrong with the management of the British economy. The disgraceful truth is that there is nothing in the Bill to have any impact on the problem.
  What of inflation? In 1987, in the Conservative party manifesto, which was supposed to set the tone for the last Parliament, the Conservatives attacked inflation in the only way they know how—by using extravagant language:
  "Inflation is an evil … as with all cancers, it needs to be completely eradicated. To this end, we shall endeavour to achieve zero inflation."
  To put that hysteria into context, the manifesto goes on:
  "We shall maintain strict control of public expenditure and borrowing"—
  oh, yes.
  The Conservatives' method of bearing down on inflation when they periodically feel obliged to do so, is to create a recession and put others out of work. Inflation was running at 10·9 per cent. in September 1990. Our country, under the management of the Conservative party, has sustained seven successive quarters of negative economic growth and 25 consecutive months of rising unemployment. At the end of all that pain and misery, the underlying rate of inflation—that is the Conservative party's preferred measurement—is still 5·7 per cent.
  The Budget and the Finance Bill are predicated on optimistic Government forecasts of economic growth. No one else seems to share the Government's optimism. In a devastating survey of informed opinion, the Financial Times told us last Thursday that
  "Economists predict growth will remain weak."
  It goes on:
  "Economic growth in the UK will continue to crawl along at a weak level for the rest of this year and next, according to the latest Financial Times survey of forecasts on the UK economy … Economists expect gross domestic product to grow 0·8 per cent. this year. Even next year, GDP growth will not quite recover to the so-called 'trend' rate of about 2·5 per cent … The consensus from economists at 22 universities, intergovernmental institutions, independent think-tanks and City investment houses is that unemployment will continue to grow over the next two years, rising to 2·75 million by the end of this year and to just under 3 million by the end of next … Projections for output this year are particularly gloomy …
  734
  Investment is forecast to fall substantially this year … Forecasters do not expect inflation to wither greatly from present levels … The United Kingdom's trade deficit remains a big concern. Nearly all the economists surveyed predict a worse current account balance this year than the £6·5 billion deficit projected by the Treasury in the March budget—the consensus is for a deficit of £8·4 billion—but their forecasts might be too benign … The average forecasts do not suggest that Britain will be able to cut its interest rates below German rates."
  That is a devastating indictment of the Government's management of the economy. It leaves us with sluggish economic growth, grotesquely optimistic medium-term Government economic forecasts, a weakened tax base and a public sector borrowing requirement that has more to do with political expediency than prudent economic management.
  The Government have set out their objectives as reducing the share of national income taken by the public sector, balancing the budget over the medium term and reducing taxes when it is prudent to do so. In the present circumstances, any significant tax reduction seems unobtainable, even in the medium term. Even the objective of a balanced budget over the cycle is receding as the Government's growth forecasts look ever more ridiculous.
  It seems logical to conclude that, with considerations of electoral expediency out of the way, the Government's Treasury team will be looking at two main and not mutually exclusive options. First, this year's public spending round will be draconian, and what has already been promised is probably even now being clawed back. Secondly—it is here that Finance Bill Committee members will need to be particularly vigilant—the Government will be looking for ways of getting the total tax take from the British economy back up to around 38 per cent.
  I am prepared to give way to the Financial Secretary if he wishes to repudiate that. The Government will want to use indirect taxation as the mechanism. The Financial Secretary almost confirmed as much during our last debate on these matters. The option of broadening the scope of value added tax and blaming the European Community sounds par for the course, given the Government's recidivist record on tax matters. The Committee will need to be alert to that.
  The state of public finances underpinning the Finance Bill is worse than it appears, since the Government have had the accumulated advantage of £109 billion of North sea oil revenues, £40 billion of privatisation receipts and a further £25 billion from the sale of council houses.
  Moving from one sorry state of affairs to the next, there is nothing in the Finance Bill to underpin the classless society to which the Prime Minister said that he is committed. When asked on "Election Call" about the widening income gap between the rich and poor, the Chancellor simply said,
  "I don't believe it has."
  Yet, in its family expenditure survey, a survey of real families, the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that the poorest 10 per cent. of the population lost £52 a year on average as a result of Conservative tax and benefit policies from 1979 to 1992. One of the explanations it gives for that is that
  "VAT increases have hit the poor, who have not been compensated by cuts in direct taxes because they do not pay them."
  Over the same period, the richest 10 per cent. of the population gained £4,524 a year on average, yet the

  735
  Chancellor said that he does not believe that the income gap has widened, as if these were matters of faith rather than statistical fact.
  One of the ways in which the unfairness of the tax burden could be addressed is through the mechanism of inheritance tax. In its latest survey of Britain's 300 wealthiest people, The Sunday Times said that 155 of the 300 surveyed inherited what it called "serious money". We are told that most of Britain's dukes and earls somehow manage to hang on to their wealth through boom and bust. How can it be fair or just for one young man of 28 to be worth £67 million because of the success of an ancestor eight generations ago in the 18th century?
  I believe that it is right that a successful person who has built up money for himself should be able to hand that on to his children and to his children's children, but should it be untouched by the tax system for eight generations? When does the tax system take its cut?
  Mr. Dorrell: How many generations?
  Mr. Brown: For how many generations does the Financial Secretary think it right for these great fortunes to go from father to son, or perhaps occasionally to daughter, without the tax system taking its cut? Does he think that that is right or morally justifiable?
  Mr. Dorrell: I thought that I had made it clear that it is more important for society to encourage successful businesses and to give them the wherewithal to continue to invest in expansion and in the job creation process that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) was worried about.
  Mr. Brown: I am not quarrelling with the Financial Secretary about setting the parameters for successful businesses: I am talking about the tax take from inherited wealth, which is different. The young gentleman I am referring to is not a successful business man, and nor, no doubt, was his father. They were the beneficiaries of a substantial sum of money that they inherited from an ancestor who was successful in the economic conditions of the 18th century.
  Mr. John Townend: If the hon. Gentleman supports the Government's changes to estate duty or inheritance tax on businesses, why did the Labour Government have a rate of 70 per cent.? Does he now accept that that was a mistake?
  Mr. Brown: We are discussing two different things. I have not stated a view on the Bill's clauses, which we shall trawl in detail in Committee. I am talking about the principle of inheritance tax as a mechanism whereby the taxpayer can take a bite from the great accumulated fortunes that seem to be able to drift almost in perpetuity from generation to generation of this country's wealthiest families.
  The position is made all the more stark by the fact that the poorest 10 per cent. of households have an annual income of £4,081, of which they must pay 45 per cent. in different taxes. Income tax accounts for only £40—not because they are rich, are professionally advised or are related to the royal family and do not pay tax but because they are too poor to fall into the income tax system. All, almost all, of that 45 per cent. is spent on indirect taxes.
  736
  How can we place an effective tax burden of 45 per cent. on the poorest, whereas the wealthiest seem to be able to keep great fortunes rolling through the generations without paying tax, let alone a tax take of 45 per cent.? It cannot be morally right that the tax system should deal so harshly with the very poorest yet so generously with the very rich. A Government who believed in a classless society would favour redistributing the burden. Needless to say, that is not the thrust of the Bill's inheritance tax proposals.
  The victims of the Government's recession are the unemployed, who are not spread evenly throughout Britain. The Government justify their neglect of the disadvantaged by claiming the growth in the level of take-home earnings as a big achievement—the Tory party's "big idea". That argument was trawled in our debate on 14 May, and the Financial Secretary returned to it today. As it is one of the issues that divides the two main parties, we shall return to it again.
  In the debate on 14 May, the Financial Secretary emphasised the importance that the Government attached to what he called
  "an effective system of rewards for those who take risks and commit themselves to extra effort".—[O? cial Report, 14 May 1992; Vol. 207, c. 810.]
  That was the tenor of his remarks this afternoon. He cited figures showing the growth in real take-home pay for the person on average earnings. If it is the Conservative's big idea that the take-home pay of those on average earnings grows rapidly under Conservative Governments, the Financial Secretary will be disappointed to learn that his big idea has stalled.
  In 1991, there was a 0·5 per cent. fall in real disposable incomes, due largely to the recession. No doubt the Financial Secretary will have his plans for the Government's big idea, but they will not fit happily with the other parameters for the management of the economy, in particular the Government's difficulties with the tax take. The victims of the recession are not the employed but the unemployed. It is not employed people who are carrying the burden of the famous price worth paying.
  With unemployment standing at 2,695,000—9·5 per cent. of the work force—with 23 unemployed people chasing every vacancy, with 1·5 million more of our fellow citizens unemployed now than when Labour left office, and with the number of people unemployed for more than a year standing at 841,000—a shameful increase of 94,000 in the first quarter of this year—the truth is that the Government not only do not care but, on the evidence of the Bill, no longer feel obliged to pretend to care.
  The Conservative party, its owners and its newspapers will tell any story to save jobs—not the jobs of their fellow citizens and not the employment base of the country that they are supposed to be governing, but the only jobs that Conservative politicians care about: their own and those of their friends.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. John Biffen: The debate was initiated with a spirited speech from my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, who argued the virtues of reducing income tax in such robust terms that it reminded me of Gladstone's dictum about eschewing taxation and, rather, allowing money to fructify in the pockets of the people. My hon. Friend gave a formidable performance and has

  737
  moved some way from the Tory Reform Group. That shows what a short time in the Treasury does, even to a good man.
  I give my warmest support to the Bill, which seeks to raise the minimum revenue that is needed for the conduct of our affairs over the next 12 months. Treasury Ministers are engaged in an exercise that is bound to cause increasing difficulty as they try to reconcile their fiscal, public spending and monetary objectives. I shall try to explain why—but briefly.
  I accept that the Bill raises the minimum revenue that is required, but it sits alongside substantial public spending. I see my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary in his place, and I wish him well in the formidable task, which is well within his capabilities, of disciplining all the spending Departments in the coming weeks; but I do not believe that the level of public spending more than incidentally reflects the swing of the recession.
  Of course the swing of the recession is an element in that public spending, but underlying the present levels of public spending is the continuous thrust for more money on health, on social services and education. I do not believe that those imperatives will be reversed merely because there has been a general election. We must reconcile ourselves to high public spending for the immediate future. Even if there is recovery in the economy, I suspect that unemployment will be the last element to show a fall. Therefore, when we are talking about its fiscal consequences, I still believe that the economy can recover while public spending is high.
  However, many hon. Members will reflect from anecdotal experiences in their constituencies that the revival in the economy is, in most generous terms, tentative. More fledgling swallows have flown in to proclaim the recovery since the general election but have now reversed direction and gone to Italy. I do not regard that as a condemnation of Government policy. I do not feel any enthusiasm about a speedy and accelerating rate of recovery. There is much to be said for the recovery being well based and progressive in that sense.
  All the anecdotal evidence I have been given is of an economy still in a state of uncertainty and unease. In those circumstances, I should have expected just a bit of imagination and some attempt to deal with interest rates. It is perfectly true that, since the historic occasion when we entered the Lubyanka of the exchange rate mechanism, interest rates have fallen, but the rates of inflation have fallen faster. In real terms, interest rates today are at an extraordinary level, especially when one traces our general state of economic activity.
  I am not going to make forecasts, as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) did so persuasively with the aid of The Sunday Times—Murdoch and the Labour party, a dream ticket. However, I do not believe that we can sensibly have a balanced, interrelated economic policy without a reduction in interest rates.
  At the weekend, commentators were saying that the exchange rate mechanism was the nearest we had to the gold standard of the inter-war years, and that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was almost like Montagu Norman in lederhosen. The immediate prospect does not appeal. It is perfectly possible to reduce interest rates without causing disaster within membership of the exchange rate mechanism, although I grant at once that there is more than one opinion about such a relationship.
  738
  It is just possible that, as a result of a movement of interest rates, the present exchange rate could not be maintained. Would it be a national disaster if there was some adjustment in the present exchange rate? I do not know what the correct rate is. I am a market person by instinct and by prejudice, and I prefer a free exchange rate to a politically fixed one. Do my hon. Friends agree with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade that when, month after month and quarter after quarter, there is a deficit of the recent recorded magnitude on the current trade account, it tells us that all is well with the world? Or does it tell us that the exchange rate and all that it represents is possibly being balanced round a slightly suspect figure? I do not know. I do know that one cannot carry out a policy with the three major economic components in their present relationship.
  I have an affection for the Treasury, although I know that it is full of the most lofty and intellectually well equipped individuals, who never stray too far into the real world. I have a little friendly advice. My right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary or my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary should take those individuals to one side over a fraternal lunch. They should explain to them the old seaside business of the three-card trick, because they have probably never played anything with cards except bridge.
  It would be helpful to explain the three-card trick to show that, if one is conducting economic policy, one cannot have a fiscal policy, a spending policy and a borrowing policy, with all that relates to a monetary policy, unless there is a pos flexible interrelationships. Once one freezes one of them, there are deleterious consequences across the board. That is the position I see emerging. I say to my hon. Friends that, if one has such a difficulty, one addresses it in year one of a Parliament—because the longer one goes on, the more difficult it becomes.
  5.23 pm
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: As always, it is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen). It was he who correctly predicted a number of years ago, when the Government's economic policy was first revealed to us, that we faced three years of unparalleled austerity. Those three years were somewhat similar to the present. I had hoped that other Conservative Members would have pointed out what was fairly obvious to us all.
  The levels of interest rates and the determination to keep inflation down, which the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North correctly mentioned, overhang the Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that the central economic aim is to get inflation down and to keep it down. Yet the Government said that 13 years ago, and we suffered for three years to bring that about. We now hear the same hopes and aspirations which were produced so long ago.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer now talks about 2 per cent. inflation, and there is even the odd mention of zero inflation in the years to come. Who in the present Government will be straightforward, as the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North was, and point out the consequences of those unrealistic aims? We face the problem of real interest rates being ridiculously high and damaging our industry. We face levels of inflation which

  739
  will damage industry as well, and we face a balance of payments deficit with its consequent problems if we do nothing about our exchange rate.
  The true level of inflation is 5·7 per cent, the underlying rate, yet we must get that down to 2 per cent. We shall not be able to compete with the Germans indefinitely, because we need to achieve levels of inflation lower than those in Germany to make our exchange rate realistic. It has taken the French a number of years to achieve that, yet people still do not have the confidence in the French franc which they have in the deutschmark, so one must maintain the unrealistic policy for even longer than the French have.
  In 1979, the Government were confident that they had the right solution. They believed that sterling M3 would produce the recovery and they reduced public expenditure a great deal. Once again, the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North was quite right. Public expenditure will not be reduced as heavily now because they are more or less at the minimum. We should consider the level of public provision in this country, the way in which we are still living off our capital and the fact that our standard of roads and of housing is still declining.
  Some 13 years ago, I lost 30 per cent. of the firms in my constituency which went to the wall as a result of the Government's severe actions. We are losing many firms today although it is too early to know exactly how many we shall lose. Is the goal of reducing inflation to 2 per cent. realistic? To achieve that, we shall need a further level of deflation, with unemployment rising indefinitely into the future, with investment falling and with increasing misery as the Government pursue the one goal in which they believe.
  We all know that it is easy to reduce inflation, and to deflate the economy by high interest rates and, for good measure, by high exchange rates. That reduces consumption and destroys companies, the good as well as the bad, indiscriminately. Exports are hard to get with a high exchange rate and imports take advantage of the position to compete with our industries. Inflation then comes down. High interest rates restrict spending, although not all forms of spending. Individuals with high levels of saving profit from such a situation.
  The question that must worry us is what happens eventually when there is an upturn. What happens then to our balance of payments? We expect a £9 billion deficit, at an annual rate, for the first half of next year. That may continue throughout next year, with high unemployment and with a bad level of investment, and possibly throughout the year after.
  Where are the exports coming from? The manufacturers have been badly damaged by the Government who give them little consideration and less assistance. The problem is compounded. Many on the Treasury Bench said a couple of years ago that the boom was investment-led; it was not—it was a consumption-led boom. The boom was in finance, credit and consumption, and that did not help our long-term trading performance. The trouble with relying on interest rates is that some people gain and some people lose.
  It is harder to control the economy through interest rates alone now that so many people have such a large amount of collateral in their homes. A further problem is that the Government created the conditions in which the
  740
  home was seen as an investment. Trading up to bigger and better homes was considered to be the best investment of all. However, housing is not an investment. It is a consumption and it is a necessary consumption with regard to modest homes, although it is an extravagant consumption in certain other cases.
  It is quite reasonable, sensible and right to help people to achieve modest levels of housing. We should provide incentives for that. However, to subsidise through mortgage tax relief, the abolition of schedule A, capital gains tax and capital transfer tax and to spend £8 billion on that, is profligacy of a massive order.
  Although there is no question that all Governments are to blame, this Tory Government are the worst. After 13 years, the people of this country have learnt to penny-pinch in everything else, but to be spendthrifts in housing. We are now paying the penalty for having such a level of home ownership fuelled and ignited by the former Prime Minister's dedication to absurdly lavish incentives to home ownership. The country has paid a terrible price for reducing inflation by a means that caused great uneccessary damage to our economy.
  We must look to the future. Many people saw the difference between providing advantages for the City of London and providing advantages to manufacturing industry. The trouble is that the Government did not see that important distinction. Of course we benefit from the City of London and its financial operations. However, we do not benefit from it anything like as much as we can benefit from manufacturing industry which produces exports.
  So many people are only dimly beginning to perceive that financial centres follow wealth creation which comes mainly from manufacturing. London became a financial centre because of our industry in the last century. New York became a financial centre because of United States industry. Similarly, Tokyo is becoming a financial centre as a result of Japanese industry, and Frankfurt is becoming a financial centre because of West German industry.
  While 10 or 20 years ago it was inconceivable that a European financial centre could be anywhere but in London, as time passes it becomes harder to be certain that such a financial centre will be located in our capital city. Our financial centre rose on the banks of Manchester cotton and Birmingham metal industries. However, it now relies on the expertise of people in financial institutions. That expertise is tradeable. It can be acquired and removed. Those people can travel abroad and establish similar institutions in other countries.
  The lesson is that manufacturing industry is the principal begetter of financial institutions. Therefore, we shall have to return to manufacturing industry. There was an opportunity in the Finance Bill to make capital allowances helpful to manufacturing industry instead of the reverse—as is so often the case.
  I repeat what I have said on several occasions. A manufacturing company might buy a machine tool for £1,000. However, at the end of one year, that is written down to only £750. The £250 difference may very often be the salesman's commission. The machine tool could not be sold for £750. That is not depreciation. In effect, there is a tax on that machine tool because the true depreciation suffered by the purchaser will not be allowed back to him. That must be nonsense. Sooner or later I hope that the

  741
  Inland Revenue and the Government will see sense and restore capital allowances to something more approaching their true value.
  5.34 pm
  Mr. John Townend: The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) was correct when he said that this autumn's public spending round was going to be tough. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury should be aware that there will be much support on the Back Benches for curbing high spending Ministries. It is vital this year that public sector pay should set an example and is not settled at rates higher than in the private sector.
  It is significant that the first Finance Bill of this Parliament continues the radical reform of our tax system started by Mrs. Thatcher's Government and which was aimed at creating an enterprise culture in Britain. In that respect, clause 59 is the most important clause in the Bill.
  In the 1970s, this country had one of the smallest small business sectors in Europe. The reason for that was obvious. During the 1970s, socialist Governments did not like private enterprise. Clause 4, massive nationalisation, enormous burdens of bureaucracy and high taxation were heaped on small businesses. Profit was a dirty word. Any business that survived, prospered and expanded faced the prospect that once it grew beyond a certain size, it was unlikely to be passed on to the younger generation because of the burden of estate duties. The nonsense was that the more successful the business the more it was likely to be sold to pay those penal taxes.
  Quite naturally, owners tried to avoid that tax by giving away their shares to the next generation while they were still alive. The Labour party decided to stop that. Labour did away with estate duty and introduced capital transfer tax. That was economic madness for our country. We 'were killing off our industrial and commercial seedcorn. Some of yesterday's smaller firms are today's medium-sized firms and some of today's medium-sized firms will be tomorrow's industrial giants. The new tax also had a devastating effect on our regions.
  Estate duty and capital transfer tax saw the end of many of our great northern firms which were controlled by northern families. When they sold out, they inevitably sold to national or international companies. The head offices were moved from the provincial city to London, and with them often went the finance, sales and research and development departments. That left the provincial cities more and more as branch factory land.
  There are numerous examples of that in Hull in my constituency. Our leading departmental store, which was run by the Powell family for years, had to be sold to pay estate duties. Who benefited from that? The town did not benefit, because the profits were spent and invested in Hull when that department store was a private company. The customers did not benefit because they no longer received the service or choice that they received before. They had to have what head office in London said that the store should sell. The employees did not benefit. If there was a problem, they could no longer walk through the door of the boss's office to discuss it. They now worked for a faceless management in London.
  The result of that policy had a broader effect on provincial society which I am sure the socialist ideologues who imposed the policy did not foresee. The family owners
  742
  and directors nearly always provided the leadership in the community. They headed local charities and supported and financed sports clubs. They served as councillors and justices of the peace. As the family firms disappeared, the owners and directors disappeared as well. Even if the burden of capital transfer tax was not sufficient to force those businesses to sell out, it reduced the amount of cash available for investment and expansion.
  In 1979, the Conservative Government realised that, if our economic decline was to be reversed, we needed to recreate the enterprise culture. We cannot create big firms. They are like oaks. One has to start with an acorn, and the acorns were the small businesses.
  The great achievement of the Thatcher years was the enormous expansion in the establishment of small businesses and self-employment, helped by a much more supportive tax regime and lots of Government encouragement. Acorns grow into saplings before they become oaks. We defeat the object if half the saplings are cut down before they can grow into mature trees, and CTT was cutting them down.
  The Government replaced CTT with inheritance tax. That was important because, once more, business men could give away their assets before they died, but that was not the solution. None of us knows when we will die. People die out of turn. It is dangerous to give away shares to the next generation—[Interruption.] Yes, we give them away, and people die out of turn and we get clobbered with tax. It is dangerous to give shares to the younger generation too soon because one is never sure which member of a family will go into a business. If money and power are given to young people too soon, it can cause family and social problems.
  I am delighted that the Government have seen the validity of the arguments that have been put forward by the small business associations for some time and that clause 59 will now allow family businesses to be handed over free of tax to the next generation. This is an historic moment for small businesses. It will ensure their survival and expansion. It will be good for Britain, and it will be especially good for our regions and industry.
  We hear much criticism of British industry having a short-term outlook. People say that industry is too worried about keeping the City happy and is reluctant to invest in the long term. Private family businesses do not have that problem. They can take a long view. They do not have to worry about the share price today or the price-earnings ratio tomorrow. They invest for the long term. The clause will be successful and will ensure that, over the next 15 years, we will have another harvest of great firms such as Marks and Spencer, Rolls-Royce and Sainsbury, which all started as family businesses.
  As a Member who represents a large rural area, I am delighted that family farms will also benefit from the clause. In recent years, agriculture has been under increasing pressure, and the last thing that a farmer needs is the additional worry of how he will be able to hand over the family farm and ensure that his son can continue farming and pay his tax. If a farmer who has lost his father is struggling to survive, the last thing he wants is to have to sell vital fields to pay taxes.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has faced significant criticism over the past two years. I am sure that, as a result of clause 59, history will look kindly upon him. Without doubt, family farms and family firms will be ever

  743
  grateful. I support the Bill with more enthusiasm than I have supported any Finance Bill since I have been in the House.
  5.42 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: The hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) seemed to describe a small business and farming world quite different from the one that is out there at the moment. Clause 59 is undoubtedly welcomed by small business, and the related clauses are undoubtedly welcomed by farmers. However, far more of the small business men and farmers whom I meet these days are in no position to hand on substantial amounts of money: they have no great worries on that score. Their problem is to stay out of bankruptcy to keep their businesses afloat in what are proving to be very hostile economic times.
  Many farmers are saying to their sons, "I am not sure whether you will be able to stay on the farm. I am not sure that there will be a living for you on the farm, even if I can hand it on to you." The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the world of small business is currently facing a number of more pressing problems than the one to which he referred, which undoubtedly affected business over many years in the way that he described.
  Mr. Townend: We all accept that there are not large amounts of cash in small businesses, but surely the hon. Gentleman will accept that even a hard-pressed farm of 300 acres faces a serious inheritance tax problem which will be solved by the Government.
  Mr. Beith: I agree. I supported the clauses and said, at the time of the Budget and since, that I would continue to do so. In the current climate, many farmers are saying to their sons, "You will have to think carefully before you even decide to keep the farm going, because I am not sure whether there is an income for the family now." But for the possession of a farmhouse and the ability to run a vehicle on the farm and so on, many farmers would be in a far better financial position if they gave up farming and went down the road to find a relatively poorly paid job, if one was available. It is as bad as that in many sectors of agriculture. It is not an argument against the new clauses: it is a point about the general climate.
  The Financial Secretary was right to point out that the election featured the tax issue in a very significant way, but he drew rather strange conclusions from the figures. Perhaps because he was carried away by the fact that he is occupying an important position in the Government, he seemed to ignore the fact that, whereas 14 million people voted Conservative and therefore must be presumed to support the Budget, 11·5 million people voted Labour and 6 million voted Liberal Democrat. It is impossible to conclude from those figures that the majority of people weighed up the Budget and decided that what they wanted was the Budget presented by the Chancellor.
  The Government won, by the rules of the system, enough seats to form a majority in the House and, under our system, that entitles them to be the Government. However, that does not suggest that the majority of people are convinced by the argument that, in the current circumstances, tax reduction is better than investment. Indeed, the figures suggest that the large majority of
  744
  people voted for parties which, in different degrees, saw grounds for greater taxation in the current circumstances. We argued, for example, that depending on income tax to address the urgent problems of education was desirable. We found wide support for that argument.
  It is also true that, in the latter days of the election campaign, fear arose among many people about what the real implications of the Labour party in government would be and what the real extent of its tax ambitions would be. That undoubtedly influenced voters at the later stages. It did not alter the basic figures or the fact that the majority of people voted against the Government, but it is clearly something that the Labour party will need to address.
  I remain convinced that there is a substantial body of opinion—the majority, as reflected by the figures—which did not accept the Government's argument that they could go on attempting to reduce taxation even at the expense of essential public investment. The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) hinted at that argument. There is a widespread feeling that there are key matters of investment with which we should get ahead now and which, if we do not get ahead with them, will hamper our economic growth.
  If it makes sense, as the Secretary of State for the Environment said, to get into Canary Wharf while it is enormously good value, it must make sense to make some of the essential investments involving the construction industry while the construction industry can offer the most favourable terms while prices are at their lowest. Canary Wharf will remain pretty cheap for quite a long time to come. In the construction industry, prices may go up if we see some signs of recovery. At the moment, we think that it is extremely good value for that industry, and will put people back to work by doing some of the repairs, building and transport construction which is of real value for the future of our industry and economy.
  It was part of our argument in the election that the Budget represented the wrong policy mix for accelerating the end of recession and was a missed opportunity to make some key public investments for which there is wide support. It was also part of our argument, and it is relevant to the Bill, that the Government's choice of tax-cutting measures was not going to address poverty in any significant way or put into people's hands sums of money that would make a significant difference to their purchasing power. One hundred pounds in the hands of an individual, as against £2 billion of public investment, seemed to be an odd choice to make at this stage of the economic cycle and unlikely to bring about serious improvement.
  All the indicators have confirmed the impression, which was echoed on both sides of the House, of continuing recession problems—that is, our continuing output decline, unemployment continuing to rise, house prices and housing turnover continuing to fall, and gloomy reports from several companies. The chairman of Sainsbury said:
  "I do not see any concrete signs of recovery."
  The chairman of Marks and Spencer said that he saw
  "no upturn in UK consumer spending."
  Repossessions appear to be likely to continue, with the Government's scheme still not even off the ground, and the international environment is less favourable than ever to recovery because of the problems that we know exist in the German and Japanese economies. It would have made sense to move not to tax cuts but to investment.

  745
  This is a Bill of missed opportunities. For example, the Government have introduced no new provisions for tax relief on child care. Clearly, there is widespread public demand for such measures. Numerous Conservative Back-Bench Members keep talking about them. They did so in advance of the Budget, as if they were privy to secret information that the Budget would include great new provisions on child care. Year by year, those expectations are disappointed. We shall seek to raise the issue again in the context of this Finance Bill.
  There is no sign in the Bill that the Government see the value of the tax system as something which can be used to support environmental objectives. Although the cut in car tax was welcome, the Government have missed the opportunity to use the tax system to promote environmental ends in relation to motor cars. The Bill does not vary car tax according to engine size or fuel efficiency. Nor does it do the same with other forms of vehicle taxation. Many other fiscal incentives could be used for environmental purposes. For example, corporation tax allowance could be made available for research and development into replacing CFCs. Changes in vehicle excise duty could also be used. There are several ways in which the system could be used for environmental purposes.
  The Bill is also a missed opportunity to deal with poverty. There is no sign in the Bill of any move towards drawing together tax and benefits so that the low take-up of means-tested benefits ceases to contribute to poverty. The Government's tax changes are by no means the most efficient use of resources to help people on low incomes. If the Government are serious about targeting help on the poorest, they should drop the policy of concentrating spare resources on tax cuts via the expansion of the 20p band. Lifting the bottom of the tax band—lifting allowances—helps poorer people than those who are helped by lifting the top of the tax band. Simply expanding the 20p band will not be as effective as lifting the basic tax threshold.
  The Government's particular choice of measures has brought with it considerable administrative costs. The cost of the extra staff required to administer the claims from people who had income taxed at source at the 25p rate but were liable to only the 20p rate will be considerable.
  Before the election, I pressed the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury on the job implications. The Financial Times estimated that 800 new jobs would be required to administer the tax change. The then Chief Secretary said that he did not believe that the number of jobs required would be all that great. He gave a revised estimate later in the debate. He said:
  "I understand that the Inland Revenue anticipates a need for up to 300 additional staff in the first year and possibly more in subsequent years, depending on the take-up rate." —[O? cial Report, 13 March 1992; Vol. 205, c. 1134.]
  In other words, "If people do not claim the tax rebate to which they are entitled, we might get away with not having to employ so many people." That is an odd way of dealing with the entitlements of the taxpayer. The change clearly involves considerable administrative costs, and I shall be interested to know whether the exact cost is now clearer.
  Several measures could have been taken to reduce the bureaucratic burden on small businesses. For example, the continued separation of national insurance from income tax adds considerably to the administrative burden on small businesses. Small businesses have to contend with
  746
  not merely the pay-as-you-earn system but national insurance contributions. If the two were integrated into a single system, there would be a considerable saving in costs to small businesses, as well as a saving on the £1·2 billion that the Government spend on administering the present system.
  In Committee, we shall have to address increasing anxiety about the way in which small businesses are treated by the Inland Revenue. The Sunday Times has highlighted some of the interviews that take place in which taxpayers—especially small business taxpayers—are not fully advised of their rights and interviewed about their tax obligations but find that ignorance of their rights is presumed upon. Tax inspectors, often pressured by their training and the promotion system to take a rigorous attitude, put a great deal of pressure on taxpayers and give the impression that taxpayers are presumed to be guilty, when in law they must be presumed to be innocent.
  There is an increasing file of cases, many of which have been brought to my attention, in which interviews seem to have been conducted in a hostile and unpleasant manner. In Committee, we shall need to inquire what is happening on that front and whether, for example, more details could be made public about the advice and training given to inspectors who carry out the work. They seem to be put under increasing pressure to achieve results by questionable means.
  A measure which might have been included in the Bill, and which I was surprised not to find, was included in the Conservative manifesto. It is the proposal to exclude home owners from paying tax on the rent of rooms in their home. It is a good scheme, which closely echoes something in our manifesto at the previous election. It is a piece of borrowing that I would encourage and welcome.
  If people have surplus capacity in their home, it seems a good idea to encourage them to make it available. It would be particularly helpful to young people with housing problems to relieve them of a tax burden. Often it is not only the tax burden that causes the problem. The problem is that people have to become involved in the tax system simply because they rent one room in their house for perhaps a limited period of a few years when they do not need it for their own family. It is a good idea to relieve them of that problem, and I would like to know from the Government what progress they intend to make on it.
  The Government could also say more about stamp duty. When the stamp duty relief was announced, we all predicted that it would expire at just the time when signs of recovery in the housing market were too few to make it sensible to impose an additional burden at that point. Sure enough, that seems to be what has happened.
  If there is one particularly unwelcome measure in the Bill, it is the third piece of retrospective legislation in respect of certain building societies. The Leeds building society has already been subjected to retrospective legislation. The retrospective proposals in the Bill appear to be designed to frustrate a court action that has already been entered into the lists. They thereby contravene a principle set out by the Economic Secretary last year, when he said that it would have been wrong to try to change the law during a court case. He said that the Committee would have been rightly shocked if the Government had sought to change the law between appeals, and that that would not have been right. Yet here we are engaged on a third piece of retrospective legislation on building societies precisely to prevent a court case from settling the matter.

  747
  All Governments should be stopped in their tracks when they consider engaging on retrospective legislation, yet here we have it for a third time on this matter.
  A further proposal for retrospective legislation is not in the Bill but the Government have announced that it will be introduced by an amendment. It involves life insurance companies. We shall examine it with particular care as the Government engage in their habitual recourse to retrospection in almost every Finance Bill.
  I welcome some features of the Bill. Clause 59 increases the rates of relief against inheritance tax, as has already been mentioned. I also welcome the farmland exemptions. In the case of farmland, it is important to get the balance right so that we do not open a door which invites investment solely for the purpose of securing a tax exemption. That would damage agriculture. So far as those engaged in the industry have been able to assess, the clause seems to get the balance about right. It is a point that the Government must watch carefully.
  The objective is obviously to help to keep farmland in families who have farmed it as a viable business proposition: it is not to open up a new door to people looking for a tax shelter who, in the process of doing so, inflate land prices to the general detriment of agriculture. We must be sure that that balance is carefully kept.
  The provisions on the married couple's allowance are welcome. Again, they are provisions which we have sought for some time. In the past, the Government resisted them on the grounds of administrative cost. I also welcome what the Government have done on gift aid, which again follows an amendment that we moved last year. We wanted to go further, but at least the Government have made a move, and we welcome it.
  The Bill is far from the most exciting Finance Bill that has come before the House. I hope that its Committee stage will not drag on too long. It will allow for the exploration of several points that I have mentioned this afternoon. There will be many other occasions on which the general failings of economic policy which have rather dominated today's debates can be explored.
  5.59 pm
  Mr. John Horam: As you will be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, this is not a maiden speech, but speaking for the first time as the Member for Orpington it would be remiss of me if I did not pay tribute to my predecessor, Mr. Ivor Stanbrook, who had been the Member for Orpington for 22 years. Those who remember Ivor will recall his trenchant views on many subjects, from the family to Northern Ireland, and his willingness to express them both inside and outside the House with strength and vigour. In that sense he was a true parliamentarian and was highly regarded as such. He was also highly regarded by the people of Orpington.
  Historically, Orpington was a part of the county of Kent, but due to some ill-advised local government changes by a previous Conservative Government, for the past 25 years it has been part of the London borough of Bromley. For the most part, my constituents earn their living by commuting into central London and in particular to the City. Their first concern, therefore, is the health of the British economy, which is why I thought it appropriate to make my re-entry speech on the Finance Bill.
  748
  My constituents are equally concerned about British Rail's performance when they make their journey into central London, but that is a topic for another occasion.
  The Government rightly gave high priority in the Queen's Speech to reducing inflation further, but they, and we, will not forget that this recession began in mid-1990, and we have not seen the end of it yet. In their natural concern to reduce inflation further, I hope that they will not push it to the point where the recession is prolonged unnecessarily. Any Government's economic policy must maintain a balance between inflationary dangers and deflationary problems. While we concede that we went too far in pushing growth and inflation in the late 1980s, I do not want the Government to make the equal and opposite mistake and to persist too long with deflationary policies, given the present state of the economy.
  I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), who said that we have an opportunity to lower interest rates and that we should press it. I shall not follow him down the path of Lubyanka and lederhosen, but will simply make the straightforward political point that, while we understood that, for economic and political reasons, the Government could not take risks before the general election, they have forced themselves out of that trap by their skill, and are in a much stronger position. They can take risks, and they should pursue every legitimate opportunity to lower interest rates. I do not believe that we will for ever be bound by the German view of what is right for Europe, and that is becoming the more rational appreciation in the markets and among economists
  My second point relates to public expenditure, on which my view is simple: public expenditure has risen, is rising and should be diminished. As my hon. Friend said in his opening remarks, while the Government reduced the share of GDP taken by general Government expenditure during their period in office from 45 per cent. to a low point of about 40 per cent., it is now creeping back towards 43 per cent. That is too high. One argument is that the increase results partly from the recession. Unemployment benefit has increased and as a result public expenditure has increased, but, ineluctably, it will automatically reduce as we emerge from recession.
  As the prospects of coming out of recession recede—GNP is already being revised downwards for this year—the problem will remain with us. There again, the Government have an interest in striking the right balance between restarting growth and dealing with public expenditure.
  No doubt the Government would also say that part of the public expenditure total was engineered deliberately to flatten out the recession—if public expenditure had not been as high, the recession would certainly have been worse. That argument is all very well at that point in time, but when one begins to emerge from recession the position looks different.
  Present fiscal policy is too lax and monetary policy too tight. That is what is wrong with the balance of Government policy. They need to adjust the balance as soon as they can, in the interests of sensible growth.
  The Government have achieved a low-income-tax, low-corporation-tax economy. Our continental competitors take far more of their GNP in taxation than we do. We have opened a gap between us and them. That is one reason among many—others are a stable Government, an open trade policy and access to the Community—why we

  749
  are making this country a superb place in which to do business. That opportunity is open to us and should be pursued.
  However, even if we reduce general Government expenditure to 40 per cent. of GNP, other countries are still below us, such as Japan, where it is 32 per cent., and the United States of America, where it is 37 per cent. America still has a good economy despite all the rubbish which is written about it. They will continue to open the gap, as will many other Asian countries. We have to press further in that direction.
  The Chief Secretary wrote a pamphlet not long ago describing his vision of an ultra-low-tax economy, and I share that vision. That is the way forward. It can create the virtuous circle—with lower taxation, one will achieve growth, and although public expenditure declines as a proportion of GDP, absolute expenditure rises in real terms, as my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary said. Although past Conservative Governments have increased the standard of living of the average family by a monumental proportion, in comparison with Labour Governments, they have also kept public expenditure rising at a rate not far short of expenditure under Labour Governments. They have done the two-card trick.
  That is the course that I recommend to my right hon. Friend. The Government will know when they have reached the point of success because, precisely at that moment, 365 academic economists will undoubtedly write to The Times to say that their policy is wrong and will never come right, and that the economy can make no progress with that approach. Perhaps that will not happen this time. The academics may have learnt their lesson. However, I am afraid that academics do not usually learn their lesson and are too arrogant to keep quiet.
  Perhaps this time, 365 distinguished members of the public sector will condemn the Government, led by the governors of the BBC, the British Medical Association and others, no doubt after a reflective lunch at the Luckham Park or some other watering place. I hope that, when that moment comes, the Government will have seen the success of those policies and will stick to their guns.
  6.7 pm
  Mr. Ken Purchase: I am grateful that you have called me, Madam Deputy Speaker, and, in rising for the first time in the House, I congratulate you on your new position. As you would expect, I extend those congratulations to my fellow west midlander, the new Speaker. In Wolverhampton, North-East many people were delighted at the appointment of Miss Betty Boothroyd to the Speaker's Chair and felt that it brought honour to the west midlands.
  I know that it is customary to pay regard to one's predecessors and it gives me considerable pleasure to remind the House of John Baird, who finished serving as a Member in 1964. I recall him visiting my boyhood home during his constituency duties. Later, when I was a young and active trade unionist, I remember the great pleasure of listening to John Baird on his public engagements. He was a great and considerable advocate of equality. I recall reading that, when asked about the honours list, he said, somewhat pithily:
  "I joined the Labour party to make workers of Lords and not Lords of workers."
  That was a considerable statement at the time.
  750
  Following John Baird came Renée Short, who had a distinguished parliamentary career, not least as Chair of the Select Committee on Social Services, which produced a number of important reports. One report, with a touch of déjá vu, dealt with the hours of junior doctors, and another seminal one covered maternity services in this country. That report is still widely quoted and much respected, and Renée's work on it will be long remembered.
  My immediate predecessor, Mrs. Hicks, will be recalled more for what happened to the people of Wolverhampton, North-East during her term in the House than for what she did. However, I know that she had a sincere understanding of her constituents' needs and that she worked hard during her time in the House to ensure that those needs were met However, it is for what happened during her tenure, particularly the unremitting increase in the number of unemployed in Wolverhampton, North-East, for which Mrs. Hicks will be recalled. On average, 30 people were chasing every vacancy. In the past two years in Wolverhampton, between 50 and 60 unemployed folk have been chasing every vacancy.
  In the same period, the social security system was changed. It is no coincidence that there was a tremendous increase in the crime rate at the same time as the young, long-term unemployed experienced such difficulties in finding remunerative work. Those factors are connected, although other considerations must be taken into account.
  In the context of changes in the benefit system, many people may share my concern that there has been a poor take-up among elderly people of the benefits available to them. Many of them fear that, if they go to the benefit office for support or for a grant, they will end up with a loan that they cannot possibly repay. I ask hon. Members to recognise that that particular aspect of the benefit system is bound to fail because it does not take into account the great fears that many pensioners have. They share similar fears to their parents who, in the 1930s, were worried about the workhouse and the debtors' gaol. Pensioners still hold such fears, and if the benefit system does not take proper account of them it is no surprise if the take-up of benefit by elderly people is not particularly high.
  In my constituency, great distress was caused to a partially sighted man of 70 years who lost what little money he had to take him through a particular week, and faced a weekend with no food in his flat. He attempted to sell bits and pieces of his belongings to make ends meet before his next benefit cheque arrived, but failed to do so. He went to the local benefit office and was offered a loan of £10, but he refused to accept it because he felt that he would be unable to pay it back as his income for the following week would be exactly the same and there was never anything left to spare. We do not want such cases to arise in Great Britain and I urge that benefit officers should be told that grants rather than loans should be given to pensioners in almost every case when an emergency occurs.
  The period in which my predecessor, Mrs. Hicks, was in the House was marked by a local authority housing waiting list which grew to its highest level for 25 years. Of course, there are some social reasons for that—such as the unfortunate breakdown of marriages and the number of young people pursuing tenancies in their own right. However, at the heart of the growing waiting list problem lies the fact that local authorities have not been able to

  751
  build for need. When that is combined with the fact that many young people starting out fear unemployment and do not take the plunge into buying a house, it has led to considerable housing difficulties in Wolverhampton and elsewhere in the country. Those difficulties are rooted in the fact that local authorities are unable to build for general needs.
  Many couples face frustration in their hunt for decent housing. I do not want to witness the tragedy of little children spending their formative years in high-rise flats and five-storey walk-ups. Councils should be able to build for general need so that every young couple has an opportunity to rent or buy property at a price that they can afford and children have an opportunity to play in gardens, as is their absolute right.
  It has been my intention that the thread running through my speech should be related to employment—the wealth that it creates and the misery that the lack of it causes. One of the growth areas for employment in recent years has been the worker co-operative movement, in which I have been proud to play some part. At the same time, mainline co-operative societies have faced strong competition, but they have met it by merging and growing. Unfortunately, the tax position of those societies has worsened since 1984 so that the growth in their profits has been overtaken by the growth in their tax burden.
  I am sure that that was not the intention, but as the societies have grown and amalgamated to face the competition, they have lost the benefit of the small firms remission of corporation tax. I urge the Government to consider that with some sympathy because the first priority of co-operative societies is not profit maximisation: they depend on retained profits and borrowing to expand and to meet the needs of the shopping public. I believe that they should be encouraged, rather than discouraged as they have been by the loss of the remission.
  The reasons that remission was given to co-operative societies are still valid today as co-operatives have an important part to play in the development of employment in our communities. Statistics show that, in 1990–91, such societies paid a much greater rate in tax than they earned in profits. That matter should be addressed by the House.
  6.16 pm
  Mr. Alan Duncan: I am obliged to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to utter my first words in the House.
  I am pleased to speak in the same debate as my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), whom I have watched for many years with great respect. Even though he has momentarily left the Chamber, I am also glad to follow my constituency neighbour, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who I am pleased to see so happily installed in his new job. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) on his maiden speech, and I look forward to sparring with him across the Chamber on many future occasions.
  Rutland and Melton is an oasis of traditional England between the M1 and the A1. It is surrounded by towns such as Leicester, Nottingham, Grantham—perhaps not so much a town as a shrine—Stamford and Corby. The agricultural interest remains important and, although it
  752
  may not please some hon. Members, hunting remains not only popular, but a living force for the interests of conservation.
  The constituency also has light industry. Indeed, if one owns a pet, the chances are that one will have fed it with a brand name from Europe's largest canning factory in Melton Mowbray. The constituency also includes Syston and Thurmaston on the edge of Leicester, and the spectacular vale of Belvoir.
  Perhaps the constituency is best known for containing the valiant county of Rutland. I took a look at the history books, one of which says:
  "although Rutland had a distinct status in the Anglo-Saxon period, its rise to the status of shire and the dignity of a sheriff was the product of a confused process in the twelfth century".
  That same book states that the 1974 local reforms
  "removed elements of disorder on the map, such as the foolish county of Rutland."
  I say of that author, the more fool him.
  Those local government reforms created a hateful mix of the urban and the rural. They trampled over traditional boundaries and ignored community identities. Feeling in Rutland still runs very high indeed and most people want the return of unitary status for the county. And why not? If the cost is not punitive, they should be entitled to the status for which they are asking. I am pleased to say that, thanks to legislation passed by my party, including the Local Government Act 1992, and with the Royal Commission just starting its work, Rutland is given a chance. I implore hon. Members to take Rutland's case seriously and not to dismiss it as a quixotic campaign or to disqualify Rutland simply on the grounds of its size.
  I take up the cudgels for Rutland and Melton behind a line of distinguished parlimentarians. For a long time, Rutland was represented by Sir Kenneth Lewis. He still lives in the constituency, and I sometimes think that he has as many friends as there are people in the county. He is a popular figure, always ready with some fatherly advice and a good yarn to tell.
  But for 18 years Melton, and then Rutland and Melton, were served by Michael Latham. From a personal point of view, I could not have been more fortunate in the person I shadowed for two years as prospective candidate. All in the area talk of the diligent and conscientious manner in which Michael Latham handled constituency problems. He entered the House with a particular expertise in housing, and Ministers came to value his advice. He developed a reputation for being independent-minded. He was not one to seek office at all costs.
  His religious views, and his opinions on the state of Israel particularly, are well known, and it is appropriate that he should have moved on from here to run the Council of Christians and Jews. Contrary to reports, I do not believe that he intends to take holy orders. I hope that that will mean that Michael will not be entirely lost to politics in the years ahead. I am sure that hon. Members join me in wishing him and his wife Caroline every good fortune.
  My purpose in speaking today is to welcome the measures in the Finance Bill. The measure marks the continuation of the economic progress that we have made since 1979. Indeed, the determination to tackle economic collapse spurred me above all to enter political activity in the first place.
  Particularly welcome are the inheritance tax proposals. They are based on the belief that the successful

  753
  accumulation of wealth should be allowed to be passed on. Why—as it appears many Opposition Members would have it—should every generation be required to go back to square one, based on some misplaced understanding of what equality of 'opportunity involves? The Bill will benefit family farms and family businesses, and I welcome the measures so well defended by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend).
  Any Bill designed to alter the rules of taxation inevitably provokes a litany of special pleading, and it is the unenviable task of the Chancellor and his team to distinguish naked self-interest from a good case. In his original Budget statement, the Chancellor referred to surplus advanced corporation tax—to some, perhaps, a rather abtruse matter. Some companies are taxed in the United Kingdom on estimates of their earnings overseas. Indeed, they are overtaxed, but they are stuck with the position.
  The effect is to reduce the research and development that such companies would carry out in this country, and it works against their wishing to set up their headquarters in the United Kingdom. That was not intended to flow from the imputation tax system that developed in the 1970s, and I hope that the Chancellor will reconsider in the years ahead the effects of the measure.
  The Bill contains many welcome measures affecting the operation of VAT, especially the removal of fiscal frontier controls. But there remain some simple, practical difficulties in the administration of VAT that should be addressed particularly as no cost would be involved.
  I could cite the example of a haulage contractor based in Melton Mowbray who pays VAT on his fuel purchases in other EC member countries. As a business, he is entitled to reclaim it, but he does not get it back, as least not for months and sometimes even years. We decent Brits repay overseas claimants quickly, but that efficiency is not reciprocated. So again, our comparative sense of fair play works more to the benefit of our competitors than to that of our exporting businesses. I urge the Revenue to take a good look at the fair working of the refunding of VAT elsewhere in the Community.
  I hope that the Finance Bill is but a prelude to our addressing certain long-term objectives for the economy. Some of the nastier consequences of the recession flow from the extent to which the fortunes of businesses and individuals are critically affected by changes in interest rates. We have a structural problem, in part a cultural one. Far too much of our investment funding in based on debt rather than on equity. It should become one of the major challenges of this Parliament to address the question of how to shift investment from debt to equity, because part of the problem arises from the simple fact that debt servicing is tax-deductible, while the cost of equity servicing is not.
  Hand in hand with that is the objective of overseeing recovery without massive house price inflation. As many of my hon. Friends know, wary though I am of taking further steps towards monetary union, I believe that the ERM might yet prove a blessing, in that its effect will be to iron out the peaks and troughs which in the past have been damagingly extreme.
  I am all for people owning their homes, but we do better to persuade them not to look on their houses as a tax-free source of easy riches on which they can regularly draw. I
  754
  would rather we promoted a savings culture in which individuals increasingly had a genuine stake in the economy, and the key to that is pensions.
  At present, our pensions rules are unfathomable. A personal pension attaching unequivocally to the person who has invested in it will lead to private capital accumulation in areas other than housing. Why cannot employees in the public sector pay their contributions into private schemes? We should take a long-term view, for the time has come when people should be allowed to do that.
  By tackling such structural deficiencies in the economy, we could provoke a major change in the economic fortunes of individuals. I share the Chancellor's vision of a capital-owning democracy. I hope that we can see an economy in which individuals increasingly build their own stake in it. I hope that we can promote a savings culture out of which dependency on the state will be reduced and self-reliance increased. If, to set the tone, a strict settlement of our public expenditure commitments is demanded, the Chancellor and his team will have vigorous support in their efforts from this quarter.
  6.29 pm
  Mr. John Battle: I congratulate the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) on a witty and thought-provoking speech. Listening to him, I felt that my constituency in the inner city of Leeds was worlds away from his. I agree that we should be addressing the long-term structural problems facing our economy but, unlike the hon. Gentleman, I do not believe that the Finance Bill even starts to do that. We are faced with the leftovers of the pre-election tax-cutting bribe of a Budget that was rushed through the House in March.
  In response to the Finance Secretary's speech, I would point out that, on 9 April, the people of Leeds, West delivered their verdict on the Budget and the Finance Bill: they overwhelmingly rejected them because they felt that they do not address their problems. Like the recent Queen's Speech, there is nothing in the Bill to tackle the rising unemployment that so many of my constituents face. According to the Government's last April figures, unemployment in my constituency is running at 10·7 per cent. That is a 17 per cent. increase on April last year. However, there are no practical measures in the Budget to tackle long-term unemployment, which is becoming a primary cause of poverty, particularly when financial assistance to the unemployed is so inadequate.
  In his former life, before he converted to Treasury ways, the Financial Secretary voted against Government moves to cut unemployment benefit. I hope that he continues in that strategy, but I suspect from his speech that we shall not see him defending unemployment benefit.
  There are no measures in the Bill to address the problems of the change in the labour market. There is now a fracture between what might be described as the primary restricted market, offering relatively secure, well-paid employment, and an expanding secondary labour market in which employment is temporary, irregular or part-time and often badly paid.
  There is not much in the Finance Bill for the homeless and those in my constituency who desperately need a decent, adequate home at a rent that they can afford. There is not even a clause to enable local authorities to use their accumulated capital receipts from the sale of council houses. There is no extension of last year's moratorium on

  755
  stamp duty. Despite the fact that, in 1991, 75,500 homes were repossessed because people could not keep up mortgage repayments, all that the Bill offers, in clause 36, is a tinkering with the business expansion scheme.
  In other words, the Bill is characterised by its omissions. It is remarkable for its silences on matters that affect thousands of our constituents who want something to address their real economic circumstances. The Bill is part of the Government's strategy of simply sustaining the impression that there are no economic problems left since the general election. The Government are putting across the impression that unemployment has not escalated; that, in the first three months of 1992, 14,900 firms did not go bust; that homelessness on our streets and in the doorways of our major cities is an illusion; that low and lowering pay is not a reality for many people.
  The President of the Board of Trade, speaking recently at a conference organised by The Sunday Times, called for pay restraint. Rather than addressing the average unit labour cost, he would have done better to address the board of directors' rake offs, which have been running at 9·3 per cent. Most of my constituents earn nowhere near the average wage of nearly £400 a week for the male earner, and many women earn even less.
  In the debate on the last Finance Bill, the then Chief Secretary said:
  "It is always difficult to forecast a turning point, but there is now accumulating evidence of one."
  He referred to
  "a marked increase in optimism and output expectations"
  and spoke of the "recovery in confidence". He said:
  "We are confident that it will lead to an increase in activity … We must remember how far we have come from a stagnant economy."
  Later, he said:
  "perception is lagging behind reality."—[O? official Report, 30 April 1991; Vol. 190, c. 178–80.]
  We have not come very far from that "stagnant economy". The Government have still not yet caught up with the reality behind their perceptions. The number of people unemployed for over a year is now 841,000—an increase by 94,000 in the first quarter of this year. Unemployment has now risen for 25 consecutive months. Last month alone, 42,600 people lost their jobs. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research forecasts that unemployment will remain at almost 3 million for the next five years. That is the prospect that we face despite the Government's assurance a year ago that we had come out of a "stagnant economy".
  The public sector borrowing requirement is projected at a staggering £34 billion for this financial year, and the Government are saying that they cannot get it down without swingeing cuts in public expenditure. I predict that, despite protestations in the Chamber and in the papers, the Government will come to the House before too long to announce that they have abolished zero rating of VAT so as to tackle the size of the PSBR. The only other way to tackle it is to increase personal taxation, and the Government are committed to go in the other direction.
  Manufacturing investment fell by 11 per cent. to the first quarter of 1992 and is 27 per cent. lower than at its peak in the first quarter of 1990. In constituencies such as mine, which is dependent on the engineering, textile and
  756
  printing industries, that means that work in manufacturing has gone and will not come back because the Government will not commit resources to investment in manufacturing.
  Interestingly, yesterday in Rio, the Secretary of State for the Environment told the world that the major nations were
  "in the middle of a very, very bad recession."
  When we come to the House to protest about high levels of unemployment, we are told by Ministers that the country is coming out of the recession. That is the line for consumption at home, but abroad they say that we are in the depths of a recession.
  Yesterday, my local newspaper, the Yorkshire Evening Post had a report on the struggle of students to find jobs over the summer break. Young people bear the brunt of unemployment, and young people in further education, who cannot claim benefit during the holidays and who cannot get grants, have to find work somewhere to make ends meet. The report says:
  "The annual hunt for summer jobs looks set to be tougher than ever with recession still taking its toll on traditional employers of casual workers."
  According to the Department of Employment in Leeds, the amount of casual work on offer is down on last year. The total number of temporary jobs for the summer available in the city last week was 39, including vacancies for bar staff, cleaners and secretaries. There are not too many signs of recovery there, when even casual labour has almost totally dried up.
  The Finance Bill could make improvements. Why do not the Government use clause 53 and schedule 11, which make tax changes for insolvent companies, to tackle a loophole in insolvency law which means that the occupational pensions of hundreds of people are in jeopardy from the Maxwell collapse? I suspect that that is merely the tip of a pension crash iceberg. The Government should change the rules and protect pensions.
  The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton said that the pension rules were unfathomable. What is more than obvious in recent weeks is that occupational pensions are unprotected because the Government have not enacted sufficient protection measures for those pensions. Why cannot the Bill be used for that?
  On a more positive note, why cannot the Government amend clause 48 and schedule 9 in order to foster and encourage the formation and growth of local community credit unions? That would be a practical and positive way in which to take people out of personal consumer debt and help those who are often left in the hands of the loan sharks. That would be better than raising inheritance tax thresholds simply to make it easier for owners of farms and family companies to pass on land and shares to their descendants. Clauses 58 and 59 and schedule 13 effectively take some 3,000 private estates in Britain out of inheritance tax altogether. That is hardly the hallmark of the classless society that the Prime Minister claims to be creating.
  Clause 60 and schedule 14 deal with petrol tax. In this week of all weeks, with the Earth summit, would it not have been better for the Government to fund a complete review of the privatisation of public transport, particularly the bus sector, and then ensure that there is investment in public transport so that it becomes a positive economic alternative to cars?

  757
  The Government suggest that they cannot do anything, that they have no power, but they have just been elected to power. They cannot pretend, like a sympathetic, hand-wringing bystander, that they can do nothing. People will not allow the Government to hide behind paper charters while secretly manipulating the country's resources and pretending that there is nothing that can be done about the economy.
  There is insufficient in the Finance Bill to address the fundamental problems that have been referred to of the need to provide employment and training and investment in our manufacturing base. The Bill simply shows that the Government are still prepared to give away twice as much money in personal tax cuts—about £1·8 billion—as they are prepared to give to industry, commerce and training to fight the recession—a mere £800 million.
  I conclude with just a few observations from an essay by J. K. Galbraith, based on his latest book, "The Culture of Contentment". In that book, he spells out how an "underclass" is an integral part of a larger economic process serving the living standards and the comfort of the more favoured community, and how the economically fortunate are dependent on the presence of that "underclass". That "underclass" is increasingly denied any generational upward economic movement in our society and so becomes semi-permanent, frustrated and discontented.
  Galbraith says:
  "It is an occasion for wonder that the discontent and its more violent and aggressive manifestations are not greater than they are."
  He continues:
  "Nothing in the age of contentment has contributed so strongly to income inequality as the reduction of taxes on the rich."
  He concludes:
  "Life in the great cities in general could be improved, and only will be improved, by public action—by better schools with better-paid teachers, by strong, well-financed welfare services, by counselling on drug addiction, by employment training, by public investment in the housing that in no industrial country is provided for the poor by private enterprise, by adequately supported recreational facilities, libraries and police. The question once again, much accommodating rhetoric to the contrary, is not what can be done but what will be paid."
  Sadly, that is a question that the Finance Bill does not address.
  6.43 pm
  Mr. Roger Moate: The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree with much of his rather dismal analysis—
  Mr. Battle: The hon. Gentleman does not live where I do.
  Mr. Moate: —and gloomy predictions, despite the fact that we in the south-east of England also have quite severe problems resulting from unemployment and recession. However, the economic signs are rather brighter than the hon. Gentleman would suggest, and the Finance Bill will contribute significantly to the economic recovery that is on its way, albeit too slowly for most hon. Members.
  I agree with the hon. Gentleman, however, in the tribute that he paid to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan). My hon. Friend made
  758
  what I think we all thought was a most eloquent, amusing and powerful speech and I appreciated his generous tribute to his predecessor, Michael Latham.
  I also take this opportunity to say how much I enjoyed the powerful speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam). In his previous incarnation, he was one of the most courteous, responsive and helpful Ministers, and if I did not say so at the time, he will understand that the circumstances were rather different.
  The introduction of the new 20 per cent. tax band in the Budget was a most skilful and welcome proposition which was a key factor in the general election. It was a skilful use of limited resources which demonstrated the contrast between the Conservative party's belief in lower taxation and the Liberal and Labour parties' declared belief in higher taxation. The electorate understood that there were only limited resources and that the band could only be small at this stage, but that the measure was a pointer of hope for the future and a sign of how we intend to progress in years to come.
  That aspect of the Budget was crucial. It was a skilful use of resources on which the electorate passed judgment —despite the view of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who seemed to suggest that the election proved that there was a vote for increases in taxation. The hon. Gentleman can convince himself of anything.
  I want to address one particular point on which other hon. Members have touched. It is a specific point and I make no apologies for raising it because I suspect that this is the last serious chance that we shall have to persuade the Government to change their mind. I refer to something that is not in the Finance Bill, should he in the Finance Bill and perhaps—is it too much to hope?—will be in the Finance Bill by Third Reading. That is, the elimination of stamp duty on house purchase.
  We all know that an exemption was introduced last autumn to try to stimulate the housing market. Can anyone deny that the housing market is still in need of stimulation? It is hardly logical that we should now be proposing to reintroduce stamp duty in August this year when the housing market is in such difficulties. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to reconsider the position now and to use this opportunity to think again about making permanent not just exemption from but—I go further—the elimination of stamp duty.
  For years, many of us have argued that stamp duty on house purchase is an unjust and unfair tax. I think that all hon. Members believe in home ownership, despite different emphases, so it is illogical to have a tax on home ownership, particularly a tax which impinges when people are struggling hardest to buy their own home. We are almost getting rid of the tax. Exemption from it exists until August this year. Is it not ironic that, having come so close to eliminating the tax from the statute book, we are proposing to bring it back?
  We are told that the revenue implications of the exemption from stamp duty would be too serious. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will answer this point specifically. I cannot see how that can be correct. We were told at the time of the exemption that it could be afforded because the £1 billion that it would cost would not be required until 1993 as a result of the introduction of the TAURUS system on the stock exchange. Therefore, at the

  759
  very least, we can afford further tax relief on housing for the rest of this year and into next year. The same argument applies.
  A pick-up in the housing market may make the cost to the Exchequer even greater, but such a sign of economic activity would mean that we could afford to make tax relief on stamp duty permanent. That change would be welcomed. Last year, we were told that the cost of suspending stamp duty would be £400 million in a full 12 months. I do not believe that that is the measure of relief, because the housing market has not been that buoyant. We ought to be given facts and figures as to the real cost of the temporary relief, which I argue strongly should be made permanent.
  In what other area of taxation does a zero rate operate, on a permanent basis, up to a figure of £30,000, and then a full rate on the whole amount? At present, there is stamp duty exemption up to £249,000, after which 1 per cent. is payable on the whole transaction. It is a most unjust and unfair tax, and few people could justify it except on the ground of revenue need.
  The current need is to take action that will stimulate the housing market. I urge my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary not to allow stamp duty relief to be discontinued on 19 August. That is an arbitrary and unreasonable proposition. Instead, he should take the opportunity provided by the Bill to offer some help to home owners and to the housing market.
  6.50 pm
  Mrs. Barbara Roche: During the general election campaign, the Government said that, if they were re-elected, there would be movement in the economy. Despite all the talk, Britain is still in recession. The Government say that business wants to be certain of the economy's overall condition. That is perhaps the only sentiment expressed by Ministers with which I can agree. Business does want to know with certainty what is the state of the economy.
  Gross domestic product fell again in the first quarter of this year, as did manufacturing investment. Even the slight improvement in retail sales was counterbalanced by the appalling surge in our trade deficit, which seriously puts in question any sustained recovery. Unemployment continues to climb month after month, hitting individuals and their families and sapping morale. Behind every statistic there are human tragedies.
  The recession has hit every region hard, but nowhere harder than London and the south-east. Unemployment in London, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, remains high and is rising, and many Londoners are finding it difficult to pay their way out of the highly geared situation in which they find themselves. That makes it unlikely that London's economy will be able to spend its way to recovery.
  In Hornsey and Wood Green, more than 100 people chase every job vacancy. They are desperate; they look for work every day but are unable to find it. A similar picture is to be found throughout London, with the percentage of employees working in the service sector declining, and the construction sector facing the acute problems of the housing and office markets.
  760
  The sad debacle of the docklands—vaunted in the 1980s as the Conservatives' dream city, but now lying idle —tells its own story. The Prime Minister still considers the docklands
  "one of the most remarkable projects one will find anywhere in the world."
  To Londoners, it is a symbol of failed Conservatism—an unbending ideological commitment to the market, whatever the human cost. The Evening Standard is seldom thought of as a newspaper that is sympathetic to the Labour party, but on Friday it described London as "Ghost City, 1992", where,
  "as the To Let sign becomes the dominant feature of London's cityscape … great swathes of London could become a kind of European Brasilia—all architectural style and little content, the silence broken only by the footsteps of the security guards."
  That is a devastating forecast for those of us who represent London constituencies and who love the capital.
  The Government's refusal to invest in the Jubilee line extension, which is so badly needed if south-east and east London are to be rejuvenated, is symptomatic of another of London's problems: the continuing trend among top companies to relocate outside London. Who can blame them, when one considers London's transport infrastructure? Last April's survey by the Association of London Authorities of commuter fares in Europe showed that London had the highest fares in the Community.
  The tragic human face of recession can be glimpsed in repossession figures for London and the United Kingdom as a whole. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) referred to the 75,000 families who lost their homes in 1991—the highest figure on record, and an increase of 72 per cent. on 1990. Mortgage levels show a similar sad tale, with one in 12 mortgage payers two months or more in arrears—another record level.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: One of the most frightening statistics of all is that more than I million families in south-east England have a mortgage debt that exceeds the value of their homes. They are unable to sell or to move, because they would immediately become insolvent.
  Mrs. Roche: I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House are visited in their surgeries by constituents who have problems with mortgage arrears.
  Londoners deserve better. London should once again be a world-class capital, but unfortunately the Bill contributes nothing to that. London needs investment in training, education, research, and development. I urge the Government to think again and to do something for London. When we do something for London, we shall be doing something for Britain as a whole, and for our economic future.
  6.57 pm
  Mr. Clive Betts: In judging the effectiveness of the Finance Bill, we ought to ascertain whether it will assist in the growth of our national resources, and in their distribution between our citizens. My constituents want to know what the Bill will achieve in terms of employment. Those who have a job want to know whether they are more likely to keep it. Those who are unemployed want to know whether they are more likely to get a job. My constituents want to know what the Bill will

  761
  do not only to their take-home pay but to their quality of life, in terms of the public services upon which they and their families rely.
  Earlier, the Financial Secretary spoke of the Budget's contribution to the Government's victory in the general election. That victory was secured not only on the Government's record but on their promises, and now the Government must fulfil their promises. Their fulfilment may prove a good deal more difficult than their making.
  The Government are responsible for the recession that dominates our economic life at present. The brakes were slammed on following the Lawson boom, but during the election campaign the Government tried to gloss over that fact with frequent references to the international aspects of recession, claiming that Britain was merely one of a number of countries suffering from the same problems. The Chancellor mentioned the recession in Germany in his Budget speech. It is interesting that he should have singled out that country. Last year, Germany was the only other European Community country in recession. The rest of Europe experienced a growth in output of 1·4 per cent., while this country suffered from recession throughout the same period.
  In the Finance Bill, we should be looking for ways of emerging from recession and assisting recovery. It is interesting to note that the Government have almost stopped talking about what the Bill will do to assist recovery; now, they almost take pride in saying that they are doing nothing—that they are simply sitting back and waiting for recovery to happen.
  Significantly, there are no discernible signs of recovery in any of the daily or weekly indicators. That is especially true of those that have appeared since the general election. The Government, however, should not worry only about the fact that there are no signs of recovery at present; they should ask how long such a recovery will last—if, indeed, it comes at all —and how strong it will be. There are no signs of recovery in the manufacturing industry in my Sheffield constituency, and no signs of job creation. No investment is taking place. The suggestion that manufacturing industry would be willing to invest as soon as the result of the election was known has simply not been borne out.
  All that my constituents see is the prospect of unemployment not only remaining high, but rising further. All that the small businesses in my constituency see is a worsening prospect of being put out of business, rather than the hope of future recovery. As for the retail industry, we all see in our towns and cities not the prospect of recovery, but the reality of shops being boarded up daily and weekly.
  Is housing supposed to get us out of recession? There is little evidence of recovery in the private sector. Throughout the debate, Conservative Members have referred to the proposal to reinstate stamp duty, the temporary abolition of which represents the one small effort that the Government have made to bring about recovery in housing. As for their public-sector housing record, it continues to be deplorable in every way. Indeed, an Audit Commission report produced the other day condemned the Government on both economic and social grounds.
  The Government could have included in the Bill a measure to stimulate economic recovery by putting people to work in the construction industry, at the same time providing homes for those who are currently homeless.
  762
  That would not have cost them a penny. Sheffield city council has £21 million in capital receipts this year: it has this money in its coffers, which it could spend tomorrow if the Government would only remove the restrictions on such spending. That is the kind of assistance that they could give if they chose to do so.
  All that we have heard from Conservative Members about public-sector help is a request for the Government to get tough with spending Departments in the coming financial round. When Conservative Members talk about getting tough with spending Departments, they really mean getting tough with the homeless, the sick, children and the elderly, for those are the people who rely on large spending Departments to deliver the services that they want.
  Ours is not simply a short-term problem. The Government should concentrate not only on recovery in the short term; major failings can be seen in the medium and long term as well, and the Bill does not address them. Let us examine the Government's claimed achievements. Apparently, all the heartache of unemployment and all the problems of recession are necessary simply to lower inflation to a reasonable level. It seems to me that the Government's one achievement—their one claimed achievement, even—is the lowering of inflation. In any event, in historical terms 5·7 per cent. is not particularly low.
  Achieving that level of inflation has necessitated a further rise in unemployment. The last set of figures showed not merely an increase, but a rising rate of increase. The level has risen from a record level in boom conditions. Meanwhile, there is no growth in the economy. As the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) pointed out an hour or so ago, although the Government claim credit for interest rate reductions, reductions in interest rates are themselves not real, but only apparent. Because of the fall in inflation that took place at the same time, real interest rates have risen during the period in which the Government have presided over the longest recession in post-war Britain. As yet, the Government have given us no answers to explain that major contradiction.
  The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North drew some interesting comparisons between indicators. The Government face real problems, and they must deal with those problems. At a time of record recession and record rises in unemployment, why does our balance of payments show not merely a deficit, but a deficit that is beginning to grow? A public sector borrowing requirement of £28 billion is forecast. That figure is camouflaged by receipts from privatisations; moreover, according to all the current estimates, the PSBR is likely to increase to £40 billion by the end of the year. Surely we are seeing a very special kind of economic mismanagement when a Government preside over a rapidly rising balance of payments deficit and a rapidly rising PSBR at the same time. The Government must resolve that problem, and the problem of conflicting indicators.
  The root of these problems is the Government's long-term mismanagement of the economy. They have failed to invest in infrastructure in both the public and the private sector. Our economy needs more than a way of emerging from a short-term recession. It is not just a matter of addressing the medium-term issues; a proper, sustained and planned long-term economic approach is

  763
  required. We need a long-term plan for public-sector investment if we are to secure the infrastructure that other European Community countries have.
  Let us consider the Government's record. The issue of Canary Wharf and docklands has been raised this afternoon; alongside that is the question of the rail link with the channel tunnel. The channel tunnel is supposed to be one of the great efforts at investment in infrastructure to benefit our economy as a result of growing ties with Europe, but there is still considerable uncertainty about where—and, indeed, whether—the rail link will be built. It is disgraceful that we are not constructing that link now, but are arguing about where it should be built, and whether it should be built at all.
  In terms of benefit to Sheffield, there has been no meaningful discussion, let alone any real investment, in connection with a link not between the tunnel and London but on to the north, so that that area too can gain long-term economic benefits from trade with Europe, and from being part of the European Community. Where is the Government's plan for that, and where will the investment come from?
  Where are the plans and investment to deal with the way in which we move people around in our cities? What are the Government's proposals? Bus deregulation in 1986 has beent their only offering in that regard, and it has proved disastrous for the economic and social life of our major cities. The Government are now investing in a light rail system, but we should compare Sheffield with its twin city, Bochum in Germany. Bochum's bus service has not been deregulated. It has an efficient tramway and light rail system and a regional rail network, and it has invested in inter-city rail services. Its economy is far more advanced than ours.
  We have also failed to invest in education and training, the personal as well as the physical infrastructure. We lack, therefore, the ingredients for long-term competitiveness.
  As for the way that we are treating small businesses during the recession—the seedcorn of our future economic growth—as the chair of the south Yorkshire pensions authority, I have witnessed during the recession small firms applying in their hundreds for venture capital investment. No other financial institutions were willing to invest in them. The Finance Bill does not address the fundamental question of how to channel finance from the financial institutions into manufacturing and other industries, so that wealth can be created in order to sustain long-term growth and recovery.
  Conservative Members ought to be asking why the Government are not putting forward proposals to sustain and develop small firms. That key issue must be addressed. The Finance Bill fails to provide assistance towards short-term economic recovery. Moreover, the Bill does not deal with medium-term problems, including the conflict between the balance of payments deficit on the one hand and record levels of unemployment and record low levels of growth on the other. It fails also to address long-term investment issues, including improvements to the infrastructure. Furthermore, it includes nothing that would assist the development and growth of small firms.
  7.11 pm
  Dr. John Marek: Tonight we are debating the Finance Bill, some two months after the general election when the Conservative party obtained roughly the same share as it did last time and the time before—42·8 per cent. of the poll. Under the present electoral system, that is once again being translated into a Conservative overall majority in the House of Commons, but this time the Government have only 336 seats. Nevertheless, that represents 51·6 per cent. of the total number of seats.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer regards that as a ringing endorsement of the Government. In the debate on the Queen's Speech, he said:
  "the British people have given a ringing endorsement of the Government's economic policies, and decisively rejected the tired shop-worn policies of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues."—[O? official Report, 13 May 1992; Vol. 207, c. 628.]
  He was, of course, referring to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). What he failed, however, to grapple with was the arithmetic. Any ringing endorsement would have demanded, I should have thought, at least 50 per cent., and 42·6 per cent. is considerably short of that. This Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is in charge of the nation's finances, is incapable of moderating his language and his adjectives.
  Furthermore, at the Conservative party conference on 11 October 1990, the Chief Secretary said of the poll tax:
  "Let us go out from this hall together and proclaim its advantages. The community charge makes local government accountable. The community charge revives local democracy. The community charge puts power into the hands of local people. That, ladies and gentlemen, is an achievement to be proud of."
  However, the Chief Secretary's achievement has been to squander £19 billion of taxpayers' money. That sum would have gone a considerable way towards wiping out the forthcoming public sector borrowing requirement. That man, translated from the Department of the Environment to the Treasury, is now in charge of the nation's economy. I fear that that is a bad omen for the next three or four years.
  Reasonable people—I do not regard the Chief Secretary or the Chancellor of the Exchequer as reasonable in this respect—might have thought that the Government's new majority, which is very much smaller than the Conservative party obtained for the last Parliament, would at least have led to some measures of a more consensual nature, which the majority of electors who voted against the Conservatives would have recognised as necessary and beneficial for the country.
  A foreign journalist might have been tempted to write a piece saying that the Tories had had a major reverse, that they had lost 40 seats and that they needed to rethink their policies on such matters as how to get out of the recession and how to stop hospital waiting lists from growing to all-time highs. The waiting lists are higher now than they were during the winter of discontent. That is an utter condemnation of the Conservative party.
  Mr. Dorrell: Wrong
  Dr. Marek: It is not wrong. I have the statistics here. I shall pass them to the Financial Secretary so that he can educate himself.
  The Tory party could also, according to the foreign journalist, have thought about how to cut the burden of

  765
  taxation. It is much higher now that it was under Labour in the 1970s. The Tory party might also, according to the foreign journalist's piece, have thought about how to regulate the seamy side of the City and, above all, about how to get people back to work and provide enough homes for every family to live in. But not a bit of it.
  This second Finance Bill simply puts into effect measures that were announced in the March Budget that were not included in the Finance Bill introduced before the election. Any foreign journalist, and many hon. Members on this side of the House reading the Bill, could remark only upon its inconsequentiality when it comes to the great economic issues that face the country.
  Despite that lack of substance, we have had a good debate. A number of Members have made some very good points. As usual, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) made a succinct and clear critique of the Bill.
  I wish to refer to the maiden speech, or perhaps it was a quasi-maiden speech, of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam). Certain parts of his speech were clearly not pure Thatcher, especially when he urged the House not to treat inflation as the judge and jury of Government policies and when he asked the Government to get us out of recession and not to worry too much about inflation. I thought that I saw a few of his hon. Friends looking into the distance when he made his speech. Nevertheless, it was very interesting and I was pleased to hear it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) made a telling maiden speech. He spoke from the heart about the problems faced by his constituents when it came to the benefits for which they have to apply when out of work. His statement about making workers out of lords and not lords out of workers is one about which I shall have to think for a little longer before I come to a decision as to its validity. It may need just a few qualifications. Nevertheless, I was glad to hear my hon. Friend.
  I suspect that the result of the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) will be that we shall hear more of Rutland in this Chamber. If his speech is anything to go by, the hon. Gentleman will pay great regard to the needs of his constituents. He referred to the fact that Finance Bills involve special pleading. I have to say to him in a nice way, since it was a maiden speech —though I had to choke back an intervention when he made the point—that special pleading usually comes when 40 or 50 new clauses are tabled by his hon. Friends for the Committee stage of a Finance Bill. I hope, therefore, that he will be a member of the Committee, when I shall ask him to monitor the special pleading with me and my hon. Friends.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) made his usual speech—[Interruption.] His points were valid and well put. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), speaking for the second time, spoke about London. She is right to say that London has one of the most decrepit transport systems. Something must be done. Hon. Members have only to go to any other capital city in western Europe to see that my hon. Friend is right.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) spoke well. It was not a maiden speech, and I am sure that we will hear many more contributions from him about the difficulties facing Sheffield in the recession.
  766
  We charge that the Government are smug and self-satisfied. They know that they need not be in a hurry, as there is some time before they have to face the electorate again. They are prepared to see our present economic troubles continue with a substantial minority of people living in poverty. Since the election, it has become clear that the Chancellor's estimate of a £28 billion public sector borrowing requirement for 1992–93 was either incompetent or mischievous. In spite of 13 years of Tory rule, public finances are in a desperate state.
  It is widely believed that the Treasury now thinks that the deficit will be over £30 billion, as opposed to the £28 billion forecast at the time of the Budget, and that next year it will be about £40 billion. That represents 6 per cent. of GDP. Hon. Members will note that that is double the suggested maximum in the Maastricht treaty. The Government have some way to go before achieving what the Maastricht treaty says should be achieved in the United Kingdom.
  In addition, last month's trade figures showed that the current account was above £1 billion again, so I doubt whether the Treasury's forecast of 3 per cent. growth for the years 1993–94 and onwards can be achieved without an early balance of payments crisis. At least in previous Tory-inspired recessions—1974–75 and 1980–81—we had a balance of payments surplus. Not this time—we are in a hole. When a Conservative Government get the country's economy into a mess, the Labour party is usually called upon by the electors to form a Government and get us out of trouble. This time, 42·8 per cent. of the electorate have inflicted another Conservative Government on the country, and it is up to that Government to do something about the recession.
  I search in vain in the Finance Bill for any new Government action. It was once said that economic management is like trying to drive a fast car with the aid of only a rear view mirror. The Government are driving the economy in precisely that way, with the aid of a road map called the free market. They are blind as to where the car is going. The car is sliding dangerously on mud at the roadside while the Government continue to behave as if nothing is happening. They are unbearably complacent. If they were to shake themselves out of that complacency, they would do something about manufacturing industry.
  In the first quarter of 1992, GDP has fallen yet again by 0·6 per cent. The Treasury said that GDP would recover by 2 per cent. in this financial year. However, the latest figures show GDP coming back by only 1 per cent. at the very best.
  Ministers blithely assert that, as exports had increased in volume terms by 3 per cent., the trade figures could be largely discounted and, indeed, were something of a success. Unfortunately, that is not so. With the pound locked into the ERM, what will the Government do if, at the slightest hint of an upturn, it becomes painfully clear that imports will be sucked in to such a catastrophic extent? It is the balance of payments that matters and no amount of ministerial spin-doctoring on the radio will get around that awkward fact.
  The Government must extend their economic management. Trading off unemployment against inflation without making use of other economic powers that the Chancellor has at his disposal simply does not work, and, even worse, it creates two nations. The latest unemployment figures show an increase of 42,600 in April. The Government calculated total stands at 2·6 million—9·5 per cent. of the

  767
  work force. Many others, particularly women, are looking for work and do not appear in the figures. If unemployment were judged in a fairer and more moral way, we would say that it was now 3·8 million.
  Is low unemployment in any way a target of Government economic policy or is it simply traded off against inflation with other economic and fiscal policies lying idle and not being used to cut unemployment and inflation at one and the same time? That is what a Labour Government would be doing now.
  Dr. Robert Spink rose—
  Dr. Marek: I would give way, but I am afraid that the Government Front Bench spokesman wants me to get on.
  In a nutshell, we have a high PSBR of at least £30 billion this year, rising to about £40 billion, which will represent 6 per cent. of GDP—twice the maximum level in the Maastricht treaty; we have a contracting GDP, which is 0·6 per cent. down this quarter, the seventh quarter in succession in which it has gone down, making this one of the worst recessions ever; we have a serious balance of payments problem, and we cannot get out of it by devaluation; and imports outstrip exports at the slightest hint of an upturn.
  There is no doubt that a major cause of the present lamentable or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) would say, "Lamontable," situation is the Government's neglect of industry. One of the most depressing facts is that the United Kingdom is the only EC country where manufacturing investment is lower now than it was in 1979. But, there we are, the Government must take responsibility and answer to the people. They cannot continue to do nothing or scramble about trying to get another 0·5 per cent. cut in interest rates. That will not be enough. Unless the Government act now, our position will continue to worsen when compared with other EC countries.
  It is possible that we could get out of these problems by strong world economic growth. However, that will not happen. Only yesterday the Centre for Economic Forecasting said that world growth "will be slight". If the Government do not act, unemployment will continue to rise to even higher, morally unacceptable levels. There will no doubt be painful cuts in the public expenditure round in the autumn and £19 billion will suddenly become a great sum. Our housing crisis will continue to worsen, training programmes will continue to be underfunded, school classes will be too large, the NHS will continue to lose beds and British Rail, the most crowded and least punctual service in western Europe, will continue to be badly funded. All that will continue with taxation higher now than it was in 1979.
  The comparison with Canary Wharf is instructive. The building is about 42·8 per cent. full, and Olympia and York has too great a borrowing requirement, with the result that work on the project has stopped. That is what is likely to happen to the economy, and it is certainly similar to driving a car using only a rear mirror. Blind faith in Thatcherite policies has led to the present sorry mess at Canary Wharf. It is an ugly and intrusive building that nobody wants in an area that nobody can get to. It is a development hungry for more public money.
  768
  The Opposition believe that, although the scheme should now succeed, public money should have been better spent. Industry needs to be looked after to produce goods made in this country. Unemployment is a social evil and should not be traded off against keeping inflation down when there are other policies available that would keep both down. We believe that our infrastructure needs public finance and should be as good as elsewhere in the Community. We need a society in which those who need help get it from those who can give it for the benefit of the community as a whole.
  The Finance Bill does none of those things. Hon. Members can look in vain for the slightest iota of something to help the economy, help us get out of recession, help the unemployed, those who do not have a house in which to live and those whose children are being educated in over-large classes. They will find nothing on any of those matters and it is for that reason that I urge my hon. Friends to vote against the Bill.
  7.29 pm
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Nelson): As the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) said, this has been a short but interesting debate, notable not only for the range of subjects discussed within the curtilage of a Finance Bill but for three outstanding maiden speeches, to which I shall refer.
  I hope that, in the short time that I intend to take winding up the debate, the House will permit me to start by paying my tribute to my predecessor, John Maples, who was widely recognised on both sides of the House as an affable man of great professional expertise and competence. From my short time in office, I know that he will be an extremely hard act to follow. I hope that his absence from the House is only an interlude and that he will be back with us soon.
  I hope, if I am going to be tail-end Charlie in such debates, that I will do what Ministers replying to debates do not do enough—mention hon. Members who have spoken rather than making a further Second Reading speech. That, inevitably, will make my speech shorter than that of the hon. Member for Wrexham.
  I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), who broke the tradition of a non-controversial maiden speech by announcing that he was pro-hunting. It seemed that he was challenging my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) in trying to create an identity for his constituency, and I wish him well in calling for a return to Rutland's unitary status.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton rightly paid tribute to our friend, Michael Latham—a man of the highest integrity and a devout man of extremely good nature. Our deliberations will be poorer for his absence.
  My hon. Friend made an extremely impressive speech and will make valuable contributions to our financial debates. I noted his remarks about inheritance tax, advanced corporation tax and the refunding rules on VAT, and he made some interesting remarks about the high debt-equity ratios of British companies. Although the Government's influence is limited,' that is an interesting point for us to bear in mind in the wider formation of fiscal and monetary policy.

  769
  My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), in his second maiden speech on returning to the House, asked us not to prolong the recession. I hope that we shall do nothing to prolong it. In this short Parliament, we have reduced interest rates, and my hon. Friend called for further reductions. Our policies are designed to achieve low inflation and low interest rates. I note what he said about a low-tax economy attracting foreign investment. One of the good aspects of our economic performance is the extent to which we are a haven for foreign investment. I am sure that that is welcomed by all hon. Members.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) on an outstanding maiden speech, in the great traditions of the House. He spoke about his predecessors, to which I add a personal word about Maureen Hicks, whom many Conservative Members regarded as an outstanding Member. We shall miss her, but we wish the hon. Gentleman well.
  The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East made a compassionate and compelling speech. He spoke about the plight of pensioners and the infirm, and I note what he said about loans rather than grants from the Department of Social Security. He expressed concern about the restraints on local authorities' housing plans, and spoke with passion about the employment and unemployment problems of some of his constituents. We look forward to hearing further from him.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), responding to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, made particular reference to the size of the trade deficit, and dwelt on inheritance tax. Of course it is of concern that the current account and trade deficit is substantial, but we should not lose sight of the fact that exports have grown strongly, which deserves a welcome. Nor should we forget that the size of the deficit is containable.
  The hon. Member's comments on inheritance tax showed more concern for the Labour party's old-fashioned attitudes to the accumulation and maintenance of large amounts of wealth than for the equity of the inheritance tax rules. The Government have received a public mandate and have taken early action significantly to offer relief on inheritance tax, which is extremely welcome, at least among Conservative Members.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) made a speech that had a familiar refrain for me, and perhaps we shall hear it again. He rightly emphasised the importance of controlling public expenditure—a theme emphasised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend).
  I wish to assure my right hon. Friend and other Conservative Members that the Government intend to take the tightest control of public expenditure. It is absolutely essential if we are to deliver the prospects of economic regeneration and the electoral promises that we made at the general election that we contain public expenditure this year and in years to come. It is right that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury be given the support that was evident among Conservative Members tonight in the discussions that he is having on spending policies.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington welcomed the Bill because its provisions on inheritance tax enable family firms and farms to be passed from one generation to another.
  770
  The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) was concerned that further moves to low inflation might mean deflation. I do not think that that necessarily follows. In the past, certainly in the early 1980s, inflation fell while the economy grew. The projections for reducing the underlying rate of inflation will not necessarily impair our prospects for growth. He emphasised the importance that he attaches to manufacturing industry, which I understand.
  The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) complained that this was not a Budget for investment and that he would have preferred an increase in allowances rather than the introduction of the 20p band. That was a central plank of the Chancellor's Budget, which had considerable appeal to people who are within the tax net but are relatively low-paid, and it will bring valuable relief to many people. We have a public mandate for it, and we intend to press ahead with it.
  The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed expressed concern about the Leeds case and about life assurance companies, which both involve, as he put it, aspects of retrospection. That is a contentious matter, to which we shall return in Committee, but we do not take the same line as him. We have a good relationship with the life assurance companies and hope to be able to discuss the content of the Bill's measures, but it is quite proper, given the size of the yield cost of some of the issues at stake, that we take legislative opportunities to put matters beyond question. Confirming past tax regimes is different from the retrospection that visits increased tax rates retrospectively.
  The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) spoke of omissions from the Budget and the Finance Bill, of the housing problems that he perceives in his constituency and of the severity of unemployment. We contest that, because we believe that the Budget and the Bill form part of an overall economic strategy that will create jobs, sustainable growth and sound monetary policies. The evidence, the outlook and surveys of confidence suggest that that is already happening, and we believe that the Bill will encourage it still further.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) mentioned stamp duty, which was mentioned at Prime Minister's Question Time earlier today. I am aware that many hon. Members of all parties have been pressing either for an extension of the concession or for it to be continued permanently. At this maiden appearance at the Dispatch Box, I am afraid that I must tell them all firmly that that will not be possible. I have today answered a question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) making it clear that the Government will reintroduce the stamp duty rates in August this year.
  The yield costs are considerable, and we cannot afford to ignore the impact on the borrowing requirements of Government. The cost of the concession alone is £400 million until August, and the cost of extending that concession for the rest of the financial year would be another £470 million. The cost of the concession for a whole financial year amounts to about £700 million. The total yield from stamp duty on houses amounts to almost £1·4 billion per year. We simply cannot ignore such money in the current equations on public expenditure.
  If we wish to meet the public expenditure priorities we have set, we must also consider the fiscal as well as the borrowing side. That is why the temporary stamp duty relief must come to an end. I hope that the certainty that

  771
  it will come to an end will act as a further boost in the intervening period to encouraging the purchases and transactions in properties up to the value of £250,000.
  The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) spoke about transport, housing and employment problems in London. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London will home in especially on the problems of transport in London. It is now known that there is a Cabinet sub-committee on London, and for better or worse, I am the Treasury man on it. I will do my bit, short of coming up with substantial sums that it proposes to spend, to try to ensure that there are some useful ideas to try to get better value for money, more efficiency in public expenditure and higher-quality public services in transport, housing and employment for all the people in London.
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) said that there were no signs of recovery, and called for a major increase in public investment. There is often a misconception about public investment. Investment means one person spending the money instead of another person spending it. If the Government spend that money, they have to take it from somebody who might be investing it better. The argument that must be deployed—to the House or to the public—for public expenditure, whether one raises it by borrowing or by tax, is that Government will spend it more effectively than those who would otherwise spend and save it.
  Conservatives do not take that view. We believe in the plurality and judgment of the private sector. We believe in leaving more resources with people and with companies so that they can set their own priorities. In the words of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, the Budget and the Finance Bill
  "mark a step in our constant drive to leave individuals and families with more of what they earn."—[Official Report, 10 March 1992; Vol. 205, c. 761.]
  That is our intention, and we will stick to it. It is a pledge that gave us the support of the electorate. It is a Budget for recovery, and the Bill follows it through. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:
  The House divided: Ayes 308, Noes 256.

  Division No. 20]

  [7.43 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Bellingham, Henry

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Alexander, Richard

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Amess, David

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Ancram, Michael

  Booth, Hartley

  Arbuthnot, James

  Boswell, Tim

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Ashby, David

  Bowis, John

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Brazier, Julian

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Bright, Graham

  Baldry, Tony

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Bates, Michael

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Budgen, Nicholas

  772

  Burns, Simon

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Burt, Alistair

  Hannam, Sir John

  Butler, Peter

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Butterfill, John

  Harris, David

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hawkins, Nicholas

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hawksley, Warren

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hayes, Jerry

  Cash, William

  Heald, Oliver

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Clappison, James

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hendry, Charles

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hicks, Robert

  Coe, Sebastian

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Congdon, David

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Conway, Derek

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Horam, John

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Cormack, Patrick

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

  Couchman, James

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Cran, James

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

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

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jack, Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Deva, Niranjan

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Devlin, Tim

  Jessel, Toby

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Dicks, Terry

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dover, Den

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Duncan, Alan

  Key, Robert

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Kilfedder, James

  Dunn, Bob

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knapman, Roger

  Eggar, Tim

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Elletson, Harold

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Emery, Sir Peter

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

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Knox, David

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lait, Ms Jacqui

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Evennett, David

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Faber, David

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Fabricant, Michael

  Legg, Barry

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Leigh, Edward

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lidington, David

  Forth, Eric

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Lord, Michael

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Luff, Peter

  Freeman, Roger

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  French, Douglas

  MacKay, Andrew

  Fry, Peter

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gale, Roger

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gallie, Philip

  Madel, David

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Malone, Gerald

  Garnier, Edward

  Mans, Keith

  Gill, Christopher

  Marland, Paul

  Gillan, Ms Cheryl

  Marlow, Tony

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gorst, John

  Mates, Michael

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Merchant, Piers

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Milligan, Stephen

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mills, Iain

  Hague, William

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Moate, Roger

  773

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Spring, Richard

  Moss, Malcolm

  Sproat, Iain

  Nelson, Anthony

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Steen, Anthony

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Stephen, Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Stern, Michael

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Stewart, Allan

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Streeter, Gary

  Norris, Steve

  Sumberg, David

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Sweeney, Walter

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Sykes, John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Page, Richard

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Paice, James

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Thomason, Roy

  Pawsey, James

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Pickles, Eric

  Thurnham, Peter

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Tracey, Richard

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Tredinnick, David

  Redwood, John

  Trend, Michael

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Trimble, David

  Richards, Rod

  Trotter, Neville

  Riddick, Graham

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Robathan, Andrew

  Viggers, Peter

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Walden, George

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Waller, Gary

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhiil)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Watts, John

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Wells, Bowen

  Sackville, Tom

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Whitney, Ray

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Whittingdale, John

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Willetts, David

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Wilshire, David

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Sims, Roger

  Wolfson, Mark

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Wood, Timothy

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Yeo, Tim

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Speed, Keith

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Boateng, Paul

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Ainger, Nicholas

  Bradley, Keith

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Brazier, Julian

  Alton, David

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

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

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Burden, Richard

  Ashton, Joe

  Byers, Stephen

  Austin-Walker, John

  Caborn, Richard

  Barnes, Harry

  Callaghan, Jim

  Battle, John

  Campbell, Ms Anne (C'bridge)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Beckett, Margaret

  Campbell, Ronald (Blyth V)

  Beith, A. J.

  Campbell-Savours, D. N

  Bell, Stuart

  Canavan, Dennis

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cann, James

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Benton, Joe

  Clapham, Michael

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Berry, Roger

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Betts, Clive

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Blair, Tony

  Clelland, David

  774

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Ingram, Adam

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (H'stead)

  Cohen, Harry

  Jackson, Ms Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Connarty, Michael

  Jamieson, David

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Janner, Greville

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jones, Ms Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Cryer, Bob

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Cummings, John

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Cunningham, Dr John (C'p'l'nd)

  Keen, Alan

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C & S)

  Darling, Alistair

  Kennedy, Ms Jane (L'p'l Br'g'n)

  Davidson, Ian

  Khabra, Piara

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Leighton, Ron

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

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Denham, John

  Lewis, Terry

  Dewar, Donald

  Livingstone, Ken

  Dixon, Don

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dobson, Frank

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Donohoe, Brian

  Loyden, Eddie

  Dowd, Jim

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  McAllion, John

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  McCartney, Ian

  Enright, Derek

  MacDonald, Calum

  Etherington, William

  McFall, John

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McKelvey, William

  Fatchett, Derek

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  McLeish, Henry

  Fisher, Mark

  Maclennan, Robert

  Flynn, Paul

  McMaster, Gordon

  Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Foster, Donald (Bath)

  Madden, Max

  Foulkes, George

  Mahon, Alice

  Fraser, John

  Mandelson, Peter

  Fyfe, Maria

  Marek, Dr John

  Galbraith, Sam

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Galloway, George

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Gapes, Michael

  Martlew, Eric

  Garrett, John

  Meacher, Michael

  George, Bruce

  Michael, Alun

  Gerrard, Neil

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Milburn, Alan

  Godsiff, Roger

  Miller, Andrew

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Morley, Elliot

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Gunnell, John

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Hain, Peter

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Hall, Mike

  Mudie, George

  Hanson, David

  Murphy, Paul

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Harvey, Nick

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Henderson, Doug

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hepple, John

  Olner, William

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hinchliffe, David

  Patchett, Terry

  Hoey, Kate

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Home Robertson, John

  Pope, Greg

  Hood, Jimmy

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hoon, Geoff

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hoyle, Doug

  Purchase, Ken

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Radice, Giles

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Randall, Stuart

  Hutton, John

  Raynsford, Nick

  775

  Reid, Dr John

  Stevenson, George

  Richardson, Jo

  Stott, Roger

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Strang, Gavin

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Straw, Jack

  Roche, Ms Barbara

  Tipping, Paddy

  Rogers, Allan

  Turner, Dennis

  Rooker, Jeff

  Tyler, Paul

  Rooney, Terry

  Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Don' C)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Walley, Joan

  Rowlands, Ted

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Salmond, Alex

  Wareing, Robert N

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Watson, Mike

  Sheerman, Barry

  Welsh, Andrew

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Simpson, Alan

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wilson, Brian

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Winnick, David

  Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

  Wise, Audrey

  Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)

  Worthington, Tony

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Snape, Peter

  Wright, Tony

  Soley, Clive

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Spellar, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Mr. Ken Eastham and

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Mr. Eric Illsley.

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That Clauses 19 and 20 be committed to a Committee of the whole House;
  That the remainder of the Bill be committed to a Standing Committee;
  That, when the provisions of the Bill considered, respectively, by the Committee of the whole House and by the Standing Committee have been reported to the House, the Bill be proceeded with as if the Bill had been reported as a whole to the House from the Standing Committee.—[Mr. Dorrell.]
  7.57 pm
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I rise briefly to put the arguments against the detail in the motion. For clauses 19 and 20 to be the only clauses to be considered on the Floor of the House rather diminishes the role that this House should have in full Committee on the Floor when considering the details of clause 52.
  776
  I will not make a speech about the merits of the issue. The House very infrequently goes in for retroactive legislation. As Front-Bench Members have said, that is normally done for the benefit of taxpayers. In this case, the proposals in clause 52 would mean that, whatever the courts decided in a judicial review case, Parliament would have to do what the Government say that it should have done two or three times before.
  We should have a debate on clause 52 on the Floor of the House of Commons. If I do not succeed in blocking this committal motion by shaking my head vigorously when the Question is put, I hope that there will be a full debate on Report. I cannot rely on the Committee going any further than it did a year or so ago, when the issue was last considered.
  Parliament should not believe that the Government have got away with it. In effect, they are going for hybridity, although the way in which the clause has been drawn would probably avoid it being technically hybrid. The issue will certainly arise when a building society takes the issue to the European courts, something that it can do only when all the domestic remedies have been exhausted.
  As the House will recall, in this case the domestic remedies include the Government three times reversing the law as determined by the courts: twice after the courts determined that the Inland Revenue had got it wrong and once in advance of a likely decision.
  The justification for the sledgehammer of clause 52 is that building societies paid £15,000 million in taxation over four years. I agree with my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that £15,000 million is too much to have hanging at risk.
  As the Government consider their stance for Standing Committee and for the Committee of the whole House, I hope that they will find a way to limit the affect of clause 52 so that it deals with only 99 per cent. of £15,000 million and leaves the claim to £57 million including interest to be determined either by the courts in a judicial review or by negotiations with the Government. I ask the House to support my contention that, one way or another, clause 52 should be aired in a full debate on the Floor of the House.
  Question put and agreed to.

Non-Domestic Rating Bill
Considered in Committee
[MR. GEOFFREY LOFTHOUSE in the Chair]
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

  INCREASING NON-DOMESTIC RATES
  8 pm
  Mr. Nigel Jones: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 21, leave out 'X is 100', and insert 'X is 95'.
  The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means: With this it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 27, leave out '100', and insert '95'.
  Mr. Jones: I move this amendment because the recession is continuing for most businesses and I want to push the Government a little further in helping businesses to survive the recession. I welcome the main thrust of the Bill. The amendment would increase help for people on transitional relief. The Government's calculations will lead to a real-terms increase of zero this year. I want to bring about a small cut in businesses' rates this year because increases in uniform business rate bills have recently been very large for many businesses, and have tipped many small businesses over the edge into bankruptcy. A small decrease in their bills this year could help some companies to survive.
  Administration of the UBBR has been chaotic in terms of the valuation process, appeals and administration of the transitional relief scheme, which has led to great anxiety and frustration among many businesses, particularly small businesses, at a very stressful time. With this amendment, I ask the Government to help those businesses to survive the recession.
  If the Government are ever to provide extra help in the business rate arena, now is the time to do it, when many people think that we are still in recession. Although the Government have said before, during and after the election that they believe that we are coming out of recession, there is much evidence to show that the recession is continuing for most businesses and that a cut in the business rate would help. That evidence is that unemployment is still rising at an underlying trend of more than 30,000 a month, and that bankruptcies, mostly of unincorporated businesses, continue to rise. In the first three months of this year, there were 8,604 bankruptcies —an increase of 67 per cent. on the first quarter of last year.
  Smaller businesses are going bust as fast as ever, and the Government's talk of recovery must mean absolutely nothing to such firms. The Government can send a message to small firms considering going into liquidation to keep going because help is on its way. Liquidations of larger companies are also increasing, although not quite so fast. In the first three months of this year, there were 5,835 such liquidations—an increase of 17 per cent. on the first quarter of last year.
  There is evidence that the recession is still with us. I press the Minister to ask the Treasury for more money to help small businesses through this difficult period.
  The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. John Redwood): The Government are producing a generous package through the proposals that were announced in the Budget and are confirmed in the legislation. Our proposals will cost £400 million this year, £520 million the following year, and £325 million in the third year—a bumper package of £1,250 million or thereabouts for England as a result of the rate reductions. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may scoff, but that is extremely good news for businesses—very welcome news indeed. I should have thought that hon. Members would welcome it rather than cavil and laugh about those large sums of money which will give direct reductions in bills.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Redwood: I shall give way when I am ready to do so, but I have not finished dealing with the points that have been raised from a sedentary position and in a rather churlish manner.
  The Liberal proposals for site value rating would be extremely bad news for business, assigning hypothetical values to sites on the basis that they could be redeveloped. What kind of recipe for small shopkeepers would that be? What would that do to the businesses for Cheltenham? The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) should do his homework before he pooh-poohs the excellent ideas in our legislation and before he recommends to the House the half-baked scheme that the Liberal Democrats have been talking about outside the House and have mentioned on Second Reading. [Interruption.] I am dealing with the amendment.
  I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman thinks that those who are losing from the revaluations should be given more favourable treatment than all those who are already paying at the full amount required by the valuations that are in practice. But that, of course, is what the Liberal Democrat amendment would do. It would positively discriminate in favour of those who, through transition, are having to increase their bills because of the revaluation, against those who are already paying the full amount required by the revaluation.
  Of course, some of the revaluation increases were large because there was a very long gap between one valuation and another. Those anomalies are being corrected and, as I pointed out on Second Reading, some businesses in transition, being protected by the legislation, if passed, as well as by the transitional relief, may never have to pay the full amounts required by the 1990 valuation, because we shall have regular valuations from now on, and any decreases in value will be reflected in the subsequent valuation if that is true at that date.
  I hope that the House will send the strong message to business today that it wants fast passage of the legislation to give the large amount of rebate to businesses which need relief from their rates. The costing of the hon. Gentleman's proposal, skewing things in favour of those under transitional arrangements, would be an additional £120 million in the current year. That, with the costing of the next item, would have to be added to the big Liberal Democrat plans to raise public borrowing, which would be likely to raise interest rates and other business costs.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The Minister talks about a bumper package. Has he forgotten that the Government increased VAT by 2·5 per cent. as part of the incompetence of the

  779
  poll tax? That is yielding a substantial amount which could be redirected to businesses, many of which are suffering from a loss of markets because of the inflationary effect of the VAT increase. Have not the Government added to the recession by their own measures, in raising revenue which they should plough back in a simple and direct way which would reduce business costs?
  Mr. Redwood: I have never heard the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) or his party argue for lower local authority expenditure. Had I done so, I should have been more sympathetic to his interventions, but it is always spend, spend and more spend. As we know, that requires taxation revenue to pay for it. We decided to reduce community charge bills across the country because people thought that they were high. We did that by cross-financing, out of an increase in VAT, which was a perfectly reasonable way of doing it.
  Mr. John Bowis: Will my hon. Friend the Minister press the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) further to see where the money currently coming from VAT would otherwise come from to support businesses that the hon. Gentleman's party seeks to support? The only way to do that would be to reimpose that amount on every community charge payer in the country. If that is the case, we should be told.
  Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend has made an extremely powerful point. Unless they make spending cuts, the Liberals would have to raise the tax from somewhere, or raise public borrowing.
  Mr. Nigel Jones indicated assent.
  Mr. Redwood: I see Liberal Members nodding in assent that they would raise public borrowing. Do they know what that would do to market sentiment, interest rates and businesses? The Government have systematically reduced interest rates in recent months. We should not want to see that upset by unreasonable increases in public borrowing wished upon us by the Liberal party.
  The Chairman: Order. Before we go any further, I remind hon. Members that the Bill deals with non-domestic rates. I hope that hon. Members will bear that in mind.
  Mr. Redwood: I accept your admonition, Mr. Lofthouse. I urge the House to reject the amendments.
  Mr. Don Foster: I do not know whether the Minister did it deliberately, but he certainly misrepresented the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) when he moved the amendment. My hon. Friend made it clear that we welcome the moves that the Government are making to give support to businesses and in particular to small businesses. My hon. Friend's amendment seeks to increase further the level of support that we believe needs to be given to small businesses across the country especially with the continuation of the recession brought about largely by measures taken by the Government.
  In particular, we are keen to see additional support given to several areas of Britain which are heavily reliant on the small business sector. For example, as a result of the revaluation, my constituency had the second highest
  780
  increase in business rates of all the English districts—13·3 per cent. compared with the English average of about 8·1 per cent. Such increases have had a significant effect on the level of the uniform business rate, which in turn affects the number of job losses. According to the figures produced by the House of Commons Library, unemployment in my constituency, where the UBR has increased significantly, rose by 113 per cent. between 1990 and 1992.
  The Minister asked where the money will come from. Perhaps he will bear in mind the significant cost of unemployment. I hope that he will welcome the proposal in my hon. Friend's amendment to give additional support to small businesses. After all, his party originally claimed to be the party which supported small businesses. On that basis, I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.
  Mr. William O'Brien: As you rightly pointed out, Mr. Lofthouse, we are discussing amendments to the Local Government Finance Act 1988. The Opposition, as well as agencies and pressure groups outside the House, warned in 1988 that the Act would not benefit people generally in Britain, and in particular would not benefit small businesses.
  The parts of the Act which referred to domestic ratepayers, subsequently poll tax payers, have been proved to be full of faults. After one year of operation in England and Wales, those parts of the Act were withdrawn. We are now dealing with non-domestic rating. The foolishness of the Government in introducing a national tax for businesses has been demonstrated beyond any shadow of doubt.
  The amendments seek to make available additional money to help small businesses. I suggest that, if additional money is to be provided, it would be better distributed by allowing people who have difficulty in paying not to pay at all. Some form of rebate scheme should he available to help people over difficult periods, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) said. But any additional finance should be channelled to the people in greatest need. If money is available, we should consider a scheme to allow those who are having difficulty paying not to pay. Instead of a blanket cover, we should consider the principle that if people cannot pay they should not have to.
  I support the Government's moves to help small businesses, but I ask Liberal Members to consider carefully that we ought to press the Government to make resources available to allow people having difficulty in paying the business rate not to do so. That would sustain small businesses much more than the proposal in the amendment. I cannot support the amendment. If the Government are considering making further money available, they should use it to help people who cannot pay. If people are having difficulty meeting the high charges, they should not pay.
  Revaluations were carried out mainly when property costs were high. That is the real problem facing many small businesses. I suggest that the Liberals consider carefully that any additional money should be placed where the need is greatest. People should not pay rates if they cannot pay rates.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Bowis: I am drawn to intervene by the preposterous proposal from the Liberal Benches that the level of value added tax should be restored, thereby placing a burden on

  781
  the community charge payer or, if any other way of raising the money was used, on the taxpayer. [Interruption.] That was the gist of the intervention of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). My hon. Friend the Minister replied, but we had no specific response from the Liberal party.
  I speak for many community charge payers. I know that the Bill deals with non-domestic rates, but in passing I would mention that the £140 was of great value.
  Mr. Chairman: Order. I should not bother in passing. I have already ruled on that. Stick to non-domestic rates.
  Mr. Bowis: Then I shall pass on to the benefits that the Bill will produce. I want both the community charge payer and the non-domestic ratepayer to enjoy benefits. I represent an area of London which had to contribute considerably to the less well-off regions of Britain through the UBR system. Like the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), I welcome the Government's proposal to bring relief to business ratepayers. This is the way to do it. I am surprised that Liberal Members seek to delay the measure and do not go along with it wholeheartedly.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands the problem that Opposition Members have with his speech and that of the Minister. We do not disagree with the principle that the Government got rating and its replacement hopelessly wrong in the Local Government Finance Act 1988. We have no problem with that. We said that it was wrong at the time. We said that events and time would prove the Government wrong. That was obviously true on the domestic side and on the non-domestic side.
  We also have no problem with the principle of occasionally making public money available by way of largesse. The principles according to which the money goes to a certain body of people should be clearly laid out. The problem is for the Government to say why and when they give public money to other people. The hon. Gentleman cannot simply get away with it by saying, "Oh, well, it was necessary to win the election."
  Mr. Bowis: There is a slight difference of opinion between the second Labour Bench and the Labour Front Bench. I shall not go into that. I was merely agreeing with the Labour Front-Bench spokesman when he agreed with my hon. Friend the Minister that the Government's proposal was the way forward.
  I ask the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones), who fairly expressed anxiety for small businesses, to tell the House what benefit would come to small businesses in London and the south-east from his party's policies to raise fuel taxes and introduce a land value tax which would decimate businesses and especially small businesses in my part of London.
  Mr. Nigel Jones: In response to the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), the benefit would be 5 per cent. off the rate bills for small businesses. That is what is so clean, simple and immediate about the amendment. I understand that the hon. Gentleman will vote against that if we press for a Division.
  The Minister said that we were talking about extra borrowing, and I nodded. That is what we are talking about and I see nothing wrong with extra temporary borrowing to keep companies in business. Such tax cuts would not undermine Government finances in the long
  782
  term. They could improve them if, by cutting taxes now, more businesses and enterprises survived and more people remained in useful, tax-paying employment.
  These measures can be afforded in the short term and could strengthen the Government's finances in time. The Bill adopts the principle of funding temporary business tax cuts by temporary borrowing. As the Government have already accepted that principle, they can have no problem with the principles of our amendment. They may have a problem in finding the money to do it. It could be argued that the Government's finances cannot afford the amendment, but we must take up that debate with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose present estimate of public sector borrowing for this year is £28 billion. Is it in fact worse than that?
  I found the Minister's response disappointing and unsatisfactory, and I wish to press the amendment to a Division.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 22, Noes 168.

  Division No. 21]

  [8.21 pm

  AYES

  Alton, David

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Beith, A. J.

  Maclennan, Robert

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Madden, Max

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Mahon, Alice

  Cryer, Bob

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Cummings, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Foster, Donald (Bath)

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

  Tyler, Paul

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C & S)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Loyden, Eddie

  Mr. Archy Kirkwood and

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Mr. Simon Hughes.

  NOES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Alexander, Richard

  Couchman, James

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

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

  Amess, David

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Ancram, Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Arbuthnot, James

  Deva, Niranjan

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Devlin, Tim

  Ashby, David

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Duncan, Alan

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Baldry, Tony

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Bates, Michael

  Dykes, Hugh

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Elletson, Harold

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Body, Sir Richard

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Booth, Hartley

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Boswell, Tim

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Bowis, John

  Faber, David

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Fabricant, Michael

  Brazier, Julian

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Bright, Graham

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Burt, Alistair

  Forth, Eric

  Butler, Peter

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Butterfill, John

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Freeman, Roger

  Carrington, Matthew

  French, Douglas

  Carttiss, Michael

  Gallie, Philip

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Chapman, Sydney

  Gillan, Ms Cheryl

  Clappison, James

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Coe, Sebastian

  Gorst, John

  Colvin, Michael

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Congdon, David

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hague, William

  783

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Paice, James

  Harris, David

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hawkins, Nicholas

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hawksley, Warren

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Heald, Oliver

  Pickles, Eric

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hendry, Charles

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Redwood, John

  Horam, John

  Richards, Rod

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Riddick, Graham

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Hunter, Andrew

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jessel, Toby

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)

  Sackville, Tom

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Kilfedder, James

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Speed, Keith

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Sproat, Iain

  Lait, Ms Jacqui

  Steen, Anthony

  Legg, Barry

  Stephen, Michael

  Lidington, David

  Stern, Michael

  Lightbown, David

  Streeter, Gary

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Sweeney, Walter

  Luff, Peter

  Sykes, John

  MacKay, Andrew

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Thomason, Roy

  Malone, Gerald

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mans, Keith

  Tredinnick, David

  Marlow, Tony

  Trend, Michael

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Waller, Gary

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Merchant, Piers

  Wells, Bowen

  Milligan, Stephen

  Whittingdale, John

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Moate, Roger

  Willetts, David

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Yeo, Tim

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Ottaway, Richard

  Mr. Tim Wood and

  Page, Richard

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes.

  Amendment accordingly negatived.
  Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 3

    DECREASING NON-DOMESTIC RATES
    8.30 pm
    Mr. Nigel Jones: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 29, after first 'in', insert '1992 and'.
    The amendment relates to other types of businesses which have benefited from the uniform business rate. The Government's clause speeds up the reductions in rate bills for those who will benefit and ensures that, by 1993–94, such business ratepayers will obtain their full reductions. Our amendment will give them all those gains this year. We support what the Government have done, but we would like to push them a bit further.
    Mr. Redwood: I urge the House to reject the amendment as it is not well targeted and it is an expensive proposal. It will cost £475 million in the current year, and the hon. Gentleman has not said where that money might come from, whether he is proposing some compensating
    784
    tax increase or yet more borrowing with possible dangers for interest rates, which would damage the businesses that he is setting out to help.
    I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has reconsidered his remarks on Second Reading when he said:
    "It is possible that the Government's measure is more effectively targeted"—[Official Report, 19 May 1992; Vol. 208, c. 216.]
    than the Liberal one. I urge the hon. Gentleman to reaffirm that. Our measures are exceptionally well targeted to deal with the problems that arose from revaluation and to add to the transitional relief that we set out previously.
    I urge the House to support the Bill as unamended and, thus, to reject the amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 4 to 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported, without amendment.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    8.35 pm
    Mr. William O'Brien: I remind hon. Members that the Bill is necessary for the Government to bring about the proposals made in the Budget to amend the Local Government Finance Act 1988 as it relates to transitional arrangements governing increases and decreases in non-domestic rate bills. Clause 2 limits the increases in rates to business rate payers to no more than the rate of inflation, which, in the current year, is 4·2 per cent.
    Any action by the Government to amend and improve the iniquitous 1988 Act and to improve the quality of life of those people affected by it will always receive the support of the Labour party. That was made clear by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on Second Reading. Sadly, the principle of clause 2 does not apply to poll tax payers in general, because it covers non-domestic properties. The Bill, with its 10 clauses, significantly amends the 1988 Act, but it is a pity—I refer to the rebate scheme—that it does not consider the abolition of the 20 per cent. rule for poll tax payers.
    We are witnessing, as we have witnessed in the past, with the abolition of that part of the 1988 Act which referred to poll tax payers, the failure of the Government and of the Conservative party to provide a reasonable system of local government finance. We are reminded that taxpayers are paying dearly for that Act. I remember clearly how the current Secretary of State for the Environment fought hard in Committee and in the House, supported by the Minister of State and other Tory Members, to introduce that Act and to implement it. We are now witnessing the results of that bad legislation, because this Bill has had to be introduced to amend it.
    The Government's proposals—in 1990, following the passage of the Local Government Finance Act 1988—were doomed to failure from the start. My hon. Friends and I, along with the present President of the Board of Trade, said that the whole scheme would fail, and tonight we are seeing some of the results of that failure.
    We must now give urgent consideration to the whole issue of compensating local authorities, because the cost to them of re-billing will be very expensive indeed. The Department of the Environment has suggested that the

    785
    re-billing cost per unit will be about 85p per transaction. On Second Reading, the Under-Secretary of State promised that the national non-domestic rate
    "pool will be fully compensated for any reduction in the rate yield that is due to the Bill. Local authorities will be allowed to net off reasonable costs of re-billing from NNDR payments. We shall look carefully at any evidence from authorities that NNDR payments in the first month of the year have not kept pace with the profile of payments to the Department set at the beginning of the year, and we shall consider adjustments if they prove necessary."—[Official Report, 19 May 1992; Vol. 208, c. 226.]
    There is clear evidence that there has been delay in payments in the first month of the year by small businesses. That has happened in anticipation of what would result from the announcement in the Budget. It was natural that people would react in that way, having been told that there would be a change in the rate demand. In turn, local authorities face a cash flow problem as a result of rates not being paid in the first month of the year as well as in May. I trust that the Minister accepts that the plight of local authorities, because of their cash flow difficulties, must be considered. That state of affairs has come about because of the announced rebate scheme.
    Wakefield district council has made a careful cost-per-unit study for re-billing purposes. It has estimated that the cost will be nearer £2 per unit than the 85p suggested by the Department of the Environment. The costing done by Wakefield took every detail of the exercise into account.
    The Minister must also accept that, when a relatively small number of bills must be redistributed, as will happen in Wakefield's case—the figure will be about 2,000—there will be no post office reduction for delivery charges. The formula suggested by the Department in discussions with local authority associations took into account a benefit for local authorities resulting from a post office discount for additional billing. That is another factor pointing to the way in which the Department of the Environment has got its re-billing average costs wrong.
    Because of the way in which the Government have handled the whole rebate issue, many local authorities, including Wakefield, are finding that, in addition to going through the process of printing and issuing the original bill, they must add to the bill an amendment covering the rebate, explaining how it came about. That must be done by Government directive. Because it is not necessarily possible to include all that information on the one bill, additional work has had to be undertaken by local authorities, much of it involving manual work. That additional activity has been carefully costed by Wakefield's finance department.
    I hope that the Minister will look carefully at the additional problems faced by local authorities. It is clear that the formula originally put out by the Department is inadequate in relation to the information that local authorities are having to provide as part of the re-billing procedure. There is every reason for the Department to re-examine the matter—
    Mr. Redwood indicated assent.
    Mr. O'Brien: —and I gather that the Minister agrees that further examination is required.
    Mr. Redwood: It might help if I tell the hon. Gentleman at this juncture in the debate that we are consulting the local authority associations on our estimates of the re-billing cost. They were based on community charge
    786
    re-billing costs, about which we knew. We shall, of course, also take into account any representations that the hon. Gentleman may make, because we want to arrive at a fair and sensible figure.
    Mr. O'Brien: The Minister will have before him the figures that have been supplied to me by Wakefield district council and the reasons why that council considers that the Department is totally out of touch with the problems being faced by local authorities.
    We must not forget that, in addition to the re-billing exercise, local authorities are still having to contend with the poll tax that is still in place. In other words, in addition to the poll tax recovery programme—the resources involved in that process are extensive in many areas—local authorities are having to maintain the register and handle inquiries about rebates and so on. Local resources are stretched to the maximum because of the need for authorities to carry on with business as normal, in addition to recovering the poll tax and maintaining the register. I hope that the Minister will take that matter into account also.
    I am sure that the local authority associations will make those and other points to him when he meets them. I, too, will be giving him my views about the reconsideration that is necessary by the Department of the work that local authorities are having to face because of the re-billing exercise.
    An organisation called the Forum of Private Business has made representations to the Department about the way in which the problems facing small businesses need reconsideration. The Bill introduces a scheme to help small businesses over the next three years, until the implementation in April 1995 of rates based on the revaluation that will take place next year. The Forum of Private Business has asked, because there is such a long time between valuations, that the Government, instead of making minor adjustments to help small businesses get over certain problems, look at long-term solutions for helping small businesses. In the interests of these small businesses, we should be introducing a policy to sustain local businesses. The way to do that is via a rebate scheme.
    I put to the Minister the argument made by the Forum of Private Business. Small businesses are extensive. Some 5 million provide employment and wealth. They are the seedcorn of future development. Therefore, it is important that any action taken by the Government should be on a long-term basis rather than a minor operation to get them over a difficult period—in this case, the high reassessment of properties and the protracted recession.
    In the two years 1985–27, small firms created 500,000 jobs, so we are talking about a large part of our community. Small firms employ over one third of the private sector work force. They produce nearly a quarter of our turnover. We support the Bill because it helps, albeit in a minor way, these small firms.
    The Association of District Councils has produced a report called "Small Firms in Britain", which draws attention to the remarkable growth of small firms through the 1980s. If we are to sustain that growth, it is important that help to small firms is on a long-term basis.
    Mr. Redwood: Can the hon. Gentleman clarify the size of the scheme that he has in mind? How many firms and

    787
    what sort of money does he think should be given by way of reduction of rates bills to small firms? This would put some flesh on the bones that he is setting out.
    Mr. O'Brien: Firms would be judged on their ability to pay. This must be done through the local authority, because this is a national tax on business. We consider that to be wrong and the Institute of Directors shares that view. I have here a document from it, published on 18 May 1992, which I am sure that the Minister will have received as well. It says:
    "Whilst the Bill addresses a short-term problem arising from the transition of the UBR and 1990 rateable values coinciding with the recession, it does not remove the need for longer term reform. The Government has still to produce a clear vision of the proper role of local government, without which it is impossible to decide the most appropriate division of responsibilities between central and local government, the most appropriate structure of local government and the most appropriate method of financing local government (the IOD favours a reduced role) but with the local government sector having greater autonomy".
    The Institute of Directors has it right. There should be greater involvement of local authorities in helping small businesses.
    We are not saying that a figure should be put on the rebate or what the reduction on rates should be. That is why, when the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) moved the Liberal Democrat amendment, I said that additional resources should be channelled to those people who have difficulty in meeting rate bills. The Forum of Private Business has reported that the largest single cost upon small businesses is rent and rates. If we are to help these people, we should take into consideration what they are saying and they are saying that rates are too high. A rebate scheme would help them.
    Mr. Bowis: Will the hon. Gentleman elaborate a little on his policy? As I understasnd it, he seeks ultimately the abolition of the present system and a return to the rating system. He also advocates the abolition of capping. Therefore, he is advocating an open-ended commitment to a rebate for small businesses, because there is no capping of the amount that can be imposed by councils on the businesses in their areas.
    Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman is the first to mention capping. I was referring to a rebate scheme for businesses that find it difficult to pay their rates. That should be done by agreement between local authorities and small businesses. Business and domestic ratepayers should agree with the local authority on the level of services that they demand, and what they are prepared to pay for those services. I am against capping of local authorities, because I believe that the level of services should be decided in that way.
    Mr. Bowis: The Labour party has said that it would organise the rates so that there was a ratio between domestic and non-domestic rates. Therefore, the commitment is open-ended. How much money is the hon. Gentleman suggesting should be in the rebate fund?
    Mr. O'Brien: I am saying, and I repeat—
    The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I hesitate to intervene, but the hon. Gentleman is referring to much that is not in the Bill. I hope that he will confine his remarks to what is in the Bill.
    Mr. O'Brien: My remarks are at all times directed to small businesses. That is why, in response to the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), I said that there was no set level for the rebate. That would be a matter for agreement between small businesses and their local authorities. It would be based primarily on a business's level of income. Therefore, one cannot put a figure on the amount. If additional resources are to be made available and if the Government are contemplating long-term programmes to help small businesses, that is the way that they should approach the matter.
    I am not alone in making that point. In Committee, the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) referred to the same principle. He said:
    "We have heard a number of examples of some people who are well off and who vote but will not have to pay because they are exempt. We have heard other examples of people with no money but who will have to pay. That underpins the argument that many of us have put forward. The way to get round the anomalies and exemptions is to link the whole thing to the ability to pay."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 28 January 1988; c. 208.]
    Any small business should have its rates linked to its ability to pay. That should be the result of a contract between local authorities and the small businesses. That is borne out by the Institute of Directors, the Association of District Councils and the Forum of Private Business. All those organisations make the same point. They are not members or supporters of the Labour party. I doubt whether the Forum of Private Business is affiliated to any political party. The Government should take note of what they are saying.
    Therefore, when the Minister is considering long-term support for small businesses he should consider the observations made by the Institute of Directors, the Association of Local Authorities, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Association of District Councils, the Association of County Councils, the Forum of Private Business and other pressure groups which are telling the Government that the 1988 Act is not working and that this minor Bill will not resolve the long-term problem that small businesses face. I also ask him to consider carefully the problems that local authorities are facing as a result of the Bill.
    9.1 pm
    Mr. Nigel Jones: I assure the Minister that we on the Liberal Democrat Bench welcome the moves made in the Bill. Any help for small businesses is good news. Small businesses are the life blood of our country, and without them we would not be a successful nation.
    The uniform business rate has been a disaster—almost as much of a disaster for many businesses as the poll tax was for many individuals. The Local Government Finance Act 1988 will go down as one of the worst pieces of legislation that the Government have introduced in their long term in office. We welcome the moves made in the Bill, but we regret that the Government have been unable to go any further.
    9.2 pm
    Mr. Morgan: I want briefly to mention certain aspects of the Bill that have not yet been fully covered. As the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) said, the Bill is an attempt to plaster over the problems caused by the hideous errors perpetrated by Nicholas Ridley, a previous Secretary of State for the Environment. The Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Amendment) Bill 1991—Ridley was wrong mark I—attempted to do forst domestic rates what this Bill—Ridley was wrong mark 2—attempts to do for the business rate.
    All those who voted for the community charge legislation—that is the first time that I have used the phrase "community charge": as a member of the human race, I usually call it the poll tax. One can usually tell whether Conservative Members are members of the human race by whether they use the phrase "community charge" or "poll tax". It is a simple litmus test. The Minister is clearly not a member of the human race. Several times tonight he has referred to the community charge, even though it is dead. Perhaps one day he will join us.
    A problem arises with business rates when a revaluation occurs at the top of a particular type of economic cycle—such as that from 1986 to 1988, which marked the high tide of Thatcherism. The runaway boom of that period affected in particular the retail, commercial, and property development sectors—but it has since gone into reverse.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying rather wide. The Bill concerns the business rate and has nothing to do with the economics of the past, booms, or anything of that nature. I shall be grateful if the hon. Gentleman will stick to the Bill.
    Mr. Morgan: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The purpose of my introductory remarks was to illustrate that the Bill would not be required but for the problems that arise when a revaluation occurs at the top of a particular type of highly biased and probably never to be repeated economic cycle, which causes particular problems to fall on the small business and retail sector in south-east England.
    The high values originally set must now be adjusted downwards by the Bill, to meet a situation that could occur in any subsequent revaluation, in any decade. If a particular business sector or region is booming at the time a revaluation is made, the figure will be wrong. When the cycle reverses three or four years later, the companies will say, "We shall go bankrupt, or you will lose the election because we shall vote against you."
    In 1990, the Government abandoned their 1988 legislation, saying, "For gawd's sake, someone bung small businesses a few bob, and see if they will still vote Tory in the next election." Some of them did and some did not—but enough of them voted Tory to return a Conservative Government, and now they are trying to undo the legislation introduced by Mr. Ridley, which was voted for almost sheeplike by so many Conservative Members.
    Extraordinarily high values were placed on shops and offices in the south-east, but extremely low values were placed on factories—particularly in the north. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said that the shops in his constituency had been knocked for six. That is the inevitable consequence of the timing of the revaluation, which occurred in the middle of the 1986–88 shopping
    790
    boom. Everyone thought that there would be more shops and high-value boutiques of the type characteristic of towns such as Bath and Cheltenham which suck in tourists and casual travellers. Whent that cycle reverses and the economy goes bust instead, the business men cannot possibly continue paying high rates. One must have a measure which allows special contributions, to save such businesses from massive bankruptcies.
    Are the Government telling us tonight that they are offering not just a short-term, papering-over-the-cracks solution, but one that will meet the boom-or-bust economic cycle that has benefited shops and offices in the south-east in the past, but which has now reversed and is moving the country's economic motor away from retailing, property development, as can be seen at Canary Wharf, and the south-east region to other regions of the country? It is not good enough for the Government to say, "This year, we'll give them a few bob. This year, we'll produce a one-off measure to refund the system that we put in place in 1988." This country and its local government must have a predictable, calculable, and fair system of raising money from domestic and business rates.
    Ministers have not said a word today about how they have solved the medium-term problem, or how they propose to do so. All we have heard is, "Let's plaster over the cracks made by the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and the changes introduced in 1990. Please do that, just for now." Small businesses are screaming, bankruptcies are sweeping the country, and shops, hotels, computer centres, business parks and all the other parts of the economy that were booming five or six years ago are now experiencing a severe slump. Some way must be found to reduce the tax burden which was set at the peak of the economic cycle back in 1987–88.
    We still want to hear some apology for the mistakes that the Government made when they 'nationalised' this aspect of local government finance in the 1988 Act. We want them to explain how they intend to lay out principles which will enable finance officers, finance committees and local councillors to see the way ahead, and to plan a reasonable level of expenditure without hanging on Ministers' every word each year, because they need to be able to plan more than three or four months ahead—beyond the next Minister's speech.
    We also want a promise from the Government that there will be no more of the nonsense that we have been hearing lately. For instance, we do not want the owners of offices to be so terrified of the non-domestic rate that they expect to be stuck with that they strip their offices and remove all usable equipment, thus avoiding payment of any rate. Back in the industrial slump of 1980–82, factory owners in the west midlands were taking the roofs off their factories to avoid paying business rates, and the same could happen with Canary Wharf—Tarzan's very own tree, if I may refer briefly to the President of the Board of Trade. What would happen if huge new developments stripped their offices, rendering them unusable? Apart from the reduction in asset values, an additional burden would then fall on other business rate payers.
    The Government have got themselves into an unholy mess since 1988 as a result of their arrogance. I have not yet observed any signs, from the Minister or from Conservative Back Benchers, that any lesson has been learned from that mess.
    9.12 pm
    Mr. Paul Murphy: I shall speak mainly about Wales, as I did on Second Reading. I am sure that the Minister is aware of the problems that affect the Principality, but if he is not, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State will no doubt draw them to his attention.
    On Second Reading, the Opposition emphasised their main caveat on the Bill. We wish to do the same this evening, albeit briefly. We shall, of course, support the Bill, because business people throughout England and Wales will be better off as a result of the changes it makes. The consequences of the 1988 Act were, generally speaking, disastrous, both in regard to the poll tax and for many small businesses. I hope that the Bill will go a small way towards alleviating those difficulties.
    We must always remember, however, that the two sides of the House differ to a significant extent on what is and what is not a business rate, or a business tax. The Opposition believe that the present system is a business tax; we also believe that a business rate should be raised locally, spent locally and locally accountable, on the basis that finance is the essence of local democracy. The combination of the business rate that we are discussing and the proposed council tax—which will be with us in 1993—means that only a small percentage of the income now derived by local authorities will be raised locally. That is not good for democracy or for local government, and it is not particularly good for those who have to pay local taxes. Local government is at serious risk if its revenue-raising powers are taken away. Although the Bill is important, we do not support the principles that underlie it.
    My hon. Friends the Members for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) and for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) referred to a number of practical problems with the Bill. I hope that the Minister will refer to them when he winds up the debate. Arrears are building up at an alarming rate in many local authorities in England and Wales as a result of the introduction of the business rate. In addition, many local authorities, including some in Wales, face the serious problem of non-payment of the business rate. Many people believe the business rate does not have to be paid until the Bill has gone through all its legislative stages.
    I appreciate that payment of the business rate will be backdated, but many business people do not appear to do so. Therefore, the Government should make it absolutely clear how non-payment of the business rate will harm local authorities. The income of many local authorities has been seriously affected. The loss of interest as a result of non-collection particularly harms those parts of the country that can least afford it.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton referred to computer systems and said that a number of local authorities have had to resort to manual systems to deal with the changes that have already been made and that are about to be made with regard to the business rate. I hope that the Government will provide practical help to local authorities, in the form of both software and hardware. I hope, too, that there will be closer liaison between local authorities, the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office to overcome those practical problems and to deal with the difficult area of local government finance that local authorities will have to face up to during the next eight months.
    792
    The changes will cost £25 million in Wales alone. In addition, there will be many administrative costs. On 1 April 1993, local authorities will have to introduce the brand new council tax. The practical difficulties caused by the combination of the two tax changes will lead to considerable strains on local government finance and on manpower and the way that they deal with their business.
    The Government should think carefully about the fact that they have postponed discussion in the House of the rate support grant settlement for both England and Wales as a direct result of the instability that these changes have caused. Furthermore, the standard spending assessment is very difficult for laymen and experts to understand. On top of that, local authorities are faced with capping. All these issues with which the Bill deals means that there could be considerable instability and, in some local authorities, financial chaos in the months ahead, unless the local authority associations and the two Government Departments that are responsible for them get together quickly to solve it.
    When I look at local government finance in 1992, I wonder whether it is any more stable and any less chaotic or difficult to understand than it was a quarter of a century ago when we discussed, in Green Papers, royal commissions and so on, the changes that we needed to make to local government finance. Nothing much has changed.
    There is a Welsh dimension that is different from the English. It seems that there is to be no local government reform of any substance in England. However, the Secretary of State for Wales has said that he intends to go ahead with the main changes in local government reform that he announced before the general election. Those changes in council tax and business tax must be coupled with the fact that there might be substantial changes in the structure and nature of local government in the Principality in the next two years. Those changes will be so dramatic that the county council elections might be abandoned and the two tiers of local government merged into one system of unitary authorities.
    Local authorities are expected to budget properly for their respective areas during the next few weeks and months. How can they do that properly with all the uncertainty, instability and changes in transitional relief that have been thrust upon them in recent months and years?
    I believe that the Bill is relatively meaningless unless it is seen in the context of all the other changes that will be put upon the people of Wales in the next year. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and my other hon. Friends believe that there must be a settling down period in local government, particularly local government finance. We have seen too many changes in the past few years. Some of those changes, such as the poll tax, have been catastrophic and calamitous.
    Mr. Morgan: Too much polyfilla and not enough bricks and mortar.
    Mr. Murphy: My hon. Friend is right.
    The controversial council tax that will be in place in the next few months does not help. There have been disputes over valuations and there will be even more disputes when the appeal tribunals become operative after the council tax has been set up. The business rate is constantly changing and the rules are altering all the time. That means that the

    793
    business community is fast losing confidence in the way in which it has to pay its taxes or rates. The credibility of our local government system is now at stake. During the next few months before the summer recess I urge, and beg the Minister to talk seriously to local government in England and Wales about the problems of instability facing local authorities. If he does not, I fear for the future.
    9.22 pm
    Mr. Redwood: The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) began by saying that the Bill is a significant amendment to the Local Government Finance Act 1988. He concluded by saying that it is a trifling proposal, or words to that effect. In that, he was echoed by his hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). Let me clarify what we are doing and what we agree and disagree about.
    The Government are improving the basis of the transitional relief scheme so that businesses can obtain relief from their bills, especially those which faced largish increases over a number of years as a result of the revaluation. We are not changing the fundamental base of business rates introduced by the 1988 legislation, which was to give businesses the pledge that the poundage would not rise by more than the rate of inflation.
    That remains the fundamental divide between the Government and the Opposition. We are saying to businesses that, once the valuations are stabilised, as they will be when transitional relief is fully exhausted and worked through, nobody's bill will increase by more than the rate of inflation. Business never enjoyed such benefits under a Labour Government and when there was a scheme which allowed Labour and Liberal local authorities to impose their own level of business rates in each locality.
    Mr. William O'Brien: On Second Reading, the Minister said that, there was a possibility that the transitional relief system may not be achieved by businesses because it may be influenced by revaluation next year. He has just said that, when the transitional relief system has been exhausted, we shall be back to a level of no more than the rate of inflation. How does he reconcile those two comments? Perhaps he will tell us why he has changed his mind since 19 May.
    Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman should listen. I said that the rate of inflation would apply to the poundage being charged, and that a stable valuation base was necessary for people to enjoy that benefit in their bills. The lack of a stable valuation base and the long gap between revaluations led to our introducing transitional relief to ensure that increases would not be too great. We are offering more generous treatment this year. In the Budget, we recognised that some businesses were under cash flow pressures, and this is one of a package of measures to give additional relief.
    The big divide between the Labour and Conservative parties is that we are offering the pledges of regular revaluations to avoid the problem of a big backlog—and a big jump as a result—in the change in valuations, and the poundage will not rise by more than the rate of inflation. Labour is proposing a return to a system whereby Labour and Liberal local authorities can choose to increase rates by the amount they wish. They are saying that business should pay and pay again if a local authority chooses to tax it.
    794
    Where are the Opposition's proposals to improve accountability and to give business a vote and some influence over council decisions? I see no proposals at all. We have offered protection to business, because we believe in it, and we want it to flourish.
    Mr. Murphy: Does the Minister agree that the logical consequence of that argument is that local government raises no revenue?
    Mr. Redwood: That is not the logic of the argument. At the beginning of the next financial year, we shall introduce an accountable local tax to raise revenue. Individuals will, rightly, have the vote and will have more influence over what their local authorities can choose to spend. Elections will be held on how much value councils get for the money that they spend and how much money they are raising within the generous overall controls of capping, which will apply where we feel that people need to be protected from the extremes of Labour or Liberal authorities.
    Mr. Murphy: Perhaps I can put it another way. Only 11 per cent. of the income of Welsh local authorities is raised locally. That cannot be right for democracy. If 90 per cent. is raised centrally, will not 100 per cent. eventually be raised by central Government?
    Mr. Redwood: There is no proposal before the House to abolish all local taxation. The House recently passed legislation confirming the council tax, with all its details worked out from the centre, which needed to be worked out a year in advance so that councils would have time to build the computer programs and get on with planning a smooth transition.
    I hope that the Labour party will calm down about local taxation and will recognise that this fair proposal has been modified following consultation and that the council tax should be the means of raising local incomes so that local democracy, in which I hope both sides believe, can have full rein. I look forward to seeing the proposals of the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) for a massive increase in the amount of money raised locally from individuals, which now seems to be what his party is implying. It would be interesting to all those facing their council tax bills next year to hear that the Labour party does not think that they pay a big enough proportion and would like to see more money raised from them.
    The hon. Member for Normanton has not answered my point about accountability for business.
    Mr. O'Brien: The Minister appears to forget that his Government increased VAT to help to pay for local government finance. Will he assure us that there will be no further increases in VAT to finance local government? The Minister should remember that his Government increased VAT, which affects everyone. We are saying that local taxation should be based on the ability to pay.
    Mr. Redwood: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was very clear on VAT in the general election campaign, and I have nothing to add to his very clear statement. It is a cheap and silly debating trick for the hon. Member for Normanton to introduce that point.
    The Conservative party is firmly behind the council tax, which will go in on time. The Labour party should have the decency to say, "Yes, we will live and work with that system because here is an opportunity for local democracy"—in which it claims to believe—"and for an

    795
    independent source of local finance based on property". That is what the Labour party wanted, although it never had a sensible, workable proposal which bore examination or stood up to proper scrutiny.
    The big divide between Labour and Conservative in the House is over whether or not we offer business some protection from large and specific increases in poundage in particular localities. We say that we should, that we do and that we will. The fundamental principle of the 1988 legislation is not challenged by the Bill.
    The Liberal Democrats wish to go over to site valuation, which would be ruinous to many small businesses in the south. I hope that one day someone will write a good analysis of how bad an impact that would have, so that all can see what an absurd idea the Liberal Democrats support.
    Mr. Morgan: The Minister says that the Bill does not breach the principles of the 1988 legislation. I remember sitting in this same spot when Mr. Ridley explained the virtues of the legislation, especially in respect of the business rate. He said that the entire transitional relief scheme would be self-financing. The Bill involves Exchequer financing. How can the Minister sit there, with his usual straight face, and tell the House that the Bill is not a breach of the fundamental principle of the business rate for which he voted? All the sheeplike Back-Bench Conservative Members voted for that as well.
    Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman keeps shifting his ground because he cannot win on the ground that he chooses first. The big principle is whether local authorities are left with the discretion to increase taxes in any way that they like on businesses which do not have the direct relationship with them through the vote which individuals have. On the question of Exchequer funding, I have already explained that the purpose of the Bill is to bring before the House the part of the Budget measures which allocate more moneys from general taxation and from public borrowing to help the business sector. That is perfectly reasonable in the context that I have described.
    We want to offer more cash flow help to business, and we have decided to make the terms of the transitional relief scheme, which were always part of the original proposals, more generous. I thought that the two major parties agreed on that, and I hope that the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) will now see that it is reasonable to offer that additional assistance—[Interruption.] I said clearly that the big principle in the 1988 legislation was whether local authorities had the right to increase bills themselves in any way they saw fit—[Interruption.] That was the principle that the Labour party has tried to establish in the debate—[Interruption.] That is the principle that we have opposed.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I am having great difficulty hearing the Minister because of sedentary remarks. I should be grateful if the whole House would listen to the Minister.
    Mr. Redwood: You are very courteous and helpful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Opposition Members are a little rattled because they are not making any progress in their rather weak arguments tonight.
    796
    I will repeat some helpful points for Opposition Members. I and my officials will study carefully any representations made by Opposition Members on the question of re-billing costs and the cash flow to local authorities. I take up the point mentioned by the hon. Member for Torfaen. The position has been made very clear. Businesses should carry on paying the instalments and bills that they have received until such time as the rebilling exercise has been completed, assuming the safe passage of the Bill through both Houses and Royal Assent.
    I am grateful to Opposition Members who have done their bit to help to speed the legislation. The best help that we can all offer business is to ensure the smooth and rapid passage of the Bill through the House so that the rebilling exercise can be carried out quickly and effectively and so that people get the benefit of the legislation as promptly as possible.
    We shall, of course, study any cost analysis that the hon. Member for Torfaen may have on a reduction in rebilling costs. We have a basis for our own calculations and we are consulting the local authority associations. I reaffirm a point I made in other forums in answer to the hon. Member for Torfaen. We intend to consult and liaise closely with individual local authorities and with local authority associations. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I have already met the local authority associations on more than one occasion since we took over our present tasks.
    I have recently toured different parts of the country to meet local authority representatives, and I intend to do as much of that as time and business pressures permit. I like to see for myself what is happening on the ground, to listen to the views of local authority officers of all political persuasions and to meet people in my offices in Whitehall and here in Westminster.
    The hon. Member for Cardiff, West attacked the system when he said that it was not calculable or predictable. That is exactly what a national business rate with a specified rate of increase in poundage will be when compared to Labour's system where the poundage would move around as well as the valuations. The more regular the revaluations, the more stability there will be from the valuations. The successful completion of a quinquennial review will help to stabilise the system compared to the long gap in the previous case.
    The hon. Member for Torfaen was worried about the degree of change and stability in the system. There are changes in local government at the moment. However, my predecessors made a sensible point of passing legislation and setting out the main points of the council tax as early as possible, thus leaving people with more than a year in which to plan against the background of that legislation and the main principles of the proposals now coming before us for final implementation.
    With regard to structure reform, I was not sure whether the hon. Member for Torfaen suggested that he admired the Welsh model and not the English model or the other way around. He seemed to argue it both ways. Let me reassure him that the Government do not lack enthusiasm for a sensible reform of local government in England as well. I hope that we shall shortly announce more proposals to flesh out the details that have already been passed in legislation. They will make it clear that there will be a structure review in the English shire regions which will start soon when we can make the necessary arrangements and announcements.
    Mr. William O'Brien: I have listened carefully to the Minister's response. I referred to the Forum for Private Business; I am sure that the Minister has received a copy of the circular that I have received, in which the chief executive states that the forum is prepared to work with the Government in respect of small firms. He also states:
    "This is a critical time for small firms, many of whom are suffering cash flow problems with less support from the banks."
    It is not just a matter of rents and rates. Other issues are involved with regard to the cash flow of small firms. Will the Minister consider what the forum for small businesses has said and, if necessary, will he enter into discussions and listen to what the forum has to say about the important issue of cash flow?
    Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment who is responsible for local government affairs will meet the forum on 1 July if all goes according to plan. He will listen carefully to what its members have to say. Several Ministers over many months have listened to what the forum has had to say. They have read its surveys and have had meetings with representatives. Undoubtedly, the forum helped to influence the Chancellor's and the Government's decision to announce a package of measures in the Budget to help business cash flow of which this Bill is but one.
    The voice of business through the forum and through other channels of communication to Government does not go unheard. I promise that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will meet the forum soon and that he will listen to those specific points. The hon. Member for Normanton should bear in mind that we have announced and are carrying through a substantial package of relief from business rate increases which we hope that the forum and other small business representative groups and small businesses themselves will welcome.
    I trust that the House will give a swift passage to this legislation. The Bill will be very welcome in the business community, and I hope that it will receive its Third Reading without any further Division.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
    9.38 pm
    Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you have had a request from the Leader of the House to make a statement about the legislation that is to be considered in Committee tomorrow, in view of the delightful and welcome news that it appears that the Danish people have very sensibly voted against the Maastricht treaty. If that is the case, it means that the whole of the treaty paraphernalia will collapse and that the business which is to occupy the House for the next two days will be completely wasted. Therefore, it would seem sensible for the Leader of the House to make an early business statement so that we may take into account the good news from Denmark.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I confirm to the hon. Gentleman that I have heard nothing about that matter, but I imagine that members of the Government have listened to him.

Water Charges
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Davis.]
9.39 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: I wish to raise the issue of general directions to OFWAT, the Office of Water Services, in regard to water charges. First, I should like to explore the residual relationship between the Minister's responsibilities and those of OFWAT, to explore the extent of the Minister's responsibility for water and sewerage services on behalf of the public, and secondly I should like to establish the role of the Director General of Water Services under the Water Act 1989 in defending the public interest.
There is wide concern at present at the extent to which the water and sewerage industry appears to lack accountability or responsibility not just to Ministers and to the House but to the general public. I wish to explore for a few minutes who now defends the public interest in relation to water charges, who now sets the criteria for charging policy, and who now ensures that the national investment objectives, which in the past were undertaken with a system of equalisation grants between the richer and poorer parts of the country, are met. I want also to examine how precisely OFWAT and the Director General of Water Services operate within the ministerial direction.
As the House will recall, when the legislation was first prepared and considered in this place, it was assumed that the so-called K factor would be a negative sign. It was assumed that it would be possible to allow charges which would increase by less than the annual rate of inflation. In fact, with the dramatic change in the obligations that were laid upon the industry, especially by the European Community bathing and drinking water quality directives, the K factor had to be plus from the first time that it was used.
It was originally assumed, when the legislation was being prepared, that a 10-year interval between reappraisals of the K factor arrangements would be sufficient with just a half-time check at the fifth year. In practice, the pressure has been on for intermediate assessment. There have already been a number of changes, even during the short period since the Act came into force. I shall return to a specific example—that of South West Water—to illustrate the major change that has taken place in that area.
With those major changes in the circumstances which have inevitably led to major changes in the assumptions on which the calculations are made, there is necessarily a complete reappraisal of the role of OFWAT and indeed ministerial responsibility for giving directions to OFWAT.
The Director General of Water Services has been juggling with a large number of variables—capital programmes, revenue expectations, borrowing requirements, European Community obligations, and profit and dividend levels. Clearly, the Director General, Mr. Ian Byatt, has had considerable difficulty in identifying precisely where his responsibilities begin and end. For example, on 19 June last year, he was reported as saying:
"companies do not need … big dividend increases because stock market expectations for all companies' dividends have been reduced."

799
He went on to warn that the K factor of the companies could be made more onerous if they paid excessively high dividends to their shareholders instead of ploughing money back into their businesses. He also argued that:
"where new obligations are imposed on the companies in the first five years, the cost of the additional borrowing could be accommodated without an equivalent increase in revenue."
The frustration that the director general obviously felt at the limitation on his powers and role was already evident then. As if that were not enough, complex additional problems resulted from the new roles that the water companies felt that they could undertake through diversification.
For example, Welsh Water owns five country house hotels and a civil engineering business, and boasts an almost 15 per cent. stake in South Wales Electricity worth £51 million. South West Water has a property business, a civil engineering arm and a multi-million-pound 20 per cent. holding in West Country Television. The company also runs gift shops. Southern Water and Northumbria Water run car-leasing firms. Northumbria also has a personnel management company. Yorkshire Water has a direct mailing organisation.
When those diversification activities become apparent the director general issued a general warning about the extent to which they could divert the attention of the management away from their core business. My Liberal Democrat colleagues in the House and in another place sought to stop up that loophole. Eventually the Government introduced their own amendment, but it is far from clear that the role of either OFWAT or the Government has been strengthened or that diversification will be prevented, or at least limited, to ensure that it is in the public interest. It is clear from every statement made by OFWAT that there is frustration at the director general's lack of powers in respect of diversification.
Thirdly, I wish to deal with the specific case of South West Water. Obviously, in my constituency of North Cornwall, it is anorganisation that we know well, although I cannot say that we love it. It has a tarnished record of secrecy, complacency and expensive empire building, but it is not to that record that I wish to draw the attention of the House tonight.
I wish to demonstrate that what has happened to water charges in the south-west exemplifies the deficiencies of the legislation passed by the House. I should say in passing that I welcome the repentance of sinners on the Conservative Benches who voted for that legislation but have now seen its deficiencies.
South West Water is the only privatised company to have sought and be granted a major increase in its K factor for 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95. In the first year, it will amount to 16p in the pound. Obviously, in the following years it will depend on the rate of inflation. South West Water is one of only two companies which did not voluntarily defer the K element in 1991–92.
However, the south-west also has huge problems. It has a long stretch of coastline, which is a major national, if not international, asset. That has attendant alarming problems of coastal erosion and pollution. But the area has the extra problem of a demanding burden from our annual holiday invasion. It is also an area of low average household incomes. Yet it is now likely to have the highest average household charges of all 10 water companies—it is already
800
No. 3 in the league. There is therefore now a major affordability gap between what is expected of the water charge payers of the south-west and what they can afford.
We should note, as there have been additional reports on this in the last few weeks, that the south-west has above-average wastage—up to one third of the supply from our reservoirs is lost through leakage.
To cap it all, last week the company announced record profits, record dividends and—less obviously and less ostentatiously—record executive bonuses.
All those issues are regularly drawn to the attention of my hon. Friends the Members for Devon, North (Mr. Harvey) and for Truro (Mr. Taylor), who are here tonight.
Against that background, the Director General of Water Services had to assess the bid for South West Water for an increased K factor. The announcement was made just before Christmas, during the recess, and received remarkably little publicity. The factor was 6·5 per cent. in the previous year and was increased to 11·5 per cent. for 1992–93.
Many water charge payers in the south-west expected that, when the additional funding was available to the company, South West Water would immediately announce additions to its programme, the acceleration of existing elements in it and the upgrading of schemes in the programme, to show what we would get for the money. We got no Christmas present. Hon. Members will recall that occasionally politicians are accused of producing menus without prices. South West Water produces prices without a menu. All it did was produce a press release in January which said:
"The additional 5 per cent. is largely"—
I emphasise "largely"—
"needed to fund new obligations imposed since 1989".
It continued by referring to those obligations as:
"—bringing forward the existing programme of schemes largely by 1995
—providing land-based sewage treatment for those schemes
—ending the disposal of sludge to sea by 1998".
We have not received any specific programme of change as a result of the additional funding.
OFWAT has again seemed to be impotent in the face of those unexpected profit levels, and has not been able to show what we are getting for our money. The Director General of Water Services is clearly frustrated at the extent to which the advice that he gives to the companies is ignored. I shall quote from a letter to me from OFWAT, which refers to the 1991–92 increase in charges as follows:
"You will see that Mr. Byatt's view is that profits should be viewed in the medium term rather than on an annual basis. He has, however, drawn the company's attention to the importance of customers receiving some of the benefits of the recently announced profits. He has suggested this might be by way of increased capital investment in their new environmental obligations or by not taking up the whole of their charging limit in 1991–92."
That letter was in direct response to a request for information about his attitude to the increase in charges by South West Water, but it would clearly apply equally well to other companies privatised by the Water Act 1989.
I have several crucial questions for the Minister. First and foremost, are the Secretary of State and his colleagues satisfied with his and OFWAT's powers in respect of water charges? Secondly, is he satisfied that the customer is adequately protected from excessive water charges by the powers?

801
Thirdly, what can the Minister do, post-privatisation, to reintroduce national Exchequer support, by way of a green dowry or by any other means, to ensure equalisation between the richer and less well-off parts of the country and to ensure adequate investment in national assets such as the south-west coastline?
Fourthly, we urgently need to know—I know that this view is shared throughout the House—whether the company's privatised status precludes the allocation of European Commission's rural development fund grants. My information is that it does, but the matter needs to be cleared up once and for all. We do not want any more false promises.
Fifthly, is the Minister satisfied that OFWAT's powers are sufficient to prevent the distracting diversification, to which I have referred, and which causes concern in all parts of the House? The Director General of OFWAT clearly expressed great concern, and we should now know whether Ministers are equally concerned.
Sixthly, what can the Minister or OFWAT do to stop companies adding insult to injury as they have in the past few days? Last week, with Cornwall and Devon in a severe depression and many people facing extortionate water bills, The Western Morning News reported:
"South West Water chairman Keith Court is set to collect a company shares bonus worth £137,000 on top of his £89,000 a year salary—while customers receive bills set to rise by at least a third over the next three years."
My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Ms. Lynne) will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to refer to an equally damaging situation that has arisen in the north-west. In a sane world, chairmen would be given a bonus for reducing water charges by record amounts, not for increasing them.
Finally, how can the Minister and OFWAT tame what even the chairman of South West Water has admitted, in a letter to my predecessor, is a "monopoly organisation"? Those are crucial questions and many people throughout the country, not just in the south-west, are waiting for positive answers from the Minister.
9.57 pm
Mr. David Harris: I and all hon. Members from the south-west are grateful to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) for raising this important issue. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is of particular relevance and importance to consumers in the South West Water area, because they are paying—and will be paying for years to come—much higher increases in their water charges than consumers in other parts of the country.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall has highlighted the reasons for that—the principal one being that we have such a long coastline. We have also suffered years of neglect on an enormous scale, particularly with regard to sewerage facilities. Around the whole coastline of Devon and Cornwall, one finds beach after beach where sewage is poured out on to the beach or into the sea a few miles away. That is an intolerable situation. We recognise that, and we have all been campaigning to correct it. We also have to face the consequences of that. However, the hon. Member for North Cornwall did not pay particular attention to that aspect of the matter or to the fact that massive bills to clear up the neglect and the awful position on the coastline will have to be met. The question is how those bills are to be met.
802
I agree with the hon. Member's implication and assertion that far too great a burden is being placed on consumers and those who have to pay the charges of South West Water. As the hon. Gentleman said, the Director General of Water Services authorised an average increase of 16 per cent. on charges this year. That average is based on a basket of five separate tariffs, at the highest level of which some people are being called on to pay an increase of 27 per cent. in their water charges this year.
I admit frankly—I have said it frequently in my constituency—that that is an unacceptable burden, particularly for consumers living on small incomes or retirement pensions. It hits particularly hard those living on amounts which take them just above any measure of income support, so that they do not receive help with any aspect of daily living, such as meeting the community charge or housing costs.
It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Non-Domestic Rating Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
Mr. Harris: Since I have spoken out on this, I have received many letters, including letters from constituents of other hon. Members in the south-west. Other hon. Members will have received similar correspondence. In my constituency, this issue was raised more frequently than any other during the general election campaign. Having talked to hon. Members on both sides of the House, I have found that they too found it a frequently raised subject.
Mr. Anthony Steen: The graph since 1974 shows that the capital invested in South West Water by Labour and Conservative Governments has been inadequate to cope with the later clean water and pollution of the sea directives of the EC. It has been pointed out that the south-west has one of the longest and most complicated coastlines in the country. The consumer is now expected to pick up the shortfall which successive Governments have caused and which was left with South West Water when it was privatised. The question is whether the consumer now has to pick up the tab for the shortfall or whether the Government will accept that the burden is too great and that something special must be done.
Mr. Harris: My hon. Friend is right, and I was about to come to that.
How is the burden to be met, as between the consumer on the one hand and any other source of help on the other? The Government, through privatisation, have made a considerable sum available to South West Water, as they have to every other water company, through the so-called green dowry.
In the light of the extra requirements that have been placed on South West Water, to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) and the hon. Member for North Cornwall referred, it is clear that new factors have entered into the equation since the legislation was passed. I am therefore not a sinner who repents, because we are dealing with new factors. We must recognise those and the burden that the new European factors have placed on South West Water and its customers.

803
There are two ways out of the problem. First, if the Government recognise the special case being made for South West Water by hon. Members in all parts of the House—there is nothing between us politically on this—they must accept that South West Water is in a peculiar situation. That is borne out by the decision of the Director General of Water Services, who has authorised an extraordinary increase in charges for South West Water.
Mr. Steen: And not just for this year.
Mr. Harris: My hon. Friend is right. It represents a continuing set of increases. The Government should provide extra help. Hon. Members who represent Devon constituencies have already seen the Secretary of State for the Environment. I put in a request, on behalf of Cornish Members, to see him to follow up the excellent case made by Devon Conservative Members of Parliament.
South West Water should be applying to another source of funds—the European Community—under the European regional development fund, or the structural fund as it is now called. When I was the Member of the European Parliament representing Cornwall and Plymouth, we received considerable assistance from what was in those days the European investment bank.
I consulted my successor as Member of the European Parliament for Cornwall and Plymouth, Mr. Christopher Beazley. He assured me that South West Water has had grants from the European development fund and that there is no bar to the continuation of those funds even though it is now a privatised company. In my day as the European Member of Parliament, the criterion was always that grants should go to a public authority or an organisation carrying out the services of a public authority, and I am told that that has not changed fundamentally. By one means or another, or by a combination of both, the burden on the hard-pressed customers of the South West water authority should be lifted and eased.
My hon. Friend the Minister had the great good sense to spend part of last week walking across part of my constituency, from the south to the north coast. I wish that I had known in advance, because I could have arranged for many people to meet him on the way, brandishing their water bills. I am sure that that would have had a much greater effect than this debate. I am sure that it would have made his holiday as he walked from Hayle to Marazion. Perhaps that was a missed opportunity.
I am sure that my hon. Friend has listened to the debate, however, and I can assure him that this issue will not go away. Members of Parliament from Devon and Cornwall—the South West Water area—will continue to press the issue with vigour. We are determined about this because it is a serious matter and we owe it to our constituents to get some justice in the amounts that they are being called on to pay.
10.7 pm
Ms. Liz Lynne: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), but everything he said about South West Water is also true of North West Water. I understand that OFWAT is monitoring the situation, but does it realise that the profits of North West Water are up by 7·3 per cent.? What is it
804
doing to ensure that bills go down as profits go up? It is doing very little, and I should like it to have a few more teeth.
I should like to draw attention to the salary increase of the chairman of North West Water. Dennis Grove is on a salary of £144,000. The value of his share option is £260,000. That salary has risen by 206 per cent. since privatisation, while water charges have risen by 29 per cent. OFWAT should go beyond monitoring and take action to ensure that the bills for ordinary householders decrease. As has been said, people are struggling to pay those bills, and it is about time that the chairmen waived their salary increases and ensured that consumers had bills that they could afford to pay.
10.8 pm
Mr. William O'Brien: This is an important and significant debate, because of the concerns of people about the various regional water authorities. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) for raising the subject in an Adjournment debate. Many hon. Members who have had communications with OFWAT are concerned about what is happening in their areas. The replies that we recieve are negative. OFWAT appears to be helpless and refers Members to the regional water companies, which in my case is the Yorkshire water authority. In my area, real problems are developing because of Yorkshire water authority's attitude to many aspects, particularly charges.
In the year 1990–91, bills increased by 13 per cent., and that at a time when inflation was falling. Throughout the year, the average rate of inflation was about 5 per cent. There was a massive increase in charges, over and above the K factor which was set out in the legislation and which should have been monitored by OFWAT. When I took the matter up with the director general, I was advised that the increase was a matter for the Yorkshire water authority. We need some explanation of the various roles of the water companies and the extent of their monopoly powers.
During a four-year period, standing charges in my constituency have increased by between 400 and 500 per cent., with the result that unit costs can be very expensive for those using only minimum amounts of water. That increase in standing charges is another matter that should be addressed.
My constituency held one of the compulsory trials for water metering which gave rise to tremendous problems. We are now advised by the Yorkshire water authority that, when the three-year period set by legislation for the 12 trial areas expires, the charging method will revert to the regional system. Those involved in that trial had no choice about whether to take part in the trial. Since it was compulsory, people should have the option of continuing on that scheme or reverting to the original charging system based on rateable value. If they do not, the water companies have been given more powers than the House wished them to have when the trial periods were introduced. Again we come back to OFWAT's authority and what influence the Minister has in the event of legislation being abused. That problem should be addressed by the Minister.
We are also finding that water authorities are not only interested in providing pure water and sewage discharge services but investing in other sectors, which is an abuse of privilege. Water charges are being increased at rates higher

805
than inflation—nearly three times higher in Yorkshire in 1990–91—yet the money raised is not invested in the industry.
Water wastage is another matter that ought to be addressed. When we challenge the water companies on why they do not take action to save the 25 per cent. or 30 per cent. of water that is wasted in the system, we are told that it would be uneconomic to locate the wastage points and to repair them—that it is cheaper to let the water run to waste. That is totally foolish and out of compliance with value for money. That is another aspect over which OFWAT has no influence, so I hope that the Minister will take action to prevent water waste arid to stop money being wasted by water companies.
10.16 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): The average household—not person—in the south-west pays 62p per day for its water. That is precisely the daily cost of a copy of The Western Morning News and a pint of milk, so 62p a day seems to me to he good value to a household.
South West Water has achieved 99·6 per cent. compliance with bacteriological standards; dealing with foul water and sewage; and providing for investment to continue to enhance water standards and to ensure an adequate supply. Customers and visitors to the south-west have benefited from investment of £60 million in the water supply network since privatisation, which has meant no water restrictions in the south-west since 1990—despite record levels of customer demand.
Mr. Tyler: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Baldry: Yes, I will—but the hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions, and a lot of time has been taken up by other hon. Members. The hon. Gentleman has a choice. I will give way, but I may not have time to answer all the questions that he put to me.
Mr. Tyler: A number of households in north Cornwall had hosepipe restrictions imposed last summer. Is the Minister saying that there were no restrictions on water supplies last summer?
Mr. Baldry: I am saying that there have been no restrictions in the south-west since 1990, despite record levels of customer demand.
Understandably, people want the purest possible drinking water, and an assurance that their foul water and sewage is dealt with in a way that is as environmentally sound as possible. In an area such as the south-west, where a substantial proportion of people are involved in tourism, people want the cleanest possible beaches, with bathing waters reaching the highest possible standards.
My hon. Friends the Members for South Hams (Mr. Steen) and for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) made it clear that ever improving environmental standards mean continuous investment in the water industry. One reason that the industry is having to undertake so much investment now is to rectify the neglect of many decades, caused by relatively low priority in the public sector.
That was most notable during the time when the party of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) colluded in the now infamous Lib-Lab pact—when, in 1976, the Lib-Lab Government of the day stopped all further investment in the water industry overnight.
806
The water industry must also satisfy the many new environmental standards that are rightly being demanded by the House and the European Community. To meet those demands, the industry as a whole has a programme of investment in excess of £28 billion between now and the turn of the century. That is £1,000 of new investment each and every minute of each and every working day.
In the south-west, that means massive investment. Capital investment by South West Water has more than trebled, rising from £49 million in 1988–89 to £172 million in 1991–92, and it is set to rise again this year. A total of 115 improvement schemes, involving treatment works, mains and sewers, were completed last year, bringing benefits to customers, visitors to the region and the local environment. Six hundred further schemes are under way across the region this year.
Coastal sewage treatment is being put into place for the first time. South West Water's "Clean Sweep" programme is one of the largest programmes introduced by any water company in Europe, and is set to clean up 81 beaches and bathing waters, thereby helping to ensure compliance with the EC designated bathing waters directive. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North seemed unclear what South West Water was investing in. I am sure that the company would be more than happy to take him through the many investments and improvements that it is undertaking, item by item.
Mr. Steen: The Minister mentioned the amount paid by each household in the south-west for its water. Are people in other parts of the country paying other water companies less or more?
Mr. Baldry: In other parts of the country, householders are paying what is deemed appropriate for improvements in those parts of the country. Different areas have different requirements, and that is reflected in water charges.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Baldry: No, I will not give way again. I have been asked a number of questions, and time is short.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms. Lynne) has contributed to the debate, and I hink that it would be courteous to respond to her contribution. She complained about the increase in charges in the north-west. North West Water's total proposed investment, however, is £5 billion up to the year 2000: that is £2 million a day, or £20 per second every working day, and it will be invested to enhance water quality.
The water industry is now free to use the private-sector money markets, and can raise the necessary finance to implement the improvements that are demanded by both customers and environmentalists. Moreover, it can make those improvements within the timetable that has been set, confounding the sceptics. Yes, the water companies have made profits: without profits they could not attract the finance that is necessary to fund their investment programmes. Those profits, however, have not been excessive; nor have customers been required to meet too large a proportion of the cost.
Indeed, commenting on last year's results, the Guardian business page described them as
"relatively modest profit and dividend figures".

807
The Independent said that the division between one third of the profit, which went to shareholders, and the remaining two thirds, which was ploughed back into the business, was
"a split which it is difficult to criticise".
Those reports display rather more financial realism than some Opposition Members.
South West's results for the latest year indicate that, although pre-tax profits have increased by 2 per cent., the level of the company's investment has risen by 45 per cent. Without commensurate returns for investors, the industry would find itself unable to attract the finance that it needs. Charges are having to rise to meet increased investment.
We recognised that after privatisation a strong framework of public regulation would be necessary, and it is for precisely that reason that the Director General of Water Services was appointed. He is an independent regulator, whose primary duty is to ensure that the appointed companies carry out the full functions of water and sewerage undertakers, and that sufficient finance is available for them to do so. He is also responsible for the protection of the interests of customers, and has a duty to facilitate competition and promote economy and efficiency.
The director is independent and must be free to undertake his statutory duties and to ensure that the companies can supply the water and sewerage services that are demanded of them as appointed undertakers. His duties to protect the interests of customers require him to ensure that in the setting of charges the companies properly reflect the demands upon them, but he must also ensure that customers are not being required to pay more than is needed to finance functions. In his capacity to promote efficiency and economy, the director will set the companies clear and demanding efficiency targets to ensure that customers benefit from the improvements that the companies are able to achieve. In setting those clear and demanding efficiency targets, one of the issues to which he will wish to pay regard is what the companies are doing about such matters as leakage.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall highlighted the provisions in the Water Industry Act 1991 under which the Secretary of State may give directions to the director. He considers that this should be used to direct the regulator in the matter of individual charges for companies. Ministers are in regular contact with the director about the whole range of matters affecting the water industry. Under this provision, the Secretary of State may give directions to the director, indicating the considerations that he should keep in mind in the exercise of his role. However, the final responsibility for setting and reviewing the limits on charges rests with the director. The Secretary of State has no power to give the director a direction which might require him to set any specific level of charge, or to impose on a company any condition which might put at risk its ability to provide the services for which it is the appointed undertaker; nor has he any plans to seek such a power.
If the Secretary of State were to seek to impose restrictions on the freedom of the regulator to take an objective view on any matter, he would call into question
808
the independence of the regulator and prejudice his relationship with customers, the other environmental regulators and the companies themselves.
In approving the increase in water charges for South West Water, the regulator had to consider the requirements on the company to meet tighter environmental standards under the bathing waters directive and the requirements which followed the decision to treat coastal discharges and phase out the dumping of sewage sludge at sea by the end of 1998. These objectives were welcomed by customers and environmentalists alike.
The director general had first to satisfy himself that the company could not, without an increase, fulfil its functions as a water and sewerage undertaker. He then had to determine how much extra was necessary to allow the company to continue until 1995, when he proposes to review the K factors for all the companies. The director concluded:
"I have a statutory duty to ensure that the company can finance its functions as well as a duty to protect customers. I have considered carefully the figures submitted by South West Water and believe that these increases are justified. These price increases will enable South West Water to manage its programme in the period up to 1994 when I will review the price limits for all the water companies."
That was the judgment of an independent regulator, having regard to all the information that he had for South West Water.
Mr. Tyler: Will the Minister give an explicit answer to the questions about the green dowry that both I and the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) raised earlier, and to the question about European funds? If those were there, the whole equation that the Director General of Water Services would be considering would be quite different.
Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives made clear, the water industry, including South West Water, has already had, as part of the proceeds of privatisation, a substantial green dowry. Privatisation made available to the water companies the sums of money that were never available when it was a publicly regulated institution that had to depend year after year on Treasury grant.
South West Water has submitted applications for European regional development fund grants. Projects have to be additional to existing plans to qualify. I understand that consideration is being given by the European Commission to the possibility of a further grant, but that in no way detracts from the conclusion to which the director general has come—that the increases submitted by South West Water are justified.
Environmental standards are being set in many instances in European Community directives, and in some instances they may require us, in order to meet the timetables set, to undertake works at a faster rate than planned. What is certainly true is that all those living in and visiting the south-west, an area that depends heavily on tourism, will want to ensure that water quality in the south-west and elsewhere in Britain is of the highest possible standard. Ensuring such high standards involves investment and—
The motion having been made at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half' an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Attorney-General what percentage of the total work force in the Law Officers' departments is registered as disabled; what steps he is taking to encourage the employment of disabled people in those departments; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  Neither the legal secretariat to the Law Officers nor the Serious Fraud Office has any officers who are registered as disabled. Some 3·5 per cent. of the total work force in the Serious Fraud Office is composed of staff with disabilities who have chosen not to be registered.

  In the Crown prosecution service 0·7 per cent. of established staff—5,318·5 staff as at 1 June 1991-were registered disabled. The CPS also employs staff with disabilities who are not registered, but the numbers are not readily available.

  In the Treasury Solicitor's Department 2 per cent. of the established staff of 500 as at 1 June 1991 were registered disabled.

  Each of the Law Officers' departments is an equal opportunities employer. Moreover, the CPS will shortly introduce a programme for action on the disabled which will include guidance and good practices on the recruitment and retention of disabled people.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Commonwealth of Independent States
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of the total tonnage of all meat products despatched to each CIS republic separately from the United Kingdom under all aid programmes has been(a) delivered to warehouses in former CIS republics, (b) delivered to retail outlets ready for sale and (c) delivered to caring and educational institutions for free distribution.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Russia is the only CIS republic to have received meat products from the United Kingdom under an aid programme. Of the total of 5,200 tonnes of beef delivered, approximately one third went to meat processing factories, one third to retail outlets—supermarkets—and one third to special institutions—hospitals, schools and orphanages.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what moneys have been spent on providing know-how to persons residing permanently in the CIS on the subject of farm product and retail food distribution.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Food distribution is one of four priority areas identified for assistance under the 352
  Government's know-how fund for the former Soviet Union. In Russia alone we have already provided £1·022 million as technical assistance to support Feed Aid, food processing and distribution, plus about £1 million for a study of bread production in Moscow. A further £1·6 million has been earmarked for food-related projects and several further major food production and distribution proposals are currently under consideration.

  In Ukraine, we have approved a £2·5 million food marketing and distribution project. Expenditure to date is £0·075 million. Also under way is a £0·460 million radioactivity food screening project, of which £0·1 million has been spent.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total tonnage of all meat products despatched to CIS states from the United Kingdom under all aid programmes in the last six months.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  A total of 5,200 tonnes of beef were despatched to Russia from the United Kingdom under all aid programmes during the last six months. No deliveries were made to other CIS states.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many monitors from EC countries have been stationed in each of the former CIS republics, with the responsibility for monitoring meat distribution in each of the last six months.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  An EC task force of some 50 personnel from the member states has been based in Russia since the end of January, monitoring the transport and distribution of EC humanitarian food supplies. The United Kingdom has supplied six personnel at any time. In other states of the former Soviet Union, the Commission has arranged for European non-governmental organisations to monitor delivery and distribution.

  Cambodia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the United Nations development programme about aid to Cambodia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The staff of the British mission in Phnom Penh and in the ODA's regional office in Bangkok are in regular contact with UNDP officials about aid priorities in Cambodia. We attend the regular donor co-ordination meetings convened by the UNDP in Phnom Penh to underpin the efforts of the UN aid co-ordinator, Mr. Bernander; we have welcomed the UNDP's role in providing technical support to the Supreme National Council; and through a seconded ODA official we have contributed to the UNDP's "Comprehensive Paper on Rehabilitation Needs of Cambodia". The UNDP is one of ODA's partners in co-financing a health planning project in Phnom Penh and other possibilities for co-operation have been discussed.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what assistance in personnel and aid has been given to Cambodia in each year since 1979; and what assistance is planned for the current year;
  353
  (2) if he will list the ODA personnel currently serving in Cambodia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The table shows disbursements of United Kingdom gross bilateral aid to Cambodia for the years 1979 to 1990.

  Gross bilateral aid to Cambodia 1979–90 (£'000)

  Financial Aid (including debt relief)

  Technical co-operation

  Total

  1979

  703

  —

  703

  1980

  486

  —

  486

  1981

  110

  —

  110

  1982

  18

  —

  18

  1983

  693

  —

  693

  1984

  18

  —

  18

  1985

  18

  —

  18

  1986

  18

  —

  18

  1987

  18

  —

  18

  1988

  18

  100

  118

  1989

  18

  283

  302

  1990

  —

  110

  110

  In addition, during this period £1·25 million was allocated to support programmes in Cambodia carried out by the United Nations Children Fund, the World Food Programme and the World Health Organisation; and nearly £15 million has been committed for assistance for refugees on the Thai-Cambodian border.

  Firm expenditure figures are not yet available for 1991 and 1992, but, since the signing of the Paris peace accords in October 1991, the United Kingdom has granted an additional £750,000 to the World Food Programme for food pre-positioning for returnees and for the internally displaced; made payments of £2 million to the UNHCR in support of the repatriation programme; and has met a further £180,000 of the cost of bridge strengthening and provision along the repatriation route. Since January 1991 some £950,000 has been spent on the joint funding scheme in support of non-governmental organisations in Cambodia in the health, education, water supply and other priority sectors.

  In the current financial year, further support for non-governmental organisations activity is planned and we are developing a significant programme of bilateral country assistance focused on health, water supply, English language training and some essential infrastructural improvements.

  Between 1979 and the Paris peace accords, assistance with personnel was provided indirectly through our support for NGOs and the multilateral agencies.

  Two permanent members of ODA's staff are currently on secondment in Cambodia. One is the deputy head of the British mission, with special responsibility for development matters. The other is ODA's senior health and population adviser. She is seconded to the World Health Organisation and is leading a health planning and management team in the Ministry of Health in Phnom Penh.

  In addition, we expect more than 20 technical experts financed by the ODA to be undertaking short and long-term assignments in Cambodia during the course of this year in the fields of English language training, water use and development, inland fisheries, urban planning and support to small scale industry. We are also fully funding a repatriation adviser working with the International Federation of the Red Cross in support of the UNHCR repatriation effort.
  354
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with(a) the Government of Thailand and (b) the Governments of other countries about deforestation in Cambodia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Under the co-ordination arrangements between donors, the United Kingdom's main focus in Cambodia is on health, water use and development, English language training, and bridge repair to assist repatriation. Forestry is not a sector of concentration for the United Kingdom in Cambodia. However, deforestation and other environmental dangers are critical issues for the development of Cambodia; and ODA officials in Phnom Penh have participated in discussions with the Supreme National Council and other country representatives, including Thai officials, at which these issues have been raised. We have urged EC officials to tackle forestry and environmental protection problems in the next tranche of EC assistance. We expect environmental concerns to play a prominent part in the forthcoming co-ordination meeting in Tokyo on 22 and 23 June at which the United Kingdom will be represented at ministerial level.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of health needs in Cambodia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Malaria is considered the major health problem in Cambodia, with some 500,000 cases per year resulting in between 5,000 and 10,000 deaths. Other serious problems are tuberculosis; diarrhoeal and other childhood communicable diseases; undernutrition and micronutrient deficiency; pregnancy-related problems; and trauma.

  In the short term, the immediate needs are adequate supplies of potable water, food and essential medicines and equipment; a programme of child immunisation; and the transfer of basic health skills. In the longer term, it will be essential to rebuild and strengthen the health service system.

  In response to these needs, the United Kingdom is co-funding the WHO's three year anti-malaria programme in-country; ODA has seconded a senior health and population adviser to a two-year WHO assignment in the Cambodian Ministry of Health; and assistance to the water sector is a priority in the United Kingdom bilateral programme to Cambodia.

  Guatemala
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, United Nations agencies and the Overseas Development Administration bilaterally, separately provide to Guatemala.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Guatemala has been in non-accrual status—default with the World bank—since 1990 because of loan arrears. The Guatemalan Government have indicated their intention fully to clear their arrears to the bank, and discussions are in progress about this. Parallel discussions with the IMF on the possible use of resources under the IMF standby arrangement are continuing.

  The various United Nations agencies operate different systems of financial control and it is not possible to provide reliable figures on an annual country basis.
  355
  There is no British bilateral aid programme at present. We have agreed to provide £22·5 million of grant aid for a joint infrastructure project, yet to be agreed, to support the development of full and normal relations between Belize and Guatemala. A total of £15 million will be spent in Guatemala.

  Southern Africa (Drought)
  Mr. Biffen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the latest assessment of the consequences of the drought in southern Africa; and what plans there are to provide further unilateral and multilateral British aid.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The most comprehensive assessment of the consequences of the drought is to be found in the appeal document just issued jointly by the United Nations and the Southern African development co-ordination conference—SADCC. This indicates that up to 130 million people may be affected, with cereal production at less than half the normal level and an import requirement of some 11·6 million tonnes. We have already pledged some £30 million in additional drought-related assistance and will continue to play a full and active part in the international response to the drought, including attendance by my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development at a UN/SADCC conference in Geneva on 1 and 2 June.

  Zimbabwe and Zambia
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by what means and through what agencies the expenditure of £5 million for Zimbabwe and £5 million for Zambia will be spent; and what restrictions have been applied to the use of these moneys respectively.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The additional balance of payments aid for Zambia and Zimbabwe, announced on 4 March and 29 April in response to the drought and totalling £10 million and 7·5 million respectively, is being made available by way of reimbursement of completed and satisfactorily documented fuel oil transactions subject to undertakings that equivalent sums will be allocated to purchase food or other drought-related goods.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to increase the amount of grant aid to Sri Lanka.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  As I stated in my written reply of 24 July 1991 to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), consideration of major new aid commitments to Sri Lanka was delayed following the expulsion of the British high commissioner last year. This policy remains under review.

  Aid Budget
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set a timetable for Britain's overseas aid budget to reach the UN target of 0·7 per cent. of gross national product.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No. The Government have stated on many occasions that, while they accept the target and are providing for real-terms increases in the aid programme, they are not prepared to set down a timetable.

  Zaire
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Government of Zaire concerning human rights; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Zairean Government are fully aware of the importance the United Kingdom attaches to human rights. Together with EC partners, we have made regular representations to the Zaireans on the internal political situation in Zaire, including the need for democratic reform and respect for human rights.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Government of Sierra Leone concerning human rights; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have stressed to Sierra Leone's National Provisional Ruling Council in Freetown the importance we attach to human rights, in particular that those detained following the coup be released or properly charged. We have also asked them to honour their commitment to return Sierra Leone to multiparty democracy as soon as possible.

  Bangladesh
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response has been made by Her Majesty's Government to the appeal made in early April by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for donors to meet an increased requirement for !27·5 million to aid 150,000 additional refugees arrived in Bangladesh.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees appealed to the international community on 9 March 1992. The United Kingdom responded on 24 March with a contribution of £1 million, the largest single contribution made to this appeal. Our contribution via the EC amounts to about £50,000 and we have additionally responded to a Red Cross appeal with a further £200,000.

  Tropical Rainforests
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to encourage a reduction in the deforestation of the tropical rainforests.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The ODA has more than 200 forestry projects under way or in preparation, at a cost of over £158 million to the aid programme. We are working for a statement of principles on the sustainable management of the world's forests to be agreed at the UN conference on environment and development and a legally binding agreement thereafter. We take a leading role in promoting sustainable forest use in international fora such as the International Tropical Timber Organisation and the tropical forest action programme.

  Kurdistan
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much the Overseas Development Administration has directly spent on its own activities in Iraqi Kurdistan in the month of April; and what is the projected figure for May 1992.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In 1991–92 we gave a total of £51·5 million for humanitarian relief to Iraq, of which £824,000 was provided in grants to British and Kurdish non-governmental organisations for relief work in northern Iraq. Some of this money is still being spent. Expenditure figures for April and May 1992 are not available. In May we provided a further £600,000 towards the cost of UN guards in Iraq.

  RMS St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of the tender documents for the new RMS St. Helena contract.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The tender documents are not expected to be issued before 5 June. A copy will be placed in the Library as soon as possible.

  Total expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on press and public relations from 1983–84 to 1990–91, latest estimates for 1991–92 and budget provisions for 1992–93 are (£ million)

  Year

  Payments to Central Office of Information for overseas information material and related activities

  Other information services

  Running costs of Diplomatic Wing Information/News Department

  Running costs of ODA Wing Information Department

  Costs of information staff at overseas posts

  Total

  1983–84

  17·4

  0·9

  1·8

  0·3

  12·4

  32·8

  1984–85

  18·8

  0·8

  1·4

  0·3

  12·8

  34·1

  1985–86

  18·3

  0·9

  1·9

  0·3

  13·6

  35·0

  1986–87

  18·7

  0·7

  1·9

  0·2

  14·6

  36·1

  1987–88

  19·2

  0·9

  2·0

  0·2

  17·6

  39·9

  1988–89

  18·3

  0·9

  1·8

  0·3

  17·5

  38·8

  1989–90

  18·1

  3·3

  2·4

  0·4

  18·8

  43·0

  1990–91

  15·7

  5·8

  3·6

  0·4

  23·2

  48·7

  1991–92

  12·6

  4·9

  4·1

  0·4

  24·8

  46·8

  1992–93

  9·3

  6 ·9

  4·3

  0·4

  25·9

  46·8

  Note:

  Figures for the period before 1983–84 are not available on a comparable basis.

  Thailand
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Government of Thailand about human rights abuses there.

  Mr. Goodlad
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) on 22 May, at column 310.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of the total work force in his Department are registered as disabled; what steps he is taking to encourage the employment of disabled people within his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Maastricht Treaty
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those additional areas of policy which are to be subject to majority voting under the Maastricht treaty, setting out an explanatory memorandum in each case.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to the detailed answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on 20 May to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing).

  A memorandum analysing the provisions of the Maastricht treaty and their implications for the United Kingdom in the Community was submitted to the Foreign Affairs Committee enquiry into "Europe after Maastricht". This memorandum has been published by HMSO and is available in the Library of the House.

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give the total expenditure by his Department on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year up to and including 1991–92; and if he will give an estimate for 1992–93.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The details are as follows.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office employs 48 registered disabled persons—RDPs—with 24 in the diplomatic wing—1·1 per cent. of its home civil service payroll or 0·4 per cent. of its total work force—and 24 in the Overseas Development Administration, 1·9 per cent. of its total work force.

  Recent steps to encourage the employment of disabled people include use of the disability logo; placing recruitment advertising in publications aimed specifically at people with disabilities; interviewing all RDPs who meet the sift criteria; establishing a budget for accommodation changes and the purchase of equipment; and giving disabled staff access to positive action and development training courses run specifically for people with disabilities.

  Sea Levels
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what examination has been made of the susceptibility of United Kingdom protectorates in the southern hemisphere to sea level rises arising from global warming.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United Kingdom has contributed to the work of the coastal zone management group of the intergovernmental panel on climate change which is undertaking studies on the vulnerability of small island and low-lying states to sea-level rise. The United Kingdom also contributes to the trust fund of the IPCC to enable developing countries to play a full part in this work.

  In addition, the Overseas Development Administration has funded a preliminary study of the effects of sea level rise for the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States. The results of this work were presented at the IPCC workshop on "The Rising Challenge of the Sea" held in Venezuela in March 1992.

  Diplomatic Services
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in which countries the United Kingdom provides diplomatic services for the Republic of Ireland.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Her Majesty's Government have agreed to provide consular protection to Irish nationals in countries where the Republic of Ireland is not represented.

  Croat and Bosnian Refugees
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the United Kingdom, alone or in conjunction with the other member states of the European Community, has or intends to provide assistance to Slovenia to assist it in dealing with the Croat and Bosnian refugees in Slovenia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United Kingdom has since November 1991 given £3·3 million bilaterally and £6·4 million through the EC in humanitarian aid to the former Yugoslavia. This money has been allocated primarily to the International Committee of the Red Cross and to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for work in all the republics of the former Yugoslavia according to need.

  Gulf Ecology
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what matters in regard to progress made in ecological restoration of the desert and the Gulf waters and shores were discussed during his recent visit to Kuwait to meet Ministers of the Gulf Co-operation Council.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No such discussions took place during my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs' visit to Kuwait.

  Debt Payment
  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what distribution has taken place within his Department and the purchasing 360
  organisations for which he has responsibility of the Department of Employment's publication "Making the Cash Flow—A Guide to the Payment of Commercial Debt for Buyers and Small Business Suppliers".

  Mr. Goodlad
  "Making the Cash Flow" was prepared as guidance for the private sector and there was therefore no formal distribution to other Government Departments. Guidelines on purchasing by Government Departments already exist and are distributed by HM Treasury.

  The Department of Employment has been undertaking a survey of the prompt payment record of Government Departments during the financial year 1991–92 and the results of this exercise will be published in the near future by the Department of Trade and Industry, which now has responsibility for small firms issues, including late payment. After studying these results the Department will consider what further measures, if any, may be necessary to encourage prompt payment by the public sector.

  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what policy guidelines are currently in place within his Department and the purchasing organisations for which he has responsibility in respect of the prompt payment of commercial debt, particularly as it relates to small business suppliers.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Government Departments, including their executive agencies, are required to pay their bills promptly. The timing of payment should normally be stipulated in Government contracts. Where there is no contractual provision or other understanding, Departments should pay within 30 days of receipt of goods/services or the presentation of a valid invoice or similar demand for payment, whichever is the later. To help encourage prompt payment of bills by Government contractors to their sub-contractors, all Government contracts are to contain a clause requiring the supplier or contractor to pay its sub-contractors promptly. In the absence of normal practice to the contrary for that type of contract or other special circumstances, the commitment should be to pay the sub-contractor within 30 days of receipt of a valid invoice or similar demand for payment as defined by the contract.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's policy towards the strengthening of the inspection procedures in the nuclear non-proliferation treaty; and what would be the financial implications thereof.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  With European partners we put forward a list of proposed improvements to International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards, including greater use of special inspections, in September 1991. We welcome the recent reaffirmation by the board of governors of the IAEA of the agency's right to conduct such inspections. Extending safegurds activities will have financial implications. Within the total provision for safeguards in the agency's draft budget for 1993–94 some 500,000 US dollars are allocated for a review and analysis of background information relevant to safeguards activities, including special inspections.
  361
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the actions that may be taken against a state that violates its obligations under the nuclear nonproliferation treaty.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Under article XIIC of the IAEA statute, the IAEA board of governors is required to report any state which violates its safeguards obligations under the NPT to the Security Council and general assembly. It is then for the Security Council to decide on appropriate action—as it has done with Iraq. Should the state in question not take full corrective action within a reasonable time, the board of governors may curtail or suspend assistance being provided to it by the agency or by an IAEA member, and call for the return of materials and equipment. The agency may also suspend any non-complying member from the exercise of the privileges and rights of membership.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what is the effect of article VI of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty with regard to the number of strategic nuclear warheads that the United Kingdom may deploy above the number presently deployed on Polaris;

  (2) what are the implications for the United Kingdom's treaty obligations under article VI of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty of the deployment of a United Kingdom tactical air-to-surface missile;

  (3) what are the impllications for the United Kingdom's treaty obligations under article VI of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty to Her Majesty's Government's decision to raise the maximum level of warhead deployment of the strategic nuclear force with the introduction of the Trident missile system.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It is the Government's policy to maintain the minimum nuclear capability necessary to ensure effective deterrence. This is consistent with the United Kingdom's obligations under article VI of the non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's policy towards a greater use of special inspection procedures under the existing terms of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have long advocated greater use of special inspections. With European partners, we put forward a list of proposed improvements to IAEA safeguards, including greater use of special inspections, in September 1991. We welcome the recent reaffirmation by the board of governors of the IAEA of the agency's right to conduct such inspections.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what status his Department accords the declarations of intent included in the preamble to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  As a matter of law, the substantive articles of the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons are binding upon states parties. The declarations of intent contained in the preamble to the treaty are not, but reflect the long term aspirations of the signatories. The Government attach great importance to them.
  362
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what is his Department's policy towards a conditional moratorium on underground nuclear tests;

  (2) what are the implications for the United Kingdom's policy towards nuclear testing of France's decision to undertake a moratorium on all nuclear tests.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear in a written answer on 12 May, at column 90, we have a continuing requirement to sustain a minimum programme of nuclear tests to maintain the effectiveness and safety of our nuclear deterrent.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what representations his Department will make to the Russian Government to secure an extension of Russia's one-year moratorium on nuclear tests;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the security implications for the United Kingdom of the Russian moratorium on nuclear tests.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Russia's nuclear testing requirements are a matter for the Russian Government. There are no immediate implications for United Kingdom policy.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's policy towards the conducting of an underground nuclear weapons test by any country other than those of the permanent five of the United Nations Security Council.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Our policy is to support the non-proliferation treaty, which is the cornerstone of the international nuclear non-proliferation regime.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's policy towards the negotiations of a global ban on all sub-strategic nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We and our NATO allies believe a sub-strategic nuclear deterrent remains necessary to provide the essential link between conventional and strategic nuclear forces.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's policy towards the strengthening of the obligations imposed upon nuclear suppliers under the terms of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We exercise our supplier obligations under the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons through our membership of the Zangger committee. We were a founder member of this committee, provide its secretariat and play an active role in its work. We are a strong supporter of strict supplier controls and are also members of the nuclear suppliers' group. Last September we adopted a policy of full-scope safeguards as a condition of nuclear supply.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's policy towards banning all nuclear tests by all potential nuclear armed adversaries of the United Kingdom.
  363
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom remains committed to a comprehensive test ban—CTB—as a long-term goal. However, we have continuing requirement to sustain a minimum programme of nuclear tests, and problems of effectively verifying a CTB remain. Progress can therefore he made only on a step-by-step basis.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Department will accept(a) a testing quota or (b) a lower threshold limit on the United Kingdom's nuclear weapons testing programme.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom's nuclear test programme is the minimum necessary to ensure the safety and effectiveness of our nuclear deterrent. Our requirements are kept under review.

  Advertising
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give separate figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year up to and including 1991–92; and what is his latest estimate for 1992–93.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Total expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on advertising and other promotional material for the years 1979–80 to 1991–92, and latest estimates for 1992–93 are:

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Diplomatic wing (£)

  Overseas Development Aid wing(£)

  1979–80

  100,266

  214,739

  1980–81

  116,532

  145,697

  1981–82

  162,998

  207,964

  1982–83

  229,711

  135,506

  1983–84

  205,247

  252,691

  1984–85

  149,932

  234,050

  1985–86

  160,535

  271,084

  1986–87

  335,754

  228,347

  1987–88

  195,000

  351,000

  1988–89

  289,184

  689,631

  1989–90

  395,842

  1,066,447

  1990–91

  926,610

  902,000

  1991–92

  755,000

  1,031,000

  1992–93

  754,000

  1,057,000

  These figures cannot be disaggregated to identify the medium used without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Medjugorje
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Serbian Government about the bombing of Medjugorje; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We supported UN Resolution 752 which demanded that all concerned should stop the fighting in Bosnia and Herzegovina immediately.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Deva
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department has made to the Croatian Government 364
  following attacks against the withdrawing Yugoslav Federal Army on 20 and 21 May; if he will seek assurances that Croatian forces will allow the Yugoslav Federal Army to retire to Serbia unmolested; and what guarantee he will require from the Croatian Government for the remaining Serbian population of Croatia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We deplore all acts of violence in Croatia, particularly those which contravene agreements with the UN. It is an essential part of the agreement covering the deployment of the UN protection force that the JNA should withdraw from the protected areas. We are scrutinising the new legislation passed on 8 May to ascertain whether it provides the necessary guarantees for minorities.

  Cyprus
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Turkish Cypriots have been consulted about the application of Cyprus to join the European Community; whether the Turkish Cypriots support this application; and whether the United Kingdom supports this application.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Council of Ministers referred the application to the Commission for opinion in September 1990. We understand that Commission officials will consult acknowledged leaders of the Turkish Cypriot community. We will study the Commission's opinion carefully before reaching conclusions.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Deva
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government will make to the Bosnian Government regarding the drafting of a new constitution and specifically on the future right of secession and self-determination.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We strongly support the efforts of Lord Carrington and Ambassador Cutileiro to draw up constitutional arrangements acceptable to all parties. We look forward to the speedy resumption of these talks.

  Croatia
  Mr. Deva
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government are making to the Croatian Government regarding the recruitment of British mercenaries.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have seen media reports that British citizens are fighting as mercenaries in Croatia. We deplore any foreign encouragement of this tragic conflict.

  European Union
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, in respect to the proposed amendments to the treaty of Rome proposed in title II of the treaty on European union, he will place in the Library a document showing for each of the current articles proposed to be amended, using distinctive type and deletion marks respectively, the changes proposed to each relevant article.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Title II of the treaty on European union, when read against the treaty of Rome, makes clear
  365
  how the latter treaty is to be amended: new articles are to be "inserted", certain articles are to be "repealed" and articles which are to be amended are "replaced" by new versions of the existing articles. The last category contains all the amendments to which the hon. Member refers. As was explained by my right hon. Friend in a letter to the hon. Member on 18 May, the Government do not intend to publish a consolidated version of the treaty of Rome as amended by the treaty on European union prior to the latter's entry into force. A copy of the letter was placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will specify those other provisions of the treaty on European union, in the Cm. 1934 version, other than titles II, III and IV, which relate to those titles.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The question raised by the hon. Member is covered in the notes on clauses relating to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill which are available in the Vote Office.

  British Embassies
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those British embassies which have desk-top communications for(a) their own purposes and (b) commercial and trade purposes.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Of the 230 British overseas posts where there are resident United Kingdom-based staff, all but 15 have computer systems which can be used both for their own internal purposes and to store and process commercial and trade data.

  Diplomatic Services
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in which countries the United Kingdom provides diplomatic services for other European Community nations.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Under an informal arrangement made in 1985, the diplomatic missions of European Community member states may provide consular assistance to unrepresented EC nationals in non-Community countries.

  Dependent Territories
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the performance monitoring organisations used by United Kingdom dependent territories to monitor the performance of their equity investment advisers and the performance of their equity investment.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Responsibility for monitoring the performance of the investments and investments advisers of the United Kingdom's dependent territories rests with the Minister of Finance, or equivalent official, of each territory. These investments are also subject to scrutiny by an officer responsible for the public audit of each territory, and by the legislature or equivalent body, as appropriate.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a366
  league table showing the percentage increase or decrease of each of the dependent territories' equity investments over the last five years.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  This information is not centrally recorded. It would incur a disproportionate cost to collate it.

  St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all recipients of licences to fish within the 12-mile limit off St. Helena.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  All recipients of licences are local St. Helena boat owners. Twenty-seven licences have been issued in 1992 of which 18 are for full-time fishing, five for occasional fishing and four for sport.

  I shall write shortly to the hon. Member with a full list of the holders of the licences.

ENVIRONMENT

  Private Lettings
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give further details of the nature of the proposed rent-a-room scheme and his estimate of the number of new lettings which might be brought into existence through this scheme in a full year.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to introduce more tax advantages for private lettings.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Conservative election manifesto included an undertaking to introduce a new 'rent a room' scheme under which home owners will be able to let rooms to lodgers without having to pay tax on the rent they receive. This matter is under consideration.

  Marsham Street Premises
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state, or give reference to any document describing, the full reasons why it is considered the best value for money to demolish the Government premises in Marsham street; what was the date of their completion; and what necessary work, and approximate cost, would be required to render them fit for office reoccupation.

  Mr. Howard
  The Government building at 2 Marsham street, which was first occupied in 1970, is in need of major repair. Because of the scale of necessary remedial work, a wide range of alternative options was reviewed, based on advice from Arup Associates. The options ranged from immediate repairs, through various levels of refurbishment to demolition. Demolition proved to be the best value for money, when the overall costs of each option were compared.

  The repair option with the lowest initial cost consisted primarily of remedial work to concrete, replacement of windows and decoration of affected areas. It would involve a substantial programme of decanting staff for several years and would cost about £50 million, over and above routine maintenance and running costs. This would do no

  367
  more than keep the building going. Similar expenditure and further decanting would be required within 10 years to replace obsolete services and carry out further concrete repairs. Upgrading the building to allow greater use of modern office technology, more efficient energy consumption and better use of space would be more expensive still.

  Ozone-depleting Chemicals
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the international meeting of Government experts held in Geneva during April on strategies to accelerate the phase out of ozone-depleting chemicals.

  Mr. Maclean
  This meeting provided the opportunity for parties to the Montreal protocol to propose changes to the protocol which might be agreed at the fourth meeting of the parties, to be held in November in Copenhagen. Proposals put forward included those from the EC, on which the Government provided explanatory memorandum 5162/92 on 21 May 1992. Substantive discussion of the various changes proposed will take place at the next meeting, to be held next month in Geneva.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing his estimate of the percentage of the net income of housing association tenants which would on average be taken by their rent, broken down on a regional basis in each of the years from 1979 to 1991.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Department does not compile this information.

  Information is, however, available from the National Federation of Housing Associations. The NFHA collects information relating to new housing association tenancies, and has published regional data on weekly rent as a percentage of weekly income in its CORE quarterly bulletin since the end of 1989.

  The relevant copies of the bulletin are in the House of Commons Library.

  London Docklands
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table indicating, for each year since 1981, at current prices, the amount of money the Government have provided for all private investors in London docklands, in terms of(a) direct subsidies, (b) tax allowances, (c) rates relief and (d) discounted land sales.

  Mr. Redwood
  Figures relating to direct subsidies(a) and to rate relief (c) are as follows:

  £ thousands

  (a) Direct subsidies

  (c) Rate relief

  1981–82

  215

  —

  1982–83

  351

  2,091

  1983–84

  304

  2,401

  1984–85

  324

  3,587

  1985–86

  600

  3,353

  1986–87

  739

  4,186

  1987–88

  493

  8,562

  1988–89

  199

  9,596

  1989–90

  263

  15,018

  368

  (a) Direct subsidies

  (c) Rate relief

  1990–91

  216

  1—

  1991–92

  221

  1—

  1 Not available.

  (a) Direct subsidies—Financial assistance by the Corporation for industry in Docklands, including relocation and modernisation grants;

  (b) Tax allowances—Data is not available for capital allowances paid in respect of individual Enterprise Zones, such as the Isle of Dogs;

  (c) Rate relief—Reimbursement for local authorities in Enterprise Zones for loss of rates revenue;

  (d) Discounted land sales—The London Docklands Development Corporation is expected to achieve market price for land disposals.

  London Docklands
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what study he has made of the costs and benefits of moving substantial elements of his and other Departments' operations to docklands; and if he will publish details of its findings.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 22 May 1992]: Following the decision announced on 6 February to demolish the headquarters building of my Department at 2 Marsham Street, my predecessor asked officials to draw up proposals for moving a substantial number of this Department's HQ posts away from central Westminster to another London location. In particular, he said that he was considering establishing a substantial departmental presence in docklands. An analysis of the properties available and the overall market position indicates that in terms of cost, quality and suitability docklands currently offers the best option. Further work is in hand.

  I have made no analysis of any relocation proposals of other Departments.

  Poisons
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the proposal by the European Commission that poisonous materials on the green list of wastes for recovery prepared by the OECD should not be regulated by Community law.

  Mr. Maclean
  Green list wastes do not exhibit any of the hazardous characteristics listed in OECD Council decision C(88)90(final). Under Community law all waste recovery must be carried out at an authorised facility. Movements of green list wastes within OECD are subject to normal commercial controls. The Government consider that any general imposition of additional controls on movements of such wastes outside OECD would be a discriminatory measure in breach of our international obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

  Housing
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table setting out the average rent level, region by region, for housing association lettings in each of the years from 1979 to 1991, identifying assured tenancy rents separately from the fair
  369
  rents from 1989 onwards and indicating the annual percentage increase in rents in each year by comparison with the retail price index.

  Mr. Baldry
  Complete information on housing association rents is not available in the form requested.

  Housing Association unfurnished tenancies: average fair rents registered1

  £/week including service charges

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Northern

  11·09

  13·86

  15·09

  17·83

  17·74

  20·48

  20·40

  23·06

  23·12

  26·85

  28·71

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  13·83

  15·27

  16·68

  17·80

  18·75

  20·60

  21·81

  23·75

  25·77

  29·10

  31·63

  East Midlands

  15·03

  16·60

  17·77

  19·37

  20·20

  22·21

  23·37

  25·50

  26·56

  30·13

  32·08

  East Anglia

  15·25

  15·91

  17·72

  18·68

  20·51

  21·57

  23·29

  25·25

  27·40

  29·12

  33·73

  Greater London

  14·63

  15·98

  17·67

  19·44

  20·76

  22·25

  24·62

  26·35

  28·96

  32·23

  35·94

  Rest of South East

  16·98

  18·35

  20·48

  21·32

  23·53

  25·12

  26·77

  28·97

  30·90

  34·85

  38·10

  South West

  15·73

  17·07

  19·07

  20·40

  22·17

  24·10

  26·33

  28·63

  32·00

  36·06

  39·88

  West Midlands

  14·19

  15·00

  16·72

  17·52

  18·76

  20·02

  21·35

  23·35

  24·92

  27·73

  30·37

  North West

  12·03

  13·35

  14·80

  16·06

  16·79

  18·48

  19·48

  21·34

  22·79

  24·75

  26·50

  RPI: annual increase per cent·

  12

  9

  5

  5

  6

  3

  4

  5

  8

  9

  6

  1 The regional averages are for fair rents registered during the calender year and as rents are normally only registered every two years they do not reflect the average for all tenancies in existence during that year

  Source: Rent Officers' Survey.

  Housing association assured tenancies: average rent for lettings made in the year

  £/week including service charges

  1990

  1991

  Percentage increase

  Northern

  31·50

  34·00

  8

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  31·50

  36·50

  16

  East Midlands

  34·00

  37·50

  10

  East Anglia

  33·50

  36·50

  9

  Greater London

  37·00

  43·50

  18

  Rest of South East

  37·00

  42·00

  14

  South West

  37·50

  43·00

  15

  West Midlands

  33·00

  38·00

  15

  North West

  31·00

  34·50

  11

  Source: National Federation of Housing Associations.

  Woodlands
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about changes affecting the area of ancient semi-natural woodland since 1962.

  Mr. Maclean
  Details of changes since 1962 are not available. However, the former Nature Conservancy Council's—now English Nature's—ancient woodland inventory shows that in England and Wales, of the area of ancient woodland present in 1930, 38 per cent. has been replaced by plantations usually of non-native species and 7 per cent. has been cleared for other land uses. The Government's broadleaves policy, the changes to the criteria for felling licences, introduced in 1984 and 1985 and the more recent woodland management scheme have resulted in a marked reduction in the rate of change.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it part of his planning policy to prevent any further loss of ancient semi-natural woodland.

  Mr. Maclean
  The felling of woodland is not a development under the town and country planning system. The protection of ancient woodland will however be a material consideration in preparing development plans and determining planning applications. Felling which is
  370
  The following statistics show fair rents registered for housing association tenants in the years 1981 to 1991, and assured tenancy rents for new lettings made in 1990 and 1991. As registered fair rents are fixed for two years the changes between the annual averages below are not comparable with the increases in the RPI.

  undertaken other than for development purposes is effectively controlled through the felling licence system administered by the Forestry Commission. Sites of special scientific interest which may include ancient woodland are given particular protection and development in or near them is strictly controlled.

  Housing Repossessions
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 15 May,Official Report, columns 238–39, what statistical information is available to support his expectation that the number of repossessions will reduce in 1992.

  Mr. Baldry
  A number of building societies have reported reductions in the numbers of repossessions this year and figures published by the Lord Chancellor's Department show a decline in the number of court actions entered for possession in England and Wales, in the first quarter of 1992.

  Urban Programme
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what funds have been allotted to the Yorkshire-Humberside area this year, last year and the previous year for urban programme fund projects.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Total urban programme resources allocated to local authorities in the Yorkshire Humberside region this year, last year and the previous year are as follows:

  £ million

  1990–91

  130·291

  1991–92

  134·207

  1992–93

  28·009

  1 included supplementary allocations of £2·18 million in 1990–91 and £4·75 million in 1991–92 for special projects in Sheffield.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the establishment of the urban regeneration agency will be achieved without any reduction in moneys at present allotted to the urban programme.
  371
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The responsibilities of the URA have yet to be finalised, but I do not expect its establishment to affect future financial provision for the urban programme.

  Conservation Areas
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish his programme for the establishment of special areas for conservation.

  Mr. Maclean
  The EC habitats directive sets out the programme for establishing special areas of conservation for all member states. It requires each member state to prepare a national list within three years of the notification of the directive. Within six years of notification, the Commission, in agreement with each member state, shall establish a draft list of sites of Community importance drawn from the national lists. Once a site has been adopted as a site of Community importance, the member state concerned has a maximum of six years thereafter to effect its designation as a special area of conservation. I shall ensure that the United Kingdom complies with this programme.

  Caravan Sites Act 1968
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what organisations he intends to consult in his review of the Caravan Sites Act 1968; and whether individuals will be offered the opportunity of contributing to the review;

  (2) what will be the terms of reference, membership and composition of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 review team;

  (3) when the review of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 will be completed.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government have in hand a review of the operation of the Caravan Sites Act 1968, with the aim of reducing the nuisance of illegal encampments. We hope to issue shortly a public consultation paper containing our proposals for reform; and comments from individuals will be welcome.

  Packaging Waste
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek from the EC Commission a statement of the evidence for the assertion in the draft packaging directive that packaging waste contributes in a great proportion to the increase in the volume of wastes and to the saturation of landfills.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Commission has not yet produced a proposal for a directive, so it would be premature to comment at this stage on the possible contents.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the extent to which packaging waste as a proportion of household waste has changed over the last five years.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information on the extent to which packaging contributes to household waste has been collected only in a few recent studies. There is therefore insufficient data on which to assess changes over a period of time.

  The national household waste analysis project, currently being undertaken by Warren Spring laboratory
  372
  and Aspinwalls on behalf of my Department, has been set up to provide better and more detailed information on the composition of household waste. The first results should be available later this year.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the public opinion surveys carried out by his Department since 1 November 1991.

  Mr. Howard
  The following surveys, carried out by my Department since 1 November 1991, include questions to individuals about their opinions:

  Monitoring the new local authority performance regime.

  Housing Attitudes Survey.

  English House Conditions Survey: Interview survey of Householders.

  Surveys on the housing needs of elderly people:

  (a) Survey of residents of special needs housing.

  (b) Survey of elderly people on waiting lists for special needs housing.

  (c) Housing needs of non-elderly, disabled people in the community.

  Ventilation in new homes.

  Householders' response to Radon in the home.

  Energy Efficiency Campaign—Creative Development Research [Stage 3] (jointly sponsored with the Department of Energy).

  Energy Efficiency Campaign Evaluation (jointly sponsored with the Department of Energy).

  Waste
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for the collection of data on waste within the EC during his presidency of the Council of Ministers.

  Mr. Maclean
  Work is already in hand to improve the collection of data on waste within the EC, and we will ensure the work continues under our presidency.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he monitors the reliability of information provided by persons acting as holders of non ferrous waste requiring disposal, when making declarations for waste covered by article 17 of EC directive 84/631/EEC.

  Mr. Maclean
  Monitoring and enforcement of the procedure in article 17 for consignments of hazardous waste containing non-ferrous metals for recycling is a matter for the waste disposal authorities.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he will take to ensure that producers of recycleable waste, or their agents, provide waste regulation authorities with information relating to the quantity of waste requiring disposal by reclamation.

  Mr. Maclean
  Section 49 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 requires waste collection authorities to prepare a recycling plan. In doing so each council has a duty to investigate what recycling arrangements are appropriate for dealing with household and commercial waste arising in its area and it must include information as to the kinds and quantities of waste that it expects to deal
  373
  with in that way. The draft plans must be submitted to my right hon. and learned Friend for approval; he has asked for them all to be with him by 1 August. Once a council has determined the content of the plan it is under a duty to sent a copy, and any subsequent modification of it, to the waste regulation authority for the area.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will extend the powers of waste regulation authorities giving them rights(a) to require information about the composition of waste and the processes which produce it and (b) to verify the information.

  Mr. Maclean
  Powers already exist in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Control of Pollution Act 1974 for these purposes insofar as they are necessary for environmental protection.

  Section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act requires all holders of waste to ensure that, on the transfer of the waste, a description of it is also transferred. Such a description must be sufficient to enable subsequent holders to manage the waste safely and legally, and will contain information about the processes producing the waste where such information is necessary to that end. Under the Environmental Protection (Duty of Care) Regulations 1991, made under section 34, waste regulation authorities have powers to require waste holders to produce copies of such descriptions.

  The onus to ensure that descriptions are correct and adequate rests on the parties to transfers of waste; authorities are not charged with the verification of waste descriptions. Waste disposal authorities are responsible for the supervision of activities at licensed waste disposal sites under section 9 of the Control of Pollution Act. Authorities may set licence conditions requiring the keeping of records and have powers under section 91 of that Act to enter, inspect and take samples of any waste at licensed sites.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will amend current regulations governing the importation and transportation of waste to ensure that regulatory authorities receiving the waste are fully aware of the companies and countries from which the waste is being transferred;

  (2) what action he will take to ensure that adequate information about the harmful and hazardous nature of waste material is made available to regulatory authorities;

  (3) if he will introduce a legal requirement for regulatory authorities to receive pre-notification of the precise time of departure and arrival of waste imported for recycling and disposal.

  Mr. Maclean
  Negotiations are in progress on an EC regulation, to replace the current regulations, on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the Community. The current draft of this proposal would require information on the source, composition and the producer of the waste proposed for shipment to be notified to the competent authorities. These authorities would also receive advance notification of the date of shipment of waste for recycling and disposal.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to introduce legislation controlling the imports of toxic and hazardous wastes along the lines of the United States Waste Export and Import Prohibition Act (HR G2580).
  374
  Mr. Maclean
  No. This Bill, which is not a United States Government measure, would prevent all transfrontier movements of waste, except pre-sorted textile rags, glass and paper wastes for recovery. The United Kingdom is looking to the draft EC waste shipments regulation to improve existing controls on movements of waste. This will include appropriate controls on wastes destined for recovery, implementing a recent decision by the OECD on this subject, which will also be implemented by the United States of America.

  World Climate
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to press for international targets, timetables and penalties to ensure that We world climate is protected from made-made environmental pollution; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The climate change convention adopted on 9 May sets as its objective the stabilisation of greenhouse gases concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate. As a first step towards this objective, the convention also sets targets and timetables for greenhouse gas emissions which all developed countries will aim to achieve.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to enable the receipts from the sales of council houses to be applied into the new building programmes for housing to rent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Local authorities must set aside part of their capital receipts as provision for repaying debt. This remains a sensible and prudent requirement. It also enables a greater amount of new credit approvals to be issued to those local authorities where housing needs are greatest or where the resources will be put to best use.

  The provision of new social housing is now mainly the responsibility of housing associations.

  Fire Safety
  Mr. Roger Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will amend the building regulations to impose a requirement in respect of sealed double glazing units that one pane is capable of opening sufficiently to permit persons to escape in circumstances where no other secondary means of escape from fire exist.

  Mr. Baldry
  There are no plans to amend the building regulations along the lines suggested.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list, in order of magnitude, the central funding grant per adult towards the cost of local services paid out to each of the London boroughs in 1991–92; and what is proposed for 1992–93.

  Mr. Redwood
  The table shows the total external support, expressed in pounds per adult, received by each London borough in 1991–92 and 1992–93. The boroughs are listed in ascending order by the amount of support
  375
  recieved in 1991–92. Total external support consists of revenue support grant, redistributed non-domestic rates and, for some authorities, area protection grant and ILEA grant, following the abolition of the Inner London education authority.

  Local authority

  1991–92(£/adult)

  1992–93(£/adult)

  City of London

  11,466

  12,528

  Tower Hamlets

  1,862

  2,138

  Hackney

  1,755

  2,080

  Lambeth

  1,557

  1,628

  Southwark

  1,427

  1,607

  Islington

  1,392

  1,687

  Westminster

  1,385

  1,638

  Newham

  1,308

  1,612

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,261

  1,465

  Lewisham

  1,260

  1,466

  Camden

  1,238

  1,413

  Greenwich

  1,227

  1,433

  Wandsworth

  1,192

  1,424

  Haringey

  1,133

  1,316

  Brent

  1,128

  1,435

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1,000

  1,251

  Waltham Forest

  998

  1,231

  Ealing

  975

  1,200

  Barking and Dagenham

  846

  1,055

  Hounslow

  799

  1,063

  Enfield

  754

  1,002

  Croydon

  739

  972

  Redbridge

  702

  944

  Harrow

  695

  913

  Hillingdon

  686

  869

  Kingston upon Thames

  673

  880

  Barnet

  670

  951

  Merton

  654

  881

  Bexley

  635

  848

  Sutton

  634

  832

  Havering

  583

  804

  Bromley

  543

  755

  Richmond upon Thames

  529

  752

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will show for each local authority for the financial years 1990–91 and 1991–92(a) their standard spending assessment relating to capital charges, (b) their actual expenditure relating to this item and (c) the difference between (a) and (b), showing totals for each column for England as a whole;

  (2) if he will show for each local authority for the financial years 1990–91 and 1991–92 (a) their standard spending assessment relating to the other services block, (b) their actual expenditure relating to this item and (c) the difference between (a) and (b), showing totals for each column for England as a whole.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 13 May 1992]: The table shows the England totals for the information requested. The figures for individual local authorities have been placed in the Library.

  Standard spending assessment £ million

  Equivalent net revenue expenditure £ million

  Difference £ million

  Other services

  1990–91

  4,502

  5,632

  1,130

  1991–92

  5,933

  6,361

  428

  Capital financing

  1990–91

  2,380

  2,922

  542

  1991–92

  2,951

  2,973

  22

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in chronological order those areas that have already received a recommendation from the Local Government Boundary Commission that they should be reorganised to a unitary authority together with the date of each recommendation.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Only in its review of the Isle of Wight did the Local Government Boundary Commission state that it would have proposed a unitary authority, had it been in its power to do so. Their final report was received by the Secretary of State on 10 October 1986.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list, at the lowest level of sub-heading used, the expenditure categories employed in itemising public expenditure attributable to the Department of the Environment.

  Mr. Howard
  Details of my Department's expenditure plans are set out in the Department's 1992 annual report, Cm 1908, and the 1992–93 supply estimates for class VIII environment, Cm 273. Copies of both documents are available in the Library of the House.

  Earth Summit
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the specific objectives of Her Majesty's Government at the Earth summit in relation to each item in the proposed "Agenda 21" action plan.

  Mr. Maclean
  The 40 or so chapters of the Agenda 21 action plan all contain numerous proposals for action by Governments, international bodies, non-governmental organisations, business, local authorities and individual citizens. It is not feasible to set out the United Kingdom's objectives on every specific item. The Government are working with the other participants in the Earth summit to ensure that agenda 21 is given a high level of political commitment in Rio. It will then need to be adapted to the circumstances of individual countries and regions and to evolve over time.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if Her Majesty's Government will press for the inclusion of(a)the polluter pays principle, (b) and extension of environmental impact assessment and (c) encouragement properly to evaluate environmental costs in the market place, to be included in the Earth summit declaration on the environment and development, the earth charter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The latest draft of the Rio declaration, which has sometimes been referred to as the earth charter, is the product of long and detailed negotiations. It contains satisfactory language, much of it proposed by the United Kingdom, on environmental impact assessment and on internalising environmental costs, taking into account the polluter pays principle. The United Kingdom will strive to ensure that these references are retained in the final text.

  Opencast Coal
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) pursuant to his answer of 19 May,Official Report, column 74, on minerals planning guidance note 3, whether the terms of reference of the recent review have included the principles of planning guidance as well as their practical operation;

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 19 May, Official Report, column 74, if he will list the organisations consulted during the consultation exercise on minerals planning guidance note 3; how many responses have been received; if he will provide a breakdown of the responses; and if he will publish a copy of any questionnaire distributed as part of the exercise;

  (3) pursuant to his answer of 19 May, Official Report, column 74, when his consultation exercise on minerals planning guidance note 3 was begun; when it is scheduled to finish; whether it was part of the normal review process or was initiated as a special review; when an announcement of the results will be made; and whether he plans any further reviews in 1992;

  (4) pursuant to his answer of 19 May, Official Report, column 74, on minerals planning guidance note 3, how local authorities were consulted; and if he will publish copies of the letters or questionnaires sent to local authorities.

  Mr. Baldry
  It is normal practice to monitor the effectiveness of mineral planning guidance notes. As part of the monitoring of MPG3 the Department wrote to representatives of the local authorities, the industry and environmental organisations on 19 December 1991 seeking their views on how well the guidelines were operating and whether they had created any problems. I am placing copies of the letter, which sought views on all the principal aspects of the guidance in MPG3, together with a list of the organisations consulted, in the Library of the House. Comments were requested by 20 March 1992, but responses have continued to come in since that date and will all be considered. Separate consultations were carried out by the Welsh Office.

  To date, 55 responses have been received from outside bodies: 30 from local authority associations and individual local authorities; 10 from representatives of the industry; nine from environmental groups; and six from local residents' action groups. The responses are currently being evaluated and in the light of the results of that evaluation, I shall consider whether there is a need for revision of MPG3. I shall announce my decision as soon as possible.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration is being given to reversing the rule at public inquiries that local communities cannot in their objections to opencast mining challenge the commercial need for opencast coal.

  Mr. Baldry
  There is no such rule. Inspectors must take into account all representations which are material to the planning decision including any arguments advanced by the applicant in support of the proposals and any counter arguments advanced by objectors. However, the potential profitability or otherwise of any proposed development is not usually material to land use planning decisions.

  EC Legislation
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he intends to bring forward during the United Kingdom presidency of the Council of Ministers in respect of varying standards of implementation of EC environmental legislation by member states; what proposals he intends to bring forward on subsidiarity as it relates to environmental legislation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  During the presidency we intend to bring the question of proper implementation and enforcement of EC environmental legislation to the attention of the Environment Council, with a view to initiating regular reviews of those issues by Environment Ministers.

  We shall continue to press the European Commission to bring forward proposals to set up a Community inspectorate to audit the performance of enforcement agencies within the member states. We will be hosting the first meeting of a new "network" of member state enforcement agencies with a view to setting this up on a permanent basis.

  The principle of subsidiarity is already written into the environment chapter of the EC treaty. The treaty on European union agreed at Maastricht will, when it comes into effect, extend the principle to other areas of Community policy.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those sites of special scientific interest in the United Kingdom which contain significant areas of woodland, indicating for each whether the woodland consists mainly of native wildwoods; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  This information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Climate Change
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals on(a) global warming and climate change and (b) the United Nations conference on environment and development will be put forward by the United Kingdom at the meeting of the European Agriculture Council on 24 and 25 May.

  Mr. Maclean
  Proposals for discussion at meetings of the Council of Ministers are primarily a matter for the presidency. My right hon. and learned Friend and I played a full part in discussion of the topics in question at the Environment Council on 26 May.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals on climate change were(a) discussed and (b) decided at the EC Environmental Council on 26 May.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Council endorsed conclusions on climate change tabled by the presidency which recognised the climate change convention as a significant first step in tackling this global problem and urged all countries to sign the convention during UNCED and thereafter to ratify it as soon as possible. The Council also received a report from the European Commission on proposals it intended to make on specific measures to limit CO2 emissions.

  City Challenge
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment for what reasons Tameside MBC was not allowed to make a city challenge presentation.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Tameside is not one of the 57 urban priority authorities and was not therefore invited to submit a bid. We have considered the possibility of including Tameside's bid in the city challenge competition, but came to the view that our policy should remain unchanged. Tameside MBC was formally notified of this decision on 18 May.

  Debt Payment
  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what distribution has taken place within his Department and the purchasing organisations for which he has responsibility of the Department of Employment's publication "Making the Cash Flow—A Guide to the Payment of Commercial Debt for Buyers and Small Business Suppliers".

  Mr. Howard
  "Making the Cash Flow" was prepared as guidance for the private sector and there was therefore no formal distribution to other Government Departments. Guidelines on purchasing by Government Departments already exist and are distributed by Her Majesty's Treasury.

  The Department of Employment has been undertaking a survey of prompt payment record of Government Departments during the financial year 1991–92. The results of this exercise will be published in the near future by the Department of Trade and Industry, which now has responsibility for small firms issues, including late payment. After studying these results the Department will consider what further measures, if any, may be necessary to encourage prompt payment by the public sector.

  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what policy guidelines are currently in place within his Department and the purchasing organisations for which he has responsibility in respect of the prompt payment of commercial debt, particularly as it relates to small business suppliers.

  Mr. Howard
  It is the policy of my Department to ensure that payments, including those to small business suppliers, are made promptly within the period stipulated in the appropriate contract or where there is no contractual provision or other understanding, within 30 days of receipt of goods/services or the presentation of a valid invoice or similar demand for payment, whichever is the later.

  To help encourage prompt payment of bills by Government contractors to their sub-contractors all Government contracts are to contain a clause requiring the supplier of contractor to pay its sub-contractors promptly. In the absence of normal practice to the contrary for that type of contract or other special circumstances, the commitment should be to pay the subcontractor within 30 days of receipt of a valid invoice or similar demand for payment as defined by the contract.

  Conservation Areas (Shops)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for enabling local planning authorities to issue statutory guidelines for shop fronts and advertisements in conservation areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have no plans to introduce statutory guide lines. Paragraphs 53 to 71 of my Department's circular 8/87 give general policy guidance to planning authorities about control of development, including outdoor advertisements, in conservation areas. The Government intend to issue later this year a consultative draft of a new planning policy guidance note about listed buildings and conservation areas.

  Recycling
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress by local authorities in encouraging private citizens to separate all recyclable materials from household waste prior to collection.

  Mr. MacLean
  It is the Government's aim that 25 per cent. of household waste should be recycled by the end of this century. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 requires all waste collection authorities to prepare waste recycling plans. I am expecting the draft plans to be submitted to my right hon. and learned Friend by 1 August. These plans will provide the first comprehensive national survey of recycling activity. To assist local authorities in planning for recycling we have made available a programme of supplementary credit approvals worth £60 million over four years to stimulate investment in recycling projects and from 1 April this year it is now mandatory that waste disposal authorities should pay recycling credits to collection authorities that recycle waste.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what evaluations have been made of the risks in use of the pesticides(a) pentachlorophenol, (b) pentachlorophenyl laurate and (c) sodium pentachlorophenoxide by (i) his Department, (ii) consultants to his Department or (iii) agencies which report to his Department.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Department of the Environment has commissioned two reviews of pentachlorophenol, its salts and esters:"Timber Preservation Chemicals: Volumes la and 1 b"— Consultants in Environmental Sciences Ltd. Published October 1988, placed in the Library, November 1988.
  "Environmental Hazard Assessment: Pentachorophenol" —S. J. Hobbs, (Building Research Establishment) P. D. Howe, S. Dobson (Institute of Terrestrial Ecology). To be published in Autumn 1992
  The Department also contributes to the work of the International Programme on Chemical Safety, which in 1987 produced an Environmental health criteria document on pentachlorophenol:
  "Pentachlorophenol: Environmental Health Criteria 71"—World Health Organisation 1987. ISBN 924154271 3.

  Green Citizens Charter
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response his Department has had to the brochure, "Green Rights and Responsibilities: a Citizen's Guide to the Environment", published by his Department earlier this year; and how many copies of the green citizens charter have been published, and at what cost to date.

  Mr. Maclean
  This booklet has received a positive response from members of the public, local authorities, companies and voluntary groups. One million copies have been published at a total cost of £119,000. My Department has held initial discussions of the document with the local authority associations and I look forward to developing those discussions further.

  Timetable of Local Government Boundary Commission Reviews

  Name of Review

  Dale of draft proposals

  Date by which recommendations were to be received

  Date of further draft proposals

  Date by which comments were to be received

  Date of additional further draft proposals

  Date of additional further draft proposals

  Date of publication of final report

  Barking and Dagenham—boundaries with Redbridge, Newham and Havering

  02.11.89

  27.11.89

  27.03.91

  29.05.91

  06.11.91

  18.12.91

  —

  Brent1—boundaries with Barnet, Camden, Ealing, Hammersmith and Fulham, Harrow, Kensington and Chelsea and Westminister

  31.07.91

  23.10.91

  —

  —

  —

  —

  20.05.92

  Bromley—boundary with Lcwisham

  21.08.91

  16.10.91

  —

  —

  —

  —

  27.05.92

  Camden—boundaries with Barnet and Westminster

  04.01.91

  01.03.91

  10.01.92

  06.03.92

  —

  —

  —

  Ealing/Hammersmith and Fulham/ Hounslow (including Hounslow's boundary with Richmond Upon Thames)

  09.03.92

  11.05.92

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Enfield—boundaries with Barnet, Hertsmere, Welwyn, Halfield, Broxbourne and Epping Forest

  17.09.90

  26.11.90

  06.03.92

  01.05.92

  —

  —

  —

  Greenwich—boundary with Bromley

  21.08.91

  16.10.91

  —

  —

  —

  —

  27.05.92

  Hackney—boundaries with Haringey and Islington

  09.07.91

  10.09.91

  24.02.92

  21.04.92

  —

  —

  —

  Haringey—boundaries with Barnet, Camden and Enfield

  11.03.91

  17.05.91

  09.03.92

  05.05.92

  —

  —

  —

  Havering—boundaries with Redbridge, Brentwood, Thurrock and Barking and Dagenham

  17.10.88

  12.12.88

  21.06.91

  23.08.91

  —

  —

  —

  Heathrow—Hillingdon, Hounslow and Spelthorne

  29.05.90

  01.11.90

  17.01.92

  16.04.92

  —

  —

  —

  Hillingdon—boundaries with Ealing, Hounslow, South Bucks and Three Rivers

  05.03.90

  30.04.90

  24.02.92

  21.04.92

  —

  —

  —

  Hounslow—boundaries with Richmond and Spelthorne

  10.02.92

  06.04.92

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kensington and Chelsea—boundary with Hammersmith and Fulham

  05.03.92

  29.05.92

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kingston Upon Thames—boundaries with Merton, Richmond, Sutton, Wandsworth, Elmbridge, Epsom and Ewell and Mole Valley

  26.11.91

  18.02.92

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lcwisham—boundaries with Greenwich and Tower Hamlets

  06.12.91

  14.02.92

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Merton—boundary with Croydon

  10.02.92

  06.04.92

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Newham—boundaries with Redbridge, Waltham Forest, Hackney and Tower Hamlets

  29.01.90

  26.03.90

  30.04.91

  25.06.91

  —

  —

  —

  Redbridge—boundaries with Waltham Forest and Epping Forest

  31.05.89

  26.07.89

  14.12.90

  15.02.91

  —

  —

  12.05.92

  Richmond Upon Thames—boundary with Wandsworth

  26.11.91

  21.01.92

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11.05.92

  Sutton—boundaries with Croydon, Epsom and Ewell and Reigate and Banstead

  27.01.92

  16.03.92

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wandsworth—boundaries with Merton, Lambeth, Hammersmith and Fulham, Kensington and Chelsea and including Merton's boundary with Lambeth

  10.01.92

  09.03.92

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Westminster—boundaries with Kensington and Chelsea and Lambeth

  27.02.92

  23.04.92

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Local Government Boundary Commission
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library copies of his guidelines for the Local Government Boundary Commission on London and metropolitan counties, contained in his Department's circulars 33/78 and 20/86.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Copies of the circulars have been placed in the Library today.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all the draft proposals published by the Local Government Boundary Commission regarding the boundaries of London boroughs for which final reports have yet to be issued, showing the dates of publication of first and further draft proposals and the dates by which comments were to be received.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information is set out in the table. It includes those reviews where the final report has been submitted recently.
  383

  1 The Commission will submit a separate report on the electoral consequences of their final report in due course

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the findings of the Local Government Boundary Commission in its report No. 627, "The Boundaries of Greater London arid the London Boroughs"; and if he will set up a wide-ranging review of the pattern of London boroughs.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The report is a useful document based on the thorough work the Local Government Boundary Commission has done in its London boundary reviews. We have no plans for radical change to the pattern of local government in London.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people were registered for the community charge in each parliamentary constituency in Greater London for each year that the community charge register has been in operation.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is not available.

  Water Meters
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to accelerate the findings of the water meter trial areas.

  Mr. Maclean
  Two reports have so far been published and a final report will be produced in about 12 months' time, when all the trials have been completed. As I am keen that the substantial body of data collected about water metering should be fully analysed and made available promptly not only to the water industry but also to the regulatory bodies, I have proposed to the water industry that the Director General of Water Services should take the lead from the Government side in analysing the results of the trials and the implications for charging methods. In consultation with DOE and NRA, he will also co-ordinate, and where necessary commission, any further studies that are needed.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to speed up the introduction of water meters.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Director General of Water Services has warned water companies that they must make metering a more attractive option for individual customers. He has also asked them to draw up strategies for the general introduction of water metering where the overall benefit to customers outweighs the costs of installation.

  We shall be issuing a consultation paper before the summer recess which will consider a range of possible water conservation measures, including the potential role of metering.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has reached any conclusions on the ability of water metering to avoid the issuing of drought orders.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information from the national water metering trial areas indicates a substantial reduction in the volume of water supplied particularly during periods of 384
  peak demand. However, any programme for the introduction of meters to existing properties will require careful planning and will take some years to complete. In the meantime, drought orders may be required in areas where there is a shortage of rainfall.

  Council Elections
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will bring forward proposals to allow for local council elections in the metropolitan districts in 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Government have no plans to change the arrangements for elections to metropolitan district councils.

  Paper Products
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has considered the environmental impact of(a) paper and (b) tissue products manufactured using (i) recycled feedstock and (ii) new fibre; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The European Council of Ministers adopted a regulation in March establishing a Community eco-labelling scheme which is due to come into operation towards the end of the year. The aim of the scheme is to identify products which do the least harm to the environment.

  In preparing for the introduction of the scheme Denmark is leading a study to develop criteria for the award of eco-labels to paper products including fine papers and tissues. This study, to which the United Kingdom is contributing, is examining all the environmental impacts of paper manufacture.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to dry-store all nuclear waste on site and ban the disposal of nuclear waste underground or at sea.

  Mr. Maclean
  Government policy for radioactive waste management is set out in chapter 15 of the 1990 White Paper "This Common Inheritance". High-level or heat generating radioactive waste will be stored at Sellafield and Dounreay for at least 50 years to allow the heat and radioactivity to reduce. It is planned to dispose of intermediate and low-level radioactive waste in the deep disposal facility which UK Nirex is responsible for developing. The Government are reviewing whether the sea disposal option for the disposal of radioactive waste needs to be maintained.

  Deep Reservoirs
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what studies he has made of the mining of deep freshwater resources; what is the estimated age of these deep reservoirs; and what is their estimated current depletion rate.

  Mr. Maclean
  These are matters for the National Rivers Authority which under section 19 of the Water Resources
  385
  Act 1991, has responsibility for the conservation, redistribution and augmentation of water resources in England and Wales.

  Derelict Land Grant
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much derelict land grant was paid in Liverpool last year; how much is budgeted for the present year; and if he will consider ways of accelerating the treatment and landscaping of derelict urban land.

  Mr. Baldry
  Derelict land grant paid in Liverpool last year was £2,315,190. The provisional grant allocation for the present year is £1,508,000.

  In order to improve the delivery of policies for land development, including the reclamation of derelict urban land, the Government propose to establish an urban regeneration agency. One of the agency's main objectives will be to treat derelict land in urban areas.

  Toxic Waste Incinerator, East Howden
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to make a decision on the inspector's report arising from the public inquiry into the application to build a toxic waste incinerator at East Howden, north Tyneside.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. and learned Friend will issue his decision on the Howden and linked incinerator inquiries on Teeside as soon as it is practicable to do so.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the regulations for the procedure for an appeal against the valuation of a property for the purpose of the council tax.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I expect regulations to be available before the summer recess.

  Liverpool Garden Festival
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the present use of the Liverpool garden festival site.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Liverpool garden festival site covers 105 acres of which 85 acres has recently been taken over by Tomorrow's Leisure, a subsidiary of Norstead Leisure Ltd, to develop a multi-leisure complex known as Pleasure Island. Officially launched on 7 May 1992, with regional selective assistance of £1 million towards the estimated project cost of £10 million and car parking provided by Merseyside development corporation, Pleasure Island is expected to create 250 new jobs.

  The remaining 20 acres was designated for public open space and housing, of which 393 dwellings are now complete.

  Power Plant Pollution
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information has been provided by his Department to the European Commission on the levels and types of atmospheric particulate pollution discharged from Britain's most polluting power plants; and if he will publish the documentation.
  386
  Mr. Maclean
  None.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when his officials will reply to the letters from Castle Morpeth borough council dated 8 November 1991, 28 January 1992, and 16 March 1992 requesting guidance on compulsory competitive tendering for leisure management.

  Mr. Redwood
  My officials replied on 21 May 1992. I will send a copy of the letter to the hon. Member.

  Poll Tax Surcharges
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average level of poll tax surcharge levied in the current financial year in(a) England and Wales and (b) the city of Liverpool; what rights he will give to citizens to refuse payment of surcharges; what representations he has received about the Liverpool surcharge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The average amount shown under "other adjustments" on 1992–93 community charge bills for English authorities is £22. Of this, £14 is accounted for by the budgeted provision for non-collection of 1992–93 community charges. The corresponding figures for Liverpool city council are £106 and £30 respectively, and I have received a number of letters from citizens of Liverpool about this. Whilst I have considerable sympathy with those chargepayers who have to pay extra for non-collection, I believe it is right that these amounts should continue to be met locally as part of the total charge, in the same way as the equivalent unpaid sums were treated under the old rating system.

  Groundwater
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's estimate of the level of groundwater under London over the past 10 years, and of its quality; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  This is primarily a matter for the National Rivers Authority which monitors groundwater levels. I understand that indications from recent surveys are that levels below London are rising by some 1 to 2 metres per year because of a drop in industrial activity and consequent abstraction. The NRA and Thames Water are currently conducting studies into the rising levels and the quality of London's groundwater.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to monitor the purity of groundwater from private boreholes.

  Mr. Maclean
  This is primarily a matter for the National Rivers Authority. However, water companies and other abstractors of water from private boreholes do carry out their own monitoring of groundwater quality. Holders of authorisations to discharge effluents underground also monitor groundwater by the use of boreholes.

  The Private Water Supplies Regulations 1991 set out the duties of local authorities for sampling and analysing those supplies used for drinking, washing, cooking or commercial food production. The drinking water inspectorate is responsible for checking that authorities in England and Wales comply with the requirements of these regulations.

  Valuation Tribunals
  Mr. Channon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to receive the report of the review committee of the management of tribunals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I expect to consider the report of the financial management and policy review of the valuation tribunals shortly.

  Disabled People (Housing)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by district council the amount of money spent on adaptations to the homes of disabled people in each of the last five years; and what contribution was made towards those costs from central Government funds.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 18 May 1992]: A table has been deposited in the Library with the available information about amounts of money spent by local authorities on adaptations to homes of disabled persons. It covers the calendar years 1987 to 1991.

  This table shows total grants paid by local authorities to private owners and tenants, including council tenants, for adaptations to homes of disabled persons. These payments are of conversion and improvement grants, and intermediate grants for disabled persons' dwellings under part XV of the Housing Act 1985, together with disabled facilities grants under part VIII of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, as introduced from July 1990.

  The table also shows the value of the work completed on authorities' own housing stock on adaptations for disabled persons.

  For grants approved under the Housing Act 1985, the Department provides a contribution of 90 per cent. of the loan charges payable on grant expenditure.

  For disabled facilities grants the Department provides a 75 per cent. contribution towards local authorities' expenditure on grants for owner occupiers and private tenants. Local authorities' expenditure on these grants for council tenants is eligible for 100 per cent. subsidy from the housing revenue account within the authority's subsidy limits, as is their expenditure on adaptations for disabled council tenants.

  Canary Wharf
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total sum expended by the London Docklands development corporation in connection with the development of Canary Wharf.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 21 May 1992]: The London Docklands development corporation spent £4 million on acquisition and site clearance, £28 million on the eastern access road and Heron's Quay roundabout and £15 million on the expansion of the electricity supply., and received from Olympia and York £20 million for a long lease on the site. In addition, Olympia and York contributed £70 million to the docklands light railway which benefits the whole northern docklands area.

  DNV Technica
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what role is being undertaken for his Department by DNV Technica; whether this company was appointed as a result of competitive tender; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 21 May 1992]: DNV Technica completed last year an evaluation of currently available technologies for abating nitrogen oxide emissions from large combustion plants. The initial contract was let by competitive tendering in December 1989 and completed in March 1991. A further contract with Technica, let in August 1991 by single tender action and completed in March 1992, provided United Kingdom input to the UNECE NO task force.

  Housing, Liverpool
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money has been obtained in Liverpool in capital receipts from the sale of council homes since the introduction of the right-to-buy.

  Mr. Baldry
  The total discounted values of all sales of houses and flats for each year from 1980–81, as reported by Liverpool city council, are listed in the table. Actual cash receipts in any year will depend on the extent to which the sales were financed by loans from the authority.

  Liverpool Discounted value of all sales (£000)

  Year

  Value

  1980–81

  3,796

  1981–82

  1—

  1982–83

  1—

  1983–84

  18,610

  1984–85

  1—

  1985–86

  2,884

  1986–87

  3,615

  1987–88

  2,272

  1988–89

  3,329

  1989–90

  5,156

  1990–91

  5,868

  1991–92

  4,282

  1 Not available

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent communications his Department has had with the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee on the options for returning to countries of origin radioactive wastes arising from spent fuel reprocessed at Sellafield and Dounreay.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee has been asked for its views on the technical basis of British Nuclear Fuels' proposals on implementing the return of waste options in its reprocessing contracts with overseas customers, and in particular on the likely radiological and environmental impact for the United Kingdom. The Atomic Energy Authority is still considering its options for the management of waste from reprocessing at Dounreay.

  Eyhorne Manor
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps have been taken by his Department to ensure that British Rail is discharging its
  389
  listed buildings responsibility for Eyhorne Manor, Hollingbourne in the corridor of the safeguarded section of the currently proposed route for the Channel tunnel rail link.

  Mr. Key
  I have been asked to reply.

  Enforcement of listed building controls, including service of repairs notices, would in the first instance be a matter for the local planning authority; but I understand that Maidstone borough council is not aware of any current problems at the manor. British Rail is taking steps to tidy the garden.

  Caravans Act 1966
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, in considering designation within the terms of the Caravans Act 1966, he will make it his policy to approve an additional transit site for the county of Hereford and Worcester.

  Sir George Young
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will consider applications for designation on a county or district-wide basis and must be satisfied that the criteria for designation have been met. It is for the county council to decide whether or not an additional transit site is needed in the county of Hereford and Worcester. In doing so, the county council will bear in mind the numbers of gipsies frequenting the area and they must satisfy my right hon. and learned Friend that adequate site provision has been made to meet the accommodation needs, within reason, of the gipsies who reside in or resort to the area.

PRIME MINISTER

  Leith
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Prime Minister if he intends to pay an official visit to Leith in the near future.

  The Prime Minister
  I visited Scotland yesterday. I have no immediate plans to visit Leith, but I shall be visiting Scotland again in the near future.

  Telephone Rental Charges
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received regarding the regulation of telephone rental charges; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received various representations on this subject. The regulation of British Telecom's rental charges is a matter for the Director General of Telecommunications in the first instance. I understand that he hopes to complete his current review of BT's prices shortly.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 June.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will give the total expenditure by the Prime Minister's Office on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year up to and including 1991–92; and if he will give an estimate for 1992–93.

  The Prime Minister
  Expenditure by my office on press and public relations was not recorded separately before 1987–88. The total expenditure for each year since then is as follows:

  Year

  £

  1987–88

  377,987

  1988–89

  419,326

  1989–90

  427,802

  1990–91

  553,068

  1991–92

  1606,933

  1992–93

  2629,649

  1 estimate

  2 budget

  Note: The figures from 1990–91 onwards include notional superannuation costs which are excluded from the figures for earlier years.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will give the total expenditure by the Cabinet Office on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year up to and including 1991–92; and if he will give an estimate for 1992–93.

  The Prime Minister
  Expenditure by the Cabinet Office on press and public relations for the years from 1984–85 is as follows:

  Year

  £

  1984–85

  247,495

  1985–86

  232,980

  1986–87

  224,813

  1987–88

  215,925

  1988–89

  201,837

  1989–90

  205,650

  1990–91

  165,088

  1991–92

  1217,358

  1992–93

  2229,471

  1estimate

  2 budget

  In addition, there was expenditure on publicity and public information associated with the citizens charter of £1,014,045—estimate—in 1991–92. Similar expenditure in 1992–93 is provisionally estimated at £1,280,000.

  Similar information is not available for earlier years.

  Consultants Fees
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the total sum paid out in fees by the Cabinet Office to management consultants in 1979–80 and in each following year up to and including 1991–92; and what is his estimate for 1992–93.

  The Prime Minister
  The expenditure by the Cabinet Office, including, from its creation on 1 October 1987, the Office of the Minister for the Civil Service on management and computer consultancies, including certain consultancies relating to the civil service as a whole, in the financial years from 1983–84 was as follows:
  391

  Year

  £

  1983–84

  152,000

  1984–85

  423,818

  1985–86

  329,334

  1986–87

  505,092

  1987–88

  417,778

  The figures for each year since then, which exclude the cost of computer consultancies, are as follows:

  Year

  £

  1988–89

  70,608

  1989–90

  51,500

  1990–91

  182,000

  1991–92

  1194,390

  1992–93

  2343,060

  1 Estimate.

  2 Budget.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the total sum paid out in fees by the Prime Minister's Office to management consultants in 1979–80 and in each following year up to and including 1991–92; and what is his estimate for 1992–93.

  The Prime Minister
  There has been no expenditure by my office on fees to management consultants since 1979–80, and none is planned for 1992–93.

  EC (Enlargement)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on Government policy in respect of Chancellor Kohl's proposed veto on the enlargement of the EC; and what means exist of overcoming this veto under the Maastricht treaty.

  The Prime Minister
  I am not aware of any such statement by the German Government. The Maastricht European Council agreed that accession negotiations could start as soon as the negotiations on future financing are concluded. Under the terms of the treaty on European union decisions to admit new members are taken by unanimity.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the public opinion surveys carried out by(a) the Prime Minister's Office and (b) the Cabinet Office since 1 November 1991.

  The Prime Minister
  No such surveys were carried out for my office or the Cabinet Office during the period in question.

  Earth Summit
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Prime Minister what attempts have been made by Her Majesty's Government(a) to publicise the issues to be discussed and decisions to be taken at the Earth summit in Rio in June and (b) to publicise Her Majesty's Government's policies and proposals for the Earth summit; and what has been the cost to Her Majesty's Government of publicity promoted by all Departments of Government and the United Nations conference on environment and development.

  The Prime Minister
  We have taken an active and positive role in disseminating information on the 392
  forthcoming Earth summit. The United Kingdom's approach has been set out to Parliament, in speeches, articles and correspondence, and media briefings. We have produced booklets and videos, commissioned reports and kept in close touch with local authorities and the non-governmental community. The directly attributable publicity costs have fallen within the budgets of the Departments concerned.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received since 9 April on the Earth summit to be held in Rio de Janeiro in June; and what responses he has made.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government have received many thousands of representations from interested organisations and individual citizens. Replies have confirmed that I will be going to Rio de Janeiro: that the Government are committed to working for a successful and productive outcome to the Earth summit; that we are aiming for international conventions on climate change and biological diversity; and that we will be working for a statement on the sustainable management of the world's forests, a Rio declaration of international environmental principles, and a coherent, realistic and measurable plan of action for the 21st century, agenda 21.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with counterpart heads of government on the prospects for the Earth summit in Brazil since 9 April.

  The Prime Minister
  I have discussed the Earth summit with many of the Heads of Government I have met since 9 April.

  Third World Environment
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Prime Minister what responses Her Majesty's Government intends to make to the World bank's call for greater multilateral investment to be made in the world's poorer countries to improve the environment.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government broadly agree with the analysis in the 1992 world development report published by the World bank last month. This suggests that the bulk of the investments required to meet the costs of a better environment will be paid for by the customers of the private and public enterprises responsible for the damage and by the beneficiaries of improved environmental conditions.

  The World bank notes that Governments will have to spend more too, primarily from increased domestic savings; but that international finance, private and official, will also have a crucial role. Britain intends to participate fully in the replenishments of the multilateral funds which will help to provide developing countries with the necessary resources.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Prime Minister what percentage of the total work force in his office are registered as disabled; what steps he is taking to encourage the employment of disabled people within his office; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  No current members of my work force are registered as disabled. For recruitment purposes
  393
  my office is part of the Cabinet Office which is an equal opportunities employer, and continually seeks to encourage the employment of people with disabilities.

  Advertising
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will give separate figures for the spending by the Prime Minister's Office on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year up to and including 1991–92; and what is his latest estimate for 1992–93.

  The Prime Minister
  My office has incurred no expenditure on advertising or promotional material and there are no plans for any such expenditure in 1992–93.

  Libya
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will assess the results of sanctions against Libya.

  The Prime Minister
  Members of the United Nations were required to report by 15 May on the measures they have taken to implement the sanctions imposed by United Nations Security Council resolution 748. The United Nations secretariat is now assessing their responses. Sanctions are being widely implemented. I hope they will achieve their objective: to make Libya comply in full with Security Council resolutions 731 and 748.

PRIME MINISTER

  Radar Station, Fylingdales
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to refuse any request made by the US administration to modify the radar station at Fylingdales; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 2 June 1992]: RAF Fylingdales is a ballistic missile early warning site whose operation is the subject of a bilateral agreement drawn up in 1960 between the governments of the United Kingdom and the United States. There has been no request for any change to this agreement.

  India (Treaty)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister if the extradition treaty agreed between Britain and India has been ratified by both Governments; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 2 June 1992]: We and the Indian Government have not yet signed the treaty, but we intend to do this as soon as possible. Ratification will follow in due course.

  Ministerial Sub-committee on London
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will make a statement on the role of the ministerial sub-committee on London as a policy forum for discussions on the future of London; when the sub-committee has met; and what was its agenda;

  (2) what plans he has to publish the proceedings and decisions of the ministerial sub-committee on London.
  394
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 22 May 1992]: The terms of reference of the ministerial sub-committee on London, together with those of all other ministerial committees and sub-committees of the Cabinet, were given in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) on 19 May at columns 110–18.

  The Government will continue to make their decisions known to Parliament and the public. I do not, however, propose to give details on the topics discussed by individual committees, the timing of meetings or their proceedings.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Schedule E Tax
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will issue a practice note to confirm that re-employment counselling and training is not taxable under any part of the schedule E tax legislation.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The tax position of re-employment counselling and similar training arranged by employers for their employees depends on the precise circumstances in which it is given. It is not the case that it is invariably exempt from tax. A charge might arise under the legislation dealing with the taxation of redundancy arrangements, subject to the £30,000 exemption which the legislation provides for a redundancy package as a whole.

  Maxwell Companies
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with the Governor of the Bank of England regarding the role of banks and other financial institutions involved in lending currency and share dealing transactions with the late Mr. Robert Maxwell and companies connected with him; and if he will raise issues of public concern arising from those transactions with the Governor when he next meets him.

  Mr. Nelson
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer meets the Governor of the Bank of England from time to time to discuss a range of issues.

  Alcohol Tax
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy on setting a minimum rate of excise duty on spirits.

  Sir John Cope: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on 21 May 1992, Official Report, column 203,.

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received regarding the continuation of the temporary suspension of stamp duty after August; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  We have received a number of representations for the temporary increase in the stamp duty threshold to be extended beyond 19 August. When my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced the increase last December, he made it clear that it was a temporary measure for eight months to help stimulate the housing market. We do not propose to extend the increased threshold beyond 19 August.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the total work force in his Departments are registered as disabled; what steps he is taking to encourage the employment of disabled people within his Departments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  The percentage of the total work force in the Chancellor's departments who are registered as disabled is shown in the table. In many instances, departments also employ people with disabilities who have chosen not to register. Departments seek to implement the relevant parts of the civil service code of practice on the employment of disabled people.

  Departments, Agencies and NDPBs

  Per cent.

  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise

  1·3

  Government Actuary's Department

  11·4

  Inland Revenue

  1·6

  National Investment and Loans Office

  4·7

  Department for National Savings

  2·8

  Paymaster General's Office

  3·7

  Registry of Friendly Societies

  10·6

  Her Majesty's Treasury

  1·0

  Central Office of Information

  11·2

  Central Statistical Office

  11·6

  HMSO

  11·6

  Royal Mint

  12·3

  National Economic Development Office

  10·0

  1 As at May 1992. All other figures as at June 1991.

  Wholesale Financial Markets
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the benefits arising from the transfer of the regulation of wholesale financial markets from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Treasury.

  Mr. Nelson
  The wholesale financial markets are regulated by the Bank of England under section 43 of the Financial Services Act 1986. I have no reason to believe that the transfer of responsibilities for financial services from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Treasury will have any impact in this area.

  Debt Payment
  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what distribution has taken place within his Department and the purchasing organisations for which he has responsibility of the Department of Employment's publication "Making the Cash Flow—a Guide to the Payment of Commercial Debt for Buyers and Small Business Suppliers."

  Mr. Portillo
  "Making the Cash Flow" was prepared as guidance for the private sector and there was therefore no formal distribution to other Government Departments. Guidelines on purchasing by Government Departments already exist and are distributed by Her Majesty's Treasury.

  The Department of Employment has undertaken a survey of prompt payment records of Government Departments during the financial year 1991–92 and the results of this exercise will be published in the near future by the Department of Trade and Industry, which now has responsibility for small firms issues, including late
  396
  payment. After studying these results the Department will consider what further measures, if any, may be necessary to encourage prompt payment by the public sector.

  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what policy guidelines are currently in place within his Department and the purchasing organisations for which he has responsibility in respect of the prompt payment of commercial debt, particularly as it relates to small business suppliers.

  Mr. Portillo
  Government Departments, including their executive agencies, are required to pay their bills promptly. The timing of payment should normally be stipulated in Government contracts. Where there is no contractual provision or other understanding, Departments should pay within 30 days of receipt of goods/services or the presentation of a valid invoice or similar demand for payment, whichever is the later.

  To help encourage prompt payment of bills by Government contractors to their sub-contractors all Government contracts are to contain a clause requiring the supplier or contractor to pay its sub-contractors promptly. In the absence of normal practice to the contrary for that type of contract or other special circumstances, the commitment should be to pay the subcontractor within 30 days of receipt of a valid invoice or similar demand for payment as defined by the contract.

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has held with the Inland Revenue Staff Federation on the future of performance-related pay and plans for structural change within the Inland Revenue; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor met the general secretary last September and discussed performance-related pay. Discussions are now taking place between Inland Revenue management and the Inland Revenue Staff Federation about the future of performance-related pay and plans for structural change within the Inland Revenue.

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the total expenditure by his Department on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year up to and including 1991–92; and if he will give an estimate for 1992–93.

  Sir John Cope
  Expenditure on press and public relations is as follows:

  The expenditure for Her Majesty's Treasury, excluding the BT share offer, was £548,264 in 1988–89, £564,691 in 1989–90, £510,489 in 1990–91 and £578,358 in 1991–92. The estimate for 1992–93 is £624,432. Press and public relation expenditure for the BT share offer was £1,644,000 in 1991–92 and is estimated at £40,000 in 1992–93. The figures for the BT share offer include the cost of marketing advice. Comparable figures for earlier years are unavailable because of machinery of Government changes and could be given only at disproportionate cost.

  Advertising
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give separate figures for the estimated spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material during 1992–93.

  Mr. Nelson
  The estimated spending on advertising and other promotional material by Her Majesty's Treasury during 1992–93 is £72,500, none of which will be for television or radio advertising.

  RPI Advisory Committee
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the members of the Retail Price Index Advisory Commitee, the dates on which they were appointed and the length of their terms of office; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  The members of the Retail Prices Index Advisory Committee are:

  Chairman

  Mr. W. P. McLennan (Director, Central Statistical Office)

  Members

  Mr. J. Astin (EUROSTAT, Luxembourg)

  Mr. S. Brittan (The Financial Times)

  Professor D. Currie (London Business School)

  Professor M. C. Fleming (Loughbourgh University)

  Mr. K. H. B. Frere (Nominated by the National Federation of Consumer Groups)

  Mr. S. G. B. Henry (Bank of England)

  Mr. T. Hoyes (Nominated by Age Concern)

  Mr. J. Hughes (Nominated by the National Consumer Council)

  Mr. D. Lea OBE (Nominated by the Trades Union Congress)

  Miss R. Lea (The Mitsubishi Bank Ltd.)

  Miss R. J. Maurice

  Mr. C. J. Mowl (HM Treasury)

  Dr. J. Muellbauer (Nuffield College, Oxford)

  Professor J. F. Pickering (Portsmouth Polytechnic)

  Professor D. G. Rhys (Cardiff Business School)

  Mrs. B. Rosewell (Business Strategies Ltd)

  Dr. P. Rowlatt (National Economic Research Associates)

  Dr. A. Sentance (Nominated by the Confederation of British Industry)

  Professor R. Turvey (London School of Economics)

  Mr. R. G. Ward (Central Statistical Office)

  Secretary

  Mr. D. J. Sellwood (Central Statistical Office)

  Assistant Secretary

  Mrs. M. S. Dolling (Central Statistical Office)

  They were appointed in March 1992. There is no fixed term of office for committee members; the committee is appointed with specific terms of reference and members normally serve until examination of the matters referred has been completed. The current terms of reference were announced on 19 May 1992, at column 75 by my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer).

  Car Taxation
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will alter the current tax treatment of cars so as to favour fuel efficient cars.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have noted the hon. Member's suggestion.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list any two or more countries which operate a single market but do not have a single currency.

  Mr. Nelson
  Australia and New Zealand have removed most barriers to the free movement of goods, services, labour and capital between them, but do not share a single currency. Other groups of countries—such as the United Kingdom and Ireland and the Benelux countries—have had very liberal trade arrangements for some time without a single currency.

  Spirits and Wines
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an update on negotiations at the last Ecofin regarding the question of harmonisation rating of spirits and wines.

  Sir John Cope
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on 21 May 1992,Official Report, column 203.

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library(a) the representations he has recently received from the CBI and others on advance corporation tax and (B) the text of his replies to these submissions.

  Mr. Dorrell
  In his last Budget statement, my right hon. Friend said he had received many representations about surplus advance corporation tax and set out the Government's position. A copy of the representations made by the CBI on 29 January 1992 has been placed in the Library.

  European Co-operative Statute
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 12 May,Official Report, column 79, if he will give the starting date and the closing date for the formal consultation exercise in regard to the draft European co-operative statute.

  Mr. Nelson
  We hope to issue a combined consultative document before the end of this month on all three draft EC 'social economy' statutes, including the European co-operative statute, and their accompanying employee participation directives. Interested parties will be invited to give their comments by 28 August.

  Environment
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what matters in regard to the environment were(a) discussed and (b) decided at the meeting G7 held in Washington on 25–26 April.

  Sir John Cope
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement issued by the G7 on 26 April, copies of which are being deposited in the House Libraries. The statement sets out the topics considered at the meeting: these did not include the environment, and no decisions were taken on environmental matters.

  Company Cars
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will bring forward proposals to eliminate the company car subsidy.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) on 14 May, at column 163.

  Inheritance Tax and CTT
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer with respect to schemes for conditional exemption from inheritance tax or capital transfer tax since 1976 involving the granting of public access to the countryside(a) how many such schemes have been agreed and what is the total amount of tax relief involved, (b) how many schemes are under discussion, (c) how many miles of public footpath have been created, (d) how many miles of permissive path have been created and (e) how many acres of land have been opened up for a right to roam.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The table shows the number of cases of land and buildings for which conditional exemption from inheritance tax or capital transfer tax has been granted in each year from 1983–84. Comparable figures for earlier years, separate figures for land only and figures for cases under consideration are not available at acceptable cost.

  Number

  1983–84

  16

  1984–85

  18

  1985–86

  22

  1986–87

  18

  1987–88

  22

  1988–89

  11

  1989–90

  9

  1990–91

  17

  1991–92

  16

  The annual average cost of inheritance tax conditional exemption for land and buildings is estimated to have been between £5 million and £10 million over this period.

  I regret that statistics of new public footpaths and permissive paths, or of land over which there is a right to roam, resulting from conditional exemption are not available.

  Gulf War
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the cost to the Exchequer of the Gulf war; and what was the cash contribution of other countries.

  Mr. Portillo
  The total cost to the exchequer of the Gulf conflict will not be known with certainty for some time. The additional military costs incurred are currently estimated by the Ministry of Defence to be of the order of £2·5 billion. Further direct costs borne by the Exchequer include claims against the Export Credits Guarantee Department, for which the corrected estimate is some £750 million, to be met over several years but which may be recoverable in part; and costs of some £13 million for the health departments and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Cash contributions provided by other Governments to help meet the United Kingdom costs amount to some £2,049 million.

  Wakefield Valuation Office
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the reasons for the closure of the district valuation office in Wakefield and outline the steps taken to inform the public of this proposal prior to closure.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 22 May 1992]: The Wakefield valuation office closed on 30 September 1991, upon merger with the Doncaster valuation office.

  The merger was effected as part of the valuation office restructuring programme announced in 1989, to address the loss of domestic rating and the loss of 1,000 posts associated with that function.

  The operational needs of the branch with the personnel considerations of the staff involved were met by a merged office, located in Doncaster. Local professional practices were advised of the transfer of work as were members of the public who were in correspondence with the office during the preceding four weeks. Arrangements have been made for mail to be redirected for 12 months and telephone directories amended.

  Commonwealth of Independent States
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider linking the availability of Government credits to the Commonwealth of Independent States to the amount of bad debt outstanding to British companies who have exported to the Commonwealth of Independent States; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 22 May 1992]: The Prime Minister announced at the time of President Yeltsin's visit to London in February that up to £280 million of medium-term export credit cover would be made available to the states of the former Soviet Union subject to certain conditions. One of these conditions was that the country concerned should have signed the memorandum of understanding of 28 October 1991, acknowledging joint and several liability for the debts of the former Soviet Union, including, of course, debts outstanding to British exporters. This condition will ensure that no new credit is given to any member of the CIS which does not accept liability for its obligations to British exporters. The Government lose no opportunity to remind its various interlocutors in the CIS of the importance of honouring these obligations.

  Public Service Pensions
  Mr. Tracey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the number of(a) civil service pensioners and (b) other public service pensioners who left the pension list during the years 1986 and 1987.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 22 May 1992]: Details of the pensioners of the main centrally managed public service pension schemes who ceased to draw their pensions in the financial years 1986–87 and 1987–88 are as follows. Figures are not kept centrally for the locally administered local government, police, and fire service schemes, nor for those schemes operated by non-departmental public bodies.

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Civil service

  9,798

  9,033

  Armed forces

  112,265

  10,790

  Teachers (England and Wales)

  6,021

  6,313

  401

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Teachers (Scotland)

  919

  878

  NHS (England and Wales)

  8,121

  8,932

  NHS (Scotland)

  835

  776

  1 Includes an estimated figure for Royal Navy and Royal Marine ratings.

  PSBR
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest Government forecast for the public sector borrowing requirement in 1992–93.

  Mr. Portillo
  £28·1 billion, as set out in the 1992 "Financial Statement and Budget Report".

  Photocopy Agreements
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the total of capital allowances to(a) finance companies and (b) supplier companies in respect of cost per copy photocopy agreements in the most recent year available; and what is his estimate of the total of revenue allowances for users of copiers subject to such agreements.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I regret that the information is not available.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Debt Payment
  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what policy guidelines are currently in place within his Department and the purchasing organisations for which he has responsibility in respect of the prompt payment of commercial debt, particularly as it relates to small business suppliers.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Government Departments, including their executive agencies, are required to pay their bills promptly. The timing of payment should normally be stipulated in Government contracts. Where there is no contractual provision or other understanding, Departments should pay within 30 days of receipt of goods/services or on the presentation of a valid invoice or similar demand for payment, whichever is the later.

  To help encourage prompt payment of bills by Government to their sub-contractors all Government contracts are to contain a clause requiring the supplier or contractor to pay its sub-contractors promptly. In the absence of normal practice to the contrary for that type of contract or other special circumstances, the commitment should be to pay the sub-contractor within 30 days of receipt of a valid invoice or similar demand for payment as defined by the contract.

  My Department will continue to comply with Government best practice on this matter.

  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what distribution has taken place within his Department and the purchasing organisations for which he has responsibility of the Department of Employment's publication "Making the Cash Flow—a Guide to the Payment of Commercial Debt for Buyers and Small Business Suppliers".
  402
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  "Making the Cash Flow" was prepared as guidance for the private sector and there was therefore no formal distribution to other Government Departments. Guidelines on purchasing by Government Departments already exists and are distributed by HM Treasury.

  The Department of Employment has been undertaking a survey of prompt payment record of Government Departments during the financial year 1991–92 and the results of this exercise will be published in the near future by the Department of Trade and Industry, which now has responsibility for small firms issues, including late payment. After studying these results the Department will consider what future measures, if any, may be necessary to encourage prompt payment by the public sector.

  Police Manpower
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications there were in each police force in England and Wales for increased police manpower for 1992–93; what are the numbers involved and the numbers agreed to for the current year; and if he will list alongside the percentage change in crime for each force since 1979.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Additional posts applied for

  Posts approved

  Per cent. change in crime 1979–92

  Avon and Somerset

  7

  2

  +200

  Bedfordshire

  76

  61

  +103

  Cambridgeshire

  10

  10

  +136

  Cheshire

  20

  20

  +118

  Cleveland

  Nil

  Nil

  +124

  Cumbria

  24

  4

  +131

  Derbyshire

  56

  25

  +96

  Devon and Cornwall

  70

  48

  +149

  Dorset

  26

  15

  +122

  Durham

  20

  Nil

  +138

  Dyfed Powys

  50

  25

  +121

  Essex

  58

  58

  +101

  Gloucestershire

  48

  1

  +237

  Greater Manchester

  140

  20

  +124

  Gwent

  10

  1

  +89

  Hampshire

  69

  67

  +115

  Hertfordshire

  34

  4

  +43

  Humberside

  22

  9

  +147

  Kent

  82

  82

  +150

  Lancashire

  32

  4

  +114

  Leicestershire

  27

  26

  +196

  Lincolnshire

  Nil

  Nil

  +156

  Merseyside

  88

  Nil

  +37

  Norfolk

  25

  25

  +183

  Northamptonshire

  23

  23

  +155

  Northumbria

  92

  27

  +127

  North Wales

  30

  17

  +88

  North Yorkshire

  25

  4

  +135

  Nottinghamshire

  Nil

  Nil

  +107

  South Wales

  44

  Nil

  +126

  South Yorkshire

  16

  15

  +123

  Staffordshire

  20

  4

  +127

  Suffolk

  30

  17

  +98

  Surrey

  30

  3

  +86

  Sussex

  35

  32

  +131

  Thames Valley

  132

  87

  +147

  Warwickshire

  15

  4

  +189

  West Mercia

  30

  29

  +111

  West Midlands

  121

  11

  +93

  West Yorkshire

  79

  Nil

  +130

  Wiltshire

  77

  67

  +91

  City of London

  Nil

  Nil

  +11

  403
  The rate of increase in crime is only one aspect of a complex of information against which decisions on establishment increases are made. These include actual crime levels; other demands on the police; population levels; and existing manpower levels.

  Fines (Non-payment)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans for future imprisonment of non-payers of fines.

  Mr. Jack
  Imprisonment is needed as the last resort for fine defaulters who have culpably failed or wilfully refused to pay a fine. The Criminal Justice Act 1991 which comes into effect in October this year will make fine assessment more realistic and fines easier to enforce. A new system of unit fines, relating fines more closely to an offender's ability to pay, should, together with the new power to attach fines to income support, ensure that imprisonment for default is restricted to those who have no excuse not to pay.

  Number of assaults on police officers in north Wales

  Offences Against the Person Act 1861

  Date of offence

  Section 18

  Section 20

  Section 47

  Police Act 1964 Summary section 51

  Total assaults

  May 1991

  —

  —

  10

  8

  18

  June 1991

  1

  —

  13

  15

  29

  July 1991

  —

  1

  8

  10

  19

  August 1991

  1

  —

  9

  6

  16

  September 1991

  —

  —

  11

  10

  21

  October 1991

  —

  —

  10

  10

  20

  November 1991

  —

  3

  14

  14

  31

  December 1991

  —

  2

  14

  10

  26

  January 1992

  —

  —

  6

  4

  10

  February 1992

  —

  —

  9

  6

  15

  March 1992

  —

  —

  9

  12

  21

  April 1992

  —

  —

  6

  8

  14

  Total: May 1991 to April 1992

  2

  6

  119

  113

  240

  Offences Against the Person Act 1861:

  Section 18—Wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm.

  Section 20—Inflicting bodily injury.

  Section 47—Assault occasioning bodily harm.

  Police Act 1964:

  Section 51—Assaults on constables.

  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions there were for each of the last 12 months for assaulting police officers of the North Wales constabulary whilst on duty.

  Mr. Jack
  The information available centrally relates to a study undertaken in the last six months of 1991 into

  Number sentenced for assault on a police officer by CPS area

  All offences

  Indictable offences1

  Total sentenced

  Number per 100,000 population

  Percentage use of custody

  Total sentenced

  Number per 100,000 population

  Percentage use of custody

  Avon and Somerset

  146

  12

  16

  30

  2

  20

  Cambridge/Lincoln

  42

  4

  17

  23

  2

  217

  Cheshire

  51

  6

  22

  21

  3

  229

  Cleveland/North Yorkshire

  58

  5

  14

  13

  1

  28

  Derbyshire

  22

  3

  250

  9

  1

  278

  Devon and Cornwall

  42

  3

  10

  7

  1

  2—

  Dorset/Hampshire

  66

  3

  18

  21

  1

  229

  Essex

  32

  2

  25

  14

  1

  221

  Gloucester/Wiltshire

  91

  9

  16

  28

  3

  21

  Greater Manchester

  97

  4

  15

  20

  1

  225

  Hertford/Bedford

  70

  5

  27

  27

  2

  30

  National Identity Cards
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce national identity cards for all citizens; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I am not at present persuaded of the case for a national identity card system either on policing grounds or for immigration control purposes.

  Police Assaults
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many officers of the North Wales constabulary have been victims of assault whilst on duty for each of the last 12 months.

  Mr. Jack
  The available information has been provided by the North Wales police force and is contained in the table.

  convictions for assaults where the victim was a police officer. The study was published in Home Office Statistical Bulletin 3/92, a copy of which is in the Library. Table 9 of this bulletin shows that there were 45 such convictions recorded in North Wales/Dyfed-Powys during this six-month period.
  405

  All offences

  Indictable offences1

  Total sentenced

  Number per 100,000 population

  Percentage use of custody

  Total sentenced

  Number per 100,000 population

  Percentage use of custody

  Humberside

  36

  5

  8

  2

  —

  2100

  Kent

  55

  4

  18

  9

  1

  244

  Lancashire/Cumbria

  86

  5

  14

  31

  2

  28

  Leicester/Northampton

  100

  8

  20

  27

  2

  37

  Inner London

  245

  12

  24

  41

  2

  51

  North London

  31

  1

  19

  11

  —

  245

  South London/Surrey

  119

  5

  22

  41

  2

  35

  Merseyside

  132

  11

  10

  10

  1

  250

  Norfolk/Suffolk

  48

  4

  23

  23

  2

  243

  Northumbria/Durham

  54

  3

  11

  7

  —

  229

  North Wales/Dyfed Powys

  45

  5

  7

  10

  1

  220

  Nottingham

  94

  11

  30

  36

  4

  50

  South Wales/Gwent

  235

  15

  12

  25

  1

  223

  South Yorkshire

  143

  13

  14

  36

  3

  17

  Stafford/Warwick

  55

  4

  5

  13

  1

  28

  Sussex

  22

  2

  245

  9

  1

  267

  Thames Valley

  18

  1

  2—

  2

  —

  2—

  West Mercia

  49

  5

  20

  11

  1

  236

  West Midlands

  149

  7

  20

  56

  2

  32

  West Yorkshire

  68

  4

  18

  24

  1

  233

  1 Excludes common assault (S.39) and assault on a constable.

  2 Less than 25 offenders sentenced.

  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many officers of the North Wales constabulary were assaulted with a weapon whilst on duty for each of the last 12 months.

  Mr. Michael Jack
  The North Wales police force's computer records indicate that three officers in the force were assaulted with a weapon between May 1991 and April 1992.

  Boundary Commission
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the Boundary Commission for England to begin its review of the parliamentary boundaries in London; what work has already been undertaken in this regard; when submissions will be invited from interested individuals and organisations prior to the publication of provisional recommendations; and from what date submissions will be invited.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand that the Boundary Commission for England has not yet decided when it will start work on its review of parliamentary boundaries in London. However, the practice of the commission is not to undertake consultation prior to publication of its provisional recommendations. When such recommendations have been published, representations with respect to the proposed recommendations may be made to the commission within the statutory period of one month after the date of publication.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the names of the Parliamentary Boundary Commissioners for Wales.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Madam Speaker is chairman of the commission. The other members are:
  406

  Member

  Appointed by

  Period of office

  The Hon. Mr. Justice Anthony Evans

  Lord Chancellor

  April 1989 to 31 December 1992

  Mr. W. P. Davey CBE, DL, IPFA

  Home Secretary

  March 1989 to 31 December 1992

  Mr. M. P. McLaggan JP, DL, MA

  Secretary of State for Wales

  1March 1989 to 31 December 1992

  1 First appointed in July 1980.

  Advertising
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give separate figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year up to and including 1991–92; and what is his latest estimate for 1992–93.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Figures for expenditure on newspaper and television advertising from 1979–80 to 1983–84 were given in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on 25 May 1984, at column 587 and those for 1984–85 were given in answer to another question from the hon. Member for Newham, North-West on 19 December 1985, at column 275.

  Figures for radio advertising and other promotional literature for the years from 1979–80 to 1984–85 were given in answer to questions from the hon. Member on 19 November 1986, at columns 202–4 and the hon. Member was also given in those replies figures for expenditure on newspaper, television and radio advertising and other promotional literature for 1985–86.

  Figures for the years 1986–87 to 1990–91, provisional, for total advertising expenditure—all media—and production and distribution of other promotional material were given in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras on 12 March 1990 at columns 23–24.

  Apart from the final year, 1990–91, it would not be possible to provide more detailed information for those

  407
  years except at disproportionate cost as stated in a previous answer to a question from the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras on 25 April 1991 at columns 535–36.

  Expenditure figures for the years 1990–91, 1991–92 and estimates for 1992–93 are as follows:

  1990–91 (expenditure) 000's

  1991–92 (expenditure) 000's

  1992–93 (estimate) 000's

  TV advertising

  2,024

  3,000

  4,000

  Radio advertising

  109

  117

  196

  Newspaper advertising

  3,595

  2,225

  1,380

  Prodution and distribution of other promotional material (including poster advertising)

  6,750

  6,976

  8,630

  I trust that the hon. Member will recognise that this expenditure is incurred on public information schemes of the kind that are undertaken by any Government Department and do not in any way involve party political campaigning.

  Carl Bridgewater
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the safety of the conviction in the Carl Bridgewater trial; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  Since 1982 there have been about 200 representations concerning the safety of these convictions from Members of Parliament and members of the public. In 1987, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) referred the cases of Michael Hickey, Vincent Hickey and James Robinson to the Court of Appeal. In 1989, the court concluded that the verdicts were safe and satisfactory.

  In June 1991, solicitors acting on behalf of the families of the convicted men submitted a petition to the Secretary of State seeking a further intervention in the case. It was decided that further inquiries should be made and, at the request of the chief constable of Staffordshire, a senior officer from the Merseyside police is currently investigating these representations.

  Albany Prison
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out the future policy for Her Majesty's prison Albany on the Isle of Wight.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Present plans are for Albany prison to be withdrawn from the dispersal system later this year. Its future role will then be that of a category B non-dispersal training prison.

  Police Homes
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance his Department gives to police authorities over the repossession of police homes occupied by the wives and families of policemen from whom the wife is separated or against whom divorce proceedings are under way.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No guidance is currently issued by the Home Office since occupation is a matter for the police 408
  authority concerned. However, a joint working party has recently been set up by the two sides of the Police Negotiating Board for the purpose of drawing up guidelines.

  Criminal Convictions
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases concerning the safety of criminal convictions are currently being received by his Department.

  Mr. Jack
  Statistics for the quarter ended 31 March 1992 show that 195 cases of alleged wrongful conviction were received.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letters to him dated 11 February, 4 March and 16 April from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. Tyrrell at Littlehey Priory.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A reply has been sent to the right hon. Member.

  Brixton Gaol (IRA Escape)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish all the inquiries by the police and the Prison Department into the Special Branch operation and the July 1991 escape of the alleged IRA suspect at Brixton gaol; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No. The recent report by Mr. Bailey, deputy chief constable of Nottinghamshire, was commissioned by the chief constable of Staffordshire. As to earlier reports, I have nothing to add to the various statements made by my predecessor on this matter.

  Sam Kulasingham and Prem Sivalasingham
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive a report from the Essex constabulary on their investigations into the convictions of Sam Kulasingham and Prem Sivalasingham; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The Essex police are actively proceeding with their inquiries into this case but the extent of their remaining inquiries makes it difficult, at this stage to give a precise timing for their conclusions.

  UKIAS
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the annual level of funding by his Department to UKIAS; and if he will make a statement on the future of that organisation.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Home Office paid £1,666,000 grant in aid to the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service in 1991–92. This included grant for the service's refugee unit which has now been constituted as a separate body. In respect of the future of UKIAS, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on 18 May 1992, at column 10.

  Buildings at Risk Trust
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Buildings At Risk Trust, based in Derbyshire, has applied to the Charity Commissioners to register as a charity.

  Mr. Jack
  The Buildings At Risk Trust, a proposed charitable company, has not yet formally applied for registration as a charity to the Charity Commissioners. It has, however, submitted its draft memorandum and articles of association to the commissioners with a view to being registered. The commissioners are currently considering these.

  Expatriate Votes
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, when the information becomes available to his Department, he will list by constituency the number of expatriate votes cast in the last general election.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 13 May 1992, at column 116 and to a question from the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on 11 May 1992, at column 20.

  Ashford Remand Centre
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are his current intentions for the site of the former Ashford, Middlesex, remand centre.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 22 May 1992]: Our current intention is to redevelop this site by building a new prison for 600 adult males. The date on which construction would begin has yet to be determined.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will indicate, in connection with the decision to demolish Ashford, Middlesex, remand centre and to build a category B prison, the costs of(a) the cancellation of the building contract, (b) tidying up and seeding the site and (c) agreeing and preparing the lease granted to Spelthorne borough council in October 1991.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 22 May 1992]: The information requested is as follows:

  (a) no contract to build a new prison on the site at Ashford had been let when it was decided to defer the construction of the prison in November 1990 and so no costs were incurred on this score;

  (b) the total cost of clearing and preparing the Ashford site, including the demolition of the remand centre which formerly occupied the site, was £880,000;

  (c) it is not possible to quantify the cost of the time spent by officials on agreeing and preparing the lease granted to Spelthorne borough council in October 1991, because it formed only a small part of their overall duties. Other costs, including solicitors' fees, totalled £779·25.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will indicate, in connection with the plans for the Ashford remand centre site, how much has now been offered to Spelthorne borough council to vary the terms of the lease, how much is being spent on seeking to renegotiate the lease and how much extra it will cost to build a new prison on this site.
  410
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 22 May 1992]: Spelthorne borough council was offered £20,000 including VAT, as part of proposals to vary the terms of the lease it currently holds on the site for a new prison at Ashford.

  It is not possible to quantify the cost of the time being spent by officials on seeking to renegotiate the lease, because it forms only a small portion of their overall duties.

  The current estimated cost of building a new prison on the site is £69 million. The actual cost will depend on when construction actually begins.

  Karamjit Singh Chahal
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to release Karamjit Singh Chahal from Bedford prison; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 22 May 1992]: I am actively considering Mr. Chahal's case, including the question of his detention and will take a further decision shortly.

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the total expenditure by his Department on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year up to and including 1991–92; and if he will give an estimate for 1992–93.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 22 May 1992]: The full cost of staff, accommodation and administration for the Home Office press office from 1979–80 to 1990–91 was:

  £

  1979–80

  283,140

  1980–81

  392,532

  1981–82

  381,799

  1982–83

  424,290

  1983–84

  516,362

  1984–85

  560,512

  1985–86

  606,996

  1986–87

  548,136

  1987–88

  599,282

  1988–89

  674,945

  1989–90

  715,646

  1990–91

  786,519

  1991–92

  792,125

  The estimate cost for 1992–93 is £835,441·38.

  Notes:

  1. Figures supplied before 1986–87 were the costs estimated by the Treasury. After devolved budgets the estimates are based on Home Office costs.

  2. Press Office figures include the costs for staff accommodation and administration costs.

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total sum paid out in fees by his Department to management consultants in 1979–80 and in each following year up to and including 1991–92; and what is his estimate for 1992–93.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 22 May 1992]: For information prior to 1990–91, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the then Home Secretary on 1 May 1991, at column 177. The Home Office spent

  411
  approximately £1,686,000 for the financial year 1991–92. There is no centrally determined estimate for expenditure on management consultancies in 1992–93.

  Notifiable offences recorded by the Police in which shot guns were reported to have been used.

  England and Wales

  Number of offences

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Avon and Somerset

  10

  15

  16

  12

  24

  26

  Bedfordshire

  11

  15

  10

  4

  9

  14

  Cambridgeshire

  7

  11

  II

  13

  24

  24

  Cheshire

  9

  9

  6

  11

  12

  9

  Cleveland

  1

  3

  3

  4

  2

  4

  Cumbria

  7

  2

  21

  4

  7

  3

  Derbyshire

  13

  10

  15

  11

  7

  11

  Devon and Cornwall

  23

  29

  20

  16

  17

  12

  Dorset

  3

  0

  0

  2

  2

  3

  Durham

  8

  5

  12

  6

  15

  9

  Essex

  30

  28

  36

  24

  25

  37

  Gloucestershire

  0

  2

  5

  6

  6

  3

  Greater Manchester

  51

  65

  87

  99

  103

  87

  Hampshire

  23

  20

  11

  12

  14

  21

  Hertfordshire

  17

  19

  19

  14

  22

  18

  Humberside

  8

  10

  17

  18

  9

  13

  Kent

  41

  34

  52

  41

  57

  37

  Lancashire

  8

  16

  7

  17

  8

  25

  Leicestershire

  8

  5

  12

  19

  7

  8

  Lincolnshire

  6

  8

  9

  7

  6

  5

  London, City of

  5

  7

  3

  I

  1

  2

  Merseyside

  35

  33

  48

  61

  89

  64

  Metropolitan

  464

  441

  419

  426

  447

  374

  Norfolk

  19

  22

  8

  15

  11

  16

  Northamptonshire

  7

  12

  14

  16

  20

  9

  Northumbria

  24

  26

  48

  45

  85

  60

  North Yorkshire

  6

  5

  12

  12

  3

  20

  Nottinghamshire

  18

  6

  7

  8

  11

  17

  South Yorkshire

  22

  17

  20

  11

  22

  25

  Staffordshire

  11

  11

  9

  12

  9

  9

  Suffolk

  13

  12

  10

  15

  13

  8

  Surrey

  17

  16

  10

  7

  14

  10

  Sussex

  16

  17

  11

  10

  20

  19

  Thames Valley

  24

  43

  49

  39

  28

  40

  Warwickshire

  11

  10

  7

  7

  21

  4

  West Mercia

  10

  12

  11

  13

  15

  12

  West Midlands

  63

  97

  87

  80

  49

  50

  West Yorkshire

  25

  21

  38

  44

  30

  36

  Wiltshire

  3

  4

  5

  0

  5

  2

  Dyfed-Powys

  9

  7

  8

  16

  13

  18

  Gwent

  5

  7

  6

  4

  8

  5

  North Wales

  9

  9

  24

  14

  10

  7

  South Wales

  5

  19

  11

  10

  13

  17

  England and Wales

  1,105

  1,160

  1,234

  1,206

  1,313

  1,193

  Mr, Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of state for the Home Department how many criminal offences involving shotsguns have been domestic incidents in each year from 1985 in each police force area.

  Mr. Jack
  For offences involving shptguns, informations about the relationship between suspect and victim is

  Year

  Police force area

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Avon and Somerset

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Bedfordshire

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cheshire

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Cleveland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cumbria

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Firearms
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many notifiable offences in which shotguns were used took place in each year(a) from 1985 and (b) in 1992 so far in each police force area.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 22 May 1992]: The information requested is set out in the table. Information for 1991 and 1992 is not yet available.

  available only for homicide offences. The number of homicide offences in which the relationship between the suspect and victim was domestic and where a shotgun was used in given in the table, each police force in England and Wales for each year between 1985 and 1990.
  413

  Year

  Police force area

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Derbyshire

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Devon and Cornwall

  0

  8

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Dorset

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  Durham

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Essex

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Gloucestershire

  0

  I

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Greater Manchester

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hampshire

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hertfordshire

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Humberside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  Kent

  0

  1

  2

  1

  1

  0

  Lancashire

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Leicestershire

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Lincolnshire

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  London, City of

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Merseyside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Metropolitan

  1

  0

  2

  1

  0

  2

  Norfolk

  4

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Northamptonshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Northumbria

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North Yorkshire

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Nottinghamshire

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South Yorkshire

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Staffordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  Suffolk

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  2

  Surrey

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Sussex

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  Thames Valley

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Warwickshire

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  West Mercia

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  West Midlands

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  1

  West Yorkshire

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Wiltshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Dyfed-Powys

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  Gwent

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  North Wales

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  South Wales

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  England and Wales

  16

  24

  15

  12

  11

  17

  Information for 1991 is not yet available.

  Notes:

  1. Offences currently recorded as homicide as at 1 September 1991.

  2. The term "Domestic" includes the following relationships between victim and suspect: son or daughter; parent; spouse, cohabitant or former spouse or cohabitant; other family; lover or former lover including spouse's lover or lover's spouse or other associate.
  414

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of the total work force in his Department are registered as disabled; what steps he is taking to encourage the employment of disabled people within his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Of the total Home Office work force some 0·4 per cent. are registered disabled persons: we have no record of the number of staff with disabilities who have chosen not to register. Specific targets have been set to increase the numbers of staff with disabilities employed in the Department. A departmental working group keeps the position under review and has taken a number of initiatives to promote policies and improve practices.

  Knife Offences
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many(a) men and (b) women, who were under the age of 21 years, have been convicted of

  Table A

  Number of offenders aged under 21 years who were found guilty of offences of possession of knives in the Metropolitan Police District1 by sex 1988–90

  Offence

  Males

  Females

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Possession of offensive weapons without lawful authority or excuse2

  765

  587

  400

  36

  17

  11

  Having article with blade or point in public place3

  23

  174

  180

  —

  6

  7

  1 Including City of London.

  2 Prevention of Crime Act 1953, Section I.

  3 Criminal Justice Act 1988, Section 139, which came into force in October 1988.

  Table B

  Number of persons prosecuted in magistrates' courts and found guilty at all courts of offences of possession of knives in England and Wales by sex 1988–90

  Offence

  Males

  Females

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Possession of offensive weapons without lawful authority or excuse1

  Prosecuted

  7,487

  6,623

  5,911

  297

  264

  250

  Found guilty

  5,572

  4,908

  4,120

  221

  189

  161

  Having article with blade or point in public place2

  Prosecuted

  145

  1,927

  2,053

  5

  90

  92

  Found guilty

  125

  1,471

  1,508

  5

  73

  69

  1 Prevention of Crime Act 1953, Section 1.

  2 Criminal Justice Act 1988, Section 139, which came into force in October 1988.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the public opinion surveys carried out by the Duchy of Lancaster since 1 November 1991.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No public opinion surveys have been carried out by the Duchy of Lancaster from 1991 to the present day.

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total sum paid out in fees by the Duchy of Lancaster's Department to management consultants in 1979–80 and in each following year up to and including 1991–92; and what is his estimate for 1992–93.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Fees paid to management consultants by the Duchy of Lancaster are as follows:
  416
  offences which involved the use of a knife at courts covering the Greater London area for each of the last three years;

  (2) how many (a) men and (b) women were charged with the use of a knife in a criminal offence at courts in England and Wales during the last three years;

  (3) how many people appearing in court in England and Wales were charged with offences which related to the use of a knife in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 22 May 1992]: Information available centrally, which is given in the tables, relates only to the number of persons prosecuted and found guilty for possession of knives under the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, section 1 and the Criminal Justice Act 1988, section 139 for the years 1988 to 1990. It is not possible to distinguish centrally whether or not knives have been used for other offences, such as wounding. Information for 1991 is not yet available.

  Period

  Amount (£)

  Consultant

  1979–80

  34,097

  Peat Marwick

  1980–81

  Nil

  1981–82

  Nil

  1982–83

  Nil

  1983–84

  Nil

  1984–85

  Nil

  1985–86

  10,524

  M.C.P.

  1986–87

  28,629

  M.C.P.

  1987–88

  4,185

  M.C.P.

  1988–89

  8,510

  M.C.P.

  1989–90

  6,729

  M.C.P.

  1990–91

  9,555

  M.C.P.

  1991–921

  8,149

  M.C.P.

  1992–932

  8,000

  M.C.P.

  1 To date.

  2 Estimate.

  Nuclear Structure Facility, Daresbury
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for what reason the decision to close the nuclear structure facility at Daresbury was taken without any scientific review.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  The decision to close the nuclear structure facility was taken by the Science and Engineering Research Council. The council is fully qualified to make such scientific decisions, looking across its programme as a whole.

  The council had before it the views of its nuclear physics board which naturally regretted the closure decision but nonetheless reported that keeping the facility in operation beyond 1993 was of lower scientific priority than other claims on the resources available.

  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster where the current nuclear physics research carried out at the nuclear structure facility at Daresbury will be carried out once the nuclear structure facility closes.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  Researchers in this field will have access to a number of facilities in Europe to continue their work, notably those at Mainz and at Legnaro and, in due course, at the Vivitron facility being built at Strasbourg.

  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many scientists, physicists and support staff will lose their jobs when the nuclear structure facility at Daresbury closes; and what the redundancy cost of the closure will be.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  The Science and Engineering Research Council has made clear its commitment to keep compulsory redundancy to the minimum consistent with an orderly run down of the facility. Some redundancies may however prove necessary. The actual number, and costs, will depend on the level of early voluntary retirement, the rate of natural wastage, both at the Daresbury laboratory and elsewhere, and the extent to which retraining and redeployment can be achieved.

  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much the Science and Engineering Research Council will save by the closure of the nuclear structure facility at Daresbury.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  The Science and Engineering Research Council estimates that, after the costs associated with the closure itself have been met, the net saving will be some £5 million a year released for other, higher priority science.

  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment he has made of the impact of the proposed closure of the nuclear structure facility at Daresbury on the facility to undertake world-leading nuclear physics research in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  The impact of a scientific decision such as this is a matter which the research councils are best placed to assess. The Office of Science and Technology will not seek to make a separate judgment.

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give the total expenditure by Duchy of Lancaster's Department on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year up to and including 1991–92; and if he will give an estimate for 1992–93.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Duchy of Lancaster advertises in some national and local newspapers as part of the administration of intesteces as required by statute. Sums spent and estimates are as follows:

  Newspaper advertising

  £

  1979–80

  13,899·34

  1980–81

  11,779·80

  1981–82

  14,305·41

  1982–83

  13,810·77

  1983–84

  14,456·67

  1984–85

  9,017·73

  1985–86

  17,633·63

  1986–87

  14,715·97

  1987–88

  11,888·66

  1988–89

  16,882·72

  1989–90

  23,222·64

  1990–91

  26,889·97

  11991–92

  25,800·00

  11992–93

  25,000·00

  1 Estimated.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what percentage of the total work force in his Department are registered as disabled; what steps he is taking to encourage the employment of disabled people within his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The proportion of registered disabled persons employed by the Cabinet Office is 1·3 per cent. The Cabinet Office is an equal opportunities employer, and continually seeks to encourage the employment of people with disabilities.

  Debt Payment
  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what policy guidelines are currently in place within his Department and the purchasing organisations for which he has responsibility in respect of the prompt payment of commercial debt, particularly as it relates to small business suppliers.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  It is the policy of my Department to pay bills promptly. The timing of payment is normally stipulated in contracts or on suppliers' invoices. Where it is not, the Department's aim is to pay within 30 days of the presentation of a valid invoice.

  To help encourage prompt payment by our contractors to their sub-contractors, a clause has been added to the Department's standard terms of contract requiring the contractors to pay their sub-contractors within the same time scale.

  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what distribution has taken place within his Department and the purchasing organisations for which he has responsibility of the Department of Employment's publication "Making the Cash Flow—a Guide to the Payment of Commercial Debt for Buyers and Small Business Suppliers".
  419
  Mr. Waldegrave
  The publication has been made available to those staff in my Department, including its executive agencies, who have a particular interest in purchasing or bill paying.

  Advertising
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give separate figures for the spending by the Duchy of Lancaster on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year up to and including 1991–92; and what is his latest estimate for 1992–93.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Duchy of Lancaster advertises in some national and local newspapers as part of the administration of intesteces as required by statute. Sums spent and estimates are as follows:

  £

  Newspaper advertising

  1979–80

  13,899·34

  1980–81

  11,779·80

  1981–82

  14,305·41

  1982–83

  13,81077

  1983–84

  14,456·67

  1984–85

  9,01773

  1985–86

  17,633·63

  1986–87

  14,715·97

  1987–88

  11,888·66

  1988–89

  16,882·72

  1989–90

  23,222·64

  1990–91

  26,889·97

  1991–921

  25,800·00

  1992–931

  25,000·00

  Television advertising

  Nil

  Radio advertising

  Nil

  Other promotional material

  Nil

  1Estimated.

  Dr. Bray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he received the advice of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils relating to the 1992 public expenditure survey; if he will publish that advice; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I received the Advisory Board for the Research Councils' advice on I May. It was offered to me in confidence and I have no plans to publish it.

  Dr. Bray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the advice received from the Advisory Board for the Research Councils relating to the 1992 public expenditure survey included a request for the publication of that advice.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Darwen Magistrates Court
  Ms. Janet Anderson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what decision has been reached about the future of Darwen magistrates court.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  As mentioned in my letter of 27 May 1992 to the hon. Member, the Lord Chancellor has 420
  carefully considered the appeal by Lancashire county council against the Lancashire magistrates courts committee's determination to close this courthouse and has found the courts committee's decision to be soundly based; he has therefore dismissed the appeal.

  Court Administration Procedures
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he has any plans to review the court administration procedures to encourage better use of both court time and police resources; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  We are taking forward a number of measures in both the Crown court and the magistrates courts aimed at better use of court and police resources. These include action to implement the recommendations of the inter-agency working group on pre-trial issues concerning the listing of cases and the communication of information between the courts and other agencies; the creation of a magistrates' courts inspectorate with a brief to promote best practice in this and other areas; and research into delays in the Crown court.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what percentage of the total work force in his department is registered as disabled; what steps he is taking to encourage the employment of disabled people within his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  At 1 June 1991 the percentage of people registered as disabled was 1·5 per cent. The figure relates only to those staff registered as disabled. There are other staff with disabilities who have chosen not to register.

  The Lord Chancellor's Department is taking steps to implement the civil service code of practice on the employment of people with disabilities. In advertising vacancies, disabled people are encouraged to apply. Application forms are available in braille and on tape. Applicants can take a short answer test if they do not possess the necessary educational qualifications. Interviews are offered to all registered disabled applicants with the necessary qualifications who pass the short answer test. Care is taken to ensure that the criteria for recruitment are defined in terms of the needs of the job and that disabled persons are not unfairly excluded. At the point of selection preference is given to a registered disabled person if otherwise the respective merits of the candidates are evenly based. A budget is available for the purchase of any equipment that might assist a disabled person to carry out a job. Recruiters and managers are given guidance on the employment of people with disabilities.

  Jurors
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department whether a person whose knowledge of the English language is limited is normally appointed to serve as a juror if his or her name comes forward by way of the random process of selection of jury; and if he will make a statement.
  421
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The summons sent to potential jurors explains that a person may apply for excusal from jury service on the grounds of an insufficient understanding of English. In addition if there is doubt that a person summoned under the Juries Act 1974 would be able to act effectively as a juror on account of an insufficient understanding of English the judge shall determine whether or not he or she should act as a juror. If the judge decides the person cannot act effectively as a juror, the summons shall be discharged.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what consultations he has held with the Law Society before issuing the recent circular to justices' clerks concerning the conditions attached to the availability of legal aid for defendants.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  None. The Law Society had an opportunity to comment on the rules governing the availability of criminal legal aid in 1989 during the passage of regulations associated with the Legal Aid Act 1988. The circular provides advice and guidance to justices' clerks on the administration of criminal legal aid regulations.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if his Department has sought any independent legal advice on the lawfulness of their recent circular to justices' clerks concerning the conditions attached to the availability of legal aid for defendants.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor's Department has access to legal advice from a variety of sources, but it is not the normal practice to reveal the source of legal advice in any particular case.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the implications for duty solicitor schemes of the recent circular from his Department to justices' clerks concerning the conditions attached to the availability of legal aid for defendants.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The circular was not concerned with the operation of the duty solicitor schemes.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what estimate was made of the additional costs incurred as a result of the introduction of his Department's recent circular to justices' clerks concerning the conditions attached to the availability of legal aid of(a) cases being adjourned and (b) defendants being remanded in custody whilst proof of income is obtained.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  None. The purpose of the circular was to provide advice and guidance on the proper application of the regulations for the grant of criminal legal aid.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Scottish Heritage
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what jurisdiction he has over the national heritage of Scotland; and how this compares with his responsibilities in other parts of the United Kingdom.
  422
  Mr. Key
  The responsibilities of the Secretary of State for National Heritage in relation to heritage matters in Scotland broadly follow the territorial division of responsibilities which existed prior to the creation of the Department of National Heritage. Responsibilities of the Secretary of State which extend to Scotland are; sponsorship of the National Heritage Memorial Fund; the work of the Advisory Committee on Historic Wreck Sites; the Great Britain Sports Council and the international promotion of British Sport; British Screen Finance; European Co-production Fund; Audio Visual Eureka; Film Certification; the United Kingdom Film Commission; the MEDIA programme; the National Film and Television School; the British Film Institute; the work of the Reviewing Committee on the Export Works of Art; broadcasting; the British Library and the performing arts. He consults the Secretary of State for Scotland on these matters where appropriate.

  Responsibility for national museums and galleries, public libraries, acceptance of works of art in lieu of tax, the Government indemnity scheme and tourism in Scotland lies with the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  The Secretary of State's responsibilities in Scotland do not extend to the acceptance of property or works of art in satisfaction of tax or the policy and funding of film culture as they do in Wales; otherwise his responsibilities in Wales and Scotland are broadly similar. In Northern Ireland, he does not have responsibility for the performing arts, museums and galleries, libraries, tourism, heritage matters or sport and recreation.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what percentage of the total work force in his Department is registered as disabled; what steps he is taking to encourage the employment of disabled people within his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  This information is not held centrally and at this time could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The Department of National Heritage will be committed to the implementation of the code of practice on the employment of people with disabilities in the civil service.

  Welsh Heritage
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement outlining what responsibilities his Department will have regarding heritage issues in Wales.

  Mr. Key
  The responsibilities of the Secretary of State for National Heritage in relation to Wales broadly follow the territorial division of responsibilities which existed prior to the creation of the Department of National Heritage. Responsibilities of the Secretary of State which extend to Wales include: sponsorship of the National Heritage Memorial Fund; acceptance of property in satisfaction of tax; the work of the Advisory Committee on Historic Wreck Sites; the GB Sports Council and the international promotion of British Sport; British Screen Finance; European Co-production Fund; Audio Visual Eureka; Film Certification; the UK Film Commission; the MEDIA Programme; the National Film and Television School; the Crafts Council; the British Film Institute; policy and funding for film culture; the business sponsorship incentive scheme; acceptance of works of art
  423
  in lieu of tax; the work of the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art; broadcasting; the performing arts; the British Library and the Public Lending Right. He consults the Secretary of State for Wales on these matters where appropriate.

  Responsibility for national museums and galleries, public libraries, the Government indemnity scheme and tourism in Wales lies with the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Debt Payment
  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what distribution has taken place within his Department and the purchasing organisations for which he has responsibility of the Department of Employment's publication "Making the Cash Flow—A Guide to the Payment of Commercial Debt for Buyers and Small Business Suppliers".

  Mr. Mellor
  "Making the Cash Flow" was prepared as guidance for the private sector and there was therefore no formal distribution to other Government Departments. Guidelines on purchasing by Government Departments already exist and are distributed by Her Majesty's Treasury.

  The Department of Employment has been undertaking a survey of prompt payment record of Government Departments during the financial year 1991–92 and the results of this exercise will be published in the near future by the Department of Trade and Industry, which now has responsibility for small firms issues, including late payment. After studying these results the Department will consider what further measures, if any, may be necessary to encourage prompt payment by the public sector.

  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what policy guidelines are currently in place within his Department and the purchasing organisations for which he has responsibility in respect of the prompt payment of commercial debt, particularly as it relates to small business suppliers.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Department of National Heritage, and its executive agency and non-departmental public bodies are required to pay their bills promptly. The timing of payments should normally be stipulated in contracts. Where there is no contractual provision or other understanding, reimbursement should be made within 30 days of receipt of goods/services or the presentation of a valid invoice or similar demand for payment, whichever is the later.

  To help encourage prompt payment of bills by Government contractors to their subcontractors all Government contracts are to contain a clause requiring the supplier or contractor to pay its subcontractors promptly. In the absence of normal practice to the contrary for that type of contract or other special circumstances, the commitment should be to pay the subcontractor within 30 days of receipt of a valid invoice or similar demand for payment as defined by the contract.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Radioactive Seaweed, Cumbria
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the discovery of radioactive seaweed on the beaches of west Cumbria near Sellafield and its possible repercussions on the purity of laver bread eaten in south Wales.

  Mr. Curry
  In the course of the environmental monitoring programme which the Government require British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) to undertake, material of weed-like appearance, known as hydroids, contaminated with very low levels of radioactivity, has been found on beaches in the Sellafield area. Hydroids are, in fact, inedible animal material similar to coral. We should not expect the findings to have any implication for the food chain, and this is confirmed by recent results from the Ministry's own monitoring programme.

  The risk associated with direct exposure of the skin to this material is extremely low. Nevertheless, we require BNFL to clear contaminated material from beaches. The circumstances behind the incident are being investigated and we shall ensure that steps are taken to avoid a recurrence.

  Sell-by Dates
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of people prosecuted and convicted for selling food after the date shown in a use-by date relating to it in each year since 1984.

  Mr. Soames
  This information is not available centrally.

  The enforcement of food labelling regulations, including those relating to the date marking of foods, is the responsibility of individuala local authorities.

  The requirement to apply use-by date marks was introduced on 1 January 1991. There would have been no prosecutions for the sale of food after the date shown in a use-by date before 1 January 1991.

  Bee Diseases
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what success he has had in action against the varroa mite and related bee disease.

  Mr. Curry
  Following the discovery of varroasis in the United Kingdom on 5 April controls were put in place to minimise the spread of the disease and an extensive survey of apiaries carried out to check the extent of the infestation. An infected area has been declared and movement into or out of that area is prohibited except under licence. Inspection and sampling outside the infected area revealed no evidence of the varroa mite. We are aware, however, that the mite is difficult to detect in the early stages of infestation. We are, therefore, continuing to keep the situation under close review and are prepared to amend the infected area if the disease is found outside its boundaries. The approval of veterinary medicines for the control of varroasis is being expedited.

  Sheep Dips
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what conclusions he has reached on the future use of organo-phosphorus sheep dip substances, following consultation with the Health and Safety Executive.

  Mr. Soames
  Under the European Community rules, all long-standing licensed pharmaceutical veterinary medicines, including sheep dips, are currently subject to a comprehensive review. The purpose of this review is to ensure that such products meet the most up to date standards on safety, quality and efficacy.

  The independent Veterinary Products Committee (VPC) has recently completed the initial phase of its review of sheep dips. It has concluded that, at present, there is no clear evidence that these products cause any unacceptable level of health risk to humans when used in accordance with the label instructions. Nevertheless, the VPC has noted that certain aspects of the products and conditions of use need further evaluation and the companies concerned are being asked to provide additional data. These, together with reports of suspected adverse reactions, will then be considered by the VPC. On the basis of the VPC's advice, decisions will then be taken by the licensing authority on the future authorisation of sheep dip products.

  Health and Safety Executive officials attend VPC meetings and are represented on an appraisal panel set up to consider reports of human suspected adverse reactions to sheep dips.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to satisfy himself that the use of organo-phosphorus sheep dip substances should continue to be authorised and encouraged, that the medical knowledge available to users is adequate for their protection and that the substances should continue to be excluded from control under the pesticide regulations.

  Mr. Soames
  Sheep dips are classified as veterinary medicines. Before any veterinary medicine can be placed on the market, it must first be licensed in accordance with the Medicines Act 1968. Licences are issued only after the Veterinary Products Committee (VPC) has satisfied itself that the required standards of safety, quality and efficacy have been met. The assessment of safety includes that of operators using the product.

  As part of the current review of licensed sheep dip products the VPC has recently advised that, at present, there is no clear evidence that these products cause any unacceptable level of health risk to humans when used in accordance with the label instructions. No medical knowledge is necessary to follow these instructions nor to comply with the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Regulations.

  Nevertheless, the VPC has noted a need for further evaluation of certain aspects of these products and conditions of use and the companies concerned have been asked to provide additional information. Information requested includes studies of farm operators, including blood tests and details of protective clothing worn as well as studies to show which areas of the bodies of operators are most exposed. This further data will be considered by the VPC on whose advice decisions on the future authorisation of sheep dip products will be made.
  426
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the regulations governing dipping for sheep scab to protect the health of those undertaking this task.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have been asked to reply.

  All sheep dipping operations are subject to the general requirements of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (HSW Act) and to the more specific requirements of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988. These regulations apply to employers and the self-employed. They require assessment of health risks from chemicals, prevention or control of exposure and, where necessary, health surveillance and exposure monitoring. If the regulations are complied with, the health of those exposed during dipping should not be put at risk.

  Employers and operators are responsible for complying with the HSW Act and the regulations. They are vigorously enforced by inspectors of the Health and Safety Executive.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the public opinion surveys carried out by his Department since 1 November 1991.

  Mr. Curry
  Public opinion surveys carried out by my Department since 1 November 1991 are as follows:

  "Foodsense" information campaign—evaluation research.

  "Foodsense" new booklets—evaluation research.

  "Joint Imports and Rabies Control"—awareness assessment research.

  1992 touring exhibition programme—evaluation research.

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total sum paid out in fees by his Department to management consultants in 1979–80 and in each following year up to and including 1991–92; and what is his estimate for 1992–93.

  Mr. Curry
  The annual costs of fees paid by the Department (excluding agencies) to management consultants, excluding computer consultants, since 1984–85 are set out in the table. Data for earlier years can only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Under decentralised budgeting arrangements in MAFF, there is no central provision for such consultancies in 1992–93. Any which are commissioned will have to be funded from the general running cost allocated to the units concerned. Decisions will therefore he taken as necessary during the year.

  Financial year

  Expenditure (£)

  1984–85

  27,110

  1985–86

  174,724

  1986–87

  135,279

  1987–88

  44,015

  1988–89

  162,114

  1989–90

  143,150

  1990–91

  129,817

  1991–92

  441,351

  Farmed Fish
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any proposals for the introduction of a welfare code in respect of farmed fish; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  Welfare standards for farmed fish are expected to be developed in the Council of Europe. We will participate constructively in these negotiations.

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the total expenditure by his Department on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year up to and including 1991–92; and if he will give an estimate for 1992–93.

  Mr. Curry
  The information required for the financial years 1979–80 to 1983–84 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The figures for subsequent years are as follows:

  £million

  1984–85

  3.2

  1985–86

  3·5

  1986–87

  3·0

  1987–88

  0·6

  1988–89

  0·8

  1989–90

  1·1

  1990–91

  0·5

  1991–92

  0·6

  1992–93

  10·6

  1Forecast.

  Figures for the years 1984–85 to 1986–87 refer to the total cost of press services and paid publicity which could be separated to show expenditure on press services only at disproportionate cost. Figures for 1987–88 to 1992–93 relate to press services alone.

  Bio-fuels
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to promote further research into the production and viability of bio-fuels as an alternative agricultural product; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The Government conduct some research into potential biofuel crops, the scale of which is kept under review. However, whether biofuels are produced and marketed will ultimately depend on the economics. At present biofuels such as biodiesel cost about three times as much to produce as fuels from conventional sources.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much money was granted to farmers in England and Wales through the ESA scheme in 1990–91.

  Mr. Curry
  The total amount paid to farmers under the ESA scheme in England and Wales during 1990–91 was £8,341,000.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of the total work force in his Department is registered as disabled; what 428
  steps he is taking to encourage the employment of disabled people within his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The Department employs 141·5 (1·4 per cent.) staff who are registered as disabled, counting part-timers as half units. These figures do not include staff with disabilities who have chosen not to register.

  The Department is fully committed to the policies and good employment practices set out in the code of practice on the employment of people with disabilities in the civil service. Officials are making every effort to ensure that both policies and practices are implemented effectively and sensitively, in order to increase access for people with disabilities to the full range of recruitment and career development opportunities available, irrespective of whether they have chosen to register. The Department also participates in schemes designed to increase opportunities for the employment and retention of people with disabilities such as the sheltered placement scheme.

  Farm Diversification
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much money was granted to farmers in England and Wales through the farm diversification scheme in 1990–91; and if he will give a breakdown of this expenditure between the various activities eligible for grants.

  Mr. Soames
  A total of £2,765,691 was paid in grants under the farm diversification grant scheme in England and Wales in 1990–91. A breakdown of these figures by the various eligible enterprises is set out in the table.

  Grant paid to farmers in England and Wales by eligible enterprise

  1990–91

  Enterprise type

  Grant paid £

  Manufacture of craft items

  20,595

  Food processing

  237,288

  Timber processing

  28,482

  Non-food agricultural produce

  76,110

  Repair of agricultural machinery

  5,635

  Farm shops

  197,264

  Pick your own sales

  9,530

  Tourist accommodation

  1,376,741

  Catering

  83,629

  Recreation and education

  346,977

  Horse enterprises

  184,487

  Letting of land or buildings for any of the above

  89,606

  Sub-total

  2,656,344

  Feasibility and marketing grants

  109,347

  Total

  2,765,691

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he intends to use a different health mark for meat produced from low-throughput abattoirs and those operating under temporary structural derogations.

  Mr. Soames
  Meat fit for human consumption produced in low throughput abattoirs and abattoirs operating under temporary structural derogations will be given the national health mark.

  Debt Payment
  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what distribution has taken place within his Department and the purchasing organisations for which he has responsibility of the Department of Employment's publication "Making the Cash Flow—a Guide to the Payment of Commercial Debt for Buyers and Small Business Suppliers".

  Mr. Curry
  "Making the Cash Flow" was prepared as guidance for the private sector and there was therefore no formal distribution to other Government Departments. Guidelines on purchasing by Government Departments already exist and are distributed by Her Majesty's Treasury.

  The Department of Employment has been undertaking a survey of prompt payment record of Government Departments during the financial year 1991–92 and the results of this exercise will be published in the near future by the Department of Trade and Industry, which now has responsibility for small firms issues, including late payment. After studying these results the Department will consider what further measures, if any, may be necessary to encourage prompt payment by the public sector.

  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what policy guidelines are currently in place within his Department and the purchasing organisations for which he has responsibility in respect of the prompt payment of commercial debt, particularly as it relates to small business suppliers.

  Mr. Curry
  Government Departments, including their executive agencies, are required to pay their bills promptly. The timing of payment should normally be stipulated in Government contracts. Where there is no contractual provision or other understanding, departments should pay within 30 days of receipt of goods/services or the presentation of a valid invoice or similar demand for payment, whichever is the later.

  To help encourage prompt payment of bills by Government contractors to their subcontractors all Government contracts are to contain a clause requiring the supplier or contractor to pay its subcontractors promptly. In the absence of normal practice to the contrary for that type of contract or other special circumstances, the commitment should be to pay the subcontractor within 30 days of receipt of a valid invoice or similar demand for payment as defined by the contract.

  Pig Slurry
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what domestic or EC proposals he expects to be made to make the disposal of all pig slurry subject to compulsory processing through registered processing plants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  I know of no such proposals.

  Flora and Fauna
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals on the protection of flora and fauna have been put forward by his Department for inclusion in the United Kingdom submissions for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Brazil in June.
  430
  Mr. Curry
  Protection of flora and fauna is an important feature of the recently completed biodiversity convention and the agenda 21 proposals which will be before the conference. The lead on this is taken by the Department of the Environment, but our officials have been active in helping to achieve constructive proposals.

  Veal Crates
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many calves have been exported from Britain to be reared in veal crates in EC countries since veal crate farming was banned in Britain.

  Mr. Soames
  During the period 1 January 1990 to 2 May 1992, a total of 839,820 calves intended for further fattening were exported from Great Britain to other EC countries. It is not possible to determine what proportion were for rearing in veal crates.

  Advertising
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give separate figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year up to and including 1991–92; and what is his latest estimate for 1992–93.

  Mr. Curry
  Expenditure by the Department in the financial year 1982–83 and each subsequent year was as follows:

  (a) TV £

  (b) Radio £

  (c) Press advertising £

  (d) Other publicity material £

  1982–83

  nil

  nil

  3,000

  n/a

  1983–84

  nil

  nil

  27,000

  n/a

  1984–85

  nil

  nil

  26,000

  575,000

  1985–86

  nil

  nil

  29,000

  656,000

  1986–87

  nil

  nil

  54,000

  825,000

  1987–88

  nil

  nil

  12,000

  693,000

  1988–89

  nil

  nil

  380,000

  1,004,000

  1989–90

  nil

  nil

  116,000

  2,373,000

  1990–91

  nil

  nil

  53,000

  2,379,000

  1991–92

  159,000

  nil

  103,000

  4,135,000

  11992–93

  500,000

  nil

  203,774

  3,783,226

  1 Forecast.

  Figures for publicity advertising prior to 1982–83 are not available as the information for those years includes recruitment and other types of advertising. Information is not readily available to distinguish between expenditure on advertising in newspapers and that in the press generally. Separate figures for expenditure on other publicity material prior to 1984–85 are available only at disproportionate cost.

  Vitamin Pills
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about EC proposals to reclassify vitamin pills from food supplements to medicines available on doctor's prescriptions only.

  Mr. Soames
  The question of establishing acceptable upper levels for vitamins and minerals as a possible basis
  431
  for future legislation is under consideration by the EC Scientific Committee for Food. We do not expect the Commission to make proposals on possible controls on vitamins or mineral pills until that process is complete.

  Alcoholic Drinks
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what monitoring his Department carries out of the alcoholic strength of spirits on sale in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Curry
  The monitoring of the alcoholic strength of spirits at retail level is the responsibility of local food authorities, which undertake routine monitoring of alcoholic drinks.

WALES

  Ancient Woodlands
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will make a statement about changes affecting the area of ancient semi-natural woodland since 1962;

  (2) if he will make it part of his planning policy to prevent any further loss of ancient semi-natural woodland.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment today.

  Rural Initiative
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made with the rural initiative launched by the Welsh Office; if he will detail specific changes of policy and specific additional resources associated with this initiative; and what is his future plan of action for taking this initiative forward.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Secretary of State announced the launch of the rural initiative in February 1991, when he confirmed a £20 million increase in resources to tackle the problems of rural Wales. Around 75 per cent. of that sum was targeted on additional housing provision, assistance for local authority projects, and higher spending by the Welsh Development Agency. The balance of £5 million was made available for capital projects put forward by authorities which were likely to be of most benefit to the development of rural communities.

  Subsequently, my right hon. Friend and I undertook extensive consultations with local authorities, the various agencies and other representative bodies, to seek their views on a way forward for rural Wales in the 1990s. We were very much encouraged by the unanimity of support for the initiative, and published in December 1991 "The Rural Initiative—putting the heart into rural Wales", the document which set out our objectives and policies for rural Wales.

  My right hon. Friend also announced at the same time a fresh series of measures to consolidate and take forward rural programmes across the economic, social and environmental fields. In addition to already announced extra funds for the Development Board for Rural Wales and the national parks, totalling over £3 million, a further £29 million has thus been made available for capital
  432
  projects, rural housing provision, and extra resources for the WDA, the Countryside Council for Wales arid the Wales tourist board.

  Turning specifically to the capital grants scheme, the total allocation for 1992–93 is £6 million, a 20 per cent. increase on the first year, when 265 applications were submitted by authorities and 36 approved for funding. For the current year, 308 applications were received and successful projects put forward by west Wales authorities have been announced. We hope shortly to be in a position to confirm successful applications for the rest of Wales for the current year.

  I am writing to the hon. Gentleman to provide fuller details of the policies and additional resources associated with this initiative.

  With the introduction of these measures, I believe we now have a very powerful range of organisations and resources to press ahead vigorously with development of the economic, social and environmental fabric of rural Wales, and to secure for it the long-term prosperity which is our common objective. Our policies for rural areas will continue to be reviewed in response to identified demands, as of course they are for the whole of Wales.

  Debt Payment
  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what distribution has taken place within his Department and the purchasing organisations for which he has responsibility of the Department of Employment's publication "Making the Cash Flow—a Guide to the Payment of Commercial Debt for Buyers and Small Business Suppliers".

  Mr. David Hunt
  "Making the Cash Flow" was prepared as guidance for the private sector and there was therefore no formal distribution to other Government Departments. Guidelines on purchasing by Government Departments already exist and are distributed by HM Treasury.

  The Department of Employment has been undertaking a survey of prompt payment record of Government Departments during the financial year 1991–92 and the results of this exercise will be published in the near future by the Department of Trade and Industry, which now has responsibility for small firms issues, including late payment. After studying these results, the Department will consider what further measures, if any, may be necessary to encourage prompt payment by the public sector.

  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what policy guidelines are currently in place within his Department and the purchasing organisations for which he has responsibility in respect of the prompt payment of commercial debt, particularly as it relates to small business suppliers.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Government Departments, including their executive agencies, are required to pay their bills promptly. The timing of payment should normally be stipulated in Government contracts. Where there is no contractual provision or other understanding, Departments should pay within 30 days of receipt of goods/services or the presentation of a valid invoice or similar demand for payment, whichever is the later.

  Dentists
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what representations he has received on the state of morale among national health service dentists in Wales; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what representations he has received from national health service dentists in Wales concerning a new fee structure; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have received a number of letters from general dental practitioners concerning the general dental service. The proposed reduction in fees which was announced in February has been suspended, and discussions are taking place between health departments and the dental professions' representatives to review the level of payments in 1991–92. The results of these discussions are to be announced as soon as possible. A fundamental review of the system for dental remuneration is also being jointly undertaken with the profession.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many national health service dentists there are in Wales;

  (2) how many dentists practise in the county of Clwyd.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The requested information is given in the table.

  Wales

  Clwyd

  General Dental Practitioners1

  Unrestricted principals

  815

  109

  Assistants

  9

  —

  Vocational trainees

  29

  7

  Hospital Dental Staff2

  119

  7

  Community Dental Staff2

  121

  15

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  General Dental Practitioners1

  Unrestricted principals

  769

  781

  799

  809

  797

  815

  Assistants

  11

  17

  28

  28

  8

  9

  Vocational trainees

  3n.a.

  3n.a.

  3n.a.

  3n.a.

  327

  329

  Hospital dental staff2

  112

  100

  112

  119

  3n.a.

  3n.a.

  Community dental staff2

  127

  127

  119

  121

  3n.a.

  3n.a.

  1 As at 30 September except for 1992 which are Provisional figures as at 31 March.

  2 All grades of permanent staff (excluding clinical assistants) in post as at 30 September 1990.

  3 Means not available.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people have received dental treatment in Wales in each of the last five years.

  Courses of dental treatment (thousands)

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  General dental service:

  Adults

  1,135·75

  1,167·0

  1,266·6

  1,197·1

  1,189·9

  Children

  623·4

  621·3

  634·7

  620·6

  1n/a

  Community Dental Service

  75·8

  73·3

  66·2

  60·6

  54·3

  Hospital Dental Service New Out·patients

  38·3

  40·5

  42·3

  44·4

  47·1

  1 The number of courses of treatment for children is no longer available as dentists are now paid on a per capita basis. However at 31 March 1992 there were 361,498 children registered with a dentist in Wales which represents 55 per cent. of the population of under-18s.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many dental practices have gone bankrupt in Wales over the last five years; and if he will make a statement.
  434

  1 Provisional figures as at 31 March 1992.

  2 All grades of permanent staff (excluding clinical assistants) in post as at 30 September 1990.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many national health service dentists in Wales have notified him of their intention to enter private practice; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  None. Dentists who wish to cease providing NHS treatment are required to give notice to either the family health services authority with which they are in contract or, in the case of hospital or community dentists, their employing authority.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what meetings he has had with the leaders of national health service dentists in Wales concerning fee structures.

  Mr. David Hunt
  NHS dentists in Wales are represented in negotiations which are conducted with health departments, including the Welsh Office, at United Kingdom level. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has agreed to meet elected representatives of the profession in Wales when the outcome of the current negotiations is known.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many national health service dentists have left the service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  This information is not available but the table gives the number of dentists in Wales for each of the last five available years:

  Mr. David Hunt
  This information is not available, but the total number of courses of dental treatment is given in the table:

  Mr. David Hunt
  Statistics relating to bankruptcies are collected by the Department of Trade and Industry and published by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce. The detailed information requested is not
  435
  available from this source. Figures for Wales are combined with those for England and dental practices are not identified separately.

  Advertising
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give separate figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year up to and including 1991–92; and what is his latest estimate for 1992–93.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The available information is as follows:

  Welsh Office publicity spend

  £000

  Year

  Radio

  TV

  1Joint press and TV

  Press

  Other

  1979–80

  Nil

  —

  61

  —

  24

  1980–81

  Nil

  —

  62

  —

  22

  1981–82

  Nil

  —

  100

  —

  44

  1982–83

  Nil

  —

  99

  —

  28

  1983–84

  Nil

  —

  108

  —

  34

  1984–85

  Nil

  —

  66

  —

  100

  1985–86

  Nil

  Nil

  —

  31

  92

  1986–87

  Nil

  27

  —

  49

  331

  1987–88

  Nil

  39

  —

  191

  615

  1988–89

  Nil

  64

  —

  112

  1,105

  1989–90

  Nil

  57

  —

  354

  1,758

  1990–91

  Nil

  17

  —

  251

  1,161

  1991–92

  2Nil

  4

  —

  221

  1,732

  1 Television and Press advertising for the years 1979–85 cannot be readily separated.

  2 Provisional outturn.

  Publicity expenditure in 1992–93 is expected to be about £2 million. It is not possible to provide a breakdown of this under each heading because in many cases decisions about the extent to which different media will be used are taken as projects develop.

  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what weekly payment is made by training and enterprise councils in Wales to participants in the enterprise allowance scheme.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The TECs have considerable discretion to respond to local needs in operating the enterprise allowance scheme and the weekly payments may be in the range of £20 to £90 for duration from 66 weeks to 26 weeks.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Fluoride
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress that has been made in artificially increasing the fluoride content of the water supply during the most recent 12-month period for which information is available.

  Mr. Hanley
  No water fluoridation schemes have been implemented in the past 12 months. Following approval in 436
  principle by the Department of Health and Social Services, public consultation has taken place on the fluoridation of Dunore Point water scheme. Confirmation of the approval, and approval in principle to the fluoridation of a further scheme at Silent Valley, should be given shortly.

  BSE
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the trend of evidence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in livestock.

  Mr. Hanley
  The incidence of BSE in Northern Ireland is very low. Up to 21 May 1992 only 414 cases have been confirmed in a herd of 1·5 million cattle. The incidence of the disease is expected to increase for at least a further year when it is hoped that the ban on feeding ruminant-derived protein should begin to show visible results.

  Weekly Newspapers
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his reply of 18 May,Official Report, column 37, which printing houses in Northern Ireland were directed to the attention of the local enterprise development unit in connection with the grant application by The Cross Examiner, before LEDU approved the grant of £16,000.

  Mr. Atkins
  The grant application contained financial projections based on a price quoted by Ronan Press.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the public opinion surveys carried out by his Department since 1 November 1991.

  Mr. Mates
  The following public opinion surveys have been carried out since 1 November 1991:

  Northern Ireland Continuous Household Survey

  Household Survey on Ownership of Smoke Detectors

  Road Safety Advertising Recall

  Road Safety Monitor

  Rate Collection Agency—opinion survey in respect of service to the public

  Lower Ormeau Training Needs Survey

  Lower Duncairn Residents and Businesses Survey

  Belfast Residents' Survey

  Training & Employment Agency Customer Attitude Survey

  Social Security Agency—survey of customer opinion of the services provided.

  Ards Hospital
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many patients are presently in Boyd house at the Ards hospital; what capacity is unused at present; and if he will make a statement on the future of Boyd house.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are 37 patients in Boyd house, and 15 beds are presently unoccupied. The organisation of services at local level is a matter for health and social services boards. The Eastern board is currently reviewing its acute hospital services and intends to issue a public consultation document within the next three to four weeks. The outcome of this review will have a bearing on the future role of the Ards hospital in the provision of services to elderly people.

  Agricultural Colleges
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many students are attending each of the agricultural colleges in the current year; and what were the equivalent figures five years ago.

  Full-time courses

  Part-time courses

  Short courses

  1 2All courses

  Enniskillen College of Agriculture

  1986–87

  42

  19

  1389

  450

  1991–92

  40

  54

  2658

  752

  Greenmount College of Agriculture and Horticulture

  1986–87

  230

  55

  1781

  1,066

  1991–92

  247

  194

  22,089

  2,530

  Loughry College of Agriculture and Food Technology

  1986–87

  199

  37

  11,414

  1,650

  1991–92

  270

  219

  23,015

  3,504

  All colleges

  1986–87

  471

  111

  12,584

  3,166

  1991–92

  557

  467

  25,762

  6,786

  1 1987 calendar year.

  2 Provisional.

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give the total expenditure by his Department on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year up to and including 1991–92; and if he will give an estimate for 1992–93.

  Mr. Mates
  The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  Expenditure (£)

  1979–80

  281,641

  1980–81

  344,596

  1981–82

  393,239

  1982–83

  519,912

  1983–84

  482,188

  1984–85

  528,666

  1985–86

  701,685

  1986–87

  684,727

  1987–88

  783,771

  1988–89

  3,622,972

  1989–90

  4,226,581

  1990–91

  5,699,510

  1991–92

  5,701,719

  1992–93

  16,048,241

  1 Budget.

  Airport Privatisation
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will place in the Library the Hambros Bank Ltd report on the privatisation of Northern Ireland airports commissioned by his Department.

  Mr. Atkins
  I am unable to do so for a number of reasons. The Hambros report is confidential to the Government and any disclosure of the facts or opinions contained in the report may be commercially damaging to Northern Ireland Airports Limited and may adversely affect the terms upon which privatisation can be achieved. The report also contains information of a security sensitive nature.
  438
  Mr. Hanley
  The total number of students and trainees enrolled on full-time, part-time and short, in-service training courses in the 1986–87 and 1991–92 academic years was as follows:

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of the total work force in his Department are registered as disabled; what steps he is taking to encourage the employment of disabled people within his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mates
  At 22 May 1992 there were 1,272 staff in the Northern Ireland civil service—4·3 per cent. of the service —who reported themselves as having a disability. Of these 443–1·5 per cent. of the service—were, or had been, registered as disabled. In addition, 45 registered disabled people were working in the Northern Ireland civil service under the sheltered placement scheme. No-one currently in the small home civil service staff group in the Northern Ireland Office is registered disabled.

  As equal opportunities employers the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland civil service—NICS—encourage people with disabilities to apply for appointment. This is emphasised in all recruitment campaigns and advertising. Qualifications are waived for registered disabled persons for all posts in the NICS which include an aptitude test as part of the selection procedure. Every effort is made to enable people with disabilities to present themselves to best advantage and practical arrangements are made where required, for example, test papers in Braille or enlarged print, use of interpreters and so on. Where the merits of candidates are evenly balanced at interview, preference is given to a registered disabled person. Recruiting officers in the Northern Ireland Office receive disability awareness training, and all disabled applicants who meet the criteria are automatically invited for interview.

  There is a comprehensive code of practice, "The Employment of Disabled People in the Northern Ireland Civil Service", a copy of which is included in the third report of the service's equal opportunities unit published in October 1989, and is available in the Library.

  Debt Payment
  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what policy guidelines are currently in place within his Department and the purchasing
  439
  organisations for which he has responsibility in respect of the prompt payment of commercial debt, particularly as it relates to small business suppliers.

  Mr. Mates
  The director of the Government Purchasing Service for Northern Ireland, formerly the central unit on purchasing (Northern Ireland), issued a directive on payments policy to all purchasing staff across the Northern Ireland civil service and related non-departmental public bodies on 28 December 1989. This stated that all public sector buying organisations should implement a declared commercially acceptable payment policy. The recommended policy was to have quick payment where prompt payment discount was offered and to pay after a stated interval of between 30 and 60 days without a discount.

  Reviews of payment performance since that date have shown that the payment of bills is no longer an identifiable problem for public sector suppliers in Northern Ireland.

  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what distribution has taken place within his Department and the purchasing organisations for which he has responsibility of the Department of Employment's publication "Making the Cash Flow—A Guide to the Payment of Commercial Debt for Buyers and Small Business Suppliers".

  Mr. Atkins
  The publication has been circulated to the Department of Economic Development and to the local enterprise development unit, the organisation responsible for the promotion and development of small firms within Northern Ireland. The document is available at LEDU's headquarters and in each of its seven regional offices.

  Advertising
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give separate figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year up to and including 1991–92; and what is his latest estimate for 1992–93.

  Mr. Mates
  The information could be obtained in the form requested only at disproportionate cost. The total figures for spending on all advertising and other promotional material are, however, set out in the table:

  £

  1979–80

  468,972

  1980–81

  487,393

  1981–82

  613,464

  1982–83

  1,550,896

  1983–84

  2,853,451

  1984–85

  2,699,659

  1985–86

  3,916,824

  1986–87

  3,787,628

  1987–88

  4,028,259

  1988–89

  4,606,655

  1989–90

  5,227,759

  1990–91

  5,886,796

  1991–92

  7,387,167

  1992–93

  17,988,100

  1 Budget

  Cohesion Fund
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what funding has been allocated to the cohesion fund within the context of the agreement between the European Community and EFTA countries; when it becomes operational; how many applications for support from the cohesion fund have been submitted from Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mates
  The EC/EFTA treaty which was signed on 2 May and comes into force on 1 January 1993 will bring the EFTA countries into the Communities' single internal market. The treaty includes provision for a financial mechanism aimed to assist certain member states and less favoured regions to cope with the competitive pressures arising from the agreement and to contribute to the reduction of regional, social and economic disparity. The island of Ireland including Northern Ireland will benefit from this assistance.

  Two types of financial assistance will be available under this mechanism in the form of interest rebates on loans and direct grants. The total volume of loans for which interest rebate will be available will be 1,500 million ecu. The total amount of grant available will be 500 million ecu.

  The assistance will be disbursed through the European investment bank and particular emphasis will be placed on the environment, transport, education and training. The allocation of the assistance between member states will be decided by the Community.

  When financial allocations are known suitable projects will be submitted.

  Teachers (Early Retirement)
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what criteria are used in determining whether teachers in the controlled sector taking early retirement can receive added years or other enhancement of pension;

  (2) what criteria are used in determining whether teachers in the maintained sector taking early retirement can receive added years or other enhancement of pension; by whom the decision is taken; and what report of such decisions is made to the Department of Education for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  In the case of controlled and maintained schools with fully delegated budgets, decisions on pension enhancement are taken by boards of governors; in the case of special schools and schools with partially delegated budgets, decisions are taken by the education and library boards in respect of the controlled sector, by the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools—CCMS—in respect of Catholic maintained schools and by the boards of governors of non-Catholic maintained schools.

  In taking these decisions, boards of governors, education and library boards and the CCMS take account of guidance issued by the Department of Education for Northern Ireland, which recommends maximum levels of compensation related to years of service and which contains points to be considered when awarding pensions and lump sum enhancements. These include: whether enhancement is necessary to achieve the premature retirement; whether the full level of enhancement provided for is justified; the circumstances leading to the teacher becoming a candidate for premature retirement; the teacher's effectiveness; factors relating to the school's organisation and management.
  441
  Enhancement decisions also take account of guidance issued by the relevant education and library board and the CCMS and of the total cash made available by my Department to the board for the premature retirement compensation scheme.

  The various deciding authorities notify the Department of Education of the name of the teacher, the date on which premature retirement is to take effect, and the level of enhancement.

  Maghaberry Prison
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on events in the female wing of Maghaberry prison on 2 March.

  Mr. Mates
  Following the receipt of information that a serious breach of security may have occurred, it was necessary to initiate a full search of Mourne house and its inmates.

  Difficulties arose on 2 March because a number of prisoners decided to resist the legitimate attempts of staff to undertake the search in accordance with the prescribed procedures for such searches. Because of their resistance it was necessary, physically, to restrain them in order to facilitate the search. This was achieved without serious injury to the prisoners. Two members of the board of visitors and a prison chaplain were present throughout the search.

  Full searching is an essential component of prison security policy which is practised not only in the United Kingdom but in the Republic of Ireland, in western European countries and in the USA.

  Rural Development
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the members of the Rural Development Council; and what criteria were employed to select the most deprived rural areas for the purposes of the rural development initiative.

  Mr. Hanley
  The membership of the Northern Ireland Rural Development Council is as follows:

  Jimmy Armstrong

  Executive Chairman

  Pat Jess

  Open University Lecturer

  John Kelly

  Lending Manager, Allied Irish Bank

  Aideen McGinley

  Member of Community Development Review Group

  Patsy McShane

  Chief Executive, Workspace (Draperstown) Ltd.

  Malcolm Woods

  Chief Executive, Leckpatrick Holdings Ltd.

  Robert Hanna

  Deputy Chairman, Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside (CNCC)

  Mark Conway

  Chairman, Rural Community Network

  John Donaghy

  Chairman, Omagh Forum for Community Associations

  Paul McAllister

  Chairman, Glens of Antrim Rural and Community Development Association

  442
  John McGrady

  Member of Rural Community Network

  John Fee

  Newry and Mourne District Council

  Warren Loane

  Fermanagh District Council

  Malachy McSparran

  Moyle District Council

  Hugh Linehan

  Vice President, Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU)

  Wilfred Mitchell

  Chairman, Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers' Association (NIAPA)

  The most deprived rural areas of Northern Ireland—West Fermanagh, the Sperrins, the western shore of Lough Neagh, South Armagh/South Down and the glens of Antrim/Rathlin—were identified by the interdepartmental committee on rural development—IDCRD—after the application of combinations of standard criteria used to assess social and economic need, including geographic and social isolation, high unemployment, demographic imbalances, declining services and poor facilities. The IDCRD also established that pockets of deprivation can be isolated in most rural areas on a ward or townland basis.

EDUCATION

  Law Examinations
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will arrange for the Law Society final examination and the Bar final examination to be treated in the same way as the post graduate certificate of education in respect of eligibility for mandatory awards.

  Mr. Forman
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) on 22 May 1992 at col.265.

  Postgraduate Degrees
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will state(a) how many people were awarded undergraduate degrees by United Kingdom institutions in each year from 1974 to date, (b) how many people commenced postgraduate degree courses in each of these years and (c) how many of those commencing courses were in receipt of Government-funded postgraduate awards.

  Mr. Forman
  The number of undergraduates awarded degrees from United Kingdom higher education institutions were as follows:

  Number

  1980–81

  105,000

  1981–82

  102,000

  1982–83

  100,500

  1983–84

  116,000

  1984–85

  121,400

  1985–86

  121,200

  1986–87

  124,700

  1987–88

  127,300

  1988–89

  129,600

  443
  The number of students commencing postgraduate degree courses at higher education institutions in the United Kingdom for each of the academic years 1979–80 to 1990–91 were as follows:

  Number

  1979–80

  55,400

  1980–81

  56,000

  1981–82

  59,900

  1982–83

  57,500

  1983–84

  61,000

  1984–85

  63,600

  1985–86

  68,500

  1986–87

  73,000

  1987–88

  74,000

  1988–89

  78,900

  1989–90

  85,400

  1990–91

  98,000

  The figures for postgraduate students in receipt of Government-funded awards were as follows:

  Number

  1979–80

  10,500

  1980–81

  10,400

  1981–82

  9,300

  1982–83

  9,100

  1983–84

  9,000

  1985–86

  9,500

  1986–87

  9,300

  1987–88

  8,700

  1988–89

  8,700

  1989–90

  9,400

  Sparsholt Agricultural College
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he expects loan sanction to be given for the first stage of the expenditure by Sparsholt agricultural college, Hampshire to provide additional library and classroom facilities.

  Mr. Forth
  Hampshire education authority's bid for a supplementary credit approval for 1992–93 for major building works at Sparsholt college, including additional library and classroom facilities, is currently being considered along with bids from other authorities. Decisions on the bids will be announced shortly.

  School Buildings, Rossendale
  Ms. Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will take into account the severe weather conditions in the Rossendale Valley in future capital allocations for school buildings.

  Mr. Forth
  Capital resources for local authority maintained schools are distributed on the basis of national priority criteria. These criteria—which were agreed with local authority associations—give priority to the second and third year costs of work approved under earlier allocations, new school places needed in areas of population growth, and projects to remove surplus places. The remaining resources are then largely distributed to contribute towards the cost of all other capital work including improvement and replacement projects. Local authorities are responsible for the state of their school buildings, and for deciding expenditure levels and priorities from the resources available to them.

  For voluntary aided schools, governors are responsible for effecting repairs to school buildings and the Secretary
  444
  of State is under a duty to provide grant of 85 per cent. towards the cost of such. Applications for approval to carry out repairs are dealt with throughout the year as the need arises and are not covered by the annual capital allocations system.

  Bids for capital grant from grant-maintained schools are looked at on their individual merits in direct competition with those received from the other grant-maintained schools. Priority in making allocations is given to work required on urgent health and safety grounds.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the public opinion surveys carried out by his Department since 1 November 1991.

  Mr. Forman
  Since 1 November 1991, the Department has agreed to make a contribution from the research budget towards the family expenditure survey 1992–93.

  Nursery Education, Hampshire
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will give the relevant indicators and factors relating to nursery education giving rise to the relevant standard spending assessment for Hampshire for 1992–93; and how much Hampshire county council has budgeted for that purpose.

  Mr. Forth
  The under-five education element of Hampshire's standard spending assessment for 1992–93 is £24.83 million. The indicators used in calculating this element are resident population aged 0–4, an additional educational needs factor and a factor for additional employment costs made on a regional basis. For Hampshire the values of these indicators are 103,485, 0·40505 and 1·05248 respectively.

  It is for Hampshire county council to determine its spending priorities between and within services, including the level of its provision for nursery education.

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will give the total expenditure by his Department on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year up to and including 1991–92; and if he will give an estimate for 1992–93.

  Mr. Forman
  The expenditure figures for press and publicity by this Department for the financial years 1984–85 to 1992–93 are given in the table. Figures for 1979–80 to 1983–84 are not available on a comparable basis. The Department does not incur expenditure on public relations.

  Year

  £000

  1984–85

  788·8

  1985–86

  1,026·3

  1986–87

  1,937·8

  1987–88

  2,313·6

  1988–89

  2,336·2

  1989–90

  2,596·0

  1990–91

  2,106·5

  1991–92

  5,822·8

  11992–93

  2,950·1

  1 Estimated.

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the total sum paid out in fees by his Department to management consultants in 1979–80 and in each following year up to and including 1991–92; and what is his estimate for 1992–93.

  Mr. Forman
  The information requested is as follows:

  £ thousands

  1984–85

  140

  1985–86

  18

  1986–87

  23

  1987–88

  255

  1988–89

  165

  1989–90

  377

  1990–91

  366

  1991–92

  146O

  1992–93

  1353

  1 Estimated.

  2 Includes budgets for sport and science which transfer to other departments in 1992–93 financial year.

  Note: Information for earlier years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Debt Payment
  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what distribution has taken place within his Department and the purchasing organisations for which he has responsibility of the Department of Employment's publication "Making the Cash Flow—A Guide to the Payment of Commercial Debt for Buyers and Small Business Suppliers".

  Mr. Forman
  "Making the Cash Flow" was prepared as guidance for the private sector and there was therefore no formal distribution to other Government Departments. Guidelines on purchasing by Government Departments already exist and are distributed by Her Majesty's Treasury.

  The Department of Employment has been undertaking a survey of the prompt payment record of Government Departments during the financial year 1991–92 and the results of this exercise will be published in the near future by the Department of Trade and Industry, which now has responsibility for small firms issues, including late payment. After studying these results, that Department will consider what further measures, if any, may be necessary to encourage prompt payment by the public sector.

  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what policy guidelines are currently in place within his Department and the purchasing organisations for which he has responsibility in respect of the prompt payment of commercial debt, particularly as it relates to small business suppliers.

  Mr. Forman
  Government Departments, including their executive agencies, are required to pay their bills promptly. This Department's normal payment terms, unless others are stipulated contractually, are 30 days following receipt of a valid invoice or similar demand for payment. The Department's contracts now contain a clause requiring suppliers to pay their sub-contractors promptly.

  Advertising
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will give separate figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year up to and including 1991–92; and what is his latest estimate for 1992–93.

  Mr. Forman
  The expenditure figures for advertising and other promotional materials by this Department for the financial years 1979–80 to 1991–92 are given in the table. The 1992–93 estimated budget is £4 million. Final decisions on media in the current financial year have not been taken.

  Year

  TV £'000

  Radio £'000

  Newspapers £'000

  Other £'000

  1979–80

  —

  —

  91·6

  12·2

  1980–81

  —

  —

  8·9

  58·3

  1981–82

  —

  —

  86·9

  49·9

  1982–83

  —

  —

  6·0

  33·7

  1983–84

  —

  —

  9·6

  74·9

  1984–85

  —

  —

  18·5

  150·6

  1985–86

  —

  —

  14·8

  184·1

  1986–87

  —

  —

  532·0

  533·0

  1987–88

  —

  —

  280·0

  1,459·0

  1988–89

  —

  40·0

  475·0

  1,156·0

  1989–90

  —

  11·8

  238·0

  1,150·0

  1990–91

  1,100·0

  97·0

  1,407·0

  1,916·0

  1991–92

  800·0

  —

  2,237·9

  5,842·7

  Asthma
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what advice is given to schools concerning children who suffer from asthma in regard to the levels of pollution surrounding schools.

  Mr. Forth
  Medical paediatric advice is available to schools and to LEAs from the district health authority's community child health service. Individual children with asthma may be seen with their parents when advice may be given to the child and family, the teacher and the school with regard to the management in a particular case.

  The child's general medical practitioner who has responsibility for his or her medical care, or the hospital paediatrician in more severe cases, may also give advice not only to the child and family but to the teacher and school.

  The level of pollution in a particular area is a local matter and therefore the responsibility of the local director of public health and environmental health officer of the local authority. Those officers are available to offer or provide advice to the LEA or to individual schools through and with the community child health service.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the current indications of the number of schools facing shortages of funds due to the funding for teachers' salaries being calculated on an average rather than actual basis.

  Mr. Forth
  I have seen no evidence to suggest that many schools are facing shortage of funds as a result of the relative costs of their teachers. Local management of
  447
  schools—LMS—means that schools that attract and retain pupils receive more money, and gives governing bodies the power to decide how best to spend that money for the benefit of pupils—including how many and which teachers to employ.

  Student Loans and Awards
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he expects to lay before the House revised mandatory awards regulations and student loans regulations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forman
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education has laid the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations 1992 before Parliament today. Together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, he has also laid before Parliament the Education (Student Loans) Regulations 1992.

  The mandatory awards regulations come into force on 1 September and the loans regulations on 1 August.

  The awards regulations apply to students living in England and Wales. They incorporate the unchanged main rates of grant, uprated supplementary allowances and revised contribution scales. These were announced by my predecessor on 9 March at columns 385–87. They also incorporate some minor changes in terms and conditions.

  The loans regulations, which apply to students in Great Britain, provide for the new, higher rates of loan. They also include the 1992–93 income threshold governing the deferment of repayments. Borrowers who satisfy the Student Loans Company that their gross monthly income is £1,130 a month or less, equivalent to £13,560 a year, will be entitled to defer repayments for a year at a time.

  Technology
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to review the content of national curriculum technology; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I have agreed, in the light of the advice that I have received from the National Curriculum Council, that there is a case for a detailed review of the statutory order for technology in the national curriculum. The principal objectives of such a review will be to specify more clearly the skills and knowledge which pupils should acquire at each stage so that progression can be secured, to enhance the practical element, and to improve the manageability of the curriculum in the classroom. We are therefore asking Her Majesty's inspectors of schools to undertake an urgent review of the relevant statements of attainment and programmes of study, to allow Her Majesty's chief inspectors of schools for England and for Wales, when appointed, to report to us jointly in the autumn.

  I am determined to increase teachers' expectations of childrens' abilities. This is vital for children and for their eventual employers. The more that children are encouraged to achieve the better their employment prospects.

  The terms of reference of the review will be as follows:

  1. To review the programmes of study for attainment targets 1–4 of the Education (National Curriculum) (Attainment Targets and Programmes of Study in
  448
  Technology) Order 1990 so as to clarify what should be taught and in particular to ensure that the technical skills, knowledge and understanding of all pupils at all stages are developed through work with and in relation to construction materials and related components and systems.

  2. To revise the existing statements of attainment and related non-statutory examples to facilitate the assessment of the skills, knowledge and understanding acquired by pupils and of the quality of their work and what they produce, and in particular to

  —identify and specify the skills and knowledge which pupils should acquire at each of the key stages, and indicate where appropriate how these could be developed through a range of technological activities;

  —identify and specify the range, depth and level of teaching and learning appropriate to the skills and knowledge at each key stage, so that progression is secured;

  —in the light of the above, to propose the apportionment of an appropriate range of materials and contexts across and within the four key stages; giving particular attention to reducing the complexity and amount of work required in each key stage, and to improving the manageability of the curriculum and assessment, particularly at the primary level;

  —clarify how and when the skills, knowledge and understanding developed through other Curriculum Orders should be made use of in Technology (eg mathematics, science and art).

  3. To design a framework for short courses at key stage 4, which maintains the basic conceptual approach of the Order, but offers within it a range of choices able to meet the needs of pupils of different interests and abilities and flexible enough to permit extension into or combination with other—particularly vocationally-oriented—areas of work or study.

  On completion of the review my right hon. Friend and I will prepare our proposals for a new statutory order governing national curriculum technology, which will be subject to the full statutory process of consultation provided for in the Education Reform Act 1988. We would expect it to be possible for a revised order to be implemented in the schools in August 1994 for key stages 1, 2 and 3 (pupils up to 14) and in August 1995 for key stage 4 (14–16 year olds). In the meantime, the existing curriculum order will continue in force for key stages 1–3 and will be implemented as planned for key stage 4 in the autumn of 1993.

  The School Examinations and Assessment Council will accordingly be publishing shortly its criteria for GCSE and equivalent examination syllabuses, which will apply to courses beginning in the autumn term 1993 and 1994. These are based upon the existing order but have been designed to take account of the objectives of the review I have announced today.

  I am placing in the Library of the House the advice I have received from the National Curriculum Council and my reply.

  Higher Education Funding Council
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he will announce the membership of the Higher Education Funding Council for England; and what initial guidance he intends to give to the council.

  Mr. Patten
  I have announced today that the membership of the Higher Education Funding Council for England will be as follows:

  Sir Ron Dearing (Chairman)

  Chairman, Universities Funding Council/Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council

  Professor Colin Campell

  Vice-Chancellor, University of Nottingham

  449
  Professor Graeme Davies (Chief Executive)

  Chief Executive, Universities Funding Council/ Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council

  Professor Brian K. Follett

  Professor of Zoology, University of Bristol and Biological Secretary, The Royal Society

  Mr. Robert Gunn

  Chairman-designate of the Further Education Funding Council for England

  Professor Kay-Tee Khaw

  Professor of Clinical Gerontology, University of Cambridge

  Sir Idris Pearce

  Chairman of Higher Education Funding Council for Wales

  Sir Robert Scholey

  Chairman, British Steel

  Professor Jack Shaw

  Deputy Governor, Bank of Scotland and Chairman—designate of Scottish Higher Education Funding Council

  Miss Janet Trotter

  Director, Cheltenham and Gloucester College of Higher Education

  Professor David J. Watson

  Director, Brighton Polytechnic

  Sir David Phillips

  Chairman, Advisory Board for the Research Councils

  Dr. Rab Telfer

  Executive Chairman, BSI Standards

  Secretary of State's representative

  Mr. J. M. M. Vereker

  Deputy Secretary, Department for Education

  Alternate: Mr. C. A. Clark

  I have today sent a letter of guidance to the chairman of the council, and am placing a copy in the Library.

HEALTH

  NHS Spending
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) in each of the past five years, how much of the total spend on hospital and community health services has gone on(a) services to patients and (b) paying pensions and other payments to people no longer working for the national health service;

  (2) in each of the past five years, how many people who no longer work for the national health service have been in receipt of payments from funds allocated to the provision of hospital and community health services.

  Mr. Sackville
  Retirement pensions are funded by contributory self-financing schemes which fall outside the hospital and community health services budget. The information requested on other payments to former NHS employees is not collected centrally.

  NHS Security
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further steps she is taking to reduce the cost of crime on national health service budgets.
  450
  Mr. Sackville
  Security arrangements at health service premises, are the responsibility of local managers.

  The National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts has recently published (with financial assistance from the Department) the new edition of the "NHS Security Manual". The Department has provided copies for general managers and commended it to them as an excellent source of advice. A copy is also available in the Library.

  Earlier this year the Department commissioned a study by management consultants of security issues at an NHS hospital. The report of the study is expected within the next few weeks.

  Rural Access
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to improve access to health services in rural areas.

  Mr. Sackville
  It is the responsibility of each district health authority and family health services authority to meet the health needs of its resident population. If the hon. Member has a particular problem in mind, perhaps he will write to me.

  Low Income Scheme
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to publish the results of his Department's review of the health benefits low income scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Soon.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the total work force in his Department are registered as disabled; what steps she is taking to encourage the employment of disabled people within her Department; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  At January 1992—the latest figures available—1·9 per cent. of the total workforce was registered disabled. In addition, a number of staff have a disability but are not registered. The Department is an equal opportunity employer and observes the code of practice for the employment of people with a disability issued by the Cabinet Office. At present the majority of recruitment is being undertaken by the NHS management executive which is to relocate from London to Leeds, where the new building has been designed specifically to allow easy access for people with disabilities. A recently published brochure outlining job opportunities within the management executive encourages applications from people with disabilities. In addition all job advertisements carry the recognised disability symbol which signifies that applications are welcomed from people with a disability who are suitably qualified.

  Dental Services Payments
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish the report of the discussion groups on the level of general dental services payments.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No. The purpose of this report was to assist the joint inquiry of the health departments and the General Dental Services Committee in examining the reasons for the level of payments to dentists in 1991–92.

  Low Income Scheme
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will amend the national health service low income scheme to provide that if a claim is made within three months of a charge being incurred for the cost of spectacles, a refund will be paid, on the same terms as for prescription charges, dental charges and eye tests; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  From 1 June 1992 the time limit for claiming a refund under the NHS low income scheme was extended to three months in respect of charges for prescriptions, dental treatment, wigs and fabric supports, spectacles prescribed by the hospital eye service, and fares to hospital for NHS treatment. The arrangements for other optical refunds are being considered as part of the review of administration of the NHS low income scheme.

  Disability
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received in the past 12 months about the implementation of the remaining sections of the Disabled Persons (Representation, Consultation and Services) Act 1986; what plans she has to implement these sections; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  We have received 73 letters concerning our decision not to implement sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Disabled Persons Act, seven of which also referred to section 7. The Act was also the subject of five parliamentary questions during this period.

  The requirements of these sections are now, to a very large extent, reflected in our new and wide-ranging reforms of community care. The need to implement these sections of the Disabled Persons Act will be reviewed in the light of several years' experience of the community care arrangements.

  Women's Health, Liverpool
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps her Department is taking in Liverpool to improve women's health care, particularly in relation to the prevention and treatment of cervical cancer; and what steps she is taking to ensure that the new Liverpool women's hospital will have adequate access via public transport.

  Mr. Sackville
  The provision of health services in Liverpool is the responsibility of Liverpool health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. M. F. Emberton, the authority chairman, for details.

  Cystic Fibrosis
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to exempt cystic fibrosis sufferers from prescription charges.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  There are no plans to extend the range of conditions which currently attract free prescriptions on medical grounds. Extensive exemption and charge remission arrangements, coupled with the prescription prepayment certificate scheme, protect those who might otherwise have difficulty in paying prescription charges.
  452
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which health authorities are currently charging cystic fibrosis sufferers for nebulisers; and what is her Department's policy on making vital medical equipment available to the chronically ill.

  Mr. Sackville
  Health authorites cannot make charges for nebulisers, or other items of medical equipment supplied as part of NHS treatment, unless there is specific statutory provision for charges to be made.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cystic fibrosis sufferers there are in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) each family health services authority area and (c) each district health authority area.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the estimated annual cost of prescriptions is(a) to each cystic fibrosis sufferer and (b) to all cystic fibrosis sufferers across the United Kingdom.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available.

  Surgeons (HIV Infection)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration she has given to the guidelines concerning HIV infection following the infection of a surgeon at the Liverpool royal teaching hospital; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The United Kingdom health departments issued occupational guidance for health care workers in 1988. Revised guidelines "AIDS-HIV Infected Health Care Workers" containing recommendations of the Expert Advisory Group on AIDS were issued in December 1991. A copy is available in the Library. An advisory panel, chaired by Dame Mary Donaldson has been set up to provide advice in individual cases.

  The guidance states that health care workers who know or suspect that they have been exposed to HIV infection must seek occupational advice and an HIV test if appropriate, and that those with HIV infection should not perform invasive surgical procedures.

  The guidance also states that in certain circumstances health authorities and NHS trusts may consider it appropriate to notify patients who have undergone invasive procedures by a health care worker subsequently found to be infected with HIV.

  In the recent case in Liverpool, the guidelines were followed. The surgeon concerned ceased work when HIV infection was suspected, and the health authority and hospital considered it appropriate to contact patients to offer reassurance, and HIV antibody tests if required. The guidelines are kept under review to reflect developing knowledge of HIV infection.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 20 May,Official Report, columns 172–73, why copies of the consultation document on the application by Greenwich health services for trust status were not available to members of the Greenwich community health council at its meeting on the evening of 14 May.
  453
  Dr. Mawhinney
  In April Greenwich community health council was consulted by the regional health authority about arrangements for the public consultation exercises. Had it indicated that it required copies of the application for its meeting on 14 May, these would have been made available.

  Hospital Information Systems
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish the list and costs involved in providing the various hospital information systems.

  Mr. Sackville
  Hospital information systems are intended to support the operational needs of the units and local managers are responsible for deciding which systems to implement. Information about the cost of the various hospital information systems is not held centrally.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners in the area covered by the Redbridge and Waltham Forest family health services authority have become fundholders.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I am informed by the chairman of the North East Thames regional health authority that there is one GP fundholder and one GP in the preparatory year for fundholding in the area covered by the Redbridge and Waltham Forest family health services authority.

  Mentally Disordered Offenders
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the joint Department of Health and Home Office review of services for mentally disordered offenders.

  Mr. Yeo
  The review continues to make good progress and is on schedule to complete its work in July.

  In his reply on 13 November 1991 at columns 583–84 to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South East (Mr. Paice), the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, announced that we were publishing four initial reports for consultation. We have received some 200 responses. They have overwhelmingly supported the direction of development proposed in the reports. They also contained many detailed comments, for which we are most grateful.

  We are today publishing for consultation five further reports submitted by the steering committee chaired by Dr. John Reed. Copies are available in the Library. These cover finance, staffing and training, research, academic development and services for mentally disordered offenders with special needs. The reports are being issued, as before, to a wide range of interested bodies inviting their comments.

  Further work in the review is being directed particularly to issues of race and culture, the needs of learning disabled and homeless people, and the role of, and support for, families. These will be reflected in the steering committee's final report.

  The Government will be considering the recommendations arising from this review as a whole in the light of the final report and the responses to consultation on the present and earlier proposals. We have already announced
  454
  increased capital funding for medium secure psychiatric provision of £18 million in the current year, against £3 million in 1991–92.

  My right hon. and learned and hon. Friends and I remain committed to close co-operation between our Departments in this field. We are again most grateful to Dr. Reed and his colleagues for the work they have done.

  Census Data
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken to ensure that the release of detailed data for the 1991 census occurs as speedily as possible.

  Mr. Sackville
  In my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) on 8 May at col 9, I stated that release of the first computer-processed census results was under way, in the form of publication of the first county monitor. County monitors contain summary statistics for all local authority districts on all the census topics which were fully processed and will be published county by county, as the data processing is completed.

  In a reply to the then Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) on 5 March at columns 272–73, my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State described a major problem which had arisen in processing the answers to the question on the 1991 census form on the term-time address of students. He explained that this had caused some delay to the publication of census results, and gave an outline provisional timetable for publication of the first tranche of results.

  Every effort is being made to publish all county monitors by the end of September 1992, and to produce and publish the rest of the first tranche of census outputs to the timetable given in issue 19 of the "Census Newsletter", a copy of which is available in the Library. Further details of the census output timetable will be published in future editions of the "Census Newsletter" as soon as they are sufficiently firm.

  Priority is being given to providing those census figures, including statistics required for re-basing the Registrar General's annual mid-year estimates, needed for use in the calculations of 1993–94 resource allocations to local and health authorities.

  Debt Payment
  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what policy guidelines are currently in place within her Department and the purchasing organisations for which she has responsibility in respect of the prompt payment of commercial debt, particularly as it relates to small business suppliers.

  Mr. Sackville
  Government Departments, including their executive agencies, are required to pay their bills promptly. The timing of payments is stipulated in our standard terms and conditions which form part of all our contracts or purchase orders. These state that unless otherwise agreed in writing by the purchaser, the supplier shall render a separate invoice in respect of each consignment delivered under the order. Payment shall be due 30 days after receipt of the goods or the correct invoice therefore, whichever is the later.

  To help encourage prompt payment of bills by Government contractors to their subcontractors, all new

  455
  Government contracts contain a clause requiring the supplier or contractor to pay its subcontractors promptly. In the absence of normal practice to the contrary for that type of contract or other special circumstances, the commitment shall be to pay the subcontractor within 30 days of receipt of a valid invoice or similar demand for payment as defined by the contract.

  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what distribution has taken place within her Department and the purchasing organisations for which she has responsibility of the Department of Employment's publication "Making the Cash Flow—a Guide to the Payment of Commercial Debt for Buyers and Small Business Suppliers".

  Mr. Sackville
  "Making the Cash Flow" was prepared as guidance for the private sector and there was therefore no formal distribution to other Government Departments. Guidelines on purchasing by Government Departments already exists and are enhanced by the Department's own internal purchasing and supply manual.

  The Department of Employment has been undertaking a survey of prompt payment record of Government Departments during the financial year 1991–92 and the results of this exercise will be published in the near future by the Department of Trade and Industry, which now has responsibility for small firms' issues, including late payment. After studying these results the Department will consider what further measures, if any, may be necessary to encourage prompt payment by the public sector.

  Earth Summit
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what contribution her Department has made to Her Majesty's Government's proposals to the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Brazil in June.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department has contributed to aspects of the conference which have implications for

  Parliamentary electors registered in each constituency in Greater London, 1983–1987

  Note: BC= borough constituency

  Parliamentary constituency

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Barking

  BC

  52,888

  52,686

  52,414

  52,317

  52,137

  Battersea

  BC

  66,518

  66,802

  67,172

  67,064

  67,462

  Beckenham

  BC

  59,384

  59,910

  60,075

  60,736

  60,718

  Bethnal Green and Stepney

  BC

  55,649

  54,721

  54,520

  54,982

  55,984

  Bexleyheath

  BC

  60,039

  60,319

  60,303

  60,053

  60,206

  Bow and Poplar

  BC

  58,209

  57,534

  57,515

  58,219

  59,503

  Brent East

  BC

  61,987

  61,917

  61,505

  61,396

  61,378

  Brent North

  BC

  63,377

  63,642

  63,691

  62,905

  63,652

  Brent South

  BC

  63,468

  63,352

  62,714

  63,020

  63,229

  Brentford and Isleworth

  BC

  69,824

  68,855

  68,185

  70,496

  72,371

  Carshalton and Wallington

  BC

  69,542

  69,746

  69,798

  69,973

  69,906

  Chelsea

  BC

  54,080

  52,496

  52,127

  49,080

  49,745

  Chingford

  BC

  56,903

  57,125

  57,260

  57,430

  57,417

  Chipping Barnet

  BC

  59,071

  59,220

  59,693

  60,377

  61,419

  Chislehurst

  BC

  55,261

  55,479

  55,679

  55,976

  56,142

  City of London and Westminster South, The

  BC

  68,007

  65,921

  64,233

  61,747

  57,619

  Croydon Central

  BC

  57,138

  57,368

  57,029

  57,120

  55,962

  Croydon North East

  BC

  63,433

  63,762

  63,726

  64,386

  63,627

  Croydon North West

  BC

  58,807

  58,674

  58,395

  58,946

  57,807

  Croydon South

  BC

  65,279

  65,777

  66,150

  66,440

  65,754

  Dagenham

  BC

  63,715

  63,396

  63,086

  62,910

  62,349

  Dulwich

  BC

  57,070

  57,041

  56,612

  56,618

  56,764

  Ealing, Acton

  BC

  62,639

  63,173

  64,179

  66,072

  67,615

  456
  health, in particular, the environmentally sound management of toxic chemicals was selected by the preparatory committee as one of the areas for which programmes of action should be agreed.

  In December last year the Chief Medical Officer chaired a meeting of experts from over 70 countries to discuss proposals for an intergovernmental mechanism for chemical risk assessment and management. A report has been put forward for consideration by the conference.

  Revenue Allocations
  Ms. Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are her proposals for monitoring the formula adjustments for revenue allocations to district health authorities made by regional health authorities in order to ensure consistency and stability in financial support.

  Mr. Sackville
  The NHS management executive is in regular contact with each of the regional health authorities (RHAs) about their formulae for making revenue allocations to district health authorities. The aim is to provide RHAs with advice and assistance in the development of their formulae and to ensure that the formulae meet common technical standards set out in FDL(91)102, issued in August 1991, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  London Constituencies
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the total number of electors registered in each parliamentary constituency in Greater London(a) on the current electoral register and (b) on the registers in force for each of the years from 1978–79 to 1991–92.

  Mr. Sackville
  The number of electors on registers between 1983 and 1992 are shown in the tables. There was a general reorganisation of parliamentary constituencies in 1983, and comparable figures for earlier years are not readily available.
  457

  Parliamentary constituency

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Ealing North

  BC

  69,303

  69,456

  70,570

  71,736

  72,321

  Ealing, Southall

  BC

  72,252

  72,107

  73,535

  74,937

  75,660

  Edmonton

  BC

  65,558

  65,832

  66,198

  66,451

  66,719

  Eltham

  BC

  55,817

  55,633

  55,035

  54,702

  54,702

  Enfield North

  BC

  68,829

  69,173

  69,280

  69,653

  70,190

  Enfield, Southgate

  BC

  66,174

  66,643

  66,893

  67,062

  67,257

  Erith and Crayford

  BC

  56,837

  57,790

  58,648

  59,452

  60,015

  Feltham and Heston

  BC

  79,385

  78,450

  77,217

  80,108

  81,999

  Finchley

  BC

  56,176

  56,085

  56,292

  57.118

  58,143

  Fulham

  BC

  52,224

  51.529

  51,265

  52,786

  54,843

  Greenwich

  BC

  52,091

  51,554

  51,493

  51,246

  51,289

  Hackney North and Stoke Newington

  BC

  67,039

  68,220

  67,310

  65,807

  67,023

  Hackney South and Shoreditch

  BC

  71,649

  73,041

  71,950

  70,226

  71,167

  Hammersmith

  BC

  46,507

  47.250

  46,739

  48,264

  48,621

  Hampstead and Highgate

  BC

  66,981

  66,484

  64,151

  62,779

  63,592

  Harrow East

  BC

  80,837

  81,453

  82,131

  81,863

  81,842

  Harrow West

  BC

  74,017

  74,172

  74,310

  74,585

  74,771

  Hayes and Harlington

  BC

  58,309

  58,481

  58,462

  58,612

  58,931

  Hendon North

  BC

  55,173

  54,542

  54,466

  54,714

  55,534

  Hendon South

  BC

  54,403

  53,913

  53,804

  53,937

  54,959

  Holborn and St. Pancras

  BC

  71,964

  70,735

  69,285

  69.777

  70,901

  Hornchurch

  BC

  62,559

  62,730

  62,781

  62,935

  63,129

  Hornsey and Wood Green

  BC

  74,459

  75,170

  79,322

  81,443

  81,122

  Ilford North

  BC

  60,802

  60.856

  60,569

  60,824

  60,970

  Ilford South

  BC

  58,725

  58,675

  58,645

  58,956

  59,057

  Islington North

  BC

  60,379

  60,999

  60,058

  60,175

  59,241

  Islington South and Finsbury

  BC

  60,120

  59,268

  59,947

  59,269

  58,255

  Kensington

  BC

  50,123

  48,882

  49,135

  47,974

  48,456

  Kingston upon Thames

  BC

  57,460

  57,632

  55,930

  55,615

  55,411

  Lewisham Deptford

  BC

  59,150

  58,672

  57,809

  57,998

  58,656

  Lewisham East

  BC

  61,800

  61,387

  60,887

  60,625

  60,150

  Lewisham West

  BC

  63,663

  63,447

  62,736

  63,370

  63,473

  Leyton

  BC

  58,376

  58.168

  58,031

  58.163

  58,263

  Mitcham and Mordcn

  BC

  64,255

  63,775

  63,090

  63,585

  63,696

  Newham North East

  BC

  63,118

  62,840

  62,152

  61.861

  61,366

  Newham North West

  BC

  50,295

  49,670

  48,771

  49,180

  48,029

  Newham South

  BC

  50,862

  50,528

  51,323

  51,138

  50,711

  Norwood

  BC

  56,038

  54,334

  54,229

  56,423

  56,876

  Old Bexley and Sideup

  BC

  50,942

  51.011

  50,995

  51.073

  51,433

  Orpington

  BC

  59,588

  60,042

  60,274

  60,422

  60,373

  Peckham

  BC

  59,621

  59,915

  59,929

  59,623

  59,636

  Putney

  BC

  64,455

  64,089

  64,196

  63,761

  63,586

  Ravensbourne

  BC

  59,611

  60.127

  59,854

  59,941

  60,060

  Richmond and Barnes

  BC

  56,394

  57,135

  56,159

  56.157

  55,196

  Romford

  BC

  56,412

  56,556

  56,393

  56,221

  56,351

  Ruislip-Northwood

  BC

  57,027

  57.466

  56,951

  56,632

  56,957

  Southwark and Bermondsey

  BC

  56,235

  56,427

  55,226

  55.278

  55,786

  Streatham

  BC

  60,397

  59.286

  57,947

  60,036

  60,799

  Surbiton

  BC

  47,425

  47,682

  46,384

  46.443

  45,842

  Sutton and Cheam

  BC

  63,834

  64,138

  64,202

  64,289

  64,459

  Tooting

  BC

  68,732

  69,272

  69,519

  69,156

  68,670

  Tottenham

  BC

  68,601

  69,144

  74,744

  76,272

  76,713

  Twickenham

  BC

  64,833

  65,309

  64,919

  65,552

  65,281

  Upminster

  BC

  67,392

  67.530

  67,516

  67,787

  67,446

  Uxbridge

  BC

  62,360

  63.272

  63.055

  63.876

  63,856

  Vauxhall

  BC

  65,252

  64,237

  63,474

  65.478

  66,789

  Walthamstow

  BC

  48,842

  48.871

  48,972

  49,037

  49,222

  Wanstead and Woodford

  BC

  58,284

  58,347

  58,393

  58.432

  58,374

  Westminster North

  BC

  69,281

  69,970

  67,594

  65,506

  59,538

  Wimbledon

  BC

  64,772

  64,397

  63,827

  63.626

  63,880

  Woolwich

  BC

  56,961

  57.138

  57,801

  58,512

  58,666

  Total

  5,143,248

  5,139,853

  5,128,834

  5,146.722

  5,155,019

  Source: Population Estimates Unit, OPCS.

  The figures in this table arc those supplied by Electoral Registration Officers at the times when the registers come in to use each year.
  458 459

  Parliamentary electors registered in each constituency in Greater London, 1988–1992

  Note: BC = borough constituency

  Parliamentary constituency

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Barking

  BC

  51,885

  51,501

  51,503

  51,147

  50,998

  Battersea

  BC

  67,198

  66,508

  66,383

  67,187

  68,617

  Beckenham

  BC

  60,558

  60,336

  60,261

  59,764

  60,009

  Bethnal Green and Stepney

  BC

  55,326

  55,859

  54,895

  52,475

  56,165

  Bexleyheath

  BC

  60,105

  59,390

  58,966

  58,424

  58,421

  Bow and Poplar

  BC

  58,346

  57,884

  57,655

  53,493

  57,018

  Brent East

  BC

  59,821

  58,764

  58,693

  57,010

  53,610

  Brent North

  BC

  63,465

  62,424

  61,664

  60,672

  59,296

  Brent South

  BC

  61,787

  60,757

  60,463

  58,220

  56,317

  Brentford and Isleworth

  BC

  71,982

  70,547

  72,713

  72,532

  71,619

  Carshalton and Wallington

  BC

  67,224

  65,529

  65,736

  65,150

  65,857

  Chelsea

  BC

  46,763

  44,381

  45,618

  42,651

  42,549

  Chingford

  BC

  57,093

  56,219

  56,181

  56,393

  55,981

  Chipping Barnet

  BC

  60,880

  59,543

  58,269

  57,986

  57,721

  Chislehurst

  BC

  56,033

  55,609

  55,139

  54,675

  54.323

  City of London and Westminster South, The

  BC

  55,407

  55,454

  53,347

  54,823

  54,667

  Croydon Central

  BC

  55,506

  55,284

  53,792

  54,612

  56,292

  Croydon North East

  BC

  62,844

  63,547

  61,849

  62,911

  64,888

  Croydon North West

  BC

  56,825

  56,703

  54,015

  55,129

  57,691

  Croydon South

  BC

  65,491

  65,287

  63,963

  64,125

  65,539

  Dagenham

  BC

  61,689

  61,104

  61,110

  60,642

  60,254

  Dulwich

  BC

  56,354

  55,086

  54,849

  56,719

  55,420

  Ealing, Acton

  BC

  65,367

  64,236

  64,375

  58,926

  59,152

  Ealing North

  BC

  71,123

  70,012

  70,142

  64,685

  64,212

  Ealing, Southall

  BC

  74,304

  72,565

  72,698

  66,678

  66,371

  Edmonton

  BC

  65,593

  65,856

  65,490

  63,918

  63,535

  Eltham

  BC

  54,167

  53,542

  53,176

  53,136

  52,633

  Enfield North

  BC

  69,861

  69,754

  69,414

  68,617

  68,030

  Enfield, Southgate

  BC

  66,533

  66,436

  66,093

  65,183

  64,882

  Erith and Crayford

  BC

  60,367

  60,340

  60,642

  59,974

  59,936

  Feltham and Heston

  BC

  81,808

  80,714

  82,955

  83,169

  82,085

  Finchley

  BC

  58,667

  55,957

  53,779

  53,566

  53,322

  Fulham

  BC

  53,963

  52,107

  51,976

  52,419

  52,960

  Greenwich

  BC

  50,319

  49,007

  48,638

  49,110

  48,225

  Hackney North and Stoke Newington

  BC

  66,831

  67,475

  67,257

  64,975

  54,980

  Hackney South and Shoreditch

  BC

  71,003

  70,573

  70,229

  67,630

  58,225

  Hammersmith

  BC

  47,888

  47,198

  46,957

  47,022

  47,468

  Hampstead and Highgate

  BC

  62,578

  61,118

  60,057

  58,624

  58,436

  Harrow East

  BC

  81,280

  77,538

  76,918

  76,258

  75,435

  Harrow West

  BC

  74,175

  71,902

  71,582

  70,811

  70,340

  Hayes and Harlington

  BC

  58,855

  58,683

  58,853

  58,579

  54,979

  Hendon North

  BC

  55,068

  54,059

  52,220

  52,027

  52,066

  Hendon South

  BC

  53,966

  52,242

  49,128

  49,240

  48,816

  Holborn and St. Pancras

  BC

  70,154

  68,937

  67,034

  65,082

  64,721

  Hornchurch

  BC

  62,772

  62,228

  62,045

  61,509

  61,284

  Hornsey and Wood Green

  BC

  79,819

  78,030

  76,449

  74,341

  73,922

  Ilford North

  BC

  62,097

  61,303

  60,377

  60,067

  59,261

  Ilford South

  BC

  60,054

  59,139

  57,068

  57,005

  56,376

  Islington North

  BC

  57,005

  55,550

  55,206

  55,672

  56,589

  Islington South and Finsbury

  BC

  55,817

  55,309

  54,961

  55,130

  55,849

  Kensington

  BC

  45,998

  44,393

  45,482

  43,131

  42,327

  Kingston upon Thames

  BC

  54,054

  53,048

  51,648

  51,126

  51,559

  Lewisham, Deptford

  BC

  58,474

  57,818

  57,113

  56,780

  57,266

  Lewisham East

  BC

  59,889

  59,088

  58,655

  57,979

  57,959

  Lewisham West

  BC

  63,203

  62,242

  61,415

  60,434

  59,598

  Leyton

  BC

  57,751

  56,954

  57,682

  58,327

  57,755

  Mitcham and Morden

  BC

  63,197

  64,236

  64,772

  61,600

  64,392

  Newham North East

  BC

  61,315

  60,183

  59,453

  59,282

  60,057

  Newham North West

  BC

  47,814

  47,591

  46,786

  46,473

  46,855

  Newham South

  BC

  51,614

  52,000

  51,712

  51,007

  51,508

  Norwood

  BC

  56,528

  55,955

  55,123

  52,166

  52,730

  Old Bexley and Sidcup

  BC

  51,036

  50,507

  50,101

  49,934

  50,064

  Orpington

  BC

  59,958

  59,342

  58,825

  58,214

  58,090

  Peckham

  BC

  59,510

  59,430

  59,498

  61,288

  58,534

  460 461

  Parliamentary constituency

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Putney

  BC

  62,999

  62,017

  61,761

  61,883

  62,405

  Ravensbourne

  BC

  59,466

  58,758

  58,278

  57,992

  57,992

  Richmond and Barnes

  BC

  53,563

  51,746

  52,034

  52,080

  53,592

  Romford

  BC

  56,003

  55,537

  54,938

  54,654

  54,712

  Ruislip-Northwood

  BC

  56,661

  56,479

  56,070

  56,193

  54,654

  Southwark and Bermondsey

  BC

  56,024

  56,949

  57,858

  60,182

  60,511

  Streatham

  BC

  59,676

  58,969

  58,421

  55,844

  57,045

  Surbiton

  BC

  45,320

  44,344

  43,607

  42,561

  42,845

  Sutton and Cheam

  BC

  61,963

  60,631

  61,058

  61,017

  61,529

  Tooting

  BC

  67,635

  66,777

  66,599

  67,221

  68,766

  Tottenham

  BC

  76,092

  75,530

  73,196

  70,236

  68,769

  Twickenham

  BC

  64,571

  62,618

  63,551

  62,881

  63,702

  Upminster

  BC

  66,905

  66,066

  65,583

  64,990

  64,927

  Uxbridge

  BC

  64,122

  64,309

  64,721

  64,698

  62,306

  Vauxhall

  BC

  65,809

  65,060

  63,920

  61,739

  62,664

  Walthamstow

  BC

  49,072

  48,744

  49,319

  49,836

  49,603

  Wanstead and Woodford

  BC

  59,045

  58,521

  56,932

  57,131

  56,454

  Westminster North

  BC

  57,665

  55,414

  54,516

  57,742

  59,064

  Wimbledon

  BC

  62,912

  63,726

  62,745

  60,633

  62,520

  Woolwich

  BC

  58,269

  57,322

  57,214

  57,158

  56,534

  Total

  5,098,129

  5,031,830

  4,993,369

  4,934,505

  4,916,630

  Source: Population Estimates Unit, OPCS.

  The figures in this table are those supplied by Electoral Registration Officers at the times when the registers come in to use each year.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the estimated adult population in each parliamentary constituency in Greater London for each year since 1979.

  Estimated resident population of borough aged 18 and over(thousands)

  Area

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  Greater London

  5,236·9

  5,240·4

  5,242·6

  5,228·1

  5,235·3

  5,248·3

  City of London

  5·1

  5·0

  4·8

  4·8

  4·9

  4·8

  Barking and Dagenham

  114·6

  115·0

  115·1

  115·3

  114·7

  114·5

  Barnet

  226·4

  226·6

  228·1

  228·3

  228·5

  231·7

  Bexley

  160·3

  161·7

  162·8

  164·3

  165·6

  167·0

  Brent

  1920

  191·9

  193·3

  194·0

  194·9

  196·0

  Bromley

  225·5

  227·1

  228·5

  229·5

  232·6

  233·2

  Camden

  153·2

  149·9

  148·6

  146·5

  146·2

  146·7

  Croydon

  240·9

  241·1

  242·1

  243·2

  243·0

  242·8

  Ealing

  216·7

  214·4

  215·1

  215·4

  217·4

  221·8

  Enfield

  196·9

  198·1

  199·1

  200·4

  201·8

  202·9

  Greenwich

  158·8

  160·7

  161·0

  162·0

  162·4

  163·0

  Hackney

  136·8

  137·2

  137·6

  136·6

  139·1

  140·3

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  125·1

  123·3

  122·4

  121·2

  121·9

  122·0

  Haringey

  163·7

  163· I

  159·2

  157·7

  158·3

  154·8

  Harrow

  150·4

  151·3

  151·5

  151·9

  153·1

  155·3

  Havering

  180·1

  181·4

  181·5

  183·0

  183·3

  184·1

  Hillingdon

  173·6

  175·1

  177·1

  177·5

  179·3

  178·5

  Hounslow

  152·5

  154·4

  155·3

  156·1

  153·4

  151·2

  Islington

  128·8

  130·1

  130·6

  128·7

  128·8

  130·8

  Kensington and Chelsea

  120·1

  119·4

  117·7

  115·3

  113·2

  114·0

  Kingston upon Thames

  105·5

  105·3

  104·7

  104·7

  105·1

  105·9

  Lambeth

  197·0

  195·2

  195·3

  191·9

  190·0

  189·9

  Lewisham

  179·3

  180·3

  181·1

  179·4

  178·5

  179·3

  Merton

  129·8

  129·8

  130·8

  130·0

  128·9

  128·1

  Newham

  160·3

  159·0

  156·8

  157·0

  156·4

  155·8

  Redbridge

  176·5

  177·0

  176·8

  176·2

  176·2

  176·4

  Richmond upon Thames

  129·4

  128·4

  128·7

  128·0

  128·8

  128·9

  Southwark

  166·9

  167·9

  168·4

  165·9

  167·1

  167·3

  Sutton

  129·6

  130·5

  130·8

  131·4

  131·6

  132·0

  Tower Hamlets

  109·3

  109·4

  110·2

  109·5

  108·8

  109·0

  Waltham Forest

  164·4

  164·7

  164·4

  163·1

  162·8

  163·4

  Wandsworth

  205·9

  205·6

  204·3

  202·0

  202·3

  203·1

  City of Westminster

  161·7

  160·5

  159·1

  157·5

  156·2

  153·5

  462
  Mr. Sackville
  Population estimates are available for London boroughs but not for parliamentary constituencies. Mid-year estimates of persons aged 18 and over in each borough between 1979 and 1990 are shown in the table.
  463

  Notes:

  1 All figures are rounded to thousands.

  2 Totals may not agree due to rounding.

  3 Source: Population Estimates Unit, OPCS; Crown copyright.

  Estimated resident population of London Boroughs aged 18 and over

  Thousands

  Area

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Greater London

  5,262·6

  5,267·6

  5,264·8

  5,233·4

  5,246·4

  5,268·3

  City of London

  4·4

  4·2

  4·0

  3·7

  3·6

  3·3

  Barking and Dagenham

  114·1

  113·8

  113·7

  113·4

  113·2

  113·2

  Barnet

  234·0

  236·3

  236·9

  233·1

  240·1

  239·7

  Bexley

  168·1

  170·0

  170·9

  171·2

  171·2

  171·5

  Brent

  196·0

  196·5

  197·2

  197·5

  195·5

  196·1

  Bromley

  233·8

  233·8

  235·4

  235·7

  236·9

  237·6

  Camden

  148·1

  149·5

  149·9

  147·2

  147·1

  147·9

  Croydon

  243·9

  244·7

  245·3

  244·2

  244·8

  246·5

  Ealing

  225·2

  227·9

  229·3

  230·0

  227·4

  227·2

  Enfield

  204·7

  205·4

  202·6

  202·2

  203·4

  205·2

  Greenwich

  163·5

  164·8

  164·0

  162·4

  161·7

  163·5

  Hackney

  140·1

  139·7

  139·8

  140·8

  142·9

  142·6

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  121·9

  121·2

  121·2

  119·6

  118·2

  118·5

  Haringey

  152·6

  151·5

  149·5

  148·2

  146·1

  147·9

  Harrow

  155·7

  155·9

  154·4

  151·9

  149·2

  147·9

  Havering

  184·3

  184·8

  185·1

  184·1

  182·2

  182·0

  Hillingdon

  179·1

  179·0

  178·7

  179·3

  181·9

  182·1

  Hounslow

  149·2

  148·4

  147·7

  145·0

  149·0

  150·0

  Islington

  132·7

  132·3

  132·6

  132·7

  132·6

  135·6

  Kensington and Chelsea

  114·7

  113·7

  109·5

  102·7

  105·7

  105·0

  Kingston upon Thames

  106·0

  106·1

  105·0

  107·0

  108·3

  110·5

  Lambeth

  189·5

  190·5

  189·0

  185·9

  184·4

  179·0

  Lewisham

  179·7

  179·3

  178·9

  176·5

  174·4

  173·4

  Merton

  128·7

  128·9

  128·2

  128·1

  128·0

  128·5

  Newham

  155·3

  152·4

  153·1

  153·1

  152·9

  153·6

  Redbridge

  178·0

  178·3

  180·3

  180·9

  182·3

  184·3

  Richmond upon Thames

  129·8

  130·3

  131·3

  129·4

  131·5

  134·1

  Southwark

  167·5

  167·3

  167·5

  167·2

  168·9

  172·7

  Sutton

  132·5

  132·1

  132·2

  131·9

  132·6

  131·9

  Tower Hamlets

  110·6

  114·7

  119·3

  121·3

  122·6

  124·6

  Waltham Forest

  165·0

  165·0

  164·5

  163·7

  162·7

  164·0

  Wandsworth

  204·2

  203·1

  204·5

  204·2

  203·9

  203·8

  City of Westminster

  150·0

  146·2

  143·2

  139·4

  141·2

  144·7

  Notes:

  1. All figures are rounded to thousands

  2. Totals may not agree due to rounding

  3. Source: Population Estimates Unit, OPCS: Crown copyright

  Advertising
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give separate figures for the spending by her Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year up to and including 1991–92; and what is her latest estimate for 1992–93.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information for the years 1979–80 to 1987–88 is not available in the form requested.

  The Department's budget for communications and publicity includes provision for nurse recruitment, blood donor recruitment and drug misuse campaigns.

  Expenditure is as follows:

  £million

  1988–89

  Television

  1·662

  Radio

  0·205

  Newspaper

  1·196

  Other Material

  7·736

  1989–90

  Television

  3·549

  Radio

  0·127

  Newspaper

  2·739

  464

  million

  Other Material

  10·828

  1990–91

  Television

  1·900

  Radio

  0·005

  Newspaper

  2·258

  Other Material

  16·845

  1991–92

  Television

  4·489

  Radio

  0·015

  Newspaper

  3·104

  Other Material

  16·863

  The budget for communications and publicity for 1992–93 is £26·2 million.

  South Manchester Hospitals
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information her Department has on plans or proposals for reorganising south Manchester's hospitals; what is the earliest date on which she expects any reorganisation could proceed; and if she will make a statement.
  465
  Mr. Sackville
  Responsibility for planning hospital services in South Manchester is a matter for the North Western regional health authority and South Manchester health authority.

  It is the long term objective of South Manchester health authority to concentrate acute hospital services in South Manchester on a single site. This proposal is subject to detailed consultation and to consideration by the regional health authority.

  Interim proposals to transfer maternity services from Withington hospital to Wythenshaw hospital are presently the subject of further discussions between North Western regional health authority and South Manchester health authority.

  Asthma
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of children under five years, five to 10 years, and 10 years plus are asthma sufferers by health district for Greater London according to the latest available statistics; and what is the number for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Birth Statistics
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children were born in the United Kingdom in each of the last five years; and how many and what percentage of those children were born to parents who were married at the time of their birth.

  Mr. Sackville
  The numbers of live births in the United Kingdom in 1987 to 1991 were as follows:

  Total births

  Births within marriage

  Percentage of births within marriage

  1987

  775,617

  598,085

  77·1

  1988

  787,556

  589,516

  74·9

  1989

  777,276

  570,586

  73·4

  1990

  798,612

  575,768

  72·1

  11991

  792,506

  556,393

  70·2

  1 Provisional. Source (OPCS).

  Cot Deaths
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list by socio-economic class the number of deaths in England and Wales registered as(a) cot death and (b) sudden infant death syndrome in 1990.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 20 May 1992]: The information requested is given in the table.

  Numbers of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) deaths and of Cot death.s by father's social class, England, Wales and Elsewhere1, 1990.

  Father's social class

  1990 Number of SIDS

  1990 Number of Cot Deaths

  I

  48

  51

  II

  159

  172

  IIIN

  65

  68

  IIIM

  349

  377

  IV

  177

  196

  V

  140

  153

  Other

  96

  102

  466

  Father's social class

  1990 Number of SIDS

  1990 Number of Cot Deaths

  Not stated

  121

  125

  Total

  1,155

  1,244

  1 These data may include some cases of children normally resident overseas.

  Home Care Workers
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she has issued any advice to local authorities regarding the grading of female home care workers following the recent ruling of the industrial tribunal in East Sussex.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 22 May 1992]: No. The grading of staff is a matter for local authorities to determine in their capacity as employers.

  Dentists
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if she will make a statement on the remuneration of NHS dentists.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [pursuant to the reply 12 May 1992 col. 85]: At a meeting today with representatives of the General Dental Services Committee (GDSC) I put forward fair and reasonable proposals on dentists' remuneration.

  For the present year 1992–93 the intention of the Doctors and Dentists Remuneration Review Body (DDRB) was that, on average, a dentist's net earnings should be £35,815. This represented an 8·5 per cent. increase in dentists' net remuneration. The Government accepted this recommendation for a greater increase than was awarded to either doctors or nurses.

  The evidence suggests that, if left unchanged, the July 1991 fee scale would provide in 1992–93 very substantially more than the DDRB recommended.

  Calculations presented to the GDSC today show that, to bring the increase in dentists' income back to the level recommended by the DDRB, a fee reduction of about 23 per cent. would be needed now. The longer action is delayed, the more this figure rises.

  I have weighed all the available evidence carefully. This includes the views put to me by dentists and their representatives, the results of the joint inquiry which the Health Departments and the GDSC began in February, and the emerging data on payments in the last financial quarter of 1991–92 to dentists.

  Even allowing for some significant margin for error the evidence suggests that actual income will be much higher than intended income unless action is taken now.

  I therefore propose a 7 per cent. lowering of the fee scale with effect from 8 July.

  I also propose to reduce to £200 the ceiling at which courses of treatment require prior approval from the Dental Practice Board. It is reasonable in the present circumstances for dentists to have to seek prior approval from the Dental Practice Board of their plans for more expensive treatments. This will apply to some 3 per cent. of courses of treatment carried out.

  These proposals represent the best way forward for patients, for dentists and taxpayers. They underline our full commitment to the NHS dental service. The chief executive of the NHS is writing to all regional general

  467
  managers and family health services authority managers today to stress to them the need to maintain the availability of NHS general dental services, if necessary, by employing salaried dentists.

  For the future, the Government remain committed to a fundamental review of dental remuneration. I look to that review to develop a system which more effectively and fairly remunerates all dentists for the important work they do.

  Smoking
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 12 May,Official Report, column 84, (1) when she expects to have information or indications on the proportions of smokers in the United Kingdom and in each other European Community country later then the 1989 figures in the British Medical Journal;

  (2) what information she receives from the European Commission on the trends in smoking in each or any parts of the European Community.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [pursuant to his reply 21 May 1992 col. 228]: the figure given for smoking prevalance in the United Kingdom for 1990 should have been 30 per cent. rather than 39 per cent.

EMPLOYMENT

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total sum paid out in fees by her Department to management consultants in 1979–80 and in each following year up to and including 1991–92; and what is her estimate for 1992–93.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Expenditure on management consultancy in the Employment Department group in each year from 1984–85 to 1990–91 was as follows:

  £ thousands

  1984–85

  365

  1985–86

  365

  1986–87

  1,032

  1987–88

  653

  1988–89

  998

  1989–90

  1,482

  1990–91

  1,782

  1991–92

  15,344

  1 Estimated outturn.

  The information for 1992–93 will be reported to Parliament in the usual way. Information for 1979–80 to 1983–84 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons are registered as available for work in the SW9 postal code area of London; and how many are currently registered as unemployed.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  In April 1992, on the unadjusted basis, the number of claimants unemployed in the SW9 postal code area was 1,027.

  This monthly unemployment count relates to claimants of benefits at unemployment benefit offices on the day of
  468
  the count. Claimants include those people who claim unemployment benefit, income support or national insurance credits and who state that they are available for, and actively seeking, work.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list the public opinion surveys carried out by her Department since 1 November 1991.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department's various research branches do not commission public opinion surveys as such. However, they do carry out research projects on a variety of employment-related issues which involve surveys of individuals. The following list shows those research studies, commissioned or partly funded by the Employment Department group (ED, Employment Service, Health and Safety Executive and the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service), which have involved surveys of individuals commissioned since 1 November 1991.

  Barriers to Returning to Work

  NUBS 2 Client Survey

  Restart Courses Follow Up Survey

  New Clients Follow-up Survey

  North West Off Flows Study

  Evaluation of Job Interview Guarantee Scheme

  Ethnic Origin Equal Opportunities Survey

  Attitudes Towards Part-Time and Flexible Working Hours

  British Household Panel Study

  Investors in People

  Second Chance

  Disability Symbol and Disability Advertising

  Employers Attitudes to Jobcentres and the Employment of People with Disabilities

  Jobclub Monitor

  Just the Job Booklet Research

  Insight Readership Survey

  Youth Training
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people aged 16 and 17 years have applied for youth training; and how many have not been given a youth training place at once in each training and enterprise council area.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what income a 16 or 17-year-old receives on youth training, in any week, waiting for a youth training place; how many people aged 16 or 17 years waiting for a youth training place have been receiving income or income support; and how soon after applying for youth training a 16 or 17-year-old can receive income while waiting for a place to become available.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The following arrangements apply:

  (i) A young person on youth training (YT) in employed status will receive a wage at a level agreed with the employer.

  (ii) A non-employed trainee must receive at least £29.50 per week if under 17 years old and £35 per week if 17 or over.

  (iii) A young person waiting for YT may either have a place booked and be waiting to take it up, or may be seeking the offer of a place. In either case that young person, if under 18 years of age, may be eligible for a YT bridging allowance of £15 per week from the

  469
  Employment Service for up to eight weeks in any 12 month period or, if they run the risk of severe hardship, they may be eligible to receive income support through the severe hardship provision.

  (iv) Even if they are not eligible for any of the payments in (iii) above, young people waiting for YT may still receive income from a variety of sources. The number of young people waiting for YT who have an income of their own cannot therefore be estimated accurately.

  (v) Young people eligible for bridging allowance (except for some special groups) cannot start receiving bridging allowance until they have left a previous job or YT place, made an application, and waited for their first girocheque payment.

  (vi) Young persons can secure income support (including severe hardship payments) as soon as they satisfy the eligibility criteria. They may be able to secure assistance through a crisis loan until regular payments commence.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of the total work force in her Department are registered as disabled; what steps she is taking to encourage the employment of disabled people within her Department; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  A total of 3·2 per cent. at June 1991, the latest date for which figures are available. The Department also employs many other people with disabilities who have chosen not to register. It has also implemented the code of practice on the employment of people with disabilities in the civil service.

  Advertising
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will give separate figures for the spending by her Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year up to and including 1991–92; and what is her latest estimate for 1992–93.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Expenditure on advertising and promotional material by the Department of Employment from 1979–80 to 1985–86 was as follows:

  £

  1979–80

  70,000

  1980–81

  320,000

  1981–82

  400,000

  1982–83

  360,000

  1983–84

  500,000

  1984–85

  320,000

  1985–86

  1,220,000

  Figures for television, radio and newspaper advertising and other promotional material are not available separately. The figures for 1986–87, 1987–88, 1988–89, 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92 are as follows:

  Year

  Television

  Press/Radio

  Other promotional

  £ million

  £million

  £ million

  1986–87

  9·3

  3·0

  4·1

  1987–88

  3·3

  0·8

  2·8

  1988–89

  2·1

  2·3

  1·3

  1989–90

  0·9

  0·9

  1·2

  1990–91

  N/A

  0·5

  2·1

  1991–92

  8·5

  4·1

  5·7

  470
  The figures from 1979–80 to 1990–91 refer only to Department of Employment expenditure. They do not cover expenditure by the former Training Agency, Training Commission and Manpower Services Commission. Figures for these were provided to the hon. Member in a written reply on 5 November 1991 at col. 68–70. From 1991–92, expenditure by the former agency has been handled centrally within the Department's overall advertising and publicity budget.

  The Department's overall advertising and publicity budget for 1992–93 is £8·35 million. Detailed decisions on expenditure by media category have not yet been taken.

  High Peak TEC
  Ms. Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of young people offered training places by High Peak training and enterprise council within the last two years(a) finished their training and (b) found full-time jobs.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information required is not available in the form requested. Stockport and High Peak TEC became operational on 20 August 1990 previously the area came partly under Manchester East area office and Derbyshire area office. The latest information is for leavers from the youth training programme in the Stockport and High Peak TEC area during the period August 1990 to July 1991.

  Thirty four per cent. of all leavers completed their training and 52 per cent. of all leavers went into full-time work.

  Horizon Programme
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list all the United Kingdom participants in the European Community Horizon programme and the nature of each project; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  A total of 37 projects have been formally approved under the Horizon programme in Great Britain. Information relating to these projects has been extracted from individual applications and is given in the following table. This was correct at 22 May 1992.

  A further 45 projects have been given approval in principle. These will receive formal approval once outstanding queries on financial and transnational aspects are resolved.

  Brothers of Charity Lancashire
  To implement new techniques that identify economic sectors that are apt for vocational training and employment for people with a mental handicap.

  Bilston Community College
  To provide training and support to a group of Special Needs Trainers from Greece who wish to develop training provision in Greece.

  Lancashire County Council
  To develop a model programme of training for the physically disabled to enter the tourism industry.

  Lancashire County Council
  To develop model programmes of training and supported employment for those with physical and mental disabilities which will promote their inclusion into society.

  Brothers of Charity
  To provide training for open employment in horticulture/agriculture business for people with a mental handicap.
  471
  University of Nottingham
  To establish a model for the computer mediated training of disabled people in Information Technology skills for employment in business and commerce.

  Manchester Council for Voluntary Services
  To support the creation of small business (Social Firms) providing an integrated work setting for people with mental distress.

  Essex CDA
  To facilitate the progression from sheltered workshop to open employment for long term unemployed mentally disabled people aged 25 and over.

  Richmond Fellowship London
  To offer an employment service to people with long term mental health problems and locate and develop appropriate training and employment opportunities.

  Department of Adult Continuing Education University College Swansea
  To enable physically handicapped people to gain the necessary qualifications and skills to work in open employment. These skills are primarily in Information Technology.

  Kent Social Services
  To enable people with severe learning and/or physical disabilities to gain access to the world of work by providing opportunities for vocational training, work experience, voluntary work and paid employment in ordinary workplaces.

  Wheels For Change Clwyd
  The creation of employment and training opportunities for people who have multiple disabilities in the context of open integrated employment in two existing bicycle co-operatives.

  Scottish Interactive Technology Centre Midlothian
  To develop a multi-media based (interactive video) training package to enable deaf people to acquire skills using computers, word processing, spreadsheet and databases.

  WMCE Ltd. Berkshire
  To develop a training programme targeted at very long term unemployed persons with no relevant or obsolete skills.

  Centre flit- Deaf Studies University al. Bristol
  The provision of modularised training programmes for sign language interpreters within a university framework.

  Bradford and Ilkley Community College
  To develop models for training for disabled people; including those whose hearing is impaired; that will help them obtain employment in community education settings, including distance learning via satellite broadcasting and computer aided learning.

  Hertfordshire College of Art and Design
  To devise training modules in specialised techniques using the arts within rehabilitation and training settings, particularly related to the transfer from institutional and community care.

  The Cellar Project West Yorkshire
  A programme to give unemployed people disabled by long term psychiatric illness but capable of open employment the necessary vocational and social skills and work experience to make the transition from sheltered to open employment.

  Newcastle Upon Tyne City Council
  To develop a flexible learning programme for people with learning difficulties to equip them with a range of skills suited to their individual capabilities.

  Park Lane College West Yorkshire
  To provide vocational training leading to recognised qualifications and/or stable employment for long term unemployed people with both physical and sensory disabilities.

  Brothers of Charity Lancashire
  To identify economic sectors apt for vocational training and employment for people with mental handicap. Employment placement and supported employment to lead to open employment for some individuals.

  Edinburgh University Settlement
  To set up specialist training courses in Adult Basic
  472
  Education and Art Therapy and make the transition from sheltered environments to mainstream education, training for vocational qualifications and open employment.

  Swansea College
  To develop a course for mentally handicapped people which will enable them to find suitable employment within the local tourist industry.

  Hammersmith & Fulham Association for Mental Health (MIND)
  To enable people who have experienced unemployment and who have a history of disabling mental health difficulties (psychiatric service users) to acquire and use practical work skills which will allow them to work flexibly as general handypersons.

  Nriteal Mari Tyne & Wear
  To increase the skill levels of house-bound disabled people in modern technologies and offer NVQ's in order for them to compete effectively in the labour market.

  Social Firms Initiative Berkshire
  To demonstrate that people with mental health problems can function efficiently and on a commercial basis when they are supported within the context of a Social Firm.

  Subs Trust Avon
  To assist people who have experienced mental illness or emotional distress to make the best use of their work skills and abilities and secure employment with on-going support.

  London Borough of Waltham Forest
  To integrate people with learning difficulties into open employment and demonstrate their potential if they are given the necessary support.

  Outset West Midlands
  To deliver a training programme which facilities social and labour market integration for people with a mental illness who are returning to care in the community.

  National Society for Epilepsy Buckinghamshire
  To provide young people with epilepsy with a specialised training service geared to their specific needs and problems, and thereby enhance their chances of securing employment.

  Epilepsy Association of Scotland
  To improve the knowledge and skills of training personnel involved in the training of people with severe epilepsy to enable them to facilitate the transition of young people with epilepsy from the training situation to open employment.

  Westminster Association for Mental Health
  To develop a programme of training and supervised work experience in computing and information technology leading to a recognised vocational qualification and employment opportunities for long term unemployed people aged 25+ with disabilities resulting from mental illness.

  Scottish Association for Mental Health
  To provide improved access to the open labour market for people disabled by mental illness by developing small and medium sized enterprises and co-operatives and by making other business opportunities available to them.

  Work-start Scotland
  Implementing new approaches to social and economic integration of long term unemployed people, and increase their job entry rate by increasing the quality of training.

  Migrants Resource Centre London
  To prepare migrants and refugees through training and vocational guidance to enter into mainstream employment.

  LAWTEC Lancashire
  To identify homeless people through a network of agencies and assess their needs, skills and aptitudes, and to arrange accommodation linked to appropriate training, employment and/or further education with ongoing counselling.

  Bristol One-Parent Project
  To upgrade and develop the qualifications of lone

  473
  parents by setting up pre-training courses in a supportive network, and assist re-entry into open employment by offering educational and career guidance, developing an information bank on childcare facilities and counselling and financial advice.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is her estimate of receipts in the United Kingdom during the current year from the Horizon programme; what proportion this represents of total European Community expenditure on the programme; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Horizon programme in Great Britain has received an allocation of 14·9 mecu£10·38 million—for the calendar years 1991–93. This represents 10·8 per cent. of the 162 mecu allocated to member states to date under Horizon by the European Commission.

  Success rates for Employment Training and Youth Training leavers from East London Areas covered are London East TEC and residual TEED area office from April 1991 to July 1991 and East London area office from April 1990 to March 1991

  Completed training per cent.

  Completers into work per cent.

  All leavers into work per cent.

  Completers into work as proportion of all leavers per cent.

  Employment Training

  April 1990 to March 1991

  48

  20

  18

  10

  April 1991 to July 1991

  54

  12

  13

  5

  Youth Training

  April 1990 to March 1991

  27

  66

  44

  20

  April 1991 to July 1991

  28

  n/a

  39

  22

  Notes: n/a= numbers too small to give accurate proportions.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list the size of the budget, and the number of training places funded in 1991–92 and projected for 1992–93 for each training and enterprise council.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that my predecessor gave to the then hon. Member for Langbaurgh on 3 February 1992 at columns 32–33.

  The budget allocations for training and enterprise councils (TECs) for 1992–93 are still subject to negotiation in some of the Department's training, enterprise and education directorate regions and therefore not yet available. Information regarding the number of training places funded is not available as TECs have contracted with local training providers on a training week basis.

  England and Wales

  Name

  Training and Enterprise Council Location

  Nomix-Chipman Ltd.

  Avon

  Brindon Ropes Ltd.

  Barnsley/Doncaster

  Frizzell Financial Services Ltd.

  Dorset

  Unilever Research Colworth Laboratory

  Bedfordshire

  IDV UK Ltd.

  Essex

  Woods of Colchester Ltd.

  Essex

  Monsanto plc, Newport

  Gwent

  Tulsa Holdings

  Gwent

  Alternative Travel Group

  Heart of England

  Sheerness Steel Company plc

  Kent

  Elida Gibbs Ltd.

  Leeds

  Yorkshire Bank plc

  Leeds

  Pirelli Cables Ltd., Aberdare

  Mid Glamorgan

  Training
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will state, on the same basis as "Training Statistics 1991" HMSO publication S410.4,(a) the total expenditure on training, (b) Government expenditure on training and (c) employers' expenditure on training, for each year since 1979.

  Mr. McLouglin
  Comparable figures for years other than 1986–87, as published in "Training Statistics 1991", are not available.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many of those completing employment training and youth training schemes in Walthamstow in 1990 and 1991 went on to full-time employment; and what proportion of the trainees on the schemes this represented.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Walthamstow is now covered by London East TEC which became operational on 1 April 1991, previously Walthamstow was covered by East London area office. Information is available only for the larger areas as shown in the following table.

  Information regarding the number of training weeks contracted is commercial in confidence and a matter for the TEC to answer.

  "Investor in People" Scheme
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list by name and location the organisations which(a) have been awarded the "Investor in People" recognition and (b) are in the process of working towards the standard required for the award.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The latest available information on organisations in Great Britain which have been publicly recognised as "Investors in People" is as follows:
  475

  Name

  Training and Enterprise Council Location

  Qualtech Services Ltd.

  Mid Glamorgan

  Hoseasons Holidays Ltd.

  Norfolk and Waveney

  Willmott Dixon Eastern Ltd.

  Norfolk and Waveney

  Lonrho Textiles Ltd.

  Northumberland

  Searle Pharmaceuticals

  Norhumberland

  Prospect Foods Ltd.

  North Yorkshire

  Perrys of Rotherham

  Rotherham

  Venture Pressings Ltd.

  Shropshire

  Appor Ltd.

  Southern Derbyshire

  Steetley Brick and Concrete (Central Region)

  Staffordshire

  A Plus Group Ltd.

  Thames Valley Enterprise

  Komatsu UK Ltd.

  Tyneside

  Nissan Motor Manufacturing UK Ltd.

  Wearside

  Edward Howell Galvanisers Ltd.

  Wolverhampton

  Slade Packaging Ltd.

  Norfold and Waveney

  Tack Training International

  Central London

  Birds Eye Walls (Humberside)

  Humberside

  Headlines

  Merseyside

  TRW REPA Ltd.

  County Durham

  Birds Eye Walls (Gloucester)

  Gloucestershire

  Prudence Gowns

  Devon and Cornwall

  Plymouth Garden Centre

  Devon and Cornwall

  Vander Ltd.

  Devon and Cornwall

  South West Galvanisers Ltd.

  Devon and Cornwall

  Allied Group Ltd.

  Teesside

  Lucas Aerospace (Actuation Division)

  Wolverhampton

  Birds Eye Walls (Anglia)

  Norfolk and Waveney

  Bishop Fleming

  Devon and Cornwall

  Claro Precision Engineering Ltd.

  North Yorkshire

  V. G. Elemental Ltd.

  South and East Cheshire

  Davy McKee (Poole) Ltd.

  Dorset

  TRW United-Carr Ltd.

  Thames Valley Enterprise

  Bendix Safety Restraint Division Ltd.

  Cumbria

  The Belmont Group

  Metrotec (Wigan)

  Fastech Testing Ltd.

  Metrotec (Wigan)

  Scotland

  Name

  Local Enterprise Company Location

  Amerada Hess Ltd. (Aberdeen Operations Division)

  Grampian Enterprise

  The Royal Bank of Scotland (Branch Banking Division)

  Lothian and Edinburgh

  Information about the names and locations of organisations which are in the process of working towards the standard required for recognition is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The latest available numerical information from the training and enterprise councils in England and Wales and local enterprise companies in Scotland is that at 31 March 1992, 1,010 organisations were formally committed to work towards recognition.

  Employment Prospects (Isle of Wight)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will consider the Isle of Wight for a pilot study into employment prospects for women, in the light of the increase revealed in the 1991 census returns.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  There are no plans for a special study covering the Isle of Wight. The increases between 1981 and 1991 in the percentages of women on the Isle of Wight working as full-time employees, part-time employees and as self-employed, and the small decline in the percentage who are unemployed, show that, as in the United Kingdom as a whole, employment opportunities for women have increased.

  City Working Hours
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether firms in the City of London, such as stockbrokers and merchant bankers, whose staff work more than a 48-hour basic week would need to seek derogation under the terms of the draft directive on working hours as it currently stands.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In its current form the draft directive on working time would apply to all employees except for those in transport and sea fishing. Derogations would be permitted in certain circumstances, including cases where the duration of working time can be determined by the employees themselves, such as managing executives or other people with autonomous decision taking powers. These maybe of relevance to the financial services sector. Notwithstanding possible derogations, the Government see no justification for general and compulsory limits on the working week and are continuing, through constructive discussions with our Community partners, to seek to protect employers and employees in the United Kingdom against arbitrary and unnecessary restrictions.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether she will introduce legislation to ban discrimination against employees on grounds of age or the setting of arbitrary age limits.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  No. We do not believe that legislation is the way to tackle this issue.

  Older Workers
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when she expects to complete the setting up of the special advisory group on older workers; what are its terms of reference; and when it will start and complete its work.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  We have received an encouraging number of expressions of interest about the advisory group on older workers, and will soon be in a position to issue invitations for membership. The group will assist in encouraging, identifying and disseminating good employer practice with regard to older workers. It will start work later this year, and progress will be reviewed after three years.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefits (Late Payment)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to publish the rules governing the schemes for compensating individuals for late payment of benefits.

  Mr. Burt
  The arrangements for making special payments to compensate individuals for late payment of benefit are made in accordance with the general principles concerning ex-gratia payments in "Government Accounting", The Treasury's published guide to accounting and financial procedures in Government. Each case is decided within these general principles, taking into account the particular facts and circumstances, which vary widely from case to case.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many individuals received compensation payments; and how much was paid, for each benefit in each year since the scheme for compensating individuals for late payment began.

  Mr. Burt
  Payments made to customers to compensate them for late payment of benefit in individual cases are as follows:

  Benefit

  Number of individual payments

  Total amount paid1 £

  1984–85

  Maternity allowance

  1

  9

  National insurance contributions (refund/waiver)

  5

  552

  Retirement pension2

  45

  9,474

  Widow's benefits

  11

  11,062

  Invalidity/sickness benefit

  37

  6,046

  Attendance allowance/invalid care allowance

  5

  999

  Disablement benefit/constant attendance allowance

  1

  78

  478

  Benefit

  Number of individual payments

  Total amount paid1 £

  Unemployment benefit

  25

  1,350

  Industrial death benefit

  1

  23

  Severe hardship allowance

  3

  1,130

  Mobility allowance

  1

  90

  NCIP

  2

  316

  War pensions

  34

  59,869

  Supplementary benefits

  3—

  3—

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest £.

  2 Includes Christmas bonus.

  3 Figures unavailable.

  Benefit

  Number of individual payments

  Total amount paid1 £

  1985–86

  Retirement pension2

  359

  264,150

  Widow's benefits

  16

  9,863

  Invalidity/sickness benefit

  31

  12,535

  Attendance allowance/invalid care allowance

  6

  1,016

  Disablement benefit/constant attendance allowance

  4

  4,684

  Industrial death benefit

  1

  22

  Child special allowance

  1

  163

  Severe hardship allowance

  1

  154

  Unemployment benefit

  13

  562

  War pensions

  60

  89,940

  Supplementary benefits

  48

  1,938

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest £.

  2 Includes Christmas bonus.

  Benefit

  Number of individual payments

  Total amount paid1 £

  1986–87

  Maternity allowance

  3

  59

  National insurance contributions (waiver/refund)

  3

  104

  Retirement pension2

  460

  403,037

  Widow's benefits

  20

  20,517

  Invalidity/sickness benefit

  87

  28,850

  Attendance allowance/invalid care allowance

  10

  4,661

  Mobility allowance

  2

  959

  Severe disablement allowance/NCIP

  2

  1,100

  Disablement benefit/constant attendance allowance

  5

  2,089

  Guardian's allowance

  1

  48

  War pensions

  59

  64,100

  Industrial death benefit

  2

  149

  Supplementary benefits

  3—

  3—

  Child benefit/one parent benefit/Family income supplement

  3—

  3—

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest £

  2 Includes Christmas bonus.

  3 Figures unavailable.

  Benefit

  Number of individual payments

  Total amount paid1 £

  1987–88

  Maternity allowance

  1

  20

  National insurance contributions (waiver/refund)

  9

  2,985

  Retirement pension2

  469

  473,941

  Widow's benefits

  23

  39,006

  Invalidity/sickness benefit

  66

  23,220

  479

  Benefit

  Number of individual payments

  Total amount paid1 £

  Attendance allowance/invalid care allowance

  7

  2,184

  Mobility allowance

  41

  32,232

  Disablement benefit/constant attendance allowance

  15

  5,149

  Unemployment benefit

  1

  118

  War pensions

  20

  56,411

  Severe disablement allowance/NCIP

  3

  1,331

  Supplementary benefit

  254

  51,237

  Child benefit/one parent benefit/Family credit

  2

  317

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest £.

  2 Includes Christmas bonus.

  Benefit

  Number of individual payments

  Total amount paid1 £

  1988–89

  Maternity allowance

  2

  99

  National insurance contributions (waiver/refund)

  2

  534

  Retirement pension2

  167

  127,997

  Widow's benefits

  16

  8,476

  Invalidity/sickness benefit

  67

  18,932

  Attendance allowance/invalid care allowance

  10

  3,502

  Mobility allowance

  7

  6,203

  Severe disablement allowance/NCIP

  7

  3,016

  Disablement benefit/constant attendance allowance

  10

  8,285

  Guardians allowance

  37

  495

  Income support

  204

  47,610

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest £.

  2 Includes Christmas bonus.

  Benefit

  Number of individual payment.

  Total amount paid1 £

  1989–90

  Maternity allowance

  1

  34

  National insurance contributions (waiver refund)

  9

  987

  Retirement pension2

  127

  50,750

  Widow's benefits

  9

  28,115

  Invalidity/sickness benefit

  86

  44,048

  Attendance allowance/invalid care allowance

  6

  6,983

  Mobility allowance

  7

  4,454

  Severe disablement allowance/NCIP

  4

  2,631

  Income support

  153

  32,458

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest £.

  2 Includes Christmas bonus.

  Benefit

  Number of individual payments

  Total amount paid1 £

  1990–91

  Maternity allowance

  8

  789

  National insurance contributions (waiver/refund)

  10

  931

  Retirement pension2

  103

  76,271

  Widow's benefits

  11

  9,875

  Invalidity/sickness benefit

  39

  15,686

  Attendance allowance/invalid care allowance

  6

  3,417

  480

  Benefit

  Number of individual payments

  Total amount paid1 £

  Mobility allowance

  2

  3,481

  Severe disablement allowance/NCIP

  2

  750

  Income support

  122

  199,657

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest £.

  2 Includes Christmas bonus.

  1991–92

  Figures are not yet available.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assumptions he made about (i) the case load take-up rate and (ii) the expenditure take-up rate of family credit when calculating the extra cost of £49 million of the change in qualifying hours threshold for income support/family credit.

  Mr. Burt
  No explicit assumption on take-up rates were required, or employed, in calculating the cost of the hours rule change.

  The effects of changes in entitlement are calculated by adjusting modelled entitlement to reflect the ratio of receipt to modelled entitlement under existing policies. This allows for a number of factors that affect policy cost estimates, including incomplete take-up of benefit. These calculations are then further adjusted by adding estimates of behavioural changes likely to be induced by the policy change.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of people in Greater London entitled to claim family credit actually receive the benefit.

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is not available. Estimates of the total number of families eligible for family credit can be obtained only for Great Britain as a whole, and only retrospectively, from Family Expenditure Survey data.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many weeks elapsed between application and receipt of family credit for(a) employed people and (b) self-employed people in each of the years for which family credit has been available; and what is the current figure;

  (2) if he will list the total number of appeals lodged by (a) employed and (b) self-employed people against decisions not to grant family credit to applicants in each year since its inception; and if he will show the number of successful appeals in each year.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of family credit is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing the gross and net social fund budget in each year since 1988–89 in(a) cash terms and (b) real terms in 1992–93 prices, broken down into (i) budgeting loans, (ii) crisis loans and (iii) community care grants.
  481
  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is in the table. Gross expenditure has risen in real terms since 1988–89. Direct comparisons between net expenditure in 1988–89

  Social fund expenditure since 1988–89

  £ million

  1988–89 Outturn

  1989–90 Outturn

  1990–91 Outturn

  1991–92 Provisional Outturn

  Crisis loans (gross)

  17

  22

  28

  37

  Budgeting loans (gross)

  108

  119

  128

  160

  Crisis loans (net)

  9

  8

  9

  11

  Budgeting loans (net)

  68

  25

  22

  38

  Community care grants

  41

  60

  67

  79

  Regulated payments (gross)

  35

  39

  58

  62

  Regulated payments (net)

  34

  38

  57

  61

  Total gross expenditure

  201

  240

  281

  338

  Total gross expenditure 1992–93 prices1

  259

  290

  313

  353

  1 Real terms figures have been calculated using the current GDP deflator and may alter.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the public opinion surveys carried out by his Department since 1 November 1991.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is in the table.

  Survey and Purpose

  Pilot work far the local customer survey
  To test the new questionnaires for the local customer survey 1992. This is a survey of the views of benefit offices' customers about the services provided. Conducted in February 1992.

  Disability benefits campaign evaluation
  Two waves of campaign evaluation conducted in January and April 1992.

  Child Support Agency
  Target market study among the Asian sector of the population. Currently being conducted.

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the total expenditure by his Department on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year up to and including 1991–92; and if he will give an estimate for 1992–93.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Functions commonly associated with public relations are carried out by information officers as part of their duties in the Department's information division.

  For information for 1979–80 to 1989–90, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 22 May 1991 at col. 535.

  Estimated total expenditure in 1991–92 is as follows:
  Publicity, which includes television advertising and leaflets: £11·407 million.
  Staff and running costs: total expenditure figures are not yet available.

  1992–93 budgets for the headquarters information division and the Benefits Agency information service branch in the Department of Social Security are as follows:

  DSS HQ £ million

  BA £ million

  Publicity

  10·088

  8·261

  Staff running costs

  ·813

  1·25

  ·345

  482
  and subsequent years would ignore the additional expenditure made possible by the recycling of money received from loan repayments.

  Social Security Offices
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about the number and organisation of social security offices.

  Mr. Burt
  The number and organisation of social security offices is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Consultants
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total sum paid out in fees by his Department to management consultants in 1979–80 and in each following year up to and including 1991–92; and what is his estimate for 1992–93.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Department does not keep separate records of expenditure on management consultancy. Taking consultancy as a whole, the figures are in the table.

  £ million

  1983–84

  3·624

  1984–85

  7·726

  1985–86

  13·647

  1986–87

  17·220

  1987–88

  27·564

  1988–89

  47·730

  1989–90

  40·907

  1990–91

  78·094

  1991–92

  76·987

  1992–93

  167·047

  1 Estimated.

  Notes:

  1. By far the majority of expenditure relates to information technology consultancy services in respect of the operational strategy.

  2. The figures prior to 1989–90 relate to the combined Department of Health and Social Security.

  3. Information prior to 1983–84 is not available.

  Disabled employees
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of the total work force in his Department are registered as disabled; what steps he is taking to encourage the employment of disabled people within his Department; and if he will make a statement.
  483
  Mr. Burt
  As at 1 June 1991, 1·87 per cent. of the staff employed by the Department of Social Security, including its agencies, were registered as disabled. This figure excludes staff with disabilities who choose not to register and more than 50 registered disabled people employed under the sheltered placement scheme. The Department, including its agencies, is committed to implementing the civil service code of practice on the employment of people with disabilities and increasing the number of employees with disabilities.

  Income support
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many recipients of income support aged between 18 to 24 years are living away from home and are entitled to the personal allowance for(a) persons aged 18 to 24 years, and (b) persons aged 25 years and over;

  (2) what would be the cost of raising the income support personal allowance for persons aged 18 to 24 years who are living away from home to the level of the personal allowance for persons aged 25 and over;

  (3) how many recipients of income support aged 18 to 24 years are entitled to the personal allowance rate which is generally appropriate to persons aged 25 years and over.

  Mr. Burt
  The latest available figures show that in May 1990 there were 218,000 single people aged 18 to 24 receiving income support at the rate appropriate to those aged 25 or over. This information is derived from the Income Support Annual Statistical Enquiry, May 1990, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  There is no comparable statistic on the number of 18 to 24-year-old income support claimants who might he "living away from home", which has no standard definition. However, modelling based on data from the 1987–88–89 Family Expenditure Survey offers an estimate that in 1992–93 there are (a) 180,000 receiving the 18 to 24 personal allowance, and (b) 220,000 receiving the personal allowance for those aged 25 or over. This assumes that "living away from home" means people classified by the Family Expenditure Survey as the head of the household, plus all those living in the household of a person who is a non-relative.

  From this an estimated total cost of raising the income support rate for those aged 18 to 24 who are living away from home to the same level as those aged 25 or over is around £110 million in a full year, including housing benefit and community charge benefit.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received regarding difficulties experienced by claimants for disability living allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  We have received some correspondence about the length and complexity of the claim pack and about the length of time taken to process claims. Some teething problems are not unexpected with such a major change to the administration of disability benefits arid we are closely monitoring the operation of the new system. Nevertheless, the introduction of the new claims process for disability living allowance has been widely welcomed by both disabled people and their organisations as better meeting the needs of disabled people and putting greater reliance on what they have to say about their disability.
  484
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the trend in the speed of service at the attendance allowance unit since the introduction of disability living allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of attendance allowance is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Hardship Payments
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidelines exist for deciding entitlement to severe hardship payments for 16 and 17-year-olds; and if he will publish those guidelines.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of social security benefits is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Sickness and Invalidity Benefits
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applicants for(a) sickness benefit and (b) invalidity benefit were refused in each of the years 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92, by reason of insufficient national insurance contributions; and how many of these refusals related to a period of study which was not credited with national insurance contributions under regulations 7 and 8 of the Social Security (Credits) Regulations.

  Mr. Scott
  Information is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is as follows:

  Invalidity benefit cannot be paid unless the contribution conditions for sickness benefit have been satisfied or deemed to have been satisfied, and there has been 28 weeks of incapacity for work.

  In 1989–90, the latest year for which information is available, 253,4001 claims2 to sickness benefit were unsuccessful because the national insurance contribution conditions were not satisfied. It is not known how many of these refusals might have involved claimants who had not received credits for a period of study.

  Notes.

  1. Information from a 1 per cent. sample of claimants.

  2. A 'claim' means a claim submitted at the beginning of a spell of incapacity for work. If a person has several separate spells of incapacity for work during the year, each spell is counted as a claim.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the average clearance times for reviews of attendance allowance(a) for requests made in March 1991, (b) for requests made in November 1991 and (c) for requests made in March 1992;

  (2) what is the average length of time taken for attendance allowance initial claims to be processed by the attendance allowance unit at Norcross (a) for claims made in January 1991, (b) for claims made in November 1991, (c) for claims made in February 1992 and (d) for claims made in April 1992.
  485
  Mr. Scott
  I understand from Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency that the information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate costs.

  Injury and Occupational Disease (Compensation)
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will amend the regulations so that claimants for compensation through injury or occupational disease do not have to pay back state benefits after their claim has been settled when the level of compensation is over £2,500.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The principle that accident victims should not be compensated twice has been a feature of the social security scheme since 1948. The compensation recovery scheme has merely replaced the old and inconsistent arrangements, by which negligent employers and other compensators gained at the expense of the taxpayer. The scheme is working well and there are no plans for major change.

  Debt Payment
  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what policy guidelines are currently in place within his Department and the purchasing organisations for which he has responsibility in respect of the prompt payment of commercial debt, particularly as it relates to small business suppliers.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Government Departments, including their executive agencies, are required to pay their bills promptly. The timing of payment should normally be stipulated in Government contracts. Where there is no contractual provision or other understanding, Departments should pay within 30 days of receipt of goods/services or the presentation of a valid invoice or similar demand for payment, whichever is the later.

  To help encourage prompt payment of bills by Government contractors to their subcontractors all Government contracts are to contain a clause requiring the supplier or contractor to pay its sub-contractors promptly. In the absence of normal practice to the contrary for that type of contract or other special circumstances, the commitment should be to pay the sub-contractor within 30 days of receipt of a valid invoice or similar demand for payment as defined by the contract.

  Married couple with two children aged 7 and 11

  Rent: £26·03

  Community Charge: £9·40

  Gross earnings

  Take home Pay

  Family credit

  Child benefit

  Rent rebate

  Community charge benefit

  Total net income

  Net income after rent and community charge

  Earnings £100–110

  100·00

  94·64

  49·02

  17·45

  0·51

  1·63

  163·25

  127·82

  101·00

  95·35

  48·52

  17·45

  0·00

  1·60

  162·92

  127·49

  102·00

  96·06

  48·03

  17·45

  0·00

  1·57

  163·11

  127·68

  103·00

  96·77

  47·53

  17·45

  0·00

  1·53

  163·28

  127·85

  104·00

  97·48

  47·03

  17·45

  0·00

  1·50

  163·46

  128·03

  105·00

  98·14

  46·53

  17·45

  0·00

  1·47

  163·64

  128·21

  106·00

  98·90

  46·04

  17·45

  0·00

  1·44

  163·83

  128·40

  107·00

  99·61

  45·54

  17·45

  0·00

  1·41

  164·01

  128·58

  108·00

  100·32

  45·04

  17·45

  0·00

  1·38

  164·19

  128·76

  109·00

  101·03

  44·55

  17·45

  0·00

  1·34

  164·37

  128·94

  110·00

  101·74

  44·05

  17·45

  0·00

  1·31

  164·55

  129·12

  486
  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what distribution has taken place within his Department and the purchasing organisations for which he has responsibility of the Department of Employment's publication "Making the Cash Flow—a Guide to the Payment of Commercial Debt for Buyers and Small Business Suppliers".

  Miss Widdecombe
  "Making the Cash Flow" was prepared as guidance for the private sector and there was therefore no formal distribution to other Government Departments. Guidelines on purchasing by Government Departments already exist and are distributed by HM Treasury.

  The Department of Employment has been undertaking a survey of the prompt payment record of Government Departments during the financial year 1991–92 and the results of this exercise will be published in the near future by the Department of Trade and Industry, which now has responsibility for small firms issues, including late payment. After studying these results the Department will consider what further measures, if any, may be necessary to encourage prompt payment by the public sector.

  Spending Power
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average increase in net weekly spending power of a man with two children of seven and 11 years and a non-working wife for each extra pound he earns if he increases his pay from(a) £100 to £110, (b) £110 to £120, (c) £120 to £130, (d) £130 to £140 and (e) £140 to £150 assuming he pays average rent and community charge.

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is in the tables. The assumptions used are those in the published tax benefit model tables, a copy of which is available in the Library. Each family is assumed to pay the estimated 1991–92 average local authority rent of £26·03. Community charge is included at an illustrative level of £4·70 per week.

  It should be noted that the results in the tables cannot reflect, except by chance, the actual circumstances of particular people and cannot claim to be representative of the population at large. The tables use illustrative rents and do not, therefore, reflect the full range of housing costs which people may face.
  487

  Gross earnings

  Take home Pay

  Family credit

  Child benefit

  Rent rebate

  Community charge benefit

  Total net income

  Net income after rent and community charge

  Earnings £111–120

  111·00

  102·45

  43·55

  17·45

  0·00

  1·28

  164·73

  129·30

  112·00

  103·16

  43·06

  17·45

  0·00

  1·25

  164·92

  129·49

  113·00

  103·87

  42·56

  17·45

  0·00

  1·21

  165·09

  129·66

  114·00

  104·58

  42·06

  17·45

  0·00

  1·18

  165·27

  129·84

  115·00

  105·29

  41·56

  17·45

  0·00

  1·15

  165·45

  130·02

  116·00

  106·00

  41·07

  17·45

  0·00

  1·12

  165·64

  130·21

  117·00

  106·71

  40·57

  17·45

  0·00

  1·09

  165·82

  130·39

  118·00

  107·42

  40·07

  17·45

  0·00

  1·06

  166·00

  130·57

  119·00

  108·13

  39·58

  17·45

  0·00

  1·02

  166·18

  130·75

  120·00

  108·84

  39·08

  17·45

  0·00

  0·99

  166·36

  130·93

  Earnings £121–130

  121·00

  109·55

  38·58

  17·45

  0·00

  0·96

  166·54

  131·11

  122·00

  110·26

  38·09

  17·45

  0·00

  0·93

  166·73

  131·30

  123·00

  110·97

  37·59

  17·45

  0·00

  0·90

  166·91

  131·48

  124·00

  111·68

  37·09

  17·45

  0·00

  0·86

  167·08

  131·65

  125·00

  112·39

  36·59

  17·45

  0·00

  0·83

  167·26

  131·83

  126·00

  113·10

  36·10

  17·45

  0·00

  0·80

  167·45

  132·02

  127·00

  113·81

  35·60

  17·45

  0·00

  0·77

  167·63

  132·20

  128·00

  114·52

  35·10

  17·45

  0·00

  0·74

  167·81

  132·38

  129·00

  115·23

  34·61

  17·45

  0·00

  0·70

  167·99

  132·56

  130·00

  115·94

  34·11

  17·45

  0·00

  0·67

  168·17

  132·74

  Earnings £131–140

  131·00

  116·65

  33·61

  17·45

  0·00

  0·64

  168·35

  132·92

  132·00

  117·36

  33·12

  17·45

  0·00

  0·61

  168·54

  133·11

  133·00

  118·07

  32·62

  17·45

  0·00

  0·58

  168·72

  133·29

  134·00

  118·78

  32·12

  17·45

  0·00

  0·54

  168·89

  133·46

  135·00

  119·49

  31·62

  17·45

  0·00

  0·51

  169·07

  133·64

  136·00

  120·20

  31·13

  17·45

  0·00

  0·48

  169·26

  133·83

  137·00

  120·91

  30·63

  17·45

  0·00

  0·45

  169·44

  134·01

  138·00

  121·61

  30·14

  1745

  0·00

  0·42

  169·62

  134·19

  139·00

  122·27

  29·68

  17·45

  0·00

  0·39

  169·79

  134·36

  140·00

  122·93

  29·22

  17·45

  0·00

  0·36

  169·96

  134·53

  Earnings £141–150

  141·00

  123·59

  28·75

  17·45

  0·00

  0·33

  170·12

  134·69

  142·00

  124·25

  28·29

  17·45

  0·00

  0·30

  170·29

  134·86

  143·00

  124·91

  27·83

  17·45

  000

  0·27

  170·46

  135·03

  144·00

  125·57

  27·37

  17·45

  0·00

  0·24

  170·63

  135·20

  145·00

  126·23

  26·91

  17·45

  0·00

  0·21

  170·80

  135·37

  146·00

  126·89

  26·44

  17 45

  0·00

  0·18

  170·96

  135·53

  147·00

  127·55

  25·98

  17·45

  0·00

  0·15

  171·13

  135·70

  148·00

  128·21

  25·52

  17·45

  0·00

  0·12

  171 30

  135·87

  149·00

  128·87

  25·06

  17·45

  0 00

  0·09

  171·47

  136·04

  150·00

  129 53

  24·60

  17·45

  0·00

  0·06

  171·64

  136·21

  Disabled People
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the future of the European Community Helios programme for people with disabilities.

  Mr. Scott
  The Council of Ministers is currently considering the European Commission's proposals for the Helios II programme and the European Parliament's opinion is awaited. The Government supported all aspects of the Helios I programme from 1988 to 1991 and is expecting to receive shortly the final report of an independent evaluation carried out by a team of researchers from Southampton university.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will list all the United Kingdom participants in the European Community TIDE programme and the nature of each project; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what is his estimate of receipts in the United Kingdom during the current year from the TIDE
  488
  programme; what proportion this represents of total European Community expenditure on the programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  TIDE (technology initiative for disabled and elderly people) is a research and development pilot action managed by the Commission of European Communities. The Commission has published synopses of the pilot action projects listing all the participants a copy of which will be placed in the Library. The funding allocated to each project has not been disclosed by the Commission.

  Local Offices
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many staff, full-time equivalent, were employed in each of the three local offices in the Newham district benefits agency for each quarter in 1991 in(a) income support, (b) contributions, (c) direct payments, (d) social fund, (e) fraud, (f) child support and (g) total; and what is the current position for the latest date for which he has figures.
  489
  Mr. Burt
  The staffing of Benefits Agency offices is a matter for Mr Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Maintenance Payments
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will take action to prevent official pressure being put on women to name fathers for maintenance purposes.

  Mr. Burt
  There is currently no requirement for a mother to name the father of her child when claiming social security benefits, though more than three-quarters of never-married mothers do so voluntarily. From April 1993, when the Child Support Agency is established, there will be a legal requirement for parents in receipt of prescribed benefits to co-operate in obtaining maintenance for their children. Taxpayers, many of whom have families of their own, should not have to shoulder the responsibility of providing for children where the natural parents are able to do so. However, the matter will be dealt with sympathetically by trained officers and the requirement will be waived where there are reasonable grounds for believing that compliance would risk causing harm to undue distress to the mother or any child living with her.

  Advertising
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give separate figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year up to and including 1991–92; and what is his latest estimate for 1992–93.

  Mr. Burt
  For information from 1979–80 and in each following year up to and including 1990–91, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 12 November 1991 at col.478.

  For 1991–92 the information is as follows:

  Department of Social Security and its agencies (other than Benefits Agency)

  £ millions

  Expenditure in 1991–92

  for television advertising was

  4·396

  for radio advertising was

  0·626

  for newspaper advertising was

  0·772

  for other information material was

  4·552

  Provision for the 1992⤓93 Social Security budget is £13·68 million. Decisions on media have not been made.

  The Benefits Agency

  For expenditure for 1991–92

  for television, radio and press advertising was NIL;

  for other materials (leaflets, posters, etc) was £6·55 million. Provision for the 1992–93 Benefits Agency budget is £8·261 million.

  Claimant Eligibility
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 22 May,Official Report, columns 288⤓89, for which benefits his Department has an estimate of the numbers eligible to claim it.
  490
  Mr. Burt
  The latest available information is contained in the estimates of take-up of income-related benefits for 1987; these relate to housing benefit, family income supplement and supplementary benefit, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many and what percentage of officers in grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 respectively and overall in his Department are members of ethnic minorities.

  Mr. Burt
  [holding answer 12 Mar 1992]: The Department, including its executive agencies, asks staff to complete questionnaires on their ethnic origin on a voluntary basis. As at 15 April 1992 3,237 of the 64,564 staff who responded to the questionnaire were from ethnic minorities. The breakdown of respondents, for the Department as a whole, and by grades 1⤓7 is in the table.

  Grade1

  Number of respondents from an ethnic minority

  Percentage of respondents

  1

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  3

  1

  9

  4

  0

  0

  5

  3

  3.4

  6

  18

  10

  7

  7

  1.5

  Others

  3,208

  5

  Total for Department

  3,237

  5

  1 Includes professional equivalents. Pensions

  Pensions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total difference (in current prices) between (a) the cumulative cost of the single pension paid to an individual since April 1979 to date, and (b) the cumulative cost of the single pension paid had the link between the rise in earnings and the rise in the pension been sustained: and what are the comparable figures for the married couples pensions.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [pursuant to her reply, 18 May 1992, columns 22–28]: The following information was incorrect:
  "The cumulative difference in cost had pensions been uprated by the higher of earnings or prices from April 1980 to date would be £7,690 million."

  The corrected version is:
  "The cumulative difference in cost had pensions been uprated by the higher of earnings or prices from April 1980 to date would be £43,136 million."

  In the original reply the cost for one year (1992–93) was given instead of the cumulative cost as requested.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Departmental Pay Rates
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many full-time and part-time employees in his Department earn less than £3·40 an hour.

  Mr. Eggar
  At 30 April 1992 there were 794 full-time and 33 part-time employees in the Department of Trade and Industry earning less than £3·40 an hour.

  British Coal
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list measures for job retraining programmes and other assistance his Department is planning for mineworkers who will be made redundant following privatisation of British Coal.

  Mr. Eggar
  A range of programmes and measures is already available to assist people and communities affected by redundancies in the coal industry. The Government will continue to support and encourage initiatives which bring real benefits to coal-mining areas. Specifically, the Government have clearly stated their commitment to increasing the support for the job creation, resettlement and retraining activities of British Coal Enterprise. The European Community RECHAR initiative, which is aimed at providing the economic regeneration of coal-mining areas, will also bring benefits of at least £124 million to such areas.

  Bank Fees (Report)
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he received the copy of the report by Rochester Research which has been sent to him concerning the levels of fees to small businesses charged by Lloyds and Midland banks; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  I have not received a copy of this report.

  Bank Mergers
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answers of 15 May 1992 to the hon. Members for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) and for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin),Official Report, column 232, when he expects to receive advice from the Director General of Fair Trading on the possible offer from Lloyds bank for Midland bank.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The Director General of Fair Trading submitted his advice on the proposed acquisition by Lloyds Bank plc of Midland Bank plc to the President of the Board of Trade on 20 May. The President announced his decision to refer the proposed acquisition to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, in accordance with the director general's advice, on 22 May.

  Footwear (Chinese Imports)
  Ms. Janet Anderson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will take action to restrict imports of footwear from China into the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Needham
  My Department is currently considering a proposal from the European Commission to introduce a Community wide quantitative restriction for the rest of this year on imports of certain types of footwear from China. Such a measure, if agreed, would replace the differing national quotas which most member states—including the UK— presently apply to direct imports from there.

  Consultants Fees
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total sum paid out in fees by his Department to management consultants in 1979–80 and in each following year up to and including 1991–92; and what is his estimate for 1992–93.
  492
  Mr. Eggar
  Information on the fees paid to management consultants before 1984–85 was not kept in a form in which it could be separately identifiable. The information for subsequent years is as follows, although it has not always been possible to disaggregate expenditure on management consultancy from other forms of consultancy such as in information technology. The figures do not include fees paid by DTI agencies operating on a net running costs regime or as trading funds. The apparent reduction between 1986–87 and 1991–92 is a result of the shift of expenditure towards programme-related consultancies for which separate records are not kept. The figure for 1992–93, which takes into account the merger with the old Department of Energy, represents the allocation to management consultancy as a result of the Department's annual activity and resource management review.

  £000s

  1984–85

  6,104

  1985–86

  6,417

  1986–87

  4,650

  1987–88

  3,050

  1988–89

  2,516

  1989–90

  3,168

  1990–91

  2,771

  1991–92

  1,884

  1992–93

  2,504

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total sum paid out in fees by the Department of Energy to management consultants in 1979–80 and in each following year up to and including 1991–92.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested for the years up to 1980–81 is no longer available and for 1981–82 to 1983–84 is available only at disproportionate cost. Expenditure by the Department of Energy on management consultancies for 1984–85 onwards is as follows:

  Financial year

  Expenditure

  1984–85

  53,328

  1985–86

  31,209

  1986–87

  30,101

  1987–88

  35,451

  1988–89

  27,496

  1989–90

  6,317

  1990–91

  14,683

  1991–92

  43,481

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will give the total expenditure by his Department on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year up to and including 1991–92; and if he will give an estimate for 1992–93;

  (2) if he will give the total expenditure by Department of Energy on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year up to and including 1991–92.

  Mr. Eggar
  Expenditure by the two Departments on press and public relations in 1991–92 was as follows:

  Department of Trade and Industry, £2,719.000.

  Department of Energy, £705,000.

  DTI expenditure in 1992–93, covering trade, industry and energy issues, is expected to be of the order of £3,160,000. The figures include regional press officer and other support services.
  493
  For the equivalent expenditure in earlier years I refer the hon. Member to previous answers:
  Department of Trade and Industry
  Official Report 13 March 1990, column 172; 30 April 1991, column 127; and 5 November 1991, column 62.
  Department of Energy
  Official Report 30 April 1991, column 107.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the public opinion surveys carried out by the Department of Energy between 1 November 1991 and its abolition.

  Mr. Eggar
  I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the public opinion surveys carried out by his Department since 1 November 1991.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Department of Trade and Industry has not carried out any public opinion surveys in this period.

  Weights and Measures
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of(a) public houses and (b) garages were inspected by weights and measures inspectors by local authority areas in 1981, 1988, 1990 and 1991.

  Mr. Leigh
  Although the President receives annual reports from each local weights and measures authority, these reports do not contain specific information relating to public houses and garages.

  Coal Privatisation
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to provide, under the coal industry privatisation, for the continuation of supply of free or subsidised fuel to miners and miners' widows and dependants on the same terms as at present; and what consideration has been given to paying compensation in its place, either(a) as a lump sum or (b) as periodical payments.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government will ensure that existing concessionary fuel entitlements from British Coal will be safeguarded following privatisation of British Coal.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if former miners and miners' widows and dependants will be given written and full details of the impact of privatisation on their pension arrangements and their fuel allowance before any shares are sold.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) on 20 May,Official Report, column 156.

  No decisions have been taken on the form or timing of privatisation.

  Fraud (Tax Havens)
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he proposes to take to prevent frauds, criminal activities and other losses being perpetrated in the United Kingdom by trusts, companies and individuals controlled from Liechtenstein and other tax havens.
  494
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  My Department is firmly committed to measures to prevent fraudulent activities. My Department works closely with regulatory authorities in the United Kingdom and overseas to protect investors against fraudulent activity by companies and individuals. I welcome the growing number of countries which, like the United Kingdom, now have powers to carry out investigations for foreign authorities.

  Maxwell Companies
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish the minutes of the relevant meetings and other relevant correspondence of those persons in his Department who were involved in the granting of licences or approvals to deal in securities to any companies associated with the late Mr. Maxwell.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  No.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will list in respect of(a) Maxwell and East European Partners plc, formerly Bishopsgate International Investment Management plc, (b) Bishopsgate Investment Management Ltd. and (c) any other company associated with the late Mr. Maxwell to which his Department granted licences or approvals to deal in securities, the names of each director and any notified prospective director of each company at the date of the application, the date of approval, and the date the company ceased to hold the licence or approval;

  (2) if he will list in respect of (a) Maxwell and East European Partners plc, formerly Bishopsgate International Investment Management plc, (b) Bishopsgate Investment Management Ltd. and (c) any other company associated with the late Mr. Maxwell to which his Department granted licences or approvals to deal in securities, (i) details of any securities trading which any of the companies notified the Department it has carried out prior to approval; and (ii) the date on which each company applied for, was granted and ceased to hold such licences or approvals.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The Department granted a licence under the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act 1958 to London and Bishopsgate International Investment Management plc, LBI. LBI applied for a licence on 28 February 1988. A licence was granted on 25 April 1988. It came into effect on 26 April 1988 and lapsed on 29 April 1988 when the relevant parts of the Financial Services Act came into force. The directors were notified as Mr Andrew Smith, Mr Kevin Maxwell and Mr Larry Trachtenberg.

  LBI did not notify the Department of any securities trading carried out before the licence was granted.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment of the previous references to Mr Maxwell in reports by inspectors acting on behalf of his Department was made when his Department granted licences to deal in securities to(a) Maxwell and East European Partners plc, (b) Bishopsgate Investment Management Ltd. and (c) any other company associated with the late Mr Maxwell which was authorised to deal in securities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The Department carried out the usual checks in connection with the application for a
  495
  licence from London & Bishopsgate International Management plc. Mr. Robert Maxwell was not a director of LBI when the licence was granted.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list in respect of (a) Maxwell and East European Partners, formerly Bishopsgate International Investment Management plc, (b) Bishopsgate Investment Management Ltd. and (c) any other company associated with the late Mr. Maxwell to which his Department granted licences or approvals to deal in securities the names of the shareholders and notified prospective shareholders at the date of the application, the date of approval and the date the company ceased to hold the licence for approval.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Applications for licences under the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act 1958 did not require the disclosure of the names of shareholders.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will initiate an enquiry into the extent of losses to the United Kingdom economy and private individuals over the last 20 years as a result of frauds and other criminal or loss inducing activities perpetrated by trusts, companies or individuals controlled from Liechtenstein or other tax havens.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  No.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will place in the Library copies of the files regarding the application, authorisation and approval of (a) Maxwell and East European Partners (b) Bishopsgate Investment Management Ltd. and (c) any other company associated with the late Mr. Maxwell which obtained licences or approvals to deal in securities from his Department.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  No.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of the total work force in his Department is registered as disabled; what steps he is taking to encourage the employment of disabled people within his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  A total of 1·1 per cent. of the Department's workforce is registered as disabled. The Department also employs a number of people who are known to be disabled but have chosen not to register.

  The Department fully accepts the responsibilities laid down by the civil service code of practice on the employment of disabled people and has taken steps to try to increase the number of disabled recruits.

  Plutonium (Transport)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received raising concerns over the emergency plans existing for the transport of plutonium from Sellafield to Japan via the Panama canal and Pacific ocean.

  Mr. Eggar
  I know of no proposals for such a transport operation.

  Debt Payment
  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what distribution has taken place within his Department and the purchasing organisations for which he has responsibility of the Department of Employment's publication, "Making the Cash Flow—a Guide to the Payment of Commercial Debt for Buyers and Small Business Suppliers."

  Mr. Leigh
  "Making the Cash Flow" was prepared as guidance for the private sector and there was therefore no formal distribution to other Government Departments. Guidelines on purchasing by Government Departments already exist and are distributed by HM Treasury.

  The Department of Employment has been undertaking a survey of the prompt payment record of Government Departments during the financial year 1991–92 and the results of this exercise will be published in the near future by the Department of Trade and Industry, which now has responsibility for small firms issues, including late payment. After studying these results the Department will consider what further measures, if any, may be necessary to encourage prompt payment by the public sector.

  Electricity
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what study his Department has made into the impact on electricity users of changes to voltage and systems to bring the United Kingdom into line with the German system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government are aware of a proposal by CENELEC, the European Standards Committee for electricity, to move to a standardised nominal voltage of 230 volts throughout the European Community and EFTA countries. The Government will be consulting the electricity industry, equipment manufacturers and consumer organisations about the implications of the proposal.

  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received following the public inquiry into Kelt UK Ltd's plans for a gas-fired electricity generating station at West Knapton, north Yorkshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have received three such representations.

  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what financial contribution Her Majesty's Government makes towards the operation of the International Atomic Energy Agency; and what plans his Department has to increase that contribution.

  Mr. Eggar
  The United Kingdom's contribution to the International Atomic Energy Agency for 1992 is £6·5 million. The contribution for 1993 will depend on the decision to be taken this year by the agency's board of governors as well as by any revision of the United Nations scale for assessing contributions.

  Advertising
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will give separate figures for the spending by the Department of Energy on(a) television advertising, (b)

  497
  radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year up to and including 1991–92;

  (2) if he will give separate figures for the spending by his Department on (a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year up to and including 1991–92; and what is his latest estimate for 1992–93.

  Mr. Eggar
  Expenditure by the two Departments in 1991–92 was as follows (£000):

  Department Department of Trade and Industry1

  Department of Energy

  Television advertising

  2

  Nil

  Radio advertising

  4

  Nil

  Newspaper advertising

  345

  615

  Other promotional material

  23,502

  31,079

  1 Central publicity budget.

  2 Publications, audio-visual materials and posters.

  3 Publications only.

  For the equivalent expenditure in earlier years I refer the hon. Member to previous answers:
  Department of Trade and Industry
  Official Report 5 November 1991, columns 63–64;
  29 April 1991, column 56; and 13 March 1990; column 173
  Department of Energy
  Official Report 5 November 1991, column 67; and 25 April 1991, column 500.

  Media allocations for 1992–93 will be made according to need during the year.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what is the target of Her Majesty's Government for the proportion of energy generated from renewable sources of energy in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Scotland by (i) the year 2000 and (ii) 2010;

  (2) what steps his Department is taking to achieve the European Community recommendation that each member state generates 5 to 6 per cent. of its energy from renewable sources of energy by the year 2000.

  Mr. Eggar
  Targets for the exploitation of renewable energy are under consideration as part of the review of the Government's renewable energy programme, which will be reported in due course.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will set a target for electricity from renewable sources at 10 per cent. of total supply by the year 2000.

  Mr. Eggar
  Targets for the exploitation of renewable energy are under consideration as part of the review of the Government's renewable energy programme, which will be reported in due course.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he received a copy of the Energy Committee's Fourth Report, Session 1991–92, on "Renewable Energy Technologies and Prospects"; and what response he plans to make.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Energy Select Committee's fourth report was received shortly after publication and the response is currently under consideration.

  Consultants
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the firms or individuals invited to tender for each of the consultant appointments given in his answer of 15 May,Official Report, column 231–32; and which ones submitted tenders.

  Mr. Eggar
  Several organisations were invited to tender and a number submitted tenders. Those organisations submitting tenders did so in confidence.

  Red Mercury Compounds
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken(a) within the United Kingdom and (b) in concert with his European Community counterparts to block the trade in red mercury compounds used in the manufacture of nuclear warheads.

  Mr. Needham
  I am advised that the substance known as red mercury has long been incorrectly associated with capabilities in nuclear weapons development. Mercury oxide and mercury sulphide, whether or not in the form which gives them their red colour, are not subject to export control from the UK.

  Regional Assistance
  Mr. Barry field
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those inhabited offshore islands within the United Kingdom taxation regime that do not have assisted area status.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  There are a number of inhabited offshore islands that are subject to the United Kingdom tax regime but which do not have assisted area status, including the Isle of Wight in England and the Orkney and Shetland islands, Islay, Jura, Colonsay and Mull in Scotland.

  Photocopying Costs
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce regulations to control the amounts loaned by finance and leasing companies in respect of photocopying machines used in cost per copy photocopy agreements.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  No. I welcome the recent initiatives by the Finance and Leasing Association and the Director General of Fair Trading in this area. Leasing documentation should be clear and specific, enabling prospective lesses to decide whether a cost per copy facility is more appropriate.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will investigate the profits made from cost per copy photocopying agreements by Anglio Leasing, its subsidiary RML leasing, and Palace Leasing.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I have no powers to make such an investigation.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will ask the Director General of Fair Trading to extend his recent inquiry into malpractice in the photocopying industry to cover business practices of leasing companies.
  499
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The Director General of Fair Trading has a general statutory duty to make himself aware of activities which may adversely affect the interests of consumers in the United Kingdom. If the hon. Member has evidence of such activities it should be brought to the attention of the director general so that he may consider what action, if any, may be appropriate under the legislation for which he is responsible.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will estimate the value to leasing companies of cost per copy photocopying agreements.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  No. Such agreements are likely to vary too widely in their size and terms for such an estimate to be feasible.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will cancel all present and planned building of nuclear power stations, close down existing Magnox reactors and phase out advance gas-cooled reactors.

  Mr. Eggar
  No. The Government will undertake a full-scale review of the future prospects for nuclear power in the UK in 1994. Until then, the UK's existing stations will be operated to the highest standards of safety and as efficiently as possible. Nuclear Electric plc will complete the construction of Sizewell B.

  Government Subsidies
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the annual Government subsidies to the British nuclear and coal industries for each year since 1982; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The amount of financial support given to the coal industry by Government since 1982–83 is as follows—outturn prices:

  £ million

  1982–83

  521

  1983–84

  1,146

  1984–85

  2,414

  1985–86

  563

  1986–87

  882

  1987–88

  677

  1988–89

  297

  1989–90

  7,243

  1990–91

  141

  1991–92

  448

  No Government subsidies have been paid to Nuclear Electric plc or BNFL. Both these companies are recipients of the fossil fuel levy paid by electricity suppliers. The Government have, however, been the customer for research and development and other programmes undertaken by the Atomic Energy Authority and have funded those programmes and the consequences of those programmes.

  Ministerial responsibility for Scottish Nuclear Limited rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Registrar of Companies
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consultations he has had and what representations he has received concerning the actions of 500
  the registrar of Companies house in terminating his consultation arrangements with the Companies House Users Group; and if he will make a statement on the future quality of public access to commercial data statutorily provided to and via Companies house.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To the best of my knowledge the President has had no consultations and received no representations about Companies House User Group. As an executive agency, the day-to-day management of Companies House is the responsibility of the chief executive and any arrangements made with users are a matter for him. He has been asked to write to the hon. Member. As to the future quality of public access to commercial data the chief executive has recently introduced a total quality programme with the aim of achieving a higher standard of quality in all aspects of its work.

  Mersey Barrage
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about funding arrangements for tidal energy schemes and their implications for the construction of a barrage on the River Mersey.

  Mr. Eggar
  Since 1979–80 the Government have spent £10·5 million on work on tidal power. The objective of the Government's programme on tidal power is to reduce the technical, economic, regional and environmental uncertainties associated with tidal barrages through a number of site and generic studies.

  The Government have already contributed £2·5 million towards feasibility studies completed at a cost of £5 million on the River Mersey tidal barrage project. The Government are funding a further £1·n of the £1·n cost of the current stage of studies. A decision on any further work on the Mersey barrage will be considered when this current phase of work is completed later this year.

  Lloyd's of London
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider holding an official public inquiry into the operation of Lloyd's of London.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Sir David Walker is currently conducting an investigation into allegations of malpractice, including insider trading, at Lloyd's. Sir Jeremy Morse chairs a working group studying governance of the market. There are independent loss reviews inquiring in to the circumstances of losses of the worst affected syndicates. Any further inquiry would not help the work now in progress.

  Monopoly References
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to review the power of the Director General of Fair Trading to make a monopoly reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission without his approval.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  There are no plans for such a review. When the Director General of Fair Trading makes a monopoly reference the Secretary of State may, within 14 days of publication of the reference, direct the MMC not to proceed with the reference. To date this power of veto has never been exercised.

  General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects the GATT talks to reopen.

  Mr. Needham
  Talks are continuing on the outstanding issues between the participants in the Uruguay round of GATT negotiations. These include both formal GATT meetings and informal contacts between the parties. Vice-President Andriessen, the Commissioner who leads for the European Community in the talks, had discussions in Washington last week with the United States Secretary of State James Baker. These made useful progress and will, we hope, contribute to bringing the Uruguay round to an early successful conclusion.

  Registrar of Companies
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those trading organisations that do not have to file reports and accounts with the Registrar of Companies.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The Companies Acts require that all limited companies, whether trading or not, deliver accounts to the registrar. However, an unlimited company is not subject to this requirement unless it is a subsidiary, or parent of a limited company, or carries on business as the promoter of a trading stamps scheme. These provisions do not apply to other trading organisations.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consultations he has had with the Registrar of Companies House concerning the present strategic review of Companies House; and if he will place a copy of such review, when completed, in the Library.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The strategic review of Companies House executive agency was initiated with the approval of my predecessor. It is anticipated that the review will be completed in early 1993 and I shall be consulting with the chief executive of Companies House during this period. The strategic plan which will emerge from the review will be submitted to me for approval when completed and I shall consider at the time whether the plan should be placed in the Library.

  Nuclear Reprocessing
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to halt nuclear reprocessing at Sellafield and Dounreay and cancel THORP at Sellafield.

  Mr. Eggar
  No.

  RECHAR
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he intends to take to reimburse qualifying local authorities for expenditure incurred during the last financial year on the assumption of receiving RECHAR moneys.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 22 May 1992]: In accordance with article 15(2) of Council regulation (EEC) No. 4253/88, expenditure may be considered eligible for structural funds assistance under the United Kingdom's RECHAR programmes if incurred after the date on which
  502
  the programme applications reached the European Commission—26 July 1990. Priorities for the allocation of RECHAR grant money will be considered by the programme monitoring committees.

  Personal Protective Equipment
  Mr. Hawksley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when will the personal protective equipment directive be enacted; how long the transitional period will be; and what products will be covered.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 22 May 1992]: The draft regulations to transpose the requirements of the personal protective equipment directive into national law will be issued for public consultation soon with a view to their enactment shortly thereafter. The directive contains details of the transitional arrangements but the European Commission is considering possible changes. Until precise details are known, the regulations are being drafted to reflect the current situation under article 5.3 of the directive. The directive contains guidance on the products covered.

  Industrial Gloves
  Mr. Hawksley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is intended that under the personal protective equipment directive industrial gloves can be sold during the transitional period without being tested against the national standard.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 22 May 1992]: The European Commission is considering a possible extension to the transition period as currently provided under article 5.3 of the personal protective equipment directive, 89/686/EEC. Until the precise details of any amendment are known, the arrangements during the transition period remain as set out in that directive.

  Energy Technology Support Unit
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the future of the energy technology support unit.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 22 May 1992]: The ETSU is a unit within the UK Atomic Energy Authority which provides management and other services to a number of my Department's energy R and D programmes, including that on renewable energy.

  My Department is considering a recommendation in a recent Energy Select Committee report on renewable energy that an analysis be undertaken of the costs and benefits of separating ETSU from the UKAEA in order to demonstrate its impartiality. The Government will be giving their response to the Committee recommendation in due course.

  Electricity Savings
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has any plans to meet the director of OFFER to discuss initiatives to promote electricity savings.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) on 13 May, Official Report column 136.

SCOTLAND

  Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money was granted to farmers in Scotland through the farm and conservation grant scheme—heather and woodland regeneration section—in 1990–91.

  Mr. Lang
  £15,973 was paid for heather and woodland generation in Scotland in 1990–91.

  Farm Diversification
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money was granted to farmers in Scotland in 1990–91 through the farm diversification scheme; and if he will give a breakdown of this expenditure between the various activities eligible for grants.

  Mr. Lang
  £114,055 was paid in grants under the farm diversification grant scheme in Scotland in 1990–91. A breakdown of these figures by the various eligible enterprises is as follows.

  Enterprise type

  Grant paid £

  Tourist accommodation

  60,775

  Horse enterprises

  22,732

  Food processing

  21,123

  Catering

  2,300

  Farm shop

  2,250

  Non-food agricultural produce

  1,225

  Feasibility and marketing

  3,650

  114,055

  Social Workers, Ayr
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will investigate the implications of the Ayr sheriff court finding which concluded that social workers distorted facts in a children in care situation with respect to one family; and if he will make a statement on the wider implications of the finding of Ayr sheriff court for children in other families with whom Ayr social workers have been dealing.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  I understand that a complaint has been made to the procurator fiscal about the actions of social workers involved in a case concerning children in Ayrshire. This complaint is under investigation and it would not be proper for me to comment on it or any implications arising from it.

  Fluoride
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress that has been made in artificially increasing the fluoride content of the water supply in Scotland during the most recent 12-month period for which information is available.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 22 May 1992]: Guidance on the implementation of schemes to fluoridate public water supplies was issued to health boards and water authorities in Scotland in June 1991. This included advice that the Scottish Office is prepared to consider assistance of up to 60 per cent of the capital costs of schemes.
  504
  No schemes have yet been introduced in Scotland, but consideration is being given to the matter by health boards in many areas, in conjunction with water authorities to which decisions in relation to fluoridation ultimately fall.

  Whisky
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the total number of people directly employed in the Scotch whisky industry in each of the regional authorities of Scotland.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 21 May 1992]: Employment figures are available only for plants manufacturing Scotch whisky as their principal product and employing 11 or more employees in 1990, the latest year for which figures are available.

  Manufacturing employment in the whisky industry in 1990 by regional authority (rounded to the nearest 100)

  Region

  Number of employees

  Borders

  0

  Central

  300

  Dumfries and Galloway

  0

  Fife

  1,100

  Grampian

  1,100

  Highland

  400

  Lothian

  1,600

  Strathclyde

  5,200

  Tayside

  600

  Islands

  100

  Scotland

  10,500

  Source: The Scottish Office Industry Department Scottish Register of Employment.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the current breakdown of employment activity in the Scotch whisky industry by(a) maltings, (b) distilleries, (c) maturation warehouses, (d) blending and bottling plants, (e) distribution warehouses, (f) byproducts, (g) offices, (h) visitor centres and (i) others; and what was the comparable situation in 1982.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 21 May 1992]: This information is unavailable at the level of disaggregation requested. Employment figures are available only for plants manufacturing Scotch whisky as their principal product. Some or all of the activities given in the question may be included in employment for individual plants.

  The table shows manufacturing employment in whisky and other related industries in Scotland in plants employing 11 or more employees in 1982 and 1990, the latest year for which figures are available.

  Manufacturing employment in whisky and other related industries

  Scotland

  1982

  18,000

  1990

  10,500

  Source: The Scottish Office Industry Department Scottish Register of Employment.

  European Drugs Monitoring Squad
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what criteria is to be used by the Scottish Office in recruiting staff to serve on the European drugs monitoring squad; how many staff he expects to be recruited to serve in Scotland; and what central resourcing will be made available.
  505
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 21 May 1992]: Detailed negotiations about the establishment of a European drug monitoring centre are still under way and the final text of the required regulation has yet to be agreed with our Community partners. Once the modalities and structure for the centre have been agreed we will be addressing the issues of resourcing and staffing.

  Drug addicts notified to the Home office during 1991 by type of drug' to which addiction was reported and Health Board2

  Scotland

  Type of drug

  Number of persons

  Health Board of notifier

  Heroin

  Methadone

  Dipipanone

  Cocaine

  Morphine

  Pethidine

  Dextromoramide

  Opium

  All addicts

  Scotland

  752

  714

  96

  27

  99

  9

  32

  1

  1,480

  Argyll and Clyde

  46

  7

  8

  1

  1

  —

  4

  —

  55

  Ayrshire and Arran

  24

  8

  2

  2

  4

  1

  1

  —

  30

  Borders

  2

  3

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  Dumfries and Galloway

  15

  26

  5

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  35

  Fife

  41

  6

  2

  1

  2

  —

  1

  —

  48

  Forth Valley

  112

  84

  11

  3

  4

  1

  2

  —

  191

  Grampian

  85

  86

  30

  6

  45

  1

  6

  —

  170

  Greater Glasgow

  306

  31

  15

  4

  31

  1

  9

  —

  352

  Highland

  3

  2

  2

  —

  —

  3

  2

  —

  8

  Lanarkshire

  39

  7

  2

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  46

  Lothian

  55

  292

  11

  7

  8

  1

  4

  1

  353

  Orkney

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Shetland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tayside

  24

  162

  8

  2

  2

  1

  1

  —

  187

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 As an addict can be reported as addicted to more than one notifiable drug the figures for individual drugs cannot be added together to produce totals.

  2 Where an addict was notified more than once in 1991, this refers to the health board of the doctor who made the first notification.

  EC Cohesion Fund
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what measures his Department is taking to publicise the funds available for environmental. projects and transport infrastructure through the EC cohesion fund; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what mechanisms are being put in place to allow regions in Scotland to take advantage of the funds that will be made available through the EC cohesion fund; what representations he has received so far on the subject of the cohesion fund; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 22 May 1992]: No assistance will be available to Scotland through the cohesion fund which was agreed in principle at the European Council at Maastricht. Under the protocol on economic and social cohesion, the fund will assist EC member states whose per capita GNP is less than 90 per cent. of the Community average—Portugal, Spain, Greece and the Republic of Ireland—provided they meet certain macro-economic policy conditions. No measures have therefore been taken to publicise the cohesion fund in Scotland and no representations on this matter have been received.

TRANSPORT

  Birmingham Relief Road
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the 1988 inquiry report on the proposal for a Birmingham northern relief road.

  Drug Addicts
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest total number of registered drug addicts for each type of drug in each region in Scotland.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 21 May 1992]: Information on addicts notified to the Home Office from Scotland is collected on a health board rather than regional basis. The total number of addicts notified to the Home Office by health board and by type of drug in 1991 is shown in the table.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  No. The draft orders which were the subject of the inquiry have been withdrawn.

  Railways
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list his safety and regulatory powers under railways legislation.

  Mr. Roger Freeman
  The responsibility for running a safe and efficient railway is placed by statute on British Rail. The Secretary of State has safety powers under the Regulation of Railways Act 1871, the Railway Employment (Prevention of Accidents) Act 1900, the Road and Rail Traffic Act 1933 and level crossing enactments. The powers relate to the approval and inspection of new works, the making of safety rules, and to the investigation of accidents. More detailed information is contained in appendix 11 of the 1990 annual report on the safety record of railways, copies of which are in the Library. Some of these powers are amended by the Transport and Works Act 1992.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the service provided by British Rail on the Fenchurch Street, Tilbury, Southend line meets the specified quality targets set by his predecessor in December 1989.

  Mr. Roger Freeman
  Between January and April of this year, the London, Tilbury and Southend line achieved, on average, the target set in 1989 for peak punctuality. This is most encouraging and reflects the efforts of British Rail staff on the line. Reliability remains a problems and was
  507
  below target over the same period. BR has told me that the current £50 million resignalling programme is the key to improving reliability.

  Parking Spaces (Disabled People)
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will introduce legislation to enable an automatic fine to be imposed on motorists illegally occupying designated parking spaces for the disabled.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  It is already an offence for an able-bodied person to use a parking place reserved for an orange badge holder on the public highway or in a local authority off-street car park which has been designated by an order made under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The offence carries a maximum penalty of £400.

  My Department has no jurisdiction over spaces in private car parks reserved for disabled people. It is for individual operators of these car parks to take whatever steps they consider necessary to see that these spaces are not misused.

  Sea Freight
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the value of sea freight between United Kingdom ports in each year from 1983 to dace; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  Data on the value of sea freight between United Kingdom ports are not available.

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the total expenditure by his Department on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year up to and including 1991–92; and if he will give an estimate for 1992–93.

  Mr. Norris
  The total expenditure on the Department's press and public relations office since 1984–85 is as follows:

  Year

  £

  1984–85

  339,426

  1985–86

  354,393

  1986–87

  363,446

  1987–88

  389,473

  1988–89

  437,950

  1989–90

  451,214

  1990–91

  517,905

  1991–92

  587,665

  11992–93

  614,109

  1 Budget.

  These figures cover the overall costs of running the press office, calculated using the ready reckoner for staff-related costs.

  Before 1984–85 the information division was a common service of the Departments of Transport and the Environment and the Property Services Agency.

  London Taxis (Seat Belts)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when London taxis first had fixing points for rear seat belts; and what estimate he has of the number of London taxis with fixing points but without rear seat belts.
  508
  Mr. Norris
  From 1 April 1982 new London taxis were required to be fitted with anchorages for rear seat belts. All cabs manufactured since 1 April 1987 must be fitted with seat belts for forward-facing passengers.

  Cabs licensed to carry four persons must be fitted with two inertia reel type seat belts and an additional lap type seat belt must be fitted to cabs licensed to carry five persons. Cabs manufactured prior to 1 April 1987 may be fitted with approved type seat belts, but they are not compulsory. Where there is provision for a wheelchair passenger, an approved type seat belt must be fitted.

  There is not available data on the number of London taxis with fixing points but without rear seat belts. However I understand that at present 8,250 London taxis are fitted with seat belts.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will consult on requiring the fitting of rear belts to London taxis with fixing points; if he will estimate the time and cost of fitting rear belts to a London taxi with fixing points; and what tests are made of the safety standards of such rear belts in respect of the ease with which they can be drawn out.

  Mr. Norris
  I have no plans to require the fitting of rear seat belts to London taxis built between 1 April 1982 and 1 April 1987 which have fixing points. As for private cars, fitting rear seat belts to these vehicles is voluntary.

  The cost, inclusive of VAT, of fitting rear seat belts to those taxis with fixing points is estimated as of the order of £130 asssuming approximately one hour's labour.

  Seat belts are tested during the vehicle's annual inspection at the Public Carriage Office. Among the things checked are the security of fixture, condition, ability to extend and return and the locking mechanism. The examiners in addition check to ensure that the belts are not hidden behind the seats. The PCO also carries out spot checks at taxi ranks and so on. "Unfit" notices are issued if the belts are defective.

  Land Compensation
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what powers he has to offer ex-gratia payments for cases where the provisions of the Land Compensation Act 1973 cannot be waived.

  Mr. Norris
  The Secretary of State is not empowered to make payments under the Land Compensation Act 1973 other than in accordance with the provisions of that Act.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what powers he has to vary the amount of compensation to be paid in cases where his Department admits to a careless error.

  Mr. Norris
  My right hon. Friend is only permitted to make payments as prescribed in the statute, or on an ex-gratia basis in order to relieve hardship caused by official failure or unreasonable delay.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to amend the Land Compensation Act 1973.

  Mr. Norris
  I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who has responsibility for this matter, has no plans to amend the land Compensation Act 1973.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of the total work force in his Department is registered as disabled; what steps he is taking to encourage the employment of disabled people within his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The percentage of Department of Transport staff registered as disabled at 1 June 1991 was 1.3 per cent.—185. The Department is aware of a further 188 staff who have indicated that they have disabilities but who have not registered. The Department aims to provide access to a full range of recruitment and career opportunities for all people with disabilities. The Department also follows the civil service code of practice on the employment of people with disabilities by, for example, supplying appropriate aids and equipment for staff with disabilities.

  Debt Payment
  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what distribution has taken place within this Department and the purchasing organisations for which he has responsibility of the Department of Employment's publication,"Making the Cash Flow—a Guide to the Payment of Commercial Debt for Buyers and Small Business Suppliers."

  Mr. Norris
  The publication has been distributed to all managers within the Department of Transport carrying responsibility for the authorisation of payments to suppliers.

  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what policy guidelines are currently in place within his Department and the purchasing organisations for which he has responsibility in respect of the prompt payment of commercial debt, particularly as it relates to small business suppliers.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department's policy, in line with the principles of the citizens charter, is to pay all invoices within the contracted period, unless delay is unavoidable because of a dispute or for some other legitimate reason. Where there are no specified terms the policy is to pay invoices within 30 days.

  Learner Drivers
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will bring forward proposals to make it compulsory for all learner drivers to drive with qualified and registered instructors at all times; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  No. Freedom to practice under the supervision of a friend or relative who is an experienced qualified driver widens the opportunity for learners to gain experience. Recent research indicates that learner drivers who supplement professional instruction in this way are better prepared for their driving test.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the average waiting time for driving tests in(a) Paisley, (b) Scotland and (c) the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The average waiting time for driving tests at Paisley is six weeks, in Scotland five weeks,510
  and in Great Britain five weeks. Driving tests in Northern Ireland are the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy that the high speed rail link from Ashford to central London will terminate at Stratford, east London, and will follow closely the route devised by Ove Arup; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government's preference remains that the rail link should approach London from the east, via Stratford, and terminate at King's Cross. The route is currently being refined on the basis of the broad corridor published last October.

  Rail System, Wales
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to support investment for the improvement of existing freight railway lines in Wales so as to enable them to carry passenger traffic; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a matter for BR and the local authorities concerned.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the level of investment by British Rail in rolling stock for the Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth railway line.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand most services on this line are operated by British Rail's flagship diesel unit, the class 158. The remaining services are also operated by modern diesel units—class 150/156s.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement concerning the relative fuel efficiency of rail and road transport and the effect of increased use of rail travel on the natural environment of rural Wales.

  Mr. Freeman
  A comparison of CO2 emissions per kilometre is a useful indication of the relative fuel efficiency of various modes of transport. We have estimated that a typical regional railway service produces 80 to 85 per cent of the CO2 emissions of an average car per 100 person kilometres travelled. This figure reflects the very low levels of off-peak demand on some rural services which involve relatively long journeys. British Rail's regional railways business is currently undergoing a replacement of rolling stock which, when complete, should lead to a halving in fuel consumption. There is also substantial scope for increased fuel efficiency in road vehicles. The effect of increased rail travel on the natural environment of Wales would depend on the amount of traffic diverted from road and the extent to which new rail services and infrastructure were required.

  Advertising
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give separate figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year up to and including 1991–92; and what is his latest estimate for 1992–93.
  511
  Mr. Norris
  The spending by my Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising, and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year is as follows:

  £'000

  Television

  Radio

  Newspaper

  Other

  1979–80

  4,141

  62

  105

  1,532

  1980–81

  3,502

  336

  129

  1,737

  1981–82

  3,615

  6

  410

  1,457

  1982–83

  2,319

  98

  816

  1,415

  1983–84

  4,655

  22

  334

  1,488

  1984–85

  1,723

  207

  476

  2,873

  1985–86

  70

  858

  834

  4,026

  1986–87

  72

  520

  738

  4,489

  1987–88

  2,310

  50

  140

  3,010

  1988–89

  1,867

  110

  365

  3,367

  1989–90

  1,930

  233

  982

  3,289

  1990–91

  3,122

  145

  833

  3,962

  1991–92

  3,870

  176

  883

  4,593

  Detailed decisions have not yet been taken on expenditure by media for 1992–93, but the overall figure is expected to be approximately £10 million.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement regarding the possible suspension of air and road links to Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Norris
  The United Nations Security Council resolution adopted last weekend prohibits any flights of any aircraft coming from or destined for Yugoslavia. It does not extend to road links with Yugoslavia. But there is a total prohibition on the export of all goods to Yugoslavia, except, under certain conditions, food and medical products, and the import of all goods originating from there.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what advice his Department is offering to tour operators and scheduled operators who may be affected by any restricted access to Yugoslav airspace; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The United Nations Security Council resolution prohibits landing and take-off at Yugoslav airports. The resolution does not specifically deal with overflying Yugoslavia, but we are considering the implications of the resolution for overflying and the payment by carriers of overflying charges. At the moment our advice is that United Kingdom air lines should avoid overflying Croatia and Bosnia and airspace within 30 nautical miles of the Croatian border with Yugoslavia.

  Light Dues
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list those EC member states collecting light dues after 1992;

  (2) if he will publish his proposals for ending light dues after 1992.

  Mr. Norris
  Within the EC I understand that only the United Kingdom, Ireland and Greece have systems of light dues; but that Denmark charges its own flag vessels for the use of its Decca radionavigation system. I am unaware of any changes in the position after 1992, and my right hon. Friend has no proposals to end light dues in this country.
  512
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total contribution by the Exchequer to light dues charged by the Republic of Ireland in the last financial year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Norris
  None.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish his conclusions on light dues, following his consultations with the British Ports Federation.

  Mr. Norris
  My right hon. Friend is considering the proposals made by the British Ports Federation for extending light dues to pleasure craft, together with the responses to the widespread consultation which was undertaken about them.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 15 May,Official Report, column 228, at what stage an assessment of changes in levels of carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides and low level ozone will be undertaken.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  If a route is selected for this proposed scheme for further development, an assessment of air pollution will be undertaken during the detailed design stage before publication of the environmental statement.

  Cycling
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research has been done by his Department or commissioned by him to assess the significance of cycling from the perspectives of(a) environmental protection, (b) health and (c) energy efficiency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The cycling research projects undertaken by or on behalf of the Department in recent years have primarily been concerned with establishing means of improving traffic conditions for cyclists, particularly their safety. The three perspectives specified have not so far formed the subject of specific research projects.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those posts in his Department which have a specific remit to promote cycling(a) nationally and (b) at regional level; and how many of them are currently filled.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Department aims to improve conditions for cycling, with emphasis given to making it safer. We do not have any posts with a specific remit to promote cycling, but a substantial number of staff at HQ, in regional offices and at the Transport Research Laboratory undertake cycling work of various kinds.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those areas where regional offices have advised on specific inclusion of safe cycle routes and of those list those which have received funding from his Department; and what percentage these schemes are of the overall spending.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  This information is not held centrally, and could be collected only at disproportionate cost.
  513
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secetary of State for Transport what response he has made to the representations of the Cyclists Touring Club.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Department has regular contacts with the Cyclists' Touring Club at official level. I would be pleased to agree to a request to meet CTC representatives soon.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce targets to raise the level of cycle use within all local authority areas.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  No. Levels of demand for cycling, the need for facilities, and the resources, vary considerably across the country. Decisions on appropriate levels of provision for an area should be agreed by the relevant local authorities.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the number of traffic surveys carried out or funded by his Department over each of the last five years and say how many of those recorded cycling.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  This information is not available centrally, and could be collected only at disproportionate cost.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what account has been taken of cycling in his Department's contribution to the United Nations Earth summit in Brazil.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Government recognise that cycling is an efficient and environmentally friendly mode of transport. Agenda 21, an action plan to guide the world community towards sustainable development, which will be launched at the conference, recommends that all countries should encourage non-motorised modes of transport by providing safe cycleways and footpaths in urban and suburban centres as appropriate. The Government support this recommendation.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of journeys in the United Kingdom are currently made by bicycle; and if he has comparable figures for the percentage of bicycle journeys in other European countries.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The 1985–86 national travel survey indicates that 2.3 per cent. of all journeys of I mile or more are made by cycle. We have no comparable data for other European countries.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what talks he has had with British Rail to require guarantees about reasonable cycle access to rolling stock;

  (2) if he will require all new orders for rolling stock to be built to a specification to incorporate cycle accommodation.

  Mr. Freeman
  The design of rolling stock is a matter for British Rail. BR's policy regarding cycles is to seek to accommodate them whenever possible. However, particularly at peak times on the busier routes, they must balance the interests of cyclists and those of other passengers.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what activity his Department is planning as its participation in national bike week.
  514
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I understand there is no particular national focus, or major launch for national bike week which is taking place between 20 and 28 June. The emphasis this year has been placed on local fun rides, races, educational events and demonstrations. There are a number of charity bike rides planned. These include the annual London to Brighton ride on 21 June, which regularly includes riders from the Department of Transport.

  Rail Incident, Brierfield
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will ask the railway inspectorate to investigate the safety implications of the incident on Monday 18 May in Brierfield in the Pendle constituency involving damage to a train by a coping stone.

  Mr. Freeman
  This incident arose as a result of vandalism which the British Transport police are investigating. The Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate is aware of the action taken by the British Rail's civil engineer following the incident and is satisfied that there is no further risk to either the public or to railway staff.

  Emergency Services
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out the subsidy paid to British Telecom for emergency frequency watch keeping for the last five years.

  Mr. Norris
  British Telecom is contracted to provide a distress watch service for the Department of Transport on 500 Khz and 2182 Khz using BT's network of coast radio stations. The annual cost to the Department for the distress watch service over the past five years has been as follows:

  Year

  Cost £000

  1987–88

  1,210

  1988–89

  842

  1989–90

  916

  1990–91

  1,395

  1991–92

  1,237

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the craft, type and purposes of vessels operated by Her Majesty's coastguard.

  Mr. Norris
  Her Majesty's coastguard operates a fleet of 31 general purpose boats consisting of 20 5·4 m Rider semi-rigid inflatable boats, three 5·1 m Carson semi-rigid inflatable boats, three 4·6 m inflatable boats, three 4·0 m Sea Rider semi-rigid inflatable boats, one 6·0 m Sea Rider semi-rigid inflatable boat, and one 6·0 m Cabin rigid-hulled boat.

  Her Majesty's coastguard recently redefined its boat policy to identify two primary functions for coastguard boats—(i) incident prevention by active patrolling in areas considered to be of high risk potential, or areas where land-based patrolling is limited in scope or impossible, for example, river estuaries, and (ii) to transport men and equipment to incidents, for example, on offshore islands.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to invite competition for the emergency listening contract.
  515
  Mr. Norris
  Only BT has the necessary network of coast radio stations and the equipment to operate such a service. Discussions are presently under way with BT to review the cost of the service and the scope for savings.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many coastguard stations are listening on 2182 kHz.

  Mr. Norris
  Since 2182 Khz is covered by BT under the distress watch arrangements, there is no obligation for any coastguard station to maintain a continuous listening watch on this frequency, although all coastguard rescue centres have the capability to do so if required. All coastguard rescue centres maintain a continuous listening watch on channel 16, which is the international VHF/FM distress and safety frequency.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will outline his plans for modernising the Decca master and slave chain stations;

  (2) if he has any plans to extend Loran C to the whole of the United Kingdom waters.

  Mr. Norris
  My right hon. Friend's predecessor announced his proposals for the future of radionavigation in United Kingdom waters last summer—Official Report, 21 June 1991, column 336. That announcement reflects the current position in that there is no proposal to establish a Loran C transmitter in the United Kingdom. Since then the general lighthouse authorities have entered into a contract with Racal Decca Marine Navigation Limited for the modernisation and continued operation of the existing United Kingdom Decca chains. I understand that a number of countries may still establish a more limited Loran C system which would give coverage in United Kingdom waters without a United Kingdom transmitter. Developments in this field will be monitored to ensure that the best interests of those who use and pay for marine radionavigation systems are served.

  Weather Information
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made with the French authorities on the propagation of Weather Fox information in English.

  Mr. Norris
  This is a matter for the Meteorological Office agency. I am asking the chief executive to write to my hon. Friend.

  Cars, Central London
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the daily car movements in and out of central London by months for 1991 and the corresponding figure for each year since 1980.

  Mr. Norris
  The available information is given in the table. Counts are made every two years: monthly data are not collected, 1991 figures are not yet available.

  Daily car flows in and out of central London

  Thousands

  Number

  1981

  1,078

  1983

  1,071

  1985

  1,105

  516

  Number

  1987

  1,086

  1989

  1,160

  Shipping Register
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the main requirements of his inspectors for flagging in, broken down into numbers per year by vessel type.

  Mr. Norris
  Surveyors from the Department examine all aspects of safety and marine pollution of any ship which intends to flag on to the United Kingdom register.

  The major items inspected include lifesaving appliances, fire appliances, navigation equipment, radio equipment, crew accommodation, stability characteristics, marine pollution control and monitoring equipment and manning levels.

  The table shows the number of vessels flagged in for the years 1987–88 to 1991–92. All the foregoing items would be inspected on all these ships.

  Ships flagging in numbers per year by vessel type

  Year

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Passenger1

  —

  —

  —

  3

  3

  Tanker

  10

  3

  6

  4

  2

  Cargo ship1

  10

  10

  10

  12

  4

  Dry bulk carrier

  —

  1

  6

  5

  4

  Others

  13

  14

  25

  15

  11

  1 Including roll-on/roll-off.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the average cost of a vessel flagging into the United Kingdom register for each of the last five years expressed as(a) per vessel and (b) per tonne.

  Mr. Norris
  The only costs available to the Department are those charged directly to the owners for the attendance of the surveyors. The average costs for these surveyors for the last five years are as follows.

  Year

  Average cost per vessel £

  Cost gross registered ton £

  1987–88

  3,409

  0·49

  1988–89

  2,754

  1·16

  1989–90

  2·386

  0·65

  1990–91

  4,297

  1·45

  1991–92

  4,619

  1·50

  M1-M62 Link
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 15 May,Official Report, column 229, if he will identify those properties, within the Wakefield constituency, which could be demolished as a result of the construction of an M1-M62 motorway link along both proposed routes.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I will write to the hon. Member with details of the preliminary information we have on possible property demolition.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) public rights of way and (b) bridle ways will be affected by the proposed M1-M62 (i) yellow route and (ii) purple route.
  517
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Based on a preliminary survey of rights of way, it has so far been identified that the yellow option would be crossed by two bridleways and 20 footpaths, and the purple route option by three bridleways and 24 footpaths.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 15 May,Official Report, column 228, at what stage assessments will be undertaken to determine the extent and implications of farm severance in the development of proposals for an M1-M62 motorway link.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  If a route is selected for this proposed scheme for further development, an assessment of farm severance would be undertaken during the detailed design stage before the order for publication.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has available about areas of archaeological importance which may be affected by the proposed M1-M62 link road.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Information has been supplied by the West Yorkshire archaeology service from its records. I will write to the hon. Member with details.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 15 May,Official Report, column 229, what evaluation has been undertaken into the role of rail, when considering alternatives to the M1-M62 road link; how the balance between forms of transport is to be achieved; what action his Department takes to ensure these aims; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  No direct evaluation has been undertaken into the role of rail with regard to the M1-M62 scheme, but the scheme would cater for traffic with a wider variety of origins and destinations than could be realistically served by rail. We do not believe that it is our role to tell people where and how they should travel. However, we are supporting a high level of investment in rail as well as roads so that each form of transport can play its part in meeting the needs of travellers. We have also been working with the bus industry and the local authority associations on ways to encourage greater use of buses. And we offer freight facilities grants to encourage the transfer of freight from road to rail or water in appropriate cases.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport using current figures, what would be the assessed(a) annual and (b) 10-yearly maintenance cost for the purple and yellow routes for the M1-M62 link road.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Based on standard unit rates at current prices, the assessed annual maintenance costs of the yellow and purple routes are £160,000 and £190,000 respectively. The 10-year maintenance costs are assessed at £2·59 million and £3·02 million respectively.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessments have been made of vehicular volume on a daily basis along the proposed(a) purple and (b) yellow routes for the M1-M62 link road.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The average traffic flows forecast for the turn of the century on the purple route option are 518
  between 43,000 and 76,000 and on the yellow route option between 50,000 and 77,000 vehicles per day, the lower figure in each case being at the eastern end of the scheme and the higher figure being at the western end.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 15 May,Official Report, columns 228–29, if he will identify the areas of woodland directly affected by the M1-M62 link road proposals and produce details of woodland of ecological interest which could be adversely affected.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I have already written to the hon. Member with a list of sites of ecological interest, which included woodlands. All known woodland areas directly affected by the route options is included in the environmental assessment framework. I will send the hon. Member a copy.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 15 May 1992, columns 228–29, if he will outline the evidence underlying his conclusion that viable alternatives are not available to the proposed M1-M62 motorway link.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Most traffic goes by road and will continue to do so and the large majority of passenger journeys are by car. Other forms of transport have an important role to play, but cannot offer the same flexibility. This conclusion is reinforced by a recent study of traffic across the Pennines in the M62 corridor which shows that around half the trips between some city centres are by rail, but only 7 per cent. of total trips.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what extent of hedgerow destruction is envisaged in the construction of the M1-M62 link road.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  No assessment of the effect on hedgerows has been made. Detailed design of any option would include substantial landscaping and planting proposals.

  Bridges
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss the steps that are being taken by British Rail to ensure that bridges across the permanent way are maintained in good order.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Secretary of State meets the chairman of British Rail regularly to discuss various matters, including safety and safety related issues. British Rail's policy is to maintain bridges across the permanent way in good order.

  Rail Services, Liverpool
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with British Rail about the reliability of late night inter-city trains between London and Liverpool, and with the operators of Merseyrail about the reliability of local services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I am not aware of any major problems with the reliability of late night InterCity services between London and Liverpool.
  519
  Merseyrail services are sponsored by Merseyside PTE. They set quality of service targets for local services. It would be for the PTE to take up any question of the reliability of these services with British Rail.

  Red Routes
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what evaluation has been done on the effects of the A1 to City red route; and if he will make a statement as to its traffic, environmental and social effect.

  Mr. Norris
  The hon. Member was sent a copy of the latest evaluation of the 8-mile red route pilot scheme in March. The effects are encouragingly beneficial. The main facts are:casualties down significantly more in 1991 than on the rest of London's roads;
  620 new free short term parking spaces introduced and no permitted parking places removed;
  bus lanes almost doubled;
  17 new or improved pedestrian crossing points and four new cycle crossings in progress;
  bus and general traffic journey times and reliability substantially improved;
  1,700 more people a week using the No. 43 bus service which goes along much of the route;
  traffic being attracted off less suitable adjacent roads;
  no evidence to suggest that red route measures have contributed of themselves to reduced shopping activity.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of red route are planned for London: and on what date he expects to bring forward proposals.

  Mr. Norris
  I am considering the response received to the consultation document on the proposed red route network and expect to make an announcement shortly. Until that time I cannot say what the mileage of the network will be.

  Passenger Boat Regulations Committee
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the composition and objectives of the passenger boat regulations committee.

  Mr. Norris
  A proposed steering committee for small passenger boats will include three marine directorate district chief surveyors and representatives of the small passenger boat operators' associations. The committee will discuss the effect of future safety legislation on the United Kingdom small passenger boat industry, the problems of implementing current legislation, and general safety matters relating to the small passenger boat industry.

  Ports and Airports
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the United Kingdom airports in public and municipal ownership.

  Mr. Norris
  As at 12 November 1991, the list of active airfields available to civil aircraft, in public and municipal ownership in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, was as follows:

  Civil aviation authority owned and operated

  Benbecula

  Stornoway

  Inverness (Dalcross)

  Sumburgh

  520

  Islay (Port Ellen)

  Tiree

  Kirkwall

  Wick

  Northern Ireland office owned

  Belfast (Aldergrove)—operated by Northern Ireland Airports Ltd

  Municipally owned and operated

  Birmingham

  Lerwick (Tingwall)

  Blackpool

  Londonderry (Eglinton)

  Bournemouth (Hurn)

  Luton

  Bristol (Lulsgate)

  Manchester (Ringway)

  Cardiff-Wales

  Newcastle

  Carlisle

  North Ronaldsay

  Coventry

  Norwich

  Dornoch

  Oban (North Connel)

  Dundee (Riverside)

  Papa Westray

  East Midlands

  Plockton

  Eday

  St. Marys (Isles of Scilly)

  Exeter

  Sanday

  Glenforsa (Mull)

  Shoreham

  Gloucestershire

  Southend

  Haverfordwest

  Southport (Birkdale Sands)

  Hoy

  Stronsay

  Humberside

  Swansea

  Ipswich

  Teesside

  Isle of Skye

  Westray

  Leed Bradford

  Municipally owned and privately operated

  Biggin Hill

  Plymouth (Roborough)

  Doncaster

  Rochester

  Flotta

  Scatsta

  Lands End (St. Just)

  Unst

  Nottingham (Tollerton)

  Wycombe Air Park (Booker)

  Ministry of Defence airfields available to civil aircraft

  Abingdon

  Lossiemouth

  Benson

  Lyneham

  Binbrook

  Machrihanish

  Brize Norton

  Manston/Kent

  Chalgrove (privately operated

  Middle Wallop

  Chivenor

  Mona

  Church Fenton

  Newton

  Coltishall

  Northolt

  Cosford

  Odiham

  Cranwell

  St. Athan

  Culdrose

  St. Mawgan/Newquay

  Dishforth

  Shawbury

  Elvington

  Swanton Morley

  Farnborough

  Topcliffe

  Finningley

  Valley

  Halton

  Waddington

  Kemble

  Wattisham

  Leeming

  Wittering

  Lee-on-Solent

  Woodvale

  Leuchars

  Yeovilton

  Linton-on-Ouse

  Airfields in other public ownership and operation

  Alderney—operated by States of Guernsey

  Cumbernauld—owned and operated by Cumbernauld Development Corporation

  Dounreay—owned and operated by UK Atomic Energy Authority

  Duxford—administered by the Imperial War Museum and Cambridgeshire County Council

  Fair Isle—owned and operated by the National Trust for Scotland

  Fife (Glenrothes)—owned and operated by Glenrothes Development Corporation

  Guernsey—owned and operated by States of Guernsey

  Isle of Barra—owned by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland and operated by Loganair Ltd.

  Isle of Man (Ronaldsway)—owned and operated by Isle of Man Government

  Jersey—owned and operated by States of Jersey

  North Weald—owned by Epping Forest District Council and jointly operated with Aces High Flying Museum (North Weald) Ltd.

  521

  Whalsay—operated by Whalsay Development Committee

  Wroughton—operated by the National Museum of Science and Industry

  Source: DTp.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the United Kingdom ports in public, municipal and trust port ownership.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department has no complete lists. Most ports are of only local significance. In the public sector, there are approximately 75 local authority ports, not including some 200 "marine works" which come within the responsibilities of the Scottish Office. The most important of those are Portsmouth, Sunderland, Workington, Ramsgate, Colchester and the oil ports of Sullom Voe and Flotta. There are no other major publicly owned ports. There are about 100 trust ports in Great Britain, of which the most important are Aberdeen, Blyth, Cromarty Firth, Dover, Dundee, Great Yarmouth, Harwich Haven, Ipswich, Lerwick, London, Milford Haven, Montrose, Peterhead, Poole, Shoreham and Tyne. In Northern Ireland the principal trust ports are Belfast, Londonderry, and Warrenpoint.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will calculate the estimated asset value of each airport and sea port in public, municipal or trust port ownership.

  Mr. Norris
  This information is not available to the Department.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to make annual reports and accounts of trust ports publicly available.

  Mr. Norris
  We have no plans for this at present.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those trust ports that make their annual accounts available to the general public through their local offices.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department has no information about this.

  Public Transport Investment
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will increase investment in public transport.

  Mr. Freeman
  BR invested just over £1 billion in 1991–92, the highest figure in real terms for 30 years. In 1992–93 BR is expected to invest a similar amount. London Transport invested around £600 million in 1991–92 and is currently expected to invest over £1 billion in 1992–93, three times greater in real terms than the level of investment five years ago. Bus and light rail investment outside London is primarily the responsibility of the private sector and of local authorities.

  Rail System (Vandalism)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will initiate a joint campaign with British Rail to draw to the attention of school children the possible consequences to British Rail staff and passengers of vandalism to trains and track.
  522
  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail and the Government attach top priority to railway safety. BR's project manager for anti-trespass and vandalism liaises with British Transport police to co-ordinate the efforts of dedicated teams engaged on school visits. Supporting publicity material includes videos and the "Roald Dahl Guide to Rail Safety". More than 4 million copies of this booklet have been sent to schools by BR. The message that children should never play near trains, stations or tracks is strongly endorsed by the Department's "Safety on the Move" campaign.

  Fuel Efficiency
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will bring forward proposals to set a mandatory fuel efficiency standard for vehicles.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  No. The United Kingdom is already working with other member states of the European Community with a view to agreeing EC limits on emissions of carbon dioxide from motor vehicles. Bearing in mind the close correlation between CO2 and fuel consumption, the Government do not consider separate measures to be necessary to deal with fuel efficiency.

  Japanese Knotweed
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to ensure that sufficient investment is made into British Rail to eradicate the overgrowth of Japanese knotweed along railway embankments.

  Mr. Freeman
  The management of railway embankments is an operational matter for British Rail. Any programme for eradicating Japanese knotweed would form part of its normal maintenance works, which is funded from revenue income.

  VHF Radio
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he is making on direct calling for VHF radios.

  Mr. Norris
  At present it is not considered that the addition of VHF direct calling would be worthwhile.

  Trinity House
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to review progress by Trinity House on automation.

  Mr. Norris
  Progress on the automation of lighthouses is reviewed annually with Trinity House as part of the yearly review of budgets.

  Passenger Vessels (Safety)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy on the International Maritime Organisation recommendations on passenger vessel stability for through-deck vessels.

  Mr. Norris
  The United Kingdom expressed dissatisfaction with the recent IMO standards adopted for existing ro-ro passenger ship residual stability and entered a
  523
  reservation. We are now pursuing the adoption of higher standards over a reasonable time scale within the European Community.

  Contaminated Land
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 15 May 1992,Official Report, column 229, if he will identify areas of land known to be contaminated.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  So far three areas of contaminated land have been identified. These are a tip and old sewage works at Bradley and the Spen Valley refuse tip at Ravensthorpe. A detailed survey covering this aspect would form part of any further design work.

  Rail Services (Punctuality)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what form of statistics he holds on the punctuality of British Rail passenger services; what criteria are used when they are compiled; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The British Rail passengers charter, which was published in March, committed British Rail to keeping passengers informed of how it performs compared with targets agreed annually with the Government. The charter document, which is widely available, sets out the criteria used to measure British Rail's performance in several areas, including punctuality.

  On 11 May, British Rail published the first of its "TrackRecord" reports on reliability and punctuality for each of the 44 passenger route groups its operates. These reports which will be updated every four weeks, can be seen at British Rail stations throughout Britain.

  Bus Deregulation, London
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to deregulate buses in London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The Government remain firmly committed to the deregulation of the London bus market. We believe that deregulation has been a significant success in the rest of the country, producing a 19 per cent. increase in route miles and a one third reduction in operating costs. We want to see these benefits extended to bus users in London, too. We remain convinced that Londoners will benefit from having the key decisions on bus services taken by operators, who are close to the local market and whose survival depends on meeting their customers' needs. We shall be introducing the necessary legislation as soon as possible.

  Non-ferrous Waste
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he will take to improve safety standards relating to the transport of non-ferrous waste; and if he will take action to ensure the availability of guideline precautions for handling such waste materials while in transit.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  "Non-ferrous" materials are not a discrete category of waste and there are no special provisions governing their transport. There are however safety regulations for the transport of dangerous goods,524
  including new regulations which have just come into force; regulations for the transport of radio-active materials; and regulations requiring the proper securing of loads on vehicles, which will be reinforced by measures coming into force later this year. We have no present proposals to expand these provisions further.

  These regulations are distinct from the registration of carriers provisions introduced under the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989, for which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is responsible. Controlled waste may only be transported by a carrier registered with a waste regulation authority, unless specifically exempted by regulations. The duty of care provisions under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 make it an offence to give waste to a carrier who is not registered or exempt.

  London Underground
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the quality of service objectives for London Underground.

  Mr. Norris
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to the chairman of London Transport on 27 May setting new quality of service objectives. The text of the letter was as follows.

  Text of letter from John MacGregor, Secretary of State for Transport, to Wilfrid Newton, Chairman on London Transport, setting new quality of service objectives.
  "Cecil Parkinson wrote to you in December 1989 setting quality of service objectives for both London Underground Limited (LUL) and London Transport's bus services covering the period up until 31 March 1992. This letter sets new objectives for London Underground which will run until 31 March 1994. I will be writing to you shortly with new objectives for LT bus services.
  "There have been important developments for the Underground since 1989. In June 1991 the Monopolies and Mergers Commission (MMC) published their report on LUL. They concluded that more investment was needed in the existing network to bring it up to an acceptably modern standard. In recognition of this, last year's public expenditure rsettlement provided record levels of grant to London Transport, which will allow record levels of investment by LUL. By 1993/94, London Underground will be investing over £700 million per annum in its core business, the level which, in evidence to the MMC, LUL said was necessary to make real progress towards providing an acceptably modern metro.
  "A number of important initiatives currently being progressed within LUL should help to ensure that these public resources are used to best effect. In November 1991 London Underground published their Company Plan, an extensive agenda of improvements to the safety, quality and efficiency of passenger services. I welcome this initiative, and will continue to support London Underground through the various stages of its implementation. I also look forward to the publication of LUL's Customer Charter which will set out the Underground's plans to increase its accountability to its customers, and make commitments to continuing improvements to services.
  "The objectives which I am setting you today are intended to build on the twin thrusts of better customer awareness and higher quality services. I am setting LUL twelve new objectives, some covering aspects of your services which we have not formally monitored before. There are specific targets in each objective to be achieved by 31 March 1993 and 31 March 1994. I am setting you revised objectives for improvement in service volume and regularity, lift and escalator reliability and the availability of ticket purchasing facilities. I am also looking to you to build on the successes of recent years and achieve a further reduction in the levels of violent crime on the Underground. I am for the first time setting you an objective covering station closures, a major

  525
  source of inconvenience to passengers. And, as recommended by the MMC and in line with the Government's Citizen's Charter initiative, I am setting you five targets for improving levels of customer satisfaction—with the cleanliness of your stations and trains, the quality of the information with which you provide your customers, and the helpfulness and availability of your staff. The detailed objectives are set out in the Annex to this letter.
  "I believe that these objectives will provide the right challenge for London Underground in its continuing efforts to deliver the high standard of service which today's, and tomorrow's Underground customers expect and deserve. I will be monitoring performance against them regularly, and will be asking you to consider how you can best publish your results, so that passengers can see for themselves what progress is being made."

  The text of the new objectives is as follows:

  Customer Satisfaction Measures1
  LUL will improve the quality of passenger information on trains to achieve a customer satisfaction rating of 78 per cent. by 1 April 1993 and 83 per cent. by 1 April 1994. Information on stations will achieve a customer satisfaction rating of 76 per cent. by the same date in 1993 and 81 per cent. by the same date in 1994. The average levels of performance in 1991–92 were 71 per cent. and 68 per cent. respectively. Seventy six per cent. of customers will rate train cleanliness as acceptable or better in 1993 and 81 per cent. in 1994. Eighty five per cent. of customers will rate the cleanliness of stations as acceptable or better in 1993 and 87 per cent. in 1994. These targets compare with average performance levels of 68 per cent. and 82 per cent. respectively in 1991–92.
  Staff helpfulness and availability will improve so that 83 per cent. of customers consider it acceptable or better in 1993 and 86 per cent. in 1994. Average performance in 1991–92 was 78 per cent.
  1 The measure used is the percentage of customers rating performance as "acceptable" or better, using data collected during LUL's monthly customer research surveys.

  Trains in service in each peak
  LUL will improve the percentage of scheduled trains running in the morning and evening peaks from 96·4 per cent. in 1991–92 to 97·5 per cent. by 1 April 1993 and 97·8 per cent. by 1 April 1994.

  Train service intervals
  LUL will achieve 91 per cent. of planned intervals between trains on frequent services by 31 March 1993. This is a new measure on which little data on current performance currently exists, it is therefore to be reviewed for 1993–94.

  Escalator service in each peak
  Throughout each peak hour period, for both the morning and the evening peaks, LUL will achieve 87 per cent. escalator availability by I April 1993 and 88 per cent. by the same date in 1994. This compares with a current performance in the peaks of 86 per cent.

  Lifts in service in each peak
  Throughout each peak hour period, both morning and evening, LUL will achieve 85 per cent. availability of lifts by 1 April 1993 and 88 per cent. by the same date in 1994. This compares with a current performance of 85 per cent.

  Station closures
  In each four week period, the number of station closures of twenty minuters or longer, and which are due to staff absence or equipment failure, will be reduced to fewer than 50 by 1 April 1993 and fewer than 30 by the same date in 1994. This compares with a current average of 100 closures per four week period.

  Ticket purchasing facilities
  In 1992–93, LUL will maintain the percentage of stations across the network offering at least one form of ticket issuing facility at 99·9 per cent. Before 31 March 1993, a revised target will be set including the condition that change should be available.
  526
  Violent crime
  The number of violent crimes committed against Underground customers will reduce further in 1992–93.

DEFENCE

  Cambodia
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what support British forces and military and civilian experts are giving to the United Nations peace-keeping operations in Cambodia.

  Mr. Rifkind
  As part of the United Nations Transition Authority in Cambodia, the United Kingdom is providing 38 military observers, 13 mine clearance training experts, including the overall command of the UNTAC mine clearance training unit, and up to seventy naval personnel.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the involvement of service personnel in the Lockerbie clean-up.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Although the tragedy happened almost three and a half years ago the excellent work done by the services under such distressing and demanding conditions has not been forgotten. In all, more than 8,000 man-days were contributed by the services during the 27 days of the operation, with a peak of more than 700 on the day after the crash, on 22 December 1988. The majority of effort was directed towards the search for bodies and wreckage.

  Classified Documents
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on documents relating to wartime matters of his Department that remain classified.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Department's policy is to release records after 30 years whenever possible, but a small proportion are withheld for varying periods on grounds such as national security or personal sensitivity.

  Merchant Ships
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the defence requirements in respect of British merchant ships.

  Mr. Aitken
  The defence need for merchant shipping is kept under regular review as part of normal planning.

  RAF Fylingdales
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will arrange to visit RAF Fylingdales; and if he will make a statement on the timetable to make the new station operational.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend currently has no plans to visit RAF Fylingdales. I can confirm that the modernisation programme is on schedule.

  Rail Freight
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to encourage the use of rail for freight by Ministry of Defence depots.
  527
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My Department uses the most convenient and cost effective methods to transport freight and has no plans to favour the use of rail over any other method of transport.

  Bullying and Racial Harassment
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to reduce bullying and racial harassment in the armed forces.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The services take a very serious view of bullying and racial harassment. It has been made clear throughout the services that bullying, racial harassment or other ill-treatment will not be tolerated. A range of measures to combat bullying has been introduced, including the banning of initiation ceremonies.

  Kurdish People
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what United Kingdom defence forces are available in Turkey for use in the protection of the Kurds.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The United Kingdom contribution to the coalition deterrent force in south-east Turkey comprises eight Jaguar reconnaissance/ground attack and two tanker aircraft plus ground support. In addition, the United Kingdom has a representative on the Coalition Military Co-ordination Committee.

  Commonwealth of Independent States
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he w ill indicate the range of contact between his officials and military representatives of the Commonwealth of Independent States; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The MOD is steadily increasing its contacts including: meetings between United Kingdom and Russian nuclear experts and officials; co-operation programmes agreed under the auspicies of the North Atlantic Co-operation Council; and the recent seminar on democratic management of defence, held at the Royal United Services Institute in London on 18 and 19 May.

  Surface Vessels
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will next be placing orders with United Kingdom shipyards for the construction of surface vessels; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  We plan further orders of type 23 frigates, single role minehunters, amphibious ships and support ships, but no decisions have been taken on their size and timing.

  Dartmoor National Park
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the reasons of confidentiality which prevent him from disclosing the amount paid by his Department to the Duchy of Cornwall for the use of moorland and farming land on the Dartmoor national park for live firing.
  528
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Our normal practice is not to disclose the amount payable for individual contracts between the Department and third parties on grounds of commercial confidentiality.

  C130 Transport Aircraft
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his NATO counterparts about the replacement of the C130 transport aircraft.

  Mr. Aitken
  Whilst my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has discussed with NATO partners the wider matter of strategic mobility, the specific issue of replacing C130 transport aircraft has not been raised.

  Trident
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the Trident programme.

  Mr. Aitken
  The Trident programme is on time and within budget and continues to make satisfactory progress towards its in-service date of the mid-1990s.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the PSA on the progress of the Trident construction project at the Clyde submarine base.

  Mr. Aitken
  Ministers maintain a close oversight over all aspects of the Trident programme, including construction at the Clyde submarine base, on which we are regularly briefed by MOD's project managers, PSA projects. I am having further correspondence and discussions with the PSA about matters raised by the hon. Member for Dumbarton in the House on 21 May,Official Report, column 471.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's assessment of future global deployments of anti-ballistic missile systems; and what are the implications for the level at which Trident is deployed.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Currently, only Russia possesses operational anti-ballistic missiles (ABMs). The United States has outlined its proposals for ABM defences which will be discussed with NATO allies. Other countries have expressed an interest in gaining an anti-tactical ballistic missile (ATBM) capability against sub-strategic ballistic missiles. Trident will deploy the minimum number of warheads necessary to provide effective deterrence.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (I) what studies his Department has undertaken to examine whether Trident could perform a sub-strategic nuclear role;

  (2) if Trident will be capable of performing a sub-strategic nuclear role.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have nothing to add to the answer given to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) on 20 May,Official Report, column 187.

  Housing
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to improve housing opportunities for ex-service personnel and their families.
  529
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) announced on 24 February 1992 a package of improvements on housing opportunities for armed forces personnel leaving the services. My Department is also taking steps, in the short-term, to provide assistance to those being made redundant, or who are not being re-engaged and who find themselves in housing difficulty.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many unoccupied Ministry of Defence units of accommodation there are in the city of Plymouth.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As at 31 March 1992, the latest date for which figures are available, 467 of the 2,858 service married quarters in the Plymouth area were vacant. Of these, 82 were undergoing modernisation, 61 were allocated to incoming service families and eight were in the process of being sold on the open market. There are plans for 170 dwellings to be sold to a housing association and a further 40 married quarters form part of the Ministry of Defence contribution to the Plymouth urban development corporation package. In addition, seven of the 12 civilian properties in the Plymouth area were vacant.

  Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if it is his intention to continue the armed forces parliamentary scheme in the current Parliament.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Yes.

  HMS Swiftsure
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether HMS Swiftsure is to receive a second refit.

  Mr. Aitken
  No. Swiftsure is not required to sustain our plan for a long-term force level of around 12 nuclear-powered submarines, and she was consequently paid off in April this year.

  Redevelopments
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence by how much the estimated final costs of recent redevelopments at(a) Ballykelly Shackleton barracks, (b) Plymouth Citadel and (c) Hollywood have risen from original estimates; and why.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Nuclear Weapon Transporters
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in providing armoured nuclear weapon transporters and containers to Russia: at what cost; under what vote and subhead the expenditure falls; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) on 9 March 1992.

  Specifications for the vehicles and containers have been discussed with Russian officials, and proposals for procurement are being prepared. It is our intention to deliver the equipment at the earliest possible date.

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what effect the deployment of additional infantry battalions to Northern Ireland in January and February 1992 has had on his previous estimate of the extent to which the minimum emergency tour length target interval of 24 months will be met in 1993–94; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The additional infantry battalions were deployed for only nine weeks and seven weeks respectively. Such short-term deployments are not included in the calculation of emergency tour plot intervals and do not affect the previous estimate for 1993–94.

  Trafalgar Submarines
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress in defining the characteristics of followon Trafalgar class submarines.

  Mr. Aitken
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) on 22 May. The design studies into a batch 2 Trafalgar class submarine are progressing satisfactorily and we expect to begin consideration of the results early next year.

  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 21 May,Official Report, column 258, for how many batch 2 Trafalgar class hunter killer submarines he intends to invite tenders for design and construction; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  No decision has yet been made regarding the number of batch 2 Trafalgar class submarines required.

  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 21 May,Official Report, column 258, whether he intends to restrict tenders for the design and construction of batch 2 Trafalgar submarines to VSEL; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  We procure defence equipment through competition wherever practicable. In this case we would expect to invite tenders from any company willing and able to compete for the prime contractorship of the design and construction stage.

  Submarine Training
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many submarine service trainees are currently awaiting part III training berths in submarines; how many have been waiting for over six months; and what steps he proposes to take to reduce the backlog.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Of the 359 ratings currently undergoing part III training, 100 are currently awaiting billets at sea; 12 have been waiting for a sea billet for more than six months. Measures that have been taken to improve this situation are:

  (a) Additional time within the submarine programme has been allocated to part III training;

  (b) Part III training is now also carried out in submarines in harbour;

  (c) Part III training is now co-ordinated centrally and is given a higher priority in all submarines' programmes.

  Bloodhound Missiles
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress on the replacement of Bloodhound missiles.

  Mr. Aitken
  Consideration is being given to procurement of future medium surface-to-air missile system although this will not be a direct replacement for Bloodhound.

  Iserlohn Military Hospital
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been spent since 1986–87 to date on the extension and improvements to British military hospital Iserlohn; what was the original estimated cost in real terms; when the hospital will be closed; and what steps he is taking to recover the value of the improvements made.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The expenditure to date on the major works services at BMH Iserlohn is £45·935 million against an original estimate of £34·635 million. On current plans the unit will cease functioning as a hospital on 31 March 1994 and the buildings will be handed over to the German authorities in November 1994.

  Discussions are taking place with the German authorities concerning the future use of the property. The outcome of these discussions will decide whether there is a basis for a claim.

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the total expenditure by his Department on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year up to and including 1991–92; and if he will give an estimate for 1992–93.

  Mr. Aitken
  The earliest year for which figures are available is 1982–83. Figures for the period 1982–83 to 1991–92 are as follows:

  £million

  1982–83

  5·1

  1983–84

  6·3

  1984–85

  6·8

  1985–86

  6·7

  1986–87

  7·3

  1987–88

  7·0

  1988–89

  7·1

  1989–90

  8·0

  1990–91

  8·4

  1991–92

  9·1

  The estimated expenditure figure for 1992–93 is £9·5 million. The figures provided include staff costs and expenditure on films, exhibitions, publications and equipment.

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total sum paid out in fees by his Department to management consultants in 1979–80 and in each following year up to and including 1991–92; and what is his estimate for 1992–93.

  Mr. Aitken
  Fees paid to management consultants engaged centrally by the Ministry of Defence for the years 1984–85 to 1991–92 are as follows:
  532

  Financial year

  £ million

  1984–85

  0·604

  1985–86

  1·787

  1986–87

  6·203

  1987–88

  5·140

  1988–89

  3·109

  1989–90

  5·292

  1990–91

  3·935

  1991–92

  5·700

  Figures for earlier years cannot be produced without disproportionate cost and effort.

  Under the Department's devolved management strategy, expenditure on management consultancy is now the responsibility of individual management areas. Plans are therefore not held centrally for 1992–93, but provisional forecasts indicate expenditure of about £6·8 million.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the public opinion surveys carried out by his Department since 1 November 1991.

  Mr. Aitken
  The opinion poll surveys conducted by, for, or on behalf of the Ministry of Defence since 1 November 1991 are as follows:

  Service and subject

  MOD—National Employers Liaison Committee Research Monitor

  Navy—Exhibition Response Research

  Army—Advertising Evaluation and Development

  Black Strategy Development

  Signal New Recruits

  Creative Development

  MORI Finalists Survey

  Officers Strategic Research

  The purpose of these surveys was to monitor the effectiveness of advertising and attitudes towards careers in the armed forces.

  Dunera
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has any plans to publish the documents relating to the voyage of the Dunera.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We have found no extant Ministry of Defence records relating to the voyage of the Dunera. The courts martial records of the British service men who were charged with offences against the passengers of that vessel were destroyed some years ago as they did not meet the criteria for permanent preservation. The Home Office has a small number of records concerning the Dunera. All are open to public examination, in class HO 215, at the Public Records Office. They include file No. 215/1, containing the Dunera passenger lists, which until very recently was closed.

  Radiation Exposure
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give a breakdown for(a) Rosyth dockyard, (b) Devonport dockyard, (c) Coulport RNAD, (d) HMS Defiance and (e) Clyde submarine base of individual radiation dose exposures for workers in the bands (i) 0 to 10, (ii) 10 to 15, (iii) 15 to 20, (iv) 20 to 30, (v) 30 to 40 and (vi) greater than 40 mSv for the years 1991 and 1992.
  533
  Mr. Aitken
  Information on radiation doses in 1992 is not yet available. The tables provide information on doses for 1991 at the locations specified. It is possible to split the band 0–15 mSv only for those workers covered by the assessments of approved dosemeters issued by the Defence Radiological Protection Service (DRPS). At Rosyth and Devonport dockyards many personnel are protected by separate local dosimetry arrangements.

  Table A—Annual individual radiation dose equivalents for all personnel at Rosyth dockyard—1991

  Figures

  0–15 mSv

  1,182

  15–20 mSv

  0

  20–30 mSv

  0

  30–40 mSv

  0

  More than 40 mSv

  0

  Of the 1,182 workers who received doses of 0–15 mSv, 430 can be identified as being in the band 0–10 mSv and 22 in the band 10–15 mSv.

  Table B—Annual individual radiation dose equivalents for all personnel at Devonport dockyard—1991

  Figures

  0–15 mSv

  1,340

  15–20 mSv

  0

  20–30 mSv

  0

  30–40 mSv

  0

  More than 40 mSv

  0

  Of the 1,340 workers who received doses of 0–15 mSv, 655 can be identified as being in the band 0–10 mSv.

  Table C—Annual individual radiation dose equivalents for all personnel at RNAD Coulport—1991

  Figures

  0–10 mSv

  236

  10–15 mSv

  0

  15–20 mSv

  0

  20–30 mSv

  0

  30–40 mSv

  0

  More than 40 mSv

  0

  Table D—Annual individual radiation dose equivalents for all personnel at HMS Defiance—1991

  Figures

  0–10 mSv

  296

  10–15 mSv

  0

  15–20 mSv

  0

  20–30 mSv

  0

  30–40 mSv

  0

  More than 40 mSv

  0

  Table E—Annual individual radiation dose equivalents for all personnel at Clyde Submarine Base—1991

  Figures

  0–10 mSv

  299

  10–16 mSv

  26

  15–20 mSv

  3

  20–30 mSv

  1

  30–40 mSv

  0

  More than 40 mSv

  0

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give a breakdown for(a) Aldermaston AWE, (b) Burghfield AWE and (c) Cardiff AWE of individual radiation dose exposures for workers in the bands (i) 0 to 10, (ii) 10 to 15, (iii) 15 to 20, (iv) 20 to 30, (v) 30 to 40 and (vi) greater than 40 mSv for the years 1990, 1991 and 1992.
  534
  Mr. Aitken
  The individual annual radiation dose data for AWE Aldermaston (A), Burghfield (B) and Cardiff (C) for the years 1990 and 1991 are as follows:

  Numbers of workers in dose bands

  AWE (A)

  (B)

  (C)

  1990

  0–10 mSv

  3,388

  182

  136

  10–15 mSv

  4

  0

  0

  15–20 mSv

  0

  0

  0

  20–30 mSv

  0

  0

  0

  30–40 mSv

  0

  0

  0

  Over 40 mSv

  0

  0

  0

  1991

  0–10 mSv

  3,383

  203

  155

  10–15 mSv

  4

  0

  0

  15–20 mSv

  0

  0

  0

  20–30 mSv

  0

  0

  0

  30–40 mSv

  0

  0

  0

  Over 40 mSv

  0

  0

  0

  Annual dose data for the year 1992 are not yet available.

  RNAD Trecwn
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what part his Department is playing in the study into the feasibility of establishing a munitions decommissioning centre at RNAD Trecwn.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My Department is investigating the possibility of alternative Ministry of Defence and other Government Department uses for the RNAD Trecwn site but our requirement for munitions disposal is small and would be best met by a storage site for which there is a continuing additional need. I am not aware of the existence of a feasibility study.

  Nuclear Test Veterans
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the current study by the National Radiological Protection Board in relation to veterans of British nuclear tests to be completed; if he intends to publish this; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) on 22 May 1992, column 290.

  IFF Technology
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Warrior vehicles hit by friendly fire from two American A-10 jets were fitted with IFF—identification friend-or-foe technology; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No. During the Gulf conflict, a secure and effective electronic identification system did not exist. The board of inquiry into this tragic incident recommended that a study be initiated to identify a suitable air recognition system for future use. In pursuit of that recommendation, the Defence Research Agency is undertaking a research programme aimed at assessing short-term solutions as well as options for the longer term.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for updating and improving current IFF—identification friend-or-foe technology.
  535
  Mr. Aitken
  The Government remain concerned about the inadequacies of existing IFF systems. We are currently engaged, in co-operation with France and Germany, in a programme of studies into the required characteristics of a next generation IFF system for aircraft. Close consultation is being maintained with Italy and with the United States Government, who have been reviewing their own future requirements following the cancellation of its IFF Mk XV programme in 1991. Firm decisions on the way ahead are not expected before 1993.

  Separately, the Government are carrying out studies into possible methods of improving the identification of ground forces (battlefield IFF).

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for defence what percentage of the total work force in his Department is registered as disabled; what steps he is taking to encourage the employment of disabled people within his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  There are currently 1,164 registered disabled people employed in the MOD. This represents 0·9 per cent. of the total workforce. In addition, there are a number of staff with disabilities who have chosen not to register formally as disabled. The MOD takes very seriously its responsibilities as an equal opportunities employer, and has compiled a programme of action for people with disabilities, which is to be launched shortly.

  RAF Brawdy
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give a breakdown of the £2 million saving per year he estimates will be made to the defence budget when flying training ends at RAF Brawdy.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department is continuing to look for alternative uses for RAF Brawdy within his Department when flying training ends there.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Investigations have so far revealed no alternative defence uses for RAF Brawdy.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what grade of official has represented his Department at meetings of the task force on the effects of the closures of RAF Brawdy and RNAD Trecwn;

  (2) what is the grade of the civil servant representing the MOD on the Secretary of State for Wales's Task Force for Pembrokeshire set up in connection with the ending of flight training at RAF Brawdy.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  MOD representation has been at grade 7 (principal) level, with the exception of one meeting at which, because of other commitments, representation was by an executive officer.

  Nuclear Submarines
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will review the position on the consumption of alcohol on royal naval nuclear submarines.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No.
  536
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the current ports allocated to Z-berths for nuclear submarines; and if he has any plans to alter the list in the future.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Within the United Kingdom there are Z-berths, including buoys and anchorages, at the following locations:Barrow-in-Furness, Barry, Broadford Bay, Brodick Bay, Campbeltown, Cardiff, Coulport, Dales Voe, Dalgety Bay, Devonport and Plymouth Sound, Faslane, the Firth of Forth, Glen Malian, Holy Loch, Lamlash Bay, Lerwick, Liverpool, Loch Ewe, Loch Fyne, Loch Goil, Loch na Beiste, Loch Striven, Loch Torridon, Portland, Portree, Portsmouth, Raasay, Rosyth, Rothesay, Southampton, Spithead, Thurso Bay and Torbay.

  In addition, we have decided to establish a Z-berth at Swansea. The operational requirements for Z-berths are under continuous review but there are no current plans to alter this list.

  Defence Review
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the implementation of the defence review.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We have been restructuring our forces to ensure that, though smaller, they will be more flexible, more mobile and better-equipped than ever before. We will continue to keep the House fully informed of progress in implementing plans for Britain's defence for the 1990s.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the amount of chemical weaponry held by former Soviet Union countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The former Soviet chemical warfare stockpile, which the Russian authorities say is now held entirely within their territory, is the largest and most sophisticated in the world. We estimate that the stockpile is greater than the 50,000 tonnes of agent that the Soviet authorities claimed it to be. The chemical weapons convention in Geneva continues to make progress towards a global ban on these weapons.

  Debt Payment
  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what policy guidelines are currently in place within his Department and the purchasing organisations for which he has responsibility in respect of the prompt payment of commercial debt, particularly as it relates to small business suppliers.

  Mr. Aitken
  Government Departments, and their executive agencies, are required to pay their bills promptly. In such matters the MOD does not differentiate between large, medium or small business suppliers and normally expects to pay its bills within 30 days of receipt of a valid invoice as required by the contract.

  To help encourage prompt payment of bills by Government contractors to their subcontractors all my Department's contracts will contain a clause requiring the supplier or contractor to pay its subcontractors promptly. In the absence of normal practice to the contrary for that

  537
  type of contract or other special circumstances, the commitment should be to pay the subcontractor within 30 days of receipt of a valid invoice or similar demand for payment as defined by the contract.

  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what distribution has taken place within his Department and the purchasing organisations for which he has responsibility of the Department of Employment's publication "Making the Cash Flow—a Guide to the Payment of Commercial Debt for Buyers and Small Business Suppliers".

  Mr. Aitken
  "Making the Cash Flow" was prepared as guidance for the private sector and there was therefore no formal distribution to other Government Departments. However, in the light of my hon. Friend's question, I will make sure that the appropriate senior officials in my Department receive a copy. I can assure my hon. Friend that my Department has a good record on the prompt payment of its due bills to all contractors, including small businesses.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many nuclear free-fall bombs have been withdrawn from service to date;

  (2) how many nuclear free-fall bombs are currently deployed by the Royal Air Force.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It has been the practice of successive Governments not to specify publicly the size of our nuclear weapon holdings. The hon. Member will recall however that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) announced on 14 October 1991,Official Report, column 58, that we should be making a substantial reduction in the numbers of our WE177 bombs in coming years. The process of withdrawing WE177 weapons from service in accordance with that announcement is under way.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for how long the United Kingdom's strategic nuclear deterrent will be maintained by a combined force of Trident and Polaris submarines.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Trident will enter service progressively from the mid-1990s. It is not our practice to disclose details of operational deployments and decommissioning programmes.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what plans his Department has to alter the level of warhead deployment for the United Kingdom's minimum strategic nuclear deterrent before the end of the century;

  (2) if the criteria determining the level at which the United Kingdom's strategic nuclear deterrent is deployed will be different for Trident compared with Polaris.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It will remain the Government's policy to deploy the minimum number of warheads necessary to ensure credible and effective deterrence.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what are the implications for the continued 538
  credibility of the United Kingdom's strategic nuclear deterrent of the deployment of existing anti-ballistic missile systems around the world;

  (2) what is his Department's assessment of the security implications for the United Kingdom's strategic nuclear deterrent of the acquisition by Russia of anti-ballistic missile technology and know-how from other states.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We remain satisfied with the continuing credibility and effectiveness of our strategic nuclear deterrent. The possibility of future developments in anti-ballistic missile defence, however, confirms that wisdom of replacing Polaris with Trident.

  RAF Training
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many persons have been killed during RAF training over rural mid-Wales each year since 1983; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  Aircraft type

  Number of fatalities

  Location

  June 1987

  Jaguar

  1

  Near Builth Wells, Powys

  August 1987

  Phantom

  2

  8 nm south of Aberystwyth

  June 1989

  Hawk/Hawk Mid-Air

  1

  Near Aberystwyth

  August 1991

  Jaguar/Civilian Cessna

  21

  Carno, Powys

  1 Including civilian pilot of Cessna.

  The RAF attaches the highest priority to flight safety in all its training activities.

  Biological Weapons
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's assessment of the number of countries currently involved in the development of biological weapons.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is assessed that about ten countries possess or seek to acquire a biological warfare capability. It is difficult to gauge exactly the number of countries that are involved because biological weapons can be developed and produced at civilian facilities.

  Advertising
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give separate figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year up to and including 1991–92; and what is his latest estimate for 1992–93.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested, in respect of centrally controlled expenditure, is as follows:
  539

  (a) Television advertising

  (b) Radio advertising

  (c) Newspaper advertising

  (d) Other promotional material

  Total

  1979–80

  2·28

  0·04

  5·75

  0·14

  8·21

  1980–81

  0·54

  0·17

  6·10

  0·85

  7·66

  1981–82

  0·01

  0·04

  4·20

  1·04

  5·29

  1982–83

  0·01

  0·07

  3·90

  1·03

  5·01

  1983–84

  Nil

  0·07

  5·30

  1·90

  7·27

  1984–85

  0·49

  0·02

  6·86

  1·50

  8·87

  1985–86

  1·82

  0·02

  6·82

  1·03

  9·69

  1986–87

  0·73

  0·22

  8·07

  1·17

  10·19

  1987–88

  0·55

  0·03

  7·68

  2·52

  10·78

  1988–89

  2·86

  0·18

  9·56

  4·44

  17·04

  1989–90

  4·18

  0·26

  13·36

  6·21

  24·01

  1990–91

  2·88

  0·22

  9·21

  8·62

  20·93

  1991–92

  3·28

  0·26

  7·93

  7·37

  18·84

  1992–93

  2·15

  0·01

  7·20

  1·88

  11·24

  Note: All figures are expressed in £ million.

  Nuclear Testing
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will support a comprehensive test ban treaty to end underground nuclear testing.

  Mr. Aitken
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 12 May 1992 at col. 90.

  Newtown Firing Range
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to upgrade the Newtown firing range to electronic target range standards.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None.

  Channel Islands
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the defence installation facilities paid for by the Channel Islands states Governments as their contribution to the cost of their defence by the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Iraq
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any request for the use of British forces for mine clearance in liberated areas of Iraq has been made.
  540
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There have been no requests from the Iraqi authorities for the assistance of British forces in clearing mines inside Iraq.

  NATO Rapid Reaction Corps
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to seek alternative Army training grounds in eastern Europe for military manouevres for the NATO rapid reaction corps under British command.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are currently no plans for either ARRC units or British Forces to use training areas in eastern Europe.

  HMS Turbulent
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when the report into the fire on-board HMS Turbulent on 30 April is complete, if he will make that report available to the public;

  (2) when he expects the investigation into the fire on board HMS Turbulent on 30 April to be completed.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The report on the causes of the fire on-board HMS Turbulent has been completed. It is not our practice to release internal reports of this nature but I can confirm that the fire was due to a material defect in a switchboard which has now been rectified.

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

Overseas Aid: GNP Target
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their target date and timetable for the United Kingdom to reach the United Nations objective of providing 0.7 per cent. of GNP in overseas aid.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, while we accept the target of 0.7 per cent. of GNP, we have not set a timetable for achieving it.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, while paying due tribute to the noble Baroness's efforts in getting more money for overseas aid during her tenure of office, may I ask her two questions?
Noble Lords: One!
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness one question in two parts? As we have had the same answer for 13 years now, how can the Government expect to be considered sincere when during those 13 years they have halved the percentage of GNP allocated to overseas aid despite the fact that the period has coincided with what is called the "economic miracle"? Secondly, can the noble Baroness tell the House what discussions took place in Strasbourg last month, after the Dutch Government had given a lead, with a view to asking members of the EC to pledge themselves to the 0.7 per cent. objective and so make the Rio conference a reality for the developing world?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my answer will certainly be in two parts after that series of questions. Perhaps I may advise the noble Lord that the policy has been consistent—and not only for the past 13 years. The last Labour Government, dim perhaps in our memories, accepted the 0.7 per cent. objective but did not manage to reach it. And that would have remained the position had the Labour Party been elected. During the past 13 years we have improved both the quality and the targeting of our aid. We now do more with the same amount of money. In addition, the programme is growing in real terms—by about 8 per cent. since 1987–88. Furthermore, the discussions that the Dutch Government sought to have in Strasbourg have not so far involved me. Our general discussion has been to the effect that we shall put forward the resources to help environmental programmes, as we are doing already. I cite but one
814
example—200 forestry projects costing well over £160 million. That is evidence of what we are doing towards UNCED before the Rio conference. And there will be more.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the greatest help for the third world would be steps to restrict the growth in population?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend makes exactly the right point: we discussed it on a Question some days ago. We shall do our very best to help to give choice to the parents of today about the size of family that they will have in the future.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness that successive governments have not moved towards the target of 0.7 per cent. However, given that she has told us that our provision has increased since 1987–88, can we at least be assured that that will be maintained in the next public expenditure round?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord should know better than to ask a former fellow commoner a question of that sort, given the office that he held in another place. We have averaged 0.3 per cent. over the past five years. I expect that ratio to continue. I do not expect it to worsen. Indeed, in some years, the proportion must have been higher than 0.3 per cent. because we know that it has been lower in other years.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that she is well supported by all reasonable people in recognising that this is not a matter of sympathy but of common sense? It is all right to agree to a principle, but it is common sense to recognise when obstacles in the way of achieving it are insuperable, as they are at this moment.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend is right. It is not just a question of the will and the money. Often it is a question of the ability of developing nations to utilise profitably the resources that are made available by donors. We seek to help them to do that by giving technical co-operation—to a greater extent than any other country.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, to help those of us who prefer to deal in money terms, will the noble Baroness say how much money is represented by 0.7 per cent. of GNP and how much is represented by 0.3 per cent.?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it depends on which year we are in and on the GNP in that year. All I can say to the noble Lord is this: I shall do my best to make sure that we do even better with aid in the future. I shall not throw around figures but I shall make sure that the aid is properly targeted and properly delivered.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is it not a fact that, in addition to the financial help given by Her Majesty's Government to third world countries, especially in the Commonwealth, private capital investment and massive loans by United Kingdom banks have also been of great assistance and in many cases have been a somewhat altruistic exercise?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend makes a very valuable point. It is quite right that loans on commercial terms should also be dealt with in a commercial way, but this Government have done their very best to relieve many of the countries which have had great debt burdens in the past. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister was to the fore in producing the Trinidad terms which will eventually relieve so many countries of even greater sums of debt. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that I omitted to tell him that 0.27 per cent. was £1,780 million.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I pay tribute to the Minister for improving the quality of our overseas aid. Quite apart from the humanitarian impact, has she considered the effect of an increased aid budget on the competitive position of many of our exporters? Many countries are able to draw on the provisions of our larger aid budget in order to subsidise exports.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that where countries are following a sensible economic reform programme we give balance of payments support. That helps those countries to purchase from British companies where British is best and where it represents the best value for money. But one of the areas we also have to work at, and the reason I shall not simply indulge in numbers, is trade. Most developing countries need trade much more than aid. We should never forget that three-quarters of the income of the developing world already comes from trade and not aid. They want more of their income to come from trade.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that on this side of the House we have nothing but respect for her personal commitment and dedication to the cause? Does she understand, however, that there is a credibility problem? The noble Baroness says that she accepts a 0.7 per cent. target. But when the evidence over the past 10 years is that we have gone down from 0.7 per cent. to 0.27 per cent. it is difficult to understand the reality of this commitment. Does she agree that, with 29 million people facing starvation in southern Africa and with £125 billion needed in transfers from north to south if there is to be any hope of success in managing the international environmental crisis, this is precisely the time for her to start moving convincingly to 0.7 per cent. of GNP?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, even under a Labour Government we did not reach 0.7 per cent. I realise that it grieves everyone who is concerned to help the developing world help itself that various governments—not just the British Government—believe that we have to make sure that our aid programme is not only properly targeted but that it is an amount which our own economy can afford. I am well aware that there are varying views on the matter in this House and in another place. However, as regards southern Africa, this country was the first to announce £30 million of help for the drought and yesterday, at the conference in Geneva, we were the only donor country, first, to be present at ministerial
816
level and, secondly, to plan for the future and urge others to make similar bilateral donations of £30 million or more. We shall make sure that what is needed is decided in a sensible and practical way. But there is no way in which the Agenda 21 bill is going to be met. It could not even be utilised properly were that sum to be available from the world at large.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Baroness answer the first part of my question? She knows that we have been told in this House since 1980 that it is the Government's object to reach 0.7 per cent. We have seen the figure fall from 0.3 per cent. in 1979 to 0.27 per cent. now. Why should we believe a Government who say that they are aiming at one figure when they are moving steadily downward away from it?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord is not quite right. The 1990 figure may have been 0.27 per cent. However, I have already explained that that was low because it reflected a large element of the 1991 financial year expenditure falling in the first quarter of 1991. Given that the average over five years is 0.30 per cent., then, in other years, I can confidently tell the House that I expect it to be higher (including 1991) when the Development Assistance Committee figures become available.

House Repossessions
2.50 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will make a progress report on the results of their recent policy decisions to reduce the number of repossessions of owner-occupied houses by building societies.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, since the Chancellor of the Exchequer's discussions with the Council of Mortgage Lenders last December, 10 lenders have committed £170 million to individual mortgage rescue schemes. Lenders have also made great efforts to improve debt counselling to prevent borrowers falling into serious arrears. Recent figures on court actions for repossession indicate that the number of repossessions may be past its peak. The Government remain keenly interested in developments and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State for the Environment, the Secretary of State for Social Security and the Secretary of State for Wales are this afternoon meeting representatives of the major lenders to review progress.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I welcome the discussions that are taking place this afternoon. However, is the Minister aware that the actual mortgage rescue scheme has turned out to be a flop and a fiasco? Indeed, a scheme that we hoped would help many thousands of people has so far helped less than a hundred. Is the Minister also aware that the figures I have for February of this year in respect of

817
actions for eviction are just below the same figure for February last year? What action will the Government take to make their policies more effective in the field?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, clearly the meeting which is to take place this afternoon will go some way to answering the noble Lord's concerns. Negotiations with housing associations and with borrowers, and the legal complexities involved, all add up to a lengthy process. That is why I believe that it has taken longer than we would have wished to get some of the schemes off the ground.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the report in today's Evening Standard from quite a reliable source which is headed "Two million face mortgage disaster"? The report says:
"Up to two million home-owners, many in the South-East, are living on the brink of a mortgage disaster".
That is because, in many cases, people are now paying mortgages far in excess of the present value of their homes. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, is right to say that the measures taken so far in terms of people being dealt with—I believe that he said less than a hundred; indeed, I think that the figure is actually 80—have been a substantial flop. The building societies themselves are saying that one of the first moves to correct the situation would be to carry on with the moratorium on the non-payment of stamp duty and to lower interest rates immediately. In view of such reports, when will the Government do something about the matter?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the lenders made certain commitments in December. They have pledged substantial amounts of money. My right honourable friends, the various Secretaries of State to whom I referred, will be meeting those lenders to discuss the progress this afternoon.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the psychological effect on a man and his wife, and their young children, of having to move out of the house that they are trying to buy is pretty devastating? Therefore, should we not look at why such things happen and consider what we can do to prevent them, even if it means providing some sort of help during the initial stages? There are tens of thousands of families who have lost their homes and who have a bitter feeling against their own country. It is not about time that the Government looked at means to try to help such people so as to prevent such things happening in the future?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Government have as much sympathy for these people as the noble Lord. We have acted by increasing the threshold on stamp duty, by pledging to make income payments direct to lenders from April 1992 and by bringing in further measures to help reduce the number of repossessions and to help the housing market generally.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, does not the need for this Question underline a rather important point; namely, that there is a vital conflict of interest between those who wish to lend money on
818
security and those who need to borrow it? It highly behoves the latter class to take independent advice before they embark upon a course of debt.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is wise advice from by noble and learned friend for all borrowers to take.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am somewhat taken aback by that answer. Surely anyone who believes in a free market could not see any conflict of interest between the two sides of the market. Indeed, quite the contrary: their interests are exactly the same. Perhaps the noble Lord may care to reflect on that at some time. However, I am not in the mood for giving one of my standard economic lectures this afternoon.
Can the Minister say whether the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, is right to say that the scheme has been a fiasco? Does he not agree that it could never have been anything but a fiasco? Is it not a standard example of a piece of elastoplast dealing with a major wound? Further, is it not the case that, if we are to deal with the problem, we must get the economy right on the one hand so that mortgagees have some income in order to pay the mortgage and, on the other, get interest rates down so that mortgages are not so large? Surely that is the solution to the problem.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, in my response to my noble and learned friend I was of course agreeing with his point that people should take independent advice before they enter into borrowing agreements. The noble Lord says that the scheme has been a fiasco. However, he has absolutely no evidence to prove it. He is, of course, right to say that the greatest help we can provide is to get the economy heading in the right direction. I believe that we are doing that.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is not one of the policy options open to Her Majesty's Government that of securing this coming Thursday, or the following Thursday, a reduction in interest rates of at least 2 per cent.?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is a most interesting point. I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer listens to the noble Lord's wise words.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, short of the fundamental reappraisal of housing policy recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, will the Government at least consider creating a more level playing field in relation to their own repossession rescue scheme by making available the same kind of financial support for that as is available for housing association rented schemes?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is an interesting suggestion. However, the noble Lord knows that a new mortgage benefit scheme would be very costly; indeed, it could be as much as £1 billion a year. The Exchequer already provides substantial support for those who need it most through income support and generally through mortgage interest tax relief.

Hospital Waiting Lists
2.57 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to reduce hospital waiting lists.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, I am pleased to say that since 1979 in-patient waiting lists in England have fallen by 12 per cent. Over the last year, provisional figures show that this progress is being maintained. In England alone, we will provide a further £39 million this year to continue the drive to reduce waiting lists.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the practice of going back 12 or 15 years all the time irritates people who have relatives who are on waiting lists? They find it highly distasteful to be told what was happening in 1979 when they have loved ones who are on the waiting lists waiting for emergency operations in a hospital. Therefore, can the noble Baroness go a little further and explain what will be done to prevent waiting lists increasing and to ensure that those people already on waiting lists receive priority and have their ailments attended to by the medical profession?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. I think that people should be treated as quickly as possible. Half of all hospital admissions are immediate. Of those admitted from waiting lists, half are admitted within five weeks, 80 per cent. within six months and 90 per cent. within a year. We are improving on that. The Patient's Charter, in addition to giving a two-year guarantee for every patient who needs treatment, states that from 1st April 1993 no one will have to wait more than 18 months for a hip or knee replacement or a cataract operation. We wish to improve on those guarantees in the future.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness is certain to agree that this waiting list argument, about which some people know nothing, is in fact divided into two parts: the urgent cases and the non-urgent cases. The latter can wait; they are not important. But as regards the urgent cases, is it not a fact that within the last two or three years such cases have been dealt with more rapidly?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, that is true, and also for the people awaiting admission to hospital. People who have been waiting for over two years now have virtually all been treated. The number of people who have been waiting for between one and two years has gone down by one-third compared to March 1991, and the total number of people waiting has halved over the same period. That is a good record but we wish to improve it further.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, is it not the case that waiting lists could be dramatically cut if, instead of just a few, all hospitals observed the recommendations of the Royal College of Physicians and of the
820
National Audit Commission to do day surgery instead of cluttering up beds unnecessarily by keeping patients in hospital for far longer than they need?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I agree with that point. We have seen an enormous increase in the number of people treated on a day case basis. That has indeed made a major contribution to the improvement in the figures.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, while welcoming the steps already taken by the Government with regard to waiting lists for admission to hospital, I ask the noble Baroness whether she agrees that what worries general practitioners and their patients even more is the difficulty of actually getting on to a waiting list because of the length of time spent waiting for an outpatient's appointment. With respect, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she is old enough to remember the time when we did not have appointment schemes and people went direct to outpatients? Perhaps they had to wait five hours but they were seen the same day, whereas now they have to wait five months. I do not expect the Minister to give us figures, but can she assure the House that the Government will attack the problem of waiting times for outpatient appointments with the same vigour as they have applied to waiting times for hospital admissions?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, under the Patient's Charter every single hospital will have to set its own targets for outpatient waiting times. In addition, I should say that over the period from 1979 there has been a great increase in the number of people treated. The figure has risen from 34.1 million in 1979 to 36.1 million in 1991.
Lord Carter: My Lords, in the year to March 1992 the number of people waiting for over two years went down by a welcome 50,000 while the number of people who were waiting for under one year went up by 56,000. Does this not confirm the view that in the run-up to the election the criteria for receiving treatment was based much more on the massaging of statistics than on clinical need? Will the Minister tell the House what are the Government's targets for the current year for reducing the number of people who are waiting for under one year and the number who are waiting for between one and two years?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Lord is right in that the number of people waiting for under one year increased during the month of March by 1 per cent. But the increase is very small compared to the number of patients treated in the NHS each year and substantially less than the reduction in the number of those waiting for over one year. With a 5 per cent. real terms growth next year, increased activities should more than cope with this. More significantly, the total waiting list is down some 33,000—3.5 per cent.—compared to March 1991.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that if this Government were to follow the practice of the last Labour administration and remove

821
from the waiting list all those who have been given a date for their operation, every patient on the list could be given a date, thus reducing the waiting list to zero?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. The noble Lord is the only person in this Chamber this afternoon who actually owns a waiting list.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is it also not the case that the Government have improved the figures by for the first time adding the number of day cases to the in-patient figure which automatically improves the figure?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, people waiting for day case treatment are still waiting for treatment. It is quite right that they should be included in the figures.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the Minister agree that waiting lists whether for in-patient treatment or for consultancy appointments have always been a form of rationing in the health service? Would it not be an idea for us to open a public debate on rationing so that the general public understand that resources are finite and that various complaints can be dealt with at different speeds?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I take the view that has just been expressed by my noble friend Lord McColl that in time we should reduce waiting lists to such an extent that people are not left to wait in pain and suffering. That should be the intention of this Government.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, the Minister has mentioned the Patient's Charter once or twice. Can she tell me what redress patients will have over hospitals that fail to reach their charter targets?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the Patient's Charter is being monitored very closely not only by the immediate staff concerned but also by the management executive. The management executive has a task force that is monitoring what is going on. If people require redress they should write to the chief executive, Duncan Nichol. In addition the Patient's Charter standards are advertised on posters in hospitals and waiting rooms so that people are aware of the standard they should be receiving.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, while I appreciate the Government's acknowledgment of the seriousness of this matter, I ask the noble Baroness whether she agrees that the British Medical Association, the Junior Doctors Association, the Royal College of Nursing and the Confederation of Health Service Employees ought not to be regarded as people who do not know anything about the waiting list problem. Does the Minister also agree that these are the kind of organisations which want to be consulted to give of the best of their experience and ability to assist the Government in the problem that faces the whole of our nation?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I should be very disappointed if any single person working in the NHS was not aware of the problem of the waiting lists. We have to have a concerted effort to get them down.

Business
3.6 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lady Chalker of Wallasey will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on sanctions against Yugoslavia.

Hybrid Instruments: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider hybrid instruments and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the committee:

V. Dilhorne,

L. Gallacher,

L. Murton of Lindisfarne,

L. Thurlow,

L. Wade of Chorl ton.—(The Chairman Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Personal Bills: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider personal Bills and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the committee:

L. Airedale,

B. Hilton of Eggardon,

V. Oxfuird,

L. Templeman,

L. Thomas of Gwydir,

L. Wilberforce.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Standing Orders (Private Bills): Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee on the Standing Orders relating to Private Bills be appointed and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the committee:

E. Grey,

823

V. Hood,

L. Jacques,

L. Renton,

L. Strabolgi,

L. Thurlow,

L. Wade of Chorlton.—(The Chairman of Commit tees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Protection of Badgers Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Your Lordships may recognise this Bill and the two which follow it on the Order Paper from last Session as those which, although considered by your Lordships and the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, were not able to secure passage through the other place. It is with the approval of both Houses that the requirement to go back before the Joint Committee has been dispensed with for these three consolidations which I am bringing again before your Lordships this afternoon. I am sure your Lordships will agree that the expeditious passage of these Bills is highly desirable. I am glad, once again, to have the opportunity of expressing my appreciation, and that of your Lordships' House, for this further contribution by the Law Commission and the parliamentary draftsmen and draftswomen at tidying up the contents of the statute books. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Tribunals and Inquiries Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Pittenweem Order Confirmation Bill
Considered on Report.

Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
3.9 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 CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Release of short-term, long-term and life prisoners]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 19, after ("General") insert ("or the Lord Justice Clerk").
The noble Lord said: It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I refer also to Amendment No. 16, because the same principle applies to both clauses. Amendment No. 1 relates to Clause 1(4) and the release of prisoners on licence. At present the clause provides:
"If recommended to do so by the Parole Board under this section, the Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Lord Justice General and, if available, the trial judge, release on licence a life prisoner who is not a discretionary life prisoner".
The amendment was suggested by the Law Society of Scotland. As far as I am aware—the time element may have something to do with it—neither the Lord Justice General nor the Lord Justice Clerk has been consulted. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that in the absence of the Lord Justice General, who is the supreme judge in Scotland, there should be a provision to allow a substitute for consultation in these important matters.
As it stands, Clause 1(4) provides that,
"the Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Lord Justice General … release on licence a life prisoner",
which suggests that before the Secretary of State makes his decision he will have consulted the Lord Justice General.
Amendments Nos. 1 and 16 are proposed to ensure that if the Lord Justice General is unavailable for any reason—for example, if he happens to be out of the country or is unavailable because of illness or death (although we would not wish that upon any incumbent of the office)—someone of equal status should be available to be consulted before a life prisoner is released. That is the sole purpose of the amendments.
I appreciate that the number of occasions upon which recourse to the Lord Justice Clerk would be required will probably be few and far between, but it is important in a Bill of this nature to have a fall back, for administrative efficiency and in the interests of the prisoner who is waiting to be released from his life

825
sentence. There may from time to time be an emergency. The only other person consulted under the terms of the subsection is the trial judge. Begging the presence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, the likelihood of the trial judge being alive by the time the person is being considered for release is minimal because people have been serving long sentences in prison recently.
If the trial judge is not available because of illness or death, and if the Lord Justice General is not available for one reason or another, as the subsection stands (and the subsection to which Amendment No. 16 relates) there will be no one to consult. It is in the interests of justice, the individual and the community, that there should be a substitute with whom consultations can be held. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, for expressing his anxiety about my health. I do not see much difficulty about the trial judge being available, because they are frequently available. I believe that the length of time people serve in respect of life sentences for murder is about 10 years at present, although I may not be accurate about that. That seems to give a judge a reasonable amount of time to live—I hope so, speaking personally.
There has been no suggestion that the provision has caused any difficulty. The difficulty and the delays upon which the Parole Board for Scotland has frequently commented relate to the Civil Service Department in St. Andrew's House not producing the paperwork quickly enough, and that is a matter upon which the Kincraig Report comments. There has been no suggestion that the Lord Justice General, whoever he happens to be, has caused any problem nor is there any suggestion that there is a problem.
The Lord Justice General does the same job as the Lord Chief Justice in England. The Lord Chief Justice in England has to do something like 10 times the number of cases that the Lord Justice General has to do. There is no reason to alter the practice. The advantage, as I understand it, is that the Lord Justice General and the Lord Chief Justice, on the whole, do not try murder cases, but sit in the chair in the appeal court. The Lord Justice Clerk occasionally does murder trials, and it is of advantage that there should he a two-pronged approach—the trial judge and, in effect, the head of the appeal court. Without feeling strongly about it, on the whole I oppose the amendment.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The requirement of Clause 1(4) is that the Secretary of State should consult the Lord Justice General and, if available, the trial judge, before he releases a life prisoner who is not a discretionary life prisoner. That requirement has stood in relation to all life prisoners since 1967, without, to my knowledge, ever having caused any undue delay or difficulty, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, said.
However, I acknowledge that the absence of any delay or difficulty in the past does not necessarily
826
mean that in the future there will never be any problem. The amendments proposed would ensure that if consultations with the Lord Justice General were, for some reason, to be impracticable for the time being, the Secretary of State would be able to consult instead the Lord Justice Clerk.
Having said that, I do not recommend that the amendments be accepted as they stand; first, because, inadvertently, they would give the Secretary of State the difficult task of choosing to consult one or other of the senior judges—an invidious responsibility perhaps—and, secondly, because there is a third provision in paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 5 which requires consultation with the Lord Justice General, and where, therefore, a similar amendment would fall to be considered. Notwithstanding the limited opposition of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton, if the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, is prepared to withdraw the amendments, I shall, at a later stage, bring forward amendments to all three of the relevant provisions to make it clear that if the Secretary of State is unable to consult the Lord Justice General he should consult the Lord Justice Clerk.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. In the circumstances, I am obviously prepared to withdraw the amendment. No doubt when the amendment returns on Report it will be phrased differently. It might be that "after consultation with the Lord Justice General or, if he is not available, the Lord Justice Clerk" will meet the situation. With reference to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, said, I doubt whether the average length of a life sentence in Scotland is 10 years; I suspect that it is considerably longer than that. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 23, leave out ("or the class of case to which that case belongs").
The noble and learned Lord said: Unfortunately the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, is unable to be here, so from henceforth, I shall speak to the amendments in both our names. I apologise to the Committee for not having been present in the House on Second Reading. It was a personal disappointment to me that I was unable to be there to hear the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate make his maiden speech. It is unusual for a Member of the House to congratulate a previous devil on his appointment as Lord Advocate; "devil" being the Scottish equivalent of "pupil". It is a great pleasure to see an erstwhile pupil or devil of mine in that position. We hope that he will fill it with the distinction of which I know he is capable.
Amendment No. 2 is purely probing. I do not understand the purpose of the reference to,
"the class of case to which that case belongs".
It seems to me that history shows that one cannot classify murder convictions and anyway one cannot classify discretionary life sentences in non-murder cases. From 1950 onwards we tried to have various classifications of murder. In this country we have

827
always turned our face away from them. The whole attitude of the parole system, as I understand it, is that one considers each case on its merits. Therefore I do not understand what is meant by the Secretary of State referring a class of life prisoners to the Parole Board. It seems to be proper to put down an amendment leaving the provision that each case is referred to the board individually. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I put my name to the amendment because I understood that it was the proper practice that each case should be considered on its merits. Of course, the Parole Board could refer a whole series of cases, but it is not understood what is behind the words:
"or the class of case to which that case belongs",
or why they should serve any constructive purpose.
Because I share this lack of understanding which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, has expressed, I put my name to this amendment. I hope that my noble and learned friend will be able to give us a reply.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Having started by accepting the first amendment in principle, I shall go further with this one and accept it as it stands. In doing so, I am going for something of a record! The provision is modelled on Section 35(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which I understand reflects the arrangements in England and Wales whereby dossiers are passed to the Parole Board immediately after consideration by the local review committee.
However, the words which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and my noble and learned friend Lord Cameron of Lochbroom seek to delete have, at present. no practical effect in Scotland. Under our arrangements, as is correctly anticipated, each life prisoner's case is individually referred to the board for its recommendation as to release. I do not expect circumstances to arise in the foreseeable future when it would be desirable to reserve the power for the Secretary of State for Scotland to make class references to the Parole Board. I therefore recommend that the Committee should agree to the amendment.
Lord Morton of Shuna: All I can say is that I am very grateful.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Duty to release discretionary life prisoners]:
3.30 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, leave out lines 18 and 19.
The noble and learned Lord said: I have indicated—and I hope that the message got through to the Government—that I wish to deal with Amendments Nos. 39, 45, 46 and 47 at the same time as Amendment No. 3.
Amendments Nos. 39, 45, 46 and 47 concern subsidiary matters. Here we are dealing with the mandatory life sentence and Amendment No. 39 is an
828
amendment to Clause 38. I have great difficulty in understanding what, if any, meaning is to be given to the provision. I seek to take out the words in brackets. On page 25, Clause 38(1) states:
"Each of sections 218 and 431…shall be amended as follows".
It then goes on to state that unless one has reasons to the contrary, one should backdate the sentence to the time when the person was taken into custody. I have no difficulty with that at all.
However, subsection (2) states:
"For the word 'shall' there shall be substituted the words —'(other than an offence in respect of which imprisonment for life is mandatory)'".
For the life of me, I cannot see what relevance Section 431 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 has (which is the summary court provision and where there is a power of imprisonment for six months) in referring to imprisonment for life being mandatory. That seems to be ridiculous.
In Section 218, it does not seem to make much sense to state that if one is making a discretionary life sentence, one has to backdate it, but if it is a sentence for murder, one does not need to do so. It seems to be an academic issue and therefore the words in brackets seem to me to be a non-use and can be omitted.
Amendments Nos. 45 to 47 are amendments to Schedule 5 paragraph 6 on page 39 concerning the transitional provisions. Here I am concerned with a matter of form. Paragraph 6(1) reads:
"This paragraph applies where, in the case of an existing life prisoner, the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Lord Justice General and, if available, the trial judge, certifies his opinion that, if section 2 of this Act had been in force…the court by which he was sentenced would have ordered".
That seems to me to suggest that the Secretary of State is to certify the sentence that the court would have imposed. The effect of the amendments which I have put forward is that it is the Lord Justice General who should certify what the court would have done.
It seems to me offensive in principle that the Secretary of State should even be seen to be certifying a sentence that a court should give. It is a matter of the separation of powers. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, who has held the high office of Secretary of State, will agree with me when I say that I hope that the Secretary of State does not wish to be in a position of setting the periods of sentences. That is a matter for the judiciary. That is the point of those two amendments.
The purpose of Amendment No. 3 is to give the court the same power in the mandatory life sentence, the murder sentence, as is given in the non-mandatory sentence. It is not intended in this amendment to abolish the mandatory sentence, which is given for murder. At the moment, the court cannot consider the appropriate sentence. All we are told to do is to say that the person must be sentenced to imprisonment for life. We can make a minimum recommendation, but that is all.
As has been said much more eloquently over the years by various noble and learned Lords than by me—certainly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, who is looking at me with great vigour—murder is not a one-off type of crime. It is a whole category of crimes of varying degrees of awfulness. It

829
ranges from the mercy killing to the Lockerbie type of terrorism. The discretionary life sentence is often applied—"often" is the wrong word as I believe there are only about 10 or 12 people serving such discretionary life sentences in Scotland—in the case of diminished responsibility in culpable homicide. It is applied in the case of multiple rape and it is applied when the court considers seriously on the basis of evidence that the person concerned is so dangerous that it is impossible to give a determinate sentence because the danger to the public is likely still to exist thereafter. In other words the discretionary life sentence is liable to be given in respect of a person who is far more dangerous than many of the people who are given a mandatory life sentence.
The majority of people who have received a mandatory life sentence have never offended before and often—as far as can be told—they do not offend again. Therefore it seems right to me at any rate, and has seemed right to the majority of Members of this Chamber in various debates that took place last year and since the Criminal Justice Bill of 1987, that one should give a power to the court to give some indication of what is the appropriate period that someone sentenced for murder should serve. That is all that the amendment seeks to do.
There are other reasons for seeking this power. I suggest that Scotland must have broadly the same method of dealing with people sentenced for murder in Scotland as applies in the case of people sentenced for murder in England. There is a practical reason for that because sometimes people come to Scotland from England to commit murder and upon conviction are sent back to prisons in England to serve their sentences, and vice versa. The sentences are served according to the law of the place where those people serve their sentences under the terms of the Criminal Justice Act of last year and of this Bill. Therefore the same approach should be adopted in both countries.
The English procedure is for the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice to make a recommendation which is called the tariff. That tariff is passed to and possibly altered by the Home Secretary. The tariff period becomes the basis for the parole decision. It is in effect what this clause of the Bill refers to as "the relevant part". At the moment, according to the law, this is secret, but the Court of Appeal has recently held that in England the right to see the recommendations made by the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice is to be granted to prisoners serving life sentences for murder. Leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of this Chamber has been granted, but I do not know whether that measure will be proceeded with or what the result of it will be. If that decision stands, it meets almost in full the measure that is sought in this amendment.
It is nonsense to suggest that there is a major difference between murder and the discretionary life sentence. I would suggest the only difference is that in the discretionary life sentence the trial judge imposing the sentence meant to impose that sentence. In the case of the mandatory life sentence one can be pretty sure that the judge did not mean to impose that sentence but was obliged to do so.
On 3rd July last year in this Chamber the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, and the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Harris of Greenwich, all pointed out that the Parole Board in considering life sentences and in considering parole never considers whether a particular sentence is a mandatory or a discretionary sentence. It considers the individual case.
In January 1992 in the case R v. Parole Board exparte Wilson the counsel for the Home Secretary, who presumably took into account issues of principle as anyone appearing as counsel for the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State is obliged to do, submitted that any distinction sought to be made in the Parole Board's task in considering discretionary and mandatory life sentences was illusory. I totally agree with that but presumably the counsel did not say that out of the top of his hat. He expressed that view because it was the view of the Home Secretary. Perhaps that view had changed since the consideration in another place of the Criminal Justice Bill as it then was. I agree that the distinction I have just referred to is illusory.
I also agree with what Lord Justice Stuart-Smith said when giving the Appeal Court judgment in the case of Bradley in 1991. He said when dealing with another case:
"The only difference between that case and this is that Payne was serving a mandatory life sentence for murder. That, submits Mr. Fitzgerald"—
the counsel for the appellant—
"makes all the difference because such a man is not entitled to release after serving the tariff sentence, provided he is no longer dangerous, whereas a discretionary lifer is. In our judgment"—
that is, the judgment of the Court of Appeal—
"this is not a valid or logical distinction because it is quite clear that the board and the Home Secretary apply the same approach both to the mandatory and discretionary life prisoners, namely, that, after they have served the tariff period, as decided by the Home Secretary after consultation and advice from the judiciary, the sole question that justifies detention in either case is risk to the public".
I am sure that that approach would commend itself to this Chamber, but it is not the approach taken in the Bill. According to the Bill it is only in the case of the discretionary life sentence where a court is to be given a power to make "the relevant part". It would be wholly retrograde and dangerous if we were to adopt for Scotland this approach which is totally different from the approach adopted in England. Considerable problems would be caused in Scotland if life prisoners thought that they were in a worse position in Scotland than they would have been in England.
I submit it is ridiculous that the more dangerous prisoner, that is the discretionary life prisoner, has a right to release whereas the less dangerous prisoner, the mandatory life prisoner, has no such right to release. All I am seeking to do in this amendment is to give the court power, if it thinks it right to do so, to include in the mandatory life sentence the period that it considers appropriate as the punishment element. If the court considers the offender to be highly dangerous—for example, the terrorists responsible for the Lockerbie disaster—it would not be prevented from imposing a mandatory sentence. At the moment as the Bill stands the same provision applies with respect to the discretionary life sentence. The cases

831
where such a provision would apply would be, as at present, cases where the person concerned was verging on insanity.
I had the honour to serve on a Select Committee of this Chamber. After hearing from a vice-president of the Court of Human Rights we on the committee had the firm view that the Court of Human Rights would take the same view of the mandatory life sentence as it took of the discretionary life sentence. That is the purpose behind these amendments. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is giving me a look, but I assure him that that was the view we formed after having heard from that vice-president. The judgment in the case of Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell made it perfectly clear that the court was considering only that particular case and no other. For those variety of reasons I commend the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, said in a careful speech in which the logic of the reasoning carried total conviction to some of us in the Chamber, Amendment No. 3 raises the same point as Amendment No. 39 to Clause 38. If there were a Division on Amendment No. 3 that would be determinative of Amendment No. 39 in order to avoid inconsistency in the drafting of the Bill.
Leaving aside for the sake of time matters of form on the brace of subsequent amendments, the point of principle at stake is this. This Chamber has already implemented the recommendation of the Select Committee on Murder and Life Imprisonment by deciding on a Division that the mandatory life sentence for murder should be abolished. That was not accepted by another place. One of the reasons in support of that recommendation and of the decision of your Lordships' House was that there should be no disparity of treatment as regards the release of prisoners serving a life sentence, be it mandatory or discretionary. The Court of Appeal decision handed down since our debate makes a nonsense of disparity. The practice of the Parole Board operates no disparity and makes a nonsense of disparity.
The Court of Human Rights' decision is open to equivocal interpretations, as all decisions of that eminent court are. However, I take the view, as an ordinary lawyer, that what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, said, is right. Fortunately, there are three members of the Select Committee here today—the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, and myself. We heard evidence from officials of the court and went into the matter with great care. We took the view—which is not shared by government, but government is not always right—that the Court of Human Rights, as a matter of inexorable logic, would arrive at the same decision in either case.
Against that background let us consider Clauses 2 and 38 of the Bill, which insist upon maintaining that wholly illusory distinction. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, said—and all of us in the profession, on either side of the Border, know it to
832
be true—the discretionary life prisoner is often far more dangerous than the mandatory life sentence prisoner.
Accepting, as we must for the purpose of this debate, that as the law stands, for murder a sentence of life is fixed by law and that other life sentences imposed by the court for other offences are discretionary, nonetheless there is no intellectual distinction or justification for establishing a disparate regime for release. That is what we are concerned with. Is that not better for the administration of justice in Scotland, with which we are concerned and which, under Article 19 of the Act of Union, has its own indigenous criminal law procedure and system? The only ground upon which that can be altered by statute is the ground that statutory regulation may be imposed for the better administration of justice. Members of the Committee may ask themselves how on earth the maintenance of that distinction could be conducive to the better administration of justice in Scotland.
As a member of your Lordships' Select Committee, and having supported the decision already made by your Lordships' House, I am bound, as a matter of consistency, belief and honour, to support the amendment. It is not understood what reason could be advanced—and I shall listen with considerable care—to induce any Member of the Committee who took one view on the earlier Division in your Lordships' House to take another view today on the machinery for the release of life prisoners. I have the privilege to support my noble and learned friend on his amendment.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: We have heard two very distinguished speeches in support of the amendment. The practice in the courts has demonstrated the points which have been underlined. The single killer, in the domestic situation or the traditional pub fight which leads to the death of another individual, seldom represents a menace to the community and seldom reoffends. I do not know what the figures are but no doubt the Government will have them. On the other hand, those of us who have been in practice may have dealt with the case of a double rapist, for example, who receives life imprisonment and will be a menace for all time. The object of Amendment No. 3 is to put all life prisoners in one category with regard to release and to give those responsible for releasing life prisoners discretion in each case on the same basis.
From the point of view of the prisons it is a nonsense to have the double qualification of being a discretionary life prisoner or a mandatory life prisoner. I am pretty certain that in the prisons of Scotland—in Perth, Peterhead, Saughton, or wherever life prisoners are held—people do not go about saying to each other, "By the way, Jimmy, are you a discretionary life prisoner or are you a mandatory life prisoner?" From the point of view of the prisoners and from the point of view of the prison officers who receive them at the prison the simple question is, "Is he

833
a lifer?" The prison officers do not make any distinction between a mandatory and a discretionary life sentence, so far as I am aware.
I should like to hear what the Minister has to say as to whether the prison service distinguishes between the two. If so, can the Government tell us where the discretionary life prisoners are kept and where the mandatory life prisoners are kept? If they are kept separately, can the Government advise how many discretionary life prisoners there are at present who are distinguished from mandatory life prisoners and where each group of prisoners is kept? I suspect that the answer will be that all life prisoners are kept in the same prison and are dealt with as life prisoners.
As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said, in the earlier debate your Lordships' House voted in a certain way but that vote was rejected in another place. As I recall, the response of certain tabloid newspapers was that this Chamber had gone soft on life sentences. What we are seeking is a system of justice and fairness for people who are serving life sentences, whatever the public perception of them might be; and we seek a uniform approach to the question of release.
Perhaps even more important for the prison service is to have a system that does not give rise to jealousy between people within the prison service. If there is a discretionary life prisoner who has a window of hope and a mandatory life prisoner who has no window at all, jealousy arises; and on occasions at least it leads to trouble within the prison service.
So far as I am concerned—I emphasise that this is a matter of a free approach by all Members of the Committee—Amendment No. 3, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton, will have my support. I have considerable reservations on Amendments Nos. 45, 46 and 47 as to why the Secretary of State should be eliminated from the process. It may be that if the Secretary of State is eliminated from the process, it becomes what might look like a judicial carve up—if I may use the phrase—begging his presence. It seems to me that the Secretary of State's input is an input on behalf of the general public to balance the judicial view of whether to release or not release a person. If the noble and learned Lord divides the Committee, I shall not support him on Amendments Nos. 45, 46 and 47; but, as I said, he has my support for Amendment No. 3.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I received a message from the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, to say that in speaking to Amendment No. 3, he intended to speak also to Amendments Nos. 39, 45, 46 and 47, reaching a hat trick with regard to Amendment No. 39. I accept that the amendment is designed to guard against the possibility of a mandatory life prisoner who had spent a considerable period on remand being disadvantaged when the time came to consider his release. There is logic in applying the concept of backdating to the mandatory life sentence so that the court can ensure that any remand period is taken into account at the stage of consideration for release. Therefore I shall accept that amendment when we reach it in due course.
834
I turn to Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 which the noble and learned Lord explained fully. They deal with the transitional arrangements. I have some sympathy with the amendments. However, we have not consulted the Lord Justice General in Scotland about whether he would be prepared to undertake the additional responsibility of determining the relevant parts of sentences of all existing discretionary life prisoners. It is my view that we should be guided by his views. Accordingly, at the appropriate time I shall invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendments on the undertaking that the Government will seek the Lord Justice General's views on that particular matter without delay.
With regard to Amendment No. 47, there are fewer than 30 discretionary life prisoners in Scotland at the moment. Our intention would be to refer those cases to the Lord Justice General within weeks rather than months of the commencement of Clause 2. Whether or not a timescale is set out in statute, the aggrieved life prisoners will have a remedy at civil law against undue delay. But I see no reason to bind the Secretary of State to an express timescale in the statute. In view of the indication that I have given to the noble and learned Lord, I hope that when the time comes he will not press the Committee on that amendment.
The substantial amendment in this informal grouping is Amendment No. 3. It raises the same issues which were comprehensively debated in this Chamber as recently as the middle of last year, as the noble Lord accurately recalled. During the passage of the then Criminal Justice Bill, noble Lords made clear their desire to abolish the mandatory life sentence; and, failing that, to extend the new procedures for release of discretionary life prisoners to those receiving the mandatory life sentence for murder.
The Government's firm view at that time was that the mandatory life sentence should remain to mark the peculiar heinousness of murder, and that the relevant Minister should retain responsibility for the release of murderers, as part of the Government's wider responsibility to protect the public. That view was accepted in the other place, and ultimately conceded by this Chamber.
It is the Government's view that it is too early in the life of a new administration to go back on that conclusion, which was carefully considered and extensively debated. The arguments on each side have not changed. They are the same for Scotland as for England and Wales. The Committee would not expect me to reach a hasty decision on this amendment, which would contradict the clear policy stated less than a year ago.
Having said that, I understand that the Home Secretary has agreed to meet the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and a delegation including other members of the Select Committee on Murder and Life Imprisonment, to discuss the procedure for review and release of discretionary and mandatory life prisoners. He has indicated that this is not a subject on which he intends to reach a hasty conclusion.
The provisions of Clause 2 comply with our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. The relevant ECHR judgment did not

835
impinge on mandatory life prisoners, although I accept that there is a view taken—it was a view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway—that the decision on discretionary life sentences will inexorably or inevitably move on to mandatory life sentences. But the fact is that the particular decision of that court does not as yet cover that matter.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps I may interrupt my noble and learned friend for a point of clarification. As I understand it, the discussions between the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and the Home Secretary are limited to the question of the abolition of the mandatory life sentence for murder and are not concerned with what we are discussing today; namely, the disparity of treatment for release. Am I right in that understanding?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I do not know whether the noble Lord has seen the letter that the Home Secretary sent to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. I understand that the proposal is that he should meet those interested to discuss the procedure for review and release of discretionary and mandatory life prisoners.
Under this clause, mirroring what is already in place in England, there will be provision made for determining what should be the relevant part of a discretionary life sentence. That is already in place in England and, with the passage of this Bill, will come into place in Scotland. I urge on the Committee that experience in practice of how the courts and parole boards respond to their new responsibilities in relation to those discretionary life sentences will help to inform the debate about the possible future extension of the arrangements.
It is a radical step in our jurisdiction, expressly giving power to the courts to differentiate in seriousness between the various offences for which they exercise their discretion to impose a life sentence. However, as I indicated, the crime of murder is seen as uniquely serious. There were anxious and vexed debates about the matter in another place. However, in the past we have not acknowledged that for murder there may be differing degrees of seriousness. At the moment there exists a power for the trial judge to make a minimum recommendation in open court. That is rarely used. Moreover, it is not expressly linked to the seriousness of the offence as such.
The amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton, for the first time would introduce the concept of degrees of seriousness. It would come to be expected that judges in Scotland—in due course we would expect a similar provision to be introduced in Scotland, because it would have to follow logically that a comparable arrangement would be introduced in Scotland—
4 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: Will the noble and learned Lord explain how there can be a difference in degree of seriousness with regard to murder? The victim is dead.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Perhaps I may finish my sentence. I was saying that if an amendment such as the one proposed were to be accepted that would for the first time introduce the concept of degrees of seriousness of murder and judges would be expected routinely to make such distinctions. Hitherto no such distinction has been made or sought to be made with regard to the crime of murder. The noble Baroness has no doubt watched American films where murders of varying degrees are the centrepiece. We have not adopted such an approach.
When Parliament voted for, and repeatedly endorsed, the abolition of capital punishment, it did not intend to abolish the concept of a unique penalty for murder. That penalty is life imprisonment. I respectfully suggest that we are not yet ready to take a further radical step of eroding that decision. It is right to respect the views of the other place and of the public generally that murder is uniquely serious; and the Government should not give up their ultimate discretion over the release of murderers.
I hope that I have explained the position. Doubtless those who are concerned in this matter will approach the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, to discover in what way he proposes to take forward the invitation extended to him by the Home Secretary.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I shall speak on this proposition, since, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, stated, I was, with him and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, a Member of your Lordships' Select Committee on murder and life imprisonment.
That Select Committee was set up because it was recognised by the House and by Ministers that the law of murder, and the various administrative procedures relating to the release of life sentence prisoners, were a mess. We have to recognise the situation: that so far as concerns the last English Act dealing with this matter the law remains a mess. We now have a truly bizarre situation. I relate what I am saying primarily to England although it has a most direct relationship with the law of Scotland.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton, said, all those of us who have been involved from time to time in decisions on the release of life sentence prisoners have recognised one essential truth. Although many prisoners who have been convicted of murder and have been sentenced to a mandatory sentence are dangerous men and women, if one considers the totality of cases of murder and of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility—I have reviewed many hundreds of such cases—it is clear in my mind that in many instances the person convicted of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility represents a far more dangerous threat to society than does the person who has been convicted of murder. That is not only my view but the view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, when he spoke as Lord Chief Justice. It was the view of many others during the debates in this House.
When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, put forward the case today some of those well-loved phrases came tumbling from his lips, as they did from the mouth of his colleague in the Home Office. The

837
noble and learned Lord suggested that it was necessary to maintain the distinction because of the need to protect the public. However, as I have indicated, there is absolutely no basis whatever for suggesting that the present arrangements in any way protect the public more than would be the position were these amendments to be carried.
There is nothing uniquely serious in the case of a person who has been convicted of murder rather than manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. There is a dead person. I do not believe that the general public makes the fine distinctions that have been made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser. There is no reality to that argument.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, raised the issue of the forthcoming meeting between the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, myself and possibly others who were Members of the Select Committee. As I understand it, we shall discuss all the issues involved in our report. I very much hope that we will. I should find it surprising were Mr. Clarke to suggest anything else. Obviously I have no idea what view the new Home Secretary will take. I very much hope that he will withdraw from the position taken by his predecessor because in England we shall have this extraordinary situation from October. The case of someone who has been convicted of murder will be finally resolved by a decision by Ministers. However, a case of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility will be finally determined by the Parole Board and there will be no locus for the Home Secretary. I find it hard to believe that there will be overwhelming public support for such a truly absurd situation. I very much hope that we shall not reproduce that folly in the Bill.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am grateful to all those who have taken part in the debate. In reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, perhaps I may say this. It is a common fallacy that death equals murder. But death as a result of a crime can vary from death through a breach of a statutory regulation—it can be very serious such as the deaths in the Channel Tunnel—or death caused by careless driving or by reckless driving. Death can be caused by drunk driving or by the crime of manslaughter. It is a fallacy to say that an offence causing death equals murder. It does not and never has.
The difficulty about the definition of murder is that it is not restricted to cases where death is caused as a result of an intention to kill. An intention to kill is not necessary for murder. But someone who does intend to kill and kills several people over time is not guilty of murder if his responsibility is diminished. He therefore does not receive the mandatory life sentence because he is too dangerous to receive it. That is the fallacy of the argument. The more dangerous person does not receive the mandatory life sentence.
I am not surprised but disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, did not understand the purpose of my Amendments Nos. 45 to 47. I shall not move them in order to allow for consultation. I have spoken to the Lord Justice General, who does not appear to object in any way to my amendments so
838
long as they do not impose a timescale on him. However, the point of the amendments was to make the setting of the relevant part of the sentence—not the release—the responsibility of the judiciary. The release would still be the responsibility of everyone including the Secretary of State.
While I was disappointed with the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, I was astounded by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie. Apparently Scottish law is to be decided by the Government after the Home Secretary has consulted with various Members of your Lordships' Chamber, all of whom spend their whole professional lives in England. No Scottish Office Minister is to take part. I must be a total Cross Bencher but I ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, whether he is serious. I understood that he had responsibility for advising the Prime Minister about devolution. Difficulties may arise if Scottish law is to be determined by the Home Secretary—it is an oddity—but that is what he appeared to say.
The real difficulty with the procedure is that the English already have it; they have the judges setting down the period, although it is set down secretly. A decision is made and unless and until the judicial committee of this House overturns the Court of Appeal that stands. The Court of Appeal has quashed the Home Secretary's tariff on four people convicted of murder and it has released the recommendations of the Lord Chief Justice in respect of those people. In tabling the amendment I want precisely that to be possible in the law of Scotland. I do not see what the difficulty is. Although I can see that Members of the Committee are waiting for other business to be dealt with, I am afraid that I must seek the opinion of the Committee.
4.11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
* Their Lordships divided: Contents, 96; Not-Contents, 125.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Ezra, L.

Ardwick, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Aylestone, L.

Foot, L.

Banks, L.

Gallacher, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Galpern, L.

Birdwood, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Blackstone, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Blease, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L

Bottomley, L.

Gregson, L.

Brookes, L.

Grey, E.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Halsbury, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Hayter, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Howie of Troon, L.

David, B.

Hughes, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Hunt, L.

Desai, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Donoughue, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Judd, L.

839

Kilbracken, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Kintore, E.

Rochester, L.

Listowel, E.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Lockwood, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Longford, E.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Serota, B.

Mais, L.

Shackleton, L.

Marsh, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Mayhew, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Meston, L.

Stallard, L.

Molloy, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Monkswell, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Morton of Shuna, L. [Teller.]

Tenby, V.

Mulley, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Nicol, B.

Tordoff, L.

Phillips, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Portland, E.

White, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Rea, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hood, V.

Alport, L.

Howe, E.

Astor, V.

Jeffreys, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Auckland, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Leigh, L.

Bellwin, L.

Liverpool, E.

Beloff, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Belstead, L.

Long, V.

Bessborough, E.

Lyell, L.

Blatch, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L

Blyth, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Bolton, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Borthwick, L.

Manton, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Marlesford, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Merrivale, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mersey, V.

Cadman, L.

Middleton, L.

Caldecote, V.

Milverton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Morris, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mottistone, L.

Carnock, L.

Mountevans, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Mountgarret, V.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Moyne, L.

Coleraine, L.

Munster, E.

Colnbrook, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Crathorne, L.

Nelson, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Norrie, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Orkney, E.

Davidson, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Downshire, M.

Pender, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Effingham, E.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Elgin and Kincardine, E.

Porritt, L.

Elibank, L.

Prentice, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Pym, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Quinton, L.

Faithfull, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Ferrers, E.

Reay, L.

Flather, B.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Foley, L.

Rennell, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Renwick, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Rochdale, V.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Rodney, L.

Goschen, V.

Romney, E.

Gridley, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Seccombe, B.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Strange, B.

Henley, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

840

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Ullswater, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L

Sudeley, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Suffield, L.

Wakeham, L.

Teviot, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Wise, L.

Trenchard, V.

Wynford, L.

Trumpington, B.

Young, B.

[* The Tellers for the Not-Contents reported 125 names. The Clerks recorded 124 names.]
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Serbia and Montenegro: UN Sanctions
4.21 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"As honourable Members will know, the United Nations Security Council decided on 30th May to impose sanctions on Serbia and Montenegro. The resolution contains one of the most comprehensive series of measures ever adopted by the UN. They include a ban on air links, a trade and oil embargo, a freeze on assets, a ban on official sporting contacts and an agreement to reduce the level of staff at diplomatic missions of the self—proclaimed Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The ban on arms sales adopted last year remains in force.
"This and other elements of the embargo will be monitored by the Security Council Committee established by one of the earlier resolutions on Yugoslavia. We shall play a full part in the work of the committee. We are also taking domestic steps to implement the sanctions in the UK and dependent territories. Interim measures have been taken by the DTI and the Treasury, and Orders in Council will be put to the Privy Council on 4th June. The Yugoslav ambassador has been asked to leave.
"The vote on this resolution reflects almost total unanimity among the international community. The world has been shocked by the persistent shellings and killings, and particularly by the carnage in Sarajevo. The resolution reflects condemnation of Serbia's brutal and expansionist policies under its present leadership. President Milosevic has refused to rein in the Serbs in Bosnia and has actively supported them through supplies of men and equipment. Under the pretext of withdrawal he has transferred large parts of the federal army to local command in Bosnia.
"These warlords are using terror as a political weapon to create ethnically pure Serbian areas which will be attached to Serbia itself. There was never any justification for Serbia's aggressive policy. Before the fighting began there was no

841
threat to the welfare of the large Serbian community in Bosnia—Herzegovina from either Croats or Moslems. Croatia too has profited from the situation by infiltrating men and equipment into Croatian—inhabited areas of Herzegovina.
"We hope that the mandatory provisions of UNSCR 757 will convince the Belgrade leadership that they must abandon their present policies. We do not wish to penalise the Serbian people or to destroy the Serbian economy. But we must bring home to Mr. Milosevic and his supporters that the international community cannot tolerate his present policy.
"The immediate requirement is for a complete cessation of hostilities. Next we must establish conditions in which the International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees can pursue their humanitarian tasks. They have our full support: we have so far given a total of £9.68 million to their appeals. The Belgrade authorities must also take steps to immobilise and disarm the irregular units which have been responsible for so much of the mayhem. This will allow the displaced persons who have now fled to all the five remaining republics to return to their homes. This in turn must lead to a political solution on the lines already prepared by, and in principle agreed through, the good offices of Lord Carrington. I am in close touch with my European and US colleagues as we work for these objectives."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. The running conflict in what was formerly Yugoslavia has caused acute anxiety and sorrow to all of us over the past few months. We have seen innocent people—I believe 2,300 of them—killed and many thousands more wounded. Great historic cities like Sarajevo and Dubrovnik have been shelled and devastated.
We have had to learn once again that the loosening of the bonds of cruel repression do not always or immediately lead to happiness, freedom and peace. Extreme nationalism and ethnic and religious differences which have been smouldering under the surface in the south east of Europe have erupted into hatred and violence.
We have supported the initiatives of the European Community and the patient efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, to achieve a ceasefire and talks which might lead to a political solution. But we have seen the noble Lord disappointed time and time again. We have sympathised with him and are grateful to him.
A large section of the Serbian people have protested about the policies of their government but the evidence points to the Serbian authorities, which have control of the federal army, as the chief culprits. Whatever may be the quarrels and memories of the past, in Slovenia, in Croatia and now in Bosnia-Herzegovina, the refusal of Serbia to support a
842
ceasefire or to influence Serbian guerrillas appears clearly to lie at the heart of the problem. For those reasons we fully support the comprehensive Security Council resolution of 30th May and hope it will persuade the Serbian Government to see sense.
Can the noble Baroness inform us whether other countries, notably Romania and Greece, will conform with the resolution and with the oil embargo in particular? Does she believe that the sanctions resolution will have the desired effect and bring the conflict to an end? If not, do Her Majesty's Government contemplate the possibility of United Nations military action such as that which took place in the Gulf? Finally, what organisation do Her Majesty's Government believe will need to be set up to protect the new independent states and to secure stability in the region once the present conflict has reached an end? Does the noble Baroness agree that such an organisation would need to be under the aegis of the United Nations and act with its authority?
My final point is that we all note and welcome the reference in the Statement to the unhappy refugees and displaced persons in that unfortunate area.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, in thanking the noble Baroness for making the Statement, and indeed in congratulating the Government on taking the degree of lead that they have with their colleagues in the European Community to move forward in this matter of applying sanctions in the tragic situation in Yugoslavia. For our part, we strongly support the efforts by the United Nations and the European Community now brought together to impose these sanctions and to try to mitigate the terrible human tragedy taking place in Yugoslavia.
We feel pitifully impotent in finding ways and means of effective peace enforcement in the tragic situation that exists. Like the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, I shall be interested to hear the response from the Government to his questions regarding a possible future military role. For example, a naval presence in the Adriatic may have some kind of calming influence. However, for the immediate future it is most important that the leaders in Belgrade are absolutely clear that world opinion is unanimously against them and that there is no way out of the course that they are pursuing in proceeding to arm the Serbian warlords, as the noble Baroness described them.
Apart from trying to bring about peace, we join from these Benches in paying tribute to the painstaking work of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. There will be a major humanitarian operation needed in Yugoslavia where one has probably the greatest movement of refugees since the Second World War.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos and Lord Thomson of Monifieth, for their comments. This is a time of great difficulty in dealing with the subject, as I am sure your Lordships' House perceives. Perhaps I can seek to answer the specific questions of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn.

843
Both Romania and Greece are members of the UN. We would therefore expect them to conform totally to its resolutions. It is of course the oil tanker procession that goes up from Greece which is the most critical in feeding the Serbian oil reserves, which must halt. To date our information is that it has halted. However, given that some 24 per cent. of the oil used in Yugoslavia comes from China—the majority of that using the route through Greece—it is critical that Greece and Romania, which are the main suppliers, conform to the resolution. I sincerely hope that they will. At the present time we have no evidence to the contrary, but we shall watch the situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked, as did the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, whether or not I believe that the sanctions are sufficient to bring the conflict to an end. I am sure that I speak not only for this House but also for millions of people in this country and the wider world in saying that with such a draconian series of sanctions, we firmly believe that they can be effective but it may take time. It is during that time that the refugees and displaced persons of whom the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, spoke will be most in need. That is why great efforts are being made to try to provide humanitarian help through the airport of Sarajevo. We have not yet succeeded but we shall continue to try to make that happen with the help of the United Nations, the ICRC and all other bodies.
Should those sanctions not work, then the United Nations Security Council will sit again and consider what further action should be taken. It is far too early to say, and we must give the sanctions a chance to work. The monitoring must be detailed and exact on every aspect.
With regard to the future, Resolution 757 speaks of peace and security in the whole area. That means that the new independent states should be peaceful and protected. I believe that the monitors, to whom we should pay tribute, and the peace-keeping force will seek to bring that about. It may need to be strengthened in time. We are contributing 250 personnel and three military observers to the protection forces and we expect to receive reports back within a week of deployment regarding what more needs to be done. We are conscious of the tremendous job that is being done by the UN protection force. We wish them well in bringing peace to the people in Bosnia-Herzegovina and the rest of the area who have suffered for so long.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for repeating that important Statement. Is she aware that opinion in this country will be thankful that, faced with this awful situation, the Security Council of the United Nations has been prepared to take action, and that it is action which a few years ago it may have hesitated to take? It is therefore encouraging that in this situation the Security Council is prepared to act.
Is my noble friend aware also that opinion in this country will unanimously feel that Her Majesty's Government were right to play their part and support
844
the action? The only other factor I wish to leave in the mind of my noble friend is that those of us who know the lovely city of Dubrovnik are horrified at the outrages being performed on it.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his comments regarding the Government's action. I too am relieved that the Security Council has been prepared to take this draconian action—indeed, with no votes against although there were two abstentions. The damage to the historic places of the former Yugoslavia caused by the brutality and severity of the attacks is much to be regretted. Many churches throughout that once lovely country will never and can never be the same again. However, the action now being taken is taken with wide support of the majority of the members of the non-aligned movement who, after all, form around half the membership of the United Nations. It was important that we had their support. They had to be convinced, which is why it has taken a little longer I would ideally have wished. However, we needed that full-scale implementation; partial implementation would have done no good to the UN, the EC or the poor people of the area of Bosnia-Herzegovina and wider afield.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, should sanctions not work —and history is not encouraging in that area—or work too slowly, is there not a real danger that the conflict could spread quite quickly throughout the Balkans in a serious way? Is it realistic therefore to rule out direct military intervention in the foreseeable future?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, paints a picture of extreme pessimism. We are only three days into the implementation of the Security Council resolution. While I would never rule out having to take further action of some kind, the complete implementation of the Security Council resolutions is what matters. We must ensure that that is done with every approach to the former Yugoslavia to ensure that the sanctions work. They can be made to work; they are working in other places although I know that from time to time those against whom they are supposed to work try to give a different impression. I believe that the whole world is determined that the sanctions should work in Bosnia-Herzegovina and against the Serbian brutality.
Lord Pym: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that my noble friend Lord Carrington has done everything humanly possible—and perhaps more even than that—to try to bring some measure of peace and stability to the region? Is it not the case that the United Nations decision provides a substantial accretion of capability for his finding a peaceful solution? Does my noble friend agree that not only this Parliament and this country but all our colleagues in the European Community also must give our noble friend Lord Carrington the fullest support that he undoubtedly needs if he is to achieve success?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Pym for his comments about our noble friend Lord Carrington. The whole House realises the incredible efforts that our noble friend Lord Carrington has been making not only for the peace conference, which is the important avenue for a political solution to the crisis, but also in bringing to bear his knowledge of the whole area in all the other forums. When my noble friend Lord Carrington was here recently, he said that what was going on in that country was almost incredible and that it was essential that all parties continue to take part in the talks on Bosnia that are being chaired by ambassador Cutileiro. We shall certainly ensure not only that we thank our noble friend Lord Carrington, but also that we give him all possible support for the tremendous job that he is seeking to do to bring peace to those people.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, perhaps I may put one or two points to my noble friend, having been in and out of Yugoslavia for 60 years. First, does she agree that everyone who knows and loves Yugoslavia will relish the distinction that she has made between the Milosevic regime and the Serbian people? Secondly, does she not agree that an important new factor in the situation was last week's declaration by the Serbian Orthodox Church which was highly critical of that regime, possibly for the first time? Is there now any hard evidence that the Yugoslav national army is still supplying arms, materials or information to the irregulars in Bosnia? Is it the case that the shelling of Dubrovnik in the past few days could have been carried out by the Yugoslav navy only under the authority of Belgrade? May I make one further point? I am sure that those who know Yugoslavia and its ambassador in London will be glad that he has only been asked to leave and has not in any way been expelled. Perhaps we on the Back Benches may express the hope that his serious endeavours and great good humour in seeking to do an important but almost impossible job while he has been in London will be remembered. We hope one day to welcome him back.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for those comments. It is important to realise that hundreds of thousands of innocent Serbian people wish only for peace but are caught up in the terrible onslaught that is being vested against the people of Bosnia-Herzegovina. I, too, believe that the statement by the Orthodox Church was a turning point among the people. My noble friend is exactly right to point to that as perhaps being a hopeful sign for the future. I cannot give my noble friend exact answers to his comments about the supply of armaments, material or information to the irregulars in Bosnia, but on commonsense grounds it seems impossible to me for the irregulars in Bosnia-Herzegovina to continue as they have and for the attacks from the sea on the lovely old city of Dubrovnik to have been made without complicity from the Belgrade authorities.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the Minister for her Statement. I am sure that I express the frustration that is felt on all sides of the House about the situation there and our apparent inability to contain what has been a horrific development over the past two or three years—not just over the past few months. Have any lessons been learned about the development of the difficulties in Yugoslavia? I refer especially to the rise in unemployment in that sorry country. The last figure that I heard was 18 per cent. I refer also to the interference by foreign powers in the sovereign affairs of the nation of Yugoslavia. In that respect I mention particularly Germany's involvement in encouragement of the cession of Croatia from the state of Yugoslavia.
Does the Minister understand that one of my fears —I am not sure how widely shared it is—is that although we have a horrendous situation in Yugoslavia, it may be comparatively easily containable in terms of action by the United Nations, but that if we envisage the same scenario happening in the former Soviet Union, we are likely to see conflict on an enormously horrific scale, possibly involving nuclear weapons? May I make the plea that the Government should try to learn lessons from the development of the conflict in Yugoslavia so that they can—I hope—persuade their colleagues in all the forums of the United Nations that every effort should be made to prevent such an escalation of the difficulties in the former Soviet Union?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, for his questions. The horrific developments have, indeed, been borne since some long while ago. I would not disagree with him about that, but the speed with which the animosity and the sheer vengeance of one group of people towards another have developed is much more recent. The way in which the Serbians are now attacking Moslems is one of the saddest developments in the whole dreadful story not only of Bosnia-Herzegovina, but of the wider Yugoslavia.
I do not believe that there is a direct lesson to be learned from the rise of unemployment in Yugoslavia. However, the international community must, of course, learn the lessons of the considerable animosity that has been engendered by some outside forces. I believe that the noble Lord is wrong to blame the German encouragement of the independence of Croatia. It has been made quite clear by the Croatians I have met, after the changes in Yugoslavia during the past 10 years, that Croatia would one day bid to become an independent republic. Whether or not there was encouragement from the former foreign minister of Germany for Croatia to become independent all the faster, that move was happening anyway on the ground in Croatia.
The noble Lord is being more of a prophet of doom than is necessary or desirable at present. As the lessening of East-West tension has proceeded, one of the great changes has been the amount of discussion that has taken place about those changes. Only eight days ago I was talking in Lisbon with Ukrainians who do not particularly like their Russian neighbours and

847
with Moldavians who have great fears about their neighbours, but the point was that all the republics of the CIS were present and were talking, even the Azerbaijanis with the Armenians. The same must become true in Yugoslavia. That is why the efforts of our noble friend Lord Carrington for peace-keeping and for a peace conference must be supported at every turn. It makes no sense to do anything but encourage the dialogue and the peace.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, perhaps I, too, may thank my noble friend for her admirable Statement. Does she agree that while Croatia was initially in uproar, Bosnia was very quiet and that that would ideally have been the time for a peace-keeping force to be used, had that been practicable? I make that comment because Bosnia is now in uproar but the Yugoslav provinces of Macedonia and Kosovo are relatively quiet. Does my noble friend agree that this may be the time to think in terms of a peace-keeping force for Kosovo—while there is peace there? Finally, does she agree that if the name of Macedonia seems to be problematic in preventing Greek recognition of what could become the independent state of Macedonia, it might be worth seeing whether some alternative or modified name could be found so that the autonomy of Macedonia as an independent state can be agreed by all sides? I hope that my noble friend will agree that now is the time to address those questions—before uproar breaks out in those two provinces also.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his questions. Perhaps I may deal first with Kosovo. I understand that the Kosovar Albanians' desire for greater independence has been presented to our noble friend Lord Carrington. Discussion is already going on. There is a dialogue with the peace conference. That is a very important aspect of the difficulties which exist in Kosovo. But any lasting solution for Yugoslavia has to incorporate some cast iron minority guarantees for communities such as the Kosovar Albanians. We are very well aware of that, as is our noble friend Lord Carrington.
Turning to the vexed question of Macedonia, the Arbitration Commission, which is attached to my noble friend's peace conference, reported in January that Macedonia met all the criteria necessary for recognition. We understand that the Greek Government have a genuine domestic problem but we believe that a common position may soon be found which will allow recognition. I hope that the European Community may also be able to provide support for President Gligorov's government in Macedonia. The problem, as I am sure my noble friend well appreciates, is that the name could imply an attendant claim on the area. That is what we have to resolve. But once again our noble friend Lord Carrington is already engaged. I think that success there will be entirely due to all the work that he and his conference are doing.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there are only two conditions in which one
848
can contemplate military action by the United Nations? The first is that every diplomatic channel has been fully exhausted, which includes the possibility of discussions internally. The second is that the military action could actually work. In the first instance, it is clearly not the case. There is still hope. The Church revolt against some of the Serbian action is an example. In the second instance, the topography of Yugoslavia, as those who know it well are all too aware, makes military intervention from outside almost impossible, as indeed the Germans found during the war. At this stage therefore it is wholly undesirable for us even to contemplate, let alone discuss, the possibility of military action.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I very much agree with my noble friend. It is dangerous to contemplate military action in any form until we have exhausted every diplomatic channel. The Security Council resolution has been passed for some three days. It is being enacted with all speed and with all diligence. We have to be very sure, before we contemplate any military action, that no further diplomatic action is possible. The lesson of many other places around the world is certainly that, unless there is a chance of success, there is no point in sending one's own men into an impossible situation.

Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
4.53 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 2.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 21, after ("offence") insert ("or those offences").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is, I hope, a non-controversial amendment. It is purely a question of English. Subsection (1)(b) of Clause 2 states:
"in respect of whom the court which sentenced him for that offence made the order".
All that Amendment No. 4 suggests is the addition of "or those offences". It is quite possible that the sentence is for a variety of offences. It would be appropriate that that should be stated openly. The amendment seeks to include the plural.
I accept the argument—I do not think it is necessarily correct—that one finds in the Interpretation Act that the singular includes the plural, but as this clause contains references to the plural it might be interpreted that that offence meant one offence. As the noble and learned Lord the Minister will know, it is quite competent in common law offences to have one sentence for a variety of offences, just as it is equally competent and quite often done, when one has several rapes, to have several life sentences imposed if that is considered the appropriate sentence. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I appreciate the intention behind the amendment. Its purpose is to highlight the fact that a discretionary life sentence may be imposed on conviction of more than one offence. The noble and learned Lord has already referred to the

849
Interpretation Act. As under that Act the singular includes the plural, what he proposes is unnecessary. Moreover, as the amendment stands, the words "or those offences" would have no reference to any words earlier in the clause. For that short reason, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Morton of Shuna: The subsection would make sense even with my amendment. It would read:
"in respect of whom the court which sentenced him for that offence or those offences made the order".
That seems to be perfectly good English. However, I shall not press the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 21, at end insert ("and
(b) if more than one life sentence was imposed, on each occasion a life sentence was imposed the court which sentenced him made the order mentioned in subsection (2) below".).
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving the amendment perhaps I may speak also to Amendment No. 7. This again is a drafting amendment. The purpose is to transfer what is subsection (9)(a) of the clause to subsection (1). It seemed to me and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, more logical to have this provision at the beginning of the clause rather than in subsection (9). That is the only purpose of the exercise. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: This is classically an issue of drafting. I appreciate that the intention of the amendments is to improve, as the noble and learned Lord sees it, the drafting of Clause 2 by transferring from subsection (9) to subsection (1) a paragraph which is rightly part of the definition of the term "discretionary life prisoner". However, in my view the noble and learned Lord and his noble and learned friend do not achieve that intention. At present, all the provisions relating to a prisoner on whom more than one life sentence has been passed appear in subsection (9). It is a matter of how one reads statutes. In my view that seems to be the most helpful way of approaching the matter, although I hear what the noble and learned Lord has to say about the view taken by him and by his noble and learned friend. In any event Amendment No. 5 is defective as paragraph (a) of subsection (1) has not been removed from the Bill.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I appreciate that paragraph (a) has not been removed. Equally, the noble and learned Lord must appreciate that I put down Amendment No. 5 in the hope that Amendment No. 3 would be accepted by the Committee. Otherwise, there would be little point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 27, at end insert ("and if it is decided not to make such an order the court shall state its reason for that decision.").
The noble and learned Lord said: The amendment seeks to add to subsection (2) of the clause the words set out on the Marshalled List. Basically, if the court decides not to make an order such as that set out in subsection (2), then it should give its reasons. The reason for the proposal is that subsection (3) gives a right of appeal against the refusal to make the order. It would seem totally pointless to have a right of appeal against an order if the court from which one is appealing is not bound to give its reasons for its decision. That is the purpose behind the amendment. It would seem to make the position clearer and more appropriate. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I share the view of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Morton of Shuna and Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, that cases where the whole of a discretionary life sentence is justified by the seriousness of the offence alone will be rare. A requirement in statute to give reasons for not making a Clause 2 order could reinforce this by creating a presupposition that the order will generally be made. Arguably, the right of appeal against a decision by the sentencing court not to make an order under Clause 2 will provide sufficient safeguard for life prisoners. However, I wish to tell Members of the Committee that I am willing to reconsider the matter and consult again with the Lord Justice General about introducing a requirement such as the noble and learned Lords have proposed. With that undertaking, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Lord Morton of Shuna: The measure that I have put forward is purely practical. In case the Minister is getting worried, I should stress that I shall withdraw the amendment. Nevertheless, I should like to point out that if one has the right to appeal without the requirement to give a reason, the person who appeals will see the private judicial report and then decide what to do with his appeal. The proposal would short circuit the effort and save the country money on legal aid by having the reasons stated at the time of the sentence. But in view of the Minister's assurance that he will reconsider the matter, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 11, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to this amendment when moving Amendment No. 5. I shall not move it formally.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Power to release prisoners on compassionate grounds]:
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 20, leave out ("exceptional").
The noble and learned Lord said: I am sorry to take up the Committee's time with drafting matters; but it seems to me that the word "exceptional" is totally otiose. If the Secretary of State decides that the release of a prisoner is justified on compassionate grounds, why does he have to go on and satisfy himself that the

851
compassionate grounds are exceptional? The decision either justifies his release or it does not. One can imagine the horrifying state where the Secretary of State said to himself, "Yes, the release is justified on compassionate grounds; but, unfortunately, those grounds are not exceptional and therefore I shall not release him". That cannot be what is meant. The word "exceptional" adds nothing and could actually cause difficulty. I believe that the word should be withdrawn. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I do not consider that it would significantly change the effect of Clause 3 to omit the word "exceptional". The Secretary of State would in any event require a persuasive case for compassionate release to be made out before exercising his power under Clause 3. Therefore, I do not intend to oppose the amendment. I urge Members of the Committee to agree to its introduction.
However, in passing I should point out that those who have tabled Amendment No. 23 to Clause 17 will appreciate that they have picked up the wording of "exceptional compassionate grounds". For obvious reasons now, and in the interests of consistency, I should stress that I shall not be looking favourably at that amendment.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am very grateful to the Minister for accepting the amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am sorry, I did not quite understand the Minister's reference to Amendment No. 23.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I have indicated that it would be undesirable to have the words "exceptionally compassionate" and agreed to omit the word "exceptional". Therefore, where such wording has been picked up by Members of the Committee opposite, it must be appreciated that it would be inconsistent of me to agree to consider it at a later stage.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Having had that interesting interruption when I believe that I was technically on my feet, I should like to continue my expression of thanks to the Minister. I renew my desire to move the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Listowel): Does the noble Lord wish to press his amendment or withdraw it?
Lord Morton of Shuna: The Minister has accepted the amendment. Therefore, I shall certainly press it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 21, leave out ("on licence") and insert ("on such conditions as are appropriate to the circumstances").
The noble Lord said: The amendment refers to the same clause which deals with the release of prisoners on compassionate grounds. I am not sure, but my proposal may be an argument about language. However, the amendment suggests that rather than say:
852
"The Secretary of State may at any time, if satisfied that there are exceptional compassionate grounds justifying the release of a person serving a sentence of imprisonment, release him on licence",
it may be more appropriate to use the words,
"on such conditions as are appropriate to the circumstances"
instead of "on licence". As has been said before in relation to other amendments, it may be a distinction without a difference. But the reason I move the amendment is that the question of licence basically refers to the position of prisoners serving life sentences. It may just give the wrong idea as to the terms of release.
The clause refers to release on compassionate grounds which will not necessarily involve the concept of release on licence which has an air of finality about it. The basis upon which a person should be released on compassionate grounds should take into account all the relevant circumstances: first, the particular sentence imposed; secondly, the particular individual; thirdly, the external circumstances—for example, illness or death of a relative —and, fourthly, detailed circumstances in which the person who is being released will be liable to be recalled as opposed to having his licence revoked. It is possible that a compromise could be reached by saying that the person could be released on licence or on such conditions as are appropriate to the circumstances. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I have listened to what the noble Lord said. But I have to say to him—as I am sure he anticipates—that the amendment tabled in his name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, is unnecessary. It would add to the complexity of the Bill by entailing consequential amendments to the various references elsewhere to licences: for example, in Clauses 11, 12 and 17.
A release licence consists simply of a list of conditions with the sanction of return to custody for breach of those conditions. Under Clause 12, the only essential condition on release is that of social work supervision. The other conditions are at the discretion of the Secretary of State who would, in the case of a prisoner released on compassionate grounds, certainly tailor them to the circumstances.
There is no practical difference therefore between release on licence and release on conditions, and I believe that what we are debating here is nomenclature rather than substance. I hope that noble Lords will accept my reassurance that no prisoner whose misfortunes are such as to deserve compassionate release will be disadvantaged in any way by being released on licence. I trust therefore that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I thank the Minister for his reply. I shall read with interest the Hansard report of what he said before I decide whether to take the matter further. 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:
Page 3, line 22, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: This amendment relates to the same provision concerning release of prisoners on compassionate grounds. Clause 3(2) states:
"Before so releasing any long-term prisoner or any life prisoner, the Secretary of State shall consult the Parole Board unless the circumstances are such as to render consultation impracticable".
The reason this amendment has been tabled is that that seems to be an unnecessary piece of legislation. There should be no distinction between the long-term and life prisoner in relation to release on compassionate grounds, which are a particular area of life and human relationships. If the grounds are such as to be considered compassionate in the general sense, and subject, as the Minister has just said, to conditions relating to release and breach of the licence, there does not seem to be any reason why the Secretary of State should consult the Parole Board.
The provision as it stands recognises that there could be a situation where it may be impossible to consult the Parole Board. For example, a domestic emergency might arise where a prisoner's wife or child may be dying or may have been killed. Those are the usual unfortunate circumstances where people seek release on compassionate grounds. What happens if the Parole Board cannot be consulted? Does that-mean that, although the compassionate grounds are justified in the terms of Clause 3(1) and apply to a prisoner in general, because the Parole Board cannot be consulted the prisoner cannot get home, whether he is a long-term or life prisoner, to see his dying wife or child, or whatever the particular compassionate situation might be—or, indeed if his own health is in terminal decline? It is not easy to see from the terminology of Clause 3(2) what circumstances render it impracticable to consult with the Parole Board.
For these reasons it might be better for the Government to consider having another look at this clause to see whether it is superfluous to the general principle set out in Clause 3(1) and is unnecessary for the implementation of the power to release a prisoner on compassionate grounds. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I may be wrong but I read subsections (1) and (2) of this clause as being there because a sentence of under four years was a sentence with which the Parole Board had no concern. That was subsection (1). Subsection (2) dealt with the case where the Parole Board had a general concern in the long-term with the life prisoner. It is for that reason, I assume—I may be totally wrong—that the clause is drafted in this way.
There might be danger in giving the Secretary of State power to jump around the Parole Board and produce his own reasons for release rather than having a consultation. I should have thought that "impracticable" means what it says.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I say immediately that I have some sympathy for the line that the noble Lord on the Opposition Front Bench has taken. But what I wish to stress to him is that the effect of subsection (2) would not be to draw the Parole Board into a full consideration of every case in which it was proposed that a long-term or life prisoner should be released on compassionate grounds. The requirement that the
854
board should be consulted would merely give the board an opportunity to offer any comments it may wish to make on a particular case or to draw the attention of the Secretary of State to any aspect of the case which it thought he may have overlooked.
Furthermore, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, has indicated, the prisoner to be released on compassionate grounds would otherwise in due course have fallen to be considered by the Parole Board anyway. When he is released under the provisions in Clause 3 the prisoner could be recalled under the provisions in Clause 17, which would inescapably involve the Parole Board. Obviously the board would wish to know of his release.
Accordingly, I do not think it would be either sensible or courteous to exclude the Parole Board completely from consideration of the release on compassionate grounds of a long-term or life prisoner. The involvement of the board would extend only so far as the board thinks that it ought to become involved. With that explanation of what I see as a very modest degree of involvement by the Parole Board, I hope that the reasonable anxieties that have been expressed by the noble Lord are met.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that reply. I was really looking at the emergency situation where a person requires to be or seeks to be released almost at perhaps half-an-hour's notice; for example where a child has been run down by a car. That is an emergency situation. I pose the question, how does the Parole Board become involved at that stage where a relative may well die within the next hour?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I think that the circumstances that the noble Lord envisages are perfectly reasonable. It is not difficult to think of comparable ones, for example, a fire at home where a wife and children are involved. I should have thought that the last parts of subsection (2) cover that situation:
"unless the circumstances are such as to render that consultation impracticable".
I should have hoped that that would be sufficient to meet that kind of emergency situation.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am sorry not to have been here right at the beginning of this debate. We are talking, I assume, partly about cases of terminal illness and matters of that kind. There are already arrangements, are there not—there certainly are in England—for dealing with a situation where there is a death of a child or some crisis situation which requires the Executive to consider whether somebody should be temporarily released from prison? Here we are talking surely about terminal illness, or are we not?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I think I am intervened upon as I intervene. Perhaps I may continue. Most of this part of the Bill is framed upon the Kincraig Report. Perhaps noble Lords would like to look to what is described in paragraphs 9.19 and 9.20. The paragraphs are headed "Release of the Terminally Ill", rather than the broader range of compassionate

855
circumstances. As the noble Lord anticipates, in the event of, say, a wife or a close member of the family of a long-term or short-term prisoner dying, there are administrative arrangements that can be made immediately to enable that person to attend the funeral, or whatever may be necessary.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I think the problem is the way that the provision is framed. It does not carry that limitation with it. As a suggestion for consideration by the Minister I wonder whether it would be pouring confusion on confusion if the words "or unnecessary" might be added at the end of the section so that the Secretary of State would have absolute discretion where the Parole Board could not be consulted or where it was not necessary in the circumstances for the Parole Board to be consulted. Therefore an immediate decision could be made by the Secretary of State on humane grounds to release a prisoner on compassionate grounds as described in Clause 3(1).
I am grateful to the Minister for his consideration of the amendment. In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Persons detained under Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 3, line 33, leave out ("sections 74 and 75") and insert ("section 74").
The noble Lord said: It might be for the convenience of the House if Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 are taken together. The purpose of this amendment is to take out of the provisions in the Act those who are in prison for civil debt and immigration offences and to ensure that the provision applies only to those who are involved in criminal activities. In other words, the civil debtor and the person in prison in relation to immigration offences would be left in a separate category.
The amendment does not abolish either of the two sections and it may be quite a useful amendment for the Committee to consider. I beg to move.
Lord Meston: I support the amendment. I question whether it is sensible to run together into one new clause provisions governing criminal prisoners and those governing civil prisoners and immigration detainees. It is not clear—to me, at any rate—whether any change of substance is intended, or whether it is being done as a matter of drafting. In either case, the resulting amalgam is a proposed new clause dealing with a variety of factual situations which, as printed in the Bill, cover over two pages. I support the suggestion that we should keep the categories separate.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry): I understand the case which the noble Lords, Lord Macaulay and Lord Meston have advanced, but I think that we should look more closely at the provisions.
The distinction which is at present made in the 1984 Act between civil prisoners and persons detained
856
under the Immigration Act 1971 on the one hand, and all other prisoners on the other hand, is, when one examines it, an extremely curious and unnecessary distinction.
For the purposes of Section 75 of the 1984 Act, and other relevant sections of that Act, a civil prisoner is defined as a person committed by a court to prison in respect of a civil debt. It follows that persons committed to prison for contempt of court, for failure to comply with a decree, or for breach of interdict are not classified as civil prisoners but are classed with criminal prisoners for the purposes of the 1984 Act, although for other purposes they would be defined as or classed with civil prisoners. The distinction, as enshrined in existing legislation, is confusing and produces results which are unjustified and unnecessary.
What is required of the legislation in question is provision to deal with one particular eventuality. That is where a person who has been transferred from a prison to a mental hospital reaches the date upon which, if he had not been transferred, he would have been released from prison, and where it is clear to those responsible for his treatment that his continued detention in hospital is necessary and would be justified by the stringent criteria laid down in the Act.
From that standpoint the provision made by Section 74 of the Act seems to me to be perfectly sensible. If the responsible medical officer thinks that continued detention is necessary, he must obtain a report from another medical practitioner confirming that view and must submit his own report, together with that second opinion, to the managers of the hospital and to the Mental Welfare Commission. That secures authority for the continued detention of the patient, who is no longer a transferred prisoner and who then has an immediate right to appeal to the sheriff to order his discharge from hospital. That is the system we propose for all categories of prisoner.
Section 75, by contrast, makes no provision for the continued detention of the persons to whom it applies once they reach the date upon which, had they remained in prison, they would have been released. If their continued detention is necessary it must be authorised in the same way as detention is authorised under Part V of the Act for people who have not previously come before the courts.
For that reason, I submit that the distinction made between one kind of prisoner and another is ill-conceived and of no significant advantage to the very restricted group of prisoners who are singled out for the different procedure which, when it is completed, has very much the same result. There is no real justification for having a separate procedure for that very small category of prisoners, nor is there any logic in the way in which that category is defined.
Finally, I mention that so far as I can discover we have never had in any of our mental hospitals a person to whom the Section 75 procedure has applied. I hope that in the light of that somewhat lengthy explanation, the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, will seek the Committee's leave to withdraw these amendments.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that detailed answer. Obviously, I

857
cannot respond in detail at this stage. I shall look at what he said and, if necessary, come back on Report with, perhaps, some support from other parts of the Committee. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Stodart of Leaston: I wonder whether my noble and learned friend will expand a little on what he said about contempt of court on Second Reading when he talked about bringing sentences for contempt of court within the ambit of the new early release arrangements. Just as we have heard that there are different degrees of murder, I imagine that there are different degrees of contempt.
I do not know whether either of my noble and learned friends remembers the days when members of the tabloid press appeared in Parliament House and left thousands of pounds poorer than when they arrived as a result of the trenchant views of the then Lord President, Lord Clyde. A rather less drastic line has been taken by more recent Lords President. There may be a contempt that is not so much accidental, as in many cases those press offences were—perhaps the appearance of a photograph which should not have been allowed—but is deliberate and flagrant, as happened not all that long ago when Mr. Sheridan tore up in front of a crowd an interdict that had been won against him and said, "That is what they can do with their interdict".
Mr. Sheridan appealed against his sentence. His appeal was rejected, and the sentence of six months' imprisonment was confirmed. As I understand it, if that offence were to take place after the legislation goes through, the term of imprisonment will be that much less. I am ignorant on this subject, and so I should like my noble and learned friend to tell me whether there is a maximum sentence for contempt or whether there is a limit which will be enjoyed even by those who are most flagrant.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I am grateful to my noble friend for asking that examination paper question about the maximum sentence for contempt. My recollection—I suspect that there are a number of people who will correct me if I am wrong—is that under statute the maximum period for contempt of court is two years' imprisonment. There is not an unlimited term of imprisonment for it. The broad effect of the clause is to apply the provisions relating to release to people who are imprisoned for contempt of court. Therefore it would have the effect of releasing them in accordance with the same mechanism as would apply in the case of people who are imprisoned for ordinary criminal offences.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may say that my recollection is probably as faulty as his. We are dealing purely with civil contempt, not contempt in the criminal courts. I imagine that in the criminal courts
858
the power of the court to punish for contempt is unlimited. My recollection is that the maximum sentence for civil contempt is three years, but I accept what the noble and learned Lord said. We are talking about civil contempt at the moment and the avoidance of civil contempt.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I should not venture any recollection as to the maximum sentence, but I hope that if there is no power to give a sentence for contempt, which is four years or over, whoever drafted the Bill would have noticed that and would not have included the reference to the long-term prisoner. Presumably that must apply to something or I assume that it does.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I wish to return to Clause 5 on fine defaulters and persons in contempt of court. I do not wish to speak about the latter now; I am concerned about the old question of fine defaulters. For almost as long as I have been in this House and the other place there have been such Bills almost every Session and the question of how we reduce the prison population is raised. One point made is that many fine defaulters are feckless people, quite unable to meet the fines, although they may desire to do so. Ultimately, they are sent to prison.
I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, will remember the debates in another place on how we could reduce this problem. Perhaps even the noble Lord, Lord Stodart, will remember the debates on the collection of fines by instalments. That was tried and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate may have information on the attempts made in Airdrie and perhaps Falkirk to get a mechanism whereby fines could be collected.
It has been a long held view by many organisations in Scotland that the incarceration of fine defaulters is inappropriate. It hits hardest at those on low incomes, particularly the unemployed. Given that imprisonment is the current norm, it is disappointing that the Bill does nothing to put forward positive proposals such as the introduction of a unit time system. There is such a system in force in England on fines relating to the means of the offender.
The Bill's proposal to award half remission to fine defaulters reduces the sentence of the court. While any move to reduce the number of people held in prison is welcome, I am concerned at the lack of positive steps to address the situation. The only reason that I introduce the matter is that for some years I was involved with the Scottish Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders of which I was chairman for a period. We were continually raising the problem of fines and methods of payment in our discussions with the Scottish Office and the legal profession. It always seemed to us and many other people that it was an unnecessary punishment to put someone in prison when there could have been other ways of collecting the fines. There is also the possibility that someone who was behaving perfectly well until he went to prison would find prison an extremely good borstal and training ground for petty

859
theft. In social terms it may have been the worst possible punishment that could happen to the individual and for society.
Have the Government thought of expanding or introducing something like the unit system in England or have they any other ways of looking at the matter? Is there a possibility that while the Bill wends its way through this House and another place, with the spare time left positive suggestions may be put forward by the Government?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: What are the numbers of fine defaulters in Scotland? It would be helpful to know. Many of my noble friends agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said, about there being a feeling that there are too many fine defaulters in prison. Unhappily, the situation is that some people are only prepared to pay a fine when there is an imminent prospect of them being removed to prison. Therefore, removing imprisonment would not deal with them. Nevertheless, any action that can be taken to reduce the number of defaulters would be desirable. I would be grateful if I could have an answer to my question.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The points which have been raised are important. I cannot give the noble Lord, Lord Harris, a figure for fine defaulters but it would be proper to say that there are many in Scotland, as I am sure there are in England. It is a current, prevalent problem.
The problem is particularly difficult to deal with because, as the noble Lord said, sending them to prison may be the only sanction but it is obviously undesirable. These people have been fined and the court originally thought that they should not be sent to prison, so that is the last thing one wants to do. As the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said, prison is well known to be a university for criminals.
Clearly the matter requires attention, but it would be wrong to think that the Government have not taken steps on it. So far, in Scotland we have not brought in the system of unit fines. It is not altogether straightforward but the matter has been considered.
We have taken several other steps, as the Committee may recall. In particular, we have introduced into courts fines supervision officers whose job is to ascertain why people are in default and to help the court in that way. Also, in a section in the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990 we introduced a system of supervised attendance orders. The Committee may remember that such orders are not dissimilar to community service orders; they are a minor or mini form of community service order. People carry out a certain number of tasks under supervision, as opposed to going to prison for default. In that way, it is hoped to deal with the problem. I do not suggest that it is entirely cured, but these steps have been taken to help deal with it.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord would be good enough to write to me about the number of fine defaulters.
860
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Application to young offenders and to children detained without limit of time]:
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 6, line 47, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble and learned Lord said: It will be convenient to deal with Amendment No. 15 with Amendment No. 14. Before making my criticisms in moving the amendment, perhaps I may say how much I welcome the general thrust of Clause 6. It puts young offenders and children into the same category, if I understand it correctly, regarding release procedures and remission, as applies to adult prisoners. That is to be welcomed.
The amendments in my name and that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, are to leave out subsection (3) and to change "may" to "shall" on page 6, Clause 6(2). The amendment of "may" to "shall" or of "shall" to "may" is perhaps the most common amendment moved in the House. These children are, after all, not a large class, and I hope that they never will be. As regards children detained without limit of time under Section 206, if the Parole Board recommends release, it would seem appropriate that the child should be released. The Secretary of State seems to have foreseen this possibility because subsection (3) includes a power to change "may" to "shall" by order. If the Secretary of State has reached that stage along the line, we should give him a helping step and take him all the way across the line.
However, subsection (3) contains another difficulty that we discussed earlier. That difficulty concerns the meaning of "class" of children detained without limit of time. How shall we subdivide those children into classes? The classes relate presumably to their offences rather than to their ages. In my submission it would be perfectly proper, as regards the small group of children detained without limit of time, for the Parole Board to act without the procedure whereby the Secretary of State makes an order to change "may" to "shall". That at least shortens the legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: This is an odd provision. I cannot recall ever having seen quite such a form of words in a Bill. There can be no clear division of principle for the reason given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton; namely, that subsection (3) accepts the principle of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton, proposes in his amendment. I hope the Minister can help us and indicate whether the Government are prepared to reconsider the matter. At the same time I should be grateful if he would tell me how many children in Scotland are detained under these arrangements. The number must be a small one but it would be helpful to the Committee to know how many we are talking about.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the welcome he has given to the thrust of what is contained in Clause 6. I take it that he also approves of the contents of Clauses 7 and 8. I appreciate the motive behind his amendment as being

861
one to improve the lot of those children who have been detained without limit of time. As matters stand in Scotland this is still literally a singular case. There is only one child at present whose offence was judged to be sufficiently serious to merit detention without limit of time under the terms of Section 206 of our Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975.
While the motive behind the amendment is well intentioned, at least at present I believe it to be misconceived as in future any child or children detained without limit of time under Section 206 will be able to benefit from the Clause 2 provisions on discretionary lifers. Clause 2, if applied to a case, would make the proposed amendment to Clause 6 ineffective. Clause 6 would therefore only apply to children whose offence was judged to deserve detention without limit of time wholly as a punishment with no consideration of risk.
The Committee will appreciate that the case of a child being detained without limit of time where the punishment was considered to be so severe that there should be no limit of time is such an exceptionable case as to be almost inconceivable. It is on that basis that I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. However, there is not a great deal between us.
As the noble Lord said, Clause 6(3) allows the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Parole Board, to delegate to the board the decision to release children detained without limit of time. There has only been one case in Scotland of a child detained without limit of time. Therefore the problem that is likely to arise is so remote as to be almost inconceivable. Therefore, I suggest that the rather unusual arrangement introduced by Clause 6 should be retained. However, I shall certainly reconsider that provision in the light of what the noble Lord has said.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks. I hope that it remains the case that only one child, or less, is detained without limit of time. Therefore it seems unnecessary to retain the provision in subsection (3) that the Secretary of State may make orders about classes of children who are detained. Are we talking about the legs or the arms of the children concerned? Which part of the child are we talking about when we discuss classes of children? We are only talking about one child in this instance and that one child cannot be divided up into classes. As regards Clause 6(2) I should be happy with "shall" rather than "may". For all that the Minister has said, subsection (3) appears to me to be totally otiose bearing in mind the factual position. However, as the noble and learned Lord is willing to reconsider this matter I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 9 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Before we decide whether Clause 9 should stand part of the Bill I wish to refer to a matter which may not arise often but
862
nevertheless may cause annoyance in certain circumstances. On my reading of it Clause 9 may raise the possibility of double standards as regards persons liable to removal from the United Kingdom. Clause 9 deals with a proposal to award half remission to those persons serving a sentence of more than four years. Normally they would only be released after half of their sentence had been served if the Parole Board so recommended. If the Parole Board did not so recommend, the prisoners would not be eligible for release until they had served two-thirds of their sentence. In practice this discriminates against some Scottish prisoners who will have to remain in prison until they have served two-thirds of their sentence. I believe that that provision could cause unnecessary friction. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me that this measure is watertight and that there is no possibility of creating double standards that could cause conflict.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: We have no information to impart to the noble Lord to suggest that this provision would cause conflict. Such cases as the noble Lord referred to are relatively rare. However, in view of the noble Lord's comments I shall look into this matter and I shall reply to the noble Lord in writing.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Life prisoners transferred to Scotland]:
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Duration of licence]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 10, line 37, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: The amendment relates to the duration of a licence where a person has been released. Clause 11 (1) states that:
"Where a long-term prisoner is released on licence under this Part of this Act, the licence shall (unless revoked) remain in force until the entire period specified in his sentence (reckoned from the commencement of the sentence) has elapsed".
That is understandable.
Subsection (2), which I seek to remove, reads:
"Where a life prisoner is so released, the licence shall (unless revoked) remain in force until his death".
From one point of view at least that seems to be unfair to the person who has had a life sentence imposed upon him and who the authorities have seen fit to release on licence. It gives a person with a life sentence no hope of ever having that licence revoked in the sense that he will no longer be under licence. It gives a life prisoner on release no target to aim for. I may be misreading the words "unless revoked", and the reason for raising the amendment is that it is not clear whether the word "revoked" relates to a breach of the licence or to a complete revocation of the licence at the will of the authorities. In other words, if a person is on licence and commits another crime his licence will be revoked. He then goes back to prison because he has breached the licence.
I am not clear what provisions there are for a life prisoner who is subject to Clause 11(2), which provides that the licence shall remain in force until his death. I am not clear how a life prisoner can take steps

863
for the licence to be revoked in the general sense of the word; in other words, where he has not breached the terms of the licence under which he was released. He should be able to apply for the licence to be revoked in general terms.
I am thinking, for example, of the discussion in relation to the previous amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, relating to the one child who has no time restriction on her sentence. A child who killed at the age of 15 might be released at 30 with a life expectation of another 30 or 40 years. If the provision remains in force as it stands, it means that for the next 40 years a person who may very well have repented of his or her evil will be subject to a licence imposed by the authorities which cannot be revoked unless he or she breaches that licence and goes back into prison or, alternatively, is able to persuade the authorities—by what means I know not—that the licence should be removed.
Accordingly, there may be a degree of unfairness to the life prisoner in Clause 11(2). For that reason, and for the purpose of obtaining information, the amendment has been tabled. I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, drew attention to the provisions of subsection (2). The effect of his amendment, if it were accepted, would be to remove subsection (2) entirely and therefore to leave it unclear what the length of licence would be. For that reason alone, in my submission it would be unsatisfactory.
I appreciate and welcome the fact that many life prisoners re-establish themselves satisfactorily in the community, as the noble Lord indicated. It is not our wish to saddle such persons with excessive burdens or any unnecessary stigma.
The Kincraig Report recommended that the standard duration of the life licence should be 10 years. However, the evidence the committee received was not so much to the effect that the licence itself was onerous but that social work supervision of lifers should be terminable once it had been demonstrated that the lifer had resettled responsibly in the community. There were objections in particular to unnecessary restrictions on travel by life prisoners.
We accept that principle and there has recently been consultation among social work authorities about a proposal that the supervision conditions in a life licence should be able to be lifted, on the recommendation of the Parole Board, once the lifer has spent 10 years in the community without having been recalled to custody for breach of the licence or for reoffending. The proposal would be that the licence would remain in force but would contain only one condition: to be of good behaviour and to keep the peace. The lifer would not be required to report to a social worker or to obtain approval for foreign travel.
We are satisfied that those non-statutory changes will meet the main anxieties of those who gave evidence to the Kingcraig Committee and ensure that social work supervision is meaningful and properly targeted.
864
Finally, in reply to the general point made by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, I remind the noble Lord that the general underlying policy of the Government on the matter in the Bill is to restore meaning to the full term of the determined sentence. It would not be consistent with that policy if at the same time we were to remove from the life sentence the meaning that it was, in effect, a sentence which was capable of being reactivated for the period of life.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, with respect, it seemed a little inconsistent in light of the last observation. Either the life sentence will mean a life sentence or there will be a standard licence period of 10 years, at which point the life sentence will cease. I am not sure which it will be.
I am glad to hear that the conditions imposed upon the person who has been released, no doubt after a period of 10 to 15 years, are that he or she should be of good behaviour and should not get into trouble. However, if the licence is to be limited to 10 years, or to whatever period is thought appropriate in a particular case, can the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Advocate, say, how in those circumstances meaning can be given to the term "life sentence" if the person has fulfilled all the conditions which society has imposed upon him?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: Perhaps there was a lack of clarity in the way in which I explained the matter. The thinking behind the proposal is that after 10 years such conditions relating to supervision or restrictions on travel, and so on, would be lifted. After the period of 10 years there would continue to be a licence, but the only condition of the licence would be that the person would be of good behaviour and would not reoffend. If he breached that condition, the effect would be that the licence could be revoked. In that sense the life sentence carries on during the period of the man's life and continues to have effect. On the other hand, providing the person is of good behaviour, there are no burdensome conditions after the period of 10 years.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification, which I understand. Perhaps it was my fault in the first place for not understanding the position. However, I am still rather perturbed about the principle behind the continued existence of the licence for life when a person has demonstrated to society that he is capable of good behaviour and no longer requires supervision. As I said, in the case of a young person it means that for a period of 40 or 50 years that person may be subject to recall to prison for whatever transgression he or she might commit. That seems a rather heavy imposition in terms of the balance between the individual and society.
However, I shall read with care in Hansard what the Minister said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Supervised release of short-term prisoners]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 11, line 39, after ("offender") insert ("on his release").
The noble Lord said: This is a grammatical amendment for the judge who is imposing the supervised release order on a short-term prisoner to make clear that it shall apply to the prisoner on his release. It may not add much to the clause but it clarifies the objective behind the Act. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: On behalf of the Government I am happy to agree to the amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the Minister. He is having a great evening of concessions.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 12, line 7, leave out from ("order") to end of line 11.
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to delete from the Bill some superfluous wording that does not have much meaning and seems completely unnecessary. It is restrictive and may make unnecessary complication. The person who has been released will be subject to:
"the supervision either of a relevant officer of the local authority or of a probation officer";
and has to:
"comply with such requirements as are, in the order".
But the paragraph goes on:
"or by that officer, specified for the purpose of securing the good conduct of the person or preventing, or lessening the possibility of, his committing a further offence (whether or not an offence of the kind for which he was sentenced)".
That seems to be a completely unnecessary complication. Either the person will comply with the orders of the court or he will not. For example, it is difficult to see what "good conduct" means other than good conduct. Why is it necessary to put in a statute that a person who is under the supervision of an officer of a local authority or a probation officer has to have conditions imposed upon him to secure his good conduct? I should have thought that that was the very object of the probation service.
The wording:
"preventing, or lessening the possibility of, his committing a further offence"
seems again to be the very basis on which people are put under supervision.
It defeats my understanding why those words are in the Act when the wording could be kept nice and simple. After all, that is what legislation is supposed to be these days—simple legislation that everyone can understand. I should have thought that if someone was in trouble and was told by the court to comply with the requirements of an order, there would be no problem in getting those people to understand what it meant without the restrictive conditions in paragraph (b). I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I must indicate some surprise at this amendment. The provisions in Clause
866
14(2) (b) are well enough precedented in the provisions of the 1975 Act in Scotland, which set out the powers of the courts to make probation orders.
A supervised release order can be regarded as a short probation order added to the end of the custodial part of a short term of imprisonment, within the total envelope of the sentence. The purpose is to ensure that those offenders who are most at risk of reoffending in a way that could make them a danger to the public will have a period of statutory supervision, and that there will be sanctions for breach of the supervision requirements.
To accept this amendment would mean that the court, at the time of sentence, would be able to impose a requirement of supervision, but the statute would not indicate what the purpose of that supervision should be nor would the supervising officer have any power to add the kind of detailed requirements which would be necessary.
The aim of the provisions which the amendment seeks to delete is to make it clear that the purpose of the post-release supervision is to reduce the risk of the offender reoffending. That would seem to be an admirable enough objective.
The provisions in question do that by providing that the offender must comply with any requirements imposed either in the order or subsequently by the supervising officer which are specified for the purpose of securing the offender's good conduct, or preventing or lessening the possibility of his committing a further offence.
It will never be possible for the court to specify the supervision requirements in sufficient detail. For example, the court may include in the order a requirement that the offender should periodically be seen by the supervising officer, but it must be left to the supervising officer to decide exactly when and where the offender should report to him or be visited by him.
In using the term "good conduct" the Bill relies on the ordinary meaning of those words. Exactly the same words appear without definition in Sections 183 and 384 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975, which set out the power of the court to make a probation order. I am not aware that they have ever led to problems of interpretation.
Should there be disagreement between the offender and the court or, which is possibly more likely, between the offender and the supervising officer about what constitutes good conduct, the appeal provisions in Clause 19 provide an opportunity for the offender to have any such disagreement resolved in a higher court.
I hope that what I have said in explanation will reassure the noble Lord and that on that basis he will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am obliged to the Minister for his very clear exposition of the principle behind this passage. This side of the Committee is not against the principle. We thought that the detail was a bit heavy, if I may put it that way. In the light of the Minister's explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 12, line 13, leave out ("as nearly as possible").
The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment urged by the Law Society of Scotland. The amendment ensures that a supervised release order shall follow the style set out in the Act of Adjournal. The Law Society believes and it seems fairly common sense to me, that there could be no reason for allowing for derogation from the style of release order set out in the delegated legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I do not believe that there is any difference in principle between the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, and myself in this matter. However I suggest that the effect of the amendment may go further than he or indeed the Law Society intends.
Depending upon how strictly the word "form" is interpreted it may not be possible for a supervised release order to be in exactly the same form as that prescribed by the Act of Adjournal, unless photocopies of the relevant part of the Act are used.
I suggest to the Committee that the words "as nearly as possible" impose a strict enough requirement. In effect, those words do not so much allow variation as prohibit any variation which can possibly be avoided. They do not mean "more or less on the same sort of lines". They mean as nearly as can be managed with the equipment and other resources available for the purpose.
Sections 186 and 384 of the 1975 Act, which I previously quoted, require that a probation order should be:
"as nearly as may be in the form prescribed by the Act of Adjournal".
I am not aware of any untoward variation in or dissatisfaction with the precise form in which probation orders are set out by different courts.
With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: It would appear that the amendment was rather more than technical. I am sure that the Law Society of Scotland will be only too happy with the Minister's reply, which I shall send on. The society may have comments to make. 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. 21:
Page 12, line 22, leave out ("in as straightforward a way as practicable").
The noble Lord said: Clause 14(4) provides:
"Before making a supervised release order as respects a person the court shall explain to him, in as straightforward a way as is practicable, the effect of the order and the possible consequences for him of any breach of it".
I do not understand the phrase,
"in as straightforward a way as is practicable".
It appears in another part of the Bill also. What is wrong with a provision that the court shall explain to the person the effect of the order? We shall have many appeals on the ground that the court did not explain the order to the person in as straightforward a way as was practicable and that therefore he is not in breach of it. It seems an unnecessary complication in what
868
should be a straightforward procedure. I have never known any judge who has found it difficult to explain himself to an accused who has been put under a supervised release order. It will be interesting to hear from the noble and learned Lord what factors he has in mind and in what circumstances a court is unlikely to be able to explain in as straightforward a way as is practicable the consequences of the imposition of an order.
Will a sheriff or judge making a supervised release order wonder whether he is imposing the order under this section "in as straightforward a way as is practicable"? The drafting is a piece of practical nonsense. It is completely superfluous drafting for the objective behind the supervised release order. It complicates the court process and is completely unnecessary. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I can think of a number of circumstances in court, as I am sure the noble Lord can, in which the court can give a perfectly clear and accurate direction in law as to what its decision might be. The judge might tell the accused person that he assoils him simpliciter. The noble Lord would understand immediately with relief that he was free to go. However, I venture to suggest that many accused in Scotland approached with such language would not have the faintest idea whether the death sentence was about to be imposed or whether they were to continue in the dock for an indefinite period. It is simple enough for the court to say, "This court finds you not guilty".
The purpose behind the drafting is to give what is seen as a useful safeguard for the offender requiring the court to explain the effect of the order to him,
"in as straightforward a way as is practicable".
Otherwise there might be a risk that some less enlightened members of the judiciary might simply rely upon the rather stale but nevertheless precise language of the clause itself; whereas, the explanation should be given to the offender in a way that is understood.
Similar provision exists in relation to probation where the expression used is that an explanation should be given "in ordinary language". Where a court makes an order requiring the defendant to accept social work intervention, it should attempt to ensure that the offender understands what is expected of him. I have no doubt that there will be occasions on which that attempt fails. Nevertheless, the effort should be made. It appears to me to be correct that on the face of the statute the judge should be enjoined to make that effort.
On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will be persuaded to withdraw the amendment.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Seear: On the example that the noble Lord gave, I should like to ask whether it would not be simpler to state that the court has to give an explanation in English; or would that be difficult in the political situation in Scotland today?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The noble Baroness invites me to swim in very deep and turbulent waters. I believe that the language,

869
"in as straightforward a way as practicable"
is perfectly acceptable. Whether the phrase is "in English" or "in ordinary language", we all seek the same objective. This phrase achieves that purpose without bringing about any political dangers for the Government or anyone else.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: With regret, I do not accept the noble and learned Lord's explanation of this meaningless piece of verbiage. As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, why cannot the phrase be in ordinary English? The phrase in the probation legislation is perfectly understandable. When a person is being put on probation it should be explained in ordinary language. However, I do not understand the dual imposition in this part of the Bill. One has two factors. One has to explain the position in a straightforward way. That would be covered by the phrase "in ordinary English". The second aspect relates to the phrase,
"in as straightforward a way as is practicable".
What on earth does that mean? Does it mean that the person has to be standing up, lying down or standing on his head? It is a meaningless piece of legislative verbiage which should be consigned to the dustbin before the Bill comes back at Report stage.
Having made those observations, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Commission of offence by released prisoner]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 15, line 25, leave out ("desirable") and insert ("relevant").
The noble Lord said: Even as a non-lawyer, the amendment strikes me as very desirable. I know that some things can be desirable but not relevant, and some relevant but not desirable. However, I hope that the Minister will incorporate "desirable" and "relevant", so that we cover every possible loophole that may be found in that part of the legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. I confirm that on this occasion what is relevant is also desirable. Expressing it in as straightforward a way as is practicable, I am glad to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 [Revocation of licence]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 16, line 11, leave out ("his health or circumstances have so changed") and insert ("the exceptional compassionate grounds for his release no longer apply and").
The noble Lord said: The amendment refers back to the question of release on compassionate grounds which is encompassed in Clause 3(1) of the Act. That states:
"The Secretary of State may … if satisfied that there are"—
870
I believe that the word "exceptional" now disappears in the light of the concession made by the noble and learned Lord—
"compassionate grounds justifying the release of a person serving a sentence of imprisonment, release him on licence".
Clause 17(1) (b) states that where,
"a short-term prisoner has been so released, the Secretary of State may revoke his licence and recall him to prison if satisfied that his health or circumstances have so changed that were he in prison his release under section 3(1) of this Act would no longer he justified".
The amendment seeks to take out the words,
"his health or circumstances have so changed"
and to make the clause more general by inserting the words,
"the compassionate grounds for his release no longer apply".
I do not want the Government to make too many concessions so early in their administration. However, I hope that they will look favourably at the amendment because it provides a broader approach to the question of withdrawing a licence. Clause 3(1) does not state that the health or circumstances of the licensee are relevant, only that there are compassionate grounds for his release. Therefore, to restrict the grounds for revoking a licence to the issue of,
"his health or circumstances",
is too narrow and it would be better if the clause were widened. The clause should provide that the compassionate grounds which are the grounds for his release no longer apply whether due to health or to circumstances. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: We have no intention of penalising a short-term prisoner released on compassionate grounds if, for example, he unexpectedly recovers his health. Any implication to that effect is inadvertent. However, there appears to be an unhappy tautology in the proposed amendment to Clause 17(1) (b), given the reference that appears there to Clause 3(1), which, as amended, contains the expression,
"the compassionate grounds for his release".
The Government believe that the grounds for recall must be wider than purely that the original grounds for release no longer hold. We consider that it would be most unlikely that a prisoner whose behaviour in the community was entirely satisfactory would be recalled. However, there must be scope to recall someone whose grounds for compassionate release remain but whose circumstances in the community have so changed that it would no longer be in their interests or those of the community for them to be at large.
I hope that the noble Lord appreciates that there is no intention to impose greater restrictions. If anything, we see the provision as drafted allowing a greater leeway than his proposal would.
Lord Meston: Is it necessary, therefore, to have any reference to health? Would it not be sufficient to refer merely to a change of circumstances?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: On a first reading of the amendment I was unclear about what was being proposed. However, in the light of what the noble and learned Lord has said my first reading was mistaken because I believed that we were being given an arrangement akin to the cat and mouse act which existed before the First World War. Then suffragettes

871
were released from prison if they were on hunger strike and near to death. After they had recovered they were taken back to prison. Clearly that is not what is being suggested.
I ask the noble and learned Lord to look at the language of the clause between now and Report in order to avoid any misunderstanding of what is being proposed.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Yes, I shall if the noble Lord will allow me to do so without commitment. It may be that in relation to health the phrase "change of circumstances" is sufficient. However, I should like to look at the matter again because the proposal may be too vague or too broad.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: The noble and learned Lord's answer raises an interesting point which I had not previously grasped. It is that the release on compassionate grounds envisaged in Clause 3(1) is a permanent release on compassionate grounds. I had understood that the licence given to the person released on compassionate grounds would cover a temporary situation such as a terminal illness, a child being killed and all the other issues which bring a prisoner to the attention of the authorities making his release in the best interest of all concerned.
In the light of the noble and learned Lord's answer, it appears that the Government, whom I do not criticise, have fallen into a trap of providing that where a person is released on compassionate grounds he can never be recalled except subject to Clause 17(1) (b). I am trying to be helpful, although I am not very good at that.
Consideration might be given to providing in Clause 3(1) that the Secretary of State may at any time, if satisfied that there are compassionate grounds justifying the temporary or permanent release of a person serving a sentence of imprisonment, release him on licence. Such a provision would give the authorities flexibility to take into account the situation which might arise on a short-term basis in addition to the long-term issue of a terminal illness to which the Minister has referred. He has said that in such circumstances the prisoner will not be recalled. I put forward that suggestion in an attempt to be helpful.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I have indicated that I shall look at the matter again. It appears to me that three circumstances might arise. The first is a prisoner who is terminally ill. In those circumstances we have provided the clearest possible provision for saying that on compassionate grounds the Secretary of State will take over the role of the Royal Prerogative and allow for his immediate release. Secondly, at the other end of the scale is someone who has suffered a personal tragedy such as the death of a child, wife or mother. In those circumstances, as I understand the position south of the Border, it would be a matter of administrative simplicity to make arrangements for that person to be released to go to the funeral.
What I am not sure about, and what I wish to look at again, is whether there are any circumstances in which one might have compassionate release for a
872
period longer than merely leaving prison to attend a funeral. Several weeks would be a longer period than is the ordinary practice in Scotland at present. I am not sure that there are circumstances in which compassionate release could properly be given, but I give that as an example of the kind of area at which I shall be looking in relation to Clause 17.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am obliged to the Minister for that reply. On the understanding that he will look again at the question of compassionate release on licence, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Appeals in respect of decisions relating to supervised release orders]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): If Amendment No. 24 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 25.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 17, line 26, leave out ('or within such longer period as the Clerk of Justiciary may allow").
The noble Lord said: There has been a mistake in the framing of Amendments Nos. 24 and 25. Their objective was to remove the words "Clerk of the Justiciary" where they appear and substitute the words "the High Court". Clearly Amendment No. 24 has not achieved that and I move it with that explanation. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, has done precisely the opposite of that which he wished to do. He should have not moved Amendment No. 24; but he should have moved Amendment No. 25.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: With respect to the noble and learned Lord, I moved Amendment No. 24 for the benefit of the Government Front Bench in order to explain why the amendment is tabled. I have not yet reached Amendment No. 25.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I strongly oppose Amendment No. 24 because it would impose a terrible rigidity on the prisoner wishing to appeal against the refusal of his release. That would have to be done within a very strict timetable. The effect of the amendment would be to take out the permissive "or within such longer period", which would not be good. Therefore, it appears that Amendment No. 25 would meet the noble Lord's averred intention.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I agreed at the outset that this is a bad amendment and the noble and learned Lord has underlined that. I merely tabled the amendment to draw to the attention of the Government the proposition that the court rather than the Clerk of the Justiciary should have control of these matters.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I should indicate that we are grateful that the point has been made in general terms. It is well taken and we shall consider the wording in the light of what has been said.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [The Parole Board]:
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 31, line 7, leave out ("holds or has held judicial office") and insert ("is a Lord Commissioner of Justiciary").
The noble and learned Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to delete the words in Schedule 2(2):
"holds or has held judicial office"
and to substitute the words:
"is a Lord Commissioner of Justiciary"
or in plain language, is a High Court judge.
I am aware that that paragraph in the schedule merely repeats what the 1967 Act says about the composition of the Parole Board in Scotland, but a High Court judge has always been a member of the Parole Board. That that should be so is even more important when the Parole Board takes over the function of what the European Court of Human Rights describes as a court, but what we would more usually describe in Britain as a tribunal, of taking decisions on the release of discretionary life sentence prisoners.
The original amendment tabled by my noble and learned friend Lord Cameron of Lochbroom and I' included the words "who is or has been a Lord Commissioner of Justiciary". That amendment was then seen by the Lord Justice General who asked us to take out the words "or has been". He considers it most important that the Parole Board should include a serving High Court judge. On that basis I move this amendment and I hope that at least the Government will take it away and think about it. I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I should be extremely worried were the Government not to move on this issue. One of the reasons that the Parole Boards, both in England and Scotland, have had such considerable public support has been that senior members of the judiciary have involved themselves in the work of the Parole Board. That has been the position both in England and Scotland.
I believe that if, as is proposed, we are to move away from that, then this would be a particularly ill-chosen moment to do so, all the more so given the fact, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, pointed out, that the Parole Board is now being given additional executive powers as regards non-mandatory life sentence prisoners. Moreover, there is an additional reason for supporting the view of the noble and learned Lord; namely, the indication he has given of the attitude of the senior judiciary in Scotland. I hope that the Government will change their position on this matter.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: While I intend to take away the amendment, I am not so much persuaded by the noble and learned Lord's powers of oratory in this Chamber as by the indication that was given to me of the source of the amendment in its latest form. With the knowledge of that source, I should like to take away the amendment and consult with the Lord Justice General in Scotland.
As a matter of practice, as things stand, the Secretary of State appoints two members to the board, one of whom is a serving Lord Commissioner of Justiciary and one of whom has retired from that office, as well as a serving sheriff. It is certainly the intention that the serving High Court judge would chair the panel to consider the case of discretionary life sentence prisoners under Clause 2. However, I undertake to consider whether there should be a rather more formal expression of that within the schedule.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I somehow had the impression that the spirit behind my revision of this amendment might have a certain effect on the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 31, line 17, at end insert:
("3A. Notwithstanding the terms of the instrument by which he is appointed, a member of the Parole Board shall vacate office upon the expiry of four years from his appointment.").
The noble Lord said: This is a small and fairly self-evident amendment which asks that the term of appointment to the Parole Board should be four years from the first appointment. It is not meant in any way as a criticism of those people serving on the Parole Board who have done an excellent job over the years. However, most other organisations and bodies have time limits on membership. I believe that the Parole Board would benefit from that generally because there should be new blood coming in regularly. Those on the board should be able to keep up with the times and not appear to the public, rightly or wrongly, to be part of the establishment. I hope that the Minister will understand that this amendment is moved in the best spirit and is not in any way critical of existing Parole Board members. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: While this amendment is well meaning I hope that the Committee will accept that it is not necessary to limit in this way the discretion vested in the Secretary of State. The principle which the Government must apply in making public appointments is to choose the best people for the job, without favour or discrimination.
That principle is applied in making appointments to the Parole Board for Scotland. Service on the board is extremely onerous for those involved. There are 24 case meetings a year, at which around 40 cases are discussed. There are five general purpose meetings. In addition, members are called on to visit prisons, to interview prisoners, and to attend ad hoc meetings on behalf of the board. It takes some time to get to grips

875
with the work of the board, and the volume of paper. Members require exceptional dedication. The work is unglamorous and the rewards are modest.
Against that background, it is gratifying that there has been no difficulty in securing the services of well-qualified and experienced people, both in the statutory and in the non-statutory categories, who are willing to act as members of the board. None of the present appointments dates back for more than four years, apart from the chairman and vice chairman. As a matter of practice appointments are made on a three-year rolling basis. Four ordinary members are on their second term of appointment. In our view, a maximum of four years would certainly be too short to enable the board to benefit fully from the knowledge and experience of those carefully chosen individuals.
In considering reappointment after the three-year initial term, the Secretary of State considers very carefully the contribution which the member has made, as well as his or her own availability and wishes. No appointment would be made or renewed unless the Secretary of State were completely satisfied that the person could and would be a fully effective member. He has regard also to the balance of experience and qualifications on the board, to a fair representation of women members and to geographical location.
The amendment would unduly restrict the Secretary of State in the reappointment of members who have contributed well to the board and whose retention may well be desirable in view of other changes in membership. It would be wrong to limit the Secretary of State's room for manoeuvre purely on a principle of change for the sake of change. In our view and in the light of past practice, to do so would be both unnecessary and damaging to the effectiveness of the board.
In the light of what I have said I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I should be sorry were the amendment to be carried. I agree with everything said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser. To impose a rigid formula such as, "no more than four years", would be unreasonable. I do not see how the public interest would be served. My experience was similar in England to the situation described by the noble and learned Lord in Scotland. The Secretary of State considered the matter after a three-year term of office and in a number of cases—not perhaps the majority—the period of office was extended. It would be a great pity to impose this rather rigid formula. For that reason I hope that the Government will maintain their position on the matter.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: When I look around the Chamber and see the weight of people present I fear that there is little chance of the amendment being carried. However, I am pleased that the Minister took so much trouble to explain the working of the Parole Board and the Under-Secretary of State's faith in it.
I tried to explain that I and the people advising me were not being critical of the board. We believe that
876
there should be some kind of rotation. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, that one cannot necessarily grasp these problems at the first meeting. On the other hand, by the 61st meeting one may become a little jaded. We are simply trying to provide some balance by suggesting a time limit.
It should not be taken for granted that someone on the Parole Board will be there for life. It would be interesting if the Minister could indicate the periods of time for which people have served. In the past 10 to 15 years there has been a bigger change. The great and the good are becoming a larger population than once they were, particularly in Scotland.
I do not intend to press the amendment. I am glad that the Minister took the trouble to explain the situation. There is some hope that he may be able to provide more information at some later stage and perhaps put some kind of time limit on the length of time a person serves on the board.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I can provide the information to the noble Lord if it is useful. As I indicated, apart from the chairman and the vice-chairman, who have been in position for some considerable time—particularly the formidable Mrs. Morris who was first appointed in 1974 and became chairman in 1980—the rest of the appointments of the board go back no later than 1988.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I thank the Minister for that information. The trouble he has taken indicates that he is aware of the problems that may arise. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Clause 21 [Parole advisers]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 18, line 29, leave out ("persons") and insert ("Advocates, Solicitors or other legally qualified persons").
The noble Lord said: It may be convenient, when moving Amendment No. 28, for me to speak also to Amendment No. 29. The Kincraig Report suggested that people known as "parole advisers", now encompassed by Clause 21, should be appointed,
"to give advice to prisoners, or former prisoners, who wish to make representations to the Secretary of State or to the Parole Board as regards any matter concerning their release on licence under this Part of this Act or their return to prison or detention by virtue of this Part of this Act".
I quoted that in full because it is of some importance to know what the qualifications of the statutory parole advisers should be. The Act is setting up a special category of individual.
As I understand it, the Kincraig Report rested heavily on voluntary parole advisers—people who involved themselves in the prison system; no doubt prison visitors, SACRO and so forth. The amendment was tabled to delete the word "persons" with regard to statutory parole advisers and insert the words,
"Advocates, Solicitors or other legally qualified persons".
If a statute is to create a statutory adviser then it should determine what the quality and qualification of that adviser should be.
The stage at which a parole adviser gives advice to a prisoner is a vital part of the prisoner's life. In presenting the case he must have the best advice possible based on a knowledge of the system and an ability to present or give advice on his case with all the skill and knowledge a legally skilled person is presumed to have, and free of some of the more emotive issues which sometimes arise in relation to a prisoner's release.
The amendment was tabled on behalf of the Law Society of Scotland. However, it was not tabled by the legal profession out of self-interest. It was to ensure that during this vital part of a prisoner's life, within the terms of the statute, he will have available to him on a remunerative basis a properly qualified parole adviser. The fact that the prisoner has available a legally qualified person in terms of the statute will not deprive him of relying on the person with whom he may have established good relations in terms of respect and trust. But within the statutory framework there must be some degree of definition. That is what Amendment No. 28 seeks to achieve.
Amendment No. 29 is merely an addition to Clause 21(2) which allows the parole adviser set up by the statute to be paid such remuneration and allowances as the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine. It seeks to bring voluntary associations such as SACRO into the realm of remuneration. If SACRO, and indeed other voluntary bodies, are to give advice to prisoners, it would seem inequitable that where a parole adviser established by Section 21 is given remuneration and allowances, that the person doing the same work out of the goodness of his or her heart should not be paid on the same remunerative basis as that statutory parole adviser. I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The amendment is intended to provide, instead of parole advisers, in effect parole lawyers. Although I yield to no one in my admiration of legal persons of all kinds, I do not believe that the amendment will produce the result that either the Government, or indeed Lord Kincraig's Committee, would wish.
The purpose of Clause 21 is to implement the recommendation of the Kincraig Committee that parole advisers should be appointed to help prisoners with the written representations they are entitled to make to the Parole Board. If there are other legal matters upon which they require advice, then there is nothing to prevent the prisoners from taking such legal advice. However, the purpose of the parole advisers is not to give legal advice but to deal with situations where the prisoner may have difficulty in expressing himself on paper. In such circumstances, relatives can sometimes assist, but sometimes neither relatives nor prison staff can provide sufficient help.
Prisoners should be able to turn to somebody who will be able to help them—that is, to somebody who is familiar with the procedures and who will be able to help them to clarify and to express their thoughts and to state the reasons why they believe that they should be released at that stage. They might, for example, wish to make representations about aftercare or other matters on which lawyers might not have particular
878
expertise. Obviously, the advisers will require some training and guidance, but we do not envisage that full legal training will be necessary. However, it seems appropriate that such persons should be entitled to some remuneration. Subsection 2 provides for that remuneration.
Turning to Amendment No. 29, my submission is that although it is well intentioned, the amendment is unnecessary because under Section 10 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, core funding is already provided to voluntary bodies such as SACRO and the Apex Trust, which assist with the resettlement of released prisoners. The statutory responsibility to supervise and to provide services and assistance lies with the local authorities. It is right that the necessary funds for that purpose should be provided to the local authorities rather than bypassing them and going direct to the voluntary bodies. The local authorities, which have the statutory duty, are encouraged to acquire or to buy the services of the voluntary bodies where that provides the most cost-effective solution. They are required to consult the voluntary bodies in their service planning. If the voluntary bodies want to do the work, they in turn need to offer a high quality service which provides value for money. The Government believe that in this as in other areas a measure of competition is the key to securing quality and value for money.
However, whether intentionally or not, the amendment would apparently have the effect of securing a guaranteed source of income for SACRO and other similar bodies without them needing to be in the business of providing the kind of service that the statutory body actually requires. In saying that, I am not seeking to detract from the contributions made by SACRO and other voluntary bodies, but I am stressing that the funding channels that already exist through the local authorities and in the other ways that I have explained provide the best guarantee that scarce public resources are directed to the best possible use.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, replies, I should like to say a few words. I have been listening to our proceedings with great interest although I have not joined in previously because these matters are somewhat outside my experience. However, I believe that the Kincraig committee has produced a very good idea.
One problem in gaining the public's understanding of prison matters is to find a role for members of the public so that they can become involved in prison procedures. We know that visiting committees work well and that people become involved in them and interested in prison matters. I note that the Kincraig committee has suggested that members of visiting committees might become involved in this matter. Having a panel of people with the job of learning a bit about the procedures for release who would commit themselves to helping prisoners in that way seems a very good innovation. It seems an awful pity that the legal profession, which naturally feels that it can give more clued-up advice to prisoners, has to have a monopoly in this area. I should have thought that there could he a role for ordinary people who could

879
learn about the system and understand the prisoners' position. I like that idea. I believe that a number of people who have an interest in prisons but who have not so far had the opportunity to take part in such work might become involved. As somebody who has been involved with a visiting committee, I like the idea and hope that it will go ahead.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful for the answer that has been given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, but the concept of a cost-effective service in relation to this vital part of a prisoner's life leaves me rather concerned about what this is all about and about the fact that it is being financed through the local authority.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, made a valid point about the involvement of the public. There is no reason why the public should not become involved by volunteering for such work and no doubt receiving some training. My point is that where statutory advisers are being introduced, it is important at least to lay down some guidelines about from where the parole advisers are to be drawn. I personally do not agree with the recommendation of the Kincraig committee that the members of the visiting committee are the best people to advise prisoners.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate talked about written submissions on behalf of prisoners. They may be even more important than oral submissions. If the word "representations" in Clause 21 means "written submissions", that should be spelt out. I presume that the word "representations" in line 31 is the equivalent of "written submissions", which makes it all the more important that the submissions should be in good order and in an intelligible form for presentation to the Parole Board. That is why people at the level of advocates or solicitors should be involved. Perhaps the words "legally qualified persons" in the amendment could be amended to read "suitably qualified persons". That suggestion might keep the noble Baroness, myself and perhaps even the Government happy.
I repeat, as I am sure that the Government are aware that we are talking about a crucial part of a prisoner's life. It is terrible for a prisoner who has been given a reasonable expectation that he might be released to be rejected by the Parole Board. That is why a prisoner should not be able to look back and to say that those who advised him did not know what they were doing in relation to the board and that is why the quality of the parole advisers should be as high as possible under the statute. It is for those reasons that the two amendments have been tabled. However, in the light of the explanation that has been given, I do not propose to press them. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 28.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Transfer of young offenders to prison or remand centre.]:
On Question, Whether Clause 23 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: No amendment has been tabled to Clause 23, but I oppose the Motion that the clause stand part of the Bill because the new Section 20(A) (2) deals with the transfer of young offenders to prisons or remand centres. Surely we all know that, whatever he or she has done, the last place for a young offender to be is in a prison or remand centre where he or she can mix with adult prisoners. Remand centres usually contain many people who have committed offences and crimes in the past and whose company a young offender should not be asked to share for any length of time.
The important words in this clause, and those which lead me to speak against it, are
"only for a temporary purpose"
which come at the end of Section (20) (A) (2). That phrase causes a great deal of concern because it raises the old question, "How long is a piece of string?" The word "temporary" is not defined in terms of time. No time limit whatever is set on the length of time for which a young person can be transferred to a prison or remand centre. Along with the word "temporary" comes the word "purpose", which is not defined either. We are therefore talking about an open-ended mandate allowing the Government or the administrators to take a young person into a prison or remand centre without any specification being made as to length of time or purpose. That is a dangerous open-ended mandate to give to any authority.
I have read the Notes on Clauses, but I can see no provision stating that although young people are in a remand centre they shall be kept in a separate place away from adult prisoners or adult persons on remand. Putting young people into prison and remand centres has been a blight on the penal system of the United Kingdom for a long time and has raised numerous problems, emotional and otherwise. The movement of young people into prisons or remand centres should not be encouraged unless there is a reasonably specified purpose or unless a court is involved to authorise the removal of the young offender to a prison or remand centre. Before that is done the young person should be properly represented before a judicial body when deciding whether he should be transferred. The court should decide how long "temporary" will be and should also determine from the authorities the purpose of the shift.
It may be cynical to close on the note that this clause is just a get-out for a government who, after all these years in office and with a few more years in prospect, have utterly failed to make proper provision for young offenders in this country. It is just an excuse to be able to shift young people about willy-nilly by saying that Clause 23 of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1992 provides that a young person can be shifted for a temporary purpose, that he can like it or lump it and can stay there until the authorities decide that the temporary purpose is finished. That is a dangerous inroad into the penal system. For that reason I oppose the Question that Clause 23 shall stand part of the Bill.
7 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am happy to respond to the debate. I should say in opening that this is not a provision of any novelty. It was contained in Clause 49 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill 1990. That clause was dropped, as they say, for Bill management reasons latterly. I have to remind the noble Lord that no objection was taken to its provisions either in this House when the Bill was exhaustively debated or indeed in the Commons. At the Committee stage in another place the only debate that took place was on the quality of facilities for visits to those held, they having been moved from a young offenders institution.
I want to make it clear that Clause 23 would not provide a charter for wholesale shipments of young offenders to prisons. Even with prisoner numbers up this year on last, such problems of overcrowding as there are are in the adult rather than the young offender system. On 22nd May, the last day for which I have comprehensive figures to hand, 812 young offenders were occupying the 851 available places in the five Scottish institutions in which such offenders are held.
What the clause is intended to allow is the holding of a young offender in other than a young offenders institution in circumstances in which that would not be permitted at present even though it would be in the detainee's best interests. The kind of circumstances in which this may be desirable are, for example, when a young offender requires to appear in a court such as Inverness or Aberdeen, which is far from any young offenders institution, or when for compassionate reasons or to enjoy accumulated visits there is need to hold a young offender in an establishment as near to his or her home as possible.
The problem addressed by Clause 23 is really one of geography. Apart from Dumfries, the other three young offenders institutions for males in Scotland are all located, as the noble Lord will be aware, in the central belt. The only such institution for females, in respect of whom there is even more of a problem, is Corn ton Vale, near Stirling. The new provision would, for instance, allow female young offenders to be held temporarily at the separate female facilities at Aberdeen, Inverness or Dumfries for the purposes which I have mentioned.
Other circumstances in which the provision might be used include facilitating access to any sort of specialist facility—be it medical, educational or whatever—which might only be available at a prison; or, given the small number of young offenders institutions, there may be cases where a young offender is unsettled or at odds with his peers and would benefit from a period of time out away from the heat of the situation in which the problems have arisen. A short period elsewhere, at a prison perhaps but not necessarily in association with prisoners, a point which concerned the noble Lord, might in such circumstances be an option.
Finally, the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989 at present provides that a young person must be permanently transferred to prison some time between his or her 21st and 23rd birthday, allowing us the leeway to hold
882
back the transfer of a less mature individual. The provisions in Clause 23 would allow room for manoeuvre below the age of 21 when it is judged, in the case of a particularly mature young offender, to be in his interests and possibly also in the interests of some of his peers that he be transferred to prison some time before his 21st birthday.
I have taken some time to illustrate how and in what circumstances the Secretary of State would intend to use the power conferred. The provisions are specific to individual young offenders. They could not be used en bloc. The power would be used in a considered and sparing way where it is adjudged that for the kind of reasons I have outlined it would be in the interests of a young offender if he or she were to be housed for a period in prison.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My noble friend Lord Meston and I gave notice of our intention to oppose the Question that Clause 23 stand part of the Bill in order to secure an explanation from the Government. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, sought to oppose the Question because we have now been able to secure what in my view is an entirely satisfactory response from the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the clause, although I still find the clause unacceptable in that it is too wide and too unspecific. The fact that it is not novel does not make it good, as experience in your Lordships' House has shown. Nor does the fact that there was no objection taken at an earlier stage when the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill was going through make it any better. I wonder whether, having accepted the principle behind the clause as explained by the noble and learned Lord, it might be appropriate that somewhere in the Bill there should be an obligation on the Secretary of State to lay down rules and regulations for the detention of a young person under the age of 18. That is the important part of the clause. The word "detained" is used.
If the noble and learned Lord is correct—I have no reason to doubt his word—that there is plenty of room in the young offenders institutions but the adult places are now becoming full again—I noticed a newspaper report the other day suggesting that people were again starting to have to share cells in adult prisons—where will these young people be put? Where will they be detained? In what circumstances will they be detained? Who will check that the prison where the person is detained is a suitable place which complies with regulations set down by the Secretary of State?
I ask the Government at least to take on board this proposition. If the principle is acceptable that they should be transferred for the social reasons or protective reasons given by the noble and learned Lord, will the Government consider building in a power for the Secretary of State to lay down guidelines or rules and regulations for the detention of young people in prisons? If those are contravened by the prison authorities the young person would have some recourse against the authorities. As the Bill stands, a

883
young person would have none whatsoever. Having heard the Minister's explanation, I withdraw my objection to the clause.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Additional days for disciplinary offences]:
On Question, Whether Clause 24 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Clause 24 allows for additional days for disciplinary offences to be imposed on a prisoner,
"not exceeding in aggregate one-sixth of the prisoner's sentence",
and so on, for breaches of discipline. I object to the clause on the basis that I believe the governor or the prison authority should not have the power to impose additional days upon a prisoner. Either a prisoner's sentence is correct or it is not. The correct way to impose additional days is to take the prisoner through the criminal system. If he has been proved guilty of another offence then it is in the courts that additional days should be imposed and not at the behest of the prison authorities.
In the Kincraig Report the matter is covered in paragraphs 7.13, 7.14 and 7.20 with perhaps rather tortuous reasoning. The Kincraig Committee was against the matter, not least because it might infringe the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. In any event, the report suggested that there should be more privileges open to prisoners such as home release and so on. If that were so, there would then be more to take away from the prisoner in terms of privileges rather than imposing additional days on his sentence.
It does not matter whether the aggregate is one-sixth or one-sixteenth of a prisoner's sentence. The principle is that the prisoner should not have anything added to his sentence unless it is imposed by the correct authorities; namely, by going through the courts. If the system is complaining that it does not have enough privileges to take away from prisoners, that is a pretty weak excuse and is just too bad. Ways will have to be found of imposing authority on the prisoners. Accordingly, I oppose the Question that Clause 24 should stand part of the Bill.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: As the noble Lord recognises, any prison system requires to be able to enforce discipline fairly summarily; that is, without being hedged around by cumbersome procedures. The ability of governors to make disciplinary awards for minor offences provides for swift, fair and effective action to maintain discipline in prisons.
A deferment of the prisoner's release date within the sentence passed by the court is the strongest and most effective sanction available to a governor. It is restricted to a maximum of 14 days for any one offence and, as Members of the Committee will note, in Clause 24 we are proposing that it should be further restricted to an overall maximum of one-sixth of the sentence. We do not believe that it is an unduly harsh punishment, nor do we accept that it is one which could safely be abolished in favour of loss of privileges as recommended by the Kincraig Committee and
884
correctly recorded by the noble Lord. That was one of the committee's recommendations which met with a very adverse response. I share the view which was then expressed that the deferment of release is, and will remain for some time, an essential sanction for the maintenance of discipline.
We are not entirely satisfied with the orderly room procedures for the award of such punishments. The Scottish Prison Service Board proposes to implement changes recommended by an internal working group which was set up to consider how those procedures might be improved. The changes which will stem from the recommendations of that group will bring orderly room procedures into line with current perceptions of natural justice as developed by the courts.
It is open to any prisoner who considers that he has been unfairly treated to petition the Secretary of State, to complain to the visiting committee, to complain to a visiting sheriff or ultimately to apply for a judicial review of the governor's decision. Major breaches of discipline are and will continue to be referred to the police. That ensures independent investigations within a short space of time of the event taking place and allows ample opportunity for prisoners to make their case or lay counter charges.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down perhaps he will be good enough to give the Committee an explanation as to what subsection (7) (b) means. Does it mean that a prison governor can impose additional days upon a person who is on remand before he has been sentenced? Alternatively, does it refer to remand in custody after sentence? The point has just occurred to me and I apologise for raising it at this late stage. I have just been trying to read the subsection to ascertain what it means.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I think that it is fairly clear that what happens is that the governor can conditionally impose additional days but that the condition that has to be met is that that person eventually becomes a prisoner. If no prison sentence is imposed, those days cannot be added.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Has the report of the working group to which the noble and learned Lord referred been published? If it has been, can we see a copy between now and the Report stage?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: As I understand it, the report has not yet been published. However, once the final arrangements which are to be introduced have been arrived at, I have no doubt that its contents will become known in the way that all other prison rules and the like are well known.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will be good enough to look into the matter between now and the next stage. No doubt the noble Lord who raised the matter on the first occasion would like to know what information the Government have on the matter.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am obliged to the Minister for his attempt to explain what subsection (7) (b) means. Speaking for myself, I am none the wiser

885
and no better informed. I understand what the noble and learned Lord was trying to say, but I am not sure that it is a correct interpretation of the subsection. Perhaps some consideration can be given to a possible review of the wording by the parliamentary draftsmen and those advising the Ministers. On that basis, I withdraw my opposition to Clause 24 standing part of the Bill.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clauses 25 to 27 agreed to.
House resumed.

Statutory Instruments
A message was brought from the Commons that they concur with this House in the resolution relative to statutory instruments communicated in the message of 20th May last.

Consolidation Bills
A message was brought from the Commons that they concur in the resolution relative to the Protection of Badgers Bill [H.L.]; the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Bill [H.L.]; and the Tribunal and Inquiries Bill [H.L.] communicated in the message of 20th May last.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes past seven o'clock.

  APPEALS TO THE HOUSE OF LORDS
  APPEALS TO THE HOUSE OF LORDS
  PRISONERS HELD TWO AND THREE TO A CELL
  PRISONERS HELD TWO AND THREE TO A CELL
  PRISONERS: SUICIDES
  PRISONERS: SUICIDES
  JUVENILES IN CUSTODY
  JUVENILES IN CUSTODY
  JUVENILE OFFENDERS: CAUTIONS
  JUVENILE OFFENDERS: CAUTIONS
  PRISONERS: RELIGIOUS REGISTRATION
  PRISONERS: RELIGIOUS REGISTRATION
  PRISONS: CLEANING OF CHAPELS
  PRISONS: CLEANING OF CHAPELS
  IMMIGRANTS: FAMILIES SEEKING REUNION
  IMMIGRANTS: FAMILIES SEEKING REUNION
  STATE PENSION: DEFECTIVE CONTRIBUTION RECORDS
  STATE PENSION: DEFECTIVE CONTRIBUTION RECORDS
  INCOME SUPPORT FOR 18–24 YEAR-OLDS
  INCOME SUPPORT FOR 18–24 YEAR-OLDS
  DRIVING STANDARDS: IMPROVEMENT
  DRIVING STANDARDS: IMPROVEMENT
  "HIGHWAY CODE"; REVISION
  "HIGHWAY CODE"; REVISION
  TECs: GROUP OF TEN REPORT
  TECs: GROUP OF TEN REPORT