Sitting of 2 November 1992

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

    Social Fund
    Mr. Mandelson: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to increase the social fund budget to take account of levels of unemployment.
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he next expects to review the allocation of social fund money to local DSS offices.
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): With permission, Madam Speaker, I will answer this and Question 3 together.
    Mr. Corbyn: We were not informed of that.
    Mr. Lilley: I apologise for the fact that the hon. Gentleman was not informed.
    I am pleased to announce that I have authorised the allocation of an additional £8 million to discretionary social fund budgets for this financial year. The extra money allocated to districts takes full account of their individual income support caseloads, which in turn reflect local unemployment levels. All districts will receive budget increases. Details will be placed in the Library in due course.
    Mr. Mandelson: In view of what the Secretary of State just said and the Conservatives' clear election pledge that the whole of the social security budget, including money allocated to the social fund and benefits for the unemployed, would not be cut, will he confirm that the Government will honour every one of their election promises to recipients of money from the social fund, the unemployed and the poorest sections of society so that the promises made in April do not become the betrayals of autumn?
    Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that I am not going to give advance details of the outcome of the public expenditure round or comment on any speculation about it. None the less, I should have expected the hon. Gentleman to be more forthcoming in his appreciation of the increase, especially as it was made possible by our introduction of the loans system and by the better repayment rates—even better than we had expected—that resulted. If we had stuck with grants, as Opposition Members wished, we would have had to cut the support within the social fund by 60 per cent.
    Mr. Corbyn: Will the Secretary of State concede that the cash-limiting of the social fund to local offices—I am thinking particularly of the Euston district office—has caused appalling problems for many people? That is especially the case with women who have been victims of domestic violence and who have subsequently been placed in hostels and then housed by a local authority or housing association and approved under direction 4aIII as being victims of violence and therefore vulnerable and in need of assistance. Those people are now being refused social fund payments because of cash-limiting. Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that £8 million is an improvement, but it is crucial to end the obscenity of cash-limiting for people who are desperately in need of help?
    Mr. Lilley: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about the case about which he has been in correspondence with the Benefits Agency. I believe that there was some dispute about whether an appeal was lodged. I hope that

    3
    the matter has been carried forward and that progress has been made with an appeal, if that is what the lady concerned wishes.
    I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not welcome the 25 per cent. increase in his district's budget relative to what it was last year, before the increase that I am announcing, which will ensure an increase for his district as for everywhere else. I am also sorry that he does not recognise the considerable help provided by the social fund and the officers in his area following the local floods. In that regard, I want to quote from a letter from Islington borough council which states:
    "The instant response for assistance and the flexibility of the staff involved played a major part in alleviating what was a major crisis for many people … I would be grateful if the Borough's heartfelt thanks for a job well done could be passed on to the staff involved."
    I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be equally appreciative.
    Mr. Jenkin: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that more than 5 million interest-free loans have been made since the establishment of the social fund, amounting to £700 million over that period? Does that not clearly demonstrate the Government's commitment to social policies?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Because the loans are made, repaid and then recycled, we are able to help far more people than we would be able to help if we had only a grant system. In addition to the point made by my hon. Friend, we have helped I million people through grants costing a further £300 million. The House should welcome the support provided through the fund.
    Mr. Ward: Does my right hon. Friend accept that Opposition Members welcome the increase in the social fund? It is a pity that there could not be a little more grace from the Opposition—grace shown by Islington council, if not by some of its members. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the social fund gives us much better control to ensure that the sums available get to those most in need?
    Mr. Lilley: That is, of course, correct. The Opposition are not enthusiastic about the improvement because they know that it would not have been possible if we had not introduced the principle of repayable loans. We have been able to help in a way that was not possible under the old rigid single-payment system, which was unfair, uncontrollable and utterly discredited.
    Mr. Bradley: Although any increase in the social fund must be welcomed, I fear that it is far too little, too late. Has the Secretary of State read the report, "Evaluating the Social Fund", which was commissioned by the Government, and the report by the Social Security Advisory Committee, both of which stated that the system was absolutely appalling, unjust and inequitable? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that until the social fund system is scrapped and there is a proper system to give support to those in greatest need, people in abject poverty will continue to suffer? Will the right hon. Gentleman agree to a debate on the social fund, so that every hon. Member who has constituents who have suffered because they cannot get loans or grants can debate the matter and so that there is proper consideration of the fund?
    Mr. Lilley: I shall continue to give full consideration to the various reports on the social fund and its operation
    4
    which have been published in recent months. None of them has undermined the basic principle of the system that we established—reliance on loans, as well as grants, and the belief that there must be a discretionary element on top of the rules-based system which covers the bulk of the £70 billion that we allocate to social security. I am not tempted to return to the discredited single-payment system which Opposition Members apparently hanker after.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that interest-free loans from the social fund have become widely accepted, that recycling of loans means that more people get more help and that the position is far more credible than the Opposition's empty promises? That would have become apparent the day after the election, had the Labour party been elected, when it would have emptied the coffers.
    Mr. Lilley: That is absolutely right. The York university study stated that the loan principle had become widely established and accepted. Surely it is better for people to have access to zero interest loans, rather than being reliant on loan sharks.

    Unemployment
    Mr. McFall: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the increase of costs for his Department which arises from an increase in unemployment of 100,000.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): My Department's second annual report shows the costs of an increase in unemployment of 100,000 to be £330 million.
    Mr. McFall: Given that £330 million, given that with 2·7 million people on the dole, the cost will amount to £8 billion next year and given the debilitating cost to the economy in lost taxes and national insurance, would it not make better sense to keep people off the dole so that there was economic recovery and a boost to the public purse? When will a shaft of sanity penetrate the Government's bodged actions and muddled thinking?
    Mr. Burt: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that about 50 per cent. of people who become unemployed are taken off the register after three months and about 65 per cent. of those remaining are taken off after six months. The Employment Service has made a considerable effort to ensure that people come off benefit as quickly as possible to get back to work. The hon. Gentleman must also be aware that this country's employment problems are shared by many other countries on the continent and from Australia to America. One of the Opposition's biggest mistakes is to ignore world trade.
    Mr. Willetts: Does my hon. Friend accept that the Government's proposals for one-stop shopping represent an important improvement in the potential service to the unemployed, who will no longer be caught in an administrative muddle between unemployment benefit and social security offices?
    Mr. Burt: My hon. Friend is right. The Department is putting considerable efforts into finding the best ways possible to ensure that those who are caught up in

    5
    unemployment have the best opportunities to seek advice and have to go through fewer administrative hurdles to claim that to which they are entitled.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the Prince of Wales's humane initiative to help the unemployed and others in dire need by distributing free food parcels in Manchester and other regional centres across the country? Is not the Prince's action a stark reminder that benefits for the unemployed, as for all poor people, must be protected in real terms at this evening's special meeting of the Cabinet about public expenditure?
    Mr. Burt: The right hon. Gentleman is too wily in these matters not to know that I cannot possibly discuss public expenditure questions at this stage. The degree of concern that he expressed about the unemployed is shared by those on the Conservative Benches. He will know that the best help given to the unemployed is not benefits but efforts to get those people back into work. All the efforts of the Government and those of my colleagues who are involved in economic regeneration are designed to ensure that interest rates stay low, inflation comes down and the country has the best prospects for recovery and a return to proper jobs.
    Mr. Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that, sad though it is that unemployment has gone up, Britain has the lowest proportion of unemployed anywhere in the European Community, apart from Denmark, and that 2 million more people are employed than in 1983?
    Mr. Burt: My hon. Friend is right. There is a higher proportion of people in work in this country than in any other European country, other than Denmark, but that statistic is often missed. There is no doubt that the trade recession which has swept through Europe and the rest of the world has affected us as well. To ignore that problem and to see this country as totally isolated from that difficulty is unrealistic, but unrealism seems to be a permanent characteristic of the Opposition.

    Benefits (Value)
    Mr. Wareing: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to ensure that in the next upgrading of social security benefits their real value will be maintained.
    Mr. Lilley: The annual statement on those benefits will be made in due course.
    Mr. Wareing: The Government were not so coy last April about explaining their public expenditure plans when the Tory manifesto stated that the real value of state pensions against price rises would be maintained. How can any civilised Government seek to sacrifice the aged and the disabled on the altar of their own economic incompetence? Can the Secretary of State explain to the House how the under-indexation and taxation of invalidity benefits can stimulate or help to stimulate economic activity?
    Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman will recall my telling the House some Question Times ago that although there would doubtless be speculation about every conceivable benefit during the course of the expenditure round, I did not propose to comment on such speculation until the round was over, when the House would be told, in full, the details of what we propose.
    6
    I shall not take lessons from the Labour party on the treatment of the elderly—a party which wiped out the savings of pensioners by a quarter in a single year, broke its pledges on uprating benefits, cut the real value of pensions by 6 per cent. and is now proposing to means-test pensions.
    Mr. Hendry: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that since 1979 the Government's expenditure on social security has gone up by 50 per cent. in real terms and expenditure on the long-term sick and disabled has gone up by 170 per cent? Is that not a cast-iron demonstration of the Government's determination to look after those in most need?
    Mr. Lilley: I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend. I am often not recognised, but at least I am not mistaken for a socialist. Of course, my hon. Friend is right. The Government have increased spending on the poor, the sick and the elderly by more than a half. We have also helped disabled people. We have spent almost three times as much as the Labour Government and are helping four times as many people with mobility allowances and six times as many with attendance care—so we do not take lectures from the Labour party.
    Mr. Frank Field: As people on benefits are generally poorer and as poorer people have gained the smallest increase in their living standards since 1979, will the Secretary of State tell us what support he will have for defending their living standards when he raises their needs around the Cabinet table?
    Mr. Lilley: Very considerable support. As the hon. Gentleman will see from our record, it is obvious that we have endeavoured to channel money to those in greatest need—I am thinking of the extra £600 million a year that goes to families in need, the introduction of family credit and the help given to older and poorer pensioners in a variety of ways. We believe that we should try increasingly, as we improve the benefit system over the years, to focus help on the most needy.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Does my right hon. Friend agree that since 1979 an extra £700 million has been given to help the poorer pensioners? Is that not a splendid example of the Government's commitment to help those pensioners most in need?
    Mr. Lilley: That is absolutely right. One reason why we have had to help those who retired before 1979 is that they saw their savings wiped out under the Labour Government's inflation. Any party that is a friend of inflation is an enemy of the poor.
    Mr. Kirkwood rose—
    Hon. Members: The hon. Gentleman is on the wrong side of the House.
    Madam Speaker: Order. I know precisely which side of the House he is on.
    Mr. Kirkwood: I am on the right side. I take up the question raised by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). Will the Secretary of State say what cognisance he will take of the household below average income statistics from 1979 to 1989, which show that people in the lowest tenth of income distribution saw their real income, excluding housing costs, fall by 6 per cent., whereas the

    7
    national average in that period was an increase of some 30 per cent? Surely, that must have some bearing on the annual uprating statement, which we anticipate in the next few days. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Lilley: I am of course grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his ongoing support. The figures require careful examination. In the lowest tenth of the income distribution, for example—the figures come from the family expenditure survey—half a million people are recorded as having zero or negative income. However, when their expenditure is examined, it is found to be greater than that of the average person. That is why we are producing some revised and improved figures, which were originally prompted by the Select Committee. Those figures will be published in future. They will give a much better guide to incomes, rather than the expenditure of lower-income families.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the greatest threat to those who receive unemployment benefits would be the introduction of a national minimum wage and the imposition of the social chapter, both of which would drastically increase unemployment?
    Mr. Lilley: That is correct. There is no doubt that in a particularly tough world economic climate the consequences of such steps would be even graver. I recall that when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister rightly said "non" to the social chapter, he was criticised by Mr. Delors, who said that we were thereby making this country a paradise for investors. So we are. That is the best source of future jobs and the best kind of help for those who are unemployed and who want to get back to work, as the vast majority of them do.
    Mr. Dewar: I recognise the reasons for the right hon. Gentleman's caution about the prospects, given the bitter infighting in the Cabinet over the public expenditure round, but does he not think that manifesto promises deserve some respect? Would it not be wise to end the speculation by confirming now that the specific promises on child benefit and retirement pension will survive the present shambles? If the right hon. Gentleman wants to maintain his cherished reputation for anonymity, he would do well to dismiss the suggestion in The Times leader today that income support, invalidity benefit and other benefits are to be uprated by 2 per cent. only. Will he note that a sense of outrage will be felt far beyond Opposition Benches if those on benefit are put in the firing line in order to save the Chancellor from the consequences of his own incompetence?
    Mr. Lilley: Taunts about anonymity come rich from someone whose only claim to fame is that he is less well-known than I am. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that I will not spell out the position on any of the items on which there has been speculation until the round is over and the results are announced. When it comes to election pledges and promises, I recall that before the election the Labour party was keen on universal benefits and said that it would upgrade pensions immediately by £5 for a single person and £8 for a couple. Suddenly, after the election, during the leadership contest, the leader of the Labour party realised that he could no longer get by by raising taxes and he decided to recycle benefits. The leader of the
    8
    Labour party wanted the hon. Gentleman to consider means-testing every single universal benefit—some changes in pledges!

    Disability Living Allowance
    Mr. O'Hara: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about the administration of claims for disability living allowance.
    Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how long a claim for the disability living allowance usually takes to process; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I have previously expressed, and I reiterate today, my regret that unacceptable delays have occurred in the processing of claims for disability living allowance and that, as a result, many disabled customers were not receiving a standard of service to which they are entitled.
    The chief executive of the Benefits Agency wrote to all hon. Members on 19 October outlining the positive actions that the agency has taken to remedy the position. Substantial progress has been made and the chief executive of the agency tells me that it is now within sight of achieving a stable state of work outstanding.
    I intend to have further discussions with the chief executive to see what lessons should be learnt from the experience, which has led to considerable distress for many disabled customers and their families.
    Mr. O'Hara: Does the Minister accept that, in common with Opposition Members, he should be appalled that, after drafting in the necessary resources—a move which, presumably, has merely displaced the problems and moved them to elsewhere in the benefits system—250,000 claimants of disability living allowance and attendance allowance were still awaiting payment at the end of September? Does he agree he should also be appalled that, according to statistics for the end of August, only 25 per cent. of disability living allowance claims were turned around in 60 days and only 3 per cent. of attendance allowance claims were turned around in 35 days? When will the Benefits Agency achieve the targets of a 60 per cent. turnaround in 30 days for disability living allowance and a 60 per cent. turnaround in 35 days for attendance allowance?
    Mr. Scott: As from today, the agency is confident that it can achieve the targets of 60 per cent. within 30 days and 90 per cent. within 90 days for the outstanding caseload.
    Mr. Evennett: I thank my right hon. Friend for his encouraging reply on a difficult issue. Is he aware that my constituents have been disappointed in the delays involved in processing cases? Will he confirm that all DLA payments will be backdated, no one will lose out because of delay and all claimants will ultimately obtain their money?
    Mr. Scott: I have acknowledged on more than one occasion how disappointed I was with some of the delays that occurred in the early days of the introduction of DLA and other benefits associated with it, but the agency is now clearing twice as many claims as it was in June and many

    9
    times the number of claims that it was clearing in February and March. I am confident that it is within sight of meeting its targets.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that thousands of people are being denied their statutory rights? Can he ensure that if ever this sort of thing happens again there will be some mechanism to make certain that people get the money to which they are entitled, and that they can argue afterwards if it is the Government's machinery which is holding them back from their entitlement?
    Mr. Scott: Nobody will be denied his statutory rights. If a claim is allowed, albeit delayed, it will be backdated to the date of the claim. That reassures all who have been waiting for their claims to be settled—admittedly for too long—that they will receive their money.
    Mr. Thurnham: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that 300,000 people are benefiting from this excellent new allowance, and that, if anything, the Benefits Agency is suffering from the problem of success after its wide promotion on television?
    Mr. Scott: It is worth comparing the introduction of DLA, about which we hear so much criticism from the Opposition, with the introduction of the mobility allowance which, in the first year, was limited to 5,000 recipients and by the fourth year was reaching just 95,000. We have delivered this benefit to 250,000 people within seven months.
    Mr. Rooney: The Minister will recall making similar statements last April, May, June and July, when he said that progress was being made. I am sure that the whole House will agree with me when I compliment the staff on the way in which they are dealing with an intolerable burden.
    When a decision is made to refuse disability living allowance it takes between eight and 12 weeks for that decision to be issued and it can take another six months before an appeal is heard. So it may be 18 months after applying before the money is paid after a successful appeal. Does not the Minister think that disgraceful?
    Mr. Scott: I can well understand that the agency has been concentrating on dealing with initial claims. It will turn its attention to reviews of decisions and appeals now that it is in prospect of achieving its targets for new claims.
    Mr. Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the large increase in the number of new staff—800 of them —dealing with disability living allowance is a clear sign of the Government's commitment to improving the system? Does he also accept that constituents of mine have been suffering from delays in the allocation of disability living allowance, and that other constituents who work in the system believe that, while great progress has been made, more could be done to train telephone answerers?
    Mr. Scott: There was a time, I believe, when misunderstandings arose during the use of the inquiry line, but I believe that successful efforts have been made to resolve that problem, and it should not be recurring now. We should recognise that, in part at least, DLA has suffered from its own success. Our efforts and those of the many organisations of and for disabled people which helped in the launch of the allownace led to a tremendous surge of claims in the early days. That caused a problem in
    10
    the administration of the Benefits Agency, but I am confident that it is tackling the problem and that success is in immediate prospect.
    Mrs. Golding: Is the Minister aware that his remarks will give small comfort to thousands of disabled people, many of whom will have to wait until after Christmas to have their claims dealt with? Does he not realise that many of the staff at benefit offices are appalled by the failure to provide an efficient service? They think that it is due to the continued lack of permanent, full-time trained staff. Does the Minister realise the hardship and distress that he is causing by his incompetence?
    Mr. Scott: I welcome the hon. Lady to her new responsibilities—no doubt we shall regularly cross swords. I ask her to acknowledge that the Government were right —most fair-minded people recognise that we were—to go ahead with launching DLA at a stroke rather than adopting the tentative approach of the Labour Government when they introduced the mobility allowance.
    The hon. Lady should also bear it in mind that, for the first time in this area, we are relying not on medical examination but overwhelmingly on self-assessment by disabled people of the effect of disability on their lives. That has been a notable success. Some 80 per cent. of cases are now being decided without the need for medical examination. The Government are to he congratulated on that, not criticised.
    Mr. Duncan: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the setting up of a special telephone hot line specifically for hon. Members to bring to the attention of DLA offices cases of urgent need among their constituents. Will the Minister join me in condemning the irresponsible action of some Labour Members who have distributed that telephone number willy nilly to the severe detriment of genuine cases of urgent need?
    Mr. Scott: There have been some examples of that sort, but, to be fair, they were fairly limited and not many people went down that route. I deplore the fact that some did because they could have set a pattern that might have been followed elsewhere. The establishment of a hot line for hon. Members should be seen against the background of a considerable number of additional lines and operators for the general public. The combination of those two initiatives has been a significant advance in advising people about the state of their claims.

    Disability Living Allowance
    Mrs. Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the total number of applications received for disability living allowance; how many have been (a) processed and (b) successful; and what is the average time for a ruling to be reached.
    Mr. Wray: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total number of disability living allowance applications received by the Benefits Agency at the latest available date; and what was his Department's forecast.
    Mr. Scott: By the end of September, 498,000 claims for disability living allowance had been received and 351,000 had been cleared. These resulted in 126,000 new awards of

    11
    DLA and 98,000 top-up awards to existing mobility and attendance allowance beneficiaries. The corresponding forecast was for 494,000 claims.
    Mrs. Ewing: I recognise the importance of those statistics, but the Minister claims that the allowance has been a victim of its own success. Does he not realise that many thousands of families have been the victims of pious hopes and complacency by his Department in dealing with applications? Many thousands of families have gone through a great deal of misery waiting to hear whether DLA would be awarded because upon that depends the award of invalidity care allowance and possibly housing benefit. Many people have been subjected to a huge reduction in income. Will the Minister accept the buck for the failure of administration of this allowance in the past six months and will he assure the House that there will be effective monitoring and that this will never happen again?
    Mr. Scott: It is certainly my intention that it never should. Nobody who read with care the letter by the chief executive that was sent out on 19 October outlining the steps that he had taken through the deployment of extra staff, the working of overtime and the setting up of an additional claims unit to deal with these claims could believe that there is any proof whatever of complacency. There has been a clear determination to overcome a problem which, perhaps, might have been perceived. Once it was established we tackled it with enthusiasm.
    Mr. Wray: Does the Minister agree that the whole thing has been bungled? From February this year until April there were 116,000 DLA claims, 148,000 top-up claims and 183,000 other claims. It is now November and I am led to believe that there is still a backlog of 93,000 DLA claims, 57,000 top-claims and 92,000 other claims. It is obvious that the Minister is not dealing with the problem but is only creating misery for those who are in need.
    Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman, for whom I have considerable respect, usually goes over the top towards the end of his remarks. I have given the figures for where we are at the moment and have assured the House that from now on the agency is determined to meet the targets.
    Mr. Brazier: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on having the courage to set clear and easily measurable targets. Next week I am to meet a delegation from my constituency about the processing of these claims. May I ask the Minister to pass my thanks to those manning his telephone hot line? They have assisted me in processing 15 constituency cases in the past few weeks, and the problem involved in one of them was solved in a day.
    Mr. Scott: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I believe that his experience reflects that of many hon. Members, including many Labour Members, who have had similar experience of the helpful nature of the telephone service. Considerable advance has been made in enabling the benefits inquiry line to assist customers with the completion of their forms when they find that difficult. That has contributed to the success of the benefit.
    Mr. Raynsford: Is the Minister aware that page 9 of the recently published Benefits Agency annual report stated that the agency anticipated claims of these benefits at the rate of 63,000 a week? If that was the case, does not the Minister recognise that the number of claims that have so far been processed should have been processed within six
    12
    or seven weeks? Is not a delay of 26 weeks or more incompetence? Are the figures in the report false, and if not, what has gone wrong?
    Mr. Scott: Perhaps I can try to explain, although it is difficulty to convey this precisely at the Dispatch Box. Two things happened in the very early days of the benefit. First, there was an unexpected surge in claims for attendance allowance and mobility allowance. We did not want to detract from the right of people to claim those benefits right up to the time that they were replaced by disability living allowance. There was a considerable surge in advance claims in the weeks preceding the introduction of DLA, and of disability working allowance at the same time. That was the genisis of the problem that the Benefits Agency has been tackling and has now succeeded in conquering.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    Charter Marks
    Mr. Milburn: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will announce the number of organisations short listed for charter mark awards.
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many public service organisations have been awarded a charter mark; and if he will make a statement.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. William Waldegrave): Thirty-six charter marks were awarded. Winners were chosen from 296 applicants. They included schools, hospitals, police services, public utilities, Government agencies and local authority service departments.
    The awards announced last month were only the first. I am certain that the contest will go from strength to strength next year.
    Mr. Milburn: What conclusion does the Chancellor draw from the fact that, of the thousands of public bodies eligible to apply for a charter mark award, only 296 did so? Does he agree that the standards of public service and competence displayed by his Government in recent weeks should mean that the Government will never qualify to receive a charter mark award?
    Mr. Waldegrave: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, this was the first year of the award and earlier this year, as he will remember—perhaps without much pleasure—there was a general election, which took people's eyes off this contest. We have every reason to believe that there will be many more applicants next year. The winners, and those involved with the winners this year, all say that it is good for morale in their services, and they welcome the competition.
    Mr. Spring: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Anglian Water, a charter mark winner, on the improved levels of service, efficiency and investment that it and its consumers have enjoyed since privatisation?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating Anglian Water and I am also happy that my regional water company, Wessex Water, was a winner as well. When I visited the company recently, it was clear that the award had been widely welcomed by those

    13
    working in the company. The low levels of complaint that Anglian Water has received in the past year, together with its high standards and the way in which it has achieved its targets, is widely perceived in the region.
    Mr. Skinner: What happens if, after receiving a charter mark, a company goes bankrupt? Does it have to hand the award back? Does it bring it to the right hon. Gentleman? Is he aware that there is a danger, this year, that 10 or 15 per cent. of charter marks could be handed back to the Government from bankrupt firms? He will be swamped by them. What will he do when these firms tell him that they will have to throw 3,000 people out of work? Instead of playing about with charter marks, the Government should be ensuring that we have full employment. Instead of playing these kids' games, the Government should be getting people off the dole.
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Member has found a good hook for the speech that perhaps he wanted to make at some stage this afternoon. Charter marks are for the public service. Whatever accusation may be made by Labour Members about the water companies, they are not very likely to go bankrupt.

    Science and Technology
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he hopes to publish a White Paper on science and technology.
    Mr. Waldegrave: We hope to publish our White Paper on science and technology in the early part of next year. I am delighted to say that there has been an excellent response from the public to the White Paper consultation exercise, which ends on 30 November.
    Mr. Marshall: May I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and join him in welcoming the news that the White Paper will be published shortly, in 1993? May I have an assurance from my right hon. Friend that the White Paper will place substantial emphasis on the role of engineering?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. Many believe that if there is criticism to be made of the skills that have been invested over the years in this area, it is perhaps that we have not been strong enough in application. In comparison with some other countries, we do not, for example, give a high enough status to engineers. If we can find ways of rectifying that, we shall do so.
    Dr. Bray: Is the Minister aware that there are very few scientists who would expect him to go into a policy purdah for a year while he mulls over the questions of organisation? Is he aware that if he does not establish his own leadership and that of his office on science policy before the White Paper is published, he will have great difficulty in doing so afterwards?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I certainly do not intend to go into any sort of purdah. The new Select Committee, of which the hon. Gentleman is a distinguished member, had a good discussion on these matters, to which I hope I contributed something, only recently. We are deliberately flying several kites, some of which he and his colleagues have been examining. Before we set down policy in the White Paper, we must discuss widely the various options. I shall not
    14
    come down on any of the great issues before we come to final conclusions, partly because it would be discourteous to the Select Committee so to do.
    Mr. Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that account is taken in the White Paper of the pure and applied research that was previously carried out by the Ministry of Defence, which in future is unlikely to be undertaken by that Ministry?
    Mr. Waldegrave: It is set policy now—the policy was set some years ago—that the extent of defence-related research and development should decline somewhat over the next years. The figures overall on Government spending on R and D are good. Recent work undertaken by my Department shows that we are in the middle of the pack of comparable countries. As resources come to be released from defence-related expenditure there will be those—especially good young scientists—who will be taken up as they are needed by the civil defence effort.
    Mr. Cryer: Is not the assurance that the Minister gives about his concern for engineering negated by the fact that because of Government policy 70,000 people will be made redundant—largely in the engineering industry—as a result of the Government's disgraceful decision to sack 30,000 miners at 31 pits? Is it not true that many of the 70,000 will he from the engineering sector, and that this is a body-blow to the industry from which it will not recover, no matter how lengthy and how learned the White Paper on science and technology?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman knows well that the Government are reviewing the decisions to which he has referred. I do not believe that any of the countries that are gaining a world trading share in engineering products are increasing the size of their coal mining industries.
    Dr. Moonie: May I focus the attention of the Minister on a particular kite by asking him, when he is considering what to include in the White Paper, to accept the advice of the Royal Society that some changes must be made to the methods of paying international subscriptions, given that the Government's incompetence in the recent devaluation led to an increase of many millions of pounds in the cost of subscriptions which will have to be borne by domestic research?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I welcome the hon. Gentleman and the other members of the Opposition Front Bench team on their first outing.
    The argument put by the Royal Society and others is that the foreign exchange element of foreign subscriptions should be taken out of the research councils' budget and put in some central budget. We will consider that. However, there is a strong counter argument that if the research councils wish to conduct some part of their research abroad, the risk of exchange movements is one matter which they must take into account.
    On a party political point, it ill becomes the Opposition to criticise devaluation. If the hon. Gentleman looks back over the years, he will find that the Opposition's share of devaluations goes against his argument.

    Charters
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress is being made under (a) the patients charter and (b) other charters.
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): We have made considerable progress through legislation and through the publication of 26 follow-up charters. For example, in relation to the patients charter to which my hon. Friend referred, patients now have maximum waiting times for operations and individual out-patient appointments. From April 1993, we will reduce waiting times for hip and knee joint replacements and cataract operations to 18 months; publish reports on individual hospitals and ambulance services, and extend patients charter provisions to primary health care.
    Much more is being done. We will shortly be publishing a White Paper describing progress to date and plans for future development.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that 900,000 people have asked for copies of the patients charter shows the great interest in and support for it? Is he aware that my constituents want him to consider powers of redress for them where the patients and other charters are not fulfilled? What additional powers can be given to people to deal strongly with British Rail when trains are late or with the ambulance service when ambulances do not arrive?
    Mr. Jackson: One of the consequences of the citizens charter targets is that it is possible to establish more effective means of redress and access to compensation in certain circumstances, especially in the case of British Rail. The most important benefit of the charter approach and the institution of targets and standards of performance indicators is that it enables those concerned with delivering the services to identify more clearly the areas of failure and do something about them.
    Mr. Enright: To date, to what extent has the charter decreased the waiting time for those on disability living allowance?
    Mr. Jackson: I sat through the end of questions earlier when the matter was very fully exercised. I was struck by what my right hon. Friend said about the use of targets by the authorities administering that allowance to ensure improvements in the management of the service.
    Mr. Jenkin: On the patients charter and the objectives being set by the "The Health of the Nation" White Paper, is there consultation between my hon. Friend's Department and the Department of Health to ensure that we do not empower patients to rush around the country for unnecessary treatments such as tattoo removals and breast enlargement, to the detriment of those whose rights are being affected by the use of cash for such unnecessary treatments?
    Mr. Jackson: The relationship between the citizens charter unit in my Department and the front-line Department responsible for the service is that they are in the lead and we are supporting them, in ensuring consistency of treatment in charter principles across the whole range of public services. I shall certainly draw my right hon. Friend's attention to my hon. Friend's remarks.
    Ms. Mowlam: Does the Minister agreed that an important ingredient for local authorities and health authorities in delivering a quality service is not just charters but, as he implied earlier, the morale of staff? If so, will he tell the House now whether he agrees or disagrees with a freeze on public sector pay?
    Mr. Jackson: That matter will be dealt with in the context of the autumn statement. The hon. Lady must wait for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to make his statement.

    Disabled People
    Mr. Wareing: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to include in the citizens charter protection for disabled people against discrimination; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Robert Jackson: Public services should be available equally to everyone who uses them. The citizens charter calls on public sector organisations to take account of the needs of all their customers—including, where appropriate, those with disabilities—when they are setting service standards.
    Mr. Wareing: Nine years ago this very month, I introduced a Bill to outlaw discrimination against disabled people. Almost every Tory Member voted against it. At the time, I was assured that all that was required to overcome the difficulties of disabled people was education and persuasion.
    Can the Minister name a single disabled people's organisation that opposes the introduction of statutory legislation to prevent discrimination against disabled people? Does he realise that disabled people are still being treated as second-class citizens, especially in regard to employment? If the citizens charter is to mean anything, should it not include a protection against discrimination of this kind?
    Mr. Jackson: As I said in my answer, the charters include reference to people with disabilities where that is appropriate, and they are based on standards that the hon. Gentleman would support.
    We need no lectures from the hon. Gentleman about support for people with disabilities, which has featured largely in the Government's activity. Since 1978–79, expenditure on people with disabilities—support for the long-term sick and disabled—has risen by 173 per cent. in real terms.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: About a year ago, I particpated in a programme called "Positive Action" for the civil service. Can the Minister tell me what has happened as a result of that programme? Has the civil service changed any of its training methods? Is it employing more disabled people, or fewer?
    Mr. Jackson: The civil service has an extremely good record of support for people with disabilities. We employ twice as many disabled people, in proportion to our total work force, as the private sector. Our training, and the course in which my hon. Friend was involved, are part of our support. I have seen one of the Civil Service college courses in operation, and I know that those courses are very successful.
    Dr. Reid: How can the Minister expect us to believe that the citizens charter, and his Department, are acting positively to counter disability discrimination? This afternoon, we heard that the basic benefit paid in the form of disability living allowance has been withheld, in a discriminatory fashion, from many thousands of people with disabilities.
    This morning, carrying out a check, I discovered that, in the last 25 cases that I have taken up—three reminders were sent in respect of eight of them—24 have not even been acknowledged. Does the Minister accept that he would not wait six months for his salary? It is discriminating against people with disabilities to expect them to wait six, 12 or 18 months for their small amount of disability benefit.
    Mr. Jackson: I heard what my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People had to say about that, and I thought that he adopted the right approach according to charter principles—which is to set clear targets and to ensure that they are met.

    Open Government
    Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what meetings he has held with the Consumers Association to discuss the subject of open government.
    Mr. Robert Jackson: Along with Maurice Frankel, I addressed a meeting organised by the Consumers Association, on the subject of open government during last month's Conservative party conference in Brighton. It was constructive and very well attended.
    Mr. Evans: Will my hon. Friend confirm that his responsibilities for open government go hand in hand with the requirements of the citizens charter? The citizens charter has caught the imagination and the support of many people; so would any further progress towards open government.
    Mr. Jackson: I agree that the responsibilities of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for open government are an important aspect of
    18
    his overall responsibility. Early next year the Department will produce another White Paper on the subject, and the House will have an opportunity to consider it then.
    Mr. Winnick: Would it not be a positive sign of open government if Tory Members were allowed to vote on Wednesday's motion without any further arm-twisting or threats of deselection? Will the Minister recommend that to the Prime Minister?
    Mr. Jackson: It would be a great help to us all if the Labour party stayed on a consistent course on the European question.

    Pensioners' Rights
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the application of the citizens charter for the rights of pensioners.
    Mr. Waldegrave: As my hon. Friend has just told the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), public services should be available equally to everyone who uses them. The citizens charter calls on public sector organisations to take account of the needs of all their customers—including, where appropriate, pensioners—when setting service standards.
    Mrs. Jackson: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is a great omission not to include specific rights for pensioners in the citizens charter? I refer particularly to pensioners in residential care. In both private and public nursing homes they have great difficulty in maintaining such basic rights as their ability to correspond with the press, to make complaints, to use their own money, and so on. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be appropriate to include those rights within his citizens charter?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Pensioners, as is the case with every other citizen, should have their needs addressed in the specific charter that deals with their service. It would not be helpful to try to produce a megacharter that runs across all the services for pensioners. That is the point that my hon. Friend made, and I should like to reinforce it. There may well be strength in what the hon. Lady says when it comes to a particular charter.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Michael Meacher: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the huge exodus of refugees now taking place into a narrow corridor in central Bosnia and a war that is increasingly turning into the near genocide of the Muslim population, and in view of the fact that British Government policy for safe havens inside Bosnia is now totally discredited, I rise to ask whether you have received a request from Ministers to make a statement on this issue.
A dreadful and brutal civil war, in which we are irrevocably involved after our recognition of Bosnia as a sovereign state, is now reaching a terrible climax. Two million refugees have now been driven out by the odious and dreadful practice of ethnic cleansing. In view of the prospect that this army of the dispossessed will form a focus of unrest and violence for decades to come at the heart of Europe, may I ask you to use your good offices to secure a full ministerial statement at the earliest opportunity?
Madam Speaker: I have not been informed by the Government that any Minister is seeking to make a statement on this issue.
Mr. Bill Michie: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On the appropriate day I submitted a question to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster regarding the tenants charter. The following day it finished up, as we call it, in the frame. It was the third or fourth on the list. The day after that it suddenly disappeared. That is done at the whim of a Minister. He or she can decide whether the question should appear on the Order Paper. I finished up with a written question to the Secretary of State for the Environment, and yet —I do not grumble about this—on the Order Paper today the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) has a question relating to the patients charter. His question strayed into matters relating to British Rail. Again, there is no problem at all about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) asked a question about the disabled—again, there is no problem at all about that—and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) asked about the rights of pensioners.
There are two issues. First, why do Ministers have the power to take something off the Order Paper, thus depriving hon. Members of the opportunity to ask an oral question? Secondly, what is so different about the tenants charter? Does it have a lower status than other charters?
Madam Speaker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's frustrations. No doubt they have been heard by those who
20
sit on the Treasury Bench. However, I must draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention what is said by "Erskine May,' the bible of our parliamentary proceedings—on page 286, if my memory serves me correctly. It is a long-established principle that decisions about the transfer of questions —the point of order that is raised with me—rest with Ministers. It is not a matter on which the Chair seeks to intervene. Nevertheless, I draw the attention of Ministers to the frustrations of hon. Members who believe that they are doing the right thing in tabling questions.

BILLS PRESENTED;
  NATIONAL SCHOOL HEALTH SERVICE
  Mr. Terry Davis, supported by Mr. Robert Ainsworth, Mr. Frank Cook, Mr. Jim Cunningham, Mr. Derek Fatchett, Mr. Sam Galbraith, Mr. Doug Hoyle, Dr. Lewis Moonie, Mr. Jeff Rooker, Mr. Robert N. Wareing and Mr. Mike Watson, presented a Bill to provide for the establishment of a national school health service; to lay down guidelines for such a service; to provide for regular health reviews for children at school; to require the annual publication of health profiles of schoolchildren in an area; to provide parents or guardians with a record of their child's health; to ensure that every child of school age has access to a named qualified nurse; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 December and to be printed. [Bill 74].
  SEXUAL OFFENCES (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Harry Cohen, supported by Ms. Diane Abbott, Mr. Tony Benn, Mr. Malcolm Chisholm, Ms. Jean Corston, Mrs. Maria Fyfe, Ms. Mildred Gordon, Mr. Ken Livingstone, Mr. Eddie Loyden, Ms. Marjorie Mowlam, Ms. Dawn Primarolo and Ms. Joyce Quin, presented a Bill to amend the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976; to make further provision in respect of offences of rape and sexual assualt; to provide protection for women and children at risk of rape: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 December and to be printed. [Bill 75].
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
  That the draft Private Streets (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries (Repeals) (Northern Ireland) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
  Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Madam Speaker: Before I call the Secretary of State, may I inform the House that I have had to impose a 10-minute limit on speeches between 6 pm and 8 pm.
  3.35 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  We all willingly accept in this country the obligations laid on us by the 1951 Geneva convention. We have a long and honourable tradition in the United Kingdom of offering political asylum to those who flee to this country from their country where they face individual persecution because of their political opinions, religious beliefs or ethnic origins. The Government intend to uphold that fine tradition.
  We live in a multiracial and multicultural society—
  Mr. Tony Marlow: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I propose to give way in due course—I am sure that that is what the House would wish—but I should like to speak for two or three minutes without doing so.
  We live in a multiracial and multicultural society, which I accept and welcome. We must continue to accept for settlement in this country all those permitted by our immigration rules to take up residence here to be reunited with their families. We must continue to strive to improve race relations and to create full equality of opportunity for people living here of every racial and ethnic background.
  We want to be a country that is open to bona fide visitors—business men, tourists, students, relatives or whoever—from every part of the globe. We welcome visitors to our shores. Britain will never be a closed or cut-off society.
  Those are the civilised values on which I base my presentation of the Bill. I believe that it is necessary for the maintenance of those civilised values that we now strengthen our system of immigration control. If we are successfully to maintain our ability to receive everyone genuinely entitled to come, we must strengthen our system of controlling entry and excluding people not entitled to be here.
  Good race relations are heavily dependent on strict immigration control. Race relations in Britain are not perfect—they could be better—but they are better than they are almost anywhere else in western Europe or north America. One reason for that is that our host population feels comfortable with a system that restricts to manageable numbers the influx of people from overseas.
  Enormous potential movements of people could take place across the globe in the next decade from eastern Europe, Africa and Asia into western Europe Every person of good will and common sense knows that there is a strict limit on the number of people who can be allowed to migrate for settlement in this country.
  We do not always face up to the logical consequences of that when I, as Home Secretary, face campaigning in
  22
  some distressing case on behalf of someone who prefers to live here contrary to our immigration rules rather than to return to the country from which he or she came. Common sense has to tell us, sadly, that we cannot allow people to stay here simply because they would be financially better off than in the poverty-stricken country from which they came. Common sense should tell us that we cannot allow anyone to settle here simply because they come from a country in part of whose territorty there is civil war or political strife.
  Open entry to anyone who managed to get to our frontier or into our territory from a third-world, troubled country would lead to terrible pressures on our employment, on our housing, on our social services, on our health service and on our education service. If we are too generous, it is the population of our inner cities, our urban poor and our homeless who will be the main sufferers from misguided liberalism. If we do not control entry, we shall not be able to deal promptly with the claims of the genuinely persecuted and of the stricken families whom the British public most want to help.
  People who are not genuine refugees or who are not entitled to live here under our rules must be returned to whichever country they are from unless there are some exceptional or compelling humanitarian reasons to the contrary in the particular case, or unless there would be real physical danger to the individual in returning him or her to that country.
  Mr. Keith Vaz: When the Home Secretary's predecessor introduced the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Bill in 1987, he said that its introduction would result in a better customer service. What actually happened was that the number of applications increased and that the delays at Lunar house increased. Is the Home Secretary telling the House that the Bill will result in the housing, social services and education problems affecting inner-city areas improving?
  Mr. Clarke: The Bill will achieve a better system for making prompt and fair decisions when we receive applications to settle in this country. It will lead to giving quicker security to those who are entitled to seek refuge here or to settle here permanently. It will enable us to turn away more promptly and fairly those who are not entitled to be here. That in itself will ease the pressures on all our public services. It will mean that our public services will have to face the demands that come from those whom the British public want to be here as our contribution to those suffering in international troubles. That is not the case at present, and we need the system to provide a better service to would-be settlers and to the general public.
  Mr. Marlow: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend now that he is in a giving-way mood—
  Ms. Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman tried to intervene before the debate had started.
  Mr. Marlow: Yes, at the apposite time. My right hon. and learned Friend—[Interruption.] When hon. Members are ready, I shall continue. My right hon. and learned Friend said that we have always abided by the 1951 convention. The 1951 convention is now ensconsed within the legislation and it takes primacy over anything else in the legislation. Does it take primacy over anything else

  23
  that Parliament might do in the future? Has any convention such as this been written into legislation in the way that has been done this time?
  Mr. Clarke: It is certainly the first time that the 1951 convention has been put into legislation in this way. That is an innovation in the Bill. Off the cuff, I cannot recall such an international convention being written into legislation. I will check and I shall write to my hon. Friend if someone can find a precedent. There is no question—the one point on which all parties agree—but that the 1951 Geneva convention imposes obligations that we are happy to accept. One obligation is to receive those who genuinely fear being persecuted in the country from which they have arrived on the basis of their political beliefs, their religion, their ethnic origin or their family.
  Mr. Max Madden: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I will give way a little later. This is an important matter, and Madam Speaker has said that she is restricting speeches in a debate in which many want to speak.
  Our immigration system has already been subjected to enormous pressures as more and more people attempted to get around our policies and our controls at the ports. About five years ago, many people suddenly discovered that it was possible to get through our port controls simply by asserting a claim to political asylum. Even when people were already resident and had been required to leave, the ordinary controls could be avoided by making a claim to asylum at that stage.
  Many of those arriving here began to destroy their travel documents during travel because they mistakenly believed that creating confusion about their background supported their claim to refugee status.
  Ms. Short: How many?
  Mr. Clarke: About two thirds of those applying at the ports for asylum have destroyed their passports or their travel documents or have somehow disposed of them during the journey. The result was that genuine claimants for asylum found themselves in a system that was seeking to cope with a queue of bogus applicants. That problem lay behind the introduction of the Asylum Bill before the general election.
  Mr. Roy Hattersley: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that two thirds of applicants had destroyed their documents. Will he revise that answer and give the accurate account, which is that two thirds arrive here with inadequate travel documents? That is quite different from what he just said.
  Mr. Clarke: Two thirds arrive here, presumably having got on at the far end with passports or travel documents, having destroyed the documents, mutilated them or handed them on to someone else so that they no longer have them.
  Given that most right hon. and hon. Members are content with the obligations on us towards asylum seekers, it is important that we do not misdescribe the present situation. The Bill is designed to improve the method of dealing quickly with genuine applicants and turning away more promptly those who are not. Those who defend the
  24
  status quo must not be allowed to remain in ignorance of how the status quo is working. That background, in part, led to the introduction of the Asylum Bill last Session. The Bill that we are debating today modifies last Session's Bill in some respects and contains the addition of new changes to the general immigration appeals system.
  The rules setting out who can or cannot come must be applied firmly and fairly. That means that we must decide cases without delay. We cause great problems for genuine and deserving applicants if we keep them in uncertainty for long periods. If we let those who cannot stay put down roots here while unnecessarily complicated procedures run their course, their eventual refusal will be more traumatic and difficult than it needs to be.
  We must also decide cases on their merits. It is unfair to people in this country and those who wish to come here if inefficiencies in our systems—or the skilful exploitation of those inefficiencies—result in undeserving applicants managing to stay while others who play by the book are turned down.
  We must concentrate our resources on the questions that really matter. Therefore, we cannot run an entirely demand-led immigration system which allows every case to run on and on through labyrinthine procedures with scant regard for events in the real world.
  We must filter our caseload more effectively and say "No" more finally in the cases where there is no real scope for argument and "Yes" more quickly when "Yes" is the right answer.
  Mr. Madden: I draw the Secretary of State's attention to the plight of nationals of the former states of Yugoslavia. Four hundred such nationals were removed from this country between January and August of this year, including more than 40 who were seeking political asylum. There are now 900 such nationals seeking political asylum here, of whom a number have already had their applications decided. Will the Home Secretary give a categoric assurance that no one seeking political asylum here from a former Yugoslav state will be removed until and unless mass genocide has ceased in the former states of Yugoslavia?
  Mr. Clarke: We quite rightly receive large numbers of people from Yugoslavia. No one has been returned to a war zone and no one will be. My recollection is that, of the 30,000 or so who have come here already this year, we have returned about 40 who came from third countries. They had not come from Yugoslavia. We returned them to the countries in which they had previously been living.
  Mr. Madden: We have returned 429.
  Mr. Clarke: I will check that figure, but I believe that we have returned just over 40. We are returning people who have come here from other countries. To give a random example, if a Yugoslav has been living in Paris for some years, he is not entitled to come here and claim asylum from a war in which he has not been engaged. That is the kind of person we are returning. Such people are known as third-country returns.
  People coming here from Yugoslavia are being admitted as visitors. Many of them in increasing numbers are applying for asylum. Only a quarter of those seeking asylum come from Bosnia. Some people are seeking asylum and they come from parts of Yugoslavia where there is no violence and where there has been no violence.

  25
  However, the applications of all those asylum seekers are being examined and obviously at the moment there is no question of our returning from this country people who would he at risk.
  As the hon. Gentleman knows, a distinction must be made between everyone who has a passport from the former Yugoslavia—wherever they may come from—and those people fleeing from warfare, whom I am sure this country wants to help, and whom the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) so graphically described.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that everyone in Ealing shares the compassionate attitude that he has described to people who are suffering in their country of origin? Is he aware that one week ago 150 people from Bosnia were brought to Ealing and that, as the London borough's sharing scheme has broken down completely, no other borough was prepared to help Ealing to house them? It is not possible for Ealing to do it. Something has to be done.
  Mr. Clarke: Those matters are being anxiously studied and my hon. Friend has a valid point. There is a strong and compassionate feeling that we must help people who have been driven from their homes by warfare and when, for example, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has said that they must find refuge outside their former country. We wish to help those people. We must consider how to manage that help when they arrive. We are not sending anyone back to the war zones at the moment.
  The number of Yugoslav applications is increasing—a quarter are from Bosnia, large numbers from Croatia and Serbia, and a few from Slovenia and Macedonia. Authorities which contain airports, where refugees present themselves, find it difficult. A large number of Albanians from Kosovo arrived in one Essex authority a week ago. There is no fighting in Kosovo, but they are being looked after near Stansted.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Clarke: May I be allowed to resume, as there will be other opportunities to discuss Yugoslavia, which is a graphic and current illustration of how this country wants to respond to its humanitarian obligations? Our legal and humanitarian obligations must be directed at people who are properly the object of public concern.
  Returning to the question of asylum and immigration, it is important to establish systems which target our hospitality and our help on people who are entitled to be here.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Clarke: May I be allowed to press on?
  Mr. Michael Shersby rose—
  Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend has a constituency interest.
  Mr. Shersby: I share the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). How does my right hon. and learned Friend foresee that London boroughs such as Hillingdon, which has Heathrow within its boundaries, Ealing, which is next door, and others will accommodate refugees and pay for the cost of their accommodation? Does he accept and
  26
  understand that that places an enormous burden on the local authorities concerned? Is there to be a national scheme to pay for the costs of housing such people?
  Mr. Clarke: I hope that I and the Government will be able to respond to my hon. Friend shortly. At this stage I can only concede to my hon. Friends the Members for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) and for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) that they have mentioned a valid problem which the Government are examining urgently.
  If I may return to the Bill—
  Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way because it is important to continue the line pursued by my hon. Friends. In the City of Westminster there has been a tenfold increase in the number of asylum seekers wanting homeless person's accommodation in the past three years. My authority is no longer able to house those people, nor is it able to rehouse people living in the city who have a long-standing connection with it, so something has to be done.
  Mr. Clarke: I gave way to my hon. Friend because I know that there is a big problem in the City of Westminster. When I left the Home Office earlier today I saw people carrying placards which said, "Asylum For All". Most of our critics are defending a system which allows large numbers of people in, and has great consequences for public services in certain boroughs. The inhabitants of Westminster, Hillingdon and Ealing have no objection to this country upholding its obligations to allow people in for asylum, but people who regard claims for asylum as a way to open up the ending of ordinary immigration controls must accept that we cannot take on such obligations. That is why we need a system to identify genuine applicants for asylum and to consider how local authorities which are near an airport or in a capital city are to cope.
  Asylum is not just another immigration category. We all know from what we see and hear daily throughout the world what the scale of human misery is at the moment and therefore we know that asylum is not just an ordinary immigration category. That is why we have confirmed our obligations under the 1951 convention. However, we must recognise that the growth in asylum applications is in part linked to the fact that anyone who asks for asylum is allowed past the normal immigration controls at our ports. As migratory pressures have increased, the possibility of getting past the ordinary immigration controls becomes a prize that has drawn increasing numbers to seek asylum here and in other western countries. That swell of numbers is now surrounding the genuine seekers for asylum whom we are trying to help.
  The numbers seeking asylum in the European Community are enormous—half a million last year, and this year it is likely to be three quarters of a million. Obviously, the events in the former Yugoslavia have had a major impact—we have just talked about that—and I can assure hon. Members that nothing in the Bill affects our ability to make an effective response to the Bosnian and Yugoslavian problem. Even leaving Yugoslavia aside, however, the trend in applications has been steeply upward over recent years. At the same time, there has been a marked reduction in the proportion of refugees found to be genuine refugees under the criteria of the 1951 convention.

  27
  Ten years ago, more than half the decisions were to recognise asylum seekers as refugees. Last year just one in 10 claims could be upheld and this year the number has fallen even further. Nine out of 10 asylum seekers turn out eventually to have unfounded claims, but it has usually taken so long to decide that that six out of 10 are then allowed to stay permanently. The pattern has been similar elsewhere in Europe.
  We have not been narrowing our criteria in order to keep out genuine refugees. That is not the case—we continue to apply the 1951 convention definition. What has happened is that in an increasing number of cases applicants fail to meet the convention criteria. The applicants may well want to come to this country, but asylum is about refugees and other reasons for wishing to migrate must be addressed under the normal immigration rules.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman concede that the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 has made it extremely difficult for many people to get on a plane to seek asylum and that it has been a charter for all kinds of spivs to sell airline tickets at grossly inflated prices, because they know that, at the end of the day, they have to pay the fine? Does he agree that the 1987 Act has been a deterrent to people who are seeking legitimate asylum?
  Mr. Clarke: I do not accept that it has had any effect on people seeking legitimate asylum. That Act provides an important protection for us because it stops airline companies simply taking on to aircraft people who palpably have no documents for that journey. Given the weaknesses that I have just described in our present ability to deal with those people when they arrive at our airports or ports, I would not contemplate easing the provisions of the 1987 Act.
  One out of 10 asylum seekers are successful because they turn out to have a genuine, well-founded claim, but, in the end, far larger numbers are allowed to stay here and take up permanent residence because it has taken so long to determine their cases—that is at the nub of the Bill.
  Let me explain carefully this absolutely critical point. Although in recent years we have granted full asylum in only a relatively small number of cases, we have felt obliged, because of the delays, to grant exceptional leave to remain in others. The practice has been to grant such leave in cases where the applicants do not qualify for asylum but where it has been judged that, in all the circumstances—including the circumstances through the years while they have waited for a decision—it would be unreasonable or impracticable to seek to enforce their return to their country of origin. In recent years, as many as 60 per cent. of those who applied for asylum have had that application refused, but have then been granted exceptional leave to remain instead. That is not acceptable and it encourages people to make groundless claims because that will delay the process for so long—or the decisions will be delayed by the inadequacies of the system —to such an extent that they will not eventually be required to leave. I want to reduce that number significantly.
  The Bill is an important step in that direction because of the accelerated procedures that will enable us to turn
  28
  away, promptly, manifestly unfounded claims. As things currently stand, people are let in because no attempt or an inadequate attempt has been made to sieve them out at the port of entry. They are granted exceptional leave and are then entitled to work or claim benefit. In certain circumstances, local authorities are obliged to house them.
  I am taking an urgent look at our practice in such cases because the current demands on our public services, in not only Hillingdon, Westminster and Ealing but elsewhere, go far beyond those which arise as a direct result of granting refugee status in genuine cases. Many thousands of people who do not qualify for refugee status remain here for many months, and sometimes years, while their applications are considered. Many remain here permanently even after their applications have been refused.
  Ms. Short: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I shall give way, but I wish to finish the point.
  That is the status quo which opponents of the Bill seek to defend. If they thought the matter through, they would not accept that they should defend it.
  Ms. Short: I realise that the Home Secretary is new to his Department, but he has misled the House about what has been the practice of the Home Office for many years. The practice has never been to grant temporary stay to people who have no case for political asylum. There are two grades. The tiny minority are overwhelming cases and are given political asylum. Other cases are kept waiting for ages as a result of the inefficiency of his Department. Where peole have a case for political asylum but the circumstances in the country from which they come may change, they are given one year. That is the position. What the Home Secretary told the House is false. He pretends that those who are given a short time are given it because of delays in the system. That is simply wrong.
  Mr. Clarke: The hon. Lady has experience of the Home Office, but rather longer ago than mine. She has great experience of such cases. I hate to tell her that what she just said is not correct. Currently only one in 10 of those who apply for asylum—it is rather fewer this year—eventually are found to have well-founded claims. While the others wait, they are first given temporary leave to enter, and that temporary leave can be extended. Of those who have their applications refused, 60 per cent. are given exceptional leave to remain. The greatest part of the burden on Britain from asylum seekers is from people who have at no stage established a well-founded claim for refugee status under the Geneva convention.
  Mr. Tony Blair: The Home Secretary is wrong on this point. Both now and earlier today he claimed that the accelerated procedure applies only to bogus claims. Indeed, the accelerated procedure and the 48-hour rule on appeals will apply only to those cases where people make an application for asylum at the port of entry. It will not apply to those who wait longer to make an application.
  Mr. Clarke: That is not correct, although I had no opportunity to correct the hon. Gentleman this morning. In all those cases where the officer certifies that there is a manifestly unfounded claim, there will be 48 hours in which to challenge that decision.
  Mr. Blair: Perhaps I should take the Home Secretary through it. Presumably he has the Bill and the rules in front of him. Paragraph 5 of the asylum procedure rules, which the Home Secretary is presenting to the House, state clearly:
  "The time limit for giving notice of appeal shall be 2 days in a case where the appeal is made under section 7(1) of the Act"—
  that is at the time of entry—
  "and there has been personal service on the appellant of the notice of the decision."
  Apparently, the present practice is to serve notice personally on all those who make a claim of asylum at the time of entry. The rule does not apply only to bogus claims; it applies to all claims made at that time.
  Mr. Clarke: The first stage will be the initial decision by the official involved. Where an officer gives a refusal to admit at a port, two days will be given to appeal. In all other cases 10 days will be given to appeal. The only people who will be caught by the 48-hour rule will be those who go before the adjudicator and it is held that there is a manifestly unfounded claim. They will be returned to their country. That is the streamlined procedure. At present, any application for asylum or for full refugee status goes through the ordinary process. We are introducing a streamlined procedure which will enable us to turn away more promptly those who have manifestly unfounded cases. All other countries that receive asylum applicants must go through the same process.
  Mr. Blair: I do not mind that the Home Secretary has not read the Maastricht treaty, but it is a bit much that he has not read his Bill. Clearly the procedure applies to anyone who is personally served with a notice, not only to claims that are later found to be groundless. Anyone who is personally served has only 48 hours in which to appeal.
  The Home Secretary is referring to claims without foundation, which come under a different part of the Bill —schedule 2, paragraph 4. As he has constantly misrepresented the position, if he is to challenge it any further I would be obliged if he would show how he can make his case from the Bill and the rules.
  Mr. Clarke: The only people who can have the notice served on them personally are those in detention at the time—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes—at the port. I am glad that the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) concedes that he is wrong to say that all asylum applications are subject to that procedure. The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. We shall have to return to the matter, but the hon. Gentleman is wrong.
  Mr. Blair: It is exactly as I said: it applies at the time of entry at the port, but not all people who apply on entry make bogus claims. The Home Secretary's case is—as he said on the radio this morning—that the 48-hour rule applies only to false applications. However, it does not —it applies to all applications made at the time of entry, of which there have been 5,000 this year.
  Mr. Clarke: They are not all the applicants. There were 45,000 applications last year, and they are running at a lower rate this year. Those who are given a decision against them at the ports constitute a comparatively small number—5,000. They are not all the applicants. The only people subject to the 48-hour rule are those who have been given a notice at the port and are held in detention there or those whose application is turned down on the basis
  30
  that the claim is manifestly unfounded. They then have 48 hours in which to satisfy an adjudicator that there are some grounds for their admission.
  The hon. Member for Sedgefield makes a thoroughly bad argument in seeking to claim that every asylum application is subject to the 48-hour rule. I am grateful to him for giving me the opportunity to dispel the misapprehension.
  Mr. Blair: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Clarke: No, I shall not give way to pedantic nitpicking from someone who has misread the rules. We shall be able to sort out the matter during the course of the debate. A moment or two ago the hon. Gentleman accepted that the rule did not apply to every asylum application.
  Mr. Blair: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Clarke: No, I shall not give way. I shall return to the rate of applications and justification of the Bill, including the streamlined procedure.
  When my predecessor introduced the original Asylum Bill 12 months ago, the rate of applications was running at 10 times the level of that in 1988. Backlogs were spiralling out of control. The time taken to decide applications stretched into years. Since then, we have done all that we can to seek improvements through administrative changes without changing the law. We have recruited and trained additional staff and now have nearly 500 civil servants doing asylum work in the Home Office. New procedures enable us to undertake closer initial scrutiny of new applications. Those changes have clearly had beneficial effects. But the present system does not work properly even with those additional resources, and it will not until we legislate.
  Some commentators have suggested that the Bill is unnecessary because the trend in asylum applications is now downward. Numbers of new applications inevitably fluctuate, but we seem to be heading for well over 20,000 principal applications this year, although the rate is speeding up. That is half last year's total, but still five times higher than only four years ago. There were 2,500 applications in September alone—50 per cent. more than in August.
  There was a reduction in asylum applications following the introduction last November of new screening procedures to combat multiple applications and abuse. Again, there was a denial at that time that there were many bogus combat multiple applications and abuse. Again, there was a denial at that time that there were many bogus claims, but it must be significant that when the new procedures were introduced, in about 5,000 cases, postal applicants failed to respond to two separate invitations to attend interviews. Of course, all those applications have now been refused because the applicants did not turn up. I am not suggesting that all who did not attend interviews had necessarily made fraudulent applications. Doubtless, they had not all applied in several different names—there may be all manner of other possible explanations. But those sorts of numbers, coupled with the virtual halving of the rate of new applications since last November, suggest strongly that there were serious abuses of our procedures, and at last we are beginning to check them.
  The problem has not been solved. We have no reliable way of ensuring that multiple applications are still not

  31
  happening. There have been attempts to forge our security printed acknowledgement letters; and while decision times remain long as we await the Bill's completion, that acknowledgement letter will inevitably be seen by some as an attractive passport giving trouble-free access to the benefits system.
  We have made some impact through the increase in staff. We have cleared off 20,000 cases so far this year, more than four times the total for the whole of 1991. The backlog is falling for the first time in a decade, but, leaving aside refusals for failure to attend interviews or to provide information, we are still failing to keep pace with new applications. The backlog now stands at more than 60,000 cases awaiting decision and the need for reform remains as pressing as ever.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Clarke: We cannot continue with the complexity of the procedures that we operate. The courts have intervened—
  Mr. Maclennan rose—
  Mr. Clarke: As the hon. Gentleman usually votes consistently with his genuine opinions, not opportunistically like the Opposition, I shall give way to him.
  Mr. Maclennan: To put the British problem in perspective, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledge that in Germany applications for asylum are running at 60,000 a month? What does he propose to do in the Council of Ministers? Has he dropped the proposal, published by Mr. Edward Mortimer in the Financial Times and broadcast on Radio 4 last week, to deal with this matter in a clandestine way?
  Mr. Clarke: I accept that the pressures in Germany are much greater than our own, as are the difficulties. I do not, however, believe that we should wait for the problem to assume German dimensions here before we take action to get rid of the manifest inefficiencies in our system.
  As for the document given to the newspapers—it was described as leaked, but there was nothing frightfully sinister about it—it is certainly true that we have a working party of officials in the Community looking at ways of harmonising our approach to this important problem: how to have a streamlined procedure for dealing with manifestly unfounded claims. That will be on the agenda at the Council of immigration Ministers which I will chair in a few weeks' time. We are presiding over the preparations for that, but this is not a particularly British document. The same problem is being faced in every European country, and it plainly makes sense to deal with it.
  I do not think that Governments in other European countries are facing the sort of challenge that we face from the Opposition here—opposition to a quicker way of sifting out unfounded cases of those who come here seeking asylum from countries where there is no trouble, or without being able to give a reason, or giving reasons which are plainly untrue. We can give a better service to genuine applicants with arguable cases if we sift out the others. That is one of the benefits that the Bill and the rules that accompany it will provide.
  32
  We cannot continue with the complexity of the procedures that we operate. The courts have intervened on the ground of lack of appeal rights in many cases. Their decisions have added yet more increasingly ornate procedural requirements to our decision making. This Bill cuts through all that.
  The new appeal rights will be the key to procedural simplicity and decision-making finality. Strict time limits, together with a streamlined channel for clearly groundless cases, will prevent abuse. We have improved on the previous Bill. A key change is a different approach to this vital filter for groundless cases. The Government have responded to the doubts that were raised about the streamlined procedure when it was going through Parliament before. In particular, we responded to the doubts raised about the provision requiring applicants to obtain leave to appeal from an adjudicator, who would consider the case on the papers. We have now provided that all rejected asylum applicants will have access to an oral hearing before an independent adjudicator, but we have preserved our ability to move quickly in clearly unfounded cases.
  In future, if the Home Office certifies that an application is without foundation, an accelerated timetable will apply. If the adjudicator agrees that there is no foundation to the claim, there is no further avenue of appeal. We will be looking to resolve clearly groundless cases, such as safe third country arrivals from other European countries, in a week or 10 days. In other cases, we aim for an initial decision and appeal to an adjudicator where necessary within three months.
  The other important change from last Session's Bill—a new subject in the Bill—is the addition of restrictions on certain appeal rights in ordinary immigration cases. That is part of the process of concentrating on what really matters. It is inefficient and ineffective to push all cases into the same procedures.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I should like to explain the provisions before giving way. With a backlog of 23,000 undecided cases in the immigration appeal system—well over a year's work—it cannot be sensible to continue to treat all immigration decisions as if the issues that they raise are of the same importance. The remedies available need to be in proportion to the potential grievance. Some decisions are undoubtedly of central significance to people's lives and their futures. Such people are those abroad who want to settle in this country with a husband or wife and people here who may be liable to deportation.
  We recognise that a proper appeal opportunity is essential to confidence in the fairness of decisions of this sort, but big issues are not necessarily at stake in all immigration cases. We have identified two groups of cases in which the appeal rights currently available seem to add unnecessary complication and certainly divert resources from resolving more important cases in a reasonable time. Those are would-be visitors, short-term students and mandatory refusals—
  Mr. David Winnick: Will the Secretary of State give way on that point?
  Mr. Clarke: Perhaps I could be allowed to complete my brief description. After that I may give way once or twice, although I am becoming pressed for time.

  33
  For visitors and short-term students, I have decided that it is necessary to make changes in order to get a prompt and just system in place to deal with applications for settlement. Although the issue is important to the people involved, it is not important enough to justify the full panoply of judicial consideration and publicly funded representation by legal aid. [Interruption.] I do not know of any other country—
  Mr. Barry Porter: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My mathematics are not very good, but I have counted at least 12 sedentary interventions or observations by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short). Some of us come here to do our humble best to listen and learn and I think that it is time for some parliamentary wrist-slapping. The hon. Lady may have a chance to speak later, but I am a bit fed up, as I am sure are many other hon. Members.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Madam Speaker: Order. That is the most genuine and sensible point of order put to me since I became Speaker. I have made a list of all those who are intervening, sedentary or not, because I realise that we are short of time.
  Mr. Clarke: I trust that I may sail forward in unaccustomed calm.
  As I say, the issue in the case of visitors does not justify the full panoply of judicial consideration and publicly funded representation. The people concerned are outside the United Kingdom and would quite like to come here for up to six months. Of course, most of those who apply are able to satisfy the authorities that they are bona fide visitors. I accept that those who fail to do so may be greatly disappointed because they are not allowed to visit, but these are not matters of life or death. If I were to be turned down on a request to visit another country, I would no doubt be annoyed, but I would not expect full judicial procedures to be invoked in my appeal against that decision.
  I prefer to concentrate resources in this enormous queue of important cases awaiting consideration on quicker decisions in settlement cases where the future way of life of the applicant is at stake. In any event, in the case of many visits, in practice the appeal is often a pointless or academic exercise. What could possibly be achieved by an appeal months or years afterwards against, for example, the refusal of permission to visit the United Kingdom for a short holiday? It makes no sense to use expensive judicial procedures in this way. The net effect is just to add to the workload and the delays and to hamper efforts to deal fairly and quickly with genuine cases.
  Mr. Paul Boateng: The Secretary of State makes much of publicly funded advice and representation. Does he recognise that his proposals allowing the right of oral representation to the adjudicator do not include publicly funded advice and assistance or representation? Does he intend to speak to the Lord Chancellor to ensure that in life-and-death cases legal aid is extended to people who seek to exercise the right of oral representation before an adjudicator?
  Mr. Clarke: With the greatest respect, I regret that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman because he is taking me back to a part of the Bill from which I had already moved. I am dealing here with—
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Madam Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State has to respond to one intervention before he can take another one, if he wishes to do so.
  Mr. Clarke: We want streamlined procedures so that we can deal with manifestly unfounded cases. To start introducing the lawyers, the legalisms, the procedures, and legal aid even to those cases is a great mistake. Someone who can demonstrate to the adjudicator that he has an arguable case will no doubt go on to have legal representation. There are few countries where taxpayers pay for legal representation to allow people who have never previously set foot in that country to challenge the decisions of the authorities. There are circumstances where we are continuing to do so, but we cannot do so in all cases.
  Let me move on to the subject of mandatory refusals. The appeal in this case is a completely empty shell, useful only as a device for delaying departure from this country.
  Mr. Winnick: Will the Secretary of State give way on this point?
  Mr. Clarke: For some categories of case, the immigration rules are worded in a way that allows no legitimate doubt that a person refused under them does not or cannot qualify. For example, the rules are clear that six months is the maximum period that a visitor is allowed to stay. However, as things stand, we allow an appeal where refusal is certain and delay and cost occur while the appeal is being considered.
  Mr. Winnick: Will the Secretary of State give way on this point?
  Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman has been asking me to "give way on this point" every time I have moved to another point. I cannot believe that that is always the case.
  At the moment, if a visitor has been allowed to stay for six months, there is nothing to stop him applying to stay longer. After the inevitable refusal, which the rules say has to be made, that visitor is protected from deportation for as long as it takes for a useless appeal to grind its way through the system. We must deal with such problems.
  I do not intend to go in detail through the remaining provisions of the Bill. They are familiar to hon. Members from the Bill introduced last Session. Clause 3 deals with fingerprinting, clauses 4 and 5 with housing and clause 6 with curtailment of existing leave. Clause 8 creates a new avenue of appeal on a point of law to the Court of Appeal, and clause 11 deals with power to require visas for passengers ostensibly planning to transit the United Kingdom. Some drafting changes have been made to other parts of the Bill.
  I should also mention the draft asylum appeals (procedure) rules and immigration rules on asylum, which the Lord Chancellor and I have made available to assist in consideration of the Bill. Earlier versions of these drafts attracted some controversy last Session and I shall say a few words about them.
  The appeals procedure rules have been modified to take account of the removal of the "leave to appeal" procedure,

  35
  as I said earlier. In cases certified as being without foundation, the time scale will remain essentially the same as under the former leave procedure but with an oral hearing rather than consideration of the papers. There has been particular criticism of the two-day time limit for giving notice of appeal in port cases where the notice of refusal is served in person. We need to preserve our ability to move quickly in unfounded port cases, particularly arrival from safe third countries where there is plainly no basis for a claim. To allow longer than two days in all of such cases would only encourage further abuse of the procedures. There are appropriate safeguards: the draft rules include provisions for an adjudicator to extend the two-day time limit if it is necessary in the interests of justice or to allow the applicant to vary the grounds of appeal initially stated in his notice. I believe that that sets a proper balance between protecting the interests of the individual and ensuring that the system can work quickly and efficiently where necessary.
  The draft immigration rules set out our obligations to asylum seekers and also their responsibilities to co-operate in the process of deciding their claims. We have been criticised for the allegedly negative tone of these rules, but, faced with misuse of the system on the scale that we have experienced, I make no apology for spelling out how we believe that things should work. Paragraph 7 in particular sets out a number of matters that will he taken into account in assessing an applicant's credibility.
  We do not expect an applicant to lie to us, to wait until the last possible moment before making his claim, or deliberately to dispose of his passport or other documents. The fact that an applicant has done any of these things will not automatically lead to his refusal. We recognise that genuine refugees may be shocked by their experiences and may be forced to use irregular and difficult means to escape from their own countries. The draft rules make clear that, wherever a reasonable explanation is provided for behaviour of this sort, it will not go against the applicant. We must, however, take account of those cases where applicants have plainly been lying, behaving irregularly or deliberately destroying their own documents.
  Taken together, the Bill and the draft rules are designed to place our systems for dealing with asylum applications on a much more secure footing. Our aim is to give a fair deal to asylum applicants, to others wishing to come to this country, and to the British people. I reaffirm again the Government's commitment to the 1951 convention and to the protection of genuine refugees.
  I also urge on the House the need for proper scrutiny of all the applications we receive. It defies common sense to suggest that everyone who claims to be a refugee is a refugee, or that everyone who claims to fear persecution anywhere in the world can come and live in this already crowded country. There is no incompatibility between our objectives of recognising genuine cases and curbing misuse of our system. The Bill will cut down delays, which will not only benefit the genuine cases but deal more effectively with those who would exploit our rules. It is a thoroughly good measure, much overdue, and I commend it to the House.
  4.25 pm
  Mr. Tony Blair: The new Bill replaces the measure which fell because of the general election. It contains one concession of significance that we welcome —full oral right of appeal for all asylum seekers—but in our judgment it remains profoundly flawed. Without any justification it removes the right of appeal under immigration law from two categories—visitors and certain categories of student. The Secretary of State's speech in justification will have done nothing to allay the deep offence that the Bill has caused in many parts of our communities, which see it, rightly, as arbitrary, insensitive and unfair.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman has claimed—he repeated the claim today—that good race relations are important. By implication, therefore, he acknowledges that measures such as the Bill can affect those relations. However, good race relations cannot be other than harmed when we pass legislation which in the main will adversely affect one part of our community only, and which is irrational and explicable in no terms other than it is meant predominantly to affect it adversely. That is what many, especially in Asian and Afro-Caribbean countries, feel and think. Over the coming weeks, when the Bill will be discussed in Committee, I hope that they as well as us will bring home to Conservative Members the strength of their feelings.
  Throughout his speech the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the issue is how we weed out bogus applications. In other words, he did not present the Bill as if it were ostensibly or overtly about eligibility and criteria for eligibility for entry into this country. I see that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is nodding. It is accepted that the issue between us concerns the due process of law—in other words, it is about fairness and whether our procedures conform to the rules of natural justice. I see that the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirms that. Let us test that proposition according to the Bill and its contents.
  No one on the Opposition Benches condones bogus applications for asylum: everyone condemns them. However, weeding out false claims should not be at the expense of prejudicing genuine claims, and that is our fear about the Bill.
  No one disputes the magnitude of the refugee problem. It is something that we must all accept and face. However, the decision on who can be given asylum and who cannot should be the outcome of a proper evaluation of each case according to rules that are clear and fair and not an accident of procedures that are at best faulty and at worst entirely arbitrary, and that would be the position under the Bill.
  Mr. Eric Pickles: If the hon. Gentleman says that everyone must face the refugee problem—the number of asylum seekers has doubled in Europe over the past year—how would he go about the process of dealing with the problem and how would he face it?
  Mr. Blair: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to his right hon. and learned Friend, he would have heard him acknowledge, albeit tacitly, that the issue between us is whether the proposed procedures are fair. The number of

  37
  asylum applications has halved this year compared with last year, but the Secretary of State has conceded that the issue is whether the procedures are fair.
  It is not only the Opposition who are claiming that the procedures are unfair, a whole range of organisations are doing so—for example, the Law Society, many senior lawyers operating in the immigration area, the Joint Council for the Welfare of immigrants, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and Amnesty International. The very breadth of opposition to elements of the proposals should give any sensible Government pause for thought if their motives are genuine.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: The hon. Gentleman said that the problem is receding because the numbers are reducing, but earlier he said that we had to face the problem of a vast increase in asylum seekers on the continent. To which of those two statements will the hon. Gentleman pin his colours and what will he do about it?
  Mr. Blair: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me twice in my short speech. I did not say that there had been a vast increase in the number of asylum seekers and nor did I say that we should ignore the problem because it has receded. I merely pointed out that there are half the number of asylum seekers this year as last year. Of course, it is a major problem and we must deal with it, but the Secretary of State has conceded that we must deal with it fairly. The issue is whether the procedures are fair.
  The concerns about the procedures not being fair fall into three categories—the determination of whether someone qualifies for leave to remain, the appeals procedures and the treatment of asylum seekers. It is not each of those concerns in itself but the cumulative effect of all three that will greatly inhibit the fair treatment of refugees. For example, the new power under clause 6 provides that where someone—perhaps a student—has leave to enter this country and subsequently applies for asylum but is refused, his leave can be curtailed immediately by the Secretary of State and he can be removed. There is no appeal against the curtailment.
  Such an application may be genuine. A Yugoslav student who subsequently claimed asylum may not fit the precise terms of the United Nations convention definition of a refugee, but he will have paid for his course, he will be in this country and he will want to finish that course in due time. The former immigration Minister, Sir Timothy Raison, tabled an amendment when the previous Bill was debated last year that would have allowed students on recognised courses to stay even after an application for asylum had been made and refused. I hope that the Under-Secretary will deal with that specific point when he replies. The concern is that the existence of the power to curtail leave may inhibit people from making genuine asylum claims. If they think that curtailment of their leave will follow their applications for asylum, they will not make those applications. That is unfair to them.
  A second related point is about group determination, which is one of the Bill's innovations. The Secretary of State has been given the power to determine applications for asylum on the basis of groups rather than individually. My understanding is that the United Nations convention makes it absolutely clear that individual cases should be considered individually, not as part of a group. However, it appears that paragraph 10 of the new rules will allow
  38
  precisely that. I hope that the Under-Secretary will explain how that will work and how it is consistent with our obligations. Even more so, we need an explanation of the list of the new matters that will affect the credibility of an applicant. They are set out in paragraph 7.
  The Secretary of State spoke a little about those matters and told us about people who destroy documents for various reasons. That is not necessarily evidence of fraud. There may be good reasons why that has happened and he should accept that. He should listen to what has been said by Amnesty International—that it is not that each of the matters, in isolation, is wholly unreasonable, but the impact of all of them taken together.
  Amnesty International states:
  "we consider the draft Immigration Rules to be broadly inconsistent with internationally-recognised standards for the examination and determination of asylum applications, such as those set out in the UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status. Whereas these standards require asylum applications to be examined and determined 'in a spirit of justice and understanding', the draft Rules give the impression of having been devised to facilitate the refusal of applications."
  Surely, if we accept that the issue between us is whether the procedures are fair, we should at least listen to the body that has perhaps done as much as any other to bring the plight of refugees to the notice of the world.
  As ever—and it is particularly true of rules such as these—the issue relates not simply to the strict letter of the rules, but to how, in the real world, they are likely to be applied by the officials at the time when the decision is made. That is what makes the issue of appeal so critical: it is the practical application of the rules on procedures for appeals that causes such dismay.
  As I have said, we welcome the change from the text of the original Bill and the provision of a proper oral hearing, in country, for all appellants. However, the harsh rules governing the conduct of appeals remain—rules that were in the original Bill, and have been criticised by virtually everyone who has commented on them.
  The Secretary of State opened his case today by saying that the sole purpose of the accelerated appeals procedure was to deal with manifestly bogus claims. He has made that case throughout, claiming that the procedure merely operates as a filter for bogus claims. In fact, it will apply to many more claims than those that are manifestly bogus. Two time limits for appeal are set out in the Secretary of State's own draft rules of procedure. The applicant will have 10 days in which to lodge an appeal; but, when the papers refusing leave are served personally on an applicant who has applied at the time of entry at a port, that applicant will have only two days.
  In some cases, the applicant will have been in the country for a matter of hours before his application is refused. The proposed time scale is onerous and wholly unacceptable. The applicant will have 48 hours in which to obtain the service of a lawyer or the Refugee Legal Centre—which, incidentally, has admitted that it cannot handle all the claims of asylum seekers, so applicants may have to go to private law firms. Anyone with experience of dealing with such firms will realise that 48 hours is a fairly short time in this context. In that time, the applicant must lodge an appeal that must take the prescribed form.
  No doubt some applicants will be able to cope with the time limit, but others—many others, I suspect—are bound to become wholly arbitrary casualties of the procedure. It should also be remembered that when there is a safe third

  39
  country to which the applicant can be returned—or, at least, a country so designated by the Secretary of State—The Secretary of State can refuse an application without looking into the merits of the claim. The 48-hour rule will apply in that case as well. Within that time, the applicant will have to put his appeal in order.
  According to paragraph 5(2) of the document relating to appeals to special adjudicators—I will give way to the Secretary of State if he wishes to correct me—the 48-hour rule applies
  "where the appeal is made under section 7(1) of the 1992 Act"—
  that is when people enter the country and make an asylum application immediately—
  "and there has been personal service on the appellant of the notice of the decision."
  I have not suggested that the rule applies to everyone. It applies to all who are personally served and who make application at the time of entry.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is getting closer. He now accepts that the notice will be served on those who are certified, having given their explanation, as having groundless claims. It will not be served on every applicant. Applicants will have 48 hours in which to challenge the decision that their claims are groundless.
  I assume that the hon. Gentleman does not challenge the third-country rule. Let us suppose that someone arrives at Heathrow, saying that he is a Chilean who fears persecution in Chile. He has arrived from Germany, where he has been living for some time. That is a manifestly groundless claim. We are entitled, under the convention, to say, "You are at no risk in Germany; you haven't come here as a refugee and you must go back to Germany." There is no real argument about it. In such a case, 48 hours is not too short a time. If we were to allow all those people to settle down here and to go through the full process, we should wind up with the present position that the hon. Gentleman defends where six out of 10 cases turn out to have no well-founded claim but who, because they have been here so long, have to be given, in effect, indefinite leave to remain here.
  Mr. Blair: That is absolutely wrong. The Secretary of State does not understand how this applies. It is nonsense to suggest that everyone who is given exceptional leave to remain is granted that leave simply because of delays in the procedure. The Secretary of State has made a very important point. Let us take it stage by stage. It is vital to do so, otherwise thousands of people will have their rights taken away when the Bill is being presented to Parliament on one basis but when the Government are legislating on a different basis. The claims that the Secretary of State certifies are groundless are subject to a different procedure.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd)indicated assent.
  Mr. Blair: I see that the Minister is nodding. That is set out in paragraph 4 of schedule 2. That, however, does not affect the 48-hour rule. [Interruption.] If the Secretary of State will listen just for a moment, I shall take him through it. I assume that he is not saying that everybody who applies at the time of entry at the port is a bogus applicant.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: No, of course not.
  Mr. Blair: But the 48-hour rule applies to anyone who is personally served with the notice at the time of entry. It does not apply just to those in detention.
  Mr. Clarke rose—
  Mr. Blair: I know exactly what the Secretary of State is going to say—that that simply applies to those in detention.
  Mr. Clarke: Yes.
  Mr. Blair: Then let me deal with that point. We are now beginning to tease out of the Secretary of State the misunderstanding that Ministers have. First, not everybody who is in detention is a bogus applicant. That is absurd. There are people who have been in detention whose claims were accepted. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State says that he is saying that, but his claim to us was that this was intended to deal with bogus applicants. Now he admits that those in detention may not be bogus applicants.
  There is a second point. It does not apply just to those in detention. Let me put this point to the Secretary of State; then I shall give way to him, if he is prepared to deny it. My understanding, having talked to those who represent people in these cases, is that those who enter at the ports and immediately claim asylum are also usually served personally—not merely those who are detained but those who enter at a port and claim asylum.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd indicated dissent.
  Mr. Blair: The Minister denies that, does he'? Then let me read, since Ministers are challenging this interpretation, from the press notice that was pushed out by the Department's press office at the time that the Bill was published. If the Secretary of State has got his press notice, he may like to get it out and have a look at it so that we can both follow the same text. It is headed
  "Normal Procedure (Claim Not Certified As Groundless)".
  I take that to be dealing with the category of claim that is not groundless. The press notice then says:
  "Appeal to adjudicator (When a refusal notice served in person at ports)—two days)."
  We should at least be clear about the basis on which we are legislating.
  Mr. Clarke rose—
  Mr. Blair: I shall give way again to the Secretary of State, if he wants to explain this.
  Mr. Clarke: I have said that we shall serve these notices on people who are detained on manifestly unfounded cases. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] If the hon. Gentleman is trying to persuade himself that this will normally be the case in all port applications, I have to tell him that he is talking total and utter nonsense. I advise him to address himself to the real question. Anybody who turns up at a port and says that he has come from Bosnia, is a Croat nationalist and fought in the Croat army will be admitted. The claim will then be properly looked at. The hon. Gentleman has no answer to the case that I just gave of the Chilean who says that he has come from Germany, whose claim is manifestly unfounded. He would allow more time in those cases; he would admit more of those cases; he would allow them through. Frankly, he is letting himself

  41
  down by trying to misrepresent the effects of the rules and to undermine the whole point of the Bill, which is to have an accelerated procedure. The hon. Gentleman is ingeniously, and with many mistakes, trying to argue a case that would prevent us from being able to sift out a very large number of manifestly unfounded cases.
  Mr. Blair: All that I am trying to do is to understand the basis on which we are legislating. I think that we are entitled to know what the legislation is that we are discussing. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State says that he has just told us. What he told us is that only he will be using this procedure in this way. I hope that the Secretary of State does not take this disrespectfully, but the Government's word as to how they will implement certain policies is not the very best guarantee that we can have that everything will operate in a just way. The Secretary of State's own press notice says that two days will be it, but the press notice is wrong now; it has gone out of the window. I make this challenge, therefore, to the Secretary of State, for it is surely right that we ought to legislate on the basis of the true position. Will he bring forward a provision, either now or in Committee, that means that the accelerated procedure applies only to cases that are manifestly groundless, not to cases where people are served at the ports? Are we to have that, or not?
  Mr. Clarke rose—
  Mr. Blair: Are we to get that undertaking?
  Mr. Clarke: I have dealt with those cases where they will be served with a notice. In Committee we shall have a sensible discussion that will illustrate to the hon. Gentleman that his claim—that this will apply to all applications, including those who have well-founded grounds for entry, on the basis of the application—is total nonsense. He really ought to deal with the substance of the Bill rather than seek to obfuscate the issue in this way. The hon. Gentleman and I are similarly qualified and it is unusual for the hon. Gentleman to make a barrack room lawyer's point.
  Mr. Blair: This year, 5,000 people applied at the port of entry. I do not think that it is a barrack room lawyer's point to be clear about the rights for which we are legislating. The Secretary of State's casual disregard for his own legislation just will not do. If he would sit back and analyse the provisions for a minute, he would see that the worst point about them is that the 48-hour rule applies to in-port applications—in other words, when they are made at the time of entry—but that they do not apply to the very exceptional leave cases, to which the Secretary of State referred, when people come in on one basis and then make application for asylum.
  Mr. Clarke: Ten days.
  Mr. Blair: Exactly; the 10-day rule applies to them. I am glad that the Secretary of State has read that part of the Bill.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I remind the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) that we cannot have a semi-public, semi-private exchange. Either one intervenes properly, or seeks to do so, or one remains quiet.
  Mr. Blair: The discussion has taken on the air of a seminar, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I think that it is justified.
  The very people who openly admit that they are seeking asylum when they come here will be subject to the 48-hour rule, whereas those who do not do so but who enter the country in the first place on another basis—which may be for pefectly genuine reasons—and then apply for asylum have 10 days. I cannot imagine anything more absurd. Those who come in on the one basis get the fast track procedure, while those who come in on another basis—and therefore have more time—get the other track procedure.
  When it comes to an adjudicator hearing an appeal—this is what I think the Secretary of State meant—there is a special procedure for cases where the Secretary of State has certified that the reasons are groundless, not in relation to the lodging of the notice of appeal, to which the 48-hour rule applies, but to the time within which the adjudicator hears the appeal. Normally that should be 42 days, but in circumstances where the Secretary of State deems the application to be groundless, the 42 days are truncated to five days. Again that is a very short period.
  This definition of what constitutes a groundless claim is not merely what most lawyers would think when one uses the word "groundless" or the words "without foundation" —in other words, a frivolous or vexatious claim; it refers also to claims
  "which do not raise any issue as to the United Kingdom's obligations under the UN convention."
  The second grouping may cover a wide range of cases. It is essential that we realise that the UN convention defines a refugee in strict terms: effectively, those who are likely personally to suffer persecution if returned. The obligation not to return a refugee under article 33 of the convention is limited to where individual persecution is threatened because of race, religion, nationality or politics.
  Many people flee the troubled parts of this world not because they face persecution individually but because it would be unsafe to return them due to war, civil unrest or disorder. The threat to life or freedom is as real, but the cause may not be directed against them personally. In such cases, the Secretary of State will often exercise his discretion to give exceptional leave to remain. Will such cases, which are not frivolous or vexatious but which may fail to fit within the strict definition of the UN convention, be certified by him as groundless? I think that they will be.
  That seems wholly wrong. Someone who enters at a port has two days within which to apply and five days within which to gather and present the evidence necessary for the application to succeed, including medical evidence, making a total of seven days. That cannot be said to be a reasonable application of the rules of natural justice.
  The Secretary of State accepted that the issue is whether those rules are fair. I challenge any reasonably minded person to say that, when an applicant may have arrived in a state of desperation, shock or extreme distress, seven days is a truly fair time limit. It is not sensible, even according to the Government's terms. As the noble Lord Ackner said in another place, a host of applications for judicial review will be made because the procedures are so manifestly unfair.
  I ask the Minister to deal specifically with the concern that has been expressed about fingerprinting. One of those concerns in that information will be given out without the consent of the applicant for asylum. Quite apart from the

  43
  issue of fingerprinting as a matter of principle, that is of deep concern, and there must be specific provision in the Bill preventing information from being given out.
  Under the Bill, if any accommodation is available, even of a temporary nature, the housing authority has no duty whatever. Many bodies—charities, churches and so on —will provide temporary accommodation until a proper application can be made. They may be prevented from offering that if it will prejudice a proper claim by the applicant. The point that is being made is that the Bill may not deal with the problem.
  Many of my hon. Friends will deal with carriers' liability so I shall allow them to do so, but many people find it objectionable that no distinction is drawn between bogus and genuine claims. The liability remains regardless of whether the claim is bogus or genuine.
  If the asylum proposals remain unjustified, the removal of the right of appeal to visitors and students refused entry to the United Kingdom appears to be the result of caprice, pure and simple, or something worse. No justification has been advanced for it, other than this, which we heard again from the Secretary of State: the system is overloaded. It is a novel, bizarre and misguided principle of the legal system that if the exercise of legal rights is causing administrative inconvenience, the solution is to remove the right. No doubt that might satisfy bureaucrats and Government administrators in many areas, but it can hardly be a justification for removing rights.
  The facts cannot be gainsaid. In the past three years, more than 1,000 such appeals have been successful. If no right of appeal had existed, none of those people would have been free to enter. As a matter of inexorable logic, since those appeals were successful, they would have been excluded unfairly. We are therefore openly committing ourselves to injustice involving several thousand people over the next few years alone, the vast majority of whom will be relatives of people in Britain who deeply resent such treatment of their relations.
  Mr. Winnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that when I used to represent such cases on a full-time basis before returning to the House, I often found that sponsors in this country—parents, mainly from the ethnic minorities—were heartbroken when their daughters, sons or granddaughters were refused permission for a brief visit to Britain? In most cases, the decision of the entry clearance officer was wrong in law. Immigration officers abroad may now be far more careless because they know that their decision cannot be challenged.
  Mr. Blair: I was about to make exactly the same point. My hon. Friend is right. When a right of appeal is removed, what is removed is a valuable and necessary constraint on those who exercise original jurisdiction. That is true not merely of immigration officers but of anybody. The immigration officer who knows that his decision may be subject to appeal is likely to be a good deal more circumspect, careful and even-handed than the officer who knows that his power of decision is absolute. That is simply, I fear, a matter of human nature, quite apart from anything else.
  Ms. Short: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the past six months, decisions at Delhi have become worse and worse and more unfair. A refusal for a family member is
  44
  a life sentence. The Home Secretary should understand that once a family member has been refused, he or she will never be given permission to visit. A granny or auntie who has been refused entry will never be able to visit small children who are born here. It is a very serious matter.
  Mr. Blair: My hon. Friends are anticipating the points that I am about to make.
  The extraordinary comment that the Secretary of State made, in his usual somewhat cavalier fashion, was, "What is the point of a right of appeal? After all, it is only exercised months after the reason for the visit—a wedding or a funeral—has passed". Not everyone applies to enter for those reasons, but that is to ignore the real impact of a refusal. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman can confirm that a refusal is marked on the passport. The person then has what is called "a bad immigration history". When it was boiled down, the Secretary of State's defence was, "It may be wrong and unfair, but what does it matter? It has no practical consequence attached to it." That is wrong and ignorant, because it has such a consequence.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is paraphrasing me to make my argument seem more extreme. I acknowledged that it was deeply disappointing if people were turned down, but they applied not for settlement here but to make a visit lasting less than six months. To be turned down for a short visit is a disappointment, but against the background of the huge arrears in more important cases, we cannot justify 11,000 such cases a year being given the full judicial treatment. That is not cavalier. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should try to elevate this to a great principle by giving broad-brush parodies of the way in which I put the case.
  Mr. Blair: With all due respect, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just confirmed the case that I am making against him. He says that it is not a matter of life and death. How would he feel if a relative of his who was living abroad were refused entry to attend a wedding, a funeral or just to visit? We all have constituents in that situation. To say that it is not a matter of any huge significance is nonsense: it is a matter of enormous significance.
  The Home Secretary talked about the backlog of appeals. The Select Committee on Home Affairs expressly said that that should not be used to deny people their rights.
  The change of law is not even sensible in its own terms. Two things are bound to happen. First, Members of Parliament will be far more involved in the representations. Secondly, there will be a vast increase in the number of applications for judicial review, which is a longer, more complex and more costly process.
  People may be separated for ever from their relatives. They will not be able to return to the United Kingdom if they have a refusal on their passports. They may find that they have difficulty in gaining entry to other European countries, so there will be applications for judicial review. Even on the Home Secretary's terms, which are inadequate, we are likely not to save money by that means but merely to transfer the cost burden from the Home Office to the Lord Chancellor's Department. The proposal

  45
  is, therefore, unfair and arbitrary, and is likely to be administratively incompetent. That is the true character of the Bill.
  The Bill is presented in lurid terms as cracking down on bogus asylum and immigration claims. In reality, it is not the fraudulent, but the genuine who will suffer. People fleeing from the war-torn areas of Yugoslavia with nowhere else to go will suffer, as will Tamils and Kurdish refugees who are in fear of their lives and who are seeking protection. Refugees from Africa with whose plight we are happy to sympathise in general terms will, under the legislation, in particular cases be passed by on the other side.
  The Bill is deceptive in its presentation, arbitrary in its justice, and shabby and mean in its implementation. It should not be given a Second Reading and we will oppose it.
  5.1 pm
  Mr. John Ward: I welcome the Bill because it is necessary if we are to improve the position for those seeking entry at our airports and ports. The Bill is also necessary to help the officials who operate our immigration controls. They now find, as we have heard this afternoon, that the system is overloaded and that the problem shows every sign of getting worse. Many people use a claim for asylum as a means of evading immigration controls.
  Ease of travel, combined with economic and political upheavals in many areas, means that, if we do not act, the support services for those in difficulties in the United Kingdom will be overwhelmed. In fairness to our resident population who over the years have paid their taxes to provide the services, we must ensure that those who seek asylum here are genuinely in need of it and are not people who simply find this country a more attractive place in which to live.
  We are often reminded of how crowded our country is. An unrestricted influx of additional people would not only overload our social system but cause resentment among the population, with results that, tragically, we have seen elsewhere, especially in western Europe.
  This country has had a good record over the centuries of providing sanctuary for those in danger of political or physical persecution, and that must continue. However, we cannot ignore events, nor can we ignore the ease with which many people are now able to move round the world. We are entitled to ask whether people are genuine refugees or whether they are seeking to move to areas that will give them a standard of living better than that in their own countries.
  I do not blame people for wishing to improve their standard of living or for taking advantage of shortcomings in our law to move to what they see as a more attractive area. Indeed, the courage and enterprise of some of the would-be immigrants, who are prepared to move away from familiar surroundings, to leave behind their own culture, to move to a new land and to learn a new way of life and language, are to be admired.
  We are entitled, however, to maintain the way of life which people already living in this country want and to provide the social and welfare services for which they have paid and which they expect to receive. We should be failing in our duty if we allowed an overload of new people to destroy that way of life.
  46
  We have been reminded by the Home Secretary of the scale of the problem, with asylum applications increasing more than tenfold in three years. In spite of increased staff and improved screening at the point of entry, which was introduced in 1991, there is still a backlog of 64,000 cases. At the same time, the proportion of genuine applications for entry has decreased steadily. Last year, only one in 10 of the applications was found to be genuine.
  If we are to be fair and compassionate to genuine applicants, we must speed up the application and appeals procedure while retaining adequate safeguards for genuine applicants. Under the Bill, the improved procedures will include measures to deal swiftly with people who clearly have no hope of gaining permission to settle in this country. Too often, such applicants have been allowed in temporarily and have promptly disappeared.
  There are two major loopholes in the present regulations which the Bill will go some way towards addressing. The majority of applicants arriving in the United Kingdom are found to have either forged documents or no documents. Fingerprinting will establish clearly the identity of those people. There is already a requirement for airlines and other carriers to check that passengers have entry documents, yet many arrivals claiming asylum have either damaged or no documents when they arrive in the United Kingdom. Surely that should be a ground for immediate refusal of entry to this country. In any event, people should not just be allowed to disappear into the community; they should be kept in secure accommodation until their cases are decided.
  The second and largest category consists of applications by people who already live here. We have been told that they represent three quarters of the total applications for asylum. Surely it is stretching our capacity for tolerance to suggest that it is only coincidence that so many of those people become concerned for their safety only towards the end of the period of temporary residence which they have been granted. All too often, short-term students become long-term residents.
  I welcome the speeding up of appeals procedures under the Bill and I welcome the proposal to introduce the fingerprinting of asylum seekers, which will help not only in identifying people making multiple applications for asylum but in dealing with the multiple social security applications which have been so well publicised. I hope that our proposals for fingerprinting will also close another loophole whereby people with passports stamped for limited entry at the place of arrival conveniently lose them and have them replaced with new and, therefore, unrestricted passports by an embassy or high commission as a matter of routine.
  The new immigration appeals procedure will also be an improvement. We have been told of a backlog of 23,000 undecided immigration cases. It is right to tighten the appeals procedure so that those with no hope of eventual admission cannot use that procedure to prolong their stay here. The new procedure will close a number of well-known and well-used loopholes in the present system. I hope that the knowledge that only those who are considered to be genuine applicants will gain entry will reduce the number of bogus applicants and will enable the cases of genuine applicants to be processed far more speedily.
  I also welcome the changes to the housing rules under the Bill. Time after time we have heard of local authorities being completely overloaded because of the unfairness of

  47
  a system that gives priority to asylum seekers and enables them to go to the top of local authority waiting lists for permanent accommodation. That must be an especially hard burden for local authorities near major airports when there is a mass influx of would-be residents, many of whom are fully conversant with their rights under existing law, who demand and get accommodation that is badly needed to deal with the waiting lists of the local population, who in part, through their taxes and community charge, have paid for the accommodation that they are prevented from occupying. It is also right that if applicants are prepared to lodge with relatives when they arrive here, they should not be allowed to use that fact to leapfrog up the queue of people who may be in a worse housing position.
  Other hon. Members have referred this afternoon to racketeers who prey on the ignorance of would-be immigrants. People with no hope of asylum arrive here having parted with their life savings to make the journey. I hope that when the Bill is enacted, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will seek the co-operation of other Governments in publicising the new rules. That will not stop the disgusting trade in human misery, but it may help to reduce the number of people suffering.
  It is ironic that increased freedom in eastern and central Europe has made the problem of mass migration worse. That, added to the apparent impossibility of obtaining co-operation from Governments in parts of Africa to transport relief supplies and to stop the hijacking of relief food for the black market, means that all our efforts to help people prosper in their own countries will succeed only partly.
  The problem of population movements is therefore likely to become more pressing. If we in this crowded island are to play our part in helping genuine asylum seekers, we must restrict the arrival of those whom we are not prepared to take. We must deal quickly and effectively with people who try to circumvent the rules and have no hope of being allowed to settle here. If we do not do that, we will simply add to our present financial and housing problems in a way that is likely to build up resentment among the people already living in this country. That can only harm the cause of the genuine asylum seeker.
  Our main concern must be for the genuine asylum seeker who has real fears and nowhere else to turn. Unfortunately, in recent years, our system for dealing with applications from those seeking asylum in the United Kingdom has become totally discredited by the number of people abusing the system. The Bill will go a long way towards controlling a potentially dangerous situation and restoring confidence in the system.
  The Bill is fair and reasonable and attempts to deal with the biggest problem—the time taken to deal with asylum applications. It provides relief for the hard-pressed local authorities near our major airports. I welcome the Bill. The sooner it is on the statute book, the sooner we can deal with a major problem in our society which cannot be allowed to continue.
  5.11 pm
  Mr. Roy Hattersley: This wretched little Bill thoroughly deserved the comprehensive demolition performed with such skill by my hon. Friend
  48
  the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). The demonstration of how bad the Bill is was made most effectively by the Home Secretary, who was at his worst today. We all know that the Home Secretary believes that aggression can make up for ignorance. However, he exceeded even his own standards in that particular today. He made a speech which might have been made by his predecessor—I can offer no more savage criticism than that.
  I wish that the Home Secretary were present to listen to the debate. However, we all know that he has his mind set on higher things these days. However, I hope that he reads the contributions to the debate and learns what his Bill contains and, more importantly, its implications.
  I want to deal specifically with three points made by the Home Secretary which demonstrate how truly wretched the Bill is. It seems hardly credible, but the Home Secretary said that two thirds of all asylum applicants had intentionally destroyed their documents. That is what is known as "pub talk". That is what people say when they spread damaging rumours about minorities in this country.
  We know that a large number of asylum applicants arrive at our ports with inadequate documentation. The Under-Secretary of State should know the parody of that situation because it occurred under the aegis of his right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development who generously and rightly arranged for a large number of Kurds to come to Great Britain. Having made the arrangements, she discovered that they could not come here in conformity with the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 and had to promise indemnity to British Airways. After that, she discovered that they had inadequate documents.
  The Kurds came here because they were under the protection of a Minister. From that, the Government should have understood the nature of the asylum seeker who is likely to have inadequate documents. If one is a Kurd on the borders of a desperately tyrannised country, one is unlikely to queue at the foreign office to ask Saddam Hussein for a passport. It is the nature of the asylum seeker that he or she arrives here inadequately prepared. It was disreputable of the Home Secretary to trot out such a story to justify the Bill.
  The Home Secretary was hideously confused about the Bill in so far as it applies to the 48-hour appeal system. My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield was quite right. The Home Office handout and, I believe, the Bill make it clear that those who arrive at the ports—many of whom, although not all, will be in detention because they will be arrested as soon as they arrive—are subject to the 48-hour provision. The extraordinary thing is that it is the people who arrive at the ports who are most likely to be the genuine asylum seekers and refugees.
  Those people are not the students who have been here for seven years and then suddenly changed their applications. They are not the failed applicants for matrimonial status. They are not the people who claimed last week that they were dependent relatives and have now become refugees. Those people are fleeing tyranny. The idea that they should be subject to the 48-hour rule makes the claim for universal appeal hollow. The appeal is there in theory, but not in practice.
  I want to say one more thing about the asylum proposals in the Bill because in my brief speech I want to

  49
  deal almost exclusively with clause 9 and the removal of the protection of the appeal system from the temporary visitor.
  It is utterly intolerable that a man or woman who is legitimately in this country as an immigrant under the legislation should risk sacrificing residence here by applying for immigrant status. I assume that the Under-Secretary of State is going to reply to the debate, so I shall give him an instance from my constituency and ask how he can justify such a case.
  A medical student in my constituency in his fifth year of study believed that because of his family's association with a political group in India he would be under threat if he returned to the Punjab. That was immediately after the assassination of Mr. Gandhi. I have no way of knowing whether he was under threat, but I have no doubt that he believed himself to be in political danger and there was certainly evidence that members of his family had been arrested. How can the Minister justify that young man having to choose between risking the last year of his medical degree in case his application for asylum was turned down and risking returning home to persecution and death in order to complete his final year?
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): I shall not go into a lengthy explanation now and I shall address that point when I reply to the debate. However, the right hon. Gentleman will wish to know that curtailment is not automatic. Individual factors are considered.
  Mr. Hattersley: I was going to ask the Minister not to tell me that Ministers will use their discretion, but he has just told me that. Those of us who deal with ministerial discretion day in, day out and week in, week out have no faith in that discretion. It is an affront to the House to come here and say, "Don't bother about the legislation. Don't worry about what the words say. Rely on Ministers to take you around it when the situation warrants that." If there is to be the kind of consideration that I have described, it must be written into the legislation. Having dealt with Conservative Ministers in constituency terms for the past 13 years. I do not have the slightest belief in the compassion, understanding or discretion that Ministers use.
  Mr. Wardle: Although the right hon. Gentleman is in full flight, I want to clarify one point. I was not talking about ministerial discretion. I was talking about the oral hearing.
  Mr. Hattersley: If that can be written into the legislation, I should be not only delighted but extremely surprised. I wonder why it was not the intention to do that when the Bill was originally published.
  I have no faith in the Government who introduce clause 9 when they seem to do so from the basis of absolute ignorance. I heard the Home Secretary say on the "Today" programme three weeks ago what he has said in the House today—that it did not matter because only visitors coming to this country were involved. Let me tell him why it matters passionately.
  The clause to restrict visitors coming into this country and the clause to prevent appeals when visits are turned down are direct attacks not simply on men and women who want to come into Britain but on British citizens who already live here. They happen to be the black and Asian
  50
  British, because clause 9 will not apply, for example, to American citizens living in the United Kingdom who have visa restrictions. It will apply to the two minority communities whom I know best—the Muslim and the Sikh communities. They will be cruelly affected by the simple fact that many of their relations who legitimately want and need to come to this country will not be allowed to do that. Such an action will have an horrific effect on community relations. We will be telling Sikhs and Muslims that applicants from their families abroad are automatically treated with suspicion and that it is somehow detrimental to life in this country to have a few more people like them here. I do not believe that that is true, and it is a disastrous message for the Government to send out.
  An immense backlog of visitors want to appeal against refusals, but that is not because their applications are bogus. The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Ward) mentioned people disappearing into the community, but there are far more stories than there are people disappearing. The reasons why there are so many appeals against refusal to allow a visitor entry were largely documented in the Government's evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs: the introduction of visas for people from India and Pakistan and the limitation on visits to six months. When the issue was studied in detail, there were some special cases—there were legitimate raids on bogus language schools. No one told the Select Committee that we had to be careful about the number of visa applications and appeals because so many were bogus.
  The increase in the backlog is a result of administrative matters and decisions taken by the Government. I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield—the idea that justice should be withdrawn because there are not enough men and women to deal with cases is an affront to the liberties of this country. I do not believe that we would treat any other group in that way.
  When the queue for passport applications grew intolerably long, the Government drafted more civil servants into the passport office because that affected all British citizens. Now that the queue for applications to visit is growing unacceptably long, it is not tolerable for the Government to abandon the appeal system because only black and Asian British are affected. Let me remind the Under-Secretary that they are affected in the most material ways. I am sure that almost all of my hon. Friends who represent constituencies similar to mine have fought for the man who wants to come here because his father or mother is terminally ill. We have faced appeals and arguments with Ministers, hoping that they would be won before the parent died. We all know of people who desperately need to be here to solve family problems and are prevented from coming. They are not simple holidaymakers, although a family has a right to be reunited for a holiday when it is spread across two continents. It is equally absurd for the Home Secretary to ask what is the point of an appeal when someone wants to come here for a wedding as it is over by the time they get here.
  What distresses me is that that approach shows ignorance of ethnic minorities. People who represent them and work with them know that they will save for years so that a cousin, parent or brother can come from the Indian sub-continent, and they will wait for years while the appeal takes place, because they have a more active sense of family values and unity than is common in other

  51
  communities in the United Kingdom. The idea that that should be denied and broken down for administrative convenience is intolerable.
  I remind the Under-Secretary of what the Home Secretary clearly did not understand—the stigma automatically attached to a man or women whose application to come here has been turned down. At my constituency surgery this week, I learnt of an example. A woman of 60 wanted to come to the wedding of a member of her family. The Home Office believed that it was unreasonable for the payment for her visit to be made from such a small income and felt that there must be some ulterior motive. I have no doubt that there was none; the mores of that community mean that they spend money on attending a family wedding. Having been turned down at the age of 60, if that woman has a legitimate claim to be a dependent relative at the age of 70 or 76, her application to come to this country will certainly be prejudiced and will probably be refused. This is not a frivolous matter. It is crucial for thousands of families who happen to be Asian British or black British. They are all British families living with their rights curtailed if their families are not allowed to visit them.
  Clause 9 demonstrates all that is wrong with the spirit of the Bill. Although there is a technical concession of appeal for all asylum seekers, I am not much comforted by that because it exists more in theory than in practice.
  The Bill is even more wretched than the legislation that we debated a year ago, when the then Home Secretary chose to make our flesh creep with predictions about how many asylum seekers were likely to flood into this country. Instead of that figure exceeding 50,000, as he predicted and as reported in Hansard, the total number was barely more than half what it was last year. That happened because the flow of asylum seekers in the continent of Europe is different from the flow into this country, and it will remain so. We have a special obligation which is different from that of the rest of the Community.
  I deeply resent the idea that our immigration regulations should be determined by secret meetings of the Trevi group, where the Home Secretary commits himself —without any publicity, notability, acceptability or accountability—to a course of action which he then agrees to impose on Parliament. If some of the Euro-sceptics in the Tory party were more perceptive, they would have asked the Home Secretary why, having promised them that immigration should not be part of common competence, he has chosen to prejudice our immigration regulations to make it a part. If ever there were a case for individual rather than collective decision-making, it is on immigration policy.
  Our immigration relationship is different from that of the rest of Europe as we have an imperial inheritance, the responsibility of empire and a duty to Commonwealth citizens who came to this country 30 or 40 years ago. at the invitation of the Government, and who are denied the right for their families to visit them. That is a disgrace and I shall vote against the Bill with as much enthusiasm as I have voted against any Bill, because it is one of the most squalid measures ever to be put before the House.
  5.26 pm
  Mr. Ian Duncan-Smith: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for bringing this legislation back before the House so promptly. The Opposition charged us with backsliding on the issue before the summer break. We have managed to demonstrate that it is not the case. Asylum and immigration are part of a greater problem, and I am glad that the Government are making it a priority. They should be warmly applauded for doing so.
  The figures for this year do not matter. What is relevant is that there is a strong backdrop of economic migration, which could turn into an asylum problem if we are not careful. The general trend is likely to be upwards, no matter what the figures have been, and this is an important factor to take into consideration.
  My constituents in Chingford have been desperately concerned about this legislation, and have written to me to ask why the Government have not brought it before the House again. I shall be glad to write back to tell them that they now have.
  It is important to consider the national picture. Some of the figures are worrying. The rise in the number of applicants since 1988—from 4,000 to 45,000—has been so dramatic that in any other area it would be considered a near crisis. It is important to note that genuine applications have fallen from about 60 per cent. in the early 1980s, to 25 per cent. in 1990, and down to as low as 10 per cent. in 1991. The most important fact is that the picture shows that the number of genuine applicants has stayed about the same, but many people have found loopholes in immigration procedures and so the number of bogus applicants has increased dramatically.
  There are huge pressures on the Home Office, which has been left with a backlog of about 64,000 applications. I note what my right hon. and learned Friend said about extra staff being employed, but it is still difficult to clear the backlog and hon. Members on both sides of the House would do well to take note of that.
  The important point to be gained from my right hon. and learned Friend's speech is that the Government, despite what the Opposition say, have committed themselves in the Bill to the 1951 UN convention. In that respect the Government have set a precedent because that commitment lies at the core of the Bill and has primacy. To claim that we have departed from our international obligations is wholly unfounded. My right hon. and learned Friend and his team should be especially contratulated on that commitment.
  The Bill does not leave any doubt about the United Kingdom's commitment. Historically, we stand head and shoulders above almost any other nation in our reception of genuine asylum seekers. It is clear that that commitment will not be altered. All that will happen is that the procedures will be streamlined.
  Historically, the United Kingdom has been tolerant of asylum seekers. The public have always felt that they should tolerate those who have faced harder circumstances than their own and who have been forced to leave their country of origin. We should applaud such tolerance, which has always been a fact of life. However, it has been subject to enormous strain in the past seven years because of the number of asylum seekers who have been proven bogus. Many would-be immigrants have seen asylum as another way around the system. The number of those who

  53
  have a genuine claim to be here, whether on the grounds of asylum or the other immigration rules, has been distorted by the number of bogus asylum seekers. It is they who have put such a strain on our traditional tolerance.
  The Bill is important because it streamlines and accelerates the asylum procedures. It is also important to stress that all those rejected as asylum seekers have the right to an oral hearing at least at their appeal. One may disagree about the nature or its timing, but at least it is an improvement on current practices. The timetable of 12 weeks in which determination and procedure objectives are to be completed is important because it will focus the mind of officials. Cases will not be allowed to drift because officials will have to get on with them. That is only fair to those who need to knot the outcome of their case quickly for a variety of reasons.
  The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) referred to clause 3(6)(a) and (b) which relate to fingerprints. I am pleased to note that the Bill makes it clear that those fingerprints will be destroyed at the end of 10 years or, if not sooner, one month after the person concerned has been granted indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom. That commitment was rather glossed over by the hon. Gentleman and it is worth specifying what the Bill makes clear.
  My borough of Waltham Forest has had to face certain housing problems because of the current rules on immigration and asylum, which I believe will, in part, be alleviated by the Bill. The ethnic population of Waltham Forest, which is the fifth highest in London, has put pressure on housing demand—15 per cent. of the borough's population, about 33,000 people, come from ethnic minority groupings.
  Asylum seekers tend to move into communities such as Waltham Forest for the obvious reason that it is home to people from similar backgrounds and countries. I receive a huge amount of letters from families seeking accommodation from the council list when there is a limited amount of such accommodation available. It is important to note that there are 15,000 people on the waiting list in Waltham Forest and that, in the past year, homeless applicants accounted for 3,400 of those on that list. It is also important to note that most asylum seekers will end up in the homeless category and they go to the top of the list, thus distorting the size of the homeless problem. I have some sympathy with the borough in its attempts to deal with that. In any 12 months between 300 and 400 asylum seekers will go through the borough's books. It is important to note that, in the past 12 months, 858 homeless applicants were rehoused. Problems connected with housing also put a strain on efforts to maintain racial equality and test people's tolerance. I am sure that the Bill will help to overcome some of those problems, although I accept that there is a lot to be done.
  Clause 4 will help to get rid of the obligation on councils to house asylum seekers irrespective of whether the council believes that the existing accommodation is good enough or temporary. The clause will empower the council to make a decision at the point of application rather than go through the previous lengthy procedure. I believe that SHAC—Shelter Housing Aid Centre—has offered some support for the idea of spreading the homeless load across other boroughs, which should help to alleviate the problems faced by boroughs such as Waltham Forest. It is most important that other boroughs should take some of the applicants on to their housing lists.
  54
  I congratulate the Secretary of State and his team on the Bill and I urge the House to get it on the statute book as quickly as possible.
  5.35 pm
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: The whole country is perhaps more conscious of the problems aroused by the migration of peoples and refugees fleeing from places of civil war and oppression than at any time in the post-war period. And yet the Bill seems strangely irrelevant to those massive difficulties that face not only this country, but other European countries with whom we are in partnership, allegedly, in the European Community.
  The scale of the problem in this country is not even a tenth of flint faced by the German Government and I found the Home Secretary's insularity of approach extremely depressing although, it must be said, not entirely surprising. The one thing that is perhaps to be welcomed about his approach to the Bill is that it does not follow the example of his predecessor in seeking to stimulate in the press a wholly bogus campaign against alleged unlawful asylum seekers. When the previous Bill, which this one follows in most part, was introduced we had several days of popular press agitation about a few alleged bogus asylum seekers which amounted to a thinly disguised campaign of racism. I am glad that the present Home Secretary has not followed that discreditable route in commending the Bill to the House.
  The difficulties of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has spoken seem far removed from the real problem. The desire on his part to reduce the numbers of those who are given extended leave to remain is very worrying. The reason that those applications have, ultimately, in the past been accepted has not been the bureaucratic incompetencies of the Home Office, though those undoubtedly exist. In most cases the reason for the granting of extended leave to remain is that it would have been unconscionable to return to their own countries those who did not strictly qualify as refugees under the 1951 UN convention. It would have been unconscionable to require them to go back.
  The reality is that, if some arbitrary decision is taken in the Home Office to reduce the numbers of those who are granted exceptional leave to remain, it is bound to result in action that we would hitherto have regarded as unconscionable. That is the dangerous penumbra of the Bill. I hope that during the Bill's passage through the House we can address the matters raised by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) on the 48-hour rule, and perhaps prevail upon the Government to think again about some of its provisions.
  During the Second Reading debate we are entitled to have a slightly more frank explanation from the Home Secretary. What is the Government's approach to the problem of those who do not strictly qualify as refugees under the 1951 convention? Those who qualify as refugees are by far the smallest part of the difficulty.
  What the Home Secretary said had been agreed in the European Community group of Home Office Ministers was a revelation—the Home Secretary said that it was not a leak, but it certainly was not presented in the press notice that accompanied the publication of the Bill. The group described how the Home Office Ministers proposed to deal with the problem at European level.

  55
  We are entitled to know whether it is the view of Her Majesty's Government that
  "those who fear violations of their human rights should if possible remain in their own countries, and seek protection or redress from their own authorities or under regional human rights instruments."
  That is a preposterous policy for us to advocate when one considers the parts of the world from which those people are fleeing. It is a preposterous way of dealing with the Kurdish and Angolan problems, and it is not a sensible way of dealing with the Sri Lankan problem.
  If the British Government are using their position as President of the European Council of Ministers for six months to bounce such policies through the Council. it is an abuse of their position. It is certainly not in the interests either of this country or of tackling the refugee problem. However, the problem must be tackled co-operatively within the Community.
  We cannot turn our back on what is happening in Germany at present. It is deeply dangerous for the stability of that country and for the security of the whole of Europe. It is deeply dangerous to see the resurrection of Nazi graffiti spreading westwards across Germany in the wake of the refugee problem. We shall miss the core of the issue, to which the Home Secretary barely alluded, if we spend our time on Second Reading dealing with the small print.
  Of course, we have debated most of the measures before. In so far as the Bill is different from its predecessor, I broadly welcome the differences. The removal of the arrangements for requesting leave to appeal was desirable. However, nothing in the Bill is of such great practical help in tackling the problems which the Home Secretary described as the administrative measures taken to tackle the backlog of applications. I do not know how effective those measures have been. It is possible that they have been effective because the backlog has been reduced. We also know that the number of applications has fallen—it must be said, thankfully.
  As the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, the former Home Secretary tried to make our flesh creep with predictions of numbers which were far in excess of the numbers that have been experienced in the past 12 months. That is entirely welcome. However, it raises the question whether the Bill is necessary, at least in its present form. Certainly, the circumstances which gave rise to its predecessor have not come to pass.
  The other practical problem with which we could ask the Government to deal—without legislation—is housing. It is absurd to suggest, as one or two Conservative Members did, that local authorities will be assisted by the Bill. It will create much greater pressure for social work departments and other departments in local authority areas because local authorities will no longer be obliged to house those who have some form of housing.
  I fear that we shall see people deft aimlessly around the community and more and more of them living on the streets. That problem cannot be tackled by legislation; it can be tackled only by a recognition that local authorities, which are particularly pressed—this is not a universal but a local problem—should have the resources to tackle the housing problem. That point was forcefully made in the
  56
  last Parliament by Sir Philip Goodhart, the former Conservative Member for Beckenham, but it has not been addressed in the Bill.
  I cannot understand why the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan-Smith) thinks that local authorities which are under pressure will be assisted by the provisions of the Bill. Conservative authorities around the country will face much worse problems if the Bill goes through in its present form. We will do local authorities a great service if we seek to amend the Bill and remove clauses 4 and 5, certainly in their present form.
  I do not want to repeat all the arguments made at an earlier stage about matters of principle such as the undesirability of requiring fingerprints from all asylum seekers and their dependants, including children. Previously, only people under suspicion of crime were fingerprinted. The proposal in the Bill is thoroughly undesirable. We can deal again with such matters in Committee.
  One matter has been omitted from the Bill, and I am surprised that it has not been referred to and rectified. Sir Philip Goodhart dealt forcefully in previous debates with the treatment of children. There is no provision in the Bill to safeguard children who arrive in this country and seek refugee status. There are many cases in which children are pushed on to aeroplanes by their families in countries in which there is civil war, racial persecution or denials of political freedom. It is unconscionable that we have not made proper provision for such children and that we have not stuck firmly to the requirements of the Children Act 1989 to ensure that children's interests are treated as paramount by the authorities. Between now and the Committee stage I hope that the Government will table a new clause that deals directly with that point. We should not treat that issue as a matter which divides the House. It is perceived by everyone as a real problem. However, it is not a major problem; it could be tackled by the Government without enormous resource implications.
  The problems that local authorities face when people arrive unpredictably and unexpectedly are very real. Before the Bill leaves the House we have a duty to tackle those problems. Let me give one illustration that has been brought to my attention. Uttlesford district council has in its hands 112 Yugoslays who arrived at Stansted two weeks ago. The council has neither the resources nor the capacity to deal with them. For the past two weeks the refugees have been encamped in a sports centre. That may be better than where they would be in Bosnia, but it is not good enough. We cannot blame the local authorities for not being able to tackle such a problem. I should like to hear from the Minister, even before the debate is over tonight, how the Home Office proposes to help such authorities.
  5.49 pm
  Mr. Harry Greenway: I shall take up some of the important points made by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). As a Member of Parliament who represents a constituency near Heathrow airport, I know that my district is under enormous pressure to accept asylum seekers and refugees. However, our housing supply has dried up. I hope that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland is prepared to

  57
  return to Caithness and to argue for housing and jobs to be made available and for invitations to be issued to asylum seekers. There has to be a dispersal policy.
  Mr. Graham Allen indicated assent.
  Mr. Greenway: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for expressing his agreement. In today's debate, I have heard no such argument from Opposition Members, including the shadow Home Secretary, the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). My constituents and I would be more interested in listening to Opposition Members if they gave us some help, as we are in grave difficulty.
  Mr. Maclennan: Because of the Government's housing support policies, no local authority has an enormous quantity of housing available; therefore, the direction of people around the country is not likely to resolve the problem. I have no doubt that my constituents would be as welcoming as others to refugees if homes could be found for them. I am asking the hon. Gentleman to address the issue of the resources required by local authorities—his may be one of the most needy.
  Mr. Greenway: There will be plenty of opportunities to test the hon. Gentleman's sincerity—I do not mean that unkindly. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning is present and will have heard the hon. Gentleman, who did not assert that fundamental argument in his speech.
  Important aspects of the Bill should and have been raised in the House. We all have a moral duty to be compassionate to the many asylum seekers who are in difficulty—to put it mildly. Too often for comfort, people whose close relatives have been killed attend my surgeries, and I dare say that every hon. Member has had the same experience. A lady whose husband had been assassinated and whose children and extended family were dead attended my surgery the other day. Her plight was heartbreaking. One could not conceivably take a hard-hearted approach to such a person. I am not doing so and I do not believe that the Government are.
  There are compelling moral imperatives for a Christian country such as ours to help asylum seekers who are facing difficulties. I do not support bogus asylum seekers, who damage the case of genuine ones, as always happens in life. In this case, the damage is deep because the community tends to judge the bogus asylum seekers and the genuine ones in the same light, which is tragic. Our nation has a moral responsibility to those refugees.
  A borough such as Ealing faces great difficulties in attempting to discharge its duty to help. There has been a complete breakdown of the London boroughs voluntary agreement to distribute asylum seekers throughout London. Ealing no longer receives help from other boroughs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan-Smith) said, other boroughs encounter those pressures.
  A week or two ago, Ealing had to say no to 150 refugees from Bosnia, some of whom were fleeing horrendous problems. It did so not because it was hard-hearted but because it had no housing for them. It is not that there is no new housing in Ealing. As my hon. Friend the Minister will testify, in recent years there have been substantial developments in his constituency of Ealing, Acton and in mine. However, all last year's new housing was taken by
  58
  refugees. They have to be housed, but what about other people and what view will they take? That is a serious and highly disturbing problem. Ealing council could face a legal challenge because it had to say that it could not house those Bosnian asylum seekers because it had no accommodation available for them.
  I sincerely ask the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland and the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) to see whether their councils can help to resolve the problem. I hate to describe people in such difficulties as a problem, but we do face a problem.
  Mr. Barry Porter: I agree entirely that we have a moral obligation to look after genuine asylum seekers. I agree also with the need for their dispersal, but I do not understand how a dispersal policy can be enforced. Caithness may be a good place, but I cannot imagine that many Bosnians would want to live there. The people of Caithness may well say that they would welcome those refugees, but if those refugees do not want to go there, how can we enforce their dispersal? If we cannot, it seems inevitable that central Government will have to empower and finance the local authorities in the regions to which the refugees wish to go.
  Mr. Greenway: There is no suggestion of compulsion. I simply invited the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland and other hon. Members to pick up the refugees on a voluntary basis, which must be the best way. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland spoke of children—their welfare is of great importance. The borough of Ealing is to be congratulated on its handling of the issue. Unaccompanied minors as young as seven and eight are coming to Heathrow without parents, friends or anyone else and are often left to wander around. The borough of Ealing is picking up those children, helping them and placing them in accommodation. However, the cost of that is reflected in the community charge. The borough rightly provides a range of facilities for those children, but it is in order for me to ask the Government and the House to assist Ealing council in that task. It is a major task and we need help with it.
  The schools also need help—there is great pressure on them. I taught for 23 years so I know what it is like to teach a large number of children who cannot speak English. We faced the problem long ago when Hungarians left Hungary after the Soviet Union murdered Imre Nagy. It was difficult teaching the children English fast enough for them to be integrated into mainstream classes following the proper curriculum.
  In Ealing, we have a large number of children who need special classes, but the borough receives no extra resources to help with language tuition. I am pleading for those resources—the task is not as easy as some people think. There are 118 families, mostly asylum seekers, in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, costing £17,000 per family per year. I reckon that the asylum-seeking population is costing the borough more than £12 million a year, a great deal of money. Unless help is provided the problem will continue.
  Many parts of the world are in turmoil and many people wish to leave their place of birth and country of origin. The world rightly has a conscience about that, but no one has yet pointed out in this debate that our nation and others should fight much more strongly for peace in, say, Africa, and for better food production in areas of

  59
  starvation. We should help people where they are so that they do not feel the need to uproot themselves and move to places that they must love less than their own, however welcoming we may try to be. The countries of the world must try much harder to bring about peace and to ensure that people in Africa, eastern Europe and Asia can live in peace and reasonable prosperity so that they do not need in the first place to uproot themselves and travel across the world.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I remind the House of Madam Speaker's ruling that there is a 10-minute limit on speeches between 6 pm and 8 pm.
  6.2 pm
  Mr. Max Madden: As time is short, I shall confine my remarks to just two aspects of the Bill. The first is the proposal to remove rights of appeal from visitors and certain categories of students who are refused entry to the United Kingdom. This afternoon we heard the Home Secretary's views. I refer to a report in the Yorkshire Post on 23 October. It reported the Home Secretary as saying:
  "With 26,000 appeals waiting to be processed, Ministers preferred to devote staff and energies to cases where the outcome would have a major effect on the life of the person concerned…'It is not essential to the future life of anybody whether they spend a month or two here on a visit'".
  As always with the Home Secretary, one is in some difficulty to know whether his views originated from breathtaking ignorance or unfeeling arrogance, or perhaps an unsubtle mixture of the two.
  What is certain is that those who are forced to apply for visas to visit or study in this country and those who wish their relatives or friends to visit or study here will see the abolition of the right of appeal as deeply unjust and racially discriminatory. Most people who have to apply for visas to visit are of course black or Asian. When the visa regime was steamrollered through this House on the back of tabloid hysteria about Members conspiring in immigration rackets to slip visitors into Britain, Ministers assured us that a right of appeal would safeguard against mistakes.
  Mistakes have certainly been made. We have already been told today that about one in five of appeals made by visitors refused entry are upheld—that shows that wrong decisions are made in these cases. Let us for a moment pretend that the Home Secretary is a constituent of mine, a middle class Asian who has two daughters who are going to marry their two first cousins. I am sure that if he were in that situation the right hon. and learned Gentleman would share the horror of my constituent at the fact that the mother of those two first cousins was refused entry to attend the marriage of her two sons. The decision was overturned only with the utmost difficulty, after extensive national and regional publicity and extensive correspondence from me and my constituent, and endless telephone calls to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
  If the proposal to abolish appeals stands, it will result not only in an enormous increase in the workload for us all on behalf of aggrieved constituents protesting that their relatives or friends have not been given a visa but in a large increase in the correspondence of Foreign Office Ministers,
  60
  particularly the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. I hope that they are prepared for that.
  I should like to cite another case. This time it concerns a constituent whom I shall call Mrs. K, who is anxious to have her sister, Miss B, come here for a brief visit. The visit was refused, and on 19 October I received the following letter from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office:
  "The Entry Clearance Officer in Islamabad has now reviewed Miss B's application and has maintained his decision on the grounds that the 19 year old applicant has not seen her sister Mrs. K, since she was very young and does not really remember her. She is a single woman, not engaged, and there was no evidence of any family income. On these grounds, the Entry Clearance Officer considered that she was not classified as a genuine visitor.
  The Second Secretary (Immigration) has carefully reconsidered the case in the light of your representations but has decided that the ECOs decision to refuse an entry certificate was correct and in accordance with the Immigration Rules.
  The Appeal procedure has now been applied with the result that an Appeal has now been received."
  So a mother has been denied the right to attend the wedding of her two sons; and two sisters have been denied the right to meet after years of separation.
  It is not without significance that the second case concerned a poor woman. We all know that these decisions are racially discriminatory, but decisions are also often refused in the cases of those who are poor; they are denied the chance to exercise their rights. The Home Secretary may not think that such matters are important to many people, but on behalf of many of my constituents I urge him to maintain this important right in the interests of natural justice, if of nothing else.
  This Bill is retrospective. It applies to applications made years ago and which, due to Home Office inefficiency, have not yet been considered. The Bill contains no criteria for the granting of exceptional or compassionate leave to remain. People fleeing from civil war—for instance, from former Yugoslavia—would not qualify to remain under these procedures.
  In reply to a parliamentary question of mine on 23 October, the Home Office revealed that between January and August 428 nationals of the former states of Yugoslavia were refused leave to enter and were removed. Most of them were seeking entry as visitors or students. No asylum seekers have been returned to Yugoslavia, I was told by the Home Office, but 43 have been removed to so-called safe third countries. At present 930 nationals of former Yugoslav states have applied for asylum. Such people are given temporary admission while their applications are considered. I was told by the Home Office that nearly all of them are still awaiting a decision. The figure excludes dependants.
  Will the Under-Secretary of State give a categorical assurance that if an applicant from a former Yugoslav state is refused asylum he will not be removed to the country of origin? What guarantees did the Home Secretary receive before the 43 were removed to the so-called safe third countries? Where are they now, and do we have any information about what happened to them? At the time the Under-Secretary appeared on television and assured us that people would not be refused if they had spent a brief time in a so-called third country. In his speech today the Home Secretary was evasive on that matter. I

  61
  hope that in his winding-up speech the Under-Secretary will clearly state the time limits that are used to influence the Home Office in these matters.
  Independent Bosnia faces partition between Serbia and Croatia. There is increasing support in this country for military intervention to stop genocide, ethnic cleansing, and thousands starving to dealth on mountain tops and in concentration camps. If Serbia achieves her objective of expelling Muslims from the region, we shall witness the creation of a new generation of disaffected and dispossessed—the Palestinians of the Balkans.
  Britain and the United Nations must give arms to Bosnian Muslims, Croats and Serbs with which they can defend themselves and the independence of their country. If the EC fails to intervene militarily, the numbers of refugees seeking asylum will be awesome. Some estimates show that on a European Community basis Britain could be asked to receive as many as 300,000. That shows the scale of the problem and underlines what the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said about this squalid and wretched little Bill.
  The Bill is the outcome of secret talks to create a fortress Europe, and it is not without significance that not once since the Trevi and Schengen groups were established has there been a statement from the Dispatch Box about what deals have been done. The Bill is a direct result of those discussions. The Government are asking us to appease the racist right, and I, together with I am sure the vast majority of hon. Members, am not prepared to do that. The Bill must not be allowed to pass.
  6.12 pm
  Mr. Edward Garnier: The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) has made an unsurprisingly forceful speech to which I listened with interest. I have also had the benefit of listening to other hon. Members. The message is that we are debating a Bill and assessing conflicting duties and aspirations. We have duties to our citizens in the United Kingdom and opposite duties to people who want to come to this country for whatever reason. Some applicants genuinely fall within the definition of the 1951 convention which covers people persecuted on grounds of religion, race or politics.
  Our duties to our citizens include the duty to protect our welfare and benefit budgets and our housing system at a time of economic stringency. It behoves us all to dc what we can in practical terms to assist those of our citizens who are already homeless, on benefit or depend upon our welfare system. Those who should not be here but who have got round the system by false applications are of no benefit to our own people. Sadly, that creates a climate of mistrust which is unfair to those who come here legitimately and those who live here and are in difficulties.
  We also have a duty to people who come here from abroad. It is incumbent upon the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to make sure that our immigration and asylum rules are clear and well published throughout the foreign lands in which we are represented. Those who live in those countries and who fear persecution of one sort or another or civil unrest, famine or starvation must know the exact position so that they do not make unnecessary journeys or journeys that are likely to prove fruitless. There is nothing worse than people coming here under a misapprehension about our laws and procedures and having to be turned away at the air or sea ports.
  62
  Our procedures must be clearly subject to the rules of natural justice, as they are. We have a well-established system of law which is respected throughout the world. Our existing immigration appeal system and the system that we are debating fall well within the rules of natural justice. Applicants should have access to advice, and I urge all hon. Members to encourage constituents and others to make use of the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service and the refugee legal centre.
  Plainly, it is essential that those who come here should have access to the clearest and most accessible advice. That does not necessarily mean that they should be inundated with legal advice. They need guidance and help, but to increase the legal aid fund to brief lawyers to stand around at air and sea ports would not help those who arrive in this country at short notice.
  I am pleased to note that there is a clear appeal route for those who wish to challenge decisions and the right to an oral hearing for all those who arrive here. Welcome changes have been made to the Bill since it was presented in November and I commend them to the House. The Bill will lead to certainty and to the proper disposal of applications with speed but not with undue haste.
  We are told that there are now 500 Home Office staff dealing exclusively with asylum cases, that there were 45,000 such cases last year, and that there is a backlog of 64,000 cases. Apparently six out of 10 turn out to be misconceived or groundless. It is not to anyone's benefit, and certainly not to the benefit of those who would prefer to live in Britain rather than in their home countries, to be misled about our procedures and about the reception that will await them if they arrive here under a misconception. It must be made known to immigration racketeers who prey upon people in the Indian sub-continent and elsewhere that their cheating activities will not benefit them, still less those whom they seek to deceive and hoodwink.
  It would do nobody any good to send the Bill to a Special Standing Committee; that would merely exacerbate existing problems. The House must find practical solutions to difficult and heart-searching problems. The bedrock of the Bill is in clause 2 which states:
  "Nothing in the immigration rules … shall lay down any practice which would be contrary to the Convention."
  The convention, with its specific mention in the Bill, provides the Government with an opportunity positively to assert asylum seekers' rights and demonstrates the Government's commitment to protect asylum seekers and uphold the 1951 convention. Therefore, the specific mention of the convention is welcome because it will provide valuable protection for asylum seekers in the courts.
  Mr. Mike Watson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Garnier: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I do not give way, because time is running out. I am sure that he will catch Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye later.
  The answer to the problem of migration cannot simply be provided by the Bill. We must find alternative shelter for potential refugees close to their own homes. Times are hard in this country and abroad in the rest of the industrialised world, but I hope that along with the passing of the Bill will go an understanding that we must not cut the Overseas Development Administration budget. We must provide bilateral aid to enable displaced persons to

  63
  remain near their own homes so that help can be given through the EC and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The Bill is timely, fair and necessary and its terms must be made known beyond our shores.
  I was interested in the comments of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), who referred to Sir Philip Goodhart. If he looks back at other parts of Sir Philip's speech, he will see that he also made the point on which I am now dwelling. It is that the answer to the problem of refugees and migration lies not simply here, in the Bill, although that performs a useful role; it lies in doing what is required in the countries from which these people come.
  Ms. Glenda Jackson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Garnier: I am sorry, but I must get on. I am sure that the hon. Lady will have an opportunity to speak.
  It is up to their own people to remove the tyrannical Governments from which they suffer. It is up to them to remove, if they can do so, the conditions that create starvation. It is up to us to provide what aid we can to alleviate the position in which they find themselves. I urge the House to make sure that the Bill passes into law as quickly as possible.
  6.21 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: The speech by the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) was the sort of horrifying speech that was made during the 1930s or before the first world war. It is always made whenever there is a case for people fleeing from oppression and seeking political asylum. He should make that speech to those seeking to flee from totalitarian regimes in Africa, the middle east or Latin America, to those who have been tortured, those who are the victims of regimes propped up by the Tory Government with the trade deals and the Common Market with its trade policy, those kept in place by the International Monetary Fund, which turns a blind eye to prisons provided that the balance sheets are all right.
  Mr. Garnier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Corbyn: No, I shall not give way as I have only 10 minutes in which to make my speech.
  It is time that the House recognised the reality for millions of people around the world—the reality of life under totalitarian Governments, when the economy collapses because of the trade situation imposed by the wealthy north American and European countries. We are not blameless for the conditions in which many people find themselves.
  Kurdish asylum seekers come to my constituency and my surgery and tell me of the way that they have been beaten and given electric shock treatment and cold water treatment, and of the way in which they have been tortured day after day and denied sleep so that confessions can be dragged out of them by the Turkish Government, the Iraqi Government or the Iranian Government. With pained looks on their faces, they look me straight in the eye and say, "What have your Government done about human rights deprivations that my people are facing?" I have to tell them that the British Government are more interested
  64
  in selling arms to those Governments and in maintaining a decent relationship with regimes that practise torture. That is the reality, and they call that promoting peace.
  It is time that we recognised our responsibilities, and the way in which Europe is trying, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) said, to create a fortress Europe to stop people seeking asylum. Many of them are forced to go to poor countries which cannot cope with the strain. One country after another in Africa, Latin America and Asia is forced to deal with large numbers of people seeking political asylum when it does not have the necessary resources to deal with them.
  Already, our immigration procedures are designed to keep people out. Already, serious mistakes have been made and people have been wrongly returned to their country of origin. I can think of cases of Sri Lankans and Kurds being returned and of a Zairean who was returned. The previous Home Secretary was found to be in contempt of court for returning somebody against the wishes of the court.
  In a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), the Under-Secretary admits:
  "It is not possible to reply"
  to a question about miscarriages of justice—
  "in specific terms without more detailed information. However, there have been fewer than 30 cases in more than ten years where it is alleged that established asylum procedures have not been adhered to, or have broken down, and applicants have been removed".
  I think that 30 people returned to an unknown fate where procedures "have broken down" is a serious matter. I would have thought that there should have been a more robust reply from the Under-Secretary, saying that he intended to do something about that. Instead this Bill has been introduced.
  Reading through the Bill, we come first to fingerprinting—the criminalising of those seeking asylum. There is then the disgraceful section on housing in which, as Tory Members have tried to do before, the Government blame those seeking asylum for the housing crisis that already exists, instead of providing—
  Mr. James Clappison: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Corbyn: No, I shall not give way.
  Instead of behaving like this, the Government should provide the proper resources to enable the building of sufficient housing to accommodate those already here who need decent housing and those who are seeking asylum. Instead, those seeking asylum are blamed as the cause of the problem, and the children of asylum-seekers are condemned to a long stay in bed and breakfast or second rate temporary accommodation. That is the kernel of the Bill.
  The Bill then goes on to deal with appeals and the limited right of appeal that it allows and then to more regulation arising from the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987. When that was passing through the House, it met with a great deal of opposition because many of us recognised that it would make it more difficult for people to seek asylum here. Those who talk glibly about people in countries with oppressive regimes stepping on a plane to travel over here to gain political asylum should think a bit about that. Getting on a plane requires a lot of money, a ticket and a visa. The Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act means that if the person is not subsequently admitted, the airline that has carried him here will be fined.

  65
  As a result of all this, people do not queue up at the British embassy or high commission to get a visa while the secret police observe them, nor do they openly buy a ticket. Instead, they go to a shark or a spiv who charges a lot of money for a single ticket here knowing that if the airline subsequently gets fined, the price of the ticket will cover the fine. The sum of £1,500 for a single ticket from Istanbul to London is not uncommon if one is a Kurdish asylum seeker. Any one of us could get a single ticket from Istanbul to London for £100. That is how the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act works. It is a spivs' charter designed both to allow people to make a lot of money in an unscrupulous way and to keep out those seeking political asylum.
  The Home Secretary has obviously been taking a few lessons from the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) in how to raise ogres and falsify the presentation of information. He talked about asylum seekers destroying their documents or travelling with false documents. If one lives a shadowy life because of an oppressive regime, and if one is trying to escape from one of today's oppressive regimes, it is not uncommon to assume a different identity. The same thing would have happened if one had been trying to escape from Nazi Germany. In fact, it is a perfectly sensible thing to do because it is a way of getting out, of escaping through covering one's real identity. It also makes sense to destroy the documents at a later stage so as to reveal one's true identity and try to gain political asylum.
  Does any Minister or Tory Member really understand what it is like to try to survive under a totalitarian regime? Do they understand how difficult it is for human rights representatives and lawyers, trade union representatives and many others in such societies to survive, let alone live? Do they understand what it is like? If the Bill is enacted it will make the position of a totalitarian regime even stronger. At the same time it will make the position of the potential asylum applicant much weaker.
  Ministers and other Conservative Members have talked about the documentation that is required before an individual can come to this country. It is clear that the required documentation will make it extremely difficult to get here. They talk also about third-country cases. The draft regulations that the Home Secretary has produced are completely nonsensical in this respect. It seems that no one can apply for asylum in the United Kingdom if he or she has had the opportunity to apply for asylum in a third country. I understand that that includes transit arrangements in a third-country airport.
  Once again, the Government are trying to duck out of admitting people to this country. That includes, possibly, people from the former Yugoslavia, from Africa, from Latin America or anywhere else. A disgraceful and shoddy piece of proposed legislation has been put before us and I hope that the House will reject it. I fear, however, that it will approve the Bill's Second Reading, which means that we shall be forced to oppose it in Committee.
  Conservative Members should think carefully about voting for the Bill's Second Reading. There is a racist tide in Europe and a racist agenda, and I believe the Bill to be part of them. I believe also that millions of ordinary, decent people in Britain and throughout the rest of Europe oppose the notion that lies behind the Bill and will mount strong opposition to it.
  6.31 pm
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: I recall that when the measure that the Bill succeeds was introduced last year it was opposed with some venom by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who described it as squalid, wicked and wretched. It is obvious that the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) thought, after mature reflection, that a much more modest approach was required. It was not until the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook spoke—he has been reincarnated on the Opposition Back Benches, to which a grateful Labour party has consigned him—that we heard the old language, which has been repeated by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn).
  The Bill contains nothing like the horrors that have been foretold of it. It is a genuine attempt to make Britain's immigration and asylum policies fairer for everyone at a time of considerably increasing pressure from many who want to settle in Britain. No system of the sort that is outlined in the Bill can be perfect, but except in one regard I do not accept that it will unreasonably prejudice legitimate claims while dealing firmly with bogus claims. The Government have listened to and accepted the arguments of Justice, which is the British arm of the International Commission of Jurists, upon whose council I am privileged to sit. There was something unreasonably harsh about requiring leave to appeal to be set out in writing by asylum seekers and much good would be done if the applicant were allowed an oral hearing before he was removed. The Government are to be thanked for this improvement, and I am glad that the Opposition welcome it.
  Unfortunately, the pressure created by applications has increased since last year. and so the need to process applications more quickly has increased. There were only 4,000 applicants in 1988. In 1991 there were more than 10 times as many. The number has been reduced this year, but the increase since 1988 is still considerable. The number of staff has increased from 120 to 500, but that has not been enough to staunch the backlog of about 64,000 cases waiting for consideration. Many of these people should not be settling in this country under any of the rules, international or national. They disappear into the cities and cannot be traced until years later, by which time they have set up families and local connections. It is then almost impossible for the authorities to do anything about it.
  I continue to hear it said that not many asylum applications are bogus. Unfortunately—I use that word because one would like to accept the argument—the facts are otherwise. It seems that 60 per cent. of applications for asylum under the United Nations rules—that means where a person is in genuine fear of persecution—were genuine in the 1980s. By 1991, only one in four was genuine. Last year, only one in 10 was found to be so. So, if 45,000 people apply, 40,000 are not genuine asylum seekers. Surely the British public are entitled to demand that the House does something about that.
  In practice, we can speed up the appeal procedures. We have done that to try to reduce them to 12 weeks. The procedure can be even quicker if, for example, an applicant has come from another western country and patently has no right to permanent settlement in the United Kingdom under the international rules.
  Two particular objections have been raised by the hon. Member for Sedgefield and others. The first is that it is not

  67
  sufficient to give an applicant two days in which to appeal. But most applicants will have 10 days in which to register their appeal by post. Only those arriving at ports where refusal notices are served in person will have only two days in which to register their appeal. Surely that is enough time to decide to make an appeal. The grounds of the application should not have changed very much in two days. If they have changed, or if there is some injustice such as a delay that has eaten into the 48 hours, I understand that the rules provide flexibility to enable the authorities to extend the two-day procedure.
  Mr. Watson: The hon. and learned Gentleman is a notable lawyer; indeed, he is a QC. Will he compare the time scale that has been provided for appealing in the cases that we are discussing with that for the cases with which he deals? Does he accept that the Bill's appeal provisions are woefully inadequate when compared with normal legal rights?
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: We have an obligation to British citizens to consider points of law according to the rules of our system. We do not have the same obligation towards those who come into Britain and demand rights that they, as non-British citizens, are not able to expect. We are talking especially about those who are refused entry when we know that genuine applicants are quickly seen to be so and are allowed into the country to stay here. It is preposterous to suggest that we should deal with asylum seekers in precisely the same way as we engage in cool, calm and collected legal processes, which in any event take far too long.
  The Opposition's second objection rests on the fingerprint provisions. As, unfortunately, there is much abuse, it is necessary that asylum seekers should be properly and fairly identified. Two thirds of all applicants at the ports have no valid documents that state who they are. That is because their papers have been forged, mutilated or given away. If it is not possible to identify an asylum seeker accurately, there is nothing to stop him or her going from one social security office to another to claim benefits in different names, and many such people do.
  Investigators discovered recently that 27 racketeers have 700 different identities. I understand that 1,500 other cases are under consideration. Computer checks in France and Switzerland have shown that multiple claims have been made by five to 20 per cent. of applicants. As fraudulent applications delay genuine ones, it is always the honest applicants who are hurt in the end.
  Every European Community country except the Republic of Ireland has the power to fingerprint asylum seekers. We shall be falling in line with more or less the rest of the Community in a procedural matter, which seems to be sensible. Surely reasonable people cannot object to these precautions being taken—fingerprinting and limitation of time for appeal—to speed up the asylum appeal system.
  I am pleased that the Government have taken the opportunity to speed up ordinary immigration appeals as well. They have risen from 9,600 in 1986 to 27,000 in 1991. It is not surprising that an enormous number of
  68
  immigration cases—I believe more than 23,000—are waiting to be resolved. The total amounts to a year of the appeal authorities' work.
  The Government have identified three areas that lead to unnecessary delay. First, there is the appeal that is futile because the basic immigration rules are not met. That means that a delay cannot serve any legitimate purpose. I do not think that there is any dispute about the steps that the Government take in relation to that grouping.
  The second area is where someone presents himself at a port as a visitor or a student but does not have a valid entry permit. We have rules and it is reasonable to expect them to be followed. If they are not, there should be no waste of time on appeals.
  The third area is where entry clearance has been refused to students or visitors who would have been entitled to stay only for six months if they had been legitimate. I understand the Government's argument that there is no point in dragging on an appeal that might be heard in two or three years' time, long after the applicant would have returned home.
  All the cases in those areas add up to 11,000 appeals currently being processed. If that is not a waste of time and resources, I do not know what is. It is better to concentrate resources on the cases where marriage and rights to permanent settlement are in question. Surely that is common sense. It is no surprise that a usually sensible Government have chosen to concentrate scarce resources in that way.
  However, I am a little uneasy about the automatic refusal of appeal for visitors. As a Member of Parliament with a Pakistani community of some size, I am sometimes aware of unfair refusals. I have drawn them to the attention of the Home Office, especially when a family en route to the Haj stops in this country and wants to see members of its family who live in my constituency. On some occasions, although only a few, they have been refused—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman's time is up.
  6.41 pm
  Mr. David Trimble: I welcome one aspect of the Bill—it is a proper United Kingdom Bill covering all parts of the kingdom. Obviously, it has been possible for the parliamentary draftsmen to deal with the fact that the Bill amends parts of existing Northern Ireland legislation, especially housing provisions. In other contexts, when we asked the Government to apply legislation to Northern Ireland, they said that they could not do so because it would interfere with the integrity of the Northern Ireland statute book. The Home Office has been able to do so with this Bill without worrying about that integrity and I commend that action to other Government Departments. There is no reason why we cannot legislate on that basis all the time.
  I welcome the fact that the United Nations convention on refugees is being given primacy in the Bill. That is important and I hope that that policy will continue. It is acknowledged that there is a problem with asylum seeking. It might not be as bad as was predicted last year, but it exists. There are a number of reasons for that. Reference was made to the fact that some economic migration is now

  69
  being disguised as asylum seeking. That aspect of the problem may affect us even more in Europe during the next few years.
  I note the comments about migration to Germany. More effort should be made by the European Community to improve the economic conditions of the former socialist states of eastern Europe. The EC's record is poor. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) referred to the danger to the stability of Germany from that migration. I am not convinced that there is such a danger, but if there is it arises because of the unrealistic liberality of German legislation. Many countries are in an unfortunate economic condition and in many other countries there is not the respect for democracy and human rights that we would wish. However, the solution is not for all the citizens of the world to come to live in western Europe or the United Kingdom.
  Some hon. Members appear to think it unreasonable to focus efforts on improving the economic conditions or increasing the respect for human rights and democracy in other countries. However, that must be the solution, rather than to widen or to try to sustain unrealistically wide rights of entry on the ground of asylum.
  I note the comments about the way in which decisions are taken by the Trevi group. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) commented on the way in which secret decisions are taken and on the fact that there is not proper accountability. I wish that he had the same attitude to the secret meetings that take decisions on policies that affect Northern Ireland. A secret conference has existed for seven years without any accountability to the House; indeed, it is ignored by the House. That secret conference is supported by the right hon. Gentleman. I should like some consistency of approach from him.
  The Secretary of State said that the key matter was to ensure that the procedures were quick and fair, and those must be the criteria. First, we must acknowledge that there is a need for speed. I recognise that the Bill makes an attempt to tackle that. However, I am worried about fairness. That cannot be achieved by removing rights of appeal or by creating special procedures that will apply solely to asylum matters. There is little confidence in the way in which immigration officials operate, so the right of appeal is important. I support what has been said about visitors and students. A right of appeal is a check on the actions of officials. It is not sufficient to rely on the belief that officials will always be right; they are not.
  Northern Ireland does not have a significant numbers problem with people seeking entry, but problems do arise from time to time. We are aware of the excessive delays in the system and the uncertainty about the way in which it operates. The relatives of those affected have little opportunity to influence the system and that causes a great deal of unnecessary anguish. It may be necessary to have a truncated procedure if we are to speed up the system, but why should that be applied solely to asylum seekers? Surely there is an argument for a unified procedure for all immigrants. If it does not work effectively or if it is taking too long, the solution is to make it more effective and more efficient and to put the necessary resources into it to achieve that.
  We have some reservations about the procedure, riot in the Bill, but in the rules. I listened with interest to the debate between the Secretary of State and the hon.
  70
  Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), especially on the two-day appeal. It appeared to boil down to the fact that the Secretary of State spoke as though he would ensure that a personal service notice was made only in cases that he believed to be manifestly groundless. If that is his approach, why not include it in the rules? Why expect us to approve the Bill purely on the basis of his intentions? The rules should be clarified in that respect.
  I shall refer only briefly to the provisions on fingerprinting and housing. We do not have any problems with the fingerprinting requirement as it could be necessary in some circumstances to identify people. Although fingerprinting might be undignified, it is not a serious infringement of human rights. One justification put forward for fingerprinting is that without it people might disappear into the cities and be untraceable. The solution to that problem would be what we have recommended in other contexts—identity cards for all the population. We could then identity those who do not have proper documents.
  On the housing issue, I note that, on Second Reading of the previous Bill last year, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said:
  "once an asylum seeker is allowed to enter the country, he or she should be treated like any other resident—no better, no worse."—[Official Report, 13 November 1991; Vol. 198, c. 1104.]
  That view should be adopted, but with changes. Once an asylum seeker is recognised as having a right to be in this country, he should be treated the same as other people. That would be fair. The Bill is trying to delay people's rights under housing and homelessness legislation until a right to be in the country is acknowledged. Until a person has that right to be in the country, he does not have the right to take advantage of legislation. That is not unfair.
  The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) spoke of the desirability of dispersal in connection with the provision of temporary accommodation. When the boat people came to the United Kingdom, we in Craigavon were happy to accommodate some of them; in similar circumstances, we should be happy to act similarly.
  A problem exits, and the Bill attempts to tackle it. There are some imperfections in the way in which it does so, but I am glad that the Government have made some concessions since the presentation of the original Bill. I hope that they will be flexible when dealing with the detail in Committee. We intend, however, to support the Bill and the principle behind it.
  6.50 pm
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: The Bill deals with a problem that the House can no longer avoid. Migration is a rapidly growing problem throughout Europe. We have seen a vast influx into Germany of east Europeans arid other immigrants, which has brought a phoenix-like rise of fascism in Germany.
  Our television screens have shown us scenes of violence —such as the burning of hostels by mobs—that are reminiscent of the activities of the "brown shirts" :n Germany in the 1920s and 1930s. It will have brought a chill to the heart of any human being to see otherwise decent German folk voicing racial hatred, and justifying —or even supporting—the violence. In France, an influx from Algeria and black Africa has had similar results. It is

  71
  now respectable in French political circles to use hateful racist language. We are seeing the same in Belgium—the rise of fascism and mob unrest.
  A vast horde of aspirant economic migrants is creating pressures in Europe, leading to political responses that are extremely distasteful to democrats and, I am sure, to all hon. Members. We should face up to the fact that the United Kingdom is not immune to such pressures: indeed, we are even more vulnerable to them. We have good race relations, and, by and large, the days of National Front marches are gone: but that improvement is based on public trust in our tight immigration controls. if those controls are doubted, we shall risk a resurgence of the National Front and other such nasty activists.
  I speak with particular feeling, because Gravesend and Northfleet—which I have the honour to represent—contain 7,000 Sikh residents. They live in the local community in peace. a condition of which I am extremely proud. They can, for instance, hold their religious processions to celebrate their Baisakhi festival without disturbance. Only last week I was able to support the bid of a Sikh gentleman, Mr. Amrik Singh Jandoo. to become a Conservative Gravesham borough councillor. He obtained public support across the community: moreover, he achieved a I per cent. swing towards the Conservatives —at a time like this!
  This country has a proud record in regard to the granting of asylum. We have given asylum to political refugees for many centuries: we can cast our minds back to the Huguenots, the Jews from eastern Europe and Russia at the turn of the century, continental Europeans during the last war and many others. The Bill is compatible with that tradition. and also with the 1951 United Nations refugee convention.
  My Sikh constituents are particularly aware of the need for real asylum in this country. The large Gravesend and Northfleet community of Sikhs originates from the Punjab in India. I need not detain the House with a contemporary history of that sad state; grievances against the federal Government of the republic of India go back to the time of independence. when many Sikhs felt that Nehru and his Congress party had reneged on solemn undertakings. Since then, relations between the Sikhs of Punjab and the federal Government have been poor: there has been an escalating round of rebellion and repression. The conflict, highlighted by the sacking of the golden temple at Amritsar—-which has again been occupied by Indian forces during the past month—has thrown up refugees fleeing in fear of their lives. Nevertheless, they are a statistically small number.
  Despite the current concerns, this is a wonderful and prosperous country in which to bring up one's family. Millions of people in less-well-off parts of the world would migrate to it on precisely those economic grounds. Given the immense pressure imposed by economic migrants, it is natural that there has been a search for the loopholes and weak points in our immigration law. and asylum application procedures have been a major weak point. Under the guidance of paid Mr. Fixits, such applicants have developed abuse of the system on a grand scale.
  During our debate in the previous Session we were told that, only four years ago, 5,000 applications a year had been made, of which only 25 per cent. had proved genuine.
  72
  Since then, the rate of application has escalated vastly and clogged up the system, causing two-year delays. A total of 64,000 applications is now outstanding. Why is that? Have human rights around the world deteriorated so sharply now that so many dictatorships have tumbled? The answer must be no: it is just that thousands of people are attempting to charge through a loophole in our immigration controls.
  Let us take the cases that I frequently encounter in Gravesend. People come to Britain to visit relatives, or as tourists or students, on six-month visas. At the end of that period they suddenly produce letters from home telling them that their return would imperil their lives because of their political views. They apply for political asylum; that gives them some two years. In most cases the application is turned down, because they are identified as economic migrants. By that time, however, they may well have married and had British-born children; 25 per cent. of them have been identified as political refugees, another 60 per cent. have been granted exceptional leave to remain on compassionate grounds. The remaining 15 per cent. of applicants then appeal—and months, if not years, ensue. At the end of that period, they either succeed or are granted exceptional leave to remain. The unsuccessful few frequently then embark on an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.
  Such examples make it clear that, if skilfully handled, applications for political asylum are a one-way bet on getting through our immigration laws. Ministers are quite right to act on grounds of equity—by which I mean equal treatment not only for British people but for my Sikh constituents. We should not overlook what happens to applicants while they are waiting. Some occupy council housing at the expense of local people in housing need; many take low-paid jobs in the local labour market, forcing down wages at the expense of Sikh residents.
  Not only do my Sikh constituents resent such people; their treatment dents the Sikhs' belief in British justice and fair play. They have accepted the need for tight immigration rules, and they resent what is effectively queue-jumping. I nevertheless ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to look again at the provision to end the right of appeal on refusals of visitors' and students' visas.
  The current problem is exacerbated by the recent tragic events in Bosnia. There is a danger that the displacement of people from that area will spread ever more widely. They are increasingly coming to Britain, frequently on the initiative of idealistic but naive people. Only recently, in my own county of Kent, 26 Bosnians—members of six families—were brought in through Dover by a Surrey clergyman. He effectively dumped them, without notice, on the Dover authorities. His action put immediate stress on health, education, social services and voluntary agencies in the town. Eventually the Bosnians were moved to Surrey.
  The irony is that Dover has been assisting its twin town, Split in Croatia, and has helped the very Bosnian refugees who were brought to Dover. It is supporting people close to their original homes. It is no service to them to be dumped far from home in a foreign country. Surely it is better to serve them locally by providing aid and supplies —ironically, protected by British forces who are serving with the United Nations force based in that country.
  The Bill will speed up procedures, help real political asylum seekers, and limit the scope for Mr. Fixit to batten

  73
  expensively on to human misery. It will restore justice and equity; it will close a vast loophole. I hope that on this occasion the Bill will reach the statute book.
  6.59 pm
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth: My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and the Home Secretary agreed that the differences between us are about whether these rules are fair. Since then, I have listened to a debate that has completely distorted the interpretation of that word. Blame has been heaped on asylum seekers by Conservative Members for the length of housing lists, unemployment and the lack of social services in inner-city areas. We have to remember that we are talking about asylum seekers, not about a return to full-blown primary immigration. We are talking about applying fair treatment to asylum seekers who wish to enter this country.
  The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) gave us an interpretation of "fairness." He said that United Kingdom citizens are entitled to it but that people who seek asylum here are not entitled to fair treatment under the United Kingdom's legal system. If that is Conservative Members' interpretation of "fairness", one can understand clearly what the differences are between us.
  My knowledge of this issue arises out of the casework with which I have dealt since I became a Member of Parliament last April. Many of the points have already been made in the debate, but one of the most important was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield. He spoke of how these rules will be interpreted and applied. I know from first-hand experience how people are dealt with and the problems that they encounter. I am currently dealing with an asylum case. This legislation would have had a direct effect on it. A young man in Winson Green prison is awaiting the outcome of an asylum appeal. If the two-day rule had applied to him, he would have been long gone from this country.
  In these cases, a distant relative gets in touch with a Member of Parliament. He assesses the case and then contacts a community leader, who manages to persuade a lawyer to make representations on that person's behalf. It is not the case, as has been said by Conservative Members, that all that is paid for by the British taxpayer. All of that has to be done if people are to be provided with proper representation. It cannot be done in two days. The concession that has been made since this legislation last came before the House is a concession in name only. It is not real when it comes to the practicalities. The two-day rule means that people will, effectively, have no right to an appeal.
  Reference has been made to the European convention on human rights being enshrined in the Bill. The individual in the case with which I am dealing has been told that, because he is a member of a particular group, he cannot be in danger in the country from which he came. He comes from the Punjab. He is a Hindu. He says that he has been repeatedly harassed by the police. Having interviewed him, I believe what he says. The immigration service, however, says that that cannot be right—as he is a Hindu, how can he have been harassed by the police? To say that a member of a religious group cannot really be in danger and cannot, therefore, be entitled to asylum goes specifically against
  74
  the terms of the convention, yet that argument is being used even before the passage of the Bill. If this legislation is passed, it will be enshrined in legislation that members of particular groups will not be dealt with properly.
  I shall now deal with the refusal to give any right of appeal to visitors. I intend to refer again to cases that I have encountered. My blood boils when I read the details of interviews that relatives of my constituents have been put through by employees of Her Majesty's Government when they go to the high commission in Delhi, Bombay and elsewhere. Under the Bill, the Government intend to remove any right of appeal in those cases.
  A young couple came to see me. The husband's mother applied to come to this country to assist her daughter-in-law while she had her second child. She was asked why on earth she did not come here when her daughter-in-law had her first child. She said that it was because of ill-health when the first child was born four years ago. She was then asked why she had to come and why there was no one in this country who could help her daughter-in-law. She said that the reason for coming was that it was her duty, that it was tradition. The interviewing officer then asked her, "Why on earth didn't you invoke tradition when you allowed your son to go to live in the United Kingdom?" Having in some cases travelled hundreds of miles, from the Punjab to the capital, people are treated like that when all they seek to do is to come here—half-way around the world—to see their grand-children and perhaps, as in this case, assist a daughter-in-law when she has her second child. It is traditional for that to happen in those parts of the world that do not enjoy the medical care that we enjoy here.
  If we remove the right of appeal, those attitudes will be reinforced. They are already bad. Something ought to be done. I do not believe that officials behave in that way without it being sanctioned from above. Ordinary people in the immigration service, both here and abroad, do not treat people like that without it having been clearly intimated to them that it is okay to do so and that it is required. They have been given clearance from their bosses. That clearance extends right up to the Government. If we take away the right of appeal, the horror stories will grow tenfold.
  The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) blamed asylum seekers for the housing waiting list. Other Conservative Members blamed asylum seekers for unemployment. I do not know when a council house was last built in that borough or how many council houses have been built in that borough in recent years. The lack of council housing is a massive problem, compared with the size of this problem. It is disgraceful to put the blame for the lack of council housing on to asylum seekers.
  We are in the process of building fortress Europe. A few years ago we criticised communist regimes for erecting an iron curtain. It appears that we are now determined to create one of our own and to turn our backs on ordinary human beings, in desperate circumstances.
  7.9 pm
  Ms Mildred Gordon: There are a number of seamen's hostels in my constituency and many of their residents come from Somalia. They are British citizens and many of them served Britain in the Burma campaign. They spent their lives as seamen and their families, homes and farms were in Somalia, where they

  75
  intended to return when they retired. They never sought a council flat or housing here; they stayed in their cubicles in the seamen's hostel, where they remain to this day.
  In the past two years, many of them have come to see me to try to bring their families here. It was never their intention to do so, but their families are dying and have been shot, bombed and slaughtered. Many of those who applied for entry have disappeared and are presumed dead. Others have come here with limbs missing, which could have been avoided if the procedures had moved more quickly.
  I approach the Bill with my Somali constituents very much in mind because I have witnessed their distress, suffering and concern for their relatives. Some of the Somalis have been granted refugee status, whereas others have been granted exceptional leave to remain. The Geneva convention defines refugee status quite narrowly. It excludes ordinary people who are simply caught up between warring factions and are the victims of air and land attacks, such as those in the horn of Africa, where medical facilities are almost non-existent. It also excludes the victims of breakdowns in public and economic order, which in the Sudan, Ethiopia and Somalia have been aggravated by many years of drought.
  Britain, Germany and the Netherlands have had a second category of exceptional leave to remain on humanitarian grounds. Those who were allowed here on that basis were disadvantaged compared with those who were accepted as refugees because they could not apply for family reunion until they had been here four years. In addition, they had to wait seven years before applying for settlement, compared with four years for those who had refugee status. At least their lives were saved and they were able to start a new life here.
  When the Bill was being reconsidered, a number of organisations approached the Secretary of State to give exceptional leave to remain some statutory recognition. He did not respond to that. I believe that exceptional leave should be given statutory recognition but, failing that, the Minister should at least give a categoric assurance in Committee that exceptional leave to remain will continue as heretofore, because it is important that it should. I should not like to see Britain abolish that right when other European countries which have taken more refugees than us continue to have a more humanitarian approach.
  On the question of housing homeless asylum seekers, clauses 4 and 5 cause considerable concern. Clause 4(1)(b) relieves local authorities of their obligation to provide housing to people in priority need if the asylum seeker has
  "any accommodation, however temporary, which it would be reasonable for him to occupy"
  with those living with him. It has been pointed out that that could mean sleeping on a church floor or, as so often happens in my constituency, on the floor of a house of a distant relative. A homeless asylum seeker would have to spend a period on the streets before being accepted as someone whom the local authority must rehouse. The present conditions for homeless people are humiliating. Clause 4 will place an additional burden on a small group of people who arrive here traumatised and who have gone through hell only to be put through further hoops, which is quite unacceptable.
  The issue of confidentiality arises under the housing provisions. Paragraph 2 of schedule 1 imposes a duty on
  76
  the local housing authority to satisfy itself that an applicant is truly an asylum seeker, but it does not impose a concurrent duty of confidentiality. Civil servants in the asylum section will have to assist local authorities, which may breach their excellent practice of confidentiality. Asylum staff at Lunar house and Quest house do not allow records to be given to, and have foiled devious attempts by, foreign embassies seeking to gain details on asylum seekers to persecute them or their families abroad. They maintain strict confidentiality, which would be breached by this provision. That is another serious concern.
  I should like to deal with the loss of appeal rights under clauses 9 and 10. Hon. Members have said that if officials at overseas posts know that an applicant has no right of appeal, it will make their attitudes harsher. In 1985, the Commission for Racial Equality, investigating the sub-continent, found in overseas posts widespread racism and contemptuous attitudes to applicants.
  Clauses 9 and 10 will deprive unsuccessful applicants of the right of appeal. If the clauses are passed, a further independent inquiry must investigate whether there has been any improvement or fundamental change in those attitudes at overseas posts. If the right of appeal is to be removed, there must be a provision for representations to be made to officials in this country and by Members of Parliament to Ministers. At present, representations against a refusal at an overseas post can be made only to local officials, which obviously leads to widespread unfairness.
  Clause 9 deals with applications by visitors, of which almost all Labour Members have had experience through their constituents. Black and Asian people make up 4·5 per cent. of the population. They are mostly younger people and they have close ties with their relations who wish to visit them. The immigration and nationality department report for 1990–91, which covered India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Ghana and Nigeria, showed that 272,870 applications for visitors visas were received, of which 42,220 were initially refused and 12,080 were subsequently granted on appeal. That meant that 28 per cent. of refusals were wrongly decided and later overturned. That 28 per cent. will now have no opportunity of having their case reconsidered.
  I have found from my constituents' cases that there seems to be no rhyme or reason to many of the refusals. There is no logic to who is allowed to enter.
  Mr. Bernie Grant: Does my hon. Friend agree that immigration officers deal with cases so badly that perhaps we should have an immigration complaints authority, like the Police Complaints Authority, whereby people could take up complaints against immigration officers? There is no procedure by which Members of Parliament and others can take up such matters with the Home Office.
  Ms. Gordon: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He has made a good suggestion. There is no quality control. Whether one gets one's permit to come here for a holiday seems to depend on what the official had for breakfast. Grandmothers and parents are humiliated and heartbroken when the grandparents want to come to see a new grandchild and are refused admittance or when they want to travel for similar reasons that would apply to

  77
  us—to visit relatives, to go to family occasions, and so on. They must go through unpleasant procedures. A constituent—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady. The 10-minute limit is a cruel one.
  Ms. Gordon: May I have half a minute to wind up?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: No. I am so sorry.
  7.19 pm
  Mr. Bowen Wells: The hon. Members for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) and for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) have dealt with specific immigration issues with which, I am sure, the whole House has a great deal of sympathy. Immigration officials should always be courteous and should never display prejudice in these matters. I join those hon. Members in getting extremely angry when officials overstep the law and the intentions of the House in administering immigration rules.
  By contrast with some hon. Members, I very much welcome the Bill because it will enhance the ability of true asylum seekers to have their cases dealt with quickly and courteously. Their cases can be decided so that they can then go on to plan their lives.
  The present arrangements are highly unsatisfactory. Until recently, asylum seekers had to wait upwards of five years before their cases were decided. It is cruel to keep people in total ignorance of their future for that period. Many of them are accompanied by their children who do not know when the cases will be decided, and how and where they will live in the future. The Bill, which is designed to cut the time to consider asylum cases, is welcome and necessary, and I hope that it gets on to the statute book quickly.
  I will put the matter in its historical context and in the context of the present world. Traditionally, asylum seekers have been welcomed in this country because they were fleeing from a tyrannical regime in their own countries where they could confidently expect to be either badly injured or murdered. That was the sense in which we and many other countries signed the United Nations convention, and I believe that my hon. Friends are trying to implement its provisions.
  It is obvious from the research that has been carried out that the provisions have been cruelly exploited by ruthless people who are determined to migrate to this country regardless of the circumstances. That has given rise to the long waiting lists which true political asylum seekers have to face. More than 50 per cent. of those interviewed as asylum seekers have been found to be already resident in this country. They have come into the country on visitors' visas. Hence the need to tighten in clauses 9 and 10 the visitors' visas regime. It is most unfortunate that we have to do that. Like the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar, I should like people to be able to visit this country and their relatives as easily as possible. However, the visitors' visas regime has been cruelly exploited and the result has been that people who subsequently decide—
  Mr. Vaz: Where is the evidence?
  Mr. Wells: The evidence, if the hon. Gentleman would like to see it, was given by Ministers when the previous Asylum Bill was in Committee. There is a mass of evidence
  78
  to that effect. It cannot be denied that what I have said is the case. We must face the facts and we must make provision to ensure that we deal with asylum seekers fairly.
  More than 50 per cent. of those seeking asylum are already resident in this country. Anybody who seeks asylum, in the traditional meaning of the word, if he is resident in this country is by definition not an asylum seeker. Anybody who is resident in this country should be debarred from seeking asylum here. Obviously, there are some exceptional circumstances in which we should consider those already resident in this country for asylum, but such circumstances would be highly exceptional and should be specified in legislation.
  All that refugees seeking asylum have to do is to know the word "asylum". All that those arriving at Stansted and coming into Bishop's Stortford and the neighbouring Uttlesford district council have to do—they have been doing it in larger and larger numbers over the past six months—is to say that they are seeking asylum under the present rules. They will not only be welcomed into this country, but they will be given shelter and priority on the housing list. Indeed, they will be given housing benefit. That is causing immense resentment in my constituency and in Uttlesford district council.
  The House should think again if it thinks that the phenomenon occurs only in this country. The recent attacks on immigrants' hostels in Germany have their roots in uncontrolled immigration and asylum seeking by those from eastern Europe. Such over-generosity undermines good race relations and stability, not only in this country, but in Germany and elsewhere. For that reason, the reasons for asylum seeking should be narrow and should apply to those genuinely seeking political asylum from those who would kill or molest them and their families in the countries from which they come.
  It is right that we should take away from those seeking asylum the right to come to this country via a third country. If one is a true political refugee, one should seek asylum only in the country next to the one from which one is fleeing. That would demonstrate the necessity of one's cause and the need for asylum. The idea that people can fly from Sri Lanka, as Tamils did the other day, to Malaysia, to India, to Germany and then to this country to seek political asylum is nonsense and I am glad that the Bill will tighten that aspect of asylum seeking.
  I draw the House's attention to the fact that the right for certain categories to appeal when visitors' visas are refused is narrowly defined. I believe that that is right because it will speed up the system and prevent the clogging of the processing of applications for asylum and for immigration.
  The Bill will speed up, streamline and make more humane our present methods of processing asylum seekers, and I very much welcome and support it.
  7.27 pm
  Mr. Piara S. Khabra: I oppose the Bill and I will vote against it tonight because it is a travesty of natural justice, and it is outrageously against human decency and human rights.
  I represent a constituency that deals with many cases of immigration and nationality matters. I dealt with such cases as the head of one of the biggest grass-roots, democratic organisations in the country.
  The Home Secretary said earlier:
  "We live in a multiracial and multicultural society."

  79
  He also said that he believed in "civilised values". He knows that during the election many Ministers and senior Tory party officers visited my constituency. They talked to the Asian and Afro-Caribbean communities because they wanted their votes. They promised that they would do everything possible for them. They said, "We believe in the same values of family life that you believe in. You arc hard working and you believe in the unity of the family."
  It is ironic that the Government have a dismal record on immigration. That is clear from decisions taken by this and the previous Government. In 1985, visa requirements were imposed on Sri Lankans. In 1986, similar restrictions were imposed on nationals of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Ghana and Nigeria. Citizens of Turkey and Haiti were added to the list in 1989. In 1990, the rules were harmonised to include citizens of Algeria, Morocco and 'Tunisia. In April 1991, Ugandans were required to obtain visas to come to this country. The despicable primary purpose rule is yet more evidence of the Government's present immigration policy.
  My constituency comprises nearly 40 per cent. ethnic minority communities. I was told recently that nearly 4,000 Somalis live in my constituency. I was amused to hear the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) claim that the refugees who have come to Ealing should be dispersed to other areas in the country. He does not realise that the 4,000 Somalis live in my constituency, not in his constituency or in that of the Minister for Housing and Planning, the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young).
  The hon. Member for Ealing, North knows that the Tories control the town hall. They are completely unsympathetic to the refugees of ethnic minority communities. They propose a £14 million cut which will hit the ordinary people very hard. My area in particular has been hit very hard by the proposals. The Tories will pursue such policies until the elections in 1994 when we can get rid of the Tory administration in the town hall.
  I welcome the fact that refugees and asylum seekers will have a right of appeal. However, I am not happy about the time limit. Many people who have visited my constituency have already made applications. They arc finding it very difficult to find legal advice available in such a short period. I believe that that right will be denied to them and that they will be vulnerable to the Government's proposals.
  I am not happy about fingerprinting. It has been suggested that children might be fingerprinted. If that happened, it would contravene the United Nations convention. It would be an injustice and against all human values.
  I am aware of people in my constituency who have made applications to enter as visitors to visit relatives for very good reasons. For example, old men and women want to participate in weddings or some other family celebration. Asian families are close knit. The people still believe in their own culture and they want to have something to do with each other. They like to get together. However, when they make applications in Delhi to do that they encounter many difficulties and their applications are rejected; I could cite many cases to prove that.
  The proposal to remove the right of appeal is despicable. The people who visit my constituency bring
  80
  money into the country. They buy things to take back to India and so spend money here. Also, visitors come for social, cultural and traditional reasons. They do not come to stay permanently. Of course, I am aware that some people contravene the conditions of their stay, but that does not mean that we must punish the decent and honest citizens.
  People who were refused an application in Delhi, Pakistan or elsewhere have the right to appeal. My organisation has been dealing with appeals cases and it has represented people in the adjudicators' courts. Nearly 1,700 appeals were accepted and those people had the right to come to this country. That facility was available under immigration rules but will be denied under the Bill. That is against human decency and human justice. People will be punished for nothing.
  The entry clearance officers over there, who I have been told are bloody minded, already ask totally unreasonable questions. They ask applicants how many cows they have in the village or how many cows the family has. They want to know the colour of the bricks or the direction that the main door of the house faces. Those are unreasonable questions. In effect, the entry clearance officers have already decided that they will reject such applications. It is clear from the records of appeal cases that such interviews are conducted by entry clearance officers in foreign countries.
  The Home Secretary said that there was a backlog of 23,000 applications. If that backlog is the reason for the removal of such a fundamental right, that is illogical. The Bill places Conservative Members in a difficult position. The two Conservative Members who represent constituencies in Ealing are present in the Chamber. They are aware of the problems that people face, but they are not as sensitive to the matter as I am—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman's time is up.
  7.38 pm
  Mr. Jim Lester: May I first declare an interest in that I am chairman of the Africa committee of the British Refugee Council and have held that post for a considerable number of years. Therefore, I have dealt intermittently and consistently with asylum cases.
  Although I understand why we have an Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill and I spoke in the debates on the earlier Asylum Bill, I am sorry that we have confused the two issues of asylum and immigration, particularly in the long title. Many of the fears expressed across Europe and elsewhere in the world are related to immigration and not asylum.
  From an analysis of the figures in this country, the people who seek asylum here come from countries where there arc wars and real difficulties, but people seek to emigrate for different reasons. Immigration is a separate issue and should be handled differently from asylum. I am sorry that the two are confused. I hope that all hon. Members will try as far as they can to ensure that the two are not related in the public mind.
  From my long experience of dealing with asylum seekers from Africa, I know that many people who come here have been detected by our embassies and high commissions abroad. Consulates often earmark and identify people who are genuinely politically at risk—the

  81
  serious cases—and provide documents to enable them to come here, especially when there have been the sort of changes of Government that have taken place in Africa.
  People who come here by other means from Ethiopia or Uganda or people who are here when there has been a change of Government abroad are, by and large, highly qualified and they seek employment. One aspect of asylum seekers which is often misunderstood is that they do not seek to stay here. They want to be here temporarily until whatever has happened in their country changes—until the war finishes or a more acceptable regime comes to power —and then they go back. I know of many happy occasions when Ugandan refugees—who have been here more than once as that sad country has gone through different regimes—have returned home.
  I know of such a case at the moment. An Ethiopian, whom I was able to help in the short term because of changes in his country, has now been satisfied by his family and the Ethiopian ambassador that—in spite of the steps which he has taken to apply for asylum—it is safe for him to return to Ethiopia. He is going back willingly because that is his country and that is where he can make his contribution.
  We all recognise that some asylum cases are manifestly unfounded and that they need to be dealt with quickly and efficiently. During the passage of the Asylum Bill last year, Conservative Members applied pressure on the issue of secondary appeals and I am grateful that that has been worked out in this Bill.
  I have listened carefully to Opposition Members' speeches. We must take care that we do not narrow asylum to the definition in the 1951 convention. The world has changed a great deal since then. My colleagues in the Home Office have exercised the right of exceptional leave to remain on more than one occasion. It requires the wisdom of Solomon. We all know of cases which could not be narrowly defined as asylum cases under the 1951 convention but which, in all humanity, required help and assistance.
  I hope that we are not shutting out exceptional leave to remain, which is difficult to define. I have often wondered whether we should redefine refugees and asylum seekers, but I recognise that that would be incredibly difficult to do internationally. We must retain in our system the humanity to deal with cases when exceptional leave to remain for a short time could be helpful.
  When we talk about numbers, I feel concerned. I am humbled at the number of refugees taken in by poor countries such as Malawi and Kenya. At one stage, southern Sudan took in refugees from Uganda. If we translated those numbers to our situation, it would mean taking in hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of refugees. It is incumbent upon us to be helpful to asylum seekers and those in need of exceptional leave to remain and to ensure that we give the maximum possible assistance to countries with far fewer resources than ours —countries which have to deal with far greater refugee problems.
  We should be able to deal with fingerprinting sensibly. I see no reason why people should be fingerprinted because they are seeking asylum, unless they have destroyed their documents. If they have done so, for whatever reason, they need some form of identification. That problem could be dealt with by ruling that people would not be fingerprinted as a matter of course but only if they had no proper identification.
  82
  I share Opposition Members' anxieties about clause 9. If we take away the right of appeal for people who have asked for their families to visit for legitimate and sensible reasons, we must do more to the mechanism at the other end where people apply. Those of my constituents who seek leave to appeal do not do so because they are not clued in to the fact that if the appeal takes place a year after the wedding it is no good. They appeal out of a sense of resentment. Their families have been accused of being guilty of some crime and they want to clear their name. People who issue wedding invitations are more likely to be resentful than some of the people refused the opportunity to come to Britain. Not everyone views coming to Britain as a great prospect, especially if it is winter.
  I have constantly suggested that we should study people who issue invitations for family functions and judge their credibility and position in society. I have never been let down in my constituency experience, and I have been bitterly resentful when constituents have been let down because their relatives have not been able to come here for a family occasion.
  However hard one tries, it is difficult to find a genuine reason for the refusals. I heard it suggested that some people had been refused entry because they had not sent in their documents. I discovered that there was a preliminary procedure when people looked at the documents and said. "You haven't got a chance, don't bother to submit these." When their documents were faxed to me and submitted from this end of the system, I was told that the case would be considered.
  This is not the end of the matter. If we refuse leave to appeal through a complicated legal system, we must find a better mechanism to be just to families who want relatives to join them for family occasions—something that we would think of as normal.
  7.46 pm
  Mr. Keith Vaz: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester). If only he were the Home Secretary piloting the Bill through the House, perhaps its clauses would be different and we would have much to agree about.
  There is a clock in the office of the Minister with responsibility for immigration—an office which was once occupied by the Minister of State at the Home Office. who is sitting on the Government Front Bench. The hands of the clock are stuck at a particular time—I think that it is 4 o'clock. Whenever I visit the Minister the clock remains at the same time. The clock, like the Government's immigration policy, is stuck in a time warp, which appeals to the prejudices and fears of a section of the community in Britain.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. He always comes to see me at 4 o'clock in time for tea and thinks that the clock has stopped. It is his interest in a cup of tea which is responsible for the clock always showing that time.
  Mr. Vaz: I shall take up the Minister's challenge and visit him about another case tomorrow at 5 o'clock and find out what time the clock shows.
  The prejudice to which the Bill appeals is typical of Conservative Governments. In 1987, when I was first elected to the House, the Immigration Bill was one of the first pieces of legislation tabled by the Government. I

  83
  served with my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) on the Standing Committee of that Bill. The then Home Secretary, who is now the Foreign Secretary, told the House that that Bill was being tabled to provide a better customer service. If the Home Secretary was the managing director of Marks and Spencer and was providing a customer service, would he still be in a job?
  Our immigration service has been in a shambles and a crisis for the past 13 years. Even the Select Committee on Home Affairs, of which I was a member until recently, produced an all-party report which described the shambles at Lunar house when 250,000 unopened letters were discovered some years ago. It is a measure of concern about problems which are indicative of the Government's immigration policy that one of the last debates of the Home Affairs Select Committee with which I was involved concerned a proposal to set up a subcommittee on immigration and nationality. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) is to be a member of that subcommittee, because I have felt for many years that it is extremely important for the House and the Select Committee to take a keen interest in immigration and nationality.
  It is typical of a Conservative Government to try to rush through such a controversial and outrageous piece of legislation as this in the first year of their parliamentary term. It is typical of them to have done so in such a brazen way as that adopted by the Home Secretary. It is as if the Government believe that they are introducing the Bill to benefit people in this country and in some way to appease some unknown section of the community that is demanding tough new immigration and asylum procedures.
  There is much to disagree about in the Bill and if I were to go through every single clause, many of which have already been mentioned, I and the House would be here all night. I am conscious of the fact that I only have a few minutes to speak and in that time I should like to refer to the clause concerning the removal of the right of appeal in visitors' cases.
  It must be obvious to the Minister of State that there is concern on both sides of the House about that proposal. When the Minister with responsibility for immigration returns from his supper and replies to the debate, I hope that he will address himself not only to the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and others but those raised by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) and the hon. Member for Broxtowe, because those people speak with the experience gained from working with immigration cases.
  Each week at my constituency surgery I deal with 60 new immigration cases, half of which are directly concerned with refusals of visitors' visas. Of course people want to go through the appeal process because they feel that it is vital that they should. I encourage them to do so because I believe that that is the only way in which we can check and double check on the actions of entry clearance officers.
  We have already heard what entry clearance officers do when they interview people, some of whom travel from distant parts of the sub-continent to get there. If they are
  84
  refused a visa they must then send in an appeal form. Those people must wait up to nine months before an explanatory statement is sent from Bombay or Islamabad to the Home Office in London. They have to wait a further three months for the statement to go from the Home Office to the immigration tribunal. They then have to wait for up to a further six months until a date is fixed for their hearing. Those delays are the cause of the backlog of 23,000 cases. Insufficient resources have been allocated to the immigration tribunal to deal with the problem. If the explanatory statement was sent from Bombay, Islamabad or New Delhi in a time acceptable to all, the backlog would simply not exist because people would be able to make their appeal in the proper way.
  I appreciate that Ministers and the Government believe that if they take away the right of appeal, the backlog will disappear. However, I assure them that that means that constituents will lobby their Members of Parliament and that those hon. Members will write not just to the migration and visa correspondence unit—the convenient place where Ministers have now asked us to send our correspondence—but straight to Ministers. We will expect a speedy answer from them.
  I do not hold a shadow Front Bench position, but I am prepared to do a deal with the Minister, and, if he is in the mood, I hope that he will accept my bargain. If he restores the right of Members of Parliament to intervene in immigration cases, and if every person refused admission on a visitor's visa is allowed to come into this country if their Member of Parliament intervenes so that that visit can take place—it will cost the taxpayer absolutely nothing —I am prepared to support his call for the removal of the right of appeal. If he accepts my offer, the Member of Parliament would still be able to ensure that cases are monitored and a proper result is achieved.
  I accept that such a deal would result in a lot more work for hon. Members, but I am prepared to take on such a work load because I am sick of people visiting my constituency surgery, many of them weeping and suffering from deep anxiety and distress, because close relatives have been refused admission for a wedding or to visit members of their family.
  It was an outrage for the Minister of State to turn up at the temple in Newham and to talk to members of the community as though he were their friend. He appealed to them about their involvement in British society, but in the same month he restricted the rights of that community's relatives to come to this country. He refused relatives the right to visit the very people in the temple at Brent to whom he was trying to appeal and appease. That is an outrage and I promise him and the Home Secretary—
  Mr. Peter Lloyd rose—
  Mr. Vaz: I will not give way.
  I will follow the Minister and the Home Secretary around the country—I hope that other hon. Members will do the same—and when they turn up at places of worship and pretend to be friends of the community, I will point out what they seek to do under the Bill.
  After the Bill becomes law—I very much hope that that will not happen—what will be the next thing the Government introduce to restrict the rights of people coming into this country? That is my greatest fear. Recently I re-read Enoch Powell's speech of 28 April 1968. I am proud that the country has been able to progress as

  85
  it has in the past 24 years. I fear that Bills of this nature will set the nation back and create even more prejudices than they seek to avert.
  7.55 pm
  Mr. Mike Watson: I spoke against this Bill's predecessor when it came before the House in November last year and again in January. I am sorry to see that the present version shows little improvement, if any, on the original one. Hon. Members will recall that the Government tried to rush through the original Bill before the general election was called in April. Although there is no such pressure on the Government at present, they are rushing the Bill through again without due time for consideration. That in itself is a matter for great regret.
  I have listened to the entire debate and it is noticeable that a number of Conservative Members, including the hon. Members for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths), for Chingford (Mr. Duncan-Smith) and for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), made great play of the fact that clause 2 mentions the 1951 United Nations convention on refugees. They did not tell us—I hope that the Minister will do so when he replies—that it is impossible to reconcile a commitment to that convention with the fact that clause 11 puts the onus on airlines and shipping companies, on pain of fines, to prevent potential asylum seekers from travelling to this country. It may not be widely known that fines totalling £40 million were levied on shipping and airline companies in 1991 as a result of their contravention of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987. That illustrates the scale of the problem and the extent to which the Government are shifting the burden of dealing with the problem on to airline and shipping companies. That is entirely wrong.
  By preventing political refugees from leaving their country of origin to seek asylum the Government are denying them justice and are in breach of the 1951 convention. The Government have not addressed that specific important issue. It is also important to note that paragraphs 6 and 7 of the draft immigration rules issued with the Bill state:
  "In determining an asylum application the Secretary of State will have regard to matters, which, if no reasonable explanation is adduced. may damage an asylum applicant's credibility. Among such matters are … that the applicant has made false representations, either orally or in writing. That the applicant has destroyed, damaged or disposed of any passport, other document or ticket relevant to his claim."
  Those conditions are in direct contravention of article 31 of the United Nations convention, which, according to clause 2, the Government are prepared to stand by. That article accepts that asylum seekers may, in certain cases, be required to disguise their intentions, or indeed their identity, in order to reach safety from their country.
  How do Conservative Members, or indeed the Minister, reconcile that with the commitment in clause 2? We might well ask why the European convention on human rights is not included in clause 2 because the immigration rules contravene article 3 of it which forbids the expulsion of people to a territory where they may be tortured. That is precisely what may happen—my hon. Friends and I believe that it will—if this squalid Bill is introduced. There is more to it than the Government would have us believe.
  I hope that the Minister will answer those points. Unless the Bill is amended as we suggest, the Government
  86
  will be in contravention of both conventions to which I referred. They will then be vilified much more widely than merely by Opposition Members.
  Clause 3 contains the scandalous proposal to fingerprint people who have made an asylum claim. That is a basic and fundamental breach of human rights. Not only those who may apply for asylum after the Bill becomes law but those who applied before the Bill was even drafted will be fingerprinted. It is a restrospective measure which further exacerbates the iniquitous nature of the clause.
  Those who fail to comply with the requirement to be fingerprinted under clause 3 will be criminalised. It will be assumed that they are guilty and that they have made a bogus application. At present, the only people who can be fingerprinted under the law in Britain are those who have been charged with an imprisonable offence. The measure breaks entirely new ground and for that reason it is worrying. It is not—at least not yet—a criminal offence to apply for asylum in Britain, but it will become so if the Bill becomes law. [interruption.] Conservative Members may tut, but that is the thrust of the Bill. If people do not provide fingerprints, they will be treated the same as those who are guilty of a criminal offence. If that is not the case, I challenge Conservative Members to gainsay it.
  The Government suggest that there is a danger of multiple applications for asylum or of unspecified benefit fraud. The Home Secretary failed to give evidence of the problem and why it was necessary for individuals to be fingerprinted. It is alarmist to suggest that there will be multiple applications or, indeed, fraud. The measure is more likely to engender animosity towards asylum seekers. Even more iniquitously, families, wives and children will also be subjected to fingerprinting. The implication is that they are out to defraud Britain. Automatically, they are required to prove their innocence. If they do not, they are treated as guilty.
  The provision to apply undue weight to a failure to report for fingerprinting is equally lacking in natural justice. Failure to report for fingerprinting may be taken into account and used when reaching a decision. It is separate from the decision and from the merits of the case whether the individual who seeks asylum has submitted himself to fingerprinting. That underlines that the Government, their supporters and those who were involved in drafting the Bill fundamentally failed to grasp what is involved when many of the people who approach our shores seek asylum.
  As my hon. Friends said earlier, it is not possible for people to queue at the embassy in their country of origin to ask for an exit visa. Equally, it may not be possible for individuals who seek asylum to submit themselves to fingerprinting. They almost certainly have suffered at the hands of the authorities in their country. They may mistrust people in authority. They certainly will not find it easy to subject themselves to human rights abuses, which they seek to escape. That shows a lack of understanding on the part of the Government. The Home Secretary arid Conservative Back Benchers live in a different world from those of us who deal regularly with asylum and immigration cases.
  Clause 3 is just one of the clauses that fail to identify the priorities which I suggest any advanced society should exhibit to people who flee persecution or who simply wish to visit relatives already resident in the United Kingdom.

  87
  I have many members of the ethnic minority. community in my constituency. Many of the cases with which I deal involve visitors. Families who come to me because they cannot bring relatives into this country suffer great anguish. Yet the Government propose to make that more difficult. first, by denying people appeals and. secondly, by tainting those people for ever and preventing them from coming to Britain at a later date.
  I quote two figures. In 1991. some 8,000 appeals were made on behalf of people seeking entry visas. Some 1,700 of those appeals were successful. That is precisely the type of people who will be denied the right to enter Britain if the Bill becomes law in its present form. I and many others will seek to ensure that it does not. The Committee stage offers us the opportunity to so so. For the sake of the reputation of the Government and of our country in the broader community, and especially the United Nations—in the context of the convention to which I referred—I hope that the Government will take on board the points that I have made and realise that they arc out of tune with what people are entitled to expect from the Government. I hope that they will amend the Bill accordingly.
  8.4 pm
  Mr. Roger Gale (Thant, North): I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in the debate. I apologise profusely to the House for not being here earlier because I had to attend to other parliamentary business I am aware that Opposition Members have been waiting a considerable time to speak. I shall endeavour not to detain them too long.
  Some Opposition Members, including the hon. Members for Leicester. East (Mr. Vaz) and for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), are aware of my interest in immigration matters. I was privileged to serve on the Committee which considered the previous Bill, before it fell because the general election was called. That Bill had my support. it will not surprise the House to know that. having reconsidered the arguments, the new Bill also has my support.
  As a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee before the dissolution of the previous Parliament, I was privileged, along with some other hon. Members present this evening, to visit the then east German-Polish border and the Italian frontier. My colleagues and I saw for ourselves the scale of the problem of emigration from the former Soviet Union and from northern Africa into Italy and, therefore, into the European Community. It became apparent to all of us who took part in the exercise that a problem existed on a scale with which Europe has not had to deal for a long time.
  Germany is introducing measures to control immigration and tighten up its asylum procedures, which are currently prolonged. Other countries in the European Community—not just the United Kingdom—find it necessary to address this matter. If we do not do so. we will see more of the abhorrent incidents that we witnessed in southern Germany recently. They have been described as neo-nazism but arc simply racism by whatever name. We all find that abhorrent.
  I studied the previous Bill in great detail. I was satisfied that, broadly speaking, it satisfied the ends that we wished to achieve. Any Bill can be improved by fine-tuning in
  88
  Committee and I am sure that the new Bill will be. Our ends were to speed the process of granting asylum for the genuine political asylum seeker and to ensure that fraudulent abuse of the procedure was prevented as far as possible, given a humane approach.
  As a constituency Member of Parliament, I have dealt —as I am sure other hon. Members have done—with two types of asylum case. The first is that of the genuine asylum seeker, which we have staunchly sought to promote. The second is the case of those whom we have represented to the best of our ability because we represent our constituencies, but we have done so in the fairly certain knowledge that they have sought to abuse the system. I am thinking of students who live in Britain for some years yet who when the time comes to return home, suddenly choose to claim asylum. I regard that as an abuse of the system.
  I have had to reconsider one issue in the light of personal experience. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) made a plea when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary was briefly absent and the Minister of State. My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd), was on the Front Bench. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe stressed the need to give great consideration to exceptional need to remain and to a careful definition of the manner in which we applied our asylum rules.
  I have had two recent cases. The first was a family who fled what was Yugoslavia to their only known relative and safe haven in the United Kingdom. It was a powerful case. The family's grandparents had been murdered by the Nazis during the war and the parents were murdered during the current disturbances in what was Yugoslavia. They were left with nowhere to go. except to one relative who happened to live in my constituency. I was pleased that, with enormous help from my hon. Friend the Minister and his Department, as well as considerable help from the Foreign Office, that family was able to obtain a safe haven in this country. It was absolutely correct that they should be able to do so. It is a slightly moot point as to whether, under the rigid convention, they were political refugees. I was most impressed by the manner in which the immigration service, the Home Office and the Foreign Office exercised compassionate judgment.
  My hon. Friend the Minister knows that my wife and I have been involved to some extent in the plight of Romanian refugees. One case is that of a young man, now 18, whose family home burnt down when he was about 15. His parents disappeared, believed shot, under the Ceausescu regime. His sisters were placed in a convent and he and his brothers were placed in an orphanage from which he escaped. He made his way overland to Germany, where he was resident and seeking asylum for 18 months.
  The young man found himself on the receiving end of neo-Nazi persecution. Not entirely surprisingly, he got out of Germany as fast as possible. Following a bizarre set of circumstances, he ended up on our shores and he is currently seeking asylum. If experience is anything to go by, I have no doubt that the Home Office will be sympathetic to his case, and I hope and believe that he will he given leave to remain in this country. I appreciate the sympathetic manner with which the immigration services at Dover handled that case.
  I see that the hon. Member for Leicester. East has returned to the Chamber following his departure on what was, I am sure, parliamentary business. I find it sad that

  89
  someone who I know pays diligent attention to his constituents' needs and to immigration generally thought it necessary to attack my hon. Friend the Minister, who has given sympathetic attention to such matters over many years.
  I shall most certainly support the Bill, which I believe to be necessary. In the interests both of good relations in this country and of genuine asylum seekers, I hope that the Bill's provisions will be tempered in future, as they have in the past, with the sympathetic and individual consideration of every case.
  8.13 pm
  Ms. Glenda Jackson: The issue of asylum and its possible denial is of particular concern to my constituents. Hampstead and Highgate, in common with many other parts of the country, has played an historic role in providing a haven for those fleeing war and tyranny. In the late 18th century my constituency was home to many refugees fleeing the French revolution's reign of terror. Some 200 years later it provided sanctuary for those members of the Jewish community escaping the scourge of fascism that was enveloping Europe. It now offers home to, among others, refugees from the African continent and eastern Europe. I am proud of my constituency's record in providing a home for those seeking asylum, as are those whom I represent and, I believe, the vast majority of people in the country.
  When the Bill's forerunner was introduced immediately prior to the last election I believe its purpose was clear. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) that, by attempting to blur the separate issues of asylum and immigration, the Government tried to introduce a note of racism. Governments facing electoral difficulty often evoke the image of the enemy without to divert attention from problems at home. It is a matter of deep regret that the House was not spared the Bill's reintroduction. In a multi-cultural society it is no longer acceptable to portray the arrival on our shores of those with different nationalities and racial origins as a threat that must be opposed tooth and nail.
  If the Government had an impeccable record on discharging their obligation to those seeking asylum, one might be prepared to entertain their argument that the Bill's sole purpose was to distinguish quickly and fairly between those genuinely afraid and in danger of persecution and those who are not. However, the Bill is being introduced by a Government who have already, within existing legislation, returned a number of genuine asylum seekers to imprisonment, torture and, in some cases, death. Therefore, for the Government to ask the House for powers to restrict further the ability of people to seek refuge within these islands is little short of incredible.
  I shall list some of the legislation to which we, as hon. Members, are being asked to accede. We are being asked to provide the Home Secretary with the power to fingerprint those guilty of no crime and those who are not even suspected of crime. We are being asked to provide the Home Secretary with powers to fingerprint children and even babies. We are being asked to provide the Home Secretary with the power to
  "take such steps as may be reasonably necessary"
  90
  to force an asylum seeker to provide his or her fingerprints. What is the definition of reasonable steps? Is that how those fleeing persecution are to be greeted when they enter the United Kingdom?
  We are being asked to remove local authorities from their obligation to house those asylum seekers deemed to have access to
  "any accommodation, however temporary, which it would be reasonable … to occupy".
  What is the definition of "reasonable"? The Government deem it reasonable to leave hundreds of their own citizens to sleep in cardboard boxes on the streets. It is disgraceful for the Government to attempt to blame asylum seekers for the appalling housing shortage as the Government could and should have tackled the housing shortage years ago.
  The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) said that his local authority found it very difficult to provide housing, but every local authority within the London district is experiencing that problem. This nation is a signatory to the United Nations convention; the problem is a national one, and central Government should help local authorities that still have —as I believe they should—the responsibility at the sharp end to house those granted asylum.
  The right of appeal is something of which the Government would seem to be proud. In their booklet "Guidance to Members of Parliament" the Government boast:
  "Britain is the only nation in the world to offer a statutory right of appeal over refusal of entry from abroad".
  However, they are now asking the House to remove that right. The Government seek to destroy all that makes this country unique and special. That will have direct consequences for those who genuinely seek asylum because, as the Foreign Secretary said, the majority of asylum applications are made by people who are already in this country on a genuine and properly documented basis hut who, due to a change in the circumstances of their home country, are unwilling or afraid to return.
  I have referred to some of the powers that the House is being asked to confer on the Home Secretary under the Bill. One of the most disturbing aspects of Government policy towards asylum and immigration is the amount of power already exercised by the Home Secretary. Clause 11 of the Bill amends the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 to
  "provide that the Secretary of State may by order require persons of a description specified in the order to hold a visa if they wish to pass through the United Kingdom en route to another country."
  Last week I was contacted by one of my constituents who wished to meet for a couple of hours with his sister-in-law—a Sri Lankan national—who was passing through the United Kingdom en route to South Africa. When I contacted the immigration officers at Heathrow I was informed that such a meeting would not be possible as Sri Lankan nationals require a visa even if they wish to pass through the United Kingdom en route to another country.
  While the House is being asked to vote on whether to confer powers on the Home Secretary, he is already exercising them. Presumably, if the House votes against conferring those powers on the Home Secretary, he will still continue to exercise them freely. Therefore, I ask the Minister who is to respond to the debate to give the House an assurance that he will suspend the visa restriction on

  91
  those nationals currently passing en route to other destinations until the legislation is either passed or, as I hope and believe, defeated.
  If this Bill is defeated and the House refuses to grant the powers that the Home Secretary is requesting—even though he is already exercising them—I ask for an assurance that the visa restriction be immediately dropped. Asylum is about providing sanctuary from tyranny and oppression. This Bill returns people to tyranny and oppression. It stands in total opposition to everything that the House has always represented and, I believe, always will represent. It has no place here.
  8.20 pm
  Mrs. Barbara Roche: During the course of this debate Conservative Members have spoken of the asylum record of this country. They have said that Great Britain provided a refuge for the Huguenot community and later for the Jewish community —in which case I have personal experience. My great-grandparents were asylum seekers who came to this country. They sought asylum at the beginning of the century from the pogroms in Russia and from anti-semitism in Poland. Were they here today, they would be delighted to learn that their great-granddaughter had been elected to the House of Commons, but they would be appalled by the fact that we were debating a Bill of this nature.
  There is a sense of revulsion against the Bill, not just in communities that have come here from elsewhere but among the people of Britain. My post bag is full of letters from constituents who feel that sense of revulsion.
  The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) put the Bill in its correct context: the majority of the world's refugees seek sanctuary in their own regions. Most of them come from countries in the south and they seek refuge in neighbouring—often poor—countries. Only about 5 per cent. of the world's estimated 17·5 million refugees try to come to Europe. In Somalia one person in six is a refugee; in Britain, the figure is only one in 5,500. That puts the debate in perspective.
  We can, therefore, discount the Government's suggestion that the Bill is being introduced to create a fairer system. It is clearly not about that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms. Jackson) rightly said, the Bill is about diverting attention from the catastrophic economic difficulties in which the Government find themselves—and they are taking it out on the most vulnerable people who are seeking refuge in this country.
  Why has there been such an outcry if this is such a fair system? When the Bill last came before the House and then had to be dropped because of the election it was hoped that the Government would talk to all the interested organisations. Have they? Have they spoken to Shelter, to SHAC—the Shelter Housing Aid Centre—to the Refugee Council, to the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants? Have they spoken to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, or to the Board of Deputies of British Jews, or to the church groups?
  As Amnesty International has said:
  "It is a matter of deep regret … that the Government has failed to use the opportunity provided by the shelving of the Asylum Bill to engage in … dialogue".
  92
  The Bill proposes that fingerprints be taken from people who seek asylum here. No wonder there is such a feeling of outrage. To what end will the fingerprints be taken? Who will have access to them; to whom will the information be passed? The Bill is silent on these points.
  The 1951 Geneva convention obliges the Government to accord to refugees
  "lawfully staying in their territory the same treatment with respect to public relief and assistance as is accorded to their nationals".
  Is it not an absolute disgrace that we have been presented with proposals on housing and fingerprinting which will break that convention?
  Why do the Government want to keep these fingerprints for 10 years? If a person is refused asylum or leave to remain, is that to disqualify him or her from applying again in new circumstances—new persecution, new threats to life? Cannot these factors be considered when a person applies a second time? There is a strong feeling in this country that fingerprints should be taken only in exceptionally serious circumstances. That has been enshrined in our law, and it is why these proposals have been greeted with such outrage by so many.
  Opposition Members have already spoken of the indignity that will befall asylum seekers. Having gone through the process of fingerprinting they then face the new restriction on the right of appeal. The Secretary of State and other Conservative Members have told us that, although a fair appeals process is necessary for the people of this country, we should apply lesser standards to others.
  Let us examine the way in which visitors to this country are treated. Last year, 1,726 such people won their appeals. Some of them were my constituents. I agree with hon. Friends who have told us why it is essential that the right to appeal should remain. Recently a constituent of mine was refused, at first sight, entry to this country to spend a holiday because when she had come here a couple of years before she had said at first that she would stay for a month. Subsequently given six months to stay, she quite properly left after five, but when she returned she was told that that was a reason to deny her. Was she to have no right to appeal against this stain on her character and on her immigration history?
  Amnesty International's document "Towards a Credible Asylum Process" suggests some positive principles:
  "if each applicant is given a complete personal interview by the official responsible for the determination of the asylum claim, his or her credibility can be fairly assessed … a competent interviewer with expert knowledge of current conditions in the applicant's country of origin should be able to make a correct and fair determination promptly."
  That does not happen, and nothing in this legislation will bring it about.
  If Britain is to live up to its obligations under the United Nations convention on refugees, we must have a just asylum system. As long as there is conflict or abuse of human rights throughout the world, people will apply for asylum and rightly so. Unless we deal with these applications fairly and thoroughly we run the risk of sending people back to countries where they may be tortured or where they may face death. This Bill makes that risk palpable for many asylum seekers as well as creating terrible difficulties for people seeking to visit their families or to study in this country. I urge hon. Members to oppose it.
  8.28 pm
  Mr. Neil Gerrard: This quite short Bill contains perhaps only nine clauses covering substantive issues. It would be difficult to find a Bill containing so few clauses which packs in so much obnoxious and discriminatory material. The Bill sets out to attack some of the most vulnerable people. It discriminates against them, harasses them and, above all, seeks to get them out of the country. The public approach of the Government, as we have heard in the debate, is to brand asylum seekers as liars and as bogus. They say that such people are economic refugees and play the numbers game. The Secretary of State said that there were 500,000 or possibly 750,000 refugees in Europe. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) about the need to take a broader view.
  The vast majority of the world's 18 million refugees are not in Europe and, of those who are, relatively few are in the United Kingdom. Most refugees are in the poorest countries. It is a dreadful commentary on the way that the so-called civilised world responds to its duties under the UN convention and its moral responsibilities that a country such as Ethiopia, which has gone through a great deal in the past decade, has to play host to several hundred thousand Somali refugees—and it gets little help to deal with the problem.
  Several hon. Members have spoken about the Home Secretary's comments on exceptional leave to remain. It is plain that the Government consider that people given exceptional leave to remain are not worthy of asylum and are not covered by the 1951 convention. The Home Secretary said that exceptional leave was given because the time taken on decisions and delays meant that it would be unreasonable to remove people from the country. My experience and that of many people who deal with asylum seekers and casework is that it is extremely difficult to see the logic of past decisions. Often people who are given exceptional leave to remain have genuine fears of persecution.
  It is difficult to follow Home Office logic in deciding who should be chosen for asylum status and who should be chosen for exceptional leave to remain. I recently dealt with the case of two Sri Lankan asylum seekers. Both had been in the same prison in Sri Lanka, both had been tortured and both arrived here and applied for asylum. One was granted asylum and the other was given exceptional leave to remain, although it is impossible to find a distinction between the two. I fear that under the Bill exceptional leave will become a refusal, the refusal rate will go up and more and more people at risk will be deported.
  I should like to concentrate on the Bill's housing clauses which are a catalogue of discrimination. The Commission for Racial Equality takes the view that they contradict the Race Relations Act 1976. It is the first time for many years that a specific group of people will be singled out for lesser housing entitlement because of the nature of their case and their race and country. The Bill introduces discrimination to what is now—I was about to say fair, but the legislation could not be described as fair—the practice of treating everybody under the same set of rules.
  When some people—not all—go to the housing departments of local authorities, they will be asked to prove their status. Those who will be asked for passports will inevitably be non-white and appear to have a foreign accent and a foreign name. That is how many local
  94
  authority housing officers will set about establishing whether someone is an asylum seeker. Not only asylum seekers but black people going to housing offices will be affected.
  Mr. Corbyn: The related problem is that the information held by local authority housing departments could be passed to oppressive regimes which could then seek retribution against their relatives.
  Mr. Gerrard: I agree. That was mentioned earlier. The Government should state that there will be confidentiality and, if necessary, table amendments to make sure that that is the case.
  The Bill specifically overrides the homelessness legislation and directly contradicts the homelessness guidance code which was issued only last year by the Government. The Bill does not even say that an asylum seeker has to be occupying property but simply says that there should be available accommodation which the local authority thinks might be reasonable. It specifically says "however temporary". That might be accommodation that is available for just one or two days. That means that asylum seekers will have to be on the streets before they are considered homeless.
  Even when asylum is granted, there is more discrimination because the asylum seeker is sent back to square one and is reassessed by the housing authority as if he had never been dealt with before. That raises the possibility of someone who had applied for asylum six months before being accepted as a person in priority need. For example, under the Bill, a woman who is five months pregnant might have her application determined six months later. If in the meantime she has lost the child, she no longer qualifies for priority need. What is the local authority expected to do? The legislation implies that she will be evicted.
  I have not heard any justification for that nasty little piece of discrimination, the 12-month wait for secure or assured tenancy. Why should people be kicked out after they have been granted asylum? Housing pressures, shortages and queues are caused not by asylum seekers but by the Government's failure to invest. I agree with Conservative Members who spoke about the need for extra resources for local authorities that have to deal with asylum seekers. I have been on delegations which met Ministers on precisely that point.
  We object to the Bill and will campaign and vote against it because it will lead to people living in squalor on the streets. People will be sent back to prison and torture and many will die. When those things happen, we shall remind everyone who votes for the Bill.
  8.37 pm
  Mr. John Austin-Walker: My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was right when he described the Bill and its forerunner as squalid pieces of legislation. Conservative Members would have us believe that good community and race relations depend upon restrictive immigration policies. The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) attributed the fact that Britain does not have a powerful National Front party to the imposition of strict immigration controls. The decline of the National Front owes more to the swamping speech by the former Prime Minister, which led to members of the National Front

  95
  leaving in droves to support the Conservative party, than to any immigration or asylum policy. Who needs the National Front or a Le Pen in this country when we have the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker)?
  My hon. Friends the Members for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms. Jackson) and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) were right to say that the Bill and especially its forerunner were used during the general election to fan the flames of racism. I agree with the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) that it is entirely wrong to introduce to an asylum Bill the whole question of immigration because the two issues are clearly separate. To combine them is to confuse the issue.
  The Opposition recognise that there is a need for a process to deal with asylum applications. It must be based on the 1951 United Nations convention on human rights and it must contain an automatic right of appeal, with the time and facilities to prepare a case. The Bill does not fulfil those requirements. The way in which it drags in immigration law is squalid.
  I opposed the Immigration Act 1971, but the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) had no intention of using that Act to stop people coming here to visit their families or to attend weddings, funerals, religious ceremonies and family get-togethers, or to take away from any applicant to be a visitor the right of appeal against an arbitrary decision of an immigration or entry clearance officer. As other hon. Members have pointed out, the strength of any appeals system lies not only in the right of redress for the aggrieved or wronged but in the fact that it acts as a control on arbitrary decision-making by officials. Those who know that their decisions may be subject to appeal are likely to behave differently from those who know that their appeals are not subject to appeal, scrutiny, challenge or review.
  Under the present appeals system for visitors entering the country, 20 per cent. of those whose applications are refused are subsequently accepted, on appeal, as genuine visitors. That is 1,700 a year unjustly refused entry, and if the Bill becomes law, they will have no justice.
  The Home Secretary said that we do not need an elaborate appeals system for visitors because visits are not a question of life or death. However, people often come to visit a terminally ill relative. They may be grandparents coming for the birth of a grandchild. They may be coming to a daughter's wedding. These may not be the matters of life or death of which we think when we debate asylum, but they are matters of life for the community and they are an essential part of the community's life. The vivid pictures painted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook and my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) and for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra) of the way in which the Conservative party, which claims to he the party of family life actually divides families, show how squalid is this Bill.
  Tory Members say that we should beware of economic refugees, but the Government and their immigration officials assume that anybody coming from a country with a lower standard of living must be attempting to enter by deception. If that is not the assumption, why is it that of white visitors from America, Australia or Canada, one in 2,000 are refused entry, while one in 50 visitors from Jamaica are refused entry? Why is a visitor 40 times more
  96
  likely to be refused entry to visit relatives if he is black than if he is white? Despite that statistic, the right of appeal will be taken away by this squalid Bill.
  Some urgent reforms could have been brought into an asylum Bill if immigration matters are to be included in it. It is not only in other countries that people face violence and oppression. The immigration laws trap many women in violent marital relationships. If the Government wanted to relieve oppression, they could have changed the law to free such women, allowing them to escape without the fear of deportation.
  Another omission is any reference to unaccompanied children, a problem that the Government would address if they were truly concerned about genuine refugees. The Bill offers nothing to such children or to the local authorities that are trying to cope with their arrival. The Government have manifestly failed to establish facilities to support them, and have attended only as observers the various meetings set up to try to provide those resources. All that the Bill offers child refugees is the chance to be fingerprinted.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) outlined the problems that will occur in housing. He mentioned the clause that refers to
  "accommodation, however temporary, which it would be reasonable for him to occupy".
  I have recently returned from visiting Bosnian refugee camps in Slovenia where I saw some of the former military barracks and prisons in which refugees are temporarily accommodated. Is that the kind of accommodation that would relieve a local authority of the obligation to respond to the needs of refugees within its community? If there is a spare space on a church floor, does that absolve the local authority of any responsibility under the Housing Act 1985?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow was right to say that the operation of the clause will force local authorities into breaches of the Race Relations Act 1976, and to point out the impact that it will have on black residents as local authorities try to establish whether the people applying for accommodation are asylum seekers. It will introduce the immigration checks and passport controls that he outlined and will bring in a system that is contrary to the code of guidance issued to local authorities and to the statutory code of practice on rented housing. In effect, it is the criminalisation of the black community.
  The Bill will also impose a problem for those authorities that are attempting to carry out their housing functions without discrimination. That may not be important to the Westminsters and Tower Hamlets, but it is important to Labour boroughs. This squalid Bill will worsen race relations rather than improve them.
  Tory Members say that asylum seekers should seek asylum in the countries closest to their country or in the regions from which they come. If that is the Government's policy, they have a responsibility to provide those countries with the resources that will allow them to cope with the influx of immigrants and asylum seekers. For example, in Slovenia, 7 per cent. of the population are refugees from Bosnia and surrounding countries, but the Government are doing nothing to provide support, help or heating for the refugee camps in which people will die this winter.
  This squalid Bill does not address the needs of the asylum seekers. It confuses the issue by including immigration matters, and the House should throw it out.
  8.47 pm
  Mr. Mike Gapes: In my maiden speech in May. I pledged to fight against the reintroduction of the discriminatory, racist and unjust asylum proposals that had been introduced in the previous Parliament. I regret, having read the Bill in detail, that there arc so many bad clauses and ill-thought-out proposals in it. My constituency contains a large number of people whose parents or grandparents came as refugees from Nazi oppression. Had the Bill been enacted then, they would not have been able to seek refuge and safety in Ilford. I am appalled by some of the remarks that I have heard from Tory Members.
  This is a strange Bill. There are two aspects to it. Why is it that tucked into the middle of an asylum Bill is clause 9, which removes the right of appeal for visitors? There is no logic in that. I suspect that it is there for the simple reason that some Conservative Members are unable to distinguish between immigration and asylum. Basically, they think that it is all to do with keeping as many foreigners as possible, especially those with black skins, out of the country.
  Unfortunately, there is not likely to be a rebellion by Conservative Members. None the less, I appeal to all liberal, fair-minded Conservative Members with a conscience—unfortunately. I can see only three Conservative Members sitting in their places—to vote against the Bill's Second Reading. I am not appealing to the rabid nationalists who, no doubt for their own reasons, will rebel later this week. Instead. I appeal to all Conservative Members with a conscience to join the Opposition when the Division takes place.
  The Bill is obnoxious and outrageous. It will cause so much suffering to so many people that it must be stopped. There are Kurdish refugees in my constituency with bodies riddled with bullets. They come to see me in wheel-chairs. Some of them have artificial limbs. They were shot up by Saddam Hussein.
  A Christian Iraqi—an opponent of Saddam—came to see me a few weeks ago. He has been in the country for four years. He is seeking political asylum and he has been given exceptional leave to remain. He does not know what the future is for his children and their education. Equally, he does not know whether he is able to stay for a long time. He does not know about his home and he has no real security. He is extremely worried. By their actions the Government arc increasing the pressures and worries of that man.
  Somalis who fled from the civil war and the gangs come to see me. They want family reunion. They know that their relatives are in refugee camps in Ethiopia because 'they have tracked them down. There are those who know that their brothers and uncles have died but they have been able to make contact with five or six surviving relatives. Some of them have been waiting for one year, one and a half years or two years for the Government to respond, but the Government have now decided to make it far more difficult for relatives to join their families in the United Kingdom.
  I would now like to turn to clause 9. Why is the right of appeal being removed by clause 9? A few weeks ago I was contacted by a local councillor in my constituency. He told me about a family that was travelling from India to Canada to visit relatives. The members of the family wanted to stop over in Britain to see their relatives, who live in my constituency. The entry clearance officer in New
  98
  Delhi decided not to allow them to come to this country. I made representations and I was told eventually that the appeal had been allowed. It was too late, however, because the plane on which the members of the family were travelling had already left India. They had to travel on the flight for which they were booked. Under the proposals in the Bill, however, no appeal would be allowed. Even worse, a mark would appear in a passport declaring that entry clearance had been refused.
  We know what is going on now in the European Community. I am talking about respectable people who have homes and jobs. They merely want to visit their relatives in another country. If there is a mark in a passport stating that the individual cannot come to Britain, that could mean similar marks declaring that they cannot go to France, Italy, Germany or Holland. That is the direction in which the development of common policies within the European Community is taking us.
  I am a supporter of Maastricht. I want to see a democratically accountable Europe. At present, we have the worst of all worlds. There is no democratic accountability attached to what immigration Ministers and their civil servants are cooking up because they arc operating in an area that is not part of the treaty. Everything is being done in secret. Change to our rules will make it difficult for people to visit other European countries apart from Britain because immigration officers will apply the rules in that way.
  Mr. Bernie Grant: Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that the Trevi and Schengen groups are trying to introduce common immigration and visa regulations is a reason for voting against the Maastricht treaty?
  Mr. Gapes: No. We must work for a more democratic and accountable Community. We must give more powers to this Parliament and the European Parliament so that they can resist bureaucrats, unelected officials and Ministers who choose to hide behind decisions taken in secret by saying that the result is not their responsibility. We must have democratic accountability. Instead, the Government propose that there should be a further erosion of that accountability. As a result, officials in the Home Office, in the immigration and nationality department, in high commissions and in embassies will take decisions in the knowledge that we in this place have no right to make representations. The applicants who they so arbitrarily refuse will have no right of appeal. It is an outrage.
  The Bill sets out an entirely unjustified and undemocratic approach and it must be stopped. Only a Government who have been in office too long and who are so arrogant that they feel that there is no need to worry would dare to introduce such proposals. The Government could not care less about the poor grandmothers in India or Pakistan who want to come to this country to see their grandchildren for the first time. They could not care less about people having the right to travel to visit their relatives. They are prepared to trust officials to take decisions without accountability. I ask the House to reject the Bill and everything for which it stands.
  8.57 pm
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: I wish to endorse everything that my colleagues have said and to reinforce some of their arguments. I wonder what

  99
  communities within the United Kingdom, many of which have come from abroad and lived here for generations, think of us. They know that whenever there is a political issue the Conservative party uses immigration to make cheap political points. It does so to try to secure the election of a Conservative Government. That is despicable.
  The Bill must be set against a European background. I am sure that the Government did not meekly accept the Bill that is before us, and we must accept that what is on the statute book is better than that which we have before us this evening. Some of the members of the Council of Ministers have a north and south phobia, and the result is that it rushes into making proposals. That is the background to the Bill. As a result, we have legislation that is based on panic, not justice. We all know what happens when Governments start to panic. After all, we have had a few examples recently.
  We are told that the Bill is not racialist. Yet the Government propose a reduction in overseas aid. When the issues of race and the proposed reduction in aid arc put together we see exactly where the Bill will take the United Kingdom.
  My colleagues and I regard the right of appeal as sacrosanct. Any hon. Member with experience of immigration cases knows that if the right of appeal is removed and the time factors altered an individual can be out of the country within 24 hours. We must reject any curtailment of the right of appeal.
  Hon. Members have spoken about the need for an investigation by a parliamentary Committee into the way that the immigration service operates. They have highlighted individual experiences and cited evidence suggesting that the way that the immigration service treats people is suspect. Imagine being someone who comes from a village in the Punjab, with only a simple education, and being confronted by a highly skilled immigration officer whose sole objective is to make it appear that a person is not telling the truth about his reason for wanting entry. That is an issue that needs investigation. The system also tells us that we cannot trust Ministers to consider cases. We can assume only that the immigration officials are carrying out Ministers instructions.
  We must consider the whole context of the Bill against the background of an extremist backlash in Europe. Instead of challenging that backlash, European Governments arc backing off and introducing legislation like this Bill. I went around Europe 18 months ago and there were only two countries with any semblance of credibility, in their immigration policies—Holland and Britain. Despite all the talk in the other European countries about rights, there are hardly any rights for immigrants, especially black immigrants, whether they come from the Punjab or whether they happen to be Muslims. Those countries are way behind this country in their immigration policies.
  However, having said that, I do not endorse the Bill. It is a bad Bill and we must reject it. Many of my constituents arc extremely uneasy about it because ultimately not only will it put father against son, but brother against sister and child against parents. I hope that hon. Members will reject the Bill.
  9.1 pm
  Mr. Alan Simpson: I am pleased to be called to speak in this debate, not only because I have worked with black and migrant communities in my constituency in Nottingham for 13 years but because of my specific work over the past two years relating to the rising tide or racism that has surfaced throughout Europe.
  I am concerned that a pattern is emerging of black and migrant communities being blamed for the economic failures of the countries in which they happen to be living. That blaming process is no different here than it is in France, Italy, Germany and the rest of western Europe. It cannot be separated from the arguments about the position of refugees and asylum seekers. There is a serious and sustained attempt to deflect the failures of capitalism, and the Governments who have enthusiastically embraced it, on to those who have been most cruelly exploited by the process and been its primary victims.
  One or two Conservative Members have mentioned the increasing number of attacks in Germany and said that it is a consequence of German unification and a policy of letting in all sorts of people. In fact, those attacks are part of a trend of well-established harassment and persecution of Turkish gastarbeiters in Germany, who have been most cruelly exploited. They have been taken there and employed on the most miserable wages and when their tasks have been completed they have been arbitrarily sent back to Turkey. They have also been subject to vicious attacks, which have been happening for more than a decade. The fact that the knowledge of them is only now surfacing does not make them a new feature—the attacks are simply emerging in a more virulent form.
  Migrants, asylum seekers and refugees in western Europe are being made the scapegoats for Governments of ill-repute. I was appalled by the comments today of the Secretary of State and some Conservative Members. We witnessed the process known as "blaming the victim"—with the blame for the Government's economic failures being shifted on to the backs of black and migrant communities in Britain. I was amazed at the apparent ease with which Ministers virtually blamed migrants for the fact that my city of Nottingham has not been allowed to build any houses this year and has been allowed to build no more than 50 over the past three years. I presume that, according to the Government, the record number of bankruptcies in Nottingham is also attributable to the migrants who have been admitted into the country. Perhaps they should also be blamed for the record level of house repossessions: in Nottingham, the number has risen by 72 per cent.
  The truth is that migrants have made little or no contribution to the current problems. At one stage, however, I wondered whether the Government would try to blame migrants and refugees for catastrophes such as the collapse of the pound and the closure of the pits.
  Mr. Bernie Grant: They called it Black Wednesday.
  Mr. Simpson: They did indeed—and I think that we should take stock of the language that we use to describe the catastrophes into which the Government lead us.
  If we examine Britain's real international contribution, it is revealed as abject—miserable. We do not contribute greatly to any alleviation of the sufferings of refugees or asylum seekers. I spent some time in Mozambique and in

  101
  southern Africa. and that brought home to me the real meaning of humanitarian support and the human conscience operating in a day-to-day context.
  Millions of people are being supported by their neighbours. We talk of the threat to stability and civilisation that is posed by the notion of "swamping" Britain with asylum seekers. Most refugees and asylum seekers, however, are being tended and supported by neighbours who have precious little more to offer. The poorest are supporting the poorest; the homeless are supporting those without homelands: those without food are supporting those without families. Yet the fear expressed by Conservative Members today is not much different from the fear expressed some years ago by the then Prime. Minister when she talked of being "swamped by an alien culture". Such phrases show that our internationhal record of concern is an illusion.
  The Bill is a hotch-potch of dubious virtues. It seems to suggest that the House of Commons prefers death to take place on a distant shore: if people are dying somewhere else, at least they are dying out of sight. Perhaps the House also feels better for having brought forward the notion of a permanent exclusion that can be tied around the necks of bona fide visitors. The Bill also moves us towards the criminalisation of children who are to be subjected to arbitrary fingerprinting—the "sus" law for civil war victims, perhaps.
  Implicit in the Bill is the establishment of a Euro-backlash against migrants and black people. Let us make no bones about it: the powers that a Minister takes tonight will be traded behind closed doors, in caret games played by Euro-leaders. Under the Maastricht proposals, rights of scrutiny will be taken away from our Parliament; they will be traded by Ministers playing with powers whose value amounts to no less than the human rights of migrants and black people.
  When I was working in France. a colleague said to me, "Britain does not need Le Pen. He is our problem. You do not need him because your Government are willing to drape themselves in Le Pen's political underwear and they claim to be doing so with dignity and pride."
  This is a tawdry Bill. I hope that it will be opposed here as vehemently as I know it will be opposed outside in the country. There are communities of black and white people throughout the length and breadth of the land who will not subscribe to the scapegoating process that is written into this Bill. They will not subscribe to the denigration to which black people will be subjected when they try to visit their families.
  Let me illustrate how far we have stepped back. Five years ago, we were involved in campaigns in this country to establish the right of family unity. We are now faced with campaigns to try to prevent the exclusion of people from this country. Five years ago, people in Germany talked about the right of settled people to vote. People in Germany today talk about the right of people to stay. We are going backwards at a phenomenal pace. It ill-befits any of us to collude with that process. I hope that all hon. Members with a sense of integrity will join the official Opposition in opposing this shabby Bill tooth and nail.
  9.11 pm
  Ms. Diane Abbott: I was not here for the beginning of the debate. I was travelling back from Germany, where I
  102
  heard at first hand of the rising tide of racism and anti-semitism that is going hand in hand with the recession in Europe. The motivation behind the Bill and the way that it is presented to the public is part of that rising tide of racism and anti-semitism.
  My hon. Friends have made many excellent points about the Bill; I do not intend to repeat them. One of the most obnoxious aspects of the Bill is the way that it was launched in the run-up to the general election. It was launched on the back of orchestrated articles in the Tory tabloids. Week after week there were articles about the tide of refugees that was going to engulf Europe, in particular the United Kingdom.
  The way that the Bill was launched and tied in with entirely negative and obnoxious publicity about the threat from refugees and asylum seekers is the key to what the Bill is about. It is not about allaying public fears, or about giving refugees a better and fairer deal. In particular, it is not about giving communities with large numbers of refugees the help and support that they need. It is about playing on the fears of the public.
  A Bill that will cause so much misery to so many thousands of genuine asylum seekers and to so many thousands of people who want to visit their families here is supported by Tories who will march through the Lobby in 45 minutes to try to make the Bill law. It is extraordinary that they should have shown such studied indifference to the misery that the legislation will wreak.
  The Bill exemplifies the type of Europe that we shall be invited to vote for in 48 hours' time. It is not the typo of Europe that I support. It is a fortress Europe, a xenophobic, little Europe. It is a Europe that I and many of my hon. Friends cannot and will not support.
  I represent an east London constituency that historically has been a haven for refugees and asylum seekers from all over the world. When the Huguenots came to the east end in the 17th century, there was no talk about economic refugees; they were seen as people who were fleeing from real fears and who had come here to make a real contribution to this country. When the Jews came to the east end of London from Russia and eastern europe, there was no talk of economic refugees; they were seen for that they were—people fleeing from genuine fears, genuine oppression. genuine brutality. But as it suits the Government to discriminate between refugees and asylum seekers according to colour, some refugees and some asylum seekers are now stigmatised as so-called economic refugees.
  The problem with immigration, refugees and asylum seekers is that only a small group of Members have broad experience of it and care about it. I would not want the debate to pass without trying to convey to my colleagues and Conservative Members what it means to people whose family members overseas—brothers, aunties, grandmothers and children—save the equivalent of a lifetime's salary to come here for Christmas, a wedding or to see a new grandchild only to receive the sort of treatment that is regularly dished out at Heathrow. Conservative Members cannot understand what it means to come from rural Jamaica or Trinidad—to have saved and come across in one's best suit—only to be treated by immigration officers as some sort of criminal. I have no doubt that the clause on visitors' appeal rights will make the situation worse. Immigration officers are bad enough as it stands, but if they know that people have no right of appeal they will be even more arbitrary, unpleasant and unfair.

  103
  White Europeans living in this country—Germans, French. Belgians or Dutch—have more rights to see their parents, grandparents or children than black British residents, who may have fought in the war and worked all their lives in this country. That must be unfair and racist.
  Many of the comments that I intended to make about the Bill have already been made excellently by my colleagues. I feel particularly strongly about the Bill because I represent a wide range of refugees and asylum seekers, from people whose parents came across from Tsarist Russia at the turn of the century to today's Somali and Kurdish refugees. I know that my constituents, across the ethnic range and mix, regard the Bill and the politics that motivate it with much fear. It is playing with black people's family lives. It is playing the racist card and I urge the House to oppose it.
  9.16 pm
  Mr. Graham Allen: I should comment first on the fact that 27 speeches have been made from the Back Benches. I hope that my colleagues will take Hansard and spread it far and wide, particularly among the black and ethnic communities in Britain, to show where the support for their views and for asylum seekers rests. The debate has shown the concern of the parties. This is probably the fullest that the Conservative Benches have been tonight, whereas it is probably the barest that the Opposition Benches have been
  After that education of 27 Back-Bench speeches, one thing is crystal clear: that the Bill does not help, in any shape or form, those who are seeking political asylum, who are fleeing terror and persecution, to whom lip service is paid every night when we see the terrible scenes in Yugoslavia and elsewhere.
  The Bill is irrelevant when viewed against the background of those problems. Indeed, it increases the risk that someone who is desperate to escape torture or death in his or her country will be sent back. This is a Bill for domestic consumption, not to help refugees.
  We must question whether the Bill, even on its own terms, is needed. The former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), who unfortunately is not here at the moment, justified the Bill on two grounds—first, to reduce the number of applications and, secondly, to reduce the backlog of applications. The Government's latest figures blow away both arguments for initiating the Bill. The number of applications is not increasing but declining dramatically. The backlog of applications, far from increasing, has been halted and is now declining steadily as a result of employing an adequate number of staff, which Labour proposed more than a year ago.
  For all the bluster about bogus applications, about bogus asylum seekers and about bogus arguments, it is plain that the most bogus thing about the Bill is the Conservative party's attempts to justify it. The Bill is a relic from a previous Administration and fails to address the real problems.
  The real problems are the desperate problems facing those who are fleeing persecution. The Conservatives chose to abuse that suffering and to blow up the asylum issue into a pre-election immigration scare. Once again,
  104
  they seek to confuse the two wholly distinct issues of asylum and immigration. They feel obliged to run the Bill again whether it is necessary or not.
  We are told that the Bill will foster good community relations. Perhaps that is what the Home Secretary's predecessor was doing when he produced headlines such as the famous one in The Sun which read, "No entry". It was one of many put out at the time by the right hon. Member for Mole Valley and his cohorts. I give the Secretary of State the chance to condemn before the House tonight the way in which the Asylum Bill was first used, not to foster good community relations but to, play on fears about immigration before the general election.
  The Home Secretary's reluctance to come to the Dispatch Box may be caused by a spate of similar stories. There are not as many stories as there were, but there is enough evidence in some of the papers that support the Conservative party. There are headlines such as:
  "Clarke acts to stop phoney refugees flooding into Britain";
  and
  "Clarke launches new war on the refugees racket".
  For all the perfumed phrases about humanitarianism, it is the whiff of racism which lingers around the Bill. Let us hear no more hypocrisy about the worries about the rise of fascism in Europe from the party that has deliberately dragged the asylum issue into the gutter.
  The proposals, designed to deter rather than to aid those fleeing persecution who seek a safe haven here, are being recycled, trashing the United Nations convention and the Race Relations Act 1976 along the way. If ever we needed another reason to reconsider the question of a Bill of Rights, this Bill provides it.
  The Bill will introduce a fast-track appeals system to eject people from the country within eight days, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) finally got the Home Secretary to admit this afternoon. Taking people's fingerprints and those of their children is a further humiliation. The only other people in our society on whom that humiliation is visited are criminals, as was underlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson).
  The Bill will remove from asylum seekers the hospitality traditionally shown to guests fleeing persecution. It used to be the case that, in spite of everything else, they had the security of being adequately housed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) and many other hon. Friends put it.
  How curious it is that a Government who have no money to build new houses and who are not prepared to release the funds from capital receipts which are tied up in the banks of local authorities can find the money to build 300 extra detention places for asylum seekers. That tells us something about their priorities.
  The Bill will make it more difficult for asylum seekers to meet the criteria. There is a fundamental misunderstanding among Home Office Ministers. They believe that coming to the United Kingdom and seeking asylum is akin to a Thomas Cook package. They believe that asylum seekers get off the plane wearing Hawaiian shirts and carry cameras round their necks. They believe that asylum seekers are familiar with all the procedures. That is not the psychology of people fleeing potential death, persecution or torture.
  I quote readily from a letter from Amnesty International which highlights one aspect of the rules that

  105
  the Secretary of State proposes to introduce—that the applicant must make a prompt and full disclosure of his or her claim for asylum. Amnesty International says:
  "Asylum seekers can hardly be expected to know what 'all material' factors are"
  as they arrive in a country totally confused and unfamiliar with the language or how things work at Heathrow.
  Mr. Bernie Grant: Is my hon. Friend aware of the very unsatisfactory nature of the interpretation facilities for refugees and asylum seekers? For example, is he aware that a refugee was intimidated by an interpreter who turned out to be one of his torturers? Has my hon. Friend made any representations to the Home Office about drastically improving the way in which translators operate and controlling who they are, how they are chosen and how they are trained?
  Mr. Allen: That is one of the main points that we will seek to hammer out in Committee. It will be essential to ensure that adequate interpretation facilities are available if such onerous rules are to be imposed on asylum seekers. On a lighter note, my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) had great difficulty in interpreting the Home Secretary's legislation to the Home Secretary himself. If that is the case, how can we expect someone who is unfamiliar with our language or procedures to understand what is going on?
  The Amnesty International letter continues:
  "especially if the person speaks little English and is deeply traumatised by his/her escape and journey. It is normal for refugees to fear officialdom and a person in such a situation cannot be expected to make a full disclosure of his experiences at his first encounter with officials. This is particularly true of those who have been tortured."
  A tremendous amount of evidence is available and can be produced in Committee to clarify that point. It is not a matter of stepping off the plane at Castle Donington airport in the east midlands, having arrived back from a Thompson's package holiday. The psychology is completely different and the rules that are to be imposed on asylum seekers are ignorant of that possibility.
  Airline check-in staff abroad will continue to have almost the power of life and death over refugees when they decide whether to accept their credentials and documentation. That power is far too extensive and we will return to it in Committee. We will seek to render it a little more harmless.
  It can be only with a profound sense of shame that decent people throughout Britain will stand by as the Conservatives welcome the tortured, raped and frightened with a cynical sneer and two fingers. It is the new Clarke doctrine: "Give me your tired, your poor and your huddled masses yearning to breathe free—and I'll give them a fingerprinting and a cardboard box on the Strand."
  The Conservatives' overall contribution to the world effort on refugees has been pathetic. It has been matched only by the derisory attempt to "help people in their own countries" with such things as the know-how fund. When the newly liberated of central and eastern Europe cried out for a Marshall plan, they got the red-braced consultants who had created Britain's own economic miracle. That shortsightedness and meanspiritedness have helped to create the human drifts piling up on the EC's eastern border.
  History will judge that the Bill was the Conservatives' only response to one of the greatest challenges of our century and perhaps a fitting crown on the British
  106
  presidency of the European Community. Many of the worst features of the changes in the Bill will not be discussed properly by Parliament. Not content with taking the earlier Asylum Bill through 27 hours of Committee without accepting a single amendment, the arrogance of an unchecked Government in Parliament is such that they can reserve from the Bill pages of immigration and asylum rules.
  The Home Secretary has already turned down the idea of a Special Standing Committee, which could sit before the Committee stage of the Bill and take evidence for one month in public so that we would all be better informed on the real issues. In putting our motion to the vote, we shall make the Home Secretary go public on that denial of democracy.
  Potential Committee Members have even been refused a visit to the immigration and nationality department to be briefed before the Committee stage. Of what are the Executive afraid? Just two things—knowledge and the truth.
  Our democracy is deeply stained by the Executive's ability to make up their own rules, beyond all but the most nominal democratic vetting in this place. In a week when Members of Parliament from Southend to Stafford will be celebrating our Europeanness, it is clear that Governments ruling the nation states of Europe have played more than a small part in drafting the Bill. Those Governments—many even more laughably unaccountable to their Parliaments than ours—meet in secret to decide our laws and the fate of refugees whom they will never meet. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) referred to that fact with such venom that I almost thought that he might vote with us on Wednesday to bring down the Government who are perpetrating the things of which he complained.
  The United Kingdom is not even a member of the Schengen group, yet its footprint lies heavily on the Bill, and it is not even accountable to the European Commission, let alone the European or British Parliaments.
  The ad hoc group on immigration is so secretive that its closed nature came as a surprise to the Home Secretary in June, although since that discovery there have not been many changes to make it more open.
  The Trevi group is attended by British Ministers, who quaintly feel that Parliament's consent to their activities is given by their placing an answer to a planted written question in Hansard. We should join my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and demand that every time the Trevi group meets there should be a statement to the House to tell us what has been decided that affects the people of this country.
  That masonic college of European committees is beginning to harmonise our asylum and immigration rights with those of Europe through the Bill. Those harmonisation policies will be voted through tonight by hon. Members who, on another night, will call for Opposition support to defend the myth of British parliamentary sovereignty—xenophobes hiding behind an illusion. In the United Kingdom, we have governmental sovereignty, and it is being used again tonight to build fortress Europe and to pull up the ladder behind the Government. Nowhere is that more evident than in botching immigration provisions and putting them into an asylum Bill.

  107
  The Conservatives are abolishing the right of appeal for visitors and others who are refused entry, as my right hon. and hon. Friends have made clear. Last year, hon. Members from both sides of the House intervened to draw cases to the attention of the Home Secretary. To be fair, many Conservative Members have spoken tonight against the provisions abolishing the right to appeal. Last year, in 1,700 cases from the sub-continent of India alone, an intitial refusal to enter was overturned on appeal. Next year, such people will be denied appeal and will unjustly be denied entry to visit family and friends. When thousands of unjustified refusals are brought to light and corrected by the appeals system, only the Conservatives would think that the answer was to abolish the appeals system, rather than to examine why so many unjust decisions are taken in the first place. Once again, unchecked administrative convenience and unaccountable power are replacing what few checks and balances exist on the side of the individual.
  We have not adequately tackled the Conservatives' motives in reintroducing the Bill. Yes, it is a concern to deliver the British Parliament to what has been secretly agreed with the Schengen and Trevi groups in Europe. Yes, it is an embarrassed carry-over from a previous era, but that is hardly the real reason. Perhaps those in the Home Office do not quite know what to do with their parliamentary time. A crime every six seconds and a doubling in recorded crime since the Conservatives came to power might not be regarded as priorities, yet KC Plod appears to flex his knees and wag his finger at the infants who drop litter, oblivious to the armed robbery going on behind him.
  It could hardly be that the Home Secretary has run out of ideas—he is so full of ideas that he is doing the job of the Chancellor, the President of the Board of Trade and even the Prime Minister. Perhaps here the cynic would find a clue. Every aspirant to the Tory leadership needs to keep the Neanderthal right on board, particularly a Europhiliac like the Home Secretary.
  Rather than ditch a Bill that passed its sell-buy date on 9 April, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has tarted it up and thrown it to the rottweilers. Who cares? He has never met those fleeing torture and the death squads—they are not likely to live in Rushcliffe. They are certainly not voters in the election for the next Tory leader.
  Labour will vote against the Bill's Second Reading. We will seek to neutralise its worst excesses in Committee and in the second Chamber. Secretary of State, it has been in your power to let this Bill lie. You chose to revive it and may God forgive you for its consequences.
  9.36 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): This has been a wide-ranging, well-informed debate, sometimes passionate, only occasionally truculent and always interesting. It has scanned broad horizons when addressing the migration of peoples far beyond this country. It has also touched on complex technical details when examining our immigration control systems.
  This is my first opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on his new Front-Bench role. Judging by the number of questions for written answer that he has tabled—to which I have replied
  108
  —and by his more than assiduous inquiries of the immigration and nationality department, he must already have an encyclopaedic knowledge of this important subject. But from his remarks this evening I cannot help wondering whether he really can see the wood for the trees —the same may apply to one or two of his colleagues.
  In the time available I shall attempt to answer as many of the points raised as I can. The Bill reflects the Government's commitment to ensuring that our immigration controls provide a fair and effective response to the changing conditions and worldwide pressures that face us in the 1990s. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) said, it strikes a proper balance between the protection of the rights of the individual on the one hand and the maintenance of an effective immigration control on the other.
  It may be argued that asylum and immigration are separate issues, but it is clear from experience here, elsewhere in Europe and from further afield that huge numbers of people are now issuing asylum claims as a means of evading immigration control. That was made clear by my hon. Friends the Members for Poole (Mr. Ward), for Chingford (Mr. Duncan-Smith), for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) and for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) among others.
  As the numbers of asylum applications rise, a decreasing proportion have been found to qualify for refugee status within the terms of the United Nations convention. Of the asylum cases decided here in 1980, just 64 per cent. were found to be refugees. Last year the figure was down to 10 per cent. and in Germany it was less than 5 per cent.
  The common pattern across Europe is of a large majority of applicants continuing to stay on, despite being refused. They manage to do so because, unsurprisingly, they take advantage of delays inherent in determination systems and in the complicated review and appeal procedures after the initial decisions to refuse. Because most applicants succeed in staying on, no matter how flimsy some of their claims are, still more people, quite understandably, are encouraged to try their luck too. The result is a large backlog of cases, which inevitably means that officials are forced to take longer than should be necessary to reach those genuine and often harrowing cases of a well-founded fear of persecution in which the individuals who have suffered deserve support and attention.
  I shall deal with as many of the points raised in the debate as possible and try to throw light on some of the issues that caused differences of opinion earlier in the debate. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) referred to the power to curtail leave, say, for a student who has applied for and then been refused asylum. Curtailment is not automatic in such cases. The individual factors of each case will be considered. The main intention is to use the power of curtailment in the case of visitors who cannot continue to be treated as tourists after they seek asylum. To exempt other categories such as students under the rules will inevitably encourage exploitation of loopholes. For that reason the rules stand.
  The Immigration Act 1971 provides a general power to curtail. It is not a novel concept. The provision appears specifically in the Bill because of the telescoping of appeal rights in such cases. I remind the House that every person whose leave is curtailed will have a full right of appeal before removal from Britain.

  109
  The hon. Gentleman also referred to the rules on the determination of asylum applications by groups. The rules are not inconsistent with the 1951 convention. They state clearly that any evidence advanced by an individual to distinguish himself or herself from the group with which he or she arrived will always be taken into consideration. For example, if a coachful of unfounded applicants arrives and an individual does not seek to distinguish himself from the rest, it would be legitimate to refuse him as part of the group without further investigation. It is the responsibility of the individual to make the distinction.
  Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Wardle: I will, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that I want to make some progress. He has already spoken.
  Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister define "a coachful of unfounded applicants" who seek political asylum? We discussed the matter at length in Committee on the previous Bill. What powers and what sense of justice will one have to make blanket decisions in such cases?
  Mr. Wardle: It is simply a group of people acting as a group who say that they are refugees and clearly they are not. That is the answer. That makes the point.
  I move on to the matter of accelerated procedures. Two time factors appear to cause some confusion. The first time factor is the difference between 48 hours and 10 working days for lodging an appeal. That depends on whether the notice of refusal is served in person—that is the 48-hour deadline—or whether it is served by post. In that case we are talking about 10 working days, which is two weeks in practice.
  The other time factor—as I say this I look at the hon. Member for Sedgefield—is the difference between the accelerated procedure at that point for a groundless case and the ordinary procedure. That means that after the appeal has been lodged, it can take a maximum of five days for the appeal to be heard. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton was right earlier, as I am sure Hansard will show. Alternatively, when the application is not dealt with under the accelerated process, it will take up to 13 weeks or three months. I am happy to look further at the wording of the rules to see whether the matter can be spelt out more clearly. The 48-hour rule is aimed primarily at those in detention, in particular those who arrive from safe third countries. Most port applicants will receive refusals by post and be subject to the normal 10-working-day rule. I hope that that clarifies the matter.
  Mr. Blair: The matter should be further clarified so that we have it absolutely straight. The Home Secretary said that the 48-hour rule applied only to groundless cases. He has now accepted that that is not the case. In the light of the present exchanges, may we have an undertaking that the legislation will specify that the 48-hour rule, which has been subject to so much criticism from so many groups, will apply only to groundless cases?
  Mr. Wardle: There is still some confusion in the mind of the hon. Member for Sedgefield. The 48-hour rule does not apply to all groundless cases. It is intended to apply to people who have arrived at ports and who are held in detention. As I have already said to the hon. Gentleman, we shall consider the matter to see whether the guidelines
  110
  can be made clearer. What my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said will be borne out with ever-increasing clarity.
  Fingerprinting is a sensitive issue. However, the process is necessary because a number of those people who arrive at ports and claim asylum do so without documents or with mutilated documents. Therefore, the most straightforward method of establishing identity is fingerprinting. There have been a number of multiple applications for social security by asylum seekers whose cases are being considered and who, under the urgent cases rule, are entitled to apply for personal benefits. Asylum seekers cannot receive income support at the normal rates, but under the urgent cases rule, they can receive 90 per cent. of the normal allowances.
  There are many instances, to which some allusion has already been made, of asylum applicants submitting more than one bid for social security benefit. One asylum applicant entered the United Kingdom with his wife and two children. Checks in Croydon revealed—[Interruption.] Opposition Members seem to find the case amusing, but it is an example of the rampant waste of social security benefit through fraud. Checks revealed that there were 54 files, each representing that man and his family, and there are many other such cases.
  Immigration department fingerprint records will be held entirely separately from police records. There will be no possibility of trawls being made through the asylum records. The police or Government Departments may legitimately make a specific inquiry of the Home Office about an individual. That inquiry can be answered without giving general access to fingerprint records. Proper confidentiality has always been maintained, and the House should not ignore the fact that the Home Office already holds much confidential information on asylum seekers, and does so securely. Fingerprints are not an unduly sensitive way of increasing the checks on mulitple applications and identity—indeed, they are much less sensitive than some of the details that emerge in other cases.
  Ms. Glenda Jackson: Does it not occur to the Minister that, for people who have known officialdom only in the guise of officials who are about to inflict torture and possibly death, being asked to provide fingerprints could produce in them an increased return of their trauma? It is suggested that the same people who meet the asylum seekers at the port of entry and whose request for fingerprints might produce in the applicants what could be deemed aggressive or non-co-operative behaviour should have the right to deny entry to those applicants. The Minister must realise that that would be a most destructive way of introducing people to the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Wardle: I am sure that officials can explain to people, however vexed and agitated, the reason for fingerprinting. The hon. Lady should bear in mind that reserve powers to fingerprint are already in place in most European countries and in much of the world. The connotation that some Opposition Members attached to fingerprinting—as being specifically associated with crime —is not shared by a wider audience, and there is no reason why such an impression should be given to asylum applicants.
  The hon. Member for Sedgefield suggested that the refusal of a visit visa would mean a ban for life. Not so.

  111
  Such a refusal does not mean that an applicant will never be able to visit the United Kingdom. Entry clearance officers will consider each application on its merits and previous refusals will not automatically result in the refusal of later applications.
  A number of hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), and for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon), and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), discussed groundless cases in the context of the criteria for asylum applications under the United Nations convention. People may be fleeing from war although not technically refugees under the terms of the 1951 convention. The House will wish to know that exceptional leave will continue to be available in genuine humanitarian cases, outside the strict criteria of the convention. If such cases are not refused outright, the accelerated timetable will not be relevant. There is no intention to detain every port applicant. People fleeing from places such as Bosnia will be likely, as now, to be given temporary admission; they will then have time to reflect and to seek advice before making their case to the Home Office.
  It is right, however, to reduce the granting of exceptional leave to remain in some cases, and the streamlined procedures of the Bill will ensure that decisions to let people stay are taken on their merits, not because of any impracticality associated with their removal.
  The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook talked about asylum seekers with inadequate documentation. Of course some genuine refugees may have valid reasons for being without proper documentation, but the figures show that two thirds of port applicants do not have such documentation on arrival. Whether they had it when they boarded the aircraft or vessel is another matter. They must have had documents when they embarked; possibly they destroyed or disposed of them on wrong advice, or mutilated them to make the processing of their applications more difficult.
  It is also by no means clear that genuine refugees from all parts of the world must have immediate access to the United Kingdom. If he has escaped over a land border to a neighbouring country, a person can then apply at the British embassy if he thinks that the United Kingdom is the right place to seek refuge.
  The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook also said that the refusal of a visitor's visa will prejudice later applications. I have already said that that will not happen.
  The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland and several others referred to Trevi. The House will wish to know that the resolution to which he referred is only a draft resolution. If and when Ministers agree something on the subject in final form, it will be made public. While it remains a draft resolution, that is not necessary—it is no more than a statement of views and intentions, not a binding legal instrument. Any binding conventions that are developed will, of course, be subject to parliamentary approval. In case there is any doubt, let me say that there is nothing on the part of the ad hoc group on immigration or in the work of the Twelve that in any sense seeks to reduce the existing obligations under the 1951 convention.
  112
  The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland spoke about the specific problems of child asylum applicants. When they come to notice at ports, children are promptly referred to social services after a minimum of necessary inquiries by immigration staff. The responsibility of local authorities for the welfare of all children irrespective of immigration status is made clear in the Children Act 1989.
  As I have said, the Government remain firmly committed to the provisions of the 1951 United Nations refugees convention and to helping those who genuinely need our protection. Our aim is a fair and workable system that will no longer allow undeserving applicants to stay here by default simply because of the length of time they have been in this country before their cases are settled.
  The Bill seeks to improve the fairness and effectiveness of the current system of general immigration appeals by removing rights of appeal against decisions which do not have a fundamental impact on the lives of the individuals concerned, and against decisions where the appeal cannot in any event succeed because a mandatory requirement of the rules has not been met.
  A reduction in the rights of appeal is not a step to be taken lightly, but if the system is to function effectively and retain public confidence it is essential to ensure that resources can be concentrated on those cases where issues of real substance are involved. A proper opportunity to challenge decisions which are crucial to people's lives is vital to wider confidence in the integrity of our system as well as in the fairness of treatment of individuals. But the system is neither fair nor effective if it is subject to substantial delays which work to the advantage of appellants in this country who have no arguable claim to remain here, and to the detriment of appellants abroad seeking to join their spouses or relatives and who are held up because of a backlog of claims.
  Fairness does not demand that all decisions should attract the same rights of appeal. It demands that available remedies should be in proportion to the potential grievances. For example, no reasonable concept of fairness demands that when a visitor is refused an extension of stay because he has already been here for six months—the maximum period allowed under the immigration rules approved by Parliament—he should be entitled to remain here for another year or even longer pursuing a hopeless appeal against that decision.
  Hon. Members who suggested that the Bill is racist are utterly wrong. There is nothing racist in a firm but fair and efficient system of asylum control that seeks swiftly to dispense with clearly unfounded claims in order to deal all the more quickly with the interests of genuine refugees. There is nothing racist in ensuring prompt attention to immigration cases that matter fundamentally to people's lives.
  Last year this country welcomed more than 8 million non-EC nationals as visitors, students and in other categories. That figure included more than 400,000 visitors, students and business people from the Indian sub-continent. This country has a tradition of freedom and tolerance and, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said, fair and efficient immigration controls will help to sustain good race relations in the interests of all the communities in our multicultural society.
  There is much merit in a policy that upholds the UN convention on refugees and allows bona fide visitors and students to enter the United Kingdom. That policy will

  113
  continue to admit spouses and dependants of those who are already settled here and will exercise proper and effective control over others who wish to reside here. The Government have already committed more resources, staff, premises and computerisation to the immigration service, and have introduced better procedures for eliminating multiple applications. Now, what is needed is the opportunity to proceed with the measures in the Bill. I commend it to the House.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 321, Noes 276.

  Division No. 78]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Colvin, Michael

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Congdon, David

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Conway, Derek

  Alexander, Richard

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Amess, David

  Cormack, Patrick

  Ancram, Michael

  Couchman, James

  Arbuthnot, James

  Cran, James

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

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

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Ashby, David

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Devlin, Tim

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Dicks, Terry

  Baldry, Tony

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Dover, Den

  Bates, Michael

  Duncan, Alan

  Batiste, Spencer

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Bellingham, Henry

  Dunn, Bob

  Bendall, Vivian

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Dykes, Hugh

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Elletson, Harold

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Body, Sir Richard

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Booth, Hartley

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Boswell, Tim

  Evennett, David

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Faber, David

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bowden, Andrew

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Bowis, John

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Forman, Nigel

  Brazier, Julian

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bright, Graham

  Forth, Eric

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Freeman, Roger

  Budgen, Nicholas

  French, Douglas

  Burns, Simon

  Fry, Peter

  Burt, Alistair

  Gale, Roger

  Butcher, John

  Gallie, Phil

  Butler, Peter

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Butterfill, John

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Garnier, Edward

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Gill, Christopher

  Carrington, Matthew

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Carttiss, Michael

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Cash, William

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Gorst, John

  Churchill, Mr

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Clappison, James

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hague, William

  114

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  (Epsom-Ewell)

  Merchant, Piers

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Milligan, Stephen

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mills, Iain

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Moate, Roger

  Harris, David

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hawkins, Nick

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hawksley, Warren

  Moss, Malcolm

  Heald, Oliver

  Needham, Richard

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hendry, Charles

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hicks, Robert

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Norris, Steve

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Horam, John

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Ottaway, Richard

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Page, Richard

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

  Paice, James

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Pawsey, James

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hunter, Andrew

  Pickles, Eric

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Jack, Michael

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Jessel, Toby

  Rathbone, Tim

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Redwood, John

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Richards, Rod

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Riddick, Graham

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Robathan, Andrew

  Key, Robert

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Knapman, Roger

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

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

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Knox, David

  Sackville, Tom

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Legg, Barry

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Leigh, Edward

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Shersby, Michael

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Sims, Roger

  Lidington, David

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lord, Michael

  Soames, Nicholas

  Luff, Peter

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Spink, Dr Robert

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Spring, Richard

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Sproat, Iain

  Madel, David

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Steen, Anthony

  Malone, Gerald

  Stephen, Michael

  Mans, Keith

  Stern, Michael

  Marland, Paul

  Stewart, Allan

  Marlow, Tony

  Streeter, Gary

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Sumberg, David

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Sykes, John

  Mates, Michael

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  115

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Watts, John

  Thomason, Roy

  Wells, Bowen

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Whitney, Ray

  Thurnham, Peter

  Whittingdale, John

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Widdecombe, Ann

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

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Tracey, Richard

  Wilkinson, John

  Trend, Michael

  Willetts, David

  Trimble, David

  Wilshire, David

  Trotter, Neville

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Wolfson, Mark

  Viggers, Peter

  Wood, Timothy

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Yeo, Tim

  Walden, George

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Waller, Gary

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Ward, John

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Couchman, James

  Ainger, Nick

  Cousins, Jim

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cox, Tom

  Allen, Graham

  Cryer, Bob

  Alton, David

  Cummings, John

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Ashton, Joe

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

  Austin-Walker, John

  Dalyell, Tam

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Darling, Alistair

  Barnes, Harry

  Davidson, Ian

  Barron, Kevin

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Battle, John

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Beckett, Margaret

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

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Denham, John

  Bell, Stuart

  Dewar, Donald

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Dixon, Don

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Dobson, Frank

  Benton, Joe

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dowd, Jim

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Betts, Clive

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Blair, Tony

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Blunkett, David

  Eastham, Ken

  Boateng, Paul

  Enright, Derek

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Etherington, Bill

  Boyes, Roland

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Bradley, Keith

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Faulds, Andrew

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

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

  Fisher, Mark

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Flynn, Paul

  Burden, Richard

  Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

  Byers, Stephen

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Caborn, Richard

  Foulkes, George

  Callaghan, Jim

  Fraser, John

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Galloway, George

  Canavan, Dennis

  Gapes, Mike

  Cann, Jamie

  Garrett, John

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  George, Bruce

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clapham, Michael

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Clelland, David

  Gould, Bryan

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Coffey, Ann

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Cohen, Harry

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Connarty, Michael

  Grocott, Bruce

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Gunnell, John

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hain, Peter

  Corbett, Robin

  Hall, Mike

  116

  Hanson, David

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Harvey, Nick

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Mudie, George

  Henderson, Doug

  Mullin, Chris

  Heppell, John

  Murphy, Paul

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hinchliffe, David

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Hoey, Kate

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Home Robertson, John

  Olner, William

  Hood, Jimmy

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Parry, Robert

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Patchett, Terry

  Hoyle, Doug

  Pendry, Tom

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Ingram, Adam

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jamieson, David

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Janner, Greville

  Radice, Giles

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Randall, Stuart

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Reid, Dr John

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Jowell, Tessa

  Rogers, Allan

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Rooker, Jeff

  Keen, Alan

  Rooney, Terry

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Ruddock, Joan

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Sheerman, Barry

  Leighton, Ron

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Lewis, Terry

  Short, Clare

  Litherland, Robert

  Simpson, Alan

  Livingstone, Ken

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

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

  Loyden, Eddie

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

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McAllion, John

  Snape, Peter

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Soley, Clive

  McCartney, Ian

  Spearing, Nigel

  Macdonald, Calum

  Spellar, John

  McFall, John

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  McKelvey, William

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McLeish, Henry

  Stevenson, George

  Maclennan, Robert

  Stott, Roger

  McMaster, Gordon

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  McNamara, Kevin

  Straw, Jack

  McWilliam, John

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Madden, Max

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mahon, Alice

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Tipping, Paddy

  Marek, Dr John

  Turner, Dennis

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Tyler, Paul

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Vaz, Keith

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Martlew, Eric

  Wallace, James

  Maxton, John

  Walley, Joan

  Meacher, Michael

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Meale, Alan

  Wareing, Robert N

  Michael, Alun

  Watson, Mike

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Milburn, Alan

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Miller, Andrew

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Wilson, Brian

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Winnick, David

  Morley, Elliot

  Wise, Audrey

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Worthington, Tony

  117

  Wray, Jimmy

  Tellers for the Noes :

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Mr. Eric lllsley and

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Motion made—[Mr. Blair]—and Question put, That the Bill be committed to a Special Standing Committee:—
  The House divided: Ayes 275, Noes 315.

  Division No. 79]

  [10.16 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Davidson, Ian

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Ainger, Nick

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Allen, Graham

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

  Alton, David

  Denham, John

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Dewar, Donald

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Dixon, Don

  Ashton, Joe

  Dobson, Frank

  Austin-Walker, John

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Dowd, Jim

  Barnes, Harry

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Barron, Kevin

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Battle, John

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Bayley, Hugh

  Eastham, Ken

  Beckett, Margaret

  Enright, Derek

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Etherington, Bill

  Bell, Stuart

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Faulds, Andrew

  Benton, Joe

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Fisher, Mark

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Flynn, Paul

  Betts, Clive

  Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

  Blair, Tony

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Blunkett, David

  Foulkes, George

  Boateng, Paul

  Fraser, John

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Fyfe, Maria

  Boyes, Roland

  Galbraith, Sam

  Bradley, Keith

  Galloway, George

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Gapes, Mike

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Garrett, John

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

  George, Bruce

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Burden, Richard

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Byers, Stephen

  Godsiff, Roger

  Caborn, Richard

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Callaghan, Jim

  Gordon, Mildred

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Gould, Bryan

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Cann, Jamie

  Grocott, Bruce

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Gunnell, John

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hain, Peter

  Clapham, Michael

  Hall, Mike

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hanson, David

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Harvey, Nick

  Clelland, David

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Henderson, Doug

  Coffey, Ann

  Heppell, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Connarty, Michael

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hoey, Kate

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Corbett, Robin

  Home Robertson, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cousins, Jim

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cox, Tom

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cryer, Bob

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Cummings, John

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

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

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Darling, Alistair

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  118

  Ingram, Adam

  Patchett, Terry

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Pendry, Tom

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jamieson, David

  Pike, Peter L.

  Janner, Greville

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O

  Purchase, Ken

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Radice, Giles

  Jowell, Tessa

  Randall, Stuart

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Raynsford, Nick

  Keen, Alan

  Reid, Dr John

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Rogers, Allan

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Rooker, Jeff

  Leighton, Ron

  Rooney, Terry

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lewis, Terry

  Rowlands, Ted

  Litherland, Robert

  Ruddock, Joan

  Livingstone, Ken

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Loyden, Eddie

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Short, Clare

  McAllion, John

  Simpson, Alan

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Skinner, Dennis

  McCartney, Ian

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Macdonald, Calum

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

  McFall, John

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

  McKelvey, William

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Snape, Peter

  McLeish, Henry

  Soley, Clive

  Maclennan, Robert

  Spearing, Nigel

  McMaster, Gordon

  Spellar, John

  McNamara, Kevin

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  McWilliam, John

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Madden, Max

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mahon, Alice

  Stevenson, George

  Mandelson, Peter

  Stott, Roger

  Marek, Dr John

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Straw, Jack

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Martlew, Eric

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Maxton, John

  Tipping, Paddy

  Meacher, Michael

  Turner, Dennis

  Meale, Alan

  Tyler, Paul

  Michael, Alun

  Vaz, Keith

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Milburn, Alan

  Wallace, James

  Miller, Andrew

  Walley, Joan

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Wareing, Robert N

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Watson, Mike

  Morley, Elliot

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Morris, Estelle (B ham Yardley)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Wilson, Brian

  Mudie, George

  Winnick, David

  Mullin, Chris

  Wise, Audrey

  Murphy, Paul

  Worthington, Tony

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Wray, Jimmy

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Wright, Dr Tony

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Olner, William

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  O'Neill, Martin

  Mr. Eric Illsley and

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.

  Parry, Robert

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Amess, David

  Alexander, Richard

  Ancram, Michael

  119

  Arbuthnot, James

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Evennett, David

  Ashby, David

  Faber, David

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Fabricant, Michael

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Forman, Nigel

  Baldry, Tony

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Forth, Eric

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Bates, Michael

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Freeman, Roger

  Bendall, Vivian

  French, Douglas

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Fry, Peter

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Gale, Roger

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Gallie, Phil

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Booth, Hartley

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Boswell, Tim

  Garnier, Edward

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Gill, Christopher

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Bowden, Andrew

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Bowis, John

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Gorst, John

  Brazier, Julian

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Bright, Graham

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Hague, William

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Burns, Simon

  (Epsom-Ewell)

  Burt, Alistair

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Butcher, John

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Butler, Peter

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Butterfill, John

  Hannam, Sir John

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Harris, David

  Carrington, Matthew

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hawkins, Nick

  Cash, William

  Hawksley, Warren

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Heald, Oliver

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hendry, Charles

  Churchill, Mr

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Clappison, James

  Hicks, Robert

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Horam, John

  Colvin, Michael

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Congdon, David

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

  Conway, Derek

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hunter, Andrew

  Couchman, James

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Cran, James

  Jack, Michael

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

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Jessel, Toby

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Devlin, Tim

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Dicks, Terry

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Key, Robert

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Dover, Den

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Duncan, Alan

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Knapman, Roger

  Dunn, Bob

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Dykes, Hugh

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

  Elletson, Harold

  Knox, David

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  120

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Sackville, Tom

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Legg, Barry

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Leigh, Edward

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Lidington, David

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Shersby, Michael

  Lord, Michael

  Sims, Roger

  Luff, Peter

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Soames, Nicholas

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Madel, David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Spring, Richard

  Malone, Gerald

  Sproat, Iain

  Mans, Keith

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Marland, Paul

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Marlow, Tony

  Steen, Anthony

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Stephen, Michael

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Stern, Michael

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Streeter, Gary

  Mates, Michael

  Sumberg, David

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Sweeney, Walter

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Sykes, John

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Merchant, Piers

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Milligan, Stephen

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Mills, Iain

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Thomason, Roy

  Moate, Roger

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Thurnham, Peter

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Moss, Malcolm

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

  Needham, Richard

  Tracey, Richard

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Trend, Michael

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Trimble, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Trotter, Neville

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Norris, Steve

  Viggers, Peter

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Walden, George

  Ottaway, Richard

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Page, Richard

  Waller, Gary

  Paice, James

  Ward, John

  Patnick, Irvine

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Waterson, Nigel

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Watts, John

  Pawsey, James

  Wells, Bowen

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Pickles, Eric

  Whitney, Ray

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Whittingdale, John

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wilkinson, John

  Rathbone, Tim

  Willetts, David

  Redwood, John

  Wilshire, David

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Richards, Rod

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Riddick, Graham

  Wolfson, Mark

  Robathan, Andrew

  Wood, Timothy

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Yeo, Tim

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes and

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Mr. David Lightbown.

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION APPEALS [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill, it is expedient to authorize—

  (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any expenditure of the Secretary of State which is attributable to the Act, and

  (b) any increase in the sums payable out of such money under the Immigration Act 1971 which is attributable to provisions about appeals to special immigration adjudicators; and

  (2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund. —[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

PETITION

  Deep Water Jetty (Canvey Island)
  10.31 pm
  Dr. Robert Spink: I wish to present a massive petition representing the views of more than 6,000 people who live on Canvey Island. It is a most timely petition which raises issues that are of deep concern to many hon. Members of all parties and to many people across the nation.
  The terms of the petition are:
  That it is proposed by Brocton Minerals Ltd. to use a deep water jetty at Canvey Island for the transhipment of coal from ship (by grab to hopper and conveyor) to smaller ships and that we the undersigned are vigorously opposed to this planning application on the grounds of increased air pollution from coal dust as a result of the transhipment process; noise pollution from the 24 hr operation; increased water pollution to an already heavily polluted area of the Thames Estuary; and finally loss of jobs locally due to the above forms of pollution and nationally due to the now well publicised closure of British Coal mines.
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House do see that this and any similar proposals are not allowed to, eventually, ruin our county and country.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Cyprus
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
  10.32 pm
  Mr. Edward O'Hara: I am grateful for the opportunity to initiate an Adjournment debate on the important and topical subject of Cyprus. I am pleased to note the presence of colleagues who share my deep interest in and concern about the tragedy that besets that beautiful island. I am especially pleased to notice the presence of the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark), a distinguished Member who has the honour to serve as the chairman of the Inter-Parliamentary Union international Cyprus committee. I am especially gratified by his presence in the Chamber tonight.
  The basic facts can be stated with classical brevity. In 1974, Cyprus was invaded. Some 6,000 casualties were inflicted on the Greek population. Two hundred thousand people were displaced from their homes and 1,619 people are still officially registered as missing.
  Mr. Michael Stephen: What about 1963?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Seated interventions of that kind are to be deplored.
  Mr. O'Hara: Eighteen years later, in 1992, 37 per cent. of Cyprus is still occupied by 35,000 Turkish troops, 400 tanks and supporting artillery. Refugees are still debarred from returning to their homes, churches and cemeteries —worse, those are being desecrated. Their land, property and business assets have been expropriated. Nicosia is the only divided city in Europe and the families of the missing people still do not know the fate of their loved ones. To quote a relative of one of the missing people:
  "Double is the pain and unbearable the agony of all those of us who live in uncertainty waiting to learn what happened to the 1,619 missing people."
  Sir Dudley Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. O'Hara: No, I will not give way. I have only 15 minutes or less and there is much to say on the subject.
  The majority of the victims are of course Greek Cypriots. In 1974, they comprised 77 per cent. of the population when the Turks comprised 17 per cent. The majority of those displaced were Greeks and the majority of the expropriated assets, in volume aand value, belonged to them. The families of the missing people are, in the main, Greek.
  However, the tragedy affects both the main communities of Cyprus. Some 40,000 Turkish Cypriots were also induced by the invading army to displace themselves to the occupied zone in the north. They and the 40,000 Turkish Cypriots of the north to this day suffer the economic consequences of the division of the island arising, for example, from the failure of the international community to recognise the Turkish republic of northern Cyprus and from the systematic settlement of immgrants from Anatolia which brings depressed wages, social strains and consequently a mass migration of Turkish Cypriots from the north.
  It is difficult to obtain reliable statistics. The Cuco report, which has now been adopted by the Council of Europe, suggests serious and systematic alteration of the demography of northern Cyprus and it is a conservative

  123
  estimate that 80,000 of a likely 160,000 now resident in northern Cyprus are immigrants—with a second generation reaching majority, with the consequential social strains that that will bring.
  There have been numerous abortive efforts to produce a solution in the 18 years between 1974 and 1992. In April 1992 the Secretary-General of the United Nations presented a set of ideas to the Security Council for a solution based on the establishment of a bi-zonal, bi-communal federal republic of Cyprus.
  Mrs. Barbara Roche: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. O'Hara: I will give way to my hon. Friend because she had the courtesy beforehand to seek my permission to intervene.
  Mrs. Roche: With regard to the United Nations, will my hon. Friend comment on the recent decision by this Government to reduce their contribution to the UN force by 25 per cent. and the effect that that will have on the security of the island?
  Mr. O'Hara: I fear for the consequences of that decision. The ideal solution is obviously for all foreign troops to be withdrawn from Cyprus to allow the two communities to work out their future amicably amongst themselves.
  In the transitional period there will be a need for some security forces—preferably independent and provided by the United Nations. I fear for any reduction in those forces, and for Government decisions to reduce their contribution to that force.
  The set of ideas presented by the United Nations Secretary-General to the Security Council dealt with several issues: constitutional arrangements for a bi-zonal, bi-communal federal republic; security and guarantees; territorial adjustments, including a map which could be a basis for settlement; the rights of displaced persons, which is crucial; and economic and developmental safeguards, because the economies of northern and southern Cyprus are out of alignment.
  That set of ideas was endorsed by the Security Council, which charged the Secretary-General to produce by July 1992 a report on progress to a solution based on those ideas. The Secretary-General thus undertook the first round of talks separately with Mr. Vassiliou and Mr. Denktas in June 1992; he undertook a second round, including joint sessions, between 15 July and 14 August, when it was agreed that there should be a pause for reflection; and the crucial third round of talks started seven days ago on 26 October.
  I regret to say that the auspices for the third round do not seem to be the most favourable. The Secretary-General was unequivocally critical of Mr. Denktas's intransigence in the second round of talks, referring to his need to avoid adopting positions which would upset the delicate balance of the set of ideas or be counter to resolutions of the Security Council, and to his need to show a necessary willingness to adjust his position.
  Mr. Denktas's negative remarks prior to leaving for New York reinforce that negative impression, and in the first week of the present talks he has indulged in behaviour which has suggested that he is not approaching them in the
  124
  most positive manner. He has refused to accept the right of refugees to return to their homes, although he had agreed to that in August, which is a retrograde step. That is a serious and fundamental matter. The freedom of movement and settlement, and the right to own property, are essential components of any solution to the problems of Cyprus.
  Why should the House turn its attention to all that? Because of the geo-political position of Cyprus and the historical, moral and legal bonds between it and the United Kingdom,. Cyprus is European in its history, its culture and its orientation. From the late 19th century to 1960 it was governed by a British colonial administration. Its progress to independence occurred during the historical watershed decade of the 1950s—the decade of Suez and associated upheavals in the middle east. That had its effect on the decolonisation of Cyprus, causing strains in both communities, in which were sown the seeds of subsequent intercommunal conflict.
  Mistakes were made by all concerned, but they were not such that Cyprus deserved the tragedy of the past 18 years. Despite the problems of the 1950s, both Greek and Turkish Cypriots value their close relationship with the United Kingdom and wish it to continue. It is interesting to note that the majority of Greeks and Turks in Cyprus co-existed amicably before 1974, and expatriate members of both the Greek and Turkish communities co-exist amicably in London.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. O'Hara: I am willing to give way to colleagues who had the courtesy to ask me beforehand if I would give way, but if one gives way too often in an Adjournment debate one runs out of a limited amount of time.
  It is also interesting to note that Greek and Turkish Cypriots still co-exist peacefully in one village in Cyprus, Pile, which is on the green line near the sovereign base of Dhekeleia. That is an example of how Greeks and Turks in Cyprus could work out their future together without an occupying force in the way. There is growing evidence of a widespread desire in the north for a solution, but the voice of opposition to Mr. Denktas must struggle hard to be heard.
  In 1960, Britain, in consequence of its role, was a signatory to the treaty that guaranteed the independence of Cyprus. Furthermore, Britain retained its sovereign bases, significant tracts of land which cover 90 sq miles —equivalent to the size of Malta. Those bases are important to the security not only of Britain but of the west.
  In 1961, within a year of independence, Cyprus was enrolled as a member of the Council of Europe and the British Commonwealth. In 1972, it was accepted as an associate member of the European Economic Community; and in 1987 it signed an agreement on customs union—it is almost the only country to achieve such status within the EC.
  Cyprus, although small, is a natural and significant trading partner of the United Kingdom. Where do the United Kingdom Government stand now? Whatever the outcome of the current round of talks, the United Kingdom has an important role to play as a guarantor power. If the talks are successful in easing the process of transition, there will still be many problems over the

  125
  detailed constitutional arrangements in the Secretary-General's proposed set of ideas; the potential for deadlock and dispute over those arrangements is enormous. Problems will arise relating to the withdrawal of the occupying Turkish forces and the detailed settlement of the claims of displaced persons.
  If those talks are unsuccessful, the Government will have an important role in taking positive initiatives to support Cyprus and to get the two sides around the table again. They will have a role in supporting Cyprus's application for full membership of the EC. They should also put Cyprus on the agenda in any discussions with Turkey, because let no one pretend otherwise than that Ankara pulls the strings that move Mr. Denktas. Turkey currently has preoccupations to the east, but the Government must remind the Turkish Government of the potential costs of failure to resolve the problem of Cyprus. The Government should also put Cyprus on the agenda in discussions with the United States—that agenda and that of Turkey are connected. That may mean different things, depending on the outcome of the presidential elections tomorrow. Mr. Clinton has made much stronger public commitments on the problem of Cyprus than President Bush.
  The British Government have a responsibility, not least, to assist the relatives of the missing people in ascertaining their fate.
  Cyprus has witnessed violation of sovereignly and territorial integrity no less brutal than that which happened in Kuwait. It has also witnessed violation of human rights and ethnic cleansing no less callous than that which has occurred in Bosnia. No Government bear a greater responsibility than Her Majesty's Government for the correction of those injustices. I call on the support of both sides of the House in urging the Government to undertake their responsibilities earnestly. The Government should not merely support the UN Secretary-General but should display energy and vigour to demonstrate to the international community that they recognise their special responsibilities for Cyprus.
  10.49 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones): I congratulate the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) on initiating this opportune debate. It is a tribute to the intense interest which the House takes in the matter that several hon. Members on both sides of the House should have remained at this late hour to listen to not only the hon. Gentleman's speech but my reply.
  On the Opposition Benches, the hon. Members for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), for Tooting (Mr. Cox), for Bootle (Mr. Benton) and for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) have been here throughout the debate. We are pleased to see them here. On the Conservative Benches, as many as a dozen of my hon. Friends are here, including my hon. Friends the Members for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen), for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva), for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant), for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) and for Rochford (Dr. Clark), who has a particular interest in the matter, as well as my hon. Friends the Members for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn), for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs), for Newark (Mr.
  126
  Alexander), for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) and for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith).
  I am only surprised that my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo), a senior member of the Administration, is not here, as he would normally be. As the House will know, he is engaged in the public expenditure round. He is a constant writer on Cyprus and visitor to the island, as are all the hon. Members present tonight. That reflects the intense interest that the House rightly takes in the matter.
  The Adjournment debate today is opportune because Cyprus is very much in our minds as a result of the key talks taking place in New York even as we speak. The United Nations Secretary-General, building on the work of his predecessor, has done remarkably well in narrowing down the differences. The proximity talks at the United Nations this summer were very difficult, but some progress was made on most of the important issues. We are now at the point where face-to-face negotiations are starting.
  The talks reconvened on 26 October in New York and moved to face-to-face discussion on 28 October. These are still early days and so far only limited ground has been covered. But both sides appear to be taking a constructive approach to the talks. The sessions have been full and lengthy. The Secretary-General's set of ideas, to which the hon. Member for Knowsley, South referred, provides an outline of a federal settlement along bi-communal lines. Cyprus must remain one country, but in reality it houses two communities and that must be recognised.
  Security Council resolution 774, passed unanimously in August, endorsed the set of ideas as the basis for a solution. Within that framework, the detail must be negotiated between the leaders of the two communities. That involves a great deal of effort in rebuilding trust between the two Cypriot peoples.
  If I may digress for a moment, it seems that the interest that has been shown in the debate by several hon. Members reflects in many instances not only the responsibility of the United Kingdom, with which I shall deal later, but the number of Cypriots from both communities who make a substantial contribution to life in Britain. I suspect that that is what first elicited many hon. Members' interest in the matter.
  I have had many meetings with Cypriot constituents who have been introduced to me by hon. Members—I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton has done so. It seems that Cypriots from both communities who live in the United Kingdom now have a special responsibility and opportunity to play a part. It may he a little presumptuous of me to say so, but we shall not find the solution to this tragic problem if those of us who talk to people feel that there must be 150 per cent. support for one side of the argument or the other. British Cypriots have a role to play in saying to the leaders of the two communities that they want a settlement and recognise that, by definition, any settlement will involve substantial sacrifices on both sides.
  I am not making a criticism, but I sometimes feel that hon. Members with a particular interest in one or other of the two communities are a little more partisan or papist than the Pope in defending the legitimate interests, as they see them, of their constituents in Britain. Now more than ever, British Cypriots can contribute towards a settlement.
  Mr. O'Hara: I appreciate the Minister's concern for the feelings and the contribution of the native Greek and Turkish Cypriots. Would he be prepared to visit Cyprus to have direct discussions with those members of the island's population now resident there?
  Mr. Garel-Jones: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the whole thrust of Britain's support for the peace process in Cyprus is based on the support that we and the international community give to the Secretary-General's efforts. That support is tangibly demonstrated by the effort that we make in supporting the United Nations force in Cyprus.
  We can claim that Britain has lived up to the responsibilities and opportunities presented by our position, both within the United Nations and with other major partners. I think that hon. Members know that an immense amount of diplomatic effort has been made by the United Kingdom with all parties. The Secretary of State and I have held lengthy discussions with our Greek and Turkish counterparts, and with President Vassiliou. There has been continual British contact with Mr. Denktash; and senior officials in Nicosia, New York, Athens and Ankara, as well as London, have been involved throughout. I appreciate that many of the negotiations conducted during the dispute take the form of megaphone diplomacy and that Britain's responsibilities to both communities and as a guarantor power involve us in an immense amount of work that is, of necessity, in the background.
  The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green spoke of UNFICYP. We remain committed to maintaining a peacekeeping force in Cyprus for as long as it is necessary to do so. I am glad that the improved political climate in Cyprus and the stable security position have meant that current force levels are no longer needed. UNFICYP is a substantial strain on the finances of the troop contributors. The cost to the United Kingdom now runs at about £30 million per annum. It has also been a strain on the manpower and resources of the Ministry of Defence, given the increasing United Nations commitments we have elsewhere, particularly in Bosnia and Cambodia.
  After extensive discussions with the other contributors, all contingents are reducing this December. The Danish contingent is withdrawing altogether. The United Kingdom will still be the largest contributor and will provide an even higher percentage of the total force. So
  128
  there is no doubt that we intend to continue to play what I think we can claim is more than our full part in this important duty.
  The UN set of ideas specifies that the two communities shall be politically equal following a settlement, each having its own majority zone of the federal state, and sharing power at the federal level.
  The status quo is not tenable in the long term. Recognition of the Turkish republic of northern Cyprus would cement division, increase tension and make UN efforts more difficult. On the contrary, we must seek to promote reconciliation. That is the purpose of the effort that we are putting into the current negotiation. At the specific request of the UN Secretary-General, our high commissioner to Cyprus will be in attendance throughout the talks now going on in New York.
  Sir Dudley Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that since the intervention, unfortunate as it was, there has not been one killing or murder in the island of Cyprus?
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I am glad to confirm that.
  At the end of the day, it is not in the power of the UK, the United Nations or anyone else to compel a working solution. That must depend on the political will of the two Cypriot communities.
  We should not underestimate the difficult choices that that involves for both sides. Greek Cypriots must agree to genuine power sharing that accepts Turkish Cypriots as a politically equal community. Turkish Cypriots must agree to give up some of their unequal share of the island.
  Dr. Boutros Ghali and the Security Council have pointed the way to a settlement which can bring peace, security and the chance of prosperity to all Cypriots. Now is the best chance for a generation to solve the dispute. I very much hope that President Vassiliou and Mr. Denktash will find the courage to make the necessary compromises.
  The international community is watching events in New York very closely.I do not think that that community will forgive failure due to intransigence. I very much hope that the House and the hon. Members who have attended this debate and who have influence in this matter will seek to persuade the two leaders meeting in New York and the Cypriot communities in the United Kingdom to strain every effort to make it possible to bring this tragic dispute to an end.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Eleven o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Society for the Protection of Unborn Children
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Attorney-General when the Director of Public Prosecutions intends to take a decision on whether to prosecute the SPUC under the Representation of the People Act 1986 in connection with the last general election in the constituency of Halifax.

  The Attorney-General
  The Director of Public Prosecutions is considering allegations that an offence under the Representation of the People Act 1983 has been committed by the SPUC in connection with the last general election in constituencies in West Yorkshire—Halifax—Avon—Weston-super-Mare—and Lancashire—Hyndburn. The Director is seeking the advice of counsel and a decision on whether any offence appears to have been committed by any person will be taken in the light of that advice.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Murderers
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average number of years which have been served by prisoners convicted for murder who have been released in the last two years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  According to the records held centrally, which are approximate, the average time served under sentence in prison service establishments by murderers first released on licence in 1990 was 12·4 years. The provisional estimate for 1991 is 12·1 years.

  These figures are published annually in "Prison Statistics England and Wales"—table 8·5 of the volume for 1990, Cm 1800.

  Appointments
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all the names of public appointments that he has made, giving the period for which the appointment was made, relevant qualifications of the appointees, and what remuneration each currently receives.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The readily available information about the appointments for which my Department is responsible, including salary details, is given in "Public Bodies" which is published annually and in "Public Appointments: A Handbook for Women's Organisations" which also gives information on the period of appointments and the qualifications and background required of candidates. Copies of both publications are in the Library. The 1992 editions of both publications, with information about the most recent appointments, are due to be published in December.

  Fire Brigades (Fleet Maintenance)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many fleet mechanics are employed within each fire brigade area in Wales; and how many are also employed as part-time fire fighters.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The figures supplied by brigades on 23 October 1992 are as follows:

  A Brigade

  B Number of brigade fleet mechanics

  C Number in column B who retained firefighters

  Clwyd

  nil (local authority staff)

  nil

  Dyfed

  6

  5

  Mid Glamorgan

  11

  nil

  South Glamorgan

  4

  nil

  West Glamorgan

  nil (local authority staff)

  nil

  Gwent

  nil (local authority staff)

  nil

  Gwynedd

  5

  nil

  Powys

  4

  2

  —

  —

  Totals

  30

  7

  Animal Abuse
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to update and increase as appropriate the penalties for offences of animal abuse in the relevant legislation from 1822 to 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The maximum penalties available to the courts for offences in legislation relating to animal abuse for which my right hon. and learned Friend, the Home Secretary, is responsible are kept under regular review. However, the Government have no plans at present to increase existing penalty levels.

  Under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, the monetary values of the levels on the standard scale of fines for offences tried in magistrates courts, which will include many animal abuse offences, were uprated from 1 October 1992.

  Stolen Property
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the value of property recorded by the police as stolen in the last year for which figures are available; and what percentage of this was recovered.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 19 October 1992]: Information for 1990 is published in tables 2·13 and 2·15 of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, 1990", a copy of which is available in the Library. Information for 1991 has not yet been finalised.

  Prison Deaths
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all deaths that have occurred in 1991 of persons detained in prison department establishments, stating, in each case, the age and sex of the inmates and cause of death, the inquest verdict, whether the inmate was sentenced or on remand, the establishment where the inmate was detained, whether the death occurred there or
  3
  in an outside hospital and, for where the death occurred within the prison, whether the inmate was segregated either in the hospital wing or in the punishment block.

  Death of prisoners in Her Majesty's Prison Service custody in 1991

  Date

  Establishment

  Age

  Sex

  Status1

  Cause of Death

  Inquest Verdict

  Location at lime of death2

  6 January

  Gloucester

  42

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Suicide

  OL

  7 January

  The Mount

  19

  M

  S

  Hanging Uraemia

  Suicide

  GOAD

  14 January

  Lincoln

  62

  M

  S

  necrosis

  Natural

  OH

  16 January

  Norwich

  36

  M

  S

  Hanging Myocardial

  Suicide

  OL

  18 January

  Blundeston

  34

  M

  S

  dysplasia

  Natural

  OL

  19 January

  Wandsworth

  29

  M

  S

  Cut throat

  Suicide while the balance of his mind was disturbed and aggravated by lack of care

  OH3

  25 January

  Full Sutton

  35

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Suicide

  PH

  4 February

  Maidstone

  64

  M

  S

  Heart failure

  Natural

  OH

  11 February

  Manchester

  22

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Suicide

  OL

  19 February

  Stafford

  40

  M

  S

  —

  Unlawfully killed

  OH4

  22 February

  Cardiff

  23

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Suicide

  VPU

  2 March

  Brixton

  37

  M

  R

  Heart failure

  Accidental Suicide in circumstances brought about by

  OH

  6 March

  Liverpool

  22

  M

  R

  Hanging

  lack of care

  OL

  10 March

  Bristol

  32

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Suicide aggravated by lack of care

  PH

  21 March

  Wakefield

  59

  M

  S

  Cardiac arrest

  Natural

  OL

  23 March

  Wormwood Scrubs

  56

  M

  S

  Haemoperi-cardium

  Natural

  PRES Hostel

  7 April

  Oxford

  29

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Accidental

  OL

  8 April

  Manchester

  31

  M

  R

  Overdose

  Not yet held

  PH

  9 April

  Wandsworth

  25

  M

  S

  Cerebral infarction

  Natural

  OH

  17 April

  Garth

  38

  M

  S

  Cut wrists

  Suicide

  OL

  19 April

  Leeds

  31

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Open

  OL

  10 May

  Camp Hill

  51

  M

  S

  Heart attack

  Natural

  OH

  13 May

  Liverpool

  30

  M

  S

  Heart/lung failure

  Suicide

  OH5

  13 May

  Durham

  33

  M

  CU

  Possible dystonic reaction to haloperidol

  Open

  PH6

  21 May

  Wakefield

  49

  M

  S

  Myocardial infarction

  Natural

  OL

  22 May

  Littlehey

  46

  M

  S

  Cardiac arrest

  Natural

  PH

  27 May

  Brixton

  24

  M

  CU

  Hanging

  Suicide in circumstances aggravated by lack of care

  PH

  27 May

  Featherstone

  34

  M

  S

  Hanging Myocardial

  Suicide in circumstances aggravated by lack of care

  Seg(GOAD)

  1 June

  Wandsworth

  64

  M

  S

  infarction

  Natural

  OH

  8 June

  Wormwood Scrubs

  21

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Open

  OH

  13 June

  Haverigg

  31

  M

  S

  Sclerosis of liver

  Natural

  OH

  2 July

  Blantyre House

  27

  M

  S

  Overdose

  Accidental

  OL

  8 July

  Durham

  27

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Suicide

  OL

  18 July

  Pentonville

  54

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Suicide while the balance of his mind was disturbed

  PH

  18 July

  Wakefield

  37

  M

  S

  Stabbed

  Not held

  OL

  21 July

  Parkhurst

  29

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Suicide brought about by lack of care

  OL

  26 July

  Full Sutton

  34

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Misadventure

  OH7

  30 July

  Liverpool

  34

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Suicide

  PH

  31 July

  Grendon

  30

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Suicide

  OH8

  31 July

  Durham

  63

  M

  S

  Acute myocardial infarction

  Natural

  OH

  31 July

  Manchester

  21

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Suicide

  OL

  2 August

  Birmingham

  25

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Suicide

  PH

  11 August

  Preston

  45

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Suicide

  PH

  16 August

  Dorcester

  45

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Open

  OL

  18 August

  Wakefield

  31

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Suicide

  OL

  26 August

  Birmingham

  23

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Suicide

  OL

  31 August

  Feltham

  18

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Suicide

  OL

  11 September

  Wakefield

  65

  M

  S

  Myocardial infarction

  Natural

  PH

  4
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 30 October 1992]: The information is given in the table. Only one prisoner who died in the prison health care centre was segregated for reasons of good order and discipline—see footnote 6.
  5

  Date

  Establishment

  Age

  Sex

  Status1

  Cause of Death

  Inquest Verdict

  Location at time of death2

  16 September

  Nottingham

  45

  M

  S

  Hanging Drug

  Not yet held

  OL

  21 September

  Winchester

  45

  M

  R

  poisoning

  Misadventure

  OL

  21 September

  Glen Parva

  20

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Suicide

  OL

  22 September

  Feltham

  15

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Accidental

  OL

  1 October

  Norwich

  30

  M

  S

  Asthma attack

  Open

  OL

  5 October

  Kirkham

  54

  M

  S

  Heart attack

  Not held

  OH

  7 October

  Grendon

  37

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Suicide

  APU

  8 October

  Pentonville

  32

  M

  IA

  Acute cardiac9failure

  Not yet held

  Seg(GOAD)

  16 October

  Cardiff

  33

  M

  R

  Overdose

  Suicide while balance of mind was disturbed

  PH

  18 October

  Winchester

  40

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Suicide

  PH

  25 October

  Haverigg

  25

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Open

  OL

  25 October

  Leicester

  65

  M

  S

  Lung cancer

  Natural

  OH

  28 October

  Stafford

  29

  M

  S

  Hanging

  Open

  OL

  9 November

  Usk

  52

  M

  S

  Heart attack

  Natural

  OL

  10 November

  Maidstone

  64

  M

  S

  haemorrhage

  Natural

  OH

  12 November

  Birmingham

  44

  M

  R

  Overdose

  Suicide

  OL

  13 November

  Norwich

  49

  M

  R

  Overdose

  Misadventure

  OL

  31 November

  Swaleside

  41

  M

  S

  Pulminary aneurysm

  Natural

  OL

  12 December

  Garth

  49

  M

  S

  Heart attack

  Natural

  OL

  14 December

  Stoke Heath

  19

  M

  CU

  Hanging

  Suicide

  OL

  17 December

  Long Lartin

  52

  M

  S

  Overdose

  Suicide

  OL

  28 December

  Leeds

  30

  M

  R

  Hanging

  Suicide

  OL(OP)

  1 Status:-R—Remand.

  CU—Convicted unsentenced.

  S—Sentenced.

  IA—Detained under the Immigration Act..

  2 Location:- OL—Ordinary location within prison.

  GOAD—Good order and discipline wing.

  PH—Prison health care centre.

  VPU—Vulnerable prisoner unit.

  PRES—Pre-release hostel.

  APU—Acute psychiatric unit within prison.

  Seg(GOAD)—Located in the Segregation Unit for reasons of good order and discipline (Rule 430).

  OL(OP)—Located on ordinary location, but segregated for prisoner's own protection.

  3 Prisoner cut throat on ordinary location: death occurred in an outside hospital.

  4 Prisoner was assaulted on ordinary location: death occurred in an outside hospital.

  5 Prisoner set fire to himself in prison health care centre: death occurred in an outside hospital.

  6 Prisoner was located in a special cell in the health care centre following a series of violent oubursts. No anatomical cause of death was found, but it was thought to have resulted from a dystonic reaction to haloperidol.

  7 Prisoner was found hanging in Segregation Unit, where he was located for reasons of good order and discipline: death occurred in an outside hospital.

  8 Prisoner was found hanging in the Acute Psychiatric Unit: death occurred in an an outside hospital.

  9 The post mortem failed to reveal the exact cause of death, but concluded there was a 'strong possibility of acute cardiac failure' and a more remote possibility of asphyxia.

  Criminal Justice Act 1991
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what training has been received by probation officers, judges, magistrates, recorders and justices' clerks in preparation for the Criminal Justice Act 1991.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 30 October 1992]: The probation service has undertaken a major training exercise for probation officers in preparation for the implementation of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. This training covered full details of the legislation as well as its implications for probation practice. The Judicial Studies Board has provided comprehensive guidance and training on the Act for both the professional and the lay judiciary. Judges of the Court of Appeal and the High Court were given a briefing in the Lord Chief Justice's court, while judges, recorders and assistant recorders sitting in Crown courts received a guide to the sentencing provisions of the
  6
  Act as part of the Crown Court bench book on sentencing. The Judicial Studies Board produced an introduction of the Act and a copy of this document was sent to each magistrate. A comprehensive training package was also produced to assist those, usually justices' clerks, who train the magistrates. The Home Office also held a series of special conferences attended by representatives of the agencies involved in the criminal justice system.

  Crime
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment his Department has made of the likely impact of(a) the continued recession and (b) the effect of future levels of benefits or public services on (i) the crime rate and (ii) inner city and other disorder; and what assessment he has made of whether the police will be able to cope with such developments.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 30 October 1992]: There are very many variables that may affect the crime rate—not least the behaviour of individual offenders. The

  7
  relationship between crime levels and economic activity is analysed in Home Office research study 119 "Trends in Crime and their Interpretation: A Study of Recorded Crime in Post-war England and Wales"—a copy of which is in the Library. Factors which might affect public order in inner cities are kept under constant review. The Government will continue to ensure that the police and other criminal justice services are provided with the necessary resources to respond to crime whatever its source or reason.

  Emergency Planning
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the measure of protection to local authority grant to be given within the diminishing total expenditure on civil defence indicated in his speech to the emergency planning conference on 30 June;

  (2) what steps he has taken to check preparedness and resources available to local emergency planners in the light of the Amsterdam air disaster.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 26 October 1992]: Since July 1991, when the then Home Secretary undertook to give a measure of protection to local authority civil defence grant provided that certain conditions were met, current grant has been maintained at the same level despite substantial cuts in civil defence expenditure as a whole. In addition, local authorities have been encouraged to use the grant more flexibly to improve local authority response to local peacetime disasters such as that which occurred in Amsterdam.

  The prime responsibility for responding to disasters in this country lies at the local level where the resources and the expertise are to be found. Home Office officials routinely discuss local emergency preparedness as part of the process of monitoring civil defence grant. In addition, the recently published Home Office guidance "Dealing with Disasters" is aimed at assisting the local response.

WALES

  Credit Unions
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps are currently undertaken by his Department to encourage the establishment of credit unions in rural Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The development of credit unions in Wales is a responsibility of the Welsh Co-operative Development Training Centre. My Department has, however, provided assistance for certain credit unions under the urban programme and I am prepared to consider applications for support towards credit unions in rural areas under the rural initiative capital projects programme, where these meet the criteria of the scheme.

  Fishing Fleet
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures are being taken to protect the viability of the Welsh fishing fleet.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  A number of EC, United Kingdom and local measures have been introduced to conserve fish stocks and thus maintain the viability of the fishing 8
  industry. In February the Government announced a new package of measures, including decommissioning grants and days at sea allocations, designed to control fishing effort and conserve fish stocks.

  NHS Spending
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is NHS spending in Wales, per capita for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is given in the following table, together with a comparable table of per capita figures expressed in 1992–93 prices.

  Year

  Gross NHS per capita expenditure

  £

  At 1992–93 prices £

  1979–80

  171

  415

  1980–81

  220

  450

  1981–82

  251

  468

  1982–83

  277

  485

  1983–84

  294

  491

  1984–85

  319

  506

  1985–86

  339

  511

  1986–87

  363

  531

  1987–88

  400

  553

  1988–89

  444

  573

  1989–90

  47S

  578

  1990–91

  534

  597

  1991–92

  612

  639

  1992–93

  674

  674

  Drugs
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures are under way to combat illegal drug use in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Government have a comprehensive strategy for tackling drug misuse. The objective is to attack the problem by simultaneous action on five main fronts:

  Reducing supplies from abroad.

  Making enforcement even more effective.

  Maintaining effective deterrents and tight domestic controls.

  Developing prevention.

  Improving treatment and rehabilitation.

  The Welsh Office has specific responsibility for the last two in Wales, but does take a close interest in the others.

  Services are provided on a multi-agency basis by statutory and voluntary organisations, many of which are funded through their district health authority from the central funding initiative, providing a wide range of interventions and prevention campaigns.

  Advice on an all-Wales basis is provided to the Department, and to local agencies by the Welsh Committee on Drug Misuse which was established in 1986.

  Fish Stocks
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action is being undertaken to protect and enhance sea trout and salmon stocks in the rivers of Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In England and Wales statutory responsibility for the maintenance, improvement and development of salmon and sea trout fisheries rests with
  9
  the National Rivers Authority. I have asked Dr. John Stoner, the NRA Welsh regional manager, to write to my hon. Friend.

  Radioactivity
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action is being taken to monitor radioactivity off the coast of Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Directorate of fisheries research of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food undertakes monitoring of radioactivity around the coast of Wales on behalf of the Welsh Office. Samples such as fish, shellfish, seaweed and sediments are taken from a number of locations and the results are regularly published. Copies of the reports are kept in the Library of the House. This monitoring work is supplemented by Government-sponsored research on specific aspects of radioactivity in the environment.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cargoes of toxic ash from waste incineration have been brought for storage or burning on landfill sites in Wales during the past five years; and if he will specify the quantity of ash transported in each year.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  None.

  Farm and Countryside Grant Scheme
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many claims under the farm and conservation grant scheme have been disallowed by his Department in each year since its inception.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information is as follows:

  Number

  1989

  19

  1990

  110

  1991

  66

  1 1992

  50

  1 To 30 September.

  Sheep Annual Premium
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many claims for sheep annual premium have been disallowed by his Department in each of the past three years.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  1989

  51

  1990

  105

  1991

  285

  19921

  96

  1 to 30 October.

  Contaminated Land
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by location and size of site, areas of known contaminated land in Wales; and if he will make a statement on how restorative action will be taken to clean up these sites.
  10
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Surveys of possibly contaminated land in Wales were undertaken on behalf of the Welsh Office in 1982 and 1988. Copies of the later report are held in the Library of the House.

  The Welsh Development Agency is tackling contaminated land as part of its extensive land reclamation programme. Powers are also available to local authorities to ensure the treatment of contaminated land where it poses a threat to the environment or public health. The National Rivers Authority has powers to remedy pollution of controlled waters. In addition, contaminated land is a material planning consideration for local planning authorities to take account of in considering new development.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement listing which hospitals he will invite to apply for trust status in 1994; and what policy considerations he will use in choosing applicants for 1994 trust status.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my right hon. Friend's statement of 29 October at column 1148. The health units and ambulance services invited to prepare formal applications to become NHS trusts in April 1994 are:

  Gwynedd Health Authority

  Acute Unit (Ysbyty Gwynedd, Bangor)

  Community Health

  Gwent Health Authority

  North Gwent Acute Unit (Nevill Hall Hospital, Abergavenny)

  South Glamorgan Health Authority

  Velindre Hospital

  Mid Glamorgan Health Authority

  Merthyr/Cynon Health Unit (Prince Charles Hospital, Merthyr Tydfil)

  Rhondda Health Unit

  Taff Ely Health Unit (East Glamorgan Hospital, Church Village)

  Rhymney Valley Health Unit (Caerphilly Miners' Hospital)

  West Glamorgan Health Authority

  North Unit (Morriston Hospital, Swansea)

  District Services Unit

  East Dyfed Health Authority

  Mental Health Unit (St. David's Hospital, Carmarthen)

  Ambulance Service

  Clwyd and Gwynedd joint proposal

  East Dyfed and West Glamorgan joint proposal

  Mid Glamorgan

  An application for NHS trust status must demonstrate benefits to patients and quality improvement, management capability and capacity, involvement of key professional staff, especially consultants, in management and financial soundness.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to ensure that appointments he makes of chairman or chairwoman for NHS trusts are made regardless of race, creed, gender or political persuasion.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Appointments will he made on the basis of aptitude and merit.
  11
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will make a statement on the application for trust status by the South Glamorgan, Powys and Gwent ambulance services;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the applications for NHS trust status by Welsh hospitals.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my right hon. Friend's statement of 29 October, at column 1148.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has for setting the salary of the post of chairman or chairwoman of NHS trusts in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Levels of remuneration for chairmen and chairwomen of NHS trusts in Wales are set in three bands as follows:

  £

  Band 1

  Trusts with turnover in excess of £50 million

  19,285

  Band 2

  Trusts with turnover between £20 million and £50 million

  17,145

  Band 3

  Trusts with turnover of less than £20 million

  15,125

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the representations that have been made with respect to each of the trust applications for operation from 1 April 1993; and if he will categorise them by(a) pro, (b) anti or (c) neutral.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Up to and including 29 October, the number of representations received are as follows:

  Health unit

  In support

  Opposed

  Undeclared

  Total

  Clwyd Acute North

  11

  11

  5

  27

  Clwyd Acute South

  9

  10

  10

  29

  Clwyd Community and Mental Health

  12

  8

  8

  28

  Powys

  5

  15

  8

  28

  South Gwent Acute

  3

  17

  8

  28

  Gwent Community and Mental Health

  5

  12

  8

  25

  Llandough Hospital

  10

  6

  4

  20

  Ogwr

  7

  11

  5

  23

  West Unit, West Glam

  19

  49

  22

  90

  East Unit, West Glam

  2

  13

  5

  20

  Llanelli/Dinefwr

  6

  4

  6

  16

  Carmarthen/Dinefwr

  7

  4

  7

  16

  Ceredigion

  10

  11

  15

  36

  Gwent, Powys and South Glamorgan Ambulance Service

  1

  22

  11

  34

  Total

  107

  193

  122

  422

  National Poisons Centre
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to promote the development of the national poisons centre located at Llandough hospital.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There are currently no specific proposals to develop the service provided at the Welsh national poisons unit at Llandough hospital. I would 12
  expect the service provided by the poisons unit to be responsive to the needs of purchasers and health gain priorities.

  Cigarettes
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new measures are being introduced to halt the sale of cigarettes to minors.

  Mr. Jack
  I have been asked to reply.

  The latest measures to halt the sale of cigarettes to minors are contained in the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991, the main provisions of which came into force on 1 March 1992. The Act, among other things, strengthens the law on illegal sales of cigarettes to children under the age of 16 and clarifies the duties of local authorities in enforcing the law in this area.

EDUCATION

  Engineering
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to increase the involvement of the Institution of Electrical Engineers in increasing the number of qualified engineers.

  Mr. Forman
  My right hon. Friend is aware of the work which the Institute of Electrical Engineers carries out in schools. Its distribution of careers literature and provision of speakers to encourage young people to study engineering is most welcome.

  The Government are always pleased to welcome any initiatives from those within the engineering profession, to increase the numbers of qualified engineers.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many engineering places are available in advanced education; how many arc unfilled; and what action he is taking to encourage the filling of unfilled places and to promote the teaching of engineering in schools.

  Mr. Forman
  Information on "available" and "unfilled" places in engineering is not collected centrally.

  The Government are taking a number of initiatives to encourage the study of engineering. In schools the introduction of the national curriculum has made the teaching of technology, science and mathematics compulsory for all pupils from five to 16. Schools are also being encouraged to offer a range of vocational courses, both alongside the national curriculum and also for over-16s, particularly the new general national vocational qualifications. Currently, one in five entrants to engineering degrees enter on the basis of vocational qualifications. In addition initiatives such as the higher introductory technology and engineering conversion courses have encouraged those previously without a science background to study engineering.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what action he takes to ensure that the advanced education sector promotes engineering degrees.

  Mr. Forman
  The planning and funding of the United Kingdom higher education system is essentially demand led. Higher education institutions are autonomous and
  13
  recruit according to student demand. However, institutions do receive a higher publicly funded fee for students studying laboratory and workshop courses. This should encourage them to promote courses like engineering.

  Adult Students
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what funding arrangements his Department proposes to put in place to enable adult returner students to take up courses and learning programmes in further education colleges.

  Mr. Forman
  The Further and Higher Education Act 1992 places a duty upon the Further Education Funding Council to secure the provision of further education for adults of a type set out in schedule 2 to the Act; and upon local education authorities to secure provision of all other kinds of further education for adults. These duties may be carried out in further education colleges or other institutions providing for adults. The funding of the Council and of LEAs will take account of these statutory duties.

  LEAs have the power to make discretionary awards to those on further education courses. Access funds have also been made available to allow FE colleges to provide financial help to full-time students aged 19 or over.

  Refugees
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many(a) refugees and (b) those applying for refugee status with temporary leave to remain in the United Kingdom are known to be currently attending courses at further education colleges; and from which countries they have come.

  Mr. Forman
  This information is not collected centrally.

  School Dinners
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the total number of schoolchildren who had school dinners in each year since 1989.

  Mr. Forth
  Information about school meal take up in maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools in England in January of each year is shown in the table.

  Thousands

  Nursery/Primary

  Secondary

  Special

  All maintained schools

  11989

  1,836

  1,105

  66

  3,007

  21990

  1,845

  1.088

  59

  2,992

  21991

  1,808

  1,111

  57

  2,976

  31992

  1,820

  1,160

  59

  3,039

  1 Includes boarding pupils.

  2 Day pupils only.

  3 Provisional.

  Unemployed Students
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps are being taken by his Department to assist further education colleges in inner London to 14
  recruit more students, and in particular unemployed students; and if he will take steps to reduce the financial disincentives which currently apply where colleges enrol a high proportion of unemployed students.

  Mr. Forman
  Access funds have been made available to further education colleges to enable them to assist full-time and sandwich home students aged 19 or over who might otherwise be unable to participate in further education because of financial difficulties. The determination of college budgets, including the account taken of any fee remission schemes for students such as those who are unemployed, is currently a matter for the maintaining local education authority. From 1 April 1993, colleges will be transferred to a new further education sector arid funded direct by the Further Education Funding Council. They will have a financial incentive to increase participation and respond flexibly and quickly to demand from all members of the community.

  Harris City Technology College, Upper Norwood
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the current level of annual expenditure per child at Harris city technology college, Upper Norwood.

  Mr. Forth
  The level of recurrent grant notified to Harris city technology college for the current academic year, 1992–93, is £3·327 million for 830 pupils under the school-leaving age and 98 pupils over school-leaving age. This includes provision for diseconomies of scale during the college's build-up to full capacity and for services provided centrally by local education authorities to their schools.

  Secondary Education
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the average spending per child for secondary education in an inner London borough.

  Mr. Forth
  The latest year for which actual spending information is available is 1990–91. In that year, average funding in secondary schools in inner London boroughs was some £2,470 per pupil. This figure includes unspent balances held by schools at the year end under local management schemes. It does not include the cost of services provided centrally by local education authorities such as home to school transport, school meals, LEA central administration, and financing costs of capital expenditure.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make it his policy to provide ring-fenced funding to grant-maintained schools to cover the cost of educating children with special educational needs who have not received statements from their local education authority.

  Mr. Forth
  The Education Reform Act places a duty on the governors of every grant-maintained school to use their best endeavours to secure the special educational provision that any individual pupil might require. It is for the governors to decide how to allocate the funds available to them in order to fufil this duty.
  15
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what information he is collecting on the money spent by local education authorities to publicise GCSE and A-level examination results.

  Mr. Forth
  Local education authorities have been required to publish information about their schools' examination results in school prospectuses since 1981. No information is collected about the cost to them of so doing. My right hon. Friend is himself responsible for the compilation and publication of the comparative tables of school examination results which will be issued later this month.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will name those schools which have received grant-maintained status with an admissions' policy approved by him which allows for places to be allocated on the basis of ability or aptitude.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has approved the following schools for grant-maintained status with the selective admission arrangements under which they operated as local education authority-maintained schools.

  School

  Authority

  Adams' Grammar School

  Shropshire

  Bacup and Rawtenstall Grammar School

  Lancashire

  Beaconsfield High School

  Buckinghamshire

  Bournemouth School

  Dorset

  Bournemouth School for Girls

  Dorset

  Caistor Grammar School

  Lincolnshire

  Carre's Grammar School

  Lincolnshire

  Chatham Grammar School for Girls

  Kent

  Chelmsford County High School for Girls

  Essex

  Clitheroe Royal Grammar School

  Lancashire

  Colyton Grammar School

  Devon

  Cranbrook School

  Kent

  Dartford Grammar School

  Kent

  Dartford Grammar School for Girls

  Kent

  Handsworth Grammar School for Boys

  Birmingham

  Heckmondwike Grammar School

  Kirklees

  Herschel Grammar School

  Berkshire

  King Edward VI Grammar School (GM)

  Essex

  King Edward VI School

  Lincolnshire

  Lancaster Girls Grammar School

  Lancashire

  Lancaster Royal Grammar School

  Lancashire

  Langley Grammar School

  Berkshire

  London Oratory School

  Hammersmith

  16

  School

  Authority

  Marling School

  Gloucestershire

  Newstead Wood School for Girls (GM)

  Bromley

  Nonsuch High School for Girls

  Sutton

  Oakwood Park Grammar School

  Kent

  Parkstone Grammar School

  Dorset

  Pate's Grant Maintained Grammar School

  Gloucestershire

  Queen Elizabeth Upper Atherstone GM School

  Warwickshire

  Queen Elizabeth's GM Grammar School

  Lincolnshire

  Queen Elizabeth's GM Grammar School

  Lincolnshire

  Rainham Mark Grammar School

  Kent

  Reading School

  Berkshire

  Ribston Hall High School

  Gloucestershire

  Simon Langton Grammar School for Boys

  Kent

  Sir Roger Manwood's School

  Kent

  Skegness Grammar School

  Lincolnshire

  St. George's Grant-Maintained School

  Lincolnshire

  Stroud High School

  Gloucestershire

  Sutton Grammar School for Boys

  Sutton

  The Crossley Heath School

  Calderdale

  The Crypt School

  Gloucestershire

  The Gartree Grant Maintained School

  Lincolnshire

  The Grammar School for Girls Wilmington

  Kent

  The Kings School Grantham

  Lincolnshire

  The North Halifax High School

  Calderdale

  The Skinners' School, Tunbridge Wells

  Kent

  Westcliff High School for Boys

  Essex

  Wilmington Grammar School for Boys

  Kent

  Wilsons School

  Sutton

  Wolverhampton Girls High School

  Wolverhampton

  Local Education Authorities
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list each of the responses to the White Paper on the future role of local authorities, referred to in his answer to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) on 20 October 1992,Official Report, column 266.

  Mr. Forth
  Responses to the White Paper are treated as private communications from their authors. It would not be appropriate to make them public. There is nothing to prevent respondents from making their comments more widely available if they wish to do so.

  Student Loans Company
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when the Student Loans Company will publish its annual report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forman
  The Student Loans Company is publishing today its report for the academic year 1991–92. It includes the company's accounts for the financial year 1991–92. I have placed a copy of the report in the Library. The report describes a very solid year of achievement on the part of the company, and is a tribute to its board, management and staff.

ENVIRONMENT

  Contaminated Land
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what plans he has to introduce a mechanism for appeal against inclusion on the contaminated land register;

  (2) what plans he has to introduce mechanisms for ensuring removal from the contaminated land register of land which has been cleaned up and is no longer contaminated;

  (3) what plans he has to support the investigation and clean up of land included on the contaminated land register; and what funding arrangements will be available, with particular reference to cases where the polluter is no longer in existence;

  (4) what guidance he proposes to issue on the relationship between parts A and B of the contaminated land register; and how they are to be cross referenced for ease of inspection;

  (5) what steps he is taking to ensure that unlicensed and unrecorded contaminated land users are identified in the contaminated land register.

  Mr. Maclean
  Under our current proposals, on which we completed a period of consultation in early October, local authorities would be required under section 143 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to compile public registers of land which is, or has been, subject to contaminative uses. The proposals include prior notification of owners and occupiers of sites which are to be registered, with arrangements for them to challenge factual errors before registration takes place.

  As it is proposed that registers should record the facts of past or present contaminative uses of sites rather than actual contamination, it would not be consistent to remove sites from registers after contamination had been treated. Complete decontamination is in any case rare, and there can, in some circumstances, be continuing effects on water or adjacent land.

  Financial assistance is available to local authorities in the form of supplementary credit approvals for the costs of investigation of contamination and of any necessary remedial measures where it is not practicable to recover the costs of treatment from those responsible. Local authorities can still bid for approvals for 1992–93.

  Both parts of the registers would record only sites subject to contaminative uses which would be listed in regulations. Part B would record those registered sites which had been investigated or treated. The regulations defining the particulars to be included in registers would set out the criteria for inclusion in parts A and B.
  18
  Guidance to be published on information requirements for registers would recommend a method of cross-referencing between the two parts.

  The registers would contain sufficient information to identify each site and its contaminative use or uses. The past or current identity, licensing or authorisation of any particular site user would occur, if at all, only incidentally to the purposes of the register. Licensing authorities might well refer to registers and make inquiries about the status of any current use or user of a site.

  I am grateful to the more than 400 organisations and individuals who have responded to our current proposals. We are fully considering the various representations we have received, and will decide in the light of them our next steps in relation to the powers in section 143.

  Ozone Depletion
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out the expected annual consumption of ozone-destroying substances by the buildings evaluated earlier this year as possible new headquarters for his Department; and what quantitative method was used to incorporate the consumption of ozone-destroying chemicals in the evaluation of buildings considered as possible new headquarters for his Department.

  Mr. Maclean
  Consultants have carried out a preliminary environmental assessment of the buildings in question. That included identification of likely ozone-depleting substances. However, the assessment was not sufficiently detailed to quantify fully the various environmental effects.

  Mortgage Payments
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much average new mortgage repayments per month were in(a) May 1988 and (b) April 1992.

  Mr. Baldry
  The average new mortgage repayment on a building society loan is estimated as £250·45 per month in the second quarter of 1988 and £346·10 per month in the second quarter of 1992, based on the average advance and average mortgage interest rate in each period and an assumed mortgage length of 25 years.

  Motor Vehicles (Pollution)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much(a) carbon monoxide, (b) nitrogen oxides and (c) carbon dioxide pollution from motor vehicles there was in (a) 1979 and (b)

  Mr. Maclean
  Our most recent estimate of emissions of air pollutants from road transport in 1979 is as follows:

  (a) carbon monoxide—3·84 million tonnes;

  (b) nitrogen oxide—772 thousand tonnes, and

  (c) carbon dioxide—21·2 million tonnes.

  The equivalent figures for 1992 are not yet available.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make available to hon. Members on request press releases issued by his Department on the day of release.
  19
  Mr. Howard
  Copies of press releases issued by my Department are delivered on the day of issue to the press notice desk of the reference division of the House of Commons Library where they are available to hon. Members.

  Council Housing (Tendering)
  Ms. Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consult the views and wishes of tenants in implementing compulsory competitive tendering for local authority housing stock.

  Mr. Baldry
  More than 100 tenants' organisations responded to the Government's consultation paper, "Competing for Quality in Housing". The Housing and Urban Development Bill now before the House provides for effective tenant involvement in the drawing up and monitoring of contracts for the management of local authority housing, and tenant organisations will be consulted on the necessary subordinate legislation in due course.

  Waste
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review the inconsistencies in the definition of waste by different local authorities and the interpretation of regulations as they relate to the transport of materials classified by some authorities as waste.

  Mr. Maclean
  Whether or not a substance is waste within the meaning of section 75(2) and (3) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 depends on the facts of each case; and interpretation of the law is a matter for the courts. General guidance on the definition of waste has been given to local authorities in DOE circular 14/92—paragraphs 4 to 18. The Department's guidance draws attention to judgments on this issue by the European Court of Justice and by English courts.

  Local Government Boundary Commission
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the cost of the recent review by the Local Government Boundary Commission of the Cambridgeshire-Suffolk boundary around Newmarket.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  It is not possible to separate the costs of an individual review from the total costs of the Local Government Boundary Commission.

  Crown Leases
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the enfranchisement of residential long leases held from the Crown.

  Sir George Young
  The various Crown authorities will, in most cases, agree to the voluntary enfranchisement or extension of long leases, under the same qualifications and terms as will apply under statute—the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 and the Housing and Urban Development Bill if enacted—to leaseholders whose landlord is not the Crown.

  Enfranchisement of property which would otherwise qualify will however be refused where the land is inalienable or in certain circumstances specific to the Crown. These circumstances are:
  20

  (i) where the property or the area in which it is situated has a long, historic or particular association with the Crown (including parts of the Isles of Scilly and central Dartmoor);

  (ii) were the property is within (or intimately connected with) the historic Royal Palaces and Parks (including properties adjacent to Regents Park); or

  (iii) where there are special security considerations.

  When enfranchisement is refused on these grounds, the Crown will be prepared to negotiate new leases.

  Additionally the Crown will be eligible to apply for and operate schemes of estate management, and will be prepared to be bound by arbitration on disputes over the terms of (a) enfranchisement, or (b) the grant of new leases by analogy with the statutes.

  This undertaking supersedes that given by my right hon. Friend the then Minister for Housing on 31 May 1967, at column 42.

  Pit Closures
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide increased funding to the National Rivers Authority to cope with the pollution consequences of pit closures.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 30 October 1992]: The cost of the National Rivers Authority's work relating to the regulation of discharges or overflows from mines is taken into account as necessary in determining the financial needs of the authority from year to year.

  Business Rates
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish his estimate of the actual total yield from the national non-domestic rate for(a) 1990–91, (b) 1991–92 and (c) the current financial year.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 29 October]: Estimated yield from non-domestic rates in England:

  £ billion

  1990–91

  10·7

  1991–92

  12·0

  1992–93

  11·6

  These estimates include the yield from the City of London's locally determined rate. They take into account the provisions of the Non-Domestic Rate Act 1992 which had the effect of reducing the rates paid by occupiers or owners of properties benefiting from the transitional arrangements. The estimates are on an accruals basis—that is, they represent the aggregate rate liability for each year rather than the cash actually collected during the year—except that adjustments to liability, for instance following appeals, have been attributed to the year in which they occurred rather than to each year for which liability was reduced.

  Radioactive Waste (Sewers)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he plans to review definitions for low-level standards of radioactive materials discharged into sewers;

  (2) if he has plans to review current arrangements for authorising and monitoring discharges of low-level radioactive waste into sewers;
  21
  (3) what action he is taking to monitor potentially dangerous levels of radioactivity, resulting from authorised discharges of low-level, radioactive waste into sewers, accessible to water workers and consumers;

  (4) what measures are available to ensure that both water workers and consumers are not exposed to potentially dangerous levels of radioactivity resulting from authorised discharges of low-level radioactive waste into sewers;

  (5) if he will improve public access to information dealing with the discharge of low-level radioactive waste into sewers;

  (6) what definition he uses for low-level radioactivity and safe levels of radioactive waste, for substances currently discharged into sewerage systems;

  (7) what projected long-term environmental impact is expected if current level discharges of low-level, radioactive waste into sewers continue; and how this is monitored;

  (8) if he will take steps to ensure regular checks are made on water workers to establish personal contamination levels resulting from the disposal of radioactive materials into sewers.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 28 October 1992]: Discharges of low-level radioactive waste to the public sewerage system are strictly regulated by means of authorisations issued under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960—RSA60—by her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution—HMIP. Authorisations are issued only after a careful radiological assessment, and impose strict conditions and activity limits which ensure proper protection from such disposals for all members of the public, including sewer workers. I am satisfied that the current arrangements, which are kept under constant review, provide a fully satisfactory regime for regulating radioactive waste disposals and I have no plans to make changes at present. Since 1 January 1991 the public have had the right of access to information on applications and authorisations issued under RSA60. These documents are held at local authority offices and at the three principal HMIP offices in Bedford, Leeds and Bristol.

  Results of a research study conducted on behalf of HMIP by the National Radiological Protection board into the exposure of sewer workers associated with radioactive discharges from hospitals was published in June 1991. It found that doses of radiation to those sewer workers with long exposure near to hospital discharge points are approximately one hundredth that of natural background levels.

  Further research conducted on behalf of HMIP by St. Bartholomew's medical college into the levels of Iodine 125 in drinking water show that actual radiation exposure to the public is less than one hundredth that of natural background levels. I-125 is a principal component of discharges from hospitals. I am arranging for copies of both of these reports—DOE/HMIP/RR/91/030 and 031—to be placed in the Library of the House. The studies form part of an HMIP-commissioned programme of research into the environmental behaviour of radionuclides. These studies demonstrate that the dose levels are so low that no further precautions need to be taken either by sewer workers or other members of the public. A programme for monitoring radioactivity in public water supplies in England and Wales has operated for many years. Results from this programme are published in the
  22
  Department's "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics", a copy of which is in the Library. Results to date show levels below the World Health Organisation guideline values. This confirms that the water is potable on radiological grounds and thus there is no hazard to the public. Selective monitoring of private water supplies is also undertaken under contract to this Department.

  Fish Farming
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to promote the banning of EC funding of fish farming in sensitive wetland habitats during the United Kingdom's presidency of the EC.

  Mr. Curry
  I have been asked to reply.

  A framework for protecting sensitive wetland habitats within the Community is already provided by the EC birds directive—79/409/EEC—and the new EC habitats directive—92/43/EEC. In the United Kingdom, the Fisheries Ministers have a duty under the Sea Fisheries (Wildlife Conservation) Act 1992 to consider nature conservation in the exercise of their functions and to strike a reasonable balance. The Fisheries Departments do not encourage projects in sensitive areas.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Maastricht Treaty
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the principle of subsidiarity in article 3(b) proposed by the Maastricht treaty can be used retrospectively.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Although as a matter of law, article 3(b) applies prospectively, there is nothing to prevent the application of the principle in that article to a review of existing Community measures. The Birmingham declaration notes that the first results of such a review will be examined at the Edinburgh European Council.

  Visas
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when charges for visas for applicants wishing to rejoin their families in the United Kingdom came into operation; and what is the charge per person.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Charges for visas for aliens were introduced in 1825 by the Act relating to the salaries and fees of consular officers. No distinction was made relating to applicants wishing to rejoin their families.

  Charges for visas for Commonwealth citizens, including charges for those wishing to join their families in the United Kingdom were introduced on 1 January 1985 by the Consular Fees (Amendment) Order 1986.

  Charges for visas for applicants wishing to rejoin their families in the United Kingdom were last revised on 14 January 1991.

  Current fees per person are:

  £

  (a) Husband, wife, child or other dependant relative

  80

  (b) Certificate of Entitlement to the right of abode

  80

  (c) Returning resident

  20

  Consultants
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all of the reports his Department has commissioned from external consultants in each of the past three years; for each of the past three years, how many reports from external consultants to his Department led to further consultancy

  Year

  Report commissioned

  Consultants

  Further consultancy work

  1989

  Car pool operations

  ASO Management

  None

  1989

  Organisation and work of Personnel Operations Department

  Coopers & Lybrand

  Michael Armstrong Associates—Assessment

  1990

  Travel Centre Quality Control Audit

  Cleverdon Steer

  None

  1990

  Review of Non-financial Management Information

  Coopers & Lybrand

  None

  1991

  Management Information Systems Preliminary Study

  JM Consulting

  Full study also by JM Consulting

  1991

  Heavy Baggage Contract

  Ernst & Young

  None

  1992

  Introduction of Quality Management Systems

  Neville Clarke Ltd.

  None

  1992

  Office Accommodation—Advantages of new buildings over old

  Symonds

  None

  1992

  Activities suitable for Market Testing

  Coopers & Lybrand

  Capita management Consultancy—Market Testing Methodology and Training

  1992

  Installation of Secure Communications Systems

  BT Tallis

  None

  1992

  Long Hours: Attitude Survey

  Coopers & Lybrand

  Follow-on work by same consultants

  1992

  Organisation and Implementation of Top and Senior Management Courses

  McNeil Robertson

  None

  Cyprus
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent meeting at the United Nations concerning the Cyprus problem.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Talks on Cyprus reconvened on 26 October in New York, and moved to face to face discussion between President Vassiliou and Mr. Denktash on 28 October. Limited ground has as yet been covered, but both sides appear to be taking a constructive approach. We continue to give full backing to the efforts of the UN Secretary-General.

  Western Sahara
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the kingdom of Morocco about the holding of a referendum on the future of western Sahara.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have taken every opportunity to urge on the Moroccan Government the importance of supporting the United Nations settlement plan for western Sahara and the need to keep to a minimum the delay in holding a referendum on the future of the territory.

  Sanctions
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those countries against which the United Kingdom is applying economic sanctions, indicating in each case the international and national authority for the sanctions, the extent of the sanctions, their duration and the terms under which they would be lifted.
  24
  work being commissioned, stating for each of these who were the original and subsequent consultants and briefly describing the subject matter of the consultancy work; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Consultancies are awarded, after a competitive tendering exercise, to the company considered best able to provide value for money in terms of quality of work and price. The information requested is set out in the table.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom currently applies economic sanctions against the following countries:

  (a) Iraq: Comprehensive economic sanctions, excluding only supplies for medical purposes, foodstuffs and goods for essential humanitarian needs. Imposed under United Nations Security Council resolution—UNSCR—661 of 6 August 1990. Conditions for lifting these sanctions are set out in section C of UNSCR 687.

  (b) Libya: Arms embargo, ban on air links and some aviation-related trade. Imposed under UNSCR 748 of 15 April 1992. Lifting of sanctions is contingent on Libyan compliance with UNSCR 731.

  (c) Serbia and Montenegro: Comprehensive trade embargo, except food, medicines and humanitarian goods. Imposed under UNSCR 757 of 30 May 1992. Sanctions will be reviewed following Serbian compliance with UNSCR 752.

  The schedule list national authority for implementing these resolutions.

  United Kingdom legislation implementing United Nations sanctions against Iraq, Libya and Serbia and Montenegro
  Legislation was created by the passage of Statutory Instruments through Orders in Council to implement in the United Kingdom the provisions of United Nations Security Council Resolutions 661, 748 and 757.

  Iraq

  The Iraq and Kuwait (United Nations Sanctions) Order 1990: SI No. 1651 (8 August).

  The Export of Goods (Control) (Iraq and Kuwait Sanctions) Order 1990: SI No. 1640 (8 August).

  The Iraq and Kuwait (United Nations Sanctions (Amendment) Order 1990: SI No. 1768 (29 August).

  The Iraq and Kuwait (United Nations Sanctions) (No. 2) Order 1990: SI No. 1987 (5 October).

  Separate legal directions were issued by HM Treasury on 2 and 4 August to freeze certain Iraqi and Kuwaiti assets:

  The Control of Gold, Securities, Payments and Credits (Kuwait) Directions 1990: SI No. 1591 (2 August).

  The Control of Gold, Securities, Payments and Credits (Republic of Iraq) Directions 1990: SI No. 1616 (4 August).

  The Bank of England issued Notices on 7 August:

  Emergency Laws (Re-enactments and Appeals) Act 1964: Kuwait.

  25

  Emergency Laws (Re-enactments and Appeals) Act 1964: Iraq.

  Libya

  The Libya (United Nations Prohibition of Flights) Order 1992: SI No. 973.

  The Libya (United Nations Sanctions) Order 1992: SI No. 975.

  Serbia and Montenegro

  The Serbia and Montenegro (United Nations Sanctions) Order 1991: SI No. 1302.

  The Serbia and Montenegro (United Nations Prohibition of Flights) Order 1992: SI No. 1304.

  Nuclear Testing
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 22 October,Official Report, column 341, what was the date of the most recent discussions his Department had with the French Government on nuclear testing; and what aspects of nuclear testing were discussed.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Nuclear testing was discussed at a meeting of British and French officials on 9 September. The discussion covered a range of issues, including recent developments in nuclear testing policy and future prospects.

  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many parties to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty called for the negotiation of a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty at the nonproliferation treaty review conference 1990.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The national positions of NPT parties at the 1990 review conference are set out in part III of the conference's final document, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans his Department has to resume direct negotiations towards a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty before September 1996.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 23 October, at column 407.

  European Community
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what veto powers are currently available to EC member states on matters of national interest under the Luxembourg compromise.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The Luxembourg compromise states:"Where, in the case of decisions which may be taken by majority vote on a proposal of the Commission, very important interests of one or more partners are at stake, the Members of the Council will endeavour, within a reasonable time, to reach solutions which can be adopted by all the Members of the Council while respecting their mutual interests and those of the Community, in accordance with Article 2 of the Treaty".

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Appointments
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list all the names of public appointments that he has made, giving the period 26
  for which the appointments were made, relevant qualifications of the appointees and what remuneration each currently receives.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor makes some 1,800 public appointments, excluding judicial appointments. Full details can be provided only at disproportionate cost but the table shows the public bodies to which he appoints and the number of appointees as at September 1992.

  Public appointments

  Body

  Number of appointments

  Insolvency Rules Committee

  4

  County Court Rule Committee

  9

  Supreme Court Rule Committee

  12

  Land Registration Rule Committee

  6

  Family Proceedings Rule Committee

  10

  Crown Court Rule Committee

  8

  Advisory Committees on General Commissioners of Income Tax

  532

  Advisory Committees on JPs in England (excluding the Duchy of Lancaster) and Wales

  1,031

  Judicial Studies Board

  54

  Advisory Council on Public Records

  11

  Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct

  17

  Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board

  6

  Legal Aid Advisory Committee

  8

  Legal Aid Board

  12

  Council on Tribunals

  19

  Law Commission

  5

  Northern Ireland Court Service—Advisory Committees on General Commissioners of Income Tax (NI)

  15

  Advisory Committees on JPs in Northern Ireland

  57

  Advisory Committees on Juvenile Court Lay Panel

  11

  Legal Aid Advisory Committee (NI)

  11

  Fact-finding Visits
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the fact-finding visits made in the last 12 months by the chief executive of each executive agency for which he is responsible; and what were the findings resulting from each visit.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor is responsible for two agencies—the Public Record Office and the Land Registry. In the past 12 months the chief Executive of HM Land Registry made one fact-finding visit, to Australia and New Zealand. As a result of his visit the Land Registry has enhanced its information services and is adopting simplified computerised mapping techniques.

  Since the launch of the PRO as an agency on 1 April 1992 the chief executive has made three fact-finding visits. On 7 July she attended the Anglo-American conference of historians, which increased the PRO's awareness of the current use of archives by historians interested in Anglo-American records. On 12 August she visited the National Audit Office, which improved the PRO's knowledge of the services the NAO can offer to agencies and of the way in which the NAO will expect agency accounts to be presented. On 2 September she attended a presentation by Her Majesty's Stationery Office intended to inform the PRO of the range and variety of publishing services which HMSO now offers to Government Departments.

  Counsel's Fees (Taxation)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the delay between trial and taxation of counsel's fees by central taxing units.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The central taxing teams were established in March 1991 to give a consistent approach to the determination of large claims for legal aid or central funds. Targets were set that 75 per cent. of claims should be determined within three months of becoming ready to tax—that is to say when all related claims have been lodged—and that all claims should be determined within six months of becoming ready to tax. In relation to their own workload, all circuits, except the south eastern, are currently meeting the first of these targets, and all but the south eastern and midland and Oxford are meeting the second. On the south eastern circuit, the backlog of claims is being reduced by the release of claims to other teams and, where appropriate, to determining officers in the courts, for a speedier determination with the aim of bringing all the teams within their targets by January 1993.

  House Sales (Defaults)
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recent representations he has received calling for a system to protect buyers and sellers of homes from default once a sale is agreed.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  None; the law already allows buyer and seller to enter into a binding contract once its terms have been agreed.

  Immigration Appeals
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) for those cases of husbands or wives now being heard by the immigration appeals tribunal, how long on average they have had to wait from the appeal being lodged; and how long he expects those applying now have to wait;

  (2) for those cases of fiancé(e)s now being heard by the immigration appeals tribunal, how long on average they have had to wait from the appeal being lodged; and how long he expects those applying now have to wait.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Unless the adjudicator gives leave to appeal, there are two stages to an appeal to the immigration appeals tribunal against the adjudicator's determination, leave to appeal and the substantive appeal. The average time for the immigration appeals tribunal to grant leave to appeal is 11½ weeks, and 10 weeks thereafter for the appeal to he heard, if leave is granted. Steps are being taken to shorten these times where possible.

HEALTH

  Ultra-violet Radiation
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information her Department holds on the effects of increased UV-B exposure in suppressing the immune system; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  UV-B radiation exposure varies greatly from person to person, day to day and year to year. The 28
  extent of any immune suppression in humans and the disease implications are as yet poorly understood. A number of centres around the world are studying this phenomenon.

  Strelley Health Centre, Nottingham
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what work is currently being undertaken by the nursing development unit at the Strelley health centre, Nottingham; what progress has been made; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Strelley health centre is one of 30 nursing development units receiving development funds made available by the Department to further excellence in nursing practice. The work undertaken by health visitors at Strelley health centre includes accident prevention, women's health and domestic violence through community participation. The work is subject to evaluation and will contribute to the Health of the Nation strategy.

  Mobile Oxygen Packs
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will reconsider the practice by which mobile oxygen packs which are fitted with a mask, the latter being unprescribable, results in the whole kit becoming unprescribable; what is the cost of a mobile oxygen pack and refills; and what help is given to patients on a low income to purchase a mobile oxygen pack and refills.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We have no plans to change the present arrangement whereby a hospital consultant decides whether a patient would benefit from the free provision under the national health service of a portable oxygen set. Financial assistance given under the social security system does not extend to payment for medical care. The small portable cylinder may be refilled from a larger one which GPs may prescribe under the domiciliary oxygen service. There are three elements in the cost of a portable oxygen set. The set is rented at a cost of £1·70 a month and the cylinder contains about £2 worth of oxygen. The cost of delivery varies according to the quantity delivered. Under the domiciliary oxygen service the rental charge for the set with the larger cylinder is £1·94 a month. The oxygen in it costs £6·15. The cost of delivery by a pharmacist to a patient's home varies according to the distance involved.

  Dentists
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to resolve the dentists' dispute.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The revised scale of fees for general dental practitioners, which took effect on 8 July 1992, is expected to deliver a net income of about £40,000 to the average dentist in 1992–93, as compared with the £35,815 recommended by the dentists' independent pay review body. Dentists' practice expenses have also been increased by 11·6 per cent., to £47,228. This means that in 1992–93 the average dentist will have a gross income of about £88,000. We believe this is fair and reasonable for dentists, patients, other health service professionals, and taxpayers more generally.

  For the future, we have asked Sir Kenneth Bloomfield to conduct a fundamental review of the dental

  29
  remuneration system. The review is being conducted independently of the Government and will identify a number of options for change. Sir Kenneth has been asked to report by the end of 1992. In the meantime, we have asked dentists to think long and hard before taking any action which might jeopardise the interests of their practices or patients.

  Patients Charter
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, as part of her quality of service objectives, she will require the publication of the responses of all bodies consulted in the preparation of the patients charter.

  Mr. Sackville
  No. We did not seek views on the basis that they would be published.

  Regional Information Systems Plan
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will ensure that Wessex regional health authority takes all necessary steps to recover funds from all companies which undertook work on the regional information systems plan project and which have been criticised by the district auditor; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 28 October at column 733.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what moneys have been transferred from hospital asset sales and cuts in spending to primary care over the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  Total spending on the non-cash-limited family health services has increased by £2·2 billion, or 11·8 per cent. in real terms, over the five years since 1987–88. Some primary/community care services are also provided by the hospital and community health services, whose spending has increased by £8·8 billion or 20·8 per cent. in real terms over the same period. Proceeds from capital sales are retained within the hospital and community health services, and are used for either hospital or community based services, according to decisions taken locally.

  Temazepam
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will change the prescription arrangements for temazepam along the lines currently in force for methadone;

  (2) what plans she has to speed up the process of revising the prescription arrangements for temazepam.

  Mr. Jack
  I have been asked to reply.

  Temazepam is currently controlled under schedule 4 to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 1985. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has recently considered the problem of temazepam misuse and has made recommendations by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary on measures to be taken to combat its misuse.

  We are now considering the council's recommendations.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  London Tourist Board
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the future of the London tourist board.

  Mr. Key
  The London tourist board is an independent, non-statutory body, and I am therefore not in a position to make a statement on its future. I understand, however, that discussions about a proposed merger of the London tourist board and the recently announced London Forum are currently taking place. Given the common interests which these bodies have, I welcome this.

  English Heritage
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what consultations English Heritage undertook with its advisory committees and other interested groups in preparing its current plan to dispose of sites of archaeological importance; and what were the results of such consultation.

  Mr. Brooke
  English Heritage proposes to categorise certain of its buildings, monuments and sites as of regional importance, fully meriting continued protection but more suited to local management. It has not yet been decided how many properties will be so categorised and English Heritage will consult its own advisory committees, both on the general criteria and on a case-by-case basis, before such decisions are taken.

PRIME MINISTER

  South Africa (Plutonium)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received from the Government of the Republic of South Africa concerning the transport of plutonium by sea from the proposed thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield.

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Subsidiarity
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) of 22 October,Official Report, column 358, if he will take steps to distribute widely throughout the United Kingdom the paper on subsidiarity prepared by the European Commission once it has been submitted to the Council of Ministers.

  The Prime Minister
  The Commission's paper on subsidiarity will be deposited today in accordance with the usual procedures. There are no current plans for wider distribution.

  Political Advisers
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Prime Minister how many political advisers are in post in Her Majesty's Government; in what department they are in post; and what is the total salary bill of such posts.

  The Prime Minister
  There are currently 30 special—political—advisers to Ministers employed in the civil service. The number in each Department is as follows:
  31

  Number

  Cabinet Office (including No. 10)

  8

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  1

  Ministry of Defence

  1

  Department of Education

  1

  Department of Employment

  1

  Department of the Environment

  2

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  2

  Department of Health

  1

  Home Office

  2

  House of Lords

  1

  Northern Ireland Office

  1

  Privy Council Office

  1

  Scottish Office

  2

  Department of Social Security

  1

  Department of Trade and Industry

  1

  Department of Transport

  1

  Her Majesty's Treasury

  2

  Welsh Office

  1

  The approximate current total salary bill is £1,188,742.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Prime Minister how many staff are employed in his Office; and what was the cost of running his Office, broken down into salaries and wages, notional pension liability, administration costs and the cost of office services in the current year.

  The Prime Minister
  There is the equivalent of 85·5 staff employed in my office. The cost of running my office in the last financial year was £8,816,949.

  The costs break down as follows:

  Salaries and wages—£2,236,699.

  Notional pension liability—£259,967.

  Administration costs—£5,670,868.

  Office services—£649,415.

  Grant in aid to the Chequers trust is included in the figures. My salary is excluded.

  Putting Britain First
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the practical consequences for Government policies of his commitment to put Britain first.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 29 October 1992]: The Government have always put Britain first in their policies and will continue to do so.

  Industrial Diseases
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Prime Minister when the report from the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council into bronchitis and emphysema in metal workers and coal miners will he published; if he will set out the responsibilities of each Government Department in respect of consideration of the issues and recommendations involved; and if he will make a statement on the proposals in relation to the report.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 29 October 1992]: The Industrial Injuries Advisory Council's report will be published in the usual way. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is giving the report the most careful consideration and will make an announcement in due course.

  European Union
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister how many authentic copies of the treaty of European union were made available to the media and to members of the public before 9 April.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 29 October 1992]: Copies of the treaty on European union were made available to members of the public and media on demand from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office between signature on 7 February and the Treaty's publication as a Command Paper, Cm. 1934, on 7 May. About 100 copies were distributed.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister how many authentic copies of the treaty of European union were made available to hon. Members.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 29 October 1992]: A stock of the text of the treaty of European union printed as Cm. 1934 is kept by the Vote Office and is available on demand by right hon. and hon. Members.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister how many letters he has received since 15 October concerning the coal industry; how many supported pit closures; how many opposed pit closures; how many telephone calls concerning the coal industry were made to his office; how many callers supported pit closures; and how many opposed pit closures.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 29 October 1992]: I have received a substantial number of representations about the coal industry.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to take advantage of the provisions of article XIX of GAT to impose restrictions on imports of coal causing serious injury to domestic producers.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 29 October 1992]: The hon. Member will be aware that the President of the Board of Trade is now reviewing these matters.

  Colombian Coal
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister when the bilateral investment committee between Her Majesty's Government and Colombia was established; which British Ministers or departmental officials are represented on this committee; and what subjects are being considered by the committee.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 29 October 1992]: When I visited Colombia in June, I agreed with President Gaviria to set up a trade facilitation group to encourage bilateral trade and investment. The group, which is led by business men and has no Ministerial involvement, held its first meeting on 29 September. One Department of Trade and Industry official, with responsibility for trade relations with Colombia, sits on the committee. The aims of the group are to encourage and suggest ways of increasing bilateral trade and investment across a wide range of sectors.

  Economic, Advisers Council
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will consider hiving off the economic section of the Treasury and that of the Bank of England to an independent council of economic advisers consisting of nine advisers representative of the different schools of economic thought, to be appointed in consultation with the political parties and the economics profession, to take written and oral evidence on matters relevant to their work, and to issue quarterly and annual reports on the performance and prospects for the British economy.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 30 October 1992]: I have no such intention. The hon. Member may be unaware that no other major country hives off its economic advice in the way suggested. Certainly in the United States, the Council of Economic Advisers is not a substitute for economic policy advice provided by Government Departments and the Federal Reserve all of which employ their own economists. It is vital that the Treasury and the Bank of England retain the capacity for giving high-quality economic advice.

  But the Government have always paid close attention to the views of independent commentators and analysts and will continue to do so. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced yesterday his intention to strengthen the process of outside consultation by establishing a panel of independent forecasters to report to him on the economic prospects.

  Colombia
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his meeting on 10 June in Cartagena, Colombia with President Cesar Gaviria.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 30 October 1992]: I visited Colombia on 9 and 10 June. In my meetings with President Gaviria and his Ministers, we discussed a wide range of matters of mutual interest.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Prime Minister what British assistance has been given or promised for Colombia's exports of coal into the European Community during the British presidency.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 30 October 1992]: None.

  Common Travel Area
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received from the Government of the Republic of Ireland concerning proposals by Her Majesty's Government to require EC nationals, travelling between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom, to carry passports from next January; if the Government of the Republic of Ireland have indicated that they intend to take reciprocal action; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 30 October 1992]: I have received no such representations. We have made no proposals to amend the common travel area between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Timber
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how timber will be labelled to ensure that it is derived from sustainable sources.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Reliable and effective labelling systems are at an early stage of development. The Overseas Development Administration is financing international work on incentives for sustainable timber production, including the viability of labelling schemes.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to ensure that tropical timber imported into the United Kingdom will be derived from only sustainable sources by the year 2000.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The key to a sustainable timber trade lies in the sustainable management of forests. Our policy is to work for the negotiation and implementation of international forestry agreements to provide a framework for the sustainable management and use of forest resources; to help to identify practical and effective incentives to curb deforestation and promote reafforestation; to encourage and assist with the adoption of national guidelines and best practices in developing countries; to assist countries develop their policies and capacities by financing projects including research, conservation, institution building and sustainable harvesting of forest resources.

  Rain Forests
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of the Overseas Development Administration's bilateral aid programme specifically deals with combating the adverse effects on tropical rain forests stemming from unsustainable and unplanned cultivation.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In 1991–92 the ODA spent some £18 million, or 2 per cent. of bilateral aid, on forestry projects. Present estimates are that aid for forestry will increase to around £35 million this financial year, about 4 per cent. of bilateral aid. Information on aid specifically related to combating the adverse effects of unsustainable agriculture on tropical rainforests is not held centrally. We also help reduce pressure on rainforests through work in other sectors, such as improving the productivity of tropical agriculture and helping reduce population growth rates.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what he considers to be the main agents of tropical rain forest destruction.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The main cause of tropical rain forest destruction is conversion of forest land to agriculture. Others include unsustainably managed timber production, fire, mining, and industrial and infrastructure developments. Pressures from overgrazing by livestock and fuel wood collection are also significant problems in the dry tropical forests.

  International Development Association
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when proposals for the 10th replenishment of the International Development Association will be laid before Parliament.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Subject to the successful completion of the present negotiations, the Government would expect to seek parliamentary approval for our contribution to IDA's 10th replenishment early next year.

  World Bank (Projects)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures are taken to ensure that the full range of potential social and environmental impacts are adequately considered prior to the approval of projects funded by the World bank.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The World bank prepares a paper based on its policy guidelines, which are published, containing a full assessment of any significant social and environmental impact of a planned project well in advance of executive board consideration. This assessment is circulated to members of the board and is available to non-governmental organisations in the country concerned.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the Government's policy on reporting its views and voting position on World bank projects.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The proceedings of the World bank board's consideration of projects are confidential, in order not to inhibit full and frank discussion in the board.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Ecu Loan
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current value in sterling of the 10 billion ecu loan and what it was on 14 September.

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Grade

  Number (average staff inpost)

  Cost (actual) £

  Number (average staff' in post)

  Cost (estimate) £

  Grade 3

  1·00

  59,822

  1·00

  60,083

  Grade 5

  3·00

  138,875

  3·00

  147,873

  Grade 7

  9·00

  309,141

  9·50

  322,231

  Insolvency A

  0·75

  20,625

  —

  —

  Senior Executive Officer

  5·00

  123,705

  3·50

  96,506

  Higher Executive Officer

  6·25

  133,261

  8·00

  173,184

  Executive Officer

  3·50

  59,208

  3·00

  51,861

  Administrative Officer

  4·00

  57,340

  4·00

  54,144

  Administrative Assistant

  7·25

  81,824

  7·00

  67,571

  Senior Personal Secretary

  1·00

  16,414

  1·00

  18,334

  Personal Secretary

  3·00

  50,183

  3·00

  43,125

  Typist

  1·25

  14,117

  2·00

  22,908

  Total

  45·00

  1,064,514

  45·00

  1,057,820

  36
  Mr. Nelson
  The Government announced on 3 September their intention to borrow an amount equivalent to 10 billion ecu in foreign currencies. Five billion ecu equivalent of the announced borrowing was drawn down in the revolving credit facility in September, with the remaining 5 billion ecu to be raised subsequently.

  The value in sterling at 4 pm on 29 October of 5 billion ecu was £4·06 billion. The value in sterling on 14 September was £3·59 billion. However, the sterling value when the borrowing comes to be repaid will depend on the sterling exchange rate at that time.

  Economic Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing for Germany, France and the United Kingdom the increase in gross domestic product less North sea oil and gas, the increase in manufacturing output and the increase in unemployment in the decade 1979 to 1989.

  Mr. Nelson
  Data for the period 1979–89 for GDP and manufacturing output in France and Germany can be found in the OECD's "National Accounts Volume II." Data for United Kingdom non-oil GDP and for manufacturing output can be found on the Central Statistical Office database. Unemployment figures can be found in the OECD's labour force statistics.

  Staffing Costs
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list by grade and number employed, the staffing costs for the year 1991–92 and the estimate for 1992–93 for the financial services division.

  Mr. Nelson
  The financial services division transferred from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Treasury on 7 June 1992. It is now called the securities and investment services group. The figures given in the table are based on average staff in post in 1991–92 and during the first three months of 1992–93. The staff costs include pay and earnings-related national insurance contributions.

  Consultants
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list all of the reports his Department has commissioned from external consultants in each of the last three years; for each of the last three years, how many reports from external consultants to his Department led to further consultancy work being commissioned, stating for each of these who were the original and subsequent consultants and briefly describing the subject matter of the consultancy work; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  The information is not readily available in the form requested. To produce the data in this format would involve disproportionate time and cost.

  Charities (VAT)
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Government's position regarding the possible imposition of value added tax on charities after 1997.

  Sir John Cope
  Agreement has been reached that the United Kingdom's zero rates, including those specifically designed to benefit charities and charity shops, can be maintained until at least 1997 without prejudice to their future thereafter. Any new agreement will require a unanimous decision by the Council of Ministers. There is, therefore, no question of the United Kingdom being forced to implement unwelcome proposals from 1 January 1997 and we have no plans to alter these provisions.

  European Community (Expenditure)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a list of public expenditure under all headings, and known income of the United Kingdom, of membership of the Common Market for each year since the year of joining; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  The United Kingdom's contributions to and receipts from the European Community budget for the years 1973 to 1991 together with the forecast for 1992 as published in the "Statement on the 1992 Community budget" Cm. 1948, in June are given in the table:

  £ million

  Year

  Gross contribution after abatement and refunds

  Public sector receipts

  Net contribution after abatement refunds and public sector receipts

  1973

  181

  79

  102

  1974

  179

  150

  29

  1975

  342

  398

  -56

  1976

  463

  296

  167

  1977

  737

  368

  369

  1978

  1,348

  526

  822

  1979

  1,606

  659

  947

  1980

  1,669

  963

  706

  1981

  1,481

  1,084

  397

  1982

  1,844

  1,238

  606

  1983

  2,169

  1,522

  647

  1984

  2,676

  2,020

  656

  1985

  3,713

  1,905

  1,808

  1986

  2,792

  2,220

  572

  1987

  4,049

  2,328

  1,721

  1988

  3,544

  2,182

  1,362

  1989

  4,431

  2,116

  2,315

  38

  Year

  Gross contribution after abatement and refunds

  Public sector receipts

  Net contribution after abatement refunds and public sector receipts

  1990

  4,658

  2,183

  2,475

  1991

  3,309

  2,765

  545

  1992

  5,489

  2,890

  2,599

  Nuclear Submarines (Refitting)
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what studies have been made by his Department of the cost-effectiveness of rival proposals by the managements of Rosyth and Devonport dockyards for the refitting of Britain's nuclear submarines.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Ministry of Defence, in consultation with the Treasury and other Government Departments, is considering future requirements for ship refitting and repair. Options under consideration include proposals put forward by each of the royal dockyard management companies. The final decision will take into account all relevant factors, including cost-effectiveness.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many VAT inspection visits are currently planned for the year 1993–94; what was the figure announced in 1991; and what are the reasons for the change.

  Sir John Cope
  Current plans are for 300,000 VAT control visits in 1993–94, against a figure of 540,000 envisaged in the 1991–92 management plan. The reduction can largely be attributed to the Department's move towards fewer but longer and more thorough visits.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state for the VAT inspection control programme for year 1991–92(a) the number of staff years used, (b) the running costs, (c) the additional tax discovered and (d) the unit cost ratio of cost to revenue.

  Sir John Cope
  In 1991–92 a total of 5,461 staff years were used on VAT control visiting, and running costs amounted to £126·8 million. A total of £1,464 million was discovered as gross additional liabilities, producing a unit cost—pence per £—of 8·7. Over declarations of £500 million were also identified, giving net additional liability of £964 million producing a unit cost—pence per £—of 13·2.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much on average each VAT inspector raised in additional VAT liability in the last financial year; and what is the average cost of employing a VAT inspector.

  Sir John Cope
  In 1991–92 each VAT control officer identified on average about £270,000 in gross additional liability and £90,000 in over-declarations made by traders. The average running cost involved in employing each officer was around £23,000.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff years are planned for VAT control visiting for the year 1993–94.
  39
  Sir John Cope
  Current plans are for 5,562 staff years for VAT control visiting in 1993–94.

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the total cost to public funds of the publication of the annual reports of HM Customs and Excise executive units.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 30 October 1992]: HM Customs and Excise estimate that the total cost of printing and distributing the 1991–92 reports of the 30 executive units was £45,800.

  Cohesion Fund
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much assistance the United Kingdom will qualify for under the EC's proposed cohesion fund through having a gross national product which is less than 90 per cent. of the EC average.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 30 October 1992]: The cohesion fund envisaged in the Maastricht treaty will be a structural fund; and the method of calculating relative wealth for these funds is to use purchasing power parities. The United Kingdom would not qualify for any assistance from the cohesion fund on that basis.

  MV Maureen
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to receive a reply from French customs regarding their treatment of the vessel MV Maureen owned by Mike and Penny Rowley; and how long after receiving the French reply he would expect to publish a full report on the inquiries by British Customs and Excise.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 30 October 19921 HM Customs and Excise have now received a reply from the French authorities. I will be writing to my hon. Friend very shortly.

  Gross National Product
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the United Kingdom's gross national product was the European average gross national product each year since 1979.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 30 October 19921 Figures in respect of gross domestic product per head of the population at current prices and current purchasing power parities with respect to the Community are published by Eurostat in table R.2 on page 103 of its publication "National Accounts ESA aggregates 1970–1990"—theme 2 series C. Copies of this publication are available in the House of Commons Library.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  EC Agriculture Budget
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what proportion of the United Kingdom's EC agricultural budget is spent on administration;

  (2) what proportion of the total EC agriculture budget is spent on administration.

  Mr. Curry
  The administration costs of providing support under the common agricultural policy are the responsibility of the member states and are not funded from the EC budget.

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about the closure of abattoirs.

  Mr. Soames
  Since the relevant EC directive 91/497/EEC was adopted in July last year, my right hon. Friend the Minister and I have received some 120 letters about its potential impact on British abattoirs.

  The question of closure of abattoirs in the south-west was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) in the Adjournment debate on 21 October 1992, Official Report, column 538.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the impact of the new EC regulations on existing small abattoirs; what action he will take to minimise the effects of such regulations; and if he will monitor how the regulations are being adopted, implemented and supervised by each EC country.

  Mr. Soames
  The Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations, published on 10 September, extend to the domestic market the rules on the production and hygiene of meat which have existed for intra-Community trade since 1964. There is nothing in the regulations that is not in the EC directive or the existing Great Britain legislation and there are many areas where we have interpreted the directive as liberally as possible to minimise the compliance burden.

  In addition, we successfully negotiated for extra time to be made available after 1992 for slaughterhouses which are committed to achieving the new structural standards, and for less onerous requirements for low throughput premises.

  The abattoir industry has been rationalising steadily during the last 20 years. Slaughterhouse numbers have fallen from 1,890 in 1972 to some 600 now. It is clear that the trend towards fewer but larger and more efficient slaughterhouses would continue irrespective of the new legislation.

  Each member state is required to implement the EC directive by 1 January 1993. The Commission has a team of inspectors who visit all member states to check compliance. If there is substantive evidence that another member state is failing to apply the rules correctly, I am ready to take these issues up with the Governments concerned and, when necessary, the Commission.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to incorporate his oral undertaking of 14 July,Official Report, column 1027, concerning the circumstances in which days at sea limitations will be proposed to Parliament, into the Sea Fish Conservation Bill.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary to my Department in another place on 26 October:"I intend to introduce an amendment to the Bill at a later stage which will require the Government to make an affirmative resolution order each time they intend to make overall reductions in days at sea allocations."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 October 1992; Vol. 539, c. 914]

  Ozone Depletion
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what advice his Department has given to fish farmers on the potential impact of ozone depletion on fish stocks in United Kingdom waters; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will estimate the effect on crop production in the United Kingdom of levels of ozone depletion expected under current United Kingdom proposals for phase-out dates of ozone-depleting chemicals; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what assessment his Ministry has made of which crops commonly grown in the United Kingdom are most sensitive to UV-B radiation; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what advice his Department has given to farmers on the potential impact of ozone depletion on (a) animal health and (b) crops; and if he will make a statement;

  (5) what research is being carried out, or is planned by his Department, on the effects of ozone depletion on (a) animal health and (b) crop yield; and if he will make a statement;

  (6) what Ministry recording schemes are in existence, or are planned, for conditions in farmed fish and farm animals which are associated with UV-B; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The Department is very conscious of the potential relevance to global and United Kingdom agricultural production of an increase in the level of UV-B radiation. It is not possible to make sensible estimates of the effects of an increase, however, as the research base on UV-B and plants and natural ecosystems is far from well-developed. To help develop our understanding the Government partially funded an international meeting of specialists at Lancaster university earlier in the year on "stratospheric ozone depletion and UV-B effects on biota". In addition, building on work undertaken by the Department of the Environment, this Department is carefully considering the possibility of further research specifically into the effects of UV-B radiations on crops and on eggs and larvae of commercially important fish species. On the basis of current knowledge, there is no need to issue specific advice to farmers and fish farmers but we will keep the matter under review.

  Slaughterhouses
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of(a) red meat animals and (b) poultry which are electrically stunned in slaughterhouses are stunned with currents intended to induce cardiac arrest at stunning.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information is not available.

  Market Inspections
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many market visits were made by local veterinary inspectors in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Gummer
  Statistics are available for the last five years. The number of visits made were

  Number

  1987

  3,745

  1988

  4,421

  1989

  3,616

  1990

  4,548

  1991

  4,186

  Appointments and re-appointments to public bodies

  Code

  Name

  Public body name

  Category

  Position

  Date of appointment

  Date of expiry

  Department of Economic Development

  58

  Professor D. V. McCaughan

  Industrial Research and Technology Board

  A

  Chairman

  1 April 1992

  31 March 1993

  19

  Professor F. C. Monds

  Industrial Research and Technology Board

  A

  Member

  1 May 1992

  30 April 1994

  640

  Mr. F. S. Graham

  Industrial Research and Technology Board

  A

  Member

  1 May 1992

  30 April 1994

  1198

  Mr. P. H. McKie

  Industrial Research and Technology Board

  A

  Deputy-Chairman

  1 May 1992

  30 April 1994

  2216

  Professor E. K. Beatty

  Industrial Resarch and Technology Board

  A

  Member

  1 May 1992

  30 April 1994

  2389

  Mr. J. McCusker

  Industrial Research and Technology Board

  A

  Member

  1 May 1992

  30 April 1995

  2981

  Mrs. J. E. Ruddock

  Industrial Research and Technology Board

  A

  Member

  1 May 1992

  30 April 1995

  3685

  Mr. J. J. Collins

  Industrial Research and Technology Board

  A

  Member

  1 May 1992

  30 April 1995

  4334

  Mrs. G. M. Gracey

  Industrial Research and Technology Board

  A

  Member

  1 May 1992

  30 April 1994

  4603

  Dr. W. T. Little

  Industrial Research and Technology Board

  A

  Member

  1 May 1992

  30 April 1995

  4604

  Mr. K. T. G. Atkins

  Industrial Research and Technology Board

  A

  Member

  1 May 1992

  30 April 1995

  4605

  Mr. W. H. Morris

  Industrial Research and Technology Board

  A

  Member

  1 May 1992

  30 April 1995

  4634

  Mr. S. Quinn

  Local Enterprise Development Unit

  A

  Non-Executive Director

  25 June 1992

  31 August 1993

  2085

  Dr. W. G. H. Quigley

  Fair Employment Commission

  A

  Member

  1 July 1992

  30 June 1995

  2553

  Mr. J. P. M. Donaghy

  Fair Employment Commission

  A

  Member

  1 July 1992

  30 June 1995

  3672

  Mr. J. O'Hara

  Fair Employment Commission

  A

  Member

  1 July 1992

  30 June 1995

  4213

  Dr. D. Kennedy

  Equal Opportunities Commission

  A

  Member

  I July 1992

  30 June 1995

  2228

  Mr. R. L. Hurchinson

  Local Enterprise Development Unit

  A

  Non-Executive Director

  10 July 1992

  31 August 1993

  2981

  Mrs. J. E. Ruddock

  Local Enterprise Development Unit

  A

  Non-Executive Director

  10 July 1992

  31 August 1995

  1271

  Mr. W. Devlin

  Local Enterprise Development Unit

  A

  Non-Executive Director

  1 September 1992

  31 August 1993

  1360

  Mrs. J. M. Eve

  Equal Opportunities Commission

  A

  Member

  1 September 1992

  30 June 1995

  1408

  Mrs. J. R. Smyth

  Equal Opportunities Commission

  A

  Chairman

  1 September 1992

  30 June 1995

  1815

  Mr. P. H. McWilliams

  Local Enterprise Development Unit

  A

  Chairman

  1 September 1992

  31 August 1995

  2081

  Mr. R. G. Cooper

  Fair Employment Commission

  A

  Chairman

  1 September 1992

  31 August 1995

  2147

  Mr. R. W. R. McNulty

  Industrial Development Board

  A

  Member

  1 September 1992

  31 August 1995

  2397

  Mr. T. Carlin

  Industrial Development Board

  A

  Member

  1 September 1992

  31 August 1995

  3721

  Mr. R. Alridge

  Industrial Development Board

  A

  Member

  1 September 1992

  31 August 1995

  3775

  Dr. M. V. Moloney

  Industrial Development Board

  A

  Member

  1 September 1992

  31 August 1995

  4704

  Mr. J. G. Lyttle

  Labour Relations Agency

  A

  Member

  1 October 1992

  30 September 1995

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Appointments
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list all the names of public appointments that he has made, giving the period for which the appointment was made, relevant qualifications of the appointees and what remuneration each currently receives.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  The following are the names of all public appointments I have made since becoming Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The period of each appointment is also shown.

  In making public appointments the prime consideration is the appointees' ability or potential to contribute to the work of the particular body to which they are appointed. Details relating to the remuneration each currently receives are readily available in "Public Bodies and Public Appointments: A Handbook for Women's Organisations", copies of which are in the library.
  45

  Code

  Name

  Public body name

  Category

  Position

  Dale of appointment

  Date of expiry

  Department of Finance and Personnel

  3085

  Mr. J. H. Stanley

  Lay Observer under the Solicitors (NI) Order 1976

  A

  Member

  1 May 1992

  28 February 1994

  Department of Health and Social Services

  246

  Mr. A. J. Gibson

  Royal Group of Hospitals and Dental Hospital H&SS Trust

  A

  Non-Executive Member

  1 April 1992

  31 March 1996

  1119

  Mr. J. Carson

  Royal Group of Hospitals and Dental Hospital H&SS Trust

  A

  Non-Executive Member

  1 April 1992

  31 March 1996

  1815

  Mr. P. H. McWilliams

  Royal Group of Hospitals and Dental Hospital H&SS Trust

  A

  Non-Executive Member

  1 April 1992

  31 March 1996

  2085

  Dr. W. G. H. Quigley

  Royal Group of Hospitals and Dental Hospital H&SS Trust

  A

  Chairman

  1 April 1992

  31 March 1996

  4408

  Sister M. Turley

  Royal Group of Hospitals and Dental Hospital H&SS Trust

  A

  Non-Executive Member

  1 April 1992

  31 March 1996

  4528

  Dr. G. A. Baird

  Royal Group of Hospitals and Dental Hospital H&SS Trust

  A

  Non-Executive Member

  1 April 1992

  31 March 1996

  3490

  Mr. H. E. Pierce

  Mental Health Commission for Northern Ireland

  A

  Chairman

  1 May 1992

  30 April 1994

  985

  Professor R. W. Stout

  Eastern Health and Social Services Board

  A

  Non-Executive Member

  1 October 1992

  31 March 1995

  1369

  Mrs. D. Dunlop

  Eastern Health and Social Services Council

  A

  Member

  14 October 1992

  31 May 1993

  2210

  Rev. E. Smyth

  Eastern Health and Social Services Council

  A

  Member

  14 October 1992

  31 May 1993

  Department of the Environment (NI)

  2977

  Ms. J. O'Dempsey

  Planning Appeals Commission

  A

  P/T Commissioner

  1 May 1992

  30 April 1995

  901

  Professor P. J. Newbould

  Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside

  A

  Chairman

  18 May 1992

  17 May 1995

  1642

  Mr. R. J. Hanna

  Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside

  A

  Deputy Chairman

  18 May 1992

  17 May 1955

  2276

  Mr. L. D. Hasson

  NI Railways Ltd

  A

  Non-Executive Director

  1 June 1992

  31 May 1995

  416

  Mrs. M Spence

  Laganside Corporation

  A

  Member

  14 June 1992

  13 June 1995

  705

  Duke of J. H. Abercorn

  Laganside Corporation

  A

  Chairman

  14 June 1992

  13 June 1995

  2096

  Dr. B. Feeney

  Laganside Corporation

  A

  Member

  14 June 1992

  13 June 1995

  2732

  Mr. F. Cobain

  Laganside Corporation

  A

  Member

  14 June 1992

  13 June 1995

  2918

  Mr. R. N. M. Empey

  Laganside Corporation

  A

  Member

  14 June 1992

  13 June 1995

  3237

  Mr. G. R. Irwin

  Laganside Corporation

  A

  Member

  14 June 1992

  13 June 1995

  3563

  Mr. J. J. Fitzpatrick

  Laganside Corporation

  A

  Member

  14 June 1992

  13 June 1995

  4635

  Mr. J. Jaworski

  Laganside Corporation

  A

  Member

  14 June 1992

  13 June 1995

  4636

  Mr. E. Airey

  Laganside Corporation

  A

  Member

  14 June 1992

  13 June 1995

  137

  Ms. H. E. Roulston

  Ulsterbus Ltd/Citybus Ltd/Flexibus

  A

  Non-Executive Director

  1 July 1992

  30 June 1995

  473

  Mr. J. L. O'Hagan

  NI Railways Ltd

  A

  Non-Executive Director

  1 July 1992

  30 June 1995

  756

  Mr. R. S. McCulloch

  NI Airports Ltd

  A

  Chairman

  1 July 1992

  30 June 1995

  952

  Mrs. M. M. Craig

  NI Airports Ltd

  A

  Member

  1 July 1992

  30 June 1995

  4531

  Mr. J. W. Rainey

  NI Airports Ltd

  A

  Executive Director

  1 August 1992

  31 July 195)5

  4647

  Mr. D. Price

  NI Railways Ltd

  A

  Executive Director

  1 August 1992

  31 July 1995

  4665

  Mrs. L. M. L. Blakiston Houston

  Laganside Corporation

  A

  Member

  10 August 1992

  13 June 1995

  1380

  Mr. A. Keery

  NI Transport Holding Company

  A

  Member

  1 October 1992

  30 September 1995

  3534

  Mr. J. H. Armstrong

  Warrenpoint Harbour Authority

  A

  Chairman

  1 October 1992

  30 September 1995

  3236

  Mr. A. F. D. Crawley

  Planning Appeals Commission

  A

  Member

  6 October 1992

  30 September 1995

  4037

  Mr. W. J. Mitchell

  Planning Appals Commission

  A

  P/T Commissioner

  6 October 1992

  30 September 1995

  Northern Ireland Office

  145

  Mr. R. C. Hill

  Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights

  A

  Chairman

  1 July 1992

  30 June 1995

  4534

  Mrs. J. S. Corr

  Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights

  A

  Member

  17 July 1992

  16 July 1994

  4682

  Professor S. Lee

  Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights

  A

  Member

  1 September 1992

  31 August 1994

  506

  Mrs. M. B. Clark-Glass

  Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights

  A

  Member

  1 October 1992

  30 September 1994

  1408

  Mrs. J. R. Smyth

  Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights

  A

  Member

  1 October 1992

  30 September 1994

  2325

  Mrs. J. I. Harbison

  Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights

  A

  Member

  1 October 1992

  30 September 1994

  2968

  Mr. R. T. Mullan

  Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights

  A

  Member

  1 October 1992

  30 September 1994

  46

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of confirmed cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in each month since June.

  Mr. Hanley
  As at 26 October the information is as follows:

  Month

  Number

  June

  19

  July

  25

  August

  25

  September

  27

  October

  31

  There are approximately 1·5 million cattle in Northern Ireland and a total of 542 confirmed cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy have been reported to 26 October 1992.

  Fact-finding Visits
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the fact-finding visits made in the last 12 months by the chief executive of each executive agency for which he is responsible; and what were the findings resulting from each visit.

  Mr. Mates
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the following agencies under their respective chief executives.

  Training and Employment Agency—Mr. J. Crozier

  Rate Collection Agency—Mr. D. Gallagher

  Social Security Agency— Mr. A. Wylie

  Ordnance Survey Agency— Mr. M. Brand

  Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency— Mr. J. Watson

  Compensation Agency— Mr. J. Robinson

  I have asked them to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from J. S. Crozier to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 29 October 1992:
  You asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to list the fact finding visits made in the last 12 months by the chief executive of each executive agency for which he is responsible; and what were the findings resulting from each visit.

  Date of visit

  Location

  Purpose

  29 October 1991

  Paid Order Unit, Lisahally, Londonderry

  To attend official Opening of POU and meet management and staff

  14 November 1991

  Carrickfergus SSO

  To meet management and staff

  22 November 1991

  Strabane SSO

  To meet management and staff

  28 November 1991

  Pensions Branch, Castle Buildings

  To meet management and staff

  5 December 1991

  Lisburn SSO

  To meet management and staff

  15 January 1992

  Bangor SSO

  To meet management and staff

  21 January 1992

  Portadown SSO

  To meet management and staff

  29 January 1992

  Newtownards SSO

  To meet management and staff

  4 February 1992

  Holywood Road SSO

  To meet management and staff

  6 February 1992

  ROSIT, York House

  To meet management and staff

  13 March 1992

  Newtownabbey SSO

  To meet management and staff

  48
  As Chief Executive of the Training and Employment Agency (Northern Ireland) (T&EA), I made two fact finding visits in the last twelve months, one to Brussels and one to Germany.

  The Brussels visit was to meet senior officials of DG XVI, DG V and the Task Force, Human Resources. The visit provided an update on the Commission's strategic thinking on training and employment which will assist the T&EA to match best practice elsewhere in the European Community (EC) and to take maximum advantage of EC programmes. Potential for the secondment of T&EA staff to the Commission was also identified.

  The aim of the German visit was to examine employment prospects and training opportunities for Northern Ireland people in Germany. Links were established with the Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit (Federal Labour Office) and contacts were made with German firms offering the prospect of advanced apprenticeship training.

  Letter from D. W. Gallagher to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 27 October 1992:
  As I am responsible for the Northern Ireland Rate Collection Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply to some Parliamentary Questions recently put down by you. These related to papers published by the Agency during the last 12 months and any fact-finding visits undertaken by myself during the same period.
  As you may know, the Rate Collection Agency was established on 1 April 1992. During the last 12 months I have issued the Agency's 1992/93 Business Plan. Our 1991/92 Annual Report will be published shortly.
  I would also advise that I have not undertaken any fact finding visits over the same period.
  I hope this information answers your questions but please let me know if I can be of any further help.

  Letter from A. Wylie to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 28 October 1992:
  Your recent Parliamentary Question asking for a list of fact finding visits made in the past 12 months by the Chief Executive of each Executive Agency and the findings resulting from each visit has been passed to me as Chief Executive of the Northern Ireland Social Security Agency for reply.
  In summary, I have undertaken 19 fact finding visits during the past 12 months, all of which were to Agency locations. I have enclosed a table setting out the date, location and purpose of my visits.
  The visits to Social Security Offices and Benefit Branches gave me the opportunity to meet local management and staff and obtain their views on a wide range of issues such as resourcing, accommodation and communication. These visits have been extremely useful when developing high level plans for the Agency.
  I hope that this is helpful.
  49

  Date of visit

  Location

  Purpose

  20 March 1992

  Larne SSO

  To meet management and staff

  16 April 1992

  Lisnagelvin SSO

  To meet management and staff

  16 April 1992

  Foyle SSO

  To meet management and staff

  2 June 1992

  Armagh SSO

  To meet management and staff

  16 June 1992

  CBB, Castle Court

  To meet management and staff

  18 June 1992

  Knockbreda SSO

  To meet management and staff

  14 September 1992

  Belfast Benefits Centre

  To meet management and staff

  8 October 1992

  Antrim SSO

  To meet management and staff

  Letter from J. F. Codd to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 27 October 1992:
  You have asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list all the fact finding visits made in the last 12 months by the Chief Executive of each Executive Agency for which he is responsible; and what were the findings resulting from each visit.
  Mr. M. J. D. Brand was appointed Chief Executive and Director of Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland on 1 April 1992. Since that date he has not undertaken any fact finding visits.

  Letter from J. B. Watson to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 27 October 1992
  I am responding to your recent Parliamentary Question about fact finding visits made by Agency Chief Executives over the past 12 months.
  The Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency was established on 1 April 1992. Since then I have been on two fact finding visits to the Vehicle Inspectorate Agency, Bristol and the Driving Standards Agency, Nottingham. Both of these Agencies are involved in similar work to my own Agency and the visits allowed me to obtain information on a range of operational, financial and personnel issues.
  The visits were valuable as they established useful contacts, informed debate and have assisted with subsequent policy formulation.

  Letter from J. Robinson to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 27 October 1992
  I refer to your recent Parliamentary Question about fact finding visits made in the last 12 months by Chief Executives of Northern Ireland executive agencies. The Secretary of State has asked me to provide the information in respect of the Compensation Agency.
  I have not made any fact finding visits since this Agency was established on 1 April 1992.

  Students Unions
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his reply of 20 October,Official Report, column 273, how much of the payments of £1,427,900 in the academic year 1991–92 was allocated to the students' union at each university and college of education in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is as follows:

  £

  Queens University, Belfast

  664,000

  University of Ulster

  686,000

  Stranmillis College

  43,900

  St. Mary's College

  34,000

DEFENCE

  Bosnia
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what investigation he has made of the means by which 755 bombs manufactured by Hunting Engineering Ltd., Bedfordshire came to be used by the warring factions in Bosnia; and what information he has on other United Kingdom-built armaments being used in that conflict.

  Mr. Aitken
  The BL755 bombs were exported legitimately by Hunting Engineering Ltd. to a number of countries between 1977 and 1985. Until the outbreak of the current conflict, when an embargo was placed on such exports, individual export licence applications for Yugoslavia were scrutinised carefully and approved or rejected on a case-by-case basis.

  Appointments
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all the names of public appointments that he has made, giving the period for which the appointment was made, relevant qualifications of the appointees, and what remuneration each currently receives.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I refer the hon. Member to "Public Bodies 1991", issued by the Office of the Minister for the Civil Service in December 1991; pages 10 to 13 list Ministry of Defence appointments. Relevant information is also in "Public Appointments: A Handbook for Women's Organisations"; pages 31 to 37, published by the Women's National Commission. Copies of these publications are available from the Library.

  Ultra-Violet Radiation
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures have been taken to warn and protect military personnel serving in areas with high levels of harmful ultra-violet radiation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  All service personnel serving in areas of high levels of harmful ultra-violet radiation and excessive sunlight receive health education briefing and appropriate protective equipment such as eye protectors, screening cream and climatic clothing.

  Nuclear Submarines
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recommendation has been made by the Navy Board in relation to the best location for refitting of nuclear submarines.

  Mr. Aitken
  It is not our practice to disclose any recommendations which the Navy Board may make in confidence to Ministers.

  Search and Rescue
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research his Department has carried out into predicted rescue times in the North sea the effect on his plans to transfer the helicopter search-and-rescue unit from RAF Coltishall to RAF Wattisham; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There was no requirement for such research, as the new basing structure for the RAF search-and-rescue (SAR) helicopter force took into account the established civil SAR criteria.

  Army Housing
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Army personnel currently returning from Germany to be deployed in Northern Ireland are on waiting lists for married quarters; and how many families or spouses are being accommodated in hostels in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are 39 Army personnel from Germany who are on waiting lists for married quarters in Northern Ireland. A total of 28 Army families are in hostel accommodation in the United Kingdom.

  RAF Brawdy
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total number of operations flown by B flight, 202 Squadron RAF Brawdy in each of the last five years; and how many operations in each year were in response to a military incident.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The table details the total number of call-outs—civil and military—of B flight 202 Squadron over the past five years and the number of these call-outs that were to military incidents. The figures in brackets show the number of call-outs which involved the rescue of people, including incidents such as the transfer of sick or injured people from ship to hospital.

  Year

  Total Call-outs

  Military Call-outs

  1987

  134 (52)

  17 (2)

  1988

  154 (69)

  13 (4)

  1989

  148 (65)

  5 (0)

  1990

  172 (72)

  9 (3)

  1991

  162 (69)

  7 (3)

  11992

  110 (35)

  4 (1)

  1 To end August.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the operating costs of B flight 202 Squadron based at RAF Brawdy for the years 1990–91 and 1991–92 and the estimated costs for 1992–93 and 1993–94.
  52
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The operating costs requested are:

  £ million

  1990–91

  2·32

  1991–92

  2·48

  1992–93

  1 2·58

  1993·94

  1 2·67

  1 Estimated.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will publish the risk analysis study carried out by his Department into the need to respond to civilian emergencies before the decision on ending search-and-rescue operations from RAF Brawdy;

  (2) if he will publish the risk analysis study prepared for his Department of the need to respond to civilian emergencies before the decision on ending the search-and-rescue operations at RAF Brawdy.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There was no requirement for such a study, since the new basing structure for the RAF search-and-rescue helicopter force took into account the established civil search-and-rescue criteria.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions Her Majesty's Government had with the Irish Government concerning the withdrawal of search-and-rescue operations from RAF Brawdy in April 1994.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The British embassy in Dublin notified the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs on 21 October of the change in search-and-rescue cover.

  Sea King Helicopters
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the length of time a search and rescue Sea King takes to travel 40 nautical miles in usual conditions of(a) calm, (b) a 10 knot headwind, (c) a 20 knot headwind, (d) a 30 knot headwind, (e) a 40 knot headwind and (f) a 50 knot headwind.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Assuming an aircraft air speed of 120 knots, and excluding standby times, the information requested is:

  Condition

  Ground speed knots

  Time minutes

  Calm

  120

  20·0

  10 knot headwind

  110

  21·8

  20 knot headwind

  100

  24·0

  30 knot headwind

  90

  26·7

  40 knot headwind

  80

  30·0

  50 knot headwind

  70

  34·3

  Army Recruits (Ill-treatment)
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on alleged incidents of ill-treatment of Army recruits at Whittington barracks and Sennybridge training camp.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The commanding officer initiated an investigation by the special investigations branch of the Royal Military police as soon as the allegations came to
  53
  light. Its report has now been submitted to the commanding officer. I would not wish to prejudice the outcome of any disciplinary action which might be taken by commenting further at this stage.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 23 October,Official Report, column 403, how his Department will determine whether or not another country has tested nuclear weapons after 1996; and for what reasons the United Kingdom will resume nuclear testing if another country tests nuclear weapons after 1996.

  Mr. Aitken
  Since the issue arises from United States legislation regarding testing in the United States, it will be for the United States authorities to make any determination concerning testing by another country after 1996. Our position on a resumption of testing in that event would be decided in the light of circumstances at the time.

  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 23 October,Official Report, column 403, on alternative technologies what is his Department's assessment as to the ability of alternative technologies to ensure the safety of the United Kingdom's nuclear warheads after 1996.

  Mr. Aitken
  We believe that underground testing remains the best means of ensuring the safety and credibility of nuclear weapons. Alternative techniques are not at present an adequate substitute. It is too early to assess how effective they may have become after 1996.

  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) pursuant to his answer of 23 October,Official Report, column 403, if he will provide details of the numbers and types of alternative technologies for proving nuclear warheads that his Department has been involved in working on; and what additional financial resources will be provided for such work in the future;

  (2) what alternatives to nuclear testing exist as means of developing new warheads; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  There is a range of technologies which might assist the proving and developing of nuclear warheads in the absence of nuclear tests. These include computer modelling and various forms of simulation using lasers and hydrodynamics. We already make extensive use of them, to keep nuclear testing to a minimum; the question of resources for their development will be considered as part of the normal process of determining the forward defence programme.

  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the United Kingdom is prohibited from conducting an underground nuclear test in Nevada before July 1993 under the terms of the United States energy appropriation legislation.

  Mr. Aitken
  The legislation makes no provision for a United Kingdom nuclear test before 1 July 1993 and it is not practicable for the United Kingdom to test while the United States Government are themselves unable to do so.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Charters
  Mr. Dickens
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will ensure that charter standards are regularly reviewed and improved if necessary.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Yes. The citizens charter is a programme of continuous improvement. As targets are set, and met, we aim to improve on them over time. Charters will be reviewed and improved year-by-year. Our White Paper later this month will set out the future development of the charter programme.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on Government spending on research and development in the coming year.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  Government spending on research and development in 1992–93 is £5,587 million. The figure for 1993–94 will be announced in the autumn statement.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proportion of gross domestic product the United Kingdom Government spends on civil research and development; and what are the comparable figures for France and Germany.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  In 1990 the United Kingdom Government spent 0·51 per cent. of GDP on civil R and D. The corresponding figures for France and Germany were 0·85 per cent. and 0·9 per cent. respectively. The figures for USA and Japan were 0·44 per cent. and 0·43 per cent.

  Maastricht Treaty
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the price of the Maastricht treaty published by HMSO; what is the price of the English text published in Luxembourg for the European Community on sale in HMSO shops; what is the reason for the difference in price; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  The English language version of the treaty on European union published by the office for official publications of the European Communities is priced at 9 ecu. HMSO, which is the appointed sales agent in Britain for publications of the European Community, has translated this into a selling price of £6·50, using a conversion table provided by the European Community.

  HMSO has also published the treaty on European union, including the protocols and final act with declaration, as Cm. 1934. This publication has a cover price of £13·30, determined by reference to a pricing scale applied to all monochrome Command Papers. The pricing scale ensures consistency in the prices of items of similar size and appearance, regardless of their relative popularity.

  Publishing Restrictions
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he will publish a complete list of statutory restrictions which he has identified as preventing the publication of information known to the Government.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I hope to announce conclusions of the review of specific statutory restrictions on the disclosure of information early in the new year.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list, for the last 12 months, the titles of papers published by the chief executive of each executive agency for which he is responsible.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the chief executives of the Central Office of Information, the Civil Service College, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, the Occupational Health Service and the Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency. I have asked them to write to the hon. Member direct.

  Letter from Mike Devereau to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 27 October 1992:
  You recently tabled a Parliamentary Question to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in connection with papers published by the Chief Executive of each Executive Agency. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has asked me to reply direct to you with regard to the Central Office of Information.
  The only paper I have published in the past year is COI's Annual Report and Accounts 1991–92, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Letter from Marianne Neville-Rolfe to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 30 October 1992:
  You asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he would list for the last twelve months the titles of papers published by the chief executive of each agency for which he is responsible. I attach a list of the publications which have been issued by the Civil Service College since October 1991.

  Civil Service College publications since October 1991

  Prospectus 1992–1993

  Training for Trainers and Training Managers

  Equality of Opportunity Training

  Equality of Opportunity Training (Private Sector)

  Training in Purchasing and Supply

  IPM Professional Education Scheme

  Systems and Project Management

  R and D Management

  Policy Programme for Managers

  Senior Finance Training

  Training in Personnel Management

  Training for Auditors

  European Community and International Relations

  Senior Training

  Management Development Programmes

  Fast Stream Training

  Training for Lawyers Training in Market Testing

  Personnel Management Training

  Node Programmes

  Report and Accounts 1991–1992

  Letter from Paul Freeman to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 27 October 1992:
  I am responding, in respect of HMSO, to your question to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on papers published by the executive agencies for which he is responsible.
  HMSO normally publishes around 9,000 titles per year in its capacity as Government Publisher. I enclose a copy of our booklet "Getting HMSO Books", which explains the various means of keeping track of HMSO publications.
  I assume, however, that your question is directed towards publications which relate to HMSO's own activities as an Executive Agency. These would be the HMSO Trading Fund Accounts 1991 and HMSO Review 1991, and I am pleased to enclose complimentary copies.

  Letter from Dr. George Sorrie to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 27 October 1992:
  As you know I have been asked to respond to your question to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster about papers published by Chief Executives of Executive Agencies.
  56
  In my capacity as Director of the Civil Service Occupational Health Service I have published no papers in the last 12 months.

  Letter from Michael D. Geddes to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 28 October 1992:
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has asked me to reply for Recruitment and Assessment Services to your Question asking him to list, for the last 12 months, the titles of papers published by the Chief Executive of each executive Agency for which he is responsible.
  The information for RAS is as follows:
  Annual Report 1991–92.

EMPLOYMENT

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when she expects the Health and Safety Executive to complete its review of procedure of preserving Crown notices for infringement of health and safety legislation by public bodies; and when she expects the Health and Safety Commission to present its report.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Health and Safety Executive hopes to present the findings of its review of the crown notice procedure to the Health and Safety Commission before the end of the year. Depending on its views of the findings, the HSC may make recommendations to Ministers in the new year.

  Consultants
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list all of the reports her Department has commissioned from external consultants in each of the last three years; for each of the last three years, how many reports from external consultants to her Department led to further consultancy work being commissioned, stating for each of these who were the original and subsequent consultants and briefly describing the subject matter of the consultancy work; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is not available except at disproportionate cost.

  Jobseekers Charter
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make a statement on the implementation of the jobseekers charter.

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Ms. Joyce Quin, dated 2 November 1992:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Question about implementation of the Jobseeker's Charter. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  The Jobseeker's Charter was launched in December 1991. The main elements are now in place and are an integral part of the day to day work of all 1,350 ES local offices across Great Britain. They are:

  details of ES services displayed in each local office;

  57

  national targets for service delivery published each year; local standards for the level of service to clients displayed in all local offices;

  the name of the local and area managers displayed in each local office, and everyone wearing name badges;

  comprehensive information on the services provided by the ES set out in a series of leaflets;

  national annual customer satisfaction surveys supplemented by customer surveys at local level;

  new easy-to-use complaints procedure.

  All my local offices now have set their own standards of service (against national minimums I have set). These include waiting times (within 10 minutes), how quickly the telephone is answered (within 30 seconds), paying the right money on time (normally within 3 working days of signing); and the numbers of people they aim to place into jobs.
  We bring the Charter to the attention of all new clients and copies of it are available for people to keep.
  We are constantly seeking improvements in the service we give to our clients. For example, large print, braille and minority language versions of the Jobseeker's Charter leaflets are now available. We are also extending Jobseeker Charter principles to our external service providers (eg contractors running Jobclubs and Job Review Workshops for us). A new clause requiring contractors to adhere to Jobseeker's Charter principles is being included in all new contracts. My local poeple are meeting all their contractors to explain what is needed and to ensure that contractors implement Charter standards.
  Individual offices are piloting local customer satisfaction surveys. They will use the results to improve the services they provide locally. We plan to carry out local surveys annually and to make public key results.
  The complaints and suggestions procedure mentioned earlier is explained in a booklet called "Help us to get it right … and how to complain". This includes a target that. we will respond to complaints within 5 working days.
  I enclose copies of the suggestions and complaints leaflet and also of the leaflet "Jobseeker's Charter" which you may be interested to see. They are displayed in every Employment Service local office.
  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps she is taking to monitor the progress of the jobseekers charter.

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

  Letter from M. E. G. F'ogden to Mr. Jimmy Wray, dated 2 November 1992:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Question about monitoring the progress of the Jobseeker's Charter. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  The Jobseeker's Charter was launched in December 1991. All my local offices now have set their own standards of service (against national minimums I have set). These include waiting times (within 10 mins), how quickly the telephone is answered (within 30 secs), paying the right money on time (normally withing 3 working days of signing); and the number of people they aim to place into jobs.
  Local managers already monitor their performance against their own standards and we are developing ways in which we can monitor these results nationally.
  The Employment Service (ES) also has national targets for key areas of performance set by the Secretary of State each year. These are published in the ES Annual Performance Agreement and ES performance against them is published in the ES Annual Report.
  58
  The complaints and suggestions procedure mentioned earlier is explained in a booklet called "Help us to get it right … and how to complain". This includes a target for responding to complaints within 5 working days. Complaints and suggestions are monitored centrally on a quarterly basis.
  The 1991 survey showed high levels of satisfaction with our offices—from 79 per cent. satisfaction with Jobcentres Services to 87 per cent. with benefit services in new integrated offices combining the service of Jobcentres and Unemployment Benefit Offices. I have agreed with the Secretary of State a target of achieving an increase of 3 per cent. in the level of customer satisfaction in each type of ES office.
  Individual offices are piloting local customer satisfaction surveys. They will use the results to improve the services they provide locally. We plan to carry out local surveys annually and to keep results.
  We are also extending Jobseeker's Charter principles to encourage our external service providers (eg contractors running Jobclubs and Job Review Workshops for us) to operate to Charter standards. A new clause requiring contractors to adhere to Jobseeker's Charter principles is being included in all new contracts. My local people are meeting all their contractors to explain what is needed and to ensure that contractors implement Charter standards.
  I am responsible to the Secretary of State for the progress on the Jobseekers Charter. The Secretary of State meets the Prime Minister every six months to discuss progress on the Jobseeker's Charter and Employment Service officials meet members of the Employment Department and the Citizen's Charter Unit regularly to discuss progress.
  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  Offshore Installations (Standby Vessels)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to her answer of 9 July,Official Report, column 318, if she will make a statement on the monitoring undertaken by the Health and Safety Executive since the end of June of the presence of adequate numbers of emergency standby vessels for offshore installations.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I made clear to the hon. Member in my answer of 9 July 1992, at column 318, that it is the responsibility of each individual operator to ensure that there is adequate standby vessel cover available at all times to provide the necessary safeguards.

  Since June I have taken further action to remind industry of this responsibility. I issued a press statement on 6 August reminding operators that they must plan ahead to ensure that by the end of the year all their installations are supported by vessels which comply fully with the code on the assessment of the suitability of standby vessels attending offshore installations.

  The Health and Safety Executive has made it clear that there can be no slippage in implementation, and dispensations will not be granted. I fully support this.

  Pit Closures
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment on what date her Department became aware that British Coal proposed to give less than the statutory 90-day notice of redundancy to miners affected by the current round of proposed pit closures.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department received first notifications of the proposed redundancies from British
  59
  Coal on 15 October 1992. British Coal subsequently withdrew these notifications and has now submitted new ones.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is her Department's estimate of the number of women in the travel-to-work areas affected by the proposed pit closures; and what estimate she has made of the proportion who are employed by county or district local authorities.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The table shows the number of women, aged 16 years and over, resident in each of the travel-to-work areas affected by the proposed pit closures. The data are taken from the 1981 census of population and is the latest information available. Information relating to the numbers employed by local authorities is not available in the form requested.

  Travel-to-work area

  Total females aged 16+

  Alfreton and Ashfield

  53,528

  Barnsley

  78,999

  Chesterfield

  68,869

  Doncaster

  101,609

  Llanelli

  42,524

  Mansfield

  61,755

  Merthyr and Rhymney

  63,106

  Nottingham

  282,727

  Retford

  19,033

  Sheffield

  248,953

  Shotton, Flint and Rhyl

  77,647

  South Tyneside

  65,225

  Stoke

  185,402

  Sunderland

  170,783

  Wakefield and Dewsbury

  103,692

  Wigan and St. Helens

  190,788

  Source: OPCS, 1981 Census of Population.

  Wages Councils
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what information she has on the number of women covered by wages councils who are married, living with a partner, single or widowed respectively;

  (2) how many of the women covered by wages councils are the principal source of family income.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many establishments covered by wages councils are located in the travel-to-work areas directly affected by the pit closure programme.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Opencast Coal
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information her Department has on links between asthma and opencast coal mining; and what role her Department is playing in the current review of the coal industry.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Health and Safety Executive, which is concerned with the health and safety effects of work activity on both employees and others, has no 60
  information that establishes a link between asthma and opencast coal mining. The Health and Safety Commission is always prepared to advise on health and safety matters, but it has no direct role in the current review of the coal industry which is a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he plans to publish the study on renewable energy commissioned by his predecessor in 1991.

  Mr. Eggar
  I anticipate that the report of the Renewable Energy advisory group will be submitted to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in the near future. It will be published soon thereafter.

  Animal Experiments
  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement outlining his Department's and the Council of Ministers' response to proposals from the European Parliament and Commission to end cosmetic tests on animals.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Government's policy in the negotiations on the proposed sixth Council amendment to the cosmetics directive is wherever possible to eliminate animal testing and if this does not prove possible to keep animal testing to a minimum consistent with human safety. In recognition of the progress made in developing skin and eye irritancy tests, the United Kingdom has called on the European Community to set 1998 as a target date for the replacement of animal tests in those areas subject to there being validated alternatives. We will continue to press for a reduction in animal testing and we hope that during our presidency member states will agree to the phasing out of testing on animals when they can be replaced with suitably validated non-animal alternatives.

  Hospital Radio
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 16 July,Official Report, column 989, when he will announce his plans for frequencies for hospital radio.

  Mr. Leigh
  As the Radio Authority informed the National Association of Hospital Broadcasting Organisations on 24 September, the members of the authority have decided that, in the light of the results of the previous experiment and before any further steps are taken, a detailed assessment should be made of the wider implications of freely radiating transmission for hospital and student radio upon spectrum availability. It is for the Radio Authority to determine how best to use the frequencies available for independent broadcasting, determining in particular the priorities to be accorded to permanent stations, short-term restricted services, and longer term restricted services, like hospital and student radio.

  Consultants
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list all of the reports that his Department has commissioned from external consultants in each of the last three years; for each of the last three years, how many reports from external consultants to his Department led to further consultancy work being commissioned, stating for each of these who were the original and subsequent consultants and briefly describing the subject matter of the consultancy work; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Power Generation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assumptions have been made as to the cost of generating electricity by nuclear power and coal respectively; and if he will publish for each year since 1962 the average cost of electricity produced by such stations compared with the average cost of base-load coal-fired stations.

  Mr. Eggar
  The comparable capital and full fuel costs per kilowatt hour of power stations using different fuels depend significantly upon the contractual terms of fuel purchase, and the contractual terms under which the power station is constructed and operated. These are commercial matters for the companies concerned. Figures for the average cost of generating electricity by nuclear power and coal for each year since 1962 are therefore not available. Nuclear Electric has published the operating costs of its stations since 1989–90 in its annual report.

  Pit Closures
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy that all Her Majesty's Government's evidence and material to be presented to his inquiry relating to the colliery closures should also be available to the Trade and Industry Select Committee; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement on this point that my right hon. Friend made in the House on 26 October.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether a full cost benefit analysis was made of the implications of the closure of coal mines as announced in his statement on 21 October.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 30 October 1992]: As my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, indicated on 21 October, we considered a wide range of issues in reaching our conclusions.

  Energy Research
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of Her Majesty's Government's energy research budget in 1989 was spent on(a) coal technology and (b) energy efficiency.

  Mr. Eggar
  The percentage of Her Majesty's Government energy research budget that was spent on coal technology in 1989–90 was I per cent: The equivalent figure for energy efficiency was 4·7 per cent.
  62
  Energy efficiency expenditure now falls within the remit of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

  Institution of Electrical Engineers
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how often he has met representatives of the Institution of Electrical Engineers; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  To date, my right hon. Friend has had no meetings with representatives of the Institution of Electrical Engineers. Officials, including those from the new industry sector division, are in contact with the LEE on a number of industrial issues.

  Electricity
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will set out the value of work undertaken overseas by companies in the electricity industry for the latest convenient period.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a commercial matter for the companies concerned.

  Coalfield Communities
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade over what time scale the £165 million package he announced to assist coalfield communities will be allocated; what part of this sum is in addition to existing departmental spending plans; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The employment package of up to £75 million announced by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Employment, will be spread over this financial year and the next. The £5 million coalfield areas fund will be spent over the same period. The English Estates £85 million programme of premises and sites provision will be spread over three or four years. These programmes will provide additional assistance for the areas affected.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how the citizens charter will apply to the mining community.

  Mr. Eggar
  The citizens charter will apply to the mining community as individual members of the public who are entitled to receive high-quality public services.

  Press Notices
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to make available to hon. Members on request press notices issued by his Department on the day of release.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department's press notices, along with those of other Departments, are already available to hon. Members on the day of release, through the Palace of Westminster's computerised parliamentary on-line information system—POLLS—which subscribes to the Central Office of Information's electronic news distribution system and receives all press notices released in this way within minutes of their origination. The POLIS system is available to all hon. Members either through the Library
  63
  or through hon. Member's own computers. In addition, the Library receives paper copies of all press releases distributed by the Central Office of Information on the day of release.

  Emergency Vessels
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the names of all emergency or standby vessels which have been ordered in each of the last three years for service in the United Kingdom's offshore oil and gas industry from shipyards located in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Eggar
  One new-build emergency or stand-by vessel has been ordered for service in the United Kingdom offshore oil and gas industry in the last three years. The order was placed this year by Seaboard Marine of Aberdeen, with the Yorkshire Dry Dock Company. The vessel is due for delivery in December 1993 and is intended for a long-term charter with Amerada Hess on the Scott field. It has not yet been formally named.

  Nationalised Industries
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what guidance is given by his Department to the chairmen of nationalised industries about contact between employees and their local Members of Parliament about matters of national and local importance.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department offers no advice to the chairmen of the nationalised industries for which it is responsible as to contact between their employees and Members of Parliament. Members of the boards of these industries are advised that they should abstain from controversial political activity.

  Silverhill Colliery
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information he has concerning the number of employees, the tonnage of coal mined, and the profit or loss made at the Silverhill colliery in the financial years made in 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992; and what was the average cost per gigajoule of this fuel in each of those years.

  Mr. Eggar
  These are matters for British Coal.

  Opencast Mining
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received about the need to ensure that opencast coal is included in the current review of coal and energy policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, announced the terms of the review in the House on 26 October. So far, no representations on the inclusion in the review of open cast coal mining have been received.

  Emergency Call Review Group
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the members of the OFTEL 999 emergency call review group.

  Mr. Leigh
  The following organisations were represented on the independent emergency call review group established by OFTEL:64

  Regional Ambulance Officers Group

  Fire Services Inspectorate

  Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association

  Association of Chief Police Officers

  Policy Authority for Northern Ireland

  Office of the Chief Coastguard

  Department of Health

  Department of Trade and Industry

  OFTEL

  Home Office

  Scottish Office

  Northern Ireland Office

  BT

  Mercury Communications Ltd

  Racal-Vodafone Ltd

  Telecom Securicor Cellular Radio Ltd

  Kingston Communications (Hull) Ltd

  The Cable Television Authority

  Phonepoint Ltd

  Post Office Privatisation
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will place a copy of the Kleinwort Benson report on Post Office privatisation feasibility in the Library.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 30 October 1992]: Any reports produced by the Government's advisers on the Post Office are internal Government documents. I do not intend, therefore, to place such documents in the Library.

  Reductions and Placement
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what response he has made to the reports by Touche Ross and March Consulting Group respectively on reductions and replacement, as commissioned by his Department.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 26 October 1992]: My Department commissioned the report by Touche Ross on the use of CFCs and 1, 1, 1, Tri-chloroethane as solvents. The report by March Consulting Group on the use of CFCs in the refrigeration sector was commissioned by the Department of the Environment. Both reports are primarily intended to inform decisions on the timetable for phasing-out ozone-depleting substances. These decisions will be taken, by agreement between EC member states, in the context of the review of the Montreal protocol later this year.

  Business Consultancy Development Initiatives
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give(a) the total expenditure on business consultancy development initiatives for each of the standard regions and Great Britain and for each of the years 1989–90 to 1991–92 inclusive and (b) the total expenditure for business consultancy development initiatives in each of the assisted areas in Scotland for the years 1989–90 to 1991–92.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 29 October 1992]: Total payments on enterprise initiative consultancy projects for each DTI region for each of the years 1989–90 to 1991–92 are shown in the table. A breakdown of expenditure in assisted areas in Scotland is not available.

  Expenditure on the CI's by region 1989–90 to 1991–92

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  North East

  1,709

  2,287

  3,119

  North West

  6,192

  7,002

  6,905

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  3,987

  4,723

  5,969

  65

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  West Midlands

  4,343

  4,963

  6,912

  East Midlands

  2,136

  2,654

  3,694

  South West

  2,491

  2,981

  3,795

  East

  1,922

  2,316

  3,227

  South East

  6,905

  7,751

  11,157

  Scotland

  3,631

  3,137

  4,248

  Wales

  2,278

  2,418

  3,108

  Total

  35,594

  40,232

  52,134

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Beard of Trade if he will list, for the last 12 months, the titles of papers published by the chief executive of each executive agency for which he is responsible.

  Mr. Eggar
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the chief executives of the 10 agencies for which my Department is responsible. I have therefore asked Mr. Mike Hoddinott, Accounts Services Agency; Mr. David Durham, Companies House; Mr. Peter Joyce, Insolvency Service; Dr. Richard Worswick, Laboratory of the Government Chemist; Mr. William Edgar, National Engineering Laboratory; Dr. Peter Clapham, National Physical Laboratory; Dr. Seton Bennett, National Weights and Measures Laboratory; Mr. Paul Hartnack, Patent Office; Mr. John Michell, Radiocommunications Agency; and Dr. Doug Cormack, Warren Spring Laboratory, to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mike Hoddinott to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 26 October 1992:
  Your recent Parliamentary Question addressed to the President of the Board of Trade asked for the titles of papers published by DTI agencies. I have been asked to reply in respect of Accounts Services Agency for which I am Chief Executive.
  The only paper published by ASA over the last 12 months was the Annual Report and Accounts for 1991–92 issued in August.

  Letter from David Durham to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 28 October 1992:
  You recently put down a Parliamentary Question to the President of the Board of Trade asking him to list, for the last 12 months, the titles of papers published by each agency chief executive. Following the answer given by Mr. Eggar. I am replying in respect of Companies House.
  As you may imagine, Companies House publishes a great variety of forms and notes for guidance for the use of companies and individuals. There are in addition regular newsheets circulated to our customers, and other publicity, on developments in our services. These are in order to help companies and others understand and meet the obligations all limited companies have to place certain documents on the public record. I have assumed that your question is not addressed at such publications, though I would be happy to list them should you so wish.
  Apart from these, the only document which I believe falls within the scope of your question is as follows:
  Annual Report and Accounts for 1991–92.

  Letter from Peter Joyce to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 28 October 1992:
  1. I am replying at Mr. Eggar's request to your recent Parliamentary Question in which you asked the President of the Board of Trade to list, for the last 12 months, the titles of papers published by the Chief Executive of each executive agency.
  66
  2. In the last 12 months the following documents have been published by the Insolvency Service:

  A Guide to Bankruptcy

  Insolvency General Annual Report 1990

  Insolvency Service Executive Agency Annual Report 1990–91

  Accounts 1990–91

  Insolvency General Annual Report 1991

  Insolvency Service Executive Agency Annual Report 1991–92

  Directory of Authorised Insolvency Practitioners 1992

  Letter from R. D. Worswick to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 27 October 1992:
  I am writing to you in reply to your PQ asking the President of the Board of Trade for the titles of papers published within the last 12 months by the Chief Executives of the Department's Agencies.
  Within the last 12 months I have had published the papers listed below:

  (i) "Quality Assurance in the European Community", Presented to a Meeting of the American Laboratory Managers Association on 24 October 1991

  (ii) "The Laboratory of the Government Chemist: Past and Future"

  Opening lecture at an International Conference on Analytical Chemistry (SAC 92), 20–26 September 1992

  I hope this is useful.

  Letter from W. Edgar to Mr. Martin Redmond. Dated 26 October 1992:
  I would refer to your Parliamentary Question tabled on 21 October to the President of the Board of Trade in which you asked if he will list, for the last 12 months, the titles of papers published by the Chief Executive of each Executive Agency for which he is responsible.
  As Chief Executive of NEL I attach a listing of the publications issued in 1991 together with a partial listing for 1992 to date, I trust that you will find this information to be satisfactory for your purposes.
  A list of the documents has been placed in the Library.

  Letter from Dr. P. B. Clapham to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 27 October 1992:
  I am writing in response to your Parliamentary Question addressed to the President of the Board of Trade requesting titles of papers published by Agency Chief Executives. I have been asked to respond regarding my own Agency, the National Physical Laboratory (NPL).
  NPL has recently published its Annual Report and Accounts for 1991–92 and copies were laid before the Houses of Parliament on 24 September 1992. In addition, the Laboratory has had published a large number of scientific papers in the technical press, various pamphlets describing NPL's measurement services, and also our "House Journal", NPL News. Finally, I have recently had published a paper entitled, "Measurement—for what it's Worth" discussing the value of NPL's measurement work to the United Kingdom economy. Most of these publications are freely available from the Laboratory's Information Services, and I should he glad to arrange for copies to be sent to you if you would like to indicate your particular interests.

  Letter from Seton Bennett to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 27 October 1992:
  I have been asked by the President of the Board of Trade to let you have details of papers I have published during t he last twelve months.
  In my capacity as Chief Executive of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory I have published the Agency's Corporate Plan in March 1992 and its 1991–92 Annual Report in July. NWML also publishes a number of technical documents and type approval certificates.

  Letter from P. R. S. Hartnack to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 27 October 1992:

  67
  I am writing in response to your Parliamentary Question number 180 of 21 October 1992 about titles of papers published in the last year.
  2. I have published no papers on a personal basis, but in seeking to stimulate interest in intellectual property matters I have made a number of speeches to a variety of audiences. By way of example, I enclose a copy of a speech I made last week at a conference on global technology transfer, which was printed as one of the conference papers.
  3. More generally, details of patent applications, and of applications for the registration of trade marks and designs are published by the Patent Office as part of the statutory process. My Annual Report as Comptroller General is also published, and copies are laid in the library of the House of Commons, as are copies of the Patent Office's approved Corporate Plan.
  4. Finally I should mention that we publish a large number of pamphlets, monographs, and other literature, including videos and self-education packages, aimed at informing the public on different aspects of intellectual property. If you would like a complete set of this material please let me know and I will arrange for it to be sent to you direct, or placed in the library of the House of Commons.
  A copy of the speech has been placed in the Library.

  Letter from M. J. Michell to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 28 October 1992:
  You have recently tabled two Parliamentary Questions to the President of the Board of Trade, concerning papers published and fact finding visits by the Chief Executive, of DTI Agencies. The President has asked me to write to you on these matters in relation to the Radiocommunications Agency.
  I have not myself published any papers since this Agency was established in 1990. However the Agency as such has published a large number of technical papers, reports and so forth. I am not sure this kind of publication is what you had in mind in your Question but I have enclosed details of publications over the past 12 months should these be of interest. I am also enclosing a copy of the Agency's latest annual report.
  In the last twelve months I have not made any fact finding visits as such. During the course of my work I have visited a number of United Kingdom companies to discuss matters of business, as well as visiting different Agency establishments. I have made one overseas visit to Australia and New Zealand, to discuss with the authorities there certain radical changes in radio spectrum management policy they have introduced or are in course of introducing, in order that I may better advise Ministers on future policy in this country. As you may know, the Government has announced its intention of issuing a consultative document on future radio spectrum management in due course.
  I hope this is helpful.
  A list of the documents has been placed in the Library.

  Letter from D. Cormack, chief executive of the Warren Spring Laboratory, to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 26 October 1992:
  In response to your question to the President of the Board of Trade, I list below the papers I have had published during the period in question.
  Effluent Treatment: Technologies for Decontaminating Industrial Waste Waters

  Paper given at Financial Times conference 'The
  European Water Industry', 10–11 March 1992.

  The Management of Acute Risks. Oil Spill Contingency Planning and Response

  Co-author of chapter in the book 'North Sea Oil and the Environment', published by Elsevier Applied Science, 1992.

  Scientific and Technical Aspects of Land Based Sources of Marine Pollution
  68

  Paper in the Journal 'Marine Policy', December 1991, in section entitled 'Land Based Sources of Marine Pollution: Marine Issues for the Earth Summit'.

  I also enclose lists of this Agency's publications for the period in question. This list does not of course, include those publications with a Commercial-in-Confidence designation.
  A list of the documents has been placed in the Library.

  Plessey-Siemens Pensioners
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from Plessey-Siemens pensioners on changes in benefits from GEC; and what response he has made.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I have been asked to reply.

  We have received some 40 or 50 letters from, or on behalf of, Plessey pensioners. In response, we have explained that arrangements for splitting the Plessey fund have been submitted to the High Court for approval and that, in the meantime, all former Plessey pensioners have received increases amounting to 31 per cent. over the past 16 months. We have also explained that the withdrawal of a free private health care plan is a matter for the company as employer, rather than for the pension scheme.

SCOTLAND

  Water
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the water supply zones in each region where one or more samples exceeded 10 micrograms of lead per litre of water in the latest year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The table lists zones where results from regulatory sampling in 1991 indicate that one or more samples exceeded 10 micrograms of lead per litre of water. More than 98 per cent. of these samples met the regulation standard of 50 micrograms per litre.

  Region and zone

  Borders

  Acreknowe

  Bonchester

  Broughton

  Earnscleugh

  Innerleithen

  Philiphaugh

  Stow

  Tweedsmuir

  Walkerburn

  Central

  Callander

  Crianlarich

  Kilsyth, Croy, Banton, Twechar, Queenzieburn

  West Stirlingshire

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Auchneel

  Black Esk South

  Creetown

  Kettleton/Kettleton Borehole

  Killylour/Terregles Borehole

  Langholm

  Moffat

  Newton Stewart

  Sanquhar

  Winterhope

  69
  Fife

  Auchterderran

  Buckhaven

  Cleish

  Cowdenheath

  Dunfermline

  Dumferline

  South East Neuk

  Falkland

  Glenrothes North

  Glenrothes South

  Kinross

  Kirkcaldy

  Newburgh

  North East Fife

  North Fife

  St. Andrews/Pipelands

  Tayport

  Grampian

  Aboyne

  Airyhall

  Auchengoul

  Auchleven-Everton

  Ballater

  Blackburn Spring

  Bluehill (including Kincardine/Deeside)

  Brideswell

  Cairnie-Riggins

  Clatt

  Clerkyhill

  Collieston (1)

  Collieston (2)

  Crathie

  Dinnet

  Drummuir

  Easterton

  Fortie

  Fraserburgh/Hillhead

  Glendye

  Hatton of Cruder(

  Kennethmont

  Kintore

  Largue

  Lossiemouth (Low Level)

  Mannofield South

  Marypark

  Montgarrie-Whiteside

  Morriston/Woodlands

  Muir Fowlis

  Muiralehouse

  Newbigging (Inverurie)

  New Pitsligo-Turlundie

  Oyne/Old Rayne

  Oyne Springs

  Pineshaw (Port Elphinstone)

  Ryhnie

  Rothes-Drumbain

  Sandhaven

  Strathdon

  Tarland

  Tarland-Raw

  Traves

  Tomnavoulin

  Turriff

  Turriff Distribution

  Highland

  Balmacara

  Beauly Firth

  Brora

  Caithness Regional

  Dores

  Easter Ross and Black Isle

  Easter Ross (River Glass)

  Fort Willian-Claggan

  Foyers

  Invergarry

  Inverness/Balmore

  Inverness/Oldtown

  70

  Kentallen

  Kingussie

  Kinlochleven

  Laggan Bridge

  Nairn

  Spey Valley (Loch Einich)

  Lothian

  Alnwickhill Joppa

  Alnwickhill Leith

  Alnwickhill Newington

  Alnwickhill Portobello

  Belstane

  Chalkieside

  Dechmont

  Dechmont Law

  East Craigs

  Fairmilchead Direct

  Fairmilehead Gilmerton

  Firrhill Mid

  Firrhill North

  Firrhill South

  Firrhill West

  Fountain hall

  Garleton

  Harburnhead

  Harlaw/Marchbank

  Hillend

  Humbie

  Kinleith

  Latch

  Lawhead

  Pateshill Direct

  Pateshill District

  Pateshill Longridge

  Preston

  Roseberry East

  Roseberry Gourlaw

  Roseberry West

  Stobshiel

  Torduff

  Traprain

  Waterston

  West Mains

  Strathclyde

  Allanton and Shotts

  Ardeer

  Arrochar/Tarbet/Kilcreggan

  Auchenlongford

  Barrhead/Auchenback

  Bearsden/Milngavie/Hillfoot/Kessington/Drumchapel

  Biggar

  Brodick

  Cairndow

  Cardross

  Catacol

  Darvel Valley

  Douglas and Lesmahagow

  Furnace/Minard

  Glasgow-Cardonald/Hillington/Mosspark/Penilee

  Glasgow-Carntyne/Springboig/Shettleston

  Glasgow-Cockmuir

  Glasgow-Cranhill/Easterhouse/Lethamhill/Ruchazie

  Glasgow-Crossyloof/Pollock/Pollockshields/Nitshill

  Glasgow-Dennistoun/Haghill/Possilpark/Ruchill

  Glasgow-Drumchapel/Knightswood/Yoker

  Glasgow-Hutchesontown/Rutherglen

  Glasgow-Kelvinside/Maryhill

  Glasgow-Langside/Newlands

  Glenbuck

  Howwood/Johnstone/Kilbarchan

  Kilberry

  Kilchattan Bay

  Kilmaurs

  Lanarkshire (South East)

  Larkhall and Hamilton

  Leven Valley

  Motherwell (North)

  Muirkirk

  71

  Pirnmill

  Rankinston

  Renfrewshire (South)

  Strachur

  Tiree

  Tayside

  Aberfeldy

  Ballinluig

  Balnaguard

  Bridge of Cally

  Clatto East

  Clatto North

  Dunkeld Region

  Grandtully

  Kenmore

  Kinloch Rannoch

  Perth

  Pitlochry

  Turret

  Orkney

  Note:—Although Orkney zones met the prescribed standard in the Regulations, the data presented are indeterminate in terms of whether 10 micrograms per litre was exceeded. No results, however, exceeded 20 micrograms per litre.

  Private sector improvements—Amount of grant approved for lead plumbing work only1

  District

  Amount of grant approved in financial year £000

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  SCOTLAND

  2,508

  2,896

  2,820

  1,957

  Borders

  Berwickshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Roxburgh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tweeddale

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Central

  Clackmannan

  23

  19

  9

  16

  Falkirk

  4

  5

  11

  18

  Stirling

  5

  2

  24

  25

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Annandale and Eskdale

  3

  1

  4

  2

  Nithsdale

  3

  5

  8

  7

  Stewartry

  1

  2

  3

  7

  Wigtown

  5

  3

  5

  8

  Fife

  Dunfermline

  2

  8

  11

  6

  Kirkcaldy

  37

  93

  76

  23

  North-east Fife

  —

  2

  3

  2

  Grampian

  Aberdeen

  239

  219

  207

  156

  Banff and Buchan

  11

  6

  4

  4

  Gordon

  10

  18

  18

  7

  Kincardine and Deeside

  4

  8

  21

  12

  Moray

  3

  2

  7

  23

  Highland

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  6

  5

  8

  1

  Caithness

  —

  4

  5

  5

  Inverness

  5

  8

  3

  4

  Lochaber

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Nairn

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ross and Cromarty

  8

  12

  5

  4

  Skye and Lochalsh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sutherland

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Lothian

  East Lothian

  67

  37

  109

  90

  Edinburgh

  746

  949

  1,116

  209

  Midlothian

  14

  17

  22

  41

  West Lothian

  30

  41

  4

  18

  72
  Shetland

  Mid Yell

  Skerries

  Western Isles

  Achmore

  Balallan

  Islivig

  Leurbost

  Northton

  Sollas

  Tarbert/Scalpay

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total value of grants paid by each district council in Scotland for replacement of lead water supply pipes in each financial year since 1988–89 and for the current financial year to date; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The table gives figures, for each full year since 1988–89, of grants approved for the replacement of lead plumbing only. Plumbing replacement is, however, often included in other works of repair and improvement; the cost of this cannot be identified separately. No full information is yet available for any part of the current financial year.
  73

  District

  Amount of grant approved in financial year £000

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Strathclyde

  Argyll and Bute

  39

  49

  112

  90

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  43

  60

  128

  245

  Clydebank

  1

  3

  3

  4

  Clydesdale

  4

  4

  5

  9

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  1

  —

  —

  7

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  4

  6

  4

  6

  Cunninghame

  29

  30

  38

  32

  Dumbarton

  13

  17

  14

  22

  East Kilbride

  4

  —

  6

  13

  Eastwood

  98

  45

  79

  1

  Glasgow

  669

  666

  36

  184

  Hamilton

  4

  4

  1

  2

  Inverclyde

  35

  18

  48

  74

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  16

  15

  34

  45

  Kyle and Carrick

  76

  65

  50

  70

  Monklands

  21

  39

  64

  39

  Motherwell

  5

  3

  3

  7

  Renfrew

  83

  173

  253

  133

  Strathkelvin

  51

  66

  127

  115

  Tayside

  Angus

  2

  7

  3

  1

  Dundee

  —

  2

  —

  6

  Perth and Kinross

  74

  50

  126

  161

  Islands Councils

  Orkney Islands

  7

  3

  3

  2

  Shetland Islands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1 Amount of grant approved where the repair is solely for the replacement of lead plumbing. Grants for repairs/improvements where part is for lead plumbing work has been excluded.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the new rules announced by the Prime Minister about the use of the private sector for public sector projects will allow the private sector to invest in local authority controlled water services.

  Mr. Lang
  As indicated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, we are keen that the public and private sectors should work closely together to invest in Britain's future. As announced in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gollie) on 8 July 1992,Official Report, columns 266–67.I appointed consultants to advise me on alternative forms of organisation for water and sewerage services in Scotland including ways in which the private sector might contribute enterprise and investment to this vital public service. I intend to publish a consultation paper shortly.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland for what reasons the brief given to consultants Quayle Munro to inquire into the Scottish water industry has not been published; if he will make it his policy for the completed report from the consultants to be published; and if he will publish the list of consultants asked to tender for the consultancy contract covering the future of the water industry in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 22 October 1992]: The consultants' brief concerned advice sought by the Government under conditions of commercial confidentiality for the purpose of informing policy. As such, it is not appropriate for publication. The same constraints apply to the consultants' report itself. That report, however, will form the preparation of the consultation paper which will
  74
  be published shortly and which will set out a range of options for the future structure of the water and sewerage services in Scotland. The consultation paper and not the consultants' report will be the appropriate document to serve as a basis for public discussion and comment.

  The list of firms invited to tender for the consultancy was as follows:

  Barclays de Zoete Wedd

  British Linen Bank

  Coopers and Lybrand

  County NatWest

  Ernst and Young

  Kleinwort Benson

  National Economic Research Associates

  Price Waterhouse

  Quayle Munro

  Schroders

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretaru of State for Scotland how many people were employed in manufacturing in Scotland in 1979; and how many there are at the present time.

  Mr. Stewart
  In June 1979, there were an estimated 604,000 employees employed in manufacturing in Scotland. In June 1992, the latest date for which information is available, this figure was 368,000. Both of these figures are taken from the civilian work force in employment estimates complied by the Employment Department.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what(a) percentage and (b) numbers of

  75
  employees in manufacturing in Scotland were in (i) home-owned firms and (ii) overseas-owned firms in 1979; and what are the percentages at the present time.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested is given in the table. The latest year for which such information is available is 1990.

  Percentage and number of employees1 in home-owned and overseas-owned manufacturing plants in Scotland, 1979 and 1990

  Home-owned plants

  Overseas-owned plants

  1979

  Percentage of all employees

  80·8

  19·2

  Number of employees

  455,100

  108,100

  1990

  Percentage of all employees

  75·5

  24·3

  Number of employees

  264,000

  85,800

  Source: The Scottish Register of Employment.

  1The Scottish Register of Employment only holds information for manufacturing units with 11 or more employees.

  Current Expenditure (£'000) (Cash)

  River Purification Board

  Year

  Clyde

  Forth

  Highland

  North East

  Solway

  Tay

  Tweed

  1979–80

  821

  723

  210

  361

  146

  185

  109

  1980–81

  1,036

  881

  288

  444

  189

  225

  133

  1981–82

  1,095

  1,051

  309

  500

  227

  256

  151

  1982–83

  1,311

  1,183

  331

  546

  251

  286

  156

  1983–84

  1,313

  1,237

  362

  595

  275

  316

  181

  1984–85

  1,285

  1,168

  399

  665

  338

  329

  199

  1985–86

  1,381

  1,401

  423

  700

  347

  377

  215

  1986–87

  1,566

  1,462

  437

  754

  358

  490

  236

  1987–88

  1,703

  1,575

  464

  808

  389

  682

  275

  1988–89

  1,843

  1,893

  654

  1,159

  501

  774

  580

  1989–90

  2,124

  1,668

  544

  905

  432

  622

  313

  1990–91

  2,575

  2,227

  821

  1,186

  617

  887

  448

  1991–92

  2,945

  2,405

  968

  1,298

  702

  1,133

  512

  Source:

  (1) 1979–80 to 1988–89: First Policy Review Report of RPBs.

  (2) 1989–90 to 1991–92: information from RPBs.

  Current Expenditure (£000) (1991 prices)

  River Purification Board

  Clyde

  Forth

  Highland

  North East

  Solway

  Tay

  Tweed

  1979–80

  2,012

  1,772

  515

  885

  358

  454

  267

  1980–81

  2,086

  1,774

  580

  894

  381

  453

  268

  1981–82

  1,968

  1,889

  555

  898

  408

  460

  271

  1982–83

  2,153

  1,943

  544

  897

  412

  470

  256

  1983–84

  2,073

  1,953

  572

  940

  434

  499

  286

  1984–85

  1,929

  1,754

  599

  998

  508

  494

  299

  1985–86

  1,939

  1,967

  594

  983

  487

  529

  302

  1986–87

  2,134

  1,992

  595

  1,028

  488

  668

  322

  1987–88

  2,227

  2,059

  607

  1,056

  509

  891

  359

  1988–89

  2,319

  2,098

  684

  1,138

  507

  782

  394

  1989–90

  2,473

  2,204

  761

  1,350

  583

  901

  442

  1990–91

  2,740

  2,369

  874

  1,261

  656

  944

  477

  1991–92

  2,945

  2,405

  968

  1,298

  702

  1,133

  512

  Note: Adjusted by reference to RPI.

  Capital Expenditure (£000) (Cash)

  River Purification Board

  Clyde

  Forth

  Highland

  North East

  Solway

  Tay

  Tweed

  1979–80

  16

  51

  31

  —

  32

  —

  2

  1980–81

  —

  —

  15

  51

  82

  6

  —

  1981–82

  —

  —

  21

  —

  67

  8

  2

  1982–83

  15

  —

  59

  —

  57

  23

  11

  1983–84

  —

  —

  8

  47

  145

  19

  13

  1984–85

  —

  71

  21

  34

  48

  29

  11

  Gripparod, Glengarnock
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what monitoring his Department has carried out of Gripparod plc's closure of Carpet Systems in Glengarnock.

  Mr. Stewart
  None.

  River Purification Boards
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the resources provided for each of the river purification boards in each year since 1979, expressed in both cash terms and at current prices; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The river purification boards are financed by precept on the regional councils within their areas and through income from cost-recovery charging schemes introduced this year.

  The table gives current and capital expenditure.
  77

  Capital Expenditure (£000) (Cash)

  River Purification Board

  Clyde

  Forth

  Highland

  North East

  Solway

  Tay

  Tweed

  1985–86

  92

  25

  49

  1

  33

  25

  32

  1986–87

  42

  —

  40

  5

  36

  156

  29

  1987–88

  35

  —

  116

  —

  24

  272

  27

  1988–89

  163

  130

  163

  245

  48

  81

  66

  1989–90

  167

  95

  62

  156

  64

  49

  50

  1990–91

  95

  24

  65

  44

  99

  101

  39

  1991–92

  148

  164

  82

  15

  58

  86

  42

  (1) 1979–80 to 1988–89: First Policy Review Report of RPBs.

  (2) 1989–90 to 1991–92: information from RPBs.

  Capital Expenditure (£000) (1991 prices)

  River Purification Board

  Clyde

  Forth

  Highland

  North East

  Solway

  Tay

  Tweed

  1979–80

  39

  125

  76

  —

  78

  —

  5

  1980–81

  —

  —

  30

  103

  165

  12

  —

  1981–82

  —

  —

  38

  —

  120

  14

  4

  1982–83

  25

  —

  97

  —

  94

  38

  18

  1983–84

  —

  —

  13

  71

  228

  30

  21

  1984–85

  —

  107

  32

  51

  72

  44

  17

  1985–86

  129

  35

  69

  1

  46

  35

  45

  1986–87

  57

  —

  55

  7

  49

  213

  40

  1987–88

  46

  —

  152

  —

  31

  356

  35

  1988–89

  205

  164

  205

  308

  60

  102

  83

  1989–90

  195

  111

  72

  182

  75

  57

  58

  1990–91

  101

  26

  69

  47

  105

  107

  41

  1991–92

  148

  164

  82

  15

  58

  86

  42

  Note: Adjusted by reference to RPI.

  Unemployment
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans his Department has for reducing the number of unemployed persons in(a) rural areas of Scotland, (b) mainland highland communities and (c) island communities.

  Mr. Stewart
  The main instruments for promoting the full range of the Government's training, employment and economic development initiatives in Scotland are Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise and their associated networks of local enterprise companies. The Government have provided the Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise networks with a combined budget this year of some £540 million. In addition, the networks have at their disposal their own resources and European Community funding. All of this is available to encourage economic development and to help people secure employment.

  Each of the communities in the highlands and islands benefits from a local enterprise company which is able to tailor its activities to the needs of the local economy; and, outwith the Highlands and Islands, local enterprise companies are also able to plan better than in the past for the distinctive needs of rural communities, even where the area for which they are responsible is not predominantly rural.

  Youth Training
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the best information he has about the number of people who were participating in youth training in Scotland in each month since November 1991; and if he will make a statement.
  78
  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested is shown in the table, which is based on returns from Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise as at 29 October 1992.

  Number of people participating in Youth Training in Scotland

  Number

  November 1991

  37,222

  December 1991

  37,094

  January 1992

  38,780

  February 1992

  38,451

  March 1992

  38,072

  April 1992

  36,603

  May 1992

  35,241

  June 1992

  36,143

  July 1992

  35,596

  August 1992

  35,772

  September 1992

  35,846

  Prisoners
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 19 October,Official Report, column 287, which person will have the authority to cancel the supervision condition in a former prisoner's licence under the terms of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Bill [Lords]; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Under clause 12(3) of the Bill, it is the Secretary of State who has authority to cancel the supervision conditions in a former prisoner's licence. He must, however, consult the board before doing so in the case of a long-term prisoner; and may only do so in respect of a discretionary life prisoner in accordance with the recommendations of the board.
  79
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many men are serving life sentences in Scottish prisons.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As at Thursday 29 October 1992, there were 451 males, including both adults and young offenders, serving life sentences in Scottish prisons.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many and what percentage of prisoners serving life sentences were released on licence in each of the past five years; and if he will give the numbers in percentages.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The numbers of life sentence prisoners releases on licence and as percentages of the total life sentence prisoner population are as follows:

  Released

  Percentage

  1987

  21

  5·2

  1988

  12

  2·7

  1989

  34

  7·8

  1990

  29

  6·7

  1991

  29

  6·6

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of(a) men and (b) women imprisoned in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As at 23 October 1992, the number of(a) men and (b) women imprisoned in Scotland, including those held on remand was:

  Men

  Women

  Adults

  4,058

  134

  Young Offenders

  1,128

  19

  Total Population

  5,186

  153

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prisoners serving life sentences, released on licence from Scottish prisons, are recalled back into prison; and if he will give that number as a percentage of those released.

  Project

  Description

  Companies invited to tender

  Unsolicited bids

  Contract awarded to

  Contract value (excluding VAT)

  Contract length (years)

  £

  Historic Scotland

  Financial Accounting System

  17

  0

  McKeown software

  433,000

  5

  Directorate of Administrative Services

  Directory production and enquiry System

  5

  0

  Axiom Business Computers

  25,000

  5

  Note: Both contracts included the supply of hardware and software.

  Mr. John Gallagher
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will announce his decision of the request for a fatal accident inquiry by the parents of John Gallagher, who died in Lennox Castle hospital on 23 May 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 22 October 1992]: My noble and learned Friend the Lord
  80
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The numbers are given for the period 1987 to 1991.

  Recalls

  Released

  Percentage

  1987

  5

  32

  15·6

  1988

  8

  39

  20·5

  1989

  8

  39

  16·1

  1990

  4

  33

  12·1

  1991

  5

  40

  12·5

  Stobhill Hospital
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement regarding the future of Stobhill hospital as a provider of acute services.

  Mr. Stewart
  I am aware that Greater Glasgow is reviewing the pattern of acute services which can best meet the needs of its population in the future. Any resulting proposal for the closure of hospitals or for major changes in the existing pattern of services would have to be referred to the Secretary of State. No such proposals are currently before Ministers.

  Computer Projects
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table setting out for the period since 9 April(a) each tender issued by his Department for projects requiring the supply of (i) computer hardware and (ii) computer software, (b) a description of the services required, (c) the number of companies who were invited to tender, (d) the number of companies who submitted a bid without prior invitation by his Department, (e) which company was awarded the contract, (f) the value of each contract and (g) the length of period over which the contract will run.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 27 October 1992]: The information sought is set out in the table.

  Advocate informs me that a fatal accident inquiry into the circumstances of the death of John Gallagher is to be held on 7 December 1992 in Glasgow sheriff court.

  Regional Enterprise Grants
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total expenditure on regional enterprise grants in each of the assisted areas in Scotland from 1989–90 to 1991–92.
  81
  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 29 October 1992]: The information requested is given in the table.

  Gross expenditure on regional enterprise grants in Scotland 1989–90 to 1991–92

  Travel-to-work area1

  Expenditure £000

  Alloa

  —

  Arbroath

  89·7

  Bathgate

  517·2

  Cumnock and Sanquhar

  75·3

  Dumbarton

  161·5

  Dundee

  454·0

  Dunfermline

  41·9

  Glasgow

  3,855·1

  Greenock

  65·7

  Irvine

  326·5

  Kilmarnock

  229·8

  Kirkcaldy

  25·0

  Lanarkshire

  1,077·2

  1 Only eligible travel-to-work areas are shown. In the period covered by the table, regional enterprise grants were available only in development areas and, since December 1990, the parts of intermediate areas within the Fife RENAVAL area.

TRANSPORT

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list, for the past 12 months, the titles of papers published by the chief executive of each executive agency for which he is responsible;

  (2) if he will list the fact-finding visits made in the last 12 months by the chief executive of each executive agency for which he is responsible; and what were the findings resulting from each visit.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Responsibility for the subject of these questions has been delegated to the chief executives of each of my Department's executive agencies. I have asked each of the chief executives to arrange for a reply to be given. The reply from the chief executive of the Transport Research Laboratory contains a list of tables that are being placed in the Library.

  Letter from J. Wootton, chief executive of the Transport Research Laboratory to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 2 November 1992:
  I am replying to your two recent Written Questions to the Secretary of State for Transport.
  I list below titles of papers published by me.
  The Better Use of Road Space

  17th International Study Week on Traffic Engineering and Safety—Warsaw, September 1992

  Transport for People—Some research topics

  PTRC XXth Summer Annual Meeting, University of Manchester, September 1992

  United Kingdom Contribution to research in road transport informatics

  IHT Presidential Conference, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, September 1992

  Transport in Europe—Demand, energy and environment

  Institute of Energy: Energy, Transport and the Environment Conference, London, November 1992

  82
  IVHS—An international perspective

  Australian Road Research Board Conference, Perth, November 1992

  With reference to titles of papers published by the whole of TRL, please see the attached list.

  In answer to your Question regarding fact finding visits made in the last 12 months by the Chief Executive these are as follows:

  Number

  Companies

  13

  Research laboratories

  22

  Professional bodies

  21

  Detailed findings resulting from each visit would cost too much in staff time to prepare. However, the Laboratory has been thoroughly reorganised to become customer focussed as the result of feedback from outside bodies. These visits also produce a major input to the studies on business opportunities.

  Letter from Ron Oliver to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 30 October 1992:
  Please find attached information in response to your questions concerning:

  (i) List of publications produced by the Vehicle Inspectorate over the past 12 months;

  (ii) Fact-finding visits paid by the Chief Executive from November 1991 to October 1992.

  I trust that these will be of interest to you

  Publications— Vehicle Inspectorate 12 Months to October 1992

  £

  Manuals

  New since 1 October 1991

  MOT Inspection Manual—Cars and Light Commercial Vehicles

  15·95

  MOT Inspection Manual—Private Bus Testing (Class 5)

  18·00

  MOT Testing Guide

  3·50

  A Guide to ADR 1

  12·00

  A Guide to TIR 1

  22·00

  On-Going

  HGV Inspection Manual

  8·75

  HGV Amplification Notes1

  18·00

  PSV Inspection Manual

  8·00

  PSV Amplification Notes1

  15·00

  Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness (HGV/PSV)

  3·00

  MOT Inspection Manual—Motor cycles

  3·75

  MOT Vehicle Testing Regulations 1981

  5·30

  MOT Inspection Check Lists (pad of 100)1

  4·75

  Vehicle Safety Recalls Response Rate Bulletin1

  15·00

  How Safe is Your Car?

  4·95

  How Safe is Your Motor cycle?

  4·95

  Information Leaflets—all free of charge

  Will Your Car Pass the MOT Test?—new items late 1991

  Tread Carefully—Improve your Grip on the Road—new tread depth

  Do your Headlamps Point the Right Way?—new regulations

  Code of Practice on Vehicle Safety Defects—January 1992

  The Work of the Vehicle Inspectorate

  Metered Diesel Smoke Testing

  MOT Publications order form

  Changes in the MOT Test—with effect from 1 January 1993

  (October 1992)

  Do you want to be an MOT Tester? (October 1992)

  1 Published by the Vehicle Inspectorate; others produced by Vehicle Inspectorate but published by HMSO. The Business Plan and Annual Report and Accounts of the Vehicle Inspectorate are printed by HMSO and published by the Vehicle Inspectorate.

  83

  Visits—Mr. R. J. Oliver 1 October 1991 to 30 October 1992

  Date

  1991

  13 November

  Meeting with Traffic Commissioner—Cardiff Feedback on customer needs/satisfication

  20 November

  Meeting with Mr. Parle (VI non-Executive Director)/Swindon Identification of business options

  2 December

  Meeting with management consultant—Bristol Scope for consultancy advice on financial systems

  1992

  8 April

  Meeting with KPMG—London Options for development of an Information Systems Strategy

  22 April

  Visit to Traffic Commissioner—Manchester Feedback on customer needs/satisfaction

  27 April

  Meeting with IPMS Union—London Possible Union reaction to draft Management proposals

  5 August

  Meeting with Mr. Parle, Mr. Grimsey and Mr. Fuhr—dinner

  Experience of handling major change

  6 August

  Meeting with Freight Transport Association and Road Haulage Association

  Consultation on proposed fee structures/increases

  25 August

  Visit to Traffic Commissioner—Eastbourne Feedback on customer needs/satisfaction

  14 September

  Visit to Traffic Commissioner—Bristol Feedback on customer needs/satisfaction

  8 October

  Sainsbury, Basingstoke—operational system in the private sector

  Management information system development

  To

  Purpose

  Findings

  MIRA. Nuneaton

  To establish position of MIRA in relation to VCA's customers based in USA.

  Clearer lines of communications established to mutually assist MIRA and VCA.

  TUV, Munich

  To establish methods of working of German vehicle test organisations.

  Similar approach found to VCA, leading to establishment of working relationship.

  Nissan, Cranfield

  To establish Nissan's type approval requirements over coming 2–3 years.

  Strong programme with VCA drawn up.

  INTA, Madrid

  To establish working methods of Spanish and other authorities as regards forthcoming European Type Approval.

  Some common working practices identified as well as others requiring more discussion.

  SMMT, London

  To establish SMMT's view on the certification of quality systems in the automotive industry.

  Determined need for greater commonality of United Kingdom and European practices.

  Saab, Marlow

  To establish Saab's ideas on application of ISO 9000 in automotive industry.

  Determined need for greater commonality of United Kingdom and European practices.

  Volvo Trucks, Irvine

  To establish Volvo's needs for type approval and quality system certification and their view on long term systems for vehicle certification.

  Outline programmed framed. Some common ideas agreed for longer term.

  Rover, Warwickshire

  To establish Rover's type approval needs.

  Outline programme agreed. Future co-operative training programmes identified.

  COI, London

  To determine whether a common Executive Agencies' marketing network could be set up.

  Probably not for VCA.

  Towers Perrin, London

  Investigation of computer aided jobs evaluation techniques.

  Possible future application even to small group like VCA.

  I should be pleased to provide further information if that would be helpful.

  Letter from Stephen Curtis to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 28 October 1992:
  84

  Date

  13 October

  Meeting with David Parr—Essex Water Exchange of information on the process of management of change

  Letter from Derek Harvey, chief executive of the Vehicle Certification Agency to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 29 October 1992.
  I have been asked by Mr. Kenneth Carlisle to write to you directly in response to two Parliamentary Questions.
  In PQ 883/92/93 you asked for the titles of papers published over the last 12 months by the Chief Executives of each agency in the Department of Transport. During that period I have published (via the House of Commons library) the following titles:

  1. 1990–91 VCA Annual Report (February 1992).

  2. 1992–93 VCA Business Plan (March 1992).

  3. 1991–92 VCA Annual Report (September 1992).

  4. New Car Fuel Consumption (July 1992).

  Other documents circulated to most VCA customers, but not "published" in any wider sense were:

  1. "How to complain" (leaflet October 1992).

  2. Information notice—vehicle type approval legislation (February 1992, May 1992, July 1992).

  3. Guide to EC Whole Vehicle Type Approval (June 1992).

  In PQ 898/92/93 you asked about the fact finding visits made in the last 12 months by the Chief Executive of each agency in the Department of Transport.
  During that period I have made the following fact finding visits.
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to Parliamentary Questions you have tabled about papers published and fact finding visits made by Chief Executives within the last 12 months.
  PO883
  The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency has published its

  85
  annual Business Plan and Annual Report and Accounts. Each of these include financial and non financial objectives and targets and the Agency's performance against these targets.
  In the summer of 1991 we issued the first in a series of publications called DVL TODAY. The publication is issued half yearly and is designed to introduce and explain the work of this organisation to its many and varied customers and to invite suggestions for improving the service. The most recent edition was used to launch our customer service guides.
  The Agency has also published a number of consultation papers.
  PQ898
  DVLA has done much to improve the delivery of services to its customers. I keep in touch with our customers in a variety of ways. In the last year, this has included visits; to the AA, Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and the Retail Motor Industry Federation.

  Date

  Event

  Results

  4 November 1991

  Meeting of Commission Internationale des Exames, de Conduite Automobile (CIECA) secretariat in Brussels

  Arrange details of CIECA Congress meeting for April 1992

  22 January 1992

  Lex Motoring Symposium in London

  Discuss the latest Lex research about drivers

  27–30 April 1992

  CIECA Congress meeting in York

  Discuss developments in driver testing with European driver testing organisations

  23 July 1992

  Eurosafe Conference in London (organised by the London Boroughs road safety officers)

  Give talk and participate in discussion on developments in driver testing

  14 September 1992

  Driving Instructor Association Annual Conference in Solihull

  Discuss the recently issued Theory Testing Consultation Paper

  12 October 1992

  CIECA secretariat meeting in Paris

  Discuss plans for next Congress

  PO 883/92/93

  DSA have produced seven papers and publications in the last 12 months. These include two book in our "Driving Skill" series and two public consultation papers. These are listed below:

  Title

  Date

  Retesting Disqualified Drivers—Consultation Paper

  October 1991

  Theory Testing for Learner Drivers— Consultation Paper

  August 1992

  The Driving Manual ISBN 0 11 551054 0

  May 1992

  The Motorcycling Manual (2nd Edition) ISBN 0 11 550974 7

  September 1992

  Customer Survey—Summary of Findings

  April 1992

  Business Plan 1992–93

  June 1992

  Annual Report and Accounts 1991–92

  September 1992

  Letter from David Evans to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 28 October 1992:
  The DVOIT has been an Executive Agency in its own right since April of this year. Formerly, it was the IT arm of the Driver and Vehicles Licensing Agency. I have been in post since March.
  Since that time, I have not published any papers. Whilst I have not been on any formal fact finding visits I have visited all of DVOIT's Customers, some potential Customers and also potential business partners.

  Ozone Depletion
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what discussions or correspondence the Minister has had with Eurotunnel regarding the use of ozone-depleting substances in the operation of the channel tunnel; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what discussions or correspondence he has had with Eurotunnel regarding the use of HCFCs in the air conditioning system in the channel tunnel.
  86
  More widely, I have visited my counterparts in Dublin and Germany to discuss European developments on driver licensing and vehicle licensing and registration. And on 23 October last year I visited the Rijksdienst voor het Wedverkeer, Veendam, Holland in order to sign an agreement with the Dutch registration authorities to set up an exchange of vehicle registration information with DVLA.

  Letter from C. M. Woodman, chief executive of the Driving Standards Agency, to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 28 October 1992:
  As you know, the Secretary of State has asked individual Chief Executives to reply to the Parliamentary Questions you have tabled for written answer about the Department's Executive Agencies.
  PO 898192193
  In the past 12 months I have undertaken six fact-finding visits. These are detailed below:

  Mr. Freeman
  The binational intergovernmental commission—IGC—and safety authority SA—were established under the treaty of Canterbury to supervise the construction and operation of the tunnel on behalf of the United Kingdom and French Governments.

  The IGC decided in December 1989—Official Report, 19 December 1989, col 195, that Eurotunnel could continue to develop its shuttle system on the basis of non-segregation of drivers and passengers of cars and coaches from their vehicles during transit through the tunnel. Among the conditions attached to that decision was one requiring that a fire extinction system using halon 1301 or other agent with the same extinguishing capacity should be available either when passengers had been evacuated or as a last resort when the lives of passengers were endangered in spite of the use of other means of extinction provided for in the decision. The SA's paper "Non-segregation of drivers and passengers from their vehicles" which reviews the factors on which the SA based its advice to the IGC is available from the Library of the House.

  In the response—Cm 1853, March 1992—to the report of the Home Affairs Committee on fire safety and policing of the channel tunnel, it is made plain that it is important that Eurotunnel continue to work on alternatives to halon 1301 for use in the tunnel. If however, nearer the time of phase out of halons, no suitable replacement has been found, the Government stated that they would consult the French Government with a view to persuading the international community that the tunnel should be included in the list of possible essential uses for which extra production of halons may be allowed.

  In the case of the sealed tunnel cooling system, Eurotunnel proposes to use HCFC 22 which has a low ozone-depleting potential and low toxicity whilst being effective for the purpose. The use of this material, too, has been approved by the IGC. Eurotunnel has been required

  87
  to design the cooling system to accept without great modification, the possible replacement of HCFC 22 by more ozone-friendly fluids which become available.

  Nuclear Fuel Transportation
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representation will be made by his Department to the International Maritime Organisation in its review of current international safety standards on the carriage of irradiated nuclear fuel in December; and if his Department will be represented at the meeting.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department supports the present provisions for the carriage of irradiated nuclear fuel in the international maritime dangerous goods code and has also taken part in the development of additional requirements in the proposed International Maritime Organisation code for the safe carriage of irradiated nuclear fuel. It will take full part in the joint discussions at the IMO/International Atomic Energy Agency meeting in December and will be represented by specialists in this field.

  Consultants
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all of the reports his Department has commissioned from external consultants in each of the last three years; for each of the last three years, how many reports from external consultants to his Department led to further consultancy work being commissioned, stating for each of these who were the original and subsequent consultants and briefly describing the subject matter of the consultancy work; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Rail Freight Privatisation
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will arrange for the publication of the results of consultation with private sector freight operators undertaken by Mercer Management Consultants as part of their study into rail freight privatisation.

  Mr. Freeman
  Most discussions with private sector rail freight customers or operators are undertaken by officials of the Department of Transport; and the results fed into Mercer's work. To ensure frankness, all discussions are held on a commercial-in-confidence basis.

  M6
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when work on the Witton viaduct of the M6 motorway will be completed; when it was originally planned to be completed; and if compensation will be made to those businesses of the Brookvale trading estate, Moor lane, Birmingham, which have been adversely affected during the work.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Work beneath the Witton viaduct was completed on 18 October 1992. The contract completion date was 14 June 1992. A significant part of the delay was caused by the need for extra work beyond that originally expected.

  There are no statutory rights to compensation for business loss due to disruption from road works, provided these are carried out in a proper manner and access is maintained.

  Halon Fire Extinguishers
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps are being taken to ensure that the requirements for halon fire extinguishing systems in aircraft cockpits will be met from existing stocks or recovered materials; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  Halons are in use on aircraft in portable fire extinguishers and in fixed systems for engine and cargo compartment fire protection. Halons possess remarkably good fire fighting properties but their production will be phased out because of their effect on the ozone layer. Although replacements are being developed, none is likely to be suitable as a straightforward substitute.

  The Government are in consultation with the Civil Aviation Authority and the aviation industry, investigating the possibility of setting up a scheme for the banking and recycling of existing halon stocks. Any such scheme would apply to halon users in other industries.

  Ports
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve integrated road and rail links to ports; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The planning of railway intermodal freight services to ports is a matter for British Rail.

  Light Dues
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will abolish light dues;

  (2) if he will apply the user pays principle to light dues; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what discussions he has had with his counterparts in the EC about light dues; and what steps he will take to apply single market principles to light dues.

  Mr. Norris
  The Government have no plans to abolish the system of light dues. But they have drawn the European Commission's attention to the differing practices among member states for funding maritime navigational aids, and has urged the extension of the "user pays" principle throughout the European Community. Within the United Kingdom system, recent reforms have extended light dues to certain previously non-paying users.

  Emergency Vessels
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answers of 30 June,Official Report, column 451, if he will update the figures given on numbers of emergency standby vessels found to be satisfactory or unsatisfactory, or which are still being assessed, under the revised code.

  Mr. Norris
  Eighty-five standby vessels, representing 49 per cent. of the current fleet, have been assessed and comply with the revised code. A futher 41 vessels are at various stages of assessment.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the names of all emergency or standby vessels currently certificated engaged in the off-shore oil and gas industries, the year of build and the date of the last survey of each vessel.
  89
  Mr. Norris
  The number of vessels certificated for use in the United Kingdom standby vessel industry is at present 162.

  The table lists these vessels, including the year of build and the date of the last survey.

  Shipname

  Year of build

  Date of last survey

  Aberdonian

  1977

  >1 June 1992

  Alexandra Tide

  1974

  20 December 1991

  Andrew Viking

  1990

  3 September 1992

  Atlantic Defender

  1980

  2 December 1991

  Atlantic Guardian

  1979

  1 September 1992

  Black Isle

  1973

  13 October 1992

  Black Watch

  1977

  20 March 1992

  Blue Flame 1

  1976

  5 March 1992

  Britannia Challenger

  1964

  16 April 1992

  Britannia Champion

  1980

  20 May 1992

  Britannia Chieftain

  1973

  19 June 1992

  Britannia Cobra

  1978

  20 April 1992

  Britannia Conquest

  1974

  17 July 1992

  Britannia Crusader

  1976

  16 September 1992

  Britannia Endeavour

  1975

  29 September 1992

  Britannia Fury

  1972

  14 October 1992

  Britannia Gazelle

  1978

  29 April 1992

  Britannia Harvester

  1972

  16 September 1992

  Britannia Knight

  1976

  15 April 1992

  Britannia Monarch

  1973

  26 August 1992

  Britannia Venturer

  1965

  1 July 1992

  Britannia Vixen

  1978

  10 July 1992

  Britannia Warrior

  1973

  19 February 1992

  Cam Civet

  1960

  4 February 1992

  Cam Defender

  1983

  30 October 1991

  Cam Guardian

  1970

  28 July 1992

  Cam Protector

  1983

  20 December 1991

  Cam Puma

  1966

  30 April 1992

  Cam Ranger

  1983

  28 July 1992

  Cam Retriever

  1972

  25 November 1991

  Cam Seeker

  1967

  8 May 1992

  Cam Sentinel

  1982

  7 October 1992

  Cam Supporter

  1983

  26 May 1992

  Cam Valiant

  1939

  12 February 1992

  Cam Vanguard

  1955

  12 August 1992

  Cam Vedette

  1970

  14 January 1992

  Cam Venturer

  1973

  5 August 1992

  Cam Viceroy

  1958

  8 January 1992

  Cam Victor

  1969

  8 May 1992

  Cam Vigilant

  1957

  19 February 1992

  Cam Viking

  1972

  14 October 1992

  Cam Viper

  1966

  1 April 1992

  Cam Viscount

  1971

  18 August 1992

  Cam Vulcan

  1958

  14 February 1992

  Cam Zebra

  1960

  21 April 1992

  Chudleigh

  1962

  27 February 1992

  Dawn Blazer

  1965

  2 September 1992

  Dawn Patrol

  1970

  8 May 1992

  Dawn Shore

  1967

  29 April 1992

  Dawn Sky

  1967

  8 October 1992

  Dawn Warbler

  1966

  1 July 1992

  Dea Supporter

  1970

  27 December 1991

  Evans Tide

  1974

  18 June 1992

  Far Baronet

  1986

  9 July 1992

  Far Earl

  1986

  18 September 1992

  Far Searcher

  1986

  10 December 1991

  Far Seeker

  1986

  20 December 1991

  Far Sovereign

  1982

  18 March 1992

  Far Stream

  1982

  29 April 1992

  Grampian Chieftain

  1976

  7 May 1992

  Grampian City

  1976

  22 November 1991

  Grampian Concord

  1961

  11 June 1992

  Grampian Dawn

  1962

  29 April 1992

  Grampian Dee

  1975

  2 October 1992

  Grampian Eagle

  1975

  16 April 1992

  Grampian Endeavour

  1966

  7 April 1992

  Grampian Fame

  1975

  30 June 1992

  Grampian Forest

  1962

  1 May 1992

  Grampian Freedom

  1957

  18 August 1992

  Grampian Harrier

  1967

  27 May 1992

  90

  Shipname

  Year of build

  Date of last survey

  Grampian Haven

  1981

  21 May 1992

  Grampian Highlander

  1976

  12 June 1992

  Grampian Monarch

  1968

  2 September 1992

  Grampian Orcades

  1991

  14 August 1992

  Grampian Osprey

  1937

  19 May 1992

  Grampian Otter

  1983

  7 July 1992

  Grampian Pioneer

  1981

  14 September 1992

  Grampian Protector

  1983

  14 January 1992

  Grampian Quest

  1959

  1 May 1992

  Grampian Rose

  1949

  14 January 1992

  Grampian Sabre

  1975

  10 April 1992

  Grampian Shield

  1974

  4 June 1992

  Grampian Sprite

  1983

  22 May 1992

  Grampian Venture

  1982

  23 April 1992

  Grampian Warrior

  1977

  14 January 1992

  Grampian Wood

  1976

  17 March 1992

  Hatherleigh

  1961

  1 July 1992

  Kronbas

  1975

  1 May 1992

  Maersk Mariner

  1986

  21 February 1992

  Maersk Pacer

  1991

  3 June 1992

  Maersk Provider

  1991

  23 March 1992

  Maersk Rover

  1982

  25 September 1992

  Magdelan Sea

  1977

  29 July 1992

  Normand Skipper

  1975

  30 December 1991

  Nova

  1969

  29 April 1992

  Putford Acasta

  1972

  5 March 1992

  Putford Achates

  1976

  30 April 1992

  Putford Ajax

  1976

  9 September 1992

  Putford Athena

  1975

  23 September 1992

  Putford Guardian

  1967

  20 March 1992

  Putford Osprey

  1960

  1 July 1992

  Putford Petrel

  1961

  26 March 1992

  Putford Skua

  1967

  9 September 1992

  Putford Snipe

  1969

  3 January 1992

  Putford Teal

  1969

  24 June 1992

  Putford Tern

  1967

  19 August 1992

  Safe Carrier

  1968

  21 May 1992

  Safe Protector

  1974

  10 April 1992

  Safe Transporter

  1971

  16 March 1992

  Safe Truck

  1976

  16 October 1992

  Scott Protector

  1974

  20 July 1992

  Sea Sapphire

  1973

  3 April 1992

  Seaboard Capella

  1968

  14 August 1992

  Seaboard Castor

  1947

  24 April 1992

  Seaboard Illustrious

  1966

  24 April 1992

  Seaboard Implacable

  1964

  12 August 1992

  Seaboard Integrity

  1968

  13 August 1992

  Seaboard Intrepid

  1968

  11 August 1992

  Seaboard Sapphire

  1980

  6 April 1992

  Seaboard Sceptre

  1981

  27 August 1992

  Seaboard Scout

  1975

  4 August 1992

  Seaboard Sentry

  1979

  30 September 1992

  Seaboard Skua

  1972

  30 March 1992

  Seaboard Snipe

  1972

  26 June 1992

  Seaboard Sovereign

  1979

  7 July 1992

  Seaboard Support

  1979

  18 March 1992

  Seaboard Supreme

  1981

  29 July 1992

  Seaboard Swallow

  1972

  2 March 1992

  Seaboard Swan

  1971

  30 April 1992

  Seaboard Swift

  1972

  1 July 1992

  Shetland Service

  1973

  2 September 1992

  St. Elizabeth

  1962

  5 October 1992

  St. Kitts

  1964

  20 December 1991

  St. Louis

  1962

  25 August 1992

  St. Patrick

  1975

  9 October 1992

  St. Paul

  1961

  17 January 1992

  St. Phillip

  1975

  23 September 1992

  Tempest

  1977

  9 March 1992

  Toisa Conqueror

  1976

  7 November 1991

  Toisa Lynx

  1983

  1 October 1992

  Toisa Petrel

  1983

  2 September 1992

  Toisa Plover

  1979

  28 February 1992

  Toisa Sentinel

  1982

  12 March 1992

  Toisa Teal

  1981

  1 May 1992

  Toisa Tiger

  1983

  6 July 1992

  Toisa Widgeon

  1981

  10 December 1991

  Umberleigh

  1960

  22 July 1992

  91

  Shipname

  Year of build

  Date of last survey

  Veesea Diamond

  1979

  13 February 1992

  Veesea Emerald

  1980

  7 May 1992

  Veesea Garnet

  1975

  3 September 1992

  Veesea Hurricane

  1975

  21 August 1992

  Veesea Sapphire

  1977

  27 July 1992

  Veesea Storm

  1975

  9 October 1992

  Veesea Tempest

  1974

  29 September 1992

  Veesea Topaz

  1978

  23 October 1992

  Veesea Tornado

  1974

  16 September 1992

  Veesea Typhoon

  1976

  2 October 1992

  Veesea Zircon

  1976

  7 August 1992

  Viking Fighter

  1986

  9 December 1991

  Winkleigh

  1961

  29 March 1992

  Woodleigh

  1960

  9 October 1992

  Search and Rescue Helicopters
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the cost to his Department of the Bristow's search and rescue helicopter based at(a) Sumburgh, (b) Stornoway and (c) Lee-on-Solent for the years 1990–91, 1991–92 and the tender price for 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Mr. Norris
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Sumburgh £'000

  Stornaway £'000

  Solent £'000

  1990–91

  1,874

  1,934

  1,943

  1991–92

  1,860

  1,999

  1,868

  1992–93 1

  1,968

  2,250

  2,035

  1993–94 1

  2,079

  2,434

  2,363

  1 Forecast.

  Helicopters
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the members and the organisations they represent of the helicopter coverage group.

  Mr. Norris
  The numbers of the United Kingdom civil rescue helicopter coverage working group, who all signed the report on 28 October 1986, were as follows:

  Capt. P. K. C. Harris CBE MNI RN (Retd)

  Chairman, Chief Coastguard

  Lt Cdr H. J. Neill RN (Retd)

  Chief Operations Officer HM Coastguard

  Mr. B. d'Oliveira OBE

  Department of Transport, Civil Aviation Safety Adviser

  Cdr D. B. Cairns RD MNI RN (Retd)

  Chief of Operations Royal National Lifeboat Institution

  Mr. M. Haworth

  MOD Sec (NATO/UK) Commitments

  Wing Cdr I. H. R. Robins MBE MRAeS MBIM RAF

  Wing Commander HELS/SAR HQ Strike Command

  Cdr D. Scott RN

  MOD Directorate of Naval Warfare

  Mr. M. J. Woodhead

  Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, Fisheries Inspectorate

  Mr. J. Tarvit

  Deputy Chief Inspector of Fisheries

  92

  Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (Scotland)

  Mr. W. Hay

  President Scottish Fishermen's Federation

  Mr. D. R. Brooks

  SEC UK Committee, DTp

  Royal National Lifeboat Institution
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what discussions he has had with the Royal National Lifeboat Institution about siting fast afloat boats at Tenby, Angle, St. Justinians and Fishguard by April 1994; and if he will make a statement on their response;

  (2) what discussions he has had with the board of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution over the withdrawal of search and rescue operations from RAF Brawdy in April 1994.

  Mr. Norris
  As a significant provider of dedicated United Kingdom search and rescue—SAT—assets, the RNLI was consulted by my Department on the implications for civil SAR consequent upon the Ministry of Defence future provision of military helicopters, including the withdrawal of such facilities from RAF Brawdy. The decision of the location of their vessels is for them, but the RNLI said that priority would be given to an early allocation in South Wales during 1994 of its new fast afloat boat—FAB. Firm decisions are expected during the first part of 1993 following normal RNLI internal consultation processes and the initiation of procurement procedures.

  The RNLI informs us that fast afloat lifeboats will only be stationed at a location where they can be supported. Tenby, Angle and St. Davids (St. Justinians) are slip-launch facilities and the RNLI has no intention of stationing FABs at these stations.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Mobility Allowance
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people received mobility allowance in 1979; and how many now receive it.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In 1979, a total of 95,000 people received mobility allowance; by 1992 this figure had risen to 600,000—a more than sixfold increase. The introduction of disability living allowance will extend help with mobility costs even further.

  Retirement Pension
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to means test the basic state retirement pension; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  None.

  Severe Disability Premium
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will amend the income support regulations to extend entitlement to the severe disability premium to claimants living with non-dependants.
  93
  Mr. Burt
  Some people living with non-dependants already have entitlement to the severe disability premium, but I have no plans to extend the premium to everyone who lives with non-dependants.

  Fraud
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress his Department has made to reduce the level of fraudulent claims for social security benefits.

  Mr. Burt
  We have stepped up the fight against fraud and abuse by introducing a number of organisational changes. More are planned. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has set a target of £460 million savings in this area for this year.

  Social Fund
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes his Department is considering to the operation of the social fund.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the operation of the social fund.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he intends to publish a detailed response to the recent report from York university social policy research unit on the social fund; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  I am carefully examining the various reports about the social fund. No decisions have been made about any changes in the future operation of the fund. As. I told the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) earlier, I am announcing today increases in social fund budgets for every district.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consideration he has given to the introduction of an appeals procedure for those refused help from the social fund; and what was his conclusion.

  Mr. Scott
  Social fund maternity, funeral and cold weather payments already have an appeal procedure. For discretionary social fund payments, I believe that the existing specialised review procedure provides an effective and independent means of redress.

  I am pleased to say that both the Social Security Advisory Committee and independent research from the Policy Studies Institute support my view.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the impact on charitable organisations of the operation of the social fund; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Evidence from the recent report by the university of York's social policy research unit suggests that few people approach charities as an alternative to the social fund.

  In many other European Community countries the schemes for one-off payments are organised at a regional or local level, and greater emphasis is often placed on help from charities and voluntary organisations.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received concerning the delay in the payment of attendance allowance; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We have received many letters about claims to attendance allowance. The chief executive of the Benefits Agency wrote to all hon. Members on 19 October setting out the positive steps which the agency has taken to accelerate the processing of claims to attendance allowance and disability living allowance.

  Pensioners (Income Support)
  Ms. Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many old-age pensioners are currently in receipt of income support.

  Miss Widdecombe
  There are 1·4 million people over pension age claiming income support and our increases last month in income support for pensioners, at an additional cost of £300 million, will no doubt have benefited yet more.

  Benefits System (Computerisation)
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what evidence he has of improvements in the service offered by the social security offices as a result of a computerisation of the benefits system.

  Mr. Burt
  The first stage of a major programme to bring computers to the Department's local offices was completed in July 1991.

  This has led to significant improvements in the service provided to the public. The time taken to process income support and retirement pension claims is much reduced and many routine activities such as benefits uprating and Christmas bonus payments are now automated.

  These improvements have been achieved without additional cost to the taxpayer.

  Low-income Families
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of low-income families which faced marginal reduction rates in excess of 100 per cent. in 1978–79 and the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Burt
  In 1985, a total of 70,000 families had deduction rates of over 100 per cent. These are the earliest figures available. As a result of the social security reforms, almost no families have marginal deduction rates of over 100 per cent. in 1992–93.

  Disability Benefits
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the payment of disability benefits.

  Mr. Scott
  Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, wrote to hon. Members on 19 October setting out the positive steps which the Benefits Agency is taking to accelerate the processing of claims to disability living allowance and attendance allowance; he is confident that work outstanding will soon be at normal levels.

  Benefits
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the amount of money currently spent on social security benefits.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Our plans show that total expenditure on benefits in 1992–93 will be over £71 billion.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by how much family credit increased in April 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  As well as increasing family credit rates by 7 per cent., the other changes we introduced in April 1992 made the benefit available to more people. By July 1992, an extra 75,000 families were receiving family credit compared with July 1991.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the level of Government pensioner provision for those over 80 years and for disabled pensioners.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Older and disabled pensioners have gained considerably from benefit increases. Since the 1988 reforms this group alone has received £360 million per year over and above normal upratings. This demonstrates our commitment to help those pensioners most in need.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what fresh initiatives he proposes to introduce to safeguard the means of older people who lack a private income or personal pension other than the state pension and benefits.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Premiums for pensioners receiving income-related benefits were increased last month. Since 1989, these pensioners have received nearly £700 million a year above the normal uprating. We remain committed to safeguarding their interests.

  Social Security Policy
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement outlining major new announcements on Government social security policy announced since the end of July.

  Mr. Scott
  On 7 August, we announced measures to crack down on unemployed people, including new age travellers, who claim benefit but make no real effort to find work.

  In addition, on 17 September we published a consultation paper on the law and practice of occupational pensions schemes.

  Pregnant Women (Benefits)
  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will meet the Equal Opportunities Commission to discuss his views about women who deliberately become pregnant to gain benefit advantages.

  Mr. Burt
  Ministers meet representatives of the Equal Opportunities Commission as necessary to discuss issues 96
  of mutual concern. I am, of course, willing to receive representations from the commission concerning issues which come within my ministerial responsibilities. My officials are also in regular touch with the commission.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest estimate of the numbers of income support claimants in private care or nursing homes whose personal resources, including income support, do not meet the fees they are expected to pay.

  Mr. Burt
  The number of residents in all voluntary and private homes whose total income support does not meet the fees is about 92,000. Separate estimates for private and voluntary homes are not available.

  Information is not available on how many of these have disregarded benefits, income or capital with which to meet any shortfalls.

  Pensioners (Central Heating)
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioner households had central heating in 1979 and in 1990.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The percentage of pensioner households with central heating in 1979 was 43 per cent., increasing to 74 per cent. in 1990.

  Pit Closures
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to increase the social fund budget in areas affected by mining closures.

  Mr. Scott
  Social fund budget allocations are based on income support caseloads. Changes in the number of unemployed people claiming income support in individual districts will influence their future allocations. In this way allocations respond to local circumstances overall rather than to changes in any single industry.

  Appointments
  Mr Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list all the names of public appointments that he has made, giving the period for which the appointment was made, relevant qualifications of the appointees and what remuneration each currently receives.

  Miss Widdecombe
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is responsible for a large number of public appointments. The information requested for each of these could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, information is available from the Cabinet Office publications "Public Bodies" and "Public Appointments: A Handbook for Women's Organisations", copies of which are in the Library.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how the training bonus paid to an unemployed person participating in employment training at the completion of their course is taken into account when assessing a subsequent claim for income support from that person; and if he will make a statement.
  97
  Mr. Burt
  Any payment not exceeding £200 received as a training bonus is disregarded. The whole of any bonus payment in excess of this amount is treated as capital but would only affect entitlement to benefit if the total capital held is more than £3,000.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of income support is the ceiling set by the Community Charges (Deductions from Income Support) (No. 2) Regulations 1990—SI 1990, No 545—for deductions ordered by courts for arrears of poll tax; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  The regulations provide for an amount to be deducted equal to 5 per cent. of the income support personal allowance for a single claimant aged 25 years or more, currently £2·15 per week, or, in the case of a court order made against a couple, 5 per cent. of the income support personal allowance for a couple where both members are aged 18 years or over, currently £3·35 per week. It is not possible to say what proportion of an individual's income support these amounts represent, as entitlement varies from case to case.

  Correspondence
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what arrangements have been made since the letter of 6 October from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Lord Henley, to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford to provide a better service for correspondence on operational issues.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of disability living allowance is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Ms. Joan Ruddock, dated 30 October 1992:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised m your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking what arrangements have been made since the letter from the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Lord Henley, in connection with a constituency case, to provide a better service for correspondence on operational matters.
  In relation to Disability Living Allowance (DLA), the matter you raised in your earlier correspondence, we have received over four thousand enquiries from MPs about the progress of their constituents' claims and consequently we have not been able to respond as quickly as we would have liked. We have targeted considerable extra resources into this area and are pursuing the clearance of outstanding written enquiries as quickly as possible.
  As I explained in my letter of 6 July and 19 October to all MPs, I appreciate that you will have constituents who are seriously concerned about the progress of their claim to DLA. To facilitate your enquiries on their behalf the telephone hotline remains available for MPs who have very urgent enquiries and this service will be maintained until at least the end of the year.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy of this reply will appear in the Official Report. Copies are also being placed in the Library.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (I) if he will list by month for the past 12 months 98
  the number of unemployed 16 and l7-year-olds in the Doncaster area who received financial support due to non-availability of places on a training scheme;

  (2) if he will list by month for the past 12 months how many unemployed 16 and 17-year-olds in the Doncaster area received income support under the severe hardship provision.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of benefits 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 a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Mr. Michael Bichard to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 30 October 1992:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking if he will list by month for the last 12 months the number of unemployed 16 and 17 year olds in the Doncaster area who received financial support due to non-availability of places on a training scheme and those who received Income Support under the severe hardship provision.
  I have detailed below the total number of applications under the severe hardship provisions and the number in which payment was awarded. Unemployed 16 and 17 year olds who receive payment due to non-availability of places on a training scheme form the same group of customers.
  Details of the total number of claims to severe hardship payments do not equate with the number of customers. This is because the statistics cover the number of applications, rather than the number of individuals who have claimed. Some customers may have made more than one application.

  Total applications

  Successful applications

  1991

  October

  36

  26

  November

  41

  30

  December

  28

  22

  1992

  January

  54

  39

  February

  43

  37

  March

  43

  27

  April

  56

  38

  May

  48

  29

  June

  48

  40

  July

  39

  31

  August

  42

  30

  September

  53

  39

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

  Local Office, Doncaster
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for each local office in the Doncaster area benefit agency how many staff, full-time equivalent, were employed for each quarter in 1991 and(a) income support, (b) contributions, (c) direct payments, (d) social fund, (e) fraud, (f) child support and (g) total, respectively; and what is the position for the latest available date.

  Mr. Scott
  The resourcing of offices is a matter for Mr. Michael Richard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Mr. Michael Bichard to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 30 October 1992:

  99
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking how many staff, full time equivalent, were employed by the Benefits Agency's Doncaster District for each quarter in 1991; and what is the position for the latest available date.
  The number of staff employed in the Doncaster District for each quarter in 1991; and at 30 September 1992, the latest date for which information is available, are attached at Annexes A to E.
  The staffing figures have been broken down as far as possible. For operational reasons it is not possible to identify separately staff on Income Support, Social Fund and Contributory Benefits within each site.
  I should explain that Mexborough Office, which was previously included in the Doncaster District, is now part of the Rotherham District. The staffing levels of that office have therefore been excluded from the attached Annexes.
  Information about staffing levels in the Contributions Agency and Child Support Unit has been provided by their respective Chief Executives, Miss Ann Chant and Ms. Ros Hepplewhite.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy of this reply will appear in the Official Report. Copies are also being placed in the Library.
  The information has been placed in the Library.

  Pensioners' Incomes
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of the average pensioner's income comes from occupational pensions, savings and earnings.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The latest information held on pensioners' income shows that 74 per cent. of pensioners have income from savings, 57 per cent. have occupational pensions and 9 per cent. have earnings from work.

  Note: Based on pensioner units ie single pensioners at or over state pension age and married couples where the husband is at or above state pension age.

  Source: 1988 Family Expenditure Survey.

  Mirror Group
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action is currently being considered by his Department as a result of the unlawful removal of pension funds of the Mirror Group Newspapers plc; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East(Mr. Congdon)on 27 October at columns 643–46.

  Social Security Expenditure
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of total Government expenditure he estimates the social security budget will represent in this current financial year; and what were the figures for the previous three years.

  Mr. Scott
  Total social security spending as a proportion of general Government expenditure is given in the table.

  Per cent.

  1989–90

  26·57

  1990–91

  27·38

  1991–92

  28·97

  1992–93

  29·14

  100
  Note—1991–92 based on figures for estimated outturn 1992–93 based on planned expenditure.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he next intends to review the level and operation of cold weather payments.

  Mr. Scott
  Very significant improvements to the cold weather payments scheme were introduced last winter, including the automatic payment of eligible people without the need to make a claim. The scheme is kept under regular review, and some further refinements in individual areas' links with weather stations are planned for introduction this winter.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the employers' financial responsibility will be for maternity pay under the EC directive on the protection at work of pregnant women.

  Mr. Scott
  We are considering the directive's implications for maternity benefits and will make an announcement in due course.

  Income Statistics
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the increase in real average income before and after housing costs, for each of the decile groups, in the upper half of the population between 1979 and 1988–9.

  Mr. Burt
  Real increases in the income beteen 1979 and 1988–89 combined for the decile groups in the upper half of the income distribution are given in the table. These figures relate to the United Kingdom and are based on income equivalised for household size and composition.

  Percentage changes in real income by decile group 1979 to 1988–89

  Decile group

  Income before housing costs

  Income after housing costs

  Sixth

  22

  24

  Seventh

  25

  27

  Eighth

  28

  30

  Ninth

  35

  37

  Tenth (top)

  44

  46

  Unemployment
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the level of benefit payment expenditure to unemployed people for each year since 1979–80, and the average benefit entitlement per claimant annually.

  Mr. Burt
  [holding answer 28 October 1992]: Expenditure on benefits to unemployed people since 1979–80 is shown in the table. The average benefit payment per claimant is not available. Unemployed people may receive all, one or any combination of unemployment benefit, income support, housing benefit, community charge benefit or a loan from the social fund. So the actual number of claimants who receive benefits for unemployment is not known.
  101

  Annual expenditure £ million

  1979–80

  1,470

  1980–81

  2,530

  1981–82

  4,022

  1982–83

  5,011

  1983–84

  5,701

  1984–85

  6,139

  1985–86

  6,963

  1986–87

  7,308

  1987–88

  6,647

  1988–89

  5,235

  1989–90

  4,309

  1990–91

  5,036

  1991–92

  7,362

  Note: Benefits for unemployed people include Unemployment Benefit, the principal income-related benefits and payments from the Social Fund to unemployed people and their families. The table does not include child benefit, one parent benefit, maternity benefits, widows' benefits or any of the disability benefits to which unemployed people may also be entitled.

  Communications
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will make it his policy that communications from the North Fylde central office of the DSS shall provide(a) the date of the communication, (b) the name of the official responsible, (c) the telephone and extension number of that official and (d) a clear statement of the current position of the application.
  102
  Mr. Scott
  Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, has replied to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mr. Michael Bichard to Mr. Alun Michael, dated 29 October 1992:
  As chief executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking whether it would become policy that communications from the Fylde Benefits and War Pensions Directorate of the DSS (North Fylde Central Office prior to April 1991) would provide (a) the date of the communication, (b) the name of the official responsible, (c) the telephone and extension number of the official and (d) a clear statement of the current position on the application.
  I can confirm that it is the policy of all branches of the Fylde Benefits and War Pensions Directorate to provide the date of the communication together with the name, telephone and extension number of the official concerned on correspondence issued to customers, although where the outcome of a claim is notified via a computer system, it is not currently possible to include the name of an official nor a telephone extension.
  For Disability Living Allowance, we have set up a Central Enquiry Service for the handling of telephone calls from customers. The use of extension numbers for customers contacting this service is not generally appropriate since the overwhelming majority of calls are answered without further referral. Staff on this service routinely give their name when answering the telephone.
  Statements on the current position of an application for a benefit or pension administered at Fylde Benefits and War Pensions Directorate are also provided where appropriate.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy of this reply will appear in the Official Report. Copies are also being placed in the Library.

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

Lord Braine of Wheatley
The Right Honourable Sir Bernard Richard Braine, Knight, having been created Baron Braine of Wheatley, of Rayleigh in the County of Essex, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Mowbray and Stourton and the Lord Harmar-Nicholls.

Lord Barber of Tewkesbury
Sir Derek Coates Barber, Knight, having been created Baron Barber of Tewkesbury, of Gotherington in the County of Gloucestershire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Marlesford and the Lord Ridley of Liddesdale.
Lord Moyola—Took the Oath.
Lord Banbury of Southam—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
Earl St. Aldwyn: —Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Engineering: Finniston Report
3 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovila Lord Peyton of Yeovila asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the progress made in implementing the recommendations of the 1980 Finniston report, Engineering our Future.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, much progress has been made but there is still work to do. We shall continue to encourage the profession and industry to secure further improvement in UK engineering.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does not my noble friend believe that her phrase "there is still work to do" is perhaps the understatement of the century? Does my noble friend recall that Finniston forecast a shortage of engineers by the late 1980s? That would lead to a lack of competitiveness on the part of our industry and that in turn would lead to high levels of long-term unemployment. Does not the Minister think that the central recommendation of the report that the Engineering Council should have some teeth and some edge to it should now be given force?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the phrase "there is still work to do" is meant to show that we are not complacent. The professions and industry are also involved in this matter. There is much work to
1306
do by the industry as regards its engineers. I question my noble friend's comment on the lack of good engineering. In the third quarter, manufactured exports were nearly three-quarters higher than in 1981.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, will the noble Baroness agree with me that the surviving members of the Finniston Committee, of whom I am one and several of whom I met a few weeks ago, do not believe that progress has been in any way remarkable? In fact, we find progress very difficult to discern. Will the Minister answer a question which I have asked her before; namely, can she justify the disparity in funding—and this is important—between the Design Council, which deals with some of the products of engineering, and the Engineering Council, which deals principally with engineers rather than engineering? Does she recall that the Design Council receives public funding to the tune of something like £6 million per year? That is rather more than the Engineering Council has ever received in the eight years of its existence.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Howie, appreciates that one of the main reasons that no statutory body was set up following the Finniston report was because of the objections of the professions. The Engineering Council, with a Royal Charter, was a solution to that.
I am sure that the noble Lord will be pleased with the work of the Fairclough Initiative, which is trying to weld together the total strength of engineering. Perhaps I may correct the idea that design is restricted purely to product. It is relevant also to process. The Engineering Council is not suffering from a lack of funds.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, what support are the Government giving to the recently proposed unification of the profession to which the noble Baroness just referred in order to strengthen its organisation in this country, so sustaining British engineers who have been leading the world for 200 years?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, my noble friend will understand that we look forward to the results of Sir John Fairclough's deliberations with enormous interest and can only feel that there will be benefit from them. However, I am sure that he and others in this House will appreciate that telling the professional institutions what to do is not a productive process.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, are we not in danger of putting the cart before the horse? Does the noble Baroness agree that a current shortage of engineers means an earlier shortage of engineering students, which in turn means an earlier shortage of encouragement of young people in schools to go into engineering? It is not an easy subject to teach in school, apart from elementary statics and dynamics. We must do something about it now in the hope that something will happen 10 years hence.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Earl. However, the

1307
national curriculum ensures provision of mathematics and science suitable for all pupils regardless of race, gender or ability. One of the most obvious outcomes of that and previous work is that there are now double the number of women studying engineering.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, following the Minister's response to an earlier question when she said that the Government are not complacent, can she say how many engineering apprentices are at present under training as compared with 1980?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, no, I am afraid I cannot. I shall certainly obtain the figure. Perhaps I can point out that there are increasing numbers of engineering undergraduates and that will reflect in the level of engineering.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it is a long-standing problem referred to in the Donovan Report? Further to the question of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, ought not some constructive steps be taken after the warning given long ago in the Donovan Report?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I hope that we are not questioning that we have some of the best engineers in the world and that work is being done. I must refer to my previous answer that the process in education is being dealt with.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the noble Baroness recall the key recommendations of the Finniston report which were that regeneration of the United Kingdom manufacturing competitiveness must be given overriding priority—I repeat, overriding priority—in national policies; that government employers and trade unions must work together within a major national programme for training and re-training of employees of all ages; and that an enhanced role for the National Economic Development Council to bring together relevant official bodies is essential? In the light of what has happened, does the noble Baroness still accept those objectives?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I accept wholeheartedly the key role that manufacturing plays in the UK economy. Much has already been achieved when we look at the fact that productivity grew faster in this country than in any other major industrial country in the 1980s.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to press the matter, but does the noble Baroness agree with the recommendation of the Finniston report, published in 1980, that government employers and trade unions must work together? Secondly, does she agree with the idea of an enhanced role for the National Economic Development Council, which the Government have just abolished?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, it is important to provide successful manufacturing. There is every indication that that is happening.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will my noble friend try to persuade her colleagues that if they now allow a note of urgency to creep into the matter, they will not be blamed for being over-hasty? I realise it is a forlorn prayer but it would be nice if someone could plant a vestige of engineering influence in the Treasury.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am pleased to assure my noble friend that I played my part by being six years on the Engineering Council. The sense of urgency in the manufacturing field is shared by government, industry and the professions.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, does the Minister realise that the Fairclough proposals point in the direction of the revival of something like the Council of Engineering Institutions? From her period with the Engineering Council, does she recall that it was the failure of the Council of Engineering Institutions which led to the setting up of the Finniston Committee? It seems that we are rapidly heading back to square one.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I fear that very few things are before my time, but that was.

The Jubilee Line
3.10 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston Lord Sefton of Garston asked Her Majesty's Government:
What discussions they or London Underground are engaged in concerning the completion of the Jubilee Line extension.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, discussions are taking place with the administrators of Canary Wharf about the financing of the Jubilee Line extension.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very brief reply. I am not quite certain that he has read my Question. It is not about Canary Wharf but refers to possible discussions which have taken place with the Government or London Underground. It seems to me that the Minister is aware that London Transport anticipates reducing by about £230 million the amount expected by the Government from developers. Does the Minister know that London Transport has spent £150 million in preparatory work? As regards relocating Marsham Street staff to Canary Wharf, can the Minister say when the first decision was taken to relocate the staff and therefore to pull down the building? Has any agreement been reached between British Gas and London Underground as regards payment by developers? Has that been made? Were the Government aware that London Transport has decided to move 2,000 staff to Canary Wharf or were they not told?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as regards one of the many questions which the noble Lord asked me, he will recall that I provided him with a Written Answer on 27th October, which is not so long ago, confirming

1309
that over £140 million has so far been spent on the preparatory work in connection with the Jubilee Line extension. As regards the movement of some civil servants to Docklands, such movement would be on the basis only of the best value for money for the taxpayer.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm the reports which suggest that 12,000 jobs will be created if the Jubilee Line extension goes ahead?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not know the answer to that question, but there certainly will be a number of jobs.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, the Minister will understand that we are in a hopeless position concerning this extension. We read in the press that one day the Government say "yes"; the next day they say "no". Can we have a definite answer? It is a very disturbing situation. Does the Minister understand that the London Docklands Development Corporation has no future unless this extension is granted?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we all have great respect for the noble Lord. However, perhaps he should not pay so much attention to what he reads in the press. I have read it too. The information tends to vary. The truth of the situation is exactly the same as that spelt out by my noble friend Lord Parkinson when he had responsibility for the job. He said:
"As we have already made clear the line would only be built if sufficient contributions are forthcoming from property developers and other landowners who would benefit".—[Official Report, Commons 26/7/89; col.729.]
That is the situation at the moment.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, although the Jubilee Line extension would be of great benefit to Canary Wharf and Docklands, it would also open up large areas of south London which hitherto have not been served by an underground railway? Does he further agree that that would be of great benefit to them? Does he also agree that, if we are looking for infrastructure projects to start in the near future if we are to get the construction industry moving, the Jubilee Line extension is one which is ready to go the day after approval is given?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend who has a great deal of experience in this particular area. Of course it would open up large parts of London which have not been opened up so far. It is a scheme which has been well prepared. We have given London Underground Limited the money to continue the preparatory work in order that the scheme can go ahead if and when a decision is taken.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, does the Minister agree that far too many big projects have not been fully thought out as to what they require in terms of roads, bridges and so forth? For example, the M.25 was built and everyone forgot about the Dartford Tunnel. As regards the Channel Tunnel, we still do not
1310
have a road linking it. Does the Minister agree that these projects should be fully planned and not dealt with piecemeal?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I understand it, this project has been very carefully thought out.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords. is it not foolish to allow a piece of important infrastructure such as the Jubilee Line to rely entirely on the whims of market forces?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is not a question of the whims of market forces, but of a partnership between those who will benefit and who should make a contribution, as with other projects, and the large amount of taxpayers' money which the Government would put into it.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, will the Government say yes or no?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I said, discussions are progressing. We will let the House know as soon as possible.
Lord Desai: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, with the depth of the recession and the seriousness of the unemployment problem, the one single gesture which the Government could make to restore confidence would be to say unequivocally and unilaterally that the Jubilee Line extension will be built as of tomorrow?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there is certainly no doubt about the desirability of the Jubilee Line. I am sure that the noble Lord, wearing his particular financial hat, would wish to see an agreement first.
Lord Annan: My Lords, the Minister said a moment ago that the contributions would have to come from people who will benefit from the scheme. Is he including the working class population of the Isle of Dogs? Is he expecting them to make a contribution comparable to that made by industry on the analogy of the poll tax?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord misunderstood precisely what I said. What has been made clear on a number of occasions—and I have made it clear from this Dispatch Box before—is that there are certain contributions from landowners about which we need to seek agreement before we can proceed.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the Minister realise that it is an absurd proposition to infer that this project, which is so critical to London and the United Kingdom, is somehow or other linked only to the parochial interests of Canary Wharf? Does he not realise that that is an absurd proposition for the Government to advance? When are they going to put the infrastructure of London on a par with that of other European capitals where very much more has been invested, even taking into account the projected investment here, which the Government have permitted?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not believe that I said that the Jubilee Line is entirely dependent

1311
on Canary Wharf. I believe that the noble Lord is totally wrong on that. We have said—and I repeat it to the noble Lord—that there is great desirability for this project. It benefits a lot of people besides those in Docklands. But of course an agreement has to be reached first.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Canary Wharf and the Jubilee Line extension is not priority number one with London Transport? Is he aware that there are several other things which that body considers more urgent? Does he agree that if the Jubilee Line project goes ahead, the probability will be that some parts of London which need investment will be starved of it? Does the Minister further agree that if these overweight developments continue in London, the regions themselves will be starved?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is interesting to note the difference between the noble Lords, Lord Desai, and Lord Sefton, as to the desirability of the Jubilee Line.

Maastricht Treaty: Text
3.18 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will explain the circumstances in which the text of Article 3(b) of the Treaty of Maastricht agreed on 10th December 1991 (CONF-UP-1862/91) became altered in the text as initialled by the Foreign Secretary on 7th February 1992, without his knowledge, by the substitution of the word "competence" for the word "jurisdiction" in the first phrase of paragraph 2 of the original text which read "In the areas which do not fall within its exclusive jurisdiction, the Community shall … ".
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker): My Lords, the change was made, with the Government's approval, in the jurists/linguists group in the Council Secretariat. Their role is to ensure that texts mean the same thing in each language and are consistent with Community legislative usage and practice. It reflects the usual translation of the French word "competence".
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I was being most charitable to her right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in assuming that he had not known about it, because the matter is a complete nonsense? Is she aware that as recently as 19th June 1991 the Government were insisting on the precise words of Article 3(b) which appear in the version published on 10th December? Is the noble Baroness further aware that there is a difference between the words "jurisprudence"—
Noble Lords: Jurisdiction.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am sorry, I meant jurisdiction. Is the noble Lady aware that there
1312
is a difference between "jurisdiction" and "competence", as was recognised by the Prime Minister as recently as his own party conference on 9th October when he said:
"That means outside the Treaty of Rome; outside the jurisdiction of the European Court; outside the competence of the European Commission. We have wanted this principle established for years. And we now have it in the Treaty I agreed".
That makes a complete distinction between "compe-tence" and "jurisprudence"—
Noble Lords: Jurisdiction.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am sorry. Between "competence" and "jurisdiction".
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, listening to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, I think that he has already answered his own question. The provisions of the treaty assign exclusive competence to the Community in a number of areas; for example, agriculture and the common agricultural policy. Equally, competence is shared with member states elsewhere. I do not believe that what the noble Lord said is correct. I shall look again at the matter, but we must have an identical meaning from one language to the next when we are dealing with nine languages, and that is exactly why this change was made—so that there is no criticism and no dispute about it. It is a direct translation of the French word "competence".
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, given that the noble Baroness and the Government are satisfied with the definitions of the words "competence" and "jurisdiction", why are this Government and other governments having such great difficulty in defining "subsidiarity"?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I have to say that that is a different word. However, I think that the answer is that what we are really concerned with, and what the Birmingham Council endorsed, is the need to work out how subsidiarity is put into practice. That is what the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, is most interested in. That is why we need the new procedures in the Council. We need to work out with the Commission and with the European Parliament a consistent set of criteria for applying the subsidiarity test. We also need to apply that test to examples in existing and proposed legislation. I look forward to the first results of that examination at the Edinburgh Council.
Lord Renton: My Lords, while agreeing that "competence" is a much more suitable word in our language in this context, is my noble friend aware that the insertion in Article 3(b) of the concept of subsidiarity was a great achievement on the part of our Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary? However, if it is really necessary to give the matter more thought in order to ensure that it is made to work and does not become just a sort of lawyer's paradise, will my noble friend therefore ask those who are responsible in the Government to give the matter further consideration between now and the Edinburgh Council when, as I understand it, finality has to be reached?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend is right that it was a substantial achievement for my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary to get this into Article 3(b). However, I can assure him—I tried to say this in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn—that there is a great deal more thought going into this matter. That is why we need those procedures; we need a consistent set of criteria and we need to apply the test to examples. I can assure my noble friend that that work is going on apace at this very moment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, did the Government really know what they were signing when they signed the Maastricht Treaty, because the Foreign Secretary announced that, having signed it, he would now read the treaty? That is the first point. Secondly, is the noble Baroness aware—I am sure that she is—that at the Conservative Party conference the Prime Minister said that there was nothing about immigration and that no further powers would be given to the EC in that respect under the Maastricht Treaty? However, in Article 100(c) we see that the Commission and the institutions of the Treaty of Rome will be able to say who shall have visas and who shall not. If that is not about immigration, what is it?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I must put the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, right on the last point. The national Parliaments will decide who has visas and who does not. That will not be a matter of Community competence. I must also advise him that he is being very unfair to my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary who, when he said that he would then read the treaty, meant that he would read the treaty as a whole, having gone through every sub-clause (with all the notes attached) in the preparations before the debate in another place on the negotiating mandate that we took to Maastricht, and then having gone through it all again afterwards. The noble Lord must not quote things out of context.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, would the Minister—
Noble Lords: Next Question.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I think that we have only five minutes left and one more Question. Perhaps we had better move on.

NHS Dental Treatment
3.27 p.m.
Lord Desai Lord Desai asked Her Majesty's Government:
What will he the availability of NHS treatment for patients compulsorily removed from dentists' patients lists after 1st October 1992.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, a well-established feature of the 1990 dental contract was that where a patient has not sought, or indeed a dentist has not offered, to extend the
1314
continuing care arrangement, it lapses after two years. Such patients can seek registration with another NHS dentist. Many will already have done so.
Lord Desai: My Lords, perhaps I may thank the Minister for that Answer. However, can she tell us how many people are currently at risk of being deregistered as a result of this change?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is a rolling programme. Clearly, those who have been registered for two years are now coming off the list. There is no danger that they will get no treatment because they will then be able to re-register with the same dentist or indeed choose another.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the British Dental Association has estimated that the loss of patients from the register is of the order of 1 million a month? Is she also aware that the total of the Government's spending on NHS dental treatment has declined since July when the Government imposed a fee cut on dentists, and that nearly half of the dentists are now refusing to take on any more new patients under the NHS? Does that not mean that there must be an increasing number of patients who are now having to seek treatment in the private sector?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, no. In fact, on 16th October 1992 only 84 dentists in England had notified their family health services authority of their wish to withdraw from the NHS. That is less than half a per cent. of the total.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that, in the Barking area, for example, the community health council believes that 2,000 people will be deregistered by their dentists and that there are no National Health Service dentists at all in Braintree at the moment? Is she further aware that the regional health authorities covering these areas are trying to look into alternative means of providing national health dentistry, possibly by a salaried service?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I appreciate that there are certain pockets of difficulty. It is up to the regional health authorities and the family health services authorities to grasp this issue. Indeed, FHSAs have a duty to make arrangements for the provision of general dental services. Of course, it is open to them to consider the need for a salaried dentist if they feel that that is appropriate.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the Minister has referred to the number of dentists who have left the NHS, but I referred to the number who, while retaining their existing patients in the NHS, are refusing to take on any more, which is very different from what she said.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I think that I have put it quite clearly: that less than half a per cent. of dentists have refused to take on National Health Service patients in the future.

European Economic Area Bill [H.L.]
3.28 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The European Economic Area Bill was introduced in your Lordships' House on 21st October. It implements the agreement in United Kingdom law. It confers on nationals of the member states of the European Free Trade Association treatment equivalent to that conferred for many purposes in UK legislation on nationals of the Community member states and it contains other provisions for implementing existing and future provisions of the agreement into UK law.
Your Lordships may find it helpful if I explain first the main contents of the agreement that creates the European Economic Area, or EEA. The agreement is between the Community and its member states and the states of EFTA. The members of EFTA are Austria, Finland, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland and Sweden. It will create an area of 19 countries throughout which the "four freedoms" of the Community will apply. These are the free movement of goods, capital, services and people.
In particular, many of the provisions of the Community's single market will be extended to apply to the area. EFTA countries will have to adapt their legislation to make it consistent with single market rules. Community member states will have to amend their legislation where required so as to cover the whole of the EEA. I shall now refer to the main effects of the agreement.
Provisions on the free movement of goods include the creation of common technical regulations, public procurement rules and intellectual property rules. In addition, discriminatory taxation will he prohibited and customs procedures and rules of origin will be streamlined. These and many other provisions will reduce barriers to trade, benefiting British exporters and improving choice for consumers.
Provisions relating to free movement of capital will cause most restrictions of EFTA states on inward investment to be lifted.
The agreement contains rules on free movement of services. The services covered include transport, telecommunications, audio-visual services and financial services. The establishment of the freedom to provide services throughout the EEA is a major achievement. This will create new opportunities for businesses in which the UK, in particular, has traditionally been strong. This is so especially in the field of financial services, where the EEA will adopt rules based on Community legislation on insurance, banking and securities.
Provisions on the free movement of persons will create a right for Community and EFTA nationals to work anywhere in the area. Community and EFTA nationals will be able to operate as self-employed persons throughout the area and to set up and manage undertakings under the same conditions as local nationals. Community and EFTA companies will be able to establish branches and subsidiaries.
1316
Professionals will be able to practise in any EEA country without the need to go through the process of requalifying. These provisions will greatly help UK companies and nationals who wish to operate in EFTA and consumers in the UK who will have more choice.
For a market to be truly open, it must have rules that ensure fair competition. One of the most important parts of the EEA agreement is that on competition and state aids. The EFTA countries will be subject to competition and state aids rules based on those of the Community. These will include rules on restrictive practices, monopoly abuse and mergers; and cases under the EC Merger Regulation will be assessed by their effect on competition throughout the Community and EFTA.
The agreement also covers other important provisions related to the four freedoms, including consumer protection, the environment, statistics and company law. It will establish increased co-operation between the Community and EFTA in Community programmes in fields such as R&D, information services, education, training and youth, small and medium-sized enterprises, tourism and the audiovisual sector.
The EEA is a dynamic agreement. EFTA will take on new measures related to the "four freedoms" as they are adopted by the Community. The importance of this evolutionary approach cannot be understated. It ensures that the agreement will continue to reflect reality. It also helps explain the provisions in the Bill before your Lordships, which has to provide for the further development of EEA legislation.
There are three other aspects of the EEA which I should mention briefly. EFTA will set up a fund to assist poorer regions of the Community. It will consist of 500 million ecus in grants over five years plus an interest rate subsidy of 3 per cent. on 1.5 billion ecus of loans. Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, Greece, Portugal and most parts of Spain will benefit. The Government fought hard to ensure that Northern Ireland was included.
The second element is fish. The agreement itself contains limited provisions on trade in fish, including the reduction of tariffs between the Community and EFTA which will liberalise trade in fish. But tariff reductions will not apply to mackerel, herring and salmon—three species of particular sensitivity to UK producers. Exchanges of letters related to, but separate from, the agreement will, among other things, give UK fishermen a greater share of fishery resources in Norwegian and Icelandic waters.
The third element is agriculture. The EFTA countries will not participate in the common agricultural policy. But the agreement contains a number of reciprocal tariff reductions on agricultural products.
To ensure that EFTA states comply with the rules in the agreement, EFTA will create a surveillance body with powers similar to the Commission and a court with a role similar to that of the European Court, within their more limited spheres. Operation of the agreement will be overseen by a Council consisting of Ministers, EC Commissioners and the EEA Joint

1317
Committee. The EEA Joint Committee will be responsible for clay-to-day running of the agreement, resolving disputes and agreeing amendments to the annexes to the agreement in order to take on new Community measures.
I noted earlier that Community member states will have to amend their legislation where required so as to cover the whole of the area. This is the purpose of the Bill. It will implement the UK's obligations under the agreement and allow us to ratify it.
The Bill contains three main provisions. It makes the agreement a Community treaty under UK law and it contains two general rules that modify UK legislation. I shall describe these provisions in turn. Clause I of the Bill amends Section 1(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 by adding the agreement to the list of Community treaties in that section. Clause 1 will have three main effects. First, provisions of the agreement that are directly applicable under Community law will be given legal effect in the UK by virtue of Section 2(1) of the 1972 Act without any further enactment. Secondly, EEA provisions that have direct effect under Community law will be given such effect under UK law. Examples of such provisions are those in the annexes—including ones about technical regulations and standards. Thirdly, the powers in Section 2(2) of the 1972 Act will apply so that regulations may be made for the purpose of implementing an obligation or exercising a right under the agreement or dealing with related matters.
It remains necessary to complete the implementation in UK law of provisions of the agreement which do not apply directly without national legislation. It is here that the two general rules contained in Clause 2(1) and Clause 3(1) will operate.
I should make important points about the general rules before describing each of them. The first point is that the Bill does not attempt to make individual amendments to all the Acts, subordinate legislation and other instruments that will be affected. Instead, the two general rules will modify all existing relevant legislation. The second is that both rules apply only to matters covered by the agreement on the date that it comes into force and to UK law that exists before that date. The rules will not implement future amendments to the agreement, and they will not modify future legislation. The third is that both rules modify only legislation that relates to a matter to which the agreement relates. Legislation relating to Community matters not covered by the agreement, such as the common agricultural policy, will not be affected by the Bill.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend a question. If they are not to be committed to the terms of the common agricultural policy, how does that affect any contribution that they may make in order to pay for the running of the EC as a general proposition? If they are not benefiting or suffering from one section, how does that affect their general membership?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I must tell my noble friend that their membership will be affected by those parts of the Community legislation
1318
with which the Bill is concerned. There are other areas besides the common agricultural policy which stay entirely out of the scope. Of course, not every member of EFTA has applied to join the Community.
Clause 2(1) contains the first general rule. The principle behind the rule is straightforward. Where legislation contains references to the Communities (or some connection with the Communities, such as member states) those references will be substituted by corresponding references to the European Economic Area—or some connection with the area—or to both the Communities and the area. The substitution will apply where the legislation is limited in its operation by the reference to the Communities. In that way, EFTA nationals will be treated under the legislation in question in the same way that Community nationals are treated. We have decided to confer equivalent treatment on EFTA nationals in matters to which the agreement relates whether or not that is required by the agreement, subject to a few exceptions. We have adopted that approach for two reasons. If we were to do no more than to implement our obligations, the effect on UK legislation would have been very complicated. In some areas, we would create one regime for the Community and another for EFTA. Companies and people in the UK would have to operate under an additional regulatory structure. That would create a burden that had little or no balancing advantage to justify it.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: They have done that, my Lords.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I should point out to my noble friend that we are now talking about a Bill to create the European Economic Area.
We believe, in any event, that it is right to treat EFTA nationals in the same way as Community nationals. The EFTA countries are important trading partners. Four of them have applied to join the Community. A fifth—Norway—may do so shortly. Providing equivalent treatment for EFTA nationals is consistent with the Government's desire to see early enlargement of the Community to include the EFTA countries.
The second general rule—that contained in Clause 3(1)—will operate only where the first does not apply. Clause 3(1) modifies provisions in UK legislation and certain other instruments where equivalent treatment will not be conferred by Clause 2(1). It modifies those provisions only in so far as is necessary to implement the UK's obligations under the agreement.
There are three circumstances in which Clause 3(1) rather than Clause 2(1) will apply. First, Clause 2(1) applies only to Acts and subordinate legislation. It does not apply to other types of instrument that have to be modified if the UK is to comply with its obligations. Those are instruments made by a person against whom the Community doctrine of direct effect may operate. An example of such an instrument is the articles of association of a company in which the Government have a controlling stake. We do not think it right that equivalent treatment should be imposed on such instruments by the Bill where the agreement does not require it.

1319
Secondly, Clause 2(1) will not apply to exceptions provided for in the schedule or by regulations under Clause 2(2) (b). For certain specific provisions of UK legislation, it is not appropriate that equivalent treatment should be conferred. One example is the regulations in the schedule that implement the Community public procurement directives. Some EFTA states will not have to implement those directives immediately. We do not think that it would be correct to give their contractors or suppliers rights in the UK that ours will not enjoy in their countries. Thirdly, Clause 2(1) may not effectively implement provisions in the agreement that contain adaptations to Community measures. In those circumstances, Clause 3(1) will implement obligations arising from the adaptations.
I have described the three provisions that form the core of the Bill: making the agreement a Community treaty in UK law; affording equivalent treatment to EFTA nationals; and implementing the UK's obligations where the first two provisions do not apply.
There is one other set of provisions to which I should draw your Lordships' attention. These are the new enabling powers in Clause 2(2) and Clause 3(2) and the extensions in Clause 2(4) and (5) to the powers under Section 2(2) of the 1972 Act. I have already referred to the power in Clause 2(2). It may prove necessary to add to the exceptions listed in the schedule. The power in Clause 3(2) allows effect to be given to suspensions of part of the agreement. They may arise where EFTA fails to agree to take on a new EEA rule, or where there is a dispute between the Community and EFTA.
The extensions to Section 2(2) of the 1972 Act are in subsections (4) and (5) of Clause 2. They are necessary for the following reasons. The modification of some legislation by the general rule in Clause 2(1) may leave the effect of that legislation unclear. Clause 2 extends Section 2(2) to permit it to be used to make express provision to provide equivalent treatment for EFTA. Section 2(2) may, of course, also be used to implement our obligations. We will be able to implement obligations arising from future EEA measures by using Section 2(2) in its unamended form. However, it would not be possible to use Section 2(2) to provide equivalent treatment for EFTA nationals where that is not required by the agreement. Section 2(2) would be extended by the Bill to allow such treatment to be conferred.
Finally, I should draw attention to the fact that the Minister for Trade has agreed with your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Communities suggesting procedures for the scrutiny by Parliament of proposals for new provisions to be added to the agreement. Our intention is that these should be firmly based on those that apply to Community proposals and, indeed, that any new EEA provision should be considered wherever possible at the same time as the related Community measure.
Those are the main provisions of the Bill. Although the Bill is short, it is complex. I have concentrated only on the main features. The detailed text will doubtless
1320
receive close attention from your Lordships in Committee. However, I hope that the purpose of the Bill—that is, to give effect to the European Economic Area agreement—will command your Lordships' general support. The agreement is perhaps the most ambitious and wide-ranging to be entered into by the Community with third countries. It will create the world's largest single market with 375 million consumers responsible for almost half of the world's trade. It will lead to benefits for both consumers and companies throughout the 19 countries. It will provide for closer co-operation between the Community and its closest European neighbours.
The UK is particularly well placed to take full advantage of the agreement. By geography, and our previous membership of EFTA, we have well-established trade links with all seven EFTA countries. In 1991 we earned £7.5 billion in visible exports to EFTA. That business has been won by a wide range of industries, many of which will enjoy additional benefits as a result of the EEA. There are opportunities across the board. They will come, for example, as a result of opening up public purchasing, the extension of Community standards making, and shared R&D programmes.
There are also specific sectoral benefits. EFTA markets will be opened up to cars meeting Community environment standards, and a wide variety of consumer goods manufacturers will benefit from EFTA states' recognition of EC product packaging and labelling requirements. There is substantial potential for the services sector. Financial services will be able to "passport" into EFTA countries. The aviation market will be opened up. UK professionals will be able to offer their services across all 19 member states of the EEA.
The creation of the EEA is an important part of the Government's desire to develop a Community that is open, outward-looking and market-oriented. It will facilitate accession to the Community by the growing number of EFTA countries which wish to apply, and it will ensure that trade within the larger part of Europe is based upon the principles of an open market and economy that we hope will extend one day throughout the whole of Europe.
Approval of the Bill by Parliament is essential if the UK is to be able to reap the benefits of this agreement, and I commend the Bill to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Jay: My Lords, before the Minister sits down perhaps she will answer a question. Does not this all mean—to make it rather simpler—that had the UK remained a member of EFTA we should now have enjoyed industrial free trade throughout EFTA and the EC, and most of the alleged benefits of the single market, without the burden of the CAP?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I understand the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord. Lord Jay, but had we done that we should not have been involved in EC decision-making.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
3.53 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to congratulate the Minister on her fascinating speech, and to welcome the legislation. Towards the end, I was a trifle out of my depth with the various clauses and subsections, but I assume that they are all OK. This proposed legislation represents a considerable achievement. I shall address it in its own terms and deal with it in the way that your Lordships usually do on Second Reading; namely, deal with the principles. I shall not discuss the Maastricht Treaty or get ourselves an easy Maastricht debate under this heading. I am going to concentrate upon the legislation.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, that means that the noble Lord has not quite made up his mind on Maastricht.
Lord Peston: My Lords, no; the noble Lord will have heard me speak in favour of Maastricht more than once. I have no difficulties with Maastricht.
We welcome the legislation. In particular, we welcome the underlying principle which is to extend the single market to the EFTA countries. That is intrinsically a good thing, and not one about which any rational person would argue. Equally, as I sat here, I was somewhat echoing the thoughts of my noble friend Lord Jay. When the Minister reminded us that the EFTA countries are not joining the CAP, my thought was, "Lucky them! ". That does not lead me to oppose the Community; but it reminds me that the one outstanding piece of reform that we shall have to face some time is to introduce something more akin to a free trade in agricultural products. We shall have to face up to that matter.
With some exceptions, the treaty introduces free trade in goods, services, capital and workers but leaves out the anomaly of agriculture. In connection with that, I like the Minister's use of the word "dynamic" because, with respect to the single market, many people are under the impression that at the end of the year the single market will be all over and done with. Somehow we have done it, and there it goes. In fact, the reverse is true: at the end of the year we start to get down to the real business of making the single market work as a single market. The introduction of these new countries merely emphasises that fact.
That brings me to a matter that I should have warned the Minister about. She perhaps will clarify or write to me about it. It occurred to me only while I was sitting here. It also relates partly to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. What will happen to VAT regimes in this context? As I understand it, there is nothing in the Bill relating to taxation; but different VAT rates are an important distortion of the market. Discriminatory taxation on goods and services is prohibited in the Bill, but I do not know what that means in relation to VAT. Perhaps the Minister can tell us or write to us.
I am also a trifle lost on the subject of' fish. Am I right that essentially the fish regime—if I may use the expression the "fish regime"—will come somewhere between the CAP and the single market? There will be
1322
something closer to free trade in fish but it will be a long way from the equivalent free trade in industrial products. That is my interpretation of what is happening. I should like some comment on that point.
Generally, what stands out is the fact, as the Minister pointed out, that as a result of the Bill we shall have the world's largest common market. It is an astonishing achievement. When the whole issue of EFTA was mooted just a few years ago, I took the view that we would be unable to move in that direction as rapidly as it turns out we have. For once, the relevant European countries have got their acts together. That is excellent. Indeed, reflecting on Adam Smith and The Wealth of Nations, I should have thought that he would have welcomed, from his grave as it were, the fact that at long last Europe—perhaps for the first time in history, although there may have been an equivalent period in the 19th century, but I am not so certain—will have more or less a single market. That is marvellous.
However, I cannot discuss the EFTA move in economic terms without asking the Minister whether she has any more news on what we might call the political timetable. She reminded us that some of the countries have applied to join the Community itself. I have not been able fully to keep up with these matters, but I thought our aim was to get them in within the next four or five years. Is that plan still on schedule, so to speak? Can we expect them to join the Community within the next four or five years? One reason I ask that—apart from its intrinsic desirability—is that the countries that are likely to join first the free trade area, and secondly the Community, have GDPs above the average. The point I made in a speech a few months ago in your Lordships' House was that it is very much to our advantage to have countries joining whose GDPs are above the average because our other ambition—certainly mine, and I know it is shared by many noble Lords—is to get into the Community the emerging democracies of Eastern Europe. Since they will for many years have outputs per head well below the average, it is nice to be able to share the burden with one or two richer countries as well.
One other reason why I particularly welcome this legislation is that I and all noble Lords see it as a step on the road to the broader Europe which we all, including the East European countries, wish to see. I regret that it looks as though the accession of the East European countries will be slower than one had hoped. It is a pity that it is difficult to see any of them coming into the Community practically this side of the turn of the century. We will be lucky to see them come in then, but at least this is a step in the right direction.
Perhaps the noble Baroness would clarify another technical, economic matter for me. The department's own documentation states quite correctly that the European Economic Area will not be a customs union. As I understand it from the briefing I have seen from the department, the different countries will keep their own external tariffs on goods from third countries. This does not seem to me to be a viable position in anything other than the short term. Clearly, if there is free trade between the countries and if there are any significant differences in tariffs, then

1323
free trade will undermine those rapidly. The goods will come in via the lowest tariff entry point. Therefore, even if the EEA is not a customs union in practice, it must become one before very long. I should very much like to hear what the noble Baroness has to tell us on that.
Noble Lords will be happy to know that I do not wish to say a great deal more; but there is one other matter, again technical, which I wish to raise before reiterating my welcome to the Bill. I do not fully understand the point. What is happening at present is that the EFTA countries will accept all the relevant pieces of legislation of the Community as they apply to the single market. We ourselves will adapt our legislation to accommodate their entry. However, it then appears that what happens is that if the Community then changes or introduces new pieces of legislation in connection with free trade, EFTA as a body—and this what I do not understand—will have to choose whether it accepts or rejects new EC legislation.
It seems to me that there are two problems here. First, I am puzzled as to why it should be EFTA as a body and why it should not be up to individual countries once they come in. The second worrying point is that it complicates matters as to how the new EC legislation would work in the single market. In other words, there is a complication here which I find a little troublesome.
I have one final question. We shall go ahead with the legislation and I am quite certain that it will pass through both Houses because, if I may make my usual snide comment, we have not had many examples from this Government but it is an example of rational legislation which ought to be welcomed. Therefore I do not think we shall have difficulty with it. The noble Baroness may already have said this, and I missed it; but I should like to ask her whether other EC countries have already amended their legislation. Are we the last, the first or somewhere in the middle? Can she tell us what progress has been made by our fellow Community members, and whether difficulties have arisen in any of the other member countries of the Community?
It has for once been an easy task for me today to deal with the Second Reading of the Bill. I accept it both in principle and in detail and I hope that we on this side can give it a fair wind.
4.4 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I join in welcoming the Bill and the treaty that lies behind it. Like him, I also join in thanking the noble Baroness for explaining the complicated constitutional, legal and economic issues. I believe that I did less well than the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in following the references to Clause 2(1) (b) and its interaction on Clause 3(3) (b). I got lost in the maze. Nevertheless, it is important that these matters should be put on the record, as the noble Baroness has done.
The Government have been almost excessively conscientious in the drafting of the Bill in order to try
1324
to tidy up so far as possible the various legal consequences of the agreement and its impact on our membership of the European Community. It confirms me in my view that nothing relating to the European Community ever seems simple. I am glad that this is a non-controversial Bill and that no one has proposed a referendum on it, because the drafting of the question might have presented us with difficulties.
I am also glad to hear from the Minister that arrangements have been made that your Lordships' Select Committee on Europe should be able to deal with the application of the European Economic Area to the Community issues with which the Committee already deals. It seems to me that the Bill is almost the only uncontroversial development in Community affairs. I well understand the reluctance of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, to expand beyond the Bill to anything touching on the wider issues of Maastricht. Perhaps he will understand if I do not exercise the same self-denying ordinance.
The Bill is undoubtedly of immense importance. The noble Baroness said that it was the most ambitious Community agreement dealing with non-Community countries in the whole history of the Community. As she said, it creates the world's largest single market with almost half of the world trade. It is good for the United Kingdom and its exporters, and it is a dynamic operation. So we very warmly welcome all those points.
However, equally important is the fact that the treaty is a stepping stone, seen by the EFTA countries who have engaged in it as a halfway house to full membership of the Community. As the noble Baroness said, most, if not all of them are former partners in EFTA, seeking full membership of the Community. I was glad to hear the Minister say that the Government welcome that and want enlargement. When it comes about, it will mean that all the remaining Western European democracies who share with us a common economic and political system will be full members of the European Community. As the Minister reminded us, they are also Britain's former partners in EFTA, where we used to be the leader. We therefore have an obligation to help them in their aspirations. That is one more reason for Britain remaining, in the Prime Minister's words, at the heart of the European Community.
What has seemed significant to us on these Benches is that the free trade area concept reflected in the treaty and the Bill, so beloved by some Euro-sceptics, is not enough for the countries of EFTA. They presumably share the view put forward in the powerful letter in The Times today from the President of the CBI and an impressive list of the leaders of British industry. The letter stated and I believe this is the answer to my former noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Jay—that:
"The single market is more than a free trade area: it requires regulation and enforcement to ensure that barriers to competition are removed".
I would add—and I believe I carry the noble Lord, Lord Peston, with me—that the single market also requires a social dimension, a social charter to balance the rigours of an increasingly wider marketplace.
The Government, in preparing for Wednesday's historic debate in another place, should ponder on the

1325
fact that these EFTA countries feel the welfare of their peoples will be best served by enjoying the rights and accepting the obligations of a closer European union. They are ready to accept the full acquis communctutaire, including, as I understand it, the future obligations of the Maastricht Treaty. When even Switzerland with its long tradition of neutrality—I believe it is not even a member of the United Nations—wishes to be a full member of the European Community, it is surely strange if Britain were in any way to drag its feet over the process of ratifying the Maastricht Treaty.
I personally find it irrational and curiously humiliating that, when so many of our former EFTA partners want to join the Community, there are those ready to hide behind the skirts of Denmark and who wish to wait to see whether 50,000 Danes—that was the size of the majority in the Danish referendum—can be persuaded to change their minds and accept the advice of their own government.
Britain may no longer be a world power but we remain a major Western European nation alongside France and Germany. In that respect we are different from Denmark with different national interests and a bigger role to play in the leadership of the Community. I therefore find it particularly sad that the Labour Party, for whatever tactical reasons, should have fallen for the temptation to follow this course of waiting for the Danes. We on these Benches share the total lack of confidence held by the official Opposition in Her Majesty's present Government, but this week it is confidence in Britain's role in Europe that is the issue. I therefore hope the present situation is a temporary aberration and that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, to whom I always listen with great interest, will not feel he has converted his own Front Bench to a change of policy.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for having correctly anticipated my reaction to these matters. However, I hope I may take this opportunity to remind him that he has just uttered a complete inaccuracy. The EFTA countries are not bound in any way by the Maastricht Treaty and do not in fact subscribe to it under this agreement.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I believe the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has misunderstood what I said. I said that, in applying for the full membership of the Community, those countries have said they are ready to accept the full acquis communautaire which at this moment includes the post-Maastricht obligations. That is my view of the situation. I do not believe that our former EFTA partners, whom we welcome in this Bill into the European Economic Area, and who want to join us in the post-Maastricht Community, will begin to understand why Britain for domestic party reasons undermines and does serious damage to our capacity for leadership and influence over future developments. In passing this Bill today these greater issues are in all of our minds.
4.13 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I thought this was a fairly straightforward technical Bill. I am surprised that I have become entangled in it in that I am speaking in today's debate. However, I shall resist the temptation to speak to the matter to which the noble Lord. Lord Thomson of Monifieth, has spoken. Today I do not wish to address the issue of what the Labour Party should or should not do on Wednesday. I have my own views on that matter which I may express on Wednesday. That will be an appropriate time to do so.
Like my noble friend Lord Peston and other noble Lords, I welcome the fact that we are extending the free trade area to a larger number of countries and to a larger population of people. The Zolverein and the United States are good examples of free trade areas where a single government and a single currency soon followed. Thus these will not be long in coming, but I am not impatient about that. I am willing to wait for that for another 30 years or so. We look forward to a prosperous Western European economic area.
I have only two matters that I wish to raise in detail. I do not require an answer from the Minister at this moment as I have not given her notice of the two matters I wish to raise. However, I hope she will reply to me at some stage in the future. First, I am somewhat surprised that an exception to the provision of the Bill is made in the schedule as regards education. I declare an interest here as I teach at an institution that attracts many European students. It appears that EFTA students will not benefit from this provision to the same extent as students from the European Community. That is a pity. If we are to allow the free movement of labour, services, capital and goods, we should allow the free movement of human capital, as it were. We in the UK can contribute a great deal in the field of higher education. We should strive to attract as many EFTA students as possible on the same terms as EC students. That would benefit us enormously. No doubt that step would cost money; but everything costs money. That money would be money well spent. No doubt the powers-that-be have thought about that matter and have excluded higher education from the provisions of the schedule. If I am wrong about that, perhaps the Minister will correct me.
The second issue I wish to address concerns a slightly more complicated matter. The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum refers to financial costs. Am I to understand the costs are to change not because these countries will join the common agricultural policy but because there will be a bilateral reduction of tariffs? I understand that that in itself will cause some change in the financial costs and contributions that we make to the Community. What I am really saying is that I do not understand the paragraph on page iii of the Bill which concerns costs. However, those are minor quibbles. I am willing to await a written reply from the Minister or a discussion with her. In the meantime, I welcome the Bill and I look forward to a swift Committee stage.
4.17 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as has been said, this Bill represents the latest step in the European integration process, but that is not a new shocking step as some people would have us believe. In that respect I regret that my noble friend Lord Aldington cannot participate in this Second Reading debate. I understand that that is because he has lost his voice, which is an unusual occurrence in the case of my noble friend. I was looking forward to hearing his contribution but no doubt he will participate in later stages of the Bill.
It follows from the facts of life that these seven EFTA countries we are discussing, which are our closest neighbours geographically, historically and culturally, should wish to join in closer links with us. We are all developing together and we are developing more closely than ever if for no other reason than the increased speed of communications. Since the day the United Kingdom left EFTA to join the European Community nearly 20 years ago close relations and special agreements have been established between the European Economic Community and EFTA. In my view, access to the four freedoms—that is, free movement of goods, persons, services and capital—constitutes a natural process of evolution.
I need dwell no further on those freedoms as my noble friend the Minister gave us a clear and helpful outline of the way in which they affect us all. I have always hoped for and worked for the day when the European Community should be enlarged further to include other European countries. As a next step I believe that the EFTA countries should lead the way in being part of that enlargement. I expect that in due course that enlargement will encompass other countries in Central and Eastern Europe. Like the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I regret that at this stage that development seems to be receding further into the future, but I take hope. I noted with satisfaction the agreement and accords of the so-called Visegrad countries in London last week. That is very much a step in the right direction.
But the seven countries with which we are concerned in this Bill are tied to us not only by trade links and agreements from the past but also by common membership of the Council of Europe. As I have said before in your Lordships' House, I am a new member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. In view of the committees on which I sit and in which I participate, I have been privileged to work with colleagues from Iceland, Finland and Switzerland in particular on a wide variety of issues—for example, social, health and educational. It may come as a surprise to many that we already comply fully with the Council of Europe's Social Charter which affects not only the existing European Community countries but also the seven EFTA countries. Clearly, that affects and will affect the interpretation of the social provisions brought into effect by the Bill.
The fact that it is now widely recognised that the abolition of customs duties is not in itself sufficient to guarantee genuine free trade, and that we must move forward—move a step further in this case—raises no
1328
fears of a hidden agenda or a Machiavellian plot. I subscribe to the Government's view that the removal of such impediments as quantitative restrictions, varying technical and bureaucratic requirements, and procurement rules which give preference to national products or enterprise, all hinder the free flow of goods.
The removal of those impediments should boost trade within the European economic area allowing both European Community and EFTA producers to benefit from greater economies of scale. Also, it should increase competition and thus provide benefits for all European consumers, as my noble friend the Minister so clearly pointed out. I feel it unnecessary to dwell further on those aspects since they have been dealt with very thoroughly in the debate so far. However, perhaps I may mention the specific areas of agriculture and fishing since they have been dealt with and questions have been raised on them.
It seems to me that the way forward has been shown by the fact that specific solutions by way of bilateral agreements cover those two areas, and that the agreement—the very bulky agreement with which we are dealing in this Bill—also contains provisions intended to reduce as much as possible technical barriers to agricultural trade arising from differing technical regulations on, for example, animal and plant health.
The Bill before us apparently deals adequately with all the legal, constitutional and financial effects of the agreement and the other matters within its scope. I shall certainly read my noble friend's explanation to be sure that I have understood it correctly. However, I was particularly interested to note in the Explanatory Memorandum that my former department, the Department of Health, will require three extra staff to meet the increased workload as a result of this Bill. I shall he interested to hear in due course what that workload represents in more detail.
I should also be interested to hear from the Minister how many other countries have already completed this necessary legislative step, or at least at what stage they may be, in order to assess how far forward we are in this particular race.
I believe that we are moving in the right direction with the European Economic Area agreement and with the Bill. I look forward to following its progress through later stages, and I have great pleasure in supporting it at this Second Reading.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am very pleased indeed to be able to agree with many of the sentiments expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, particularly those referring to the Council of Europe, which I have always found to be an extremely agreeable organisation, the aims and objects of which I have continuously supported.
I make the prediction that when the European Economic Community as at present constituted chokes itself on its own bureaucracy, and a long time after the Maastricht Treaty has become completely irrelevant, the Council of Europe will take an ever-increasing role in our affairs and that ultimately,

1329
being in the Council of Europe, we shall probably he nearer the heart of it than we are in Brussels. Although I appreciate the degree of unanimity that apparently exists between the Government's Front Bench, my own and that of the Liberal Democrats—whose role as custodian of the high moral ground in politics I seriously dispute—it will not surprise your Lordships that I should venture to enter a note of caution, almost bordering on dissent, in connection with the Bill before us.
As has been correctly stated by the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, the Bill which we are considering this afternoon deals with the United Kingdom's situation following the agreement which was apparently concluded on 2nd May this year by virtue of which the seven EFTA countries became more closely associated with the European Economic Community. I say that with my tongue slightly in my cheek because the Bill will not come into operation until the agreement is ratified, and the agreement concluded on 2nd May still has to he ratified by the various member states.
I do not want to be too contentious in dealing with the difficulties we are having with the Maastricht Treaty, but here we have a document of some 587 pages, published by the Stationery Office at a price of £37, which is very voluminous and which contains much more than may have been indicated by the very brief and illuminating remarks that have fallen from the lips of the noble Baroness, Lady Denton. Here we have an agreement which occupies a mere 30 pages but which has no fewer than 49 protocols. It has 30 joint declarations, and those who are connoisseurs of the Maastricht Treaty will know what is involved in joint declarations; declarations affecting subject matter as distinct from countries; a further 39 declarations covering individual interests of member states and the exceptions that they wish to make to the agreement itself. Then there are some 280 pages of annexes. This is a document that is not easy to digest, much less to understand. I congratulate the Government. I am quite sure that, as in the case of Maastricht, Ministers have read every word of it and understand every word of it.
We are dealing with the domestic consequences of a formidable document. Despite the extent of that document, under Article 127 the seven EFTA countries which are signatories to the document can withdraw from the agreement by giving a year's notice. How lucky those various EFTA countries are to have the advantage of the deluge of paper that will in due course emanate from Brussels, to be able to digest it, appreciate it and legislate for it; but if they ever get fed up with the deluge of paper and the bureaucracy, apart from subsidiarity, to be able to get out of the agreement after a year. That is a most advantageous agreement.
As my noble friend Lord Jay has already said, here we have an agreement by virtue of which the seven countries can associate themselves with those Community activities with which they agree and from which they can derive some advantage. The reason is very clear. They are not committed in any way to
1330
Maastricht. That is a start. The Government's own document on the subject, which they were kind enough to issue earlier this year, states:
"EFTA will not be bound by the provisions of the Maastricht Treaty on European union. For example, they will not participate in Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) or the Common and Foreign Security Policy (CFSP)".
Lucky them, my Lords!
The document makes it clear that those countries will not participate in the common agricultural policy or the common fisheries policy; they will not be bound by the Community's financial and fiscal policies; they will not contribute to the Community's budget; and they will only have a limited share in determining the shape of EC legislation. That makes me, as a mere citizen of the United Kingdom as distinct from a compulsory citizen of a European union, very envious of the agreements which they have been able to achieve.
The noble Baroness gave some account of the impact that the treaty, when and if ratified, will have upon the United Kingdom. Clearly, considerable attention has been paid to Clause 2 of the European Communities Act. Subsection (2) of that clause—one of the most significant provisions, of which the president of the Commission, M. Delors, makes considerable use—provides that:
"Subject to Schedule 2 to this Act, at any time after its passing Her Majesty may by Order in Council, and any designated Minister or department may by regulations, make provision—

(a) for the purpose of implementing any Community obligation… "

and so on.
That will apply to all legislation, which will now come from another source, because under Article 7 of the treaty we find that:
"Acts referred to or contained in the Annexes to this Agreement"—
all 280 pages of them
or in decisions of the EEA Joint Committee shall he binding upon the Contracting Parties and be, or be made, part of their internal legal order as follows:

(a) an act corresponding to an EEC regulation shall as such be made part of the internal legal order of the Contracting Parties;

(b) an act corresponding to an EEC directive shall leave to the authorities of the Contracting Parties the choice of form and method of implementation".

So now we do not have to deal only with the President of the Commission and his acolytes; we have to deal with another body, an EEA Joint Committee. That is to be set up as part of the new series of organisations and bodies, mainly comprising civil servants but not necessarily so, which are to be set up under this particular agreement. If your Lordships will bear with me for a moment I shall outline the particulars which have already been provided by the Government as to the new bodies which are to be brought into existence. It should be borne in mind that the moment one creates a new body one brings in new civil servants, new interpreters, new car pools and new schedules of expenses, which may or may not be liable to taxation in the various countries.
What will be necessary in order to implement the agreement? There will be an EEA Council, which will consist of Ministers of EC and EFTA member states—and representatives of the European Commission. I

1331
thought so! It will provide political direction to the EEA, making decision by consensus of the two sides. We welcome that concession because it is better than qualified majority, so at least we have some control over what is to happen.
The EEA Joint Committee, which will be composed of EC and EFTA officials—and although it is not stated one can bet one's life that COREPER (the Committee of Permanent Representatives of the EC, which is the powerful body of civil servants which runs the Community) will be there. There will be a new EFTA Court, to be set up by the EFTA countries. It will have seven EFTA judges—one from each country. There will be an EEA Joint Parliamentary Committee composed of Members of the European Parliament and EFTA parliamentarians, which will meet from time to time. I do not know where its headquarters will be, what travel facilities there will be or the paraphernalia and documents which members will carry with them. Then there will be an EEA Consultative Committee which will consist of members of the Community's Economic and Social Committee and the corresponding EFTA consultative committee. Some of those bodies will also have advisory bodies.
It does not need a jaundiced person—as I may appear to some to be—to imagine the bureaucracy that will grow up around such an arrangement. It will not function on its own. Moreover, it will place an incredible strain on individual Ministers. Your Lordships will recollect that I have said that one of the defects of the running of the European Economic Community is that Ministers, whether of the United Kingdom, Germany or any other member country, have very little detailed knowledge of what is happening in the Community. They are informed by their civil servants, on the basis of summaries produced by civil servants and on the basis of draft decisions submitted by their civil servants, which Ministers read mainly on board planes as they fly to Brussels, Luxembourg or Strasbourg. All we are doing is adding to that burden. Anything that can simplify matters will be of great advantage.
I have no objection to the seven states joining on the most advantageous terms. As a quid pro quo they have agreed to contribute to the structural funds, which is a very good thing indeed. We in the EC would have been remiss if we had not insisted that we received something in return for the manifold benefits which the EFTA countries will receive. However, we must face the fact that today the battle for democracy is no longer a battle against an ideology, whether it be Fascist or Communist inspired, but against bureaucracy. Bureaucracy throughout the world, in the EC, and probably in this new organisation too, will progressively restrict the ordinary liberties of the individual, whether that individual be a member of a large organisation, an independent and self-employed person or in service or manufacturing industry.
Among all the euphoria with which this new enterprise is being launched, let us remember the moral contained in the fairy story by Hans Christian Andersen about the emperor having no clothes.
1332
Despite the euphoria and statements of optimism which exist at present, within its own definitions and limitations, within its own philosophy stated against its objectives, the European Community has been an abysmal failure. Its gross domestic product has increased by far less than that of either Japan or the United States. It has failed to deal with unemployment which now runs at between 16 million and 17 million throughout the Community. It has failed to arrest the large differences between the rich and poorer countries of Europe—the class structures of poverty and great wealth within each member state.
Let us remember those factors and let us hope that the injection of new blood, albeit on a one year's notice basis, will bring some new vigour into what otherwise threatens to become a decrepit and "bureau-ridden" Europe.
4.42 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, although a short debate, it has been most helpful. I thank your Lordships for your overall endorsement of the European Economic Area. I hope that the caution expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, was an overriding factor and not dissent. I recognise that it is a small Bill which has a large task and is exceedingly complex. I shall try to address as many of the points raised during the debate as possible, I acknowledge with a little help from my friends. However, I hope that noble Lords will understand if I do not cover all the points. I shall check against Hansard to ensure that the information is given to your Lordships.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, drew attention to the fact—as I did—that there is no fixed point in the development of Europe; that it constantly is evolving. It is important that we recognise that. He asked specific questions. What happens to VAT regimes? The EEA does not extend to VAT, nor to other areas of taxation. The EFTA countries will not be obliged to apply VAT. As and when they join the Community as full members, they would do so. The same applies to customs union. There are no plans for the European Economic Area to become a customs union. EFTA is not a customs union. The seven EFTA states have different external tariffs. It would not have been possible to negotiate a customs union for the European Economic Area. However, on becoming full members of the Community, EFTA states will have to join the union.
Several noble Lords raised the question of not being subject to the common agricultural policy and asked therefore how the EFTA countries can perform their obligation. The European Economic Area's agreement covers only some aspects of the Community. It does not extend to the common agricultural policy or to any of the obligations of the member states which relate to the CAP. That means that the EFTA states will have no obligations of financial or other nature relating to CAP. It is worth noting that some EFTA states have agriculture support schemes which are more generous than the common agricultural policy.
As I am not a Minister for MAFF, I had hoped not to become involved on questions about fish. However,

1333
there will be increased access for Community fishermen to Norwegian and Icelandic grounds, and reduced tariffs for trade in fish between the Community and EFTA. However, as noted, there are some exceptions to protect the Community. We are a large part of that protected salmon, herring and mackerel interest. However, the Bill does not amount to an extension of the Community common fisheries policy to EFTA.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, raised the complication of legislation, which I much appreciate. Why must EFTA accept or reject as a body and not as individual states? It would not be a practical matter for individual EFTA states to be able to accept or reject new Community legislation as they chose. It would undermine the objective of simplifying trading conditions or removing barriers to trade. I hasten to assure the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, that that is at the core of all our anxieties. There would be little point in creating the carefully designed system of the European Economic Area if individual states could opt out on particular measures as and when they chose.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, for his contribution. I appreciated his remark that much of what I said was a matter of putting it on record. I appreciate the support of the policy that our industry and commerce need a European market.
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, raised the question of education. I have not touched on that at this stage. Perhaps I may reassure him that the children of EFTA nationals working in the United Kingdom will be able to study on the same terms as those of Community nationals. Not to have extended would have meant that educational establishments would have been unable to charge overseas fees. As noble Lords rightly recognised, it was on the question of funding that decisions were taken.
On the meaning of the paragraph in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum on the effect of agriculture on the Community finances, I have stated that the EFTA member states will not join CAP. However, the agreement reduces some tariffs between the Community and EFTA on agricultural products and a reduction in tariffs charged by the Community on EFTA imports will reduce finances going directly to the Community. It will have to be made up by direct contributions from Community member states.
I stress that we are all very conscious of a matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Peston, drew attention: that it is the rich nations which are joined in this agreement.
I was pleased to listen to my noble friend Lady Hooper. I was sorry to discover the reason that my noble friend Lord Aldington is not participating today. His loss of voice is our loss; we regret that. I hope that he will be involved in future stages of the Bill.
Both my noble friend Lady Hooper and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, raised the question of ratification. The Austrian and Norwegian parliaments have passed legislation necessary to ratify. The European
1334
Parliament also gave its agreement last week. We are informed that everyone is on course to ratify in time. We have no reason to doubt that resolution.
I, too, was intrigued to know what the three extra staff in the Department of Health are to do and I was amazed by the preciseness of their calculations. It is estimated that the possible three extra staff will process additional claims for health benefits made by EFTA nationals. Those will result from the extension of the social security regulations to the EFTA nationals. I stress that they are not part of a high paid bureaucracy but are at administrative and executive officer level.
Perhaps I may be so hold as to point out that there was some strength of hindsight in some of the comments which were made today. The EFTA countries which have taken the benefits that were claimed have applied for full Community membership because they wish to play a full part in the Community decision-making process and in the other aspects of membership. It is difficult to participate and to be on the outside. There is no strength in that. Indeed, I have seen industries suffer on occasions when they have tried to do so.
Any legislation benefits from the eagle eye of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. I am sure that the Bill will have been well and truly examined by the completion of all its stages. I certainly do not argue its complexity nor the ministerial stress of new bodies. However, I assure the noble Lord that at least one Minister coming from the private sector late in life has a nose for such matters. I should never comment that the noble Lord's view was jaundiced but it is based on true concern which we appreciate. I hope that the Government's stress on deregulation on every possible occasion will give him some comfort.
The situation is not a failure of the market; it is evolving. As a result of my work with small firms I know that only now are they beginning to realise the benefits which they can obtain from cross-research development and cross-trading opportunities. I see the firms which are now involving themselves sharing the benefits with others and I hope that things will move more quickly.
The Government believe that the Community should continue to develop as a competitive market with open trading relations with third countries. Our view of the benefits of the agreement is the same as that for the single market. It will improve trading conditions by eliminating harriers to trade and ensuring fair conditions of competition.
The EEA broadens the original vision of the Single European Act and the work of my noble friend Lord Cockfield in his important White Paper on completing the internal market. I was delighted to see him in his place today when the Bill was introduced. The EEA also lays firm foundations for the future enlargement of the Community. Four EFTA countries—Austria, Finland, Sweden and Switzerland—have already applied for Community membership and Norway may decide to do so very soon.
A major objective of our presidency is to take forward as far as possible the applications from EFTA countries to become members of the Community. The

1335
conclusion of the agreement has demonstrated already the ability of those countries to take on the economic and trade obligations of membership. It has significantly reduced the issues which will need to be addressed—and thus the time to be taken—during the enlargement negotiations.
UK business has welcomed the agreement. Our exports to EFTA are £7.5 billion, which is equivalent to two thirds of our exports to the USA. That is a significant opportunity for our manufacturing industries in particular.
For the fishermen there will be more cod to be caught; for airlines there will be greater liberalisation; and for consumer goods manufacturers there will be easier access to the market. There will, in short, be increased opportunities and a major reduction of burdens and costs to companies. All focus will be on achieving that. My department is playing its part in drawing those opportunities to the attention of companies, most recently by publishing a guide to the agreement which the noble Lord quoted.
1336
The EEA is an important element in a wider government policy to encourage the Community to be more outward-looking. In a period of worldwide economic problems and with the attendant risk of trade protectionism, the EEA offers genuine prospects of growth and prosperity.
The agreement and the Bill will bring benefits to businesses and consumers alike. I recommend that the Bill be now read a second time.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

London Docklands Railway (Lewisham, Etc.) Bill
Reported from the Select Committee with amendments, and recommitted to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at four minutes before five o'clock.

  EC SUMMIT MEETINGS: COST
  EC SUMMIT MEETINGS: COST
  CARIBBEAN DEPENDENT TERRITORIES: POLICY AND MANAGEMENT REVIEW
  CARIBBEAN DEPENDENT TERRITORIES: POLICY AND MANAGEMENT REVIEW
  INCOME SUPPORT RECIPIENTS
  INCOME SUPPORT RECIPIENTS
  ABUSE OF THE ELDERLY
  ABUSE OF THE ELDERLY
  MENTAL HEALTH ACT 1983: AMENDMENTS TO CODE OF PRACTICE
  MENTAL HEALTH ACT 1983: AMENDMENTS TO CODE OF PRACTICE
  REPROCESSED PLUTONIUM: WEAPONS USE
  REPROCESSED PLUTONIUM: WEAPONS USE
  SOUTH CHINA SEA: JURISDICTION
  SOUTH CHINA SEA: JURISDICTION
  NUCLEAR TESTS: US POSITION
  NUCLEAR TESTS: US POSITION
  NUCLEAR TESTS: EFFECTS OF US DECISION
  NUCLEAR TESTS: EFFECTS OF US DECISION
  EUROPEAN COMMISSION: CRITERIA FOR ACTION
  EUROPEAN COMMISSION: CRITERIA FOR ACTION
  CHINA: HUMAN RIGHTS
  CHINA: HUMAN RIGHTS
  SOUTH AFRICA: UN OBSERVERS
  SOUTH AFRICA: UN OBSERVERS
  SOMALIA: RELIEF
  SOMALIA: RELIEF
  BARK ESTONE SCHOOL FOUNDATION: TRUSTEES
  BARK ESTONE SCHOOL FOUNDATION: TRUSTEES
  UNEMPLOYMENT IN GREATER LONDON
  UNEMPLOYMENT IN GREATER LONDON
  PIT CLOSURES: ECONOMIC EFFECTS
  PIT CLOSURES: ECONOMIC EFFECTS
  CHANNEL TUNNEL RAIL LINK: CONSULTATION
  CHANNEL TUNNEL RAIL LINK: CONSULTATION
  BR LONDON, TILBURY AND SOUTHEND LINE: IMPROVEMENTS
  BR LONDON, TILBURY AND SOUTHEND LINE: IMPROVEMENTS